Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/02

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

How do I edit the licence of a photo I posted and find the appropriate licence?

I have recently posted a photo in the Wikimedia Commons and I chose a license option that I that I thought was correct but which I may want to change. How do I edit the license for this photo? Also, I am not finding what seems to be an appropriate license; all of the options appear not to apply to this photo. This is a photo that is copyrighted and the subject of the photo owns the copyright. The photo was taken in Canada. If the copyright holder does not wish for others to be able to reproduce the photo, what is the appropriate license option?

Help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmancini81 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If the copyright holder does not wish others to reproduce it, it must be deleted. All works at Commons must allow reproduction by anyone. You can do this by clicking the "Nominate for deletion" link on the left hand side. Moreover, you should not upload photos that you don't upload the copyright to unless you submit permission through Commons:OTRS (or can supply evidence that the work is public domain or available under a free license). Dcoetzee (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing the image is File:Roman Maev portrait.jpg. I won't nominate for speedy deletion since there's some ambiguity to the OP's statement and he/she may take care of things, but if this goes a few days without reply, it may need to be hit with a No Permission tag. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I have just now nominated it for deletion. -84user (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

January 29

I produced something which was my own work, however, when I chose file it seems I misread the name and chose the wrong image, one which belongs to someone else. Now I have no idea who to take it down!

Just insert a {{Delete}} template anywhere in the file's page, providing a suitable reason= argument, and wait for an administrator to delete it for you. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I already removed it. --Martin H. (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't upload this file!

It is a gif file however it keeps saying not correct MIME file or something like that. I do not understand!

Don't upload GIF files. Convert to PNG. You can use any graphics program (e.g. Microsoft Paint) to do this by opening the file and doing Save As and selecting PNG from the "Save as type" drop down box. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually GIF still works better than PNG for certain specific types of images on Mediawiki (when GIF thumbnailing isn't turned off, that is...). -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The error message means that the extension is incorrect. For example your file may actually be a jpg file. If you open the file with notepad, at the beginnen of the file you will probably see which extension the file should have. Jcb (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move Copyrightedbywikimedia contents to a new allrightsreserved.wikimedia.org website

I propose to remove all contents currently tagged with Template:Copyright by Wikimedia, Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Deutschland and Template:Copyright by Wikimedia Polska and move them to a new Wikimedia website : see my proposal on meta m:Allrightsreserved (listed at m:Proposals for new projects like a new project). You can add your name at m:Allrightsreserved#People interested and write comments at m:Talk:Allrightsreserved Teofilo (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Captions from Youtube

Hi

I would like to ask if it's permitted to upload captions from Youtube videos, specially from ones that are labelled as having a free content. Cheers, --Vasilcho (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The author of the captions has to explicitly release them under a free license. If the same author did both the video and captions, and released the video under a free license, I think you can reasonably infer they're also licensing the captions under the same license. Otherwise clarification is required. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Licensing tutorial graphic is an appalling mess.

The Commons:Licensing policy has a fancy new graphic which unfortunately is a very poor representation of that policy. Unbelieveably it completely ignores the concept of public domain works. These are hardly a trivial component of our content. It includes only a parody of the pd-art exception to the "free in country of origin" rule. The problem seems to have arisen from the fact that it was initially drawn up by an artist who did not have an in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, then a few selected editors were invited to comment on it, - a process that is utterly contrary to the principles of this project. I had intended to write on the image's talk page but it seems to have been deleted. This misleading graphic should be removed from the Licencing Policy page immediately and, in accordance with the founding principles of this project, interested editors should collaborate to draw up a specification for a replacement.9carney (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from using hurtful superlatives that serve in no way your point.
It seems to me that the third block does touch enough on public domain works, so it does not « completely ignore the concept of PD ». Even if it did, you may want to know that this tutorial is aimed to newbies and common use cases. Do you have any kind of proof that uploading PD-derived stuff is a common use case for newbies, apart from your personal opinion?
Finally, please read Wikimedia Commons licensing tutorial: the making-of which might help you to stop making inaccurate guesses on the creation process about which you seem to fantasize a lot.
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
This external blog is not an excuse for twisting the already twisted policy. No matter how many competent people "worked" on it, it's not just worthless - it's potentially harmful. Delete. NVO (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering the lack of argument in your post, you’ll understand I am having a hard time taking you seriously. Please make some points, if you do not want your posts to be dismissed as trolling. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What is that "advice" about works of art older than 150 years about? I thought the most common case was by far 70 years old, never heard nothing about 150 years old before seeing that thing.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
70 years after the death of the author/artist, not usually 70 years after the date of first publication... AnonMoos (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
150 years is the rule of thumb I use, since most people born in the 19th century didn't live for 80 years after publishing something. Additionally, while 70 years after death of author applies in many nations, it does not apply in the US, where works must (until 2018) either be pre-1923 (so at least 88 years since first publication) or fail to have satisfied copyright formalities (which requires evidence). Generally speaking, I would not trust newbies to make complex determinations of public domain status of an image unless that image is just so old that most of the concerns are automatically satisfied, and even then we have to be confident that the image was not first published recently, which can be quite difficult to ascertain. Dcoetzee (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, right, 70 years after death of author, not first publication. I know that perfectly, but still confuses me from time to time.-- Darwin Ahoy! 19:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the graphic would be better off saying "the rules are complex, but a good rule of thumb is 150 years".--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
We had to balance many constraints while making the tutorial; two of the most challenging of them were the limited space (otherwise, people wouldn't read it) and the complexity of copyright law & Commons policies. Despite these challenges, we managed to create a tutorial that is neither incorrect, nor misleading; believe me, it wasn't easy, and each and every word of the tutorial was carefully weighed. The tutorial can't be as wordy as a wiki page, but I do believe it will help newcomers learn the basics of copyright and free licenses, hence reducing the workload of Commons patrollers. That said, it may not be perfect, and specific and constructive comments are always welcome to improve it. guillom 08:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
guillom, perhaps now it's time to do a reverse work - instead of compressing existing policies into four square blocks, expand policies into an uncontroversial, readable form. Think of a worldwide Commons:Hirtle chart. Anything less, in my opinion, will be just as deceptive and useless as those comic strips. There is, of course, an alternative solution - trim policies and content to the requirement of the strip, but it just won't happen. NVO (talk) 09:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand the concerns, but I do find the comic strip very useful and informative in the proper context, and perhaps with some subtile changes in the wording, such as the one suggested above by Prosfilaes.
By proper context I mean something like the newcomer first being presented with a sort of "blue pill"/"red pill" decision, sort of
  • "Yes, I want to know deeper about Commons licenses" -> enter the Licence Hell;
  • "I just want to know the basics and what is fairly safe to do here" -> Comic Strip, followed by the link to License Hell, in case the newcomer wants to continue his quest.
-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
We know for a fact that people don't read long policy pages (see for example this video: File:Multimedia usability project 2010 - Current interface testing.ogv). There is certainly a place for dedicated, deeper illustrated tutorials on specific topics; we actually considered the very same idea during the making of the licensing tutorial, to explain some concepts in more detail (like freedom of panorama and public domain). The idea of a "Public domain calculator" that would ask a series of questions (where do you live, when was the artwork published, do you know the author, when did they die, etc.) has also been raised multiple times. guillom 09:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I could probably mock up a public domain wizard or calculator on Toolserver for Commons. I have a good idea of what it would look like - it would have to take into account that any given piece of information may be unavailable/unknown, and could produce one of three results: not public domain (do not upload unless freely licensed), may be public domain but more information is required, and public domain with a license tag that they can copy and paste into the "Permission" field. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

January 30

How to add it to category?

How do I add Uncle Sam Dentist.jpg and Uncle Sam Mini-Dentist.jpg to the category on Uncle Sam?

By the way, the identification of authorship as simply "own work" for an obvious minor rework of a 1917 U.S. military recruiting poster strikes me as rather disingenuous. Yes, the original is in the public domain, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't acknowledge it as a source and your poster as a derivative work.

Also, I'm not entirely sure of the basis on which your rework is in scope for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah about that...

I haven't figured out how to change the liscense. I got really mad since it took my over an hour to post it up after the multiple mistakes that I did, I may have put the wrong liscence. I wrote temporary since I would delete it after I used it but aparently I can't do that either. I have decided NOT to delete but I do want to change the liscense. For File:Uncle Sam Mini-Dentist.jpg I actually did however lisenced it under public domain.207.236.90.177 14:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very easy to upload, you selected the wrong path in Commons:Upload already ("its entirely my own work"... no, it is not, its from somewhere else). Given a description, name your sources, add the authors, select a license and upload it. The image is however out of the scope of this project, this is not a funpix server or a collection of funny forum avatars. --Martin H. (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Not easy to upload actually. It says it accepted jpg, gif, png. It was all a lie. I had to try numerous times until I figured out it only worked with the extension jpg. You can say I am wrong, it was something else, blah blah blah, but the only problem was MIME extension or something so it only worked with .jpg. I actually resized the photos that is why I chose that pathway and then I will get into detail after in the description. I gave a description, it was actually floating around the internet (at least where I found it...). The second is for avatar so you can delete it. However the first one is featured on the Wikipedia article Internet Meme(where it was deleted for not being an internet meme). Apparently the image belonged to the site dentist art ( http://www.sonofthesouth.net/uncle-sam/dentist-art.htm ) and they actually have numerous Uncle Sam posters. I guess it isn't in public domain so now I request deletion of both images. Thank you. ThisguyYEAH (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll delete them. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Request correction to licenceof new image

I uploaded [1] which is a collage of 4 images from Commons. Tried using the "derivative" upload, but it would not allow specifying more than one file. I have a note in current image description for the 4 source files. Can this be converted please, to be properly labeled in system?

P.s. This is a second file with same source file problem: [2]

Thanks, apologies, and will figure this out!

TCO (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just click on the "Edit" button and edit the file description page. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well I'm not totally sure what fields to change or if I need "admin powers". But I will go and look at another dirivative uplod and try to mimic that.TCO (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cat tree view doesn't work

Just stumbled at Category:Black and white photographs which has a {{Category tree all}} which says: 

To display all subcategories click on the "+":
[×] Black and white photographs (26 C, 30010 F)

Notice [×] instead of "+"? What's wrong? (I'm on Win7/Firefox/Monobook and never saw this glitch yet).NVO (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That means there are no subcategories. Which makes using the template a bit silly (maybe the categories have changed since it was added, or maybe they intend to subcategorize later). Dcoetzee (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Well of course they are there (and on many levels - Category:1932 Summer Olympics opening ceremony is four levels down). Some show up on the first screeen, others are buried many screens away. I tried searching it in the search box - no good, names are too long to fit in search box (so I see many "Black and white photographs of ..." - charming!) NVO (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, as the "26 C" indicates, there are in fact 26 subcategories in the category, so the template is not working properly. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Woops, my mistake. Not sure what's up with that. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I observed the occurrence of problem. Probably it may be caused by bug around "upper limit of 16bit signed integer (2^15=32768)" or such, because this category directly contains over 30000 media. The original source code of categorytree is found around Extension:CategoryTree on MediaWiki, but I don't know how to report the bug (may be https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla). --Clusternote (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

horses in Germany?

Morning, is there a book or pamphlet about the breeds of horses in Germany? -- 18:42, 1 February 2011 67.0.103.42

This isn't the right place for this question. Ask at "Wikipedia:Reference desk". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2

Can't display this file

Tried to insert thumb|right|250px|Pirosmani. Donkey Bridge on Dutch wikipedia, however file will not display there. See my page: [3] What is the problem? regards Saschaporsche (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats due to the ridiculously long and char-filled name. I've renamed the file to File:Pirosmani-Donkey Bridge-The State Museum of Fine Arts of Georgia, Tbilisi.jpg. Should work now... Rehman 13:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the help!! Works fine now. Saschaporsche (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome :) Kind regards. Rehman 14:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Special:Search results layout

Depending on the type of search, results could be more helpful if they were presented similar to category pages rather than a combination of thumbnails and texts.

A layout for Special:Search/File: tree could look similar to the file search part of Commons Commander (CC). --  Docu  at 12:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


See also bugzilla:27119. --  Docu  at 21:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, which rules should I follow regarding pictures taken in Banaba (Kiribati) before the 30's by british empire subjects? Thanks for your answers. --Kimdime (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That of the country of first publication. --Martin H. (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Pedantically? Not likely. Did Banaba even have a photo lab in those days? I bet the photos were usually taken home and processed, and then first published who knows where; it could very well be the US, or Canada or France.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Translating own work upload form

I wish to translate ownwork upload form to Malayalam. But don't know how :( I found French version, but still no clue. Please help--Praveen:talk 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

French version is here, you can only see code, because this namespece is editable only by admins. Just copy & paste code from other language into your subpage and when you done white to some admin to move it. Yarl ✉ 13:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe I can do these.--Praveen:talk 14:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

1k high res artwork images from Google Art Project

According to Slashdot and gizmag Google Art Project will release 1k high res artwork images. Might be a good opportunity to improve out collection. Since images seem to be only available in Flash viewer so Help:Zoomable images might be handy. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of the images are not likely to be in the public domain at this time, however. – Adrignola talk 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
See here. Amada44  talk to me 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PNG file size limits

It might interest Commons editors to know that there is a discussion on EN WP about increasing the size limit for PNG images. The thread is at this link. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 12:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:MisterWiki (alternate).jpg

I'm curious as to why Martin H. deleted this image with the summary "Broken or orphaned redirect" when clearly this file has over five hundred links to several different wikis and that after it seemed to have been recreated by Diego Grez (who was the original uploader) it was swiftly deleted again by Axpde. I prefer that we sort out the five hundred links first before deleting such a high-traffic redirect, or else they will all be broken. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're curious about Martin's actions you should ask him a question at his talk page instead of putting it here. Multichill (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Please check the logs. The uploader requested deletion of the target file File:Diego_Grez.jpg, if the target is deleted a carefull admin has to check the WhatLinksHere and look out for redirects. This was done. The later upload of a new file Diego_Grez.jpg is not my business. That the file was in use on various wikis at the time the uploader requested deletion is also not my business, if a user asks for deletion of his userpageimage this request will be fufilled no matter he removed it from his userpage first or not. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Native English speakers

Hello everybody,

I would like to create a new category for breads/cakes/pastries made from (sweet) yeast dough. Raised pastries? There is many pictures all over the (sub)categories bread, but I'd like to collect them. E.g. File:Hefezopf-5er.JPG, File:Schneckennudel.jpg, File:Brioche.jpg, File:Norwegian_buns.jpg.

Now I am not sure about what would be the english translation for ‚Hefegebäck‘. Also, popping to my mind as I am writing this, other languages would be welcome for the description section in many languages...

Thank you, --Schwäbin (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is a common collective term in English for pastries that are leavened (made to rise using yeast or some other leavening agent). I suppose one could call them "leavened pastries", but this is not a common usage. I think this is because most pastries are leavened, so they would just be called "baked goods" or "pastries". If the proposed category is specifically for leavened pastries of German origin which are known as Hefegebäck, then perhaps the category ought to be called "Category:Hefegebäck". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Jack, for your suggestions. There are also other leavening agents (e.g. baking soda), so this is why I wanted to specify it for yeast raised pastries. At least in German, it is a very common differentiation/classification. But the baked pastries are not only common in Germany, so I wouldn't want to limit the category to German origin. Funny, those different habits in the countries... --Schwäbin (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
You're most welcome. I suppose you could create a category called "Category:Pastries leavened with yeast" (which could be a subcategory of "Category:Yeast-based food" as well) if you feel this would be a useful form of categorization. Perhaps we should see what a few other editors think. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a good idea, and the category is easy to understand......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that Yeast-based food is a good idea. Yeast is a (marginal) addition in the production process, not a real base. Most are flour, mais, manioc, rice, ... or potato based. --Foroa (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Category:Pastries leavened with yeast" works. It cant be subcatted to "Category:Yeast-based food" but could be subcatted directly to "Category:Yeast", until someone develops the cat-tree and adds "Category:Baking with yeast" ,"Category:Cookery with yeast". --ClemRutter (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I take Foroa's point that pastries leavened with yeast are not really "yeast-based" (unlike food items like Marmite and Vegemite that are indeed made primarily from yeast, so it seems), in which case I would agree with Clem's suggestion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your contribs. Had too much work yesterday, so couldn't return earlier. I'll follow your advice for a Category:Pastries leavened with yeast, but I'd rather put it into the Category:Breads, since this is where I would start my search. Is that okay? --Schwäbin (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think "Category:Breads leavened with yeast" is fine too. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Jack, I meant (but could not express myself) to list the new category as a subcategory to the Category:Breads. --Schwäbin (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't think "Pastries leavened with yeast" should be a subcategory of "Breads". We have a separate parent category called "Category:Pastries". It is sometimes not easy to distinguish between bread and pastry, but if you look at the English Wikipedia, bread is defined as "a staple food prepared by cooking a dough of flour and water and frequently additional ingredients". On the other hand, pastry is "the name given to various kinds of baked goods made from ingredients such as flour, milk, butter, shortening, baking powder or eggs. ... Common pastry dishes include pies, tarts and quiches. Pastry is distinguished from bread by having a higher fat content, which contributes to a flaky or crumbly texture." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Jack. Obviously, German users start their search differently :-) I hadn't found the pastries category yet. I started out with bread. Okay, let's do it now, I will open the category and will be happy if native speakers of other languages will add descriptions in their languages. --Schwäbin (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Overwriting original image by a different image

User Pasionyanhelo overwrites images of somebody else by completely other images see for example File:Bóveda de arista.jpg or File:Mural.jpg or File:Costura.jpg or File:San agustin.jpg. On the user page he/she has been warned about it. In particular the first example shows that he/she does not care and continues. Can this be considered as vandalism? Wouter (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, if adequate warning has been given. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 21:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The user had one at 2010-07-12. I now gave him another. Next overwriting could be considered vandalism if there is nothing excusing this behaviour (e.g. high age, many other correct contribs, whatever). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

February 4

Considering upload of photographs covering all gravestones in a cemetery

Hello, some years ago, I have taken a complete photographic documentary (each gravestone) of the cemetery in my ancestral village (approx. 350 graves). I have never published the collection, but would have no trouble doing so under a free licence. Also, the regulation of the cemetery probably permits it (I would check on that), or it would probably be possible to get a permission from the village council. And there are no gravestones of an artistic value at that cemetery. Providing all of this fulfilled, would the eventual publishing of this collection on Commons be considered a good or a bad deed? I mean some of the gravestones with all the information on them have disappeared in the meantime and many more will probably follow soon, so this is kind of documenting history and there is an interest that these pictures get preserved. On the other hand, they are relevant only to a quite small range of people (local population, people with roots from there, genealogists) as it is almost exclusively encyclopedically unimportant people who are buried on that cemetery. This also means that more than a couple of the pictures would probably never be used in a Wikipedia article, although they could perhaps serve as source of information for a Wikisource list of people buried there. Still, I consider Commons a safer place to store this than my hard drive or a web page I would set up with some free hosting service. The cemetery in question is situated in the Czech Republic, where there is freedom of panorama, so I hope there would also be no personal data conflicts, as there are (obviously) names of people, their dates of birth and death, and sometimes also small photographs placed on the gravestones; yet the cemetery is public and anyone is free to go there and see it on their own sight for free, so I do not see a difference with making the access easier by posting it online. I will be grateful for any suggestions, since the questions that arise are many. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Any that could be used on a Wikipedia would of course be welcome. Otherwise, a few of them to show examples of grave markers in the area would be great. If it were me, I probably would not upload all 350, esp. if most of them are identical... In addition to any that would be good here, http://www.findagrave.com is a good place to upload grave markers - and all grave markers are in scope there. Wknight94 talk 01:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Personally I would welcome the upload. Although I'm sure there are other users who would disagree. It would be in scope on findagrave.com, but that's a commercial site and not a place that could guarantee the permanent preservation of the images.
I don't know the Czech situation, but the German Wikipedia has an article about postmortal personality rights (de:Postmortales Persönlichkeitsrecht). According to that article privacy rights end with death. But the Czech laws might be different. --Slomox (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish Czech speaker required

Can a Polish Czech speaker help to translate the following subcategories of "Category:Bread from the Czech Republic" into English? The rather inaccurate Google Translate translations are shown below:

It appears that some of these categories should not be in "Category:Bread from the Czech Republic". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you want a Polish speaker to translate Czech categories. ;-) English description is available at the individual image description pages. All categories describe the process of the production of those five kinds of bread/pastry, but I have no idea how those kinds should be named in English (e.g. interwiki on cs:Rohlík leads to en:Kifli, which is just a Hungarian name, not English). All those products (maybe with the exception of potato pancakes) are kinds of pečivo (“baked goods”) in Czech, which does not correspond exactly to the English word “bread”, but… --Mormegil (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, my brain took a vacation there. So there are no common English translations for housek, koláčů and so on? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I would name the following as the best translations I could find:
--Mormegil (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All References to R.C.A.F./Royal Canadian Air Force

The many pictures of Jet aircraft with the Canadian Maple Leaf on all WIKI-PRODUCTIONS THAT REFERENCE COLD LAKE AIR BASE AND OTHER AIRBASE IN CANADA, show a variety of cf-18 hornets and Griffon Hlicopters that are titled R,C,A.F. -- which has not existed in many years as the various branches the Canadian military forces were unitized under a single command nearly 20 years AGO! The royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and the Canadian Land Army (CLA) NO LONGER EXIST. Thay are now know as the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) and the air force part of it I believe is know as the Canadian Armed Forces, Air Command It would be nice to see wiki-etal change their heading on pictures of Canadian Air craft, Tanks and Warships to respect this over 20 year old reality. Jeff Bradshaw jjcb@shaw.ca —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.74.175.80 (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

But those pictures depict said aircraft at least twenty years ago. It would be inaccurate to rename them otherwise. --O (谈 • висчвын) 19:06, 05 February 2011 (GMT)

Do you think a photograph made in 1914 in Japan is still subject to copyright laws? It is the sepia one here [4]. At the bottom of the page it says "Copyright(C)2009 Town Nagomi All rights reserved". As far as I know, in Japan photographs are protected by copyright laws over a period of 70 years after the death of the author when the author is known and over 50 years from the date it was made when the author is unknown. Do I need to contact the site to clarify authorship?--Mycomp (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be a good idea for you to do that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Japanese photos had very short protection (ten years from publication, or ten years from creation if not published in that time frame). See {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. I don't see how a Japanese copyright can be claimed, unless it is someone who feels digitization creates a new copyright. More likely though, they are claiming copyright on the website contents -- the text they wrote, the arrangement, etc. I don't think they are claiming any copyright on the photos they obviously did not take (and would not have the rights to license). Getting permission can always help though, and maybe they can provide source details if the web page doesn't. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Geocommons

I added {{Object location dec}} today at 01:37 AM here (diff) but I can't see any Wikimedia Commons logo on the resulting Googlemap sattelite view. On the other hand, File:Kloster Herrenchiemsee 03.jpg uploaded at 19:38 PM today is being shown on the Googlemap sattelite view. Did I do anything wrong ? Or should I have used {{Location dec}} instead ? Teofilo (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a bug in Geocommons; It doesn't parse the object location templates. AFAIk Geocommons is not maintained by anyone, so I doubt it will be fixed. Multichill (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
So I changed the tag to {{Location dec}}, and it worked almost almost instantly (not more than one or two minutes). I wrote a note about this in the template documentation diff. Teofilo (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You also need to change the coordinates to the camera coordinates. For this image they are not the same as the object coordinates. If the object and camera locations were the same, the photo would have been taken from exactly above the building (and look more like the satellite photos at google maps). /Ö 08:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I send Para an email about this. Multichill (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the mail. Object locations are a fairly recent addition on Commons, and several discussions on Commons talk:Geocoding have valued camera location information over object locations. I haven't felt it would be necessary to show the objects in the GeoCommons view as the quality of our data improves and camera locations are added. A map of Category:Rijksmonumenten in Amsterdam for example looks like quite a mess in my opinion, even if it was filtered by image quality or some such. It would be great if we could go through all the images that have object locations only, and add the camera locations. Maybe functionality could be added to one of the geocoding tools, that would take a list of images, zooming to the object location of each, and allow people to go through them and point the camera location and heading? GeoLocator for example handles Commons templates and headings already, it would just need to take and show the images. --Para (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Recently I took categories out of Category:Media with locations and made a subcategory for object location (Category:Categories with object location coordinates). We could create a Category:Media with object location coordinates for media with that type of coordinates. It could be intersected with Category:Media with locations to find media without camera location. Obviously, most media in subcategories of Category:Categories with object location coordinates could use camera location as well. --  Docu  at 15:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps most, but not all. Pictures taken from an airliner window without a en:Real-time geotagging camera leave us clueless as to the position of the airliner. For example in the case of File:Køge.jpg, I suspect the airliner might be above the sea, but I have no idea exactly where. Teofilo (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the author of Commons:Geocoding/Panorama wants to compute it for us. --  Docu  at 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it works only with camera location coordinates. --  Docu  at 13:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Para: It doesn't look like a mess to me. It looks like a lot of useful images are missing from the standard view. Please add these images to the default view. Multichill (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Object location, combined with image annotator, allows to geolocate more than one object on a given picture : see my first try at File:Saltholm og oresundsbroen.jpg. But it is yet another template called {{Inline coordinates}} that is being used, so it would be necessary to have this template be compatible with Geocommons too. Teofilo (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We could create Commons:List of geocoding templates supported by Geocommons which the tool would read on a regular basis, so that we can easily add a new template without needing to send an E-mail to anyone. Teofilo (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

  • ~On this location, downtown Paris Geocommons provide a Commons logo with "Flickr - …trialsanderrors - I am a good war hen, propaganda poster, ca 1916", with no picture and no link to a file on Commons. I can't find the picture in the Deletion log either (but perhaps I am not very good at searching the deletion log). Is there a way to find the picture or to delete that entry from the Geocommons database ? Teofilo (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC) The entry has disappeared today. Teofilo (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

February 5

Removal of nsd tag

OK, so what is the policy of ours if someone removes a nsd tag? The image in question is File:Shanghai 19th century.jpg‎. I don't want to edit war but this is the second time the same user removed the nsd tag. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You can open a deletion request if you think the image should go. --  Docu  at 18:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, {{PD-China}} says 50 years after publish date. The photo looks to me befor 1960. Anyway you can also discuss it in the talk page first or open DR. Geagea (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is this scan dark anyone can fix please?

Hey, I got this picture protests penetration wounds from a friend here Anyone knows why they're dark in thumbnail only and can fix it?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done. The profile of the image was CMYK. I changed it to RGB and now the image is fine. Amada44  talk to me 22:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you :)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

February 6

List of Redirects?

Do es any one knows how to search for redirects? I would like to be able to get a list of all redirects in Creator namespace. Can it be done with existing tools ( other than requesting a DB query)? --Jarekt (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how complete something like the following ones is: Special:Search/Creator: creator -Sortkey or Special:Search/Creator: redirect
--  Docu  at 09:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Those 2 searches only returned bunch of odd-balls. It seems like all correct redirects are excluded. --Jarekt (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
http://dumps.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/latest/commonswiki-latest-redirect.sql.gz is just about 4MB when expanded. Currently, it dates from January 31. --  Docu  at 06:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Even that one does not seem to be useful. It seems to be a list of page ID's, their namespaces and where do they redirects to. But I found my answer AWB can call special pages and one of them is Special:All Redirects where you can ask for specific namespace. Strangely, I can not access the same special page from the browser. --Jarekt (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Arabic language contents

I don't read Arabic. I have found pictures from Arabic wikipedia pages uploaded on Commons and needing categories :

So I request help from Arabic speakers.

Teofilo (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like some kind of manatee, and given the context, my best guess would be an African Manatee (Trichechus senegalensis), but I should underscore that I am guessing. Manatees and dugongs make up the order sirenia, whose name is linked to the sirens of Greek mythology – mermaids. Mermaid in turn means maid of the sea, which is probably the explanation for the poetic translation. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. For the time being, I will leave it in category:unidentified Mammalia while asking further advice at fr:Projet:Zoologie/Quel est_cet animal_?#Mammifère marin inconnu. Teofilo (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Al Markh, a small village in Bahrain, for which I was able to find a stub in en:wp. The images are of a presumably eponymous plant, map, bird trap used by village youngsters, and a spring connected to underground caves.
  • As the linked article was for an oceanographic institute in Egypt, I had a look at Mammals of Egypt, and these seem to be dugong rather than African Manatee (which inhabit the other side of Africa). The Arabic institute article you linked says that these are "sea cows" known locally as "Bride of the Sea" (=Mermaid, LX figured it out). The image description literally translates to: "a photo of the Bride of the Sea and the Groom of the Sea," so apparently the uploader was trying to be funny while saying that these are a male and a female. Hope that helps! regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
See also File:Dugong dugon (dead).jpg which has been taken in the same room. Wouter (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yep, those are definitely dugongs, then. I thought the snout looked too small in the other photos, but it's probably because of the upright angle. The giveaway is the tail, which is visible in File:Dugong dugon (dead).jpg. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So I created category:Al Markh and Category:National Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries (Egypt). Thank you everybody. Teofilo (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

subcategories in categories of >200 pictures

Category:Black and white photographs seems to have an awesome feature: In the upper right corner, a box suggests to click on a plus sign in order to get all subcategories displayed at once. This is fantastic because I find "searching for subcategories" (in categories that are so full that not all subcategories get displayed initially) very annoying. Alas, the feature doesn't work for me. I've tried it with and without using Java... to no avail. What's going on?

BTW, wouldn't it make sense to display all subcategories always on the first page of a category (i.e. even if there are more than 200 items/pictures to be displayed)? It seems totally useless to browse through a category in search for subcategories, which aren't initially displayed. While it's far less of a problem to browse for further pictures. Shouldn't we change the default setting accordingly? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point and I agree. --ZooFari 23:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we should remove it from that category.
About the general suggestion, I thought this was being implemented as part of an overhaul of categories. (not sure where this was mentioned last time though). --  Docu  at 00:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this problem higher up on this page at "Cat tree view doesn't work". It doesn't look like an issue that can be resolved at this level. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I had in mind Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-07-26 mentioning "Among the outstanding bug requests being targeted was the ability to paginate sub-categories, pages and files separately.". I just noticed it's also mentioned in today's signpost. --  Docu  at 12:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
When that bug will be solved, allowing, I hope, more freedom to paginate categories on a case by case basis, we will need to adjust our policy pages, because I fear disputes will rise between users with old computers requesting to set the number of thumbnails per page in the category to a small amount, and users with powerful new computers requesting to see an increasingly big number of thumbnails per page. The drawback of powerful computers allowing for heavy pages, is that conversely, the need for subcategorizing, and the feeling that a category is "crowded" will diminish. The value of creating meaningful subcategories and subtrees risks diminishing, or become less obvious. While the developpers prepare the softwares of the future allowing more freedom, we must simultaneously prepare the regulations that will enable people to use that freedom without creating too many disputes, and avoiding that the subcategorizing tasks become neglected. We should be careful that the new softwares created give possibility to have the "big category fans" and the "small subcategory fans" be both happy. I am not sure if we are close to a consensus on the question of "how much is too much". In that sense, having the number of 200 being imposed by the software, presents the advantage of preventing disputes to rise between the people who wish to have 50 thumbnails per page and those who want 500. Teofilo (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

February 7

Error in legend (date) of a .png

Hello, I notice brig. gen. Henry Bohlen died on 1862, august the 22th, not the 27th. Does any one know exactly who was the sketcher, a Mr Davenport ? I need that .jpg for an article in WP fr about [[Ist battle of the Rappahannock] , hope it'll come out OK, which is not always so, I don't know why...Thanks, t.y. , Arapaima (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/99614169/ mentions Harper's Weekly, v. 6, (1862 September 13), p. 381.
maybe you can find more information there. --  Docu  at 12:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Importing a photo from is.wikipedia

Hi all,

I'd like to include the picture of this article (w:is:Vigdís Finnbogadóttir) which represents the former president of Iceland, in a few articles on the french wikipedia. But this picture is only in the icelandic wikipedia for now. How can I upload it without downloading it from wikipedia and then upload it on commons?

I need it to be in Commons so that I will be able to include it in my french articles about her election.

Of course, according to the summary on the icelandic wikipedia, this photo have been shot more than 25 years ago, so it is in the public domain (according to the icelandic laws).

Argamea (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The upload on is.wp claims that it has been published >25 years ago but there is no source confirming this. Also it is not documented anywhere what a non-artistic photo is according to icelandic legislation. As you can see with is:Mynd:Krisstjáneldjá.jpg - an upload by the same uploader on is.wp - the uploader does not take it so serious with source and/or copyright information, he is rather copy&pasting a PD rational that he not understands fully and that is not supported by any documentation on the wikis. --Martin H. (talk) 14:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Main pages

Until now, main pages in different languages have been in the main namespace, which is intended to be used for galleries. User ŠJů has previously proposed transferring them to Commons namespace, without any action having been taken. Several arguments may support this proposal:

  1. main pages aren't galleries and, therefore, shouldn't be placed in the same namespace as them
  2. Commons namespace is supposed to be used for management and presentation pages for the project, it would be a more appropriate place for main pages
  3. For some languages that use specific words (eg Accueil in French), it could release those pages' names for galleries or redirects to pages on this subject

The question is simply this: Do you think it's a good idea to transfer main pages to a different namespace?

  •  Support Obviously, if I suggest this, I support it. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 00:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Main Page has a special position within the main namespace; it is the landing page for all incoming visitors. It also does not help adding 'Commons:' to the URL since it is already in the domain. It would be confusing. — Edokter (talk) — 00:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Well, if we aren't too stupid, we will change the index url for each language so that, if we use the url http://commons.wikimedia.org, we arrived on the main page of our language as it had been made on some other wiki of the foundation : visitors won't see anything. And adding Commons: to the url isn't confusing IMO. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 02:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support. We could also hide the Commons: by using the DISPLAYTITLE hack. The mainspace Main Page could be redirected and fully protected. I really think this should be the case for all projects. (Note: de.wiki does this btw.). Rehman 01:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the main page is a page for users to access contents (a page for the simple readers and downloaders). The "commons:" space is for community life, rules, maintenance (it is a space for the writers and uploaders). The main page contains the "picture of the day" so the main page is a gallery, belonging to the gallery space. Teofilo (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Moving main pages to commons: namespace is really moving a mountain for a negligible amount of gain. Moreover, the reasoning that the specific words used in the mainpage's name could be turned into galleries or content pages is either completely false or a blatant lie. The same proposal was accepted at fr.wikipedia.org one year ago, thinking that we could turn the page w:fr:accueil into an article. See for yourself the result. It's been a whole year, and w:fr:accueil is still a redirect to the main page w:fr:Wikipedia:accueil principal. Why, you ask? Because of statistics. The month we moved the main page at "Wikipedia:accueil principal", we saw a huge drop in traffic statistics for the page "accueil", which was compensated by a similar growth in statistics for "Wikipedia:accueil principal" - as expected. But as you can see, the drop in traffic doesn't go under 100'000 visitors a day. "Accueil" is the second most visited page at fr.wikipedia.org. And here we are, one year later, with still 85'000 visitors a day for the page "accueil". The whole operation was a complete waste of time. Dodoïste (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Support. @Dodoïste: The titles won't be free for galleries for a long time. It will be many years until links, bookmarks etc. get updated and the traffic will have lessened enough. But moving the pages is still a necessary prerequisite to achieve this. --Slomox (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Sorry if I seem harsh, but sometimes it's necessary to speak frankly. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm a Web developer and even I don't know precisely how w:fr:accueil is still getting this much traffic. The few hints we have like links from other websites and bookmarks should not amount to 100'000 unique visitors a day, surely? Plus, since several concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the stats.grok.se traffics stats concerning redirects, we don't even know if the data we have is correct. Really, since we have just about no idea what in hell we are messing with, we should be cautious instead of playing with fire. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    Nothing bad happens, if we move the pages and keep the redirects. Nothing at all. Many projects already did it and nothing bad ever happened. So don't talk about "playing with fire". It's certainly not an urgent issue, but we would prepare us for the future and have a clean solution. --Slomox (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    We may well all become grandfathers before we can actually make any use of this change. But if it's fine by you, what else can I say? Dodoïste (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not a good idea. Multichill (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Comment. I tend to think we already got too many things in Commons namespace (e.g. DR), so I'd rather not add another one there. --  Docu  at 00:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  •  Oppose If we were starting the project today I would agree with putting the Main Page in the Commons namespace. As things stand, it would be quite disruptive for very little long-term benefit. I cannot conceive of a gallery called "Main Page" (perhaps one called "Main pages"). Galleries aren't as common as categories on Commons anymore anyway, and gallery names are generally in English, so talking about other-language main pages conflicting doesn't make sense either. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    It seems that you misundertood the proposition, all main pages aren't translation of Main page, eg in french Accueil is translate in english as reception, courtesy or customer service, in spanish Portada, even if on Internet it means "web site home page", is translate as façade, etc. Even if galleries' names are most of the time in english, there is redirections in other languages. Ju gatsu mikka (^o^) appelez moi Ju (^o^) 09:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Edward S. Curtis's "The North American Indian": the Photographic Images

Northwestern University Library claims copyright over digitized images produced for this collection, while conceding that it is "not aware of any current U.S. copyright or other restrictions on the use of the publication, claiming only physical ownership of a copy of the publication (see [5]). I presume that the common practice for a 1915 image such as this one belonging to the collection would be to cheerfully ignore the copyright claim in accordance with "the position of the WMF" and tag it {{PD-scan}}? --Rrburke (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is little question regarding the PD status of any work first published in the US before 1923. I have a book of Curtis's photos myself that I was planning to scan it at some point. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that it's better to upload high resolution from TIFF instead of a low resolution JPEG -- this one in high resolution. TIFFs from "The North American Indian" are available from http://memory.loc.gov/award/iencurt/utifs/ directory. Trycatch (talk) 06:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I note from this that even the post-1923 photographs from the book appear to be PD, as the copyright was not renewed. Rrburke (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, we even have special template {{EdwardCurtis}} for pictures from this collection. Trycatch (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

NASA images on flickr

Hello.

I just wanted your opinion on whether it's ok to upload these NASA images from Flickr. The thing is that they are marked as attribution required and non-commercial, but there's also a disclaimer below saying "Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license."

So can those images be uploaded to commons and used in Wikipedia articles or not? Thanks. --U5K0 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Per the stricken-out dollar sign, IMO those are a no-no. Rehman 13:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Even though these are NASA made images which are PD as a matter of US law?--U5K0 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
If there is no doubt that the photographs originate from NASA and not from some other space agency (see the relevant warning in {{PD-USGov-NASA}}), then as works of the Federal Government they are in the public domain, regardless of what licence has been applied to the photographs in NASA's Flickr account. The "non-commercial" licence can be safely ignored, and {{PD-USGov-NASA}} applied to the photographs. By the way, we already have a large number of NASA photographs in the Commons, so do check to see if the photographs in question are already in the Commons before uploading them from Flickr. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Unless NASA explicitly states the photograph was taken by them, I would not upload it. NASA have been less than careful with third-party images on their sites (certain copyrighted images were credited on first use, but forgotten to be credited later). Jappalang (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
They are NASA HQ photos. They are definitely claiming authorship. If you follow the usage rights link on their Flickr profile page, they plainly say they are not covered by copyright -- the NC appears to a reminder about publicity rights, and not using the NASA name in advertising, and other non-copyright stuff. Basically, they are using the wrong license on Flickr I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Problem is there isn't a lot of licensing options on Flickr. I'm still waiting on a reply about them adding CC-BY-SA-2.5-AU! Bidgee (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No, they need to talk to the Flickr admins and get access to the special "United States Government Work" tag. But if a photo there is credited to NASA, there should not be an issue. If partially credited to another institution, there may be a problem -- just look at the credits of the photos you want to use. They could at least use cc-by, as that is closest to reality (and there is a section of U.S. law which does require attribution on U.S. Government works). But many members of the public do not realize that those licenses are strictly for copyright, and do not cover other possible rights which may exist, so the people responsible for uploading those photos may have put the "NC" portion on there to be safe (i.e. make people do a bit more research into rights if they want to use them commercially). Carl Lindberg 16:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Saudi Arabian Airline HQ Fixed.jpeg

Would someone mind e-mailing File:Saudi Arabian Airline HQ Fixed.jpeg to me?

I would like to try to re-upload this to the English Wikipedia under fair use provisions. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I uploaded it over its source, File:Saudi Arabian Airline HQ.JPG. --Martin H. (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I'll see what I can find about the building. If the deletion page results in deletion, I will use it as a fair use picture on the English and Arabic Wikipedias. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Peta-sleman.png

I am in need of a little help regarding a copyright question. The above mentioned file was taken from the official website of the Sleman Regency. According to Article 14 Letter B of the Indonesian copyright law, "publication and/or reproduction of anything which is published by or on behalf of the Government, except if the Copyright is declared to be protected by law or regulation or by a statement on the work itself or at the time the work is published;" (emphasis mine). As there is nothing explicit on the map itself, I consider the map public domain. However, near the bottom of the webpage there is "© 2001 Pemerintah Kabupaten Sleman". Would public domain still apply? Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just check the copyright duration to know the details of PD......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Pardon? The question is whether or not the wording of Article 14 means that the map should be considered public domain, or whether the ©2011 at the bottom applies to everything held within and not only the website design. BTW, sorry but that was supposed to be 2011. Crisco 1492 15:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Use this file

It would be great if when you hit use this file on Wikipedia it would substitute the description for the caption text. Anyone able to make this improvement? --James Heilman, MD (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Date seems to be broken for default

  • {{Date|2005|12|10}} expands to 10 December 2005 (10 {{MediaWiki:December/<lang>}} 2005), while it is done correct for other languages.
  • {{Date|2005|12|10|de}} expands to 10. Dezember 2005 and even
  • {{Date|2005|12|10|en}} expands to 10 December 2005

Some bug in {{Date}}?--Herzi Pinki 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

See below. – Adrignola talk 15:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

10 GigaPixel 2D reproduction of Artimages from the googleartproject.com

There are extremely high res images on the googleartproject.com of lots of famous PD images (Example: http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/uffizi/the-birth-of-venus). The birth of Venus for example has a resolution of aprox 10 GigaPixel (122000x76600px).

The question here again is, if 2D reproductions are copyrighted? We say no, googleartproject.com says yes:

Are the images on the Art Project site copyright protected?

Yes. The high resolution imagery of artworks featured on the art project site are owned by the museums, and these images are protected by copyright laws around the world. The Street View imagery is owned by Google. All of the imagery on this site is provided for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the art project site, in the manner permitted by Google’s Terms of Service.

So what do we do? Should we have the foundation look into this? Cheers, Amada44  talk to me 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • It's not 1 Gpx, it's 10 GigaPixels. Giving that other pictures on that site are 10-20 Mpx (common DSLR resolution), the big file was stitched from 500 fragments? Wow. But even if it's ok from copyright point of view, is it possible to upload so huge file to Commons? Trycatch (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, its 10 GigaPixel. They use special cameras to get resolutions like that. See the 'behind the sceens' video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYXdEUB0VgQ - Amada44  talk to me 12:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The foundation wouldn't necessarily have anything to do with this (if they did they could become liable themselves). Mike Godwin's statement that is used in {{PD-Art}} does not remove any potential liability from the uploader: If you uploaded that image to Commons, you'd definitely be violating Google's terms of service and the institution might try to assert its claimed copyright {remember the NPG). To upload this sort of thing and use the PD-Art defence may work (it might not), but it would negatively affect our reputation regardless. I'd also point out very high resolution images, while they are extremely interesting are not significantly more valuable for Wikimedia projects than more normal sized images. The fact we struggle with 100Mpix imagery shows 100Gpix imagery is a bit of a waste on us. Highlighting these as FPs (which is a dead cert for some), is hardly conducive to making them feel happy about it: Us highlighting it as our best work?
  • So personally, I think its better to work with the institutions to try and get their permission to use the works than to ignore their assertions and "steal" the imagery.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    When Goodwin was still there, he made it clear that he was willing to fight a case on this to the Supreme Court if necessary. I think it nice that we upload higher resolution images, even if not 100Gpix; 100 Mpix will gives 300 DPI 3x2 ft. posters. For those of us who like to print from Commons image files, a decent resolution would be nice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed Nilfanion. Taking the images is what caused all that trouble with the NPG a couple of years ago and I think it's best if we don't go down that road again! :-) Of course, legally and ethically the community and WMF's position remains that you can't copyright a PD artwork merely by making a faithful reproduction of it (cf. Bridgeman v. Corel). However, from a pragmatic point of view the advantages of having a dozen gigapixel images of important paintings (as awesome as that would be) would, IMHO, be outweighed by the blow this would deal to our reasonably good-standing in the cultural sector these days. Certainly, we'll get better quality images faster if we rip and stitch, but in the long run we would lose many potential partners and their expertise. Witty lama (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If we can get potential partners willing to not make us complicit in a violation of the law making a phoney copyright notice illegal, and willing to give us decent resolution pictures, fine. But unless we think we can get such partners, I don't think we should sabotage our works in the vain hopes of appeasing these groups.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do we need 1Gpix+ images anyway? Reduced resolutions are much more practical for most purposes, including Wikimedia projects. And did Mike Godwin say that the WMF would accept liability (and pay costs etc) if it did go to the courts?
And as for why we should look for co-operation on this sort of thing: Its not about the high resolution works, its about the perceptions of Wikimedia in the institutions, and more generally. A good perception means they will be more willing to take part in events like WP:Wikipedia Loves Art. A bad perception does the opposite and closes doors to us, and may prevent us from getting access to certain valuable works at all. Can you see the NPG wanting to co-operate with Wikimedia on anything any time soon? A large-scale "theft" like this from many different galleries will have a knock-on effect outside those institutions, again making co-operation awkward. We should weigh the benefits of having these images against the costs, and IMO those costs could be quite extensive. Please don't ignore them in the headlong rush to grab certain (amazing) freebies.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Responding to your first question: Commons:Why we need high-resolution media. Among other things, I give an example there of a 12 megapixel image on Commons that is not high enough resolution for our purposes. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Well how much resolution is enough is always subjective, and more is always better (of course). There are diminishing returns of course in any case. Looking at the Birth of Venus example, to me, the difference between 100Mpix and 10Gpix is in showing the details of the cracks in the paint. If it takes you beyond the artist's intent its not really that helpful. I'd appreciate if you could give a solid example within one of these 1Gpix+ images where the 100Mpix version loses something of interest. From web resolution (0.1MP) to DSLR resolution (10MP) is a huge difference in usability, but less so with these higher resolution works.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Right now, do we have 10MP or 100MP copies in Commons? The 10 GP line is moot right now, but we could upload good copies to Commons using this.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
If it takes you beyond the artist's intent --> Going beyond artists' intent is what science, or at least a part of science is about. For example in the case of en:The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew (Caravaggio), x-rays have been used to reveal two separate attempts at the composition before the one we see today. Teofilo (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no legal concern with reproducing high resolution images of artwork from US museums (I won't speculate about the legal status of reproducing works from museums abroad like the Uffizi); and PD-Art policy would allow any reproduction of a PD work to be uploaded. However, more pragmatically, if anyone wishes to upload these images, they will require special permission to bypass the upload file size limit: a typical JPEG compression ratio is 15 to 25 times. A raw 24-bit color 10 gigapixel image is 30 GB, so the resulting JPEG would still be 1-2 GB in size. A JPEG this large may actually run up against technical limitations in our JPEG thumbnailing tools and require software changes to cope with - even stitching the tiles together would require some ingenuity to avoid being overwhelmingly slow. What we can do for now is a contributor (or more than one contributor) can ensure that the tile images are archived on their own local storage before they become unavailable. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed; I think someone should upload them, but at 100 megapixels, not 100 gigapixels.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    I think the full size images should be made available as well, but perhaps through a different service like archive.org. Both are valuable, but the full size images would require special software to even view them (any program that decodes the full images in RAM would exceed the RAM of a typical PC by at least 4 times). Dcoetzee (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    It's flat-out impossible to upload these as JPEGs at the original resolution: a JPEG image cannot be larger than 65535 x 65535 pixels. Some other image format would need to be used. --Carnildo (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Ah yeah I forgot about that. I checked out what limits Photoshop has with respect to image size; it allows very large images but only allows them to be saved as TIFF, Photoshop Raw, and Large Document Format (.PSB). PSB is a proprietary new format in CS3 and not supported by anything else. None of these support lossy compression. If one does not exist already, now may be the time to design a new open format for very large images. The idea is that it would be a container format comprised of subimages which can in turn be encoded using any standard encoder. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, TIFF does have lossy compression; the last released specification in 1992 included JPEG, and in 2002 Adobe released an addendum that defined a new, non-broken, JPEG in TIFF. The latter is supported by LibTIFF; you'll have to check Adobe Photoshop, but I assume most non-Adobe programs use libTIFF nowadays. The only limitation is 4 GB per file, which can be crossed using the BigTIFF extensions; I don't know about BigTIFF's support.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh cool, I should've realised TIFF can be a container for JPEG. I don't think these files would exceed 4 GB, assuming typical 15-25 times compression, so BigTIFF wouldn't be needed. And Commons already accepts TIFF, although I still think their thumbnail renderer would struggle (unless it can take advantage of embedded thumbnails in the image file). Dcoetzee (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Salisbury Cathedral from the Bishop's Garden John Constable.jpeg is just 956 × 767 pixels (176 KB); it could some better resolution from [6]. Why is everybody suddenly so timid? This is a US company, clearly Bridgeman v Corel applies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (offtopic) the tag "Reinassance" at Google's birth of Venus is a spelling mistake. Where's the edit tab ? By the way, at present this google project is a big empty box. Only 100 pictures or so in a dozen museums is not that much. Teofilo (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm in the process of downloading and archiving the tile sets. It'll take a while since I'm including delays, about a day per image. The tiles from the second- or third-to-last zoom level can easily be used to construct uploads that will fall under our file size limit. We'll consider what to do with the super big ones later. Dcoetzee (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've now uploaded the full resolution version of Starry Night to the Internet Archive as a TIFF with lossless compression, and linked it from the image description page. The image is 44568 x 35292 (1.57 gigapixels) and the file is 3.4 GB. This file can be opened by 64-bit Photoshop CS5 in Windows and can be processed by 64-bit Imagemagick under Linux (doing a resize with the latter took about 10 minutes on my machine). I also created a lossy compressed JPEG TIFF at 90 quality which is 1.47 GB, but Photoshop is unable to open it because its dimensions exceed 32768; Imagemagick is still able to manipulate it. I'm concerned that the Internet Archive might delete the work because technically they don't accept images, just videos, audio, and text. If they do I'll put it up on my own server and link to it. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Uploaded a second image, File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder- The Harvesters - Google Art Project.jpg. This one is 280 megapixels. Could probably use some level adjustment. I like this one because the original painting is quite large (119 × 162 cm) and it contains a lot of interesting details in the background. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Almost 90 MBytes, are you nuts? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Easily justifiable for this painting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Was there really any need to cast aspersions on his sanity there? It may be hard to view in browser, but that's not a problem to download and look at. Personally, until Dcoetzee uploaded the Starry Night, I never realized that so much of the color is canvas that he didn't completely paint over.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a great discussion on the technical and practical aspects of ripping x or y file size images from GoogleArtProject, but this is completely sidestepping or ignoring the longer-term and ethical issues of whether we should be taking these images. Didn't we learn anything from the NPG fiasco, especially you Derreck!? Sure, this way gives us larger images faster, and yes, this is legal and allowed according to our policies and things like Bridgeman v Corel, but is that the best way of going about our larger purpose of sharing free knowledge? I spend a lot of time arguing with GLAMs about why they should release their images and why they shouldn't claim copyright over scans (as well as being asked to defend/explain/apologise on Derreck's behalf) so you know I'm on the right "team", but taking the images merely because we have found a way to do so doesn't mean that it's the best way of approaching the situation. If this should turn out like NPG then all of the good work that has gone on in the last years to make successful collaborations with the cultural sector worldwide (and undo the damage that the NPG fiasco did) will be largely undermined. Is that worth it for a couple of high res images? Witty lama (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Ethically, we encouraging these institutions to adapt to the 21st century and acknowledge that their scans have no copyright. Everyone in the world got to see the NPG smacked on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and got reminded that the public domain is theirs, not the NPG's. That's a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And we are also encouraging them to say "Sod off Wikipedia, we aren't going to let you into our museum/gallery/whatever and take pictures of our exhibits". Good working relationships with the institutions is extremely valuable to our goals, its that the benefits of that are not immediately obvious. The legality of actions here is not the point. Getting a reputation as thieves who apply our own interpretation of copyright law is hardly conducive to being popular in that community; and that's true whether we are legally in the clear or not. It also discourages them from participating in projects like Google's, as if they want to control commercial use of their time and effort, they can easily do so - by not letting the public have access. I'd love to have these pictures, but not at the cost of being persona non grata in GLAMs. Especially as we can just link to the image on Google.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
But the legality of it is part of the point. If we don't exercise our rights here, who else will? If Corel hadn't taken those photos and fought, then we wouldn't be able to have PD-Art at all. If we hadn't stood our ground against the NPG, other people would be more likely to take their barking seriously. It's about making a culture where knowledge is freely and openly available; we set the way the law will be interpreted, and how easily museums can push the little people around.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep, the museums can push us around by telling us "go away, Wikimedia is an organisation we want nothing to do with".--Nilfanion (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
That's not pushing us around. That's not working with the premier free-content organization in the world, with an organization that's more well-known worldround then almost any museum in the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
The organisations do not have to work with us, its entirely at their discretion. I would point out that many of our most useful projects have come from active co-operation with them (Tropenmuseum, State Library of Queensland, Bundesarchiv etc). Without them, we would suffer, so it is in our interests to ensure we don't just drive them away. Its in their interest to have a good relationship with us, so we can expect reasonable co-operation.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Currently my plan is to make no further uploads for a while, just gathering data on local storage. Those three images were just a sample. If you want to discuss usage of the images with any of the affected parties or the community, you're welcome to. If you're actively engaged in discussions, inform me. But I do want to have a backup plan in case they just say no. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"Didn't we learn anything from the NPG fiasco, especially you Derreck!?" Yes: we learnt to stand up to odious and reprehensibly fraudulent claims of copyright on public domain works. Because those are actually morally and ethically wrong and need to be stood up to, every time. I appreciate it's good not to appear as a steamroller to institutions, and that NPG pressing the point and the world telling them to just bugger off made your work with institutions harder - but the NPG was wrong, wrong, wronger than a wrong thing, and any "fiasco" was entirely on their part. Derek did nothing wrong and is doing nothing wrong - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Further on this point (courtesy effeitsanders): The Dutch Architecture Institute realised they had been wrong all this time to attempt enclosure of the public domain, and changed their policy. (Google translation into English.) Organsations are coming to realise that ennclosure of the public domain is fundamentally, deeply wrong and that taking the NPG line is deeply wrong. Appeasement is a fundamentally erroneous response to claims of enclosure of the public domain - David Gerard (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As Ben Franklin said, "They who can give up essential [creative] liberty to obtain a little temporary [Public relations] safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". I don't think we should use our rights affirmed by Bridgeman v Corel as a bargaining chip. You had to explain/apologize for uploading NPG pictures when you where negotiating with some American or European institutions, but you can imagine that if you where talking to some Chinese institution you could be asked to explain Wikipedia coverage of w:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and some Islamic museum could ask you to remove images from Category:Depictions of Muhammad. Should we (rewrite/remove/not allow uploading of) legal and culturally important content for the sake of "successful collaboration with the cultural sector worldwide"? --M5 (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As long as we're trading aphorisms, how about "don't cut off your nose to spite your face"? Powers (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Negotiations are difficult and museums are so broke by nature and deeply fearful for their future. And we really don't want to hurt them. However, the actual trigger for this is that Google has directly attempted an enclosure of the public domain. I can't think of a world in which this is actually an acceptable thing to let ride - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
May be we should not read too much into copyright claims in project faq? After all, some images on the Art Project are indeed copyrighted, such as 3d objects or contemporary paintings. So it is possible that Google does not claim copyright on all works, but only notes that the collection of images taken as a whole is copyrighted (which is true) and shifts the responsibility for determining copyright status of individual images to the museums (which should not stop us to determine it ourselves). --M5 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
In that case an urgent clarification from Google is needed, because at present they're claiming copyright on public domain works - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, someone is currently seeking such clarification - David Gerard (talk) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's one of my questions that no one has bothered answering; what exactly, picture-wise, do we expect to gain from not doing this, and who do we not copy from? On one hand, we gaining many very, very nice pictures. On the other, you're either asking to not copy from a select group (and why that group?*) or you're cutting down a wide range of important uploads. In either case, do we gain enough from doing that, concretely, to gain?
* And along with my anti-authoritarian stand, it rubs me the wrong way not to copy from museums, but to feel free to JoesCollectionOfFrenchErotica.com, because the latter doesn't have any thing to bargain with.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
If anyone would like to help with this effort, the more daunting and labor-intensive step is to identify for each work on the Google Art Project whether it is {{PD-Art}} eligible (original work is PD and two-dimensional), and if so to fill out a suitable template like {{Artwork}} with all the details. One good way you can do this is to upload a small thumbnail of the image as a placeholder, based on a screenshot or whatever, so I can go back and upload a higher-resolution version later. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I propose using Google Art Project page for this purpose. Putting {{Creator}} template against each artist helps identifying PD works and will be useful later for filling out {{Artwork}}. Non-PD images (including images of 3D works) can be marked as such on the page. --M5 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for setting this up, this will help a lot. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For general interest, below are the dimensions of the gigapixel artworks from the Google Art Project. Not all of these are public domain, but they're all quite impressive technical feats to me. Finding a host for all of the public domain ones will be tricky - even the Internet Archive has a 10 GB limit per file, and "The Appartition of Christ to the People" is probably not going to make that unless I bring the JPEG quality down to 80 or so. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Museum Title Pixel dimensions Gigapixels
MOMA The Starry Night 44568 x 35292 1.6
Van Gogh The Bedroom 44597 x 35385 1.6
Gemaldegalerie The Merchant George Gisze 44108 x 50328 2.2
Frick St. Francis in the Desert 67592 x 59298 4.0
Freer The Princess from the Land of Porcelain 47600 x 84078 4.0
Kampa The Cathedral 58918 x 71013 4.2
Met The Harvesters 78309 x 57039 4.5
Altesnational In the Conservatory 81888 x 62626 5.1
Thyssen Young Knight in a Landscape 66567 x 95649 6.4
Hermitage Return of the Prodigal Son 75009 x 97874 7.3
Uffizi The Birth of Venus 109427 x 68721 7.5
Tate No Woman No Cry 73915 x 103940 7.7
Versailles Marie Antoinette de Lorraine-Habsbourg Queen of France and her children 77277 x 98957 7.7
National Gallery The Ambassadors 90443 x 89118 8.1
Rijks Night Watch 112518 x 93343 10.5
Tretyakov The Appartition of Christ to the People 133105 x 92831 12.4
Update: I've now downloaded and archived the complete tile sets for all works on the Google Art Project. Most are stitched and I'm going to start uploading soon, so please register any final objections now. I'll be careful to check public domain status of each one but could use a second look just in case of any zany exceptions. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Are low resolution pictures losslessly stitched? Trycatch (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Not currently. This is possible, since the tiles are 512 x 512, but I simply haven't written the tools necessary to do so (I think the jpegtran library can help). I'll take a look and see what I can do. Besides preserving the original quality, this would let me keep the file size at the size of the original tile files instead of inflating it, so I can fit more pixels under 100 MB. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Generally it's easy to stitch tiles using basic command-line interface of jpegtran (if all tiles have the same quality settings, of course). It has -drop and -crop command line switches, this is functionality enough for this task. Trycatch (talk) 10:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and checked the component info, and unfortunately different tiles appear to use slightly different quantization matrices (even for the same component). I think it's possible to assign different quantization matrices to portions of an image, but I'm not sure how to do this. I would need more info to do it this way. There's always the option to upload a re-encoded JPEG and a TIFF losslessly compressed from the original tiles (here or on the Internet Archive, depending on size), although that costs filesize. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunate, but I think that jpegtran could deal with this problem automatically at cost of some overhead (I suppose that the resulting file still will be smaller than TIFF or PNG). Trycatch 13:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this is of some interest, maybe someone already said it with a different wording, but I'm unable to see the images uploaded by Dcoetzee in detail. When I click on them in the file view to get a larger view (example) a message appears saying that there was an unspecified error. I'm using FireFox 3.6.13 and Win 7, if it is of some help.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • You need to have an amount of available RAM somewhat more than the uncompressed size of the image, which in this case is 19578×14260 pixels×24 bits per pixel = 837.5 MB (actually Firefox eats out about 1.1 Gb when opens the file). --M5 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Firefox gives me an error too, although I have 8 GB of RAM - it just can't handle images this large (or at least the standard release version can't). You have to download to a file and use different software. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
        • I have standard FireFox 3.6.13 on Win 7 64bit with 4GB RAM. Firefox loads file fine at the fresh start of the session, but on second or third try within the session usually gives an error too. Restarting Firefox helps. --M5 (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi-automated mass deletion nominator gadget wish

At present the "nominate for deletion" link javascript is aimed at single deletions. When used for a mass deletion request, I need to

  • Replace all (but one) single deletion pages by a redirection like this (diff);
  • Undo all (but one) single log entries like this (diff)
  • copy paste the "reason=" text again and again (because I alternatively use the clipboard for the "#redirect" and for the "reason=" because, as far as I know, there is only one clipboard on my computer)

So this is really a lot of - uninteresting - work and I would prefer to concentrate on the important part of the task, which is to look carefully at each picture and description page and ensure that every nominated picture contains the problem mentioned in "|reason=".

I wish a javascript could help me reduce my "to do list" as follows :

  • 1) enter the |reason= text into Special:Mypage/Mass deletion reason
  • 2) enter the address of the Deletion request subpage name into Special:Mypage/Mass deletion request subpage name
  • 3) list manually all files and add manually the reason on the mass deletion request subpage name.
  • 4) visit every file one by one and click each time the new "Nominate for mass deletion" link (the gadget then picks up the reason and the subpage name, adds the deletion tag on the file page and warns the uploader)
  • 5) when this is finished, add the subpage on today's log.

Teofilo (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

LocalStorage could be put to good use fo this...--DieBuche (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there any help page concerning "local storage" (about which I must admit I am a bit clueless). Otherwise, I was thinking I could try to find some of the earlier versions of the quickdelete tool (which I expect to be more simple than the present powerful but difficult to understand version) and change it to create my own gadget for my own user javascript. But it has been a long time (years) since I last tried javascript programming. Teofilo (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 8

help, all my configured gadgets are gone

although logged in, I do not see my configured gadgets any more. (HotCat, Mark for deletion, no source, no permission, and the like). They are still configured as I checked my preferences. Please help. --Herzi Pinki 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The upgrade to MediaWiki 1.17 that was then rolled back goofed things up. The gadgets, the upload form JavaScript; they are all not working. Gadget listing at Special:Preferences is not working. The sidebar is not loading the content at MediaWiki:Sidebar to point here. The current events link shouldn't be there and goes nowhere. Gadgets don't load at other wikis as well. This was not a public release of MediaWiki; they wanted to test it on WMF wikis to see what broke. The upgrade also involved an update to the database according to the release notes, so the rolling back might not have reverted the database changes even though the software is back to 1.16. The issues might persist until the upgrade to 1.17 is finally performed. The upload form is troubling and will result in a lot of uploads like this one until it's resolved. – Adrignola talk 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine :-( --Herzi Pinki 15:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I miss the Village pump link (sidebar). Teofilo 15:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Purging MediaWiki:Sidebar brought it back.--DieBuche (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Teofilo (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
No idea what that does, but it worked for me! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Occasionally there seem to be questions about proper use of creator namespace. They are discussed at template talk:Creator, but usually with very few people participating. It seems like a good time to create a guidelines for use of the namespace. I took a shot at writing initial version - Commons:Creator, but like to invite people to review it, discus it, improve it and eventually approve final version as guidelines or a policy. --Jarekt (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 9

LA photographer needed (Feb 23) for event with various child actors who have WP articles

Hi all, any Los Angeles photographers available Oscar night? That's Sunday, February 23, 2011 at Club Nokia, AEG Live Complex. It's the Children Uniting Nations annual gala. The red carpet goes from 4 to 5:30 pm, not sure when the arrival time is for the carpet photographers. (Wikimedia Commons images from this event in 2007, 2008, 2009.)

The focus this year was on child actors: Jimmy Bennett, young Kirk from the Star Trek movie, Ashley Argota, from Nickelodeon's True Jackson VP, Bailee Madison, from Bridge to Terabithia, Noah Munck, Gibby from iCarly, Nolan Gould, from Modern Family, Ryan Ochoa, from Pair of Kings and iCarly... Adult actors that I recognize are Ryan Eggold, the new 90210; Peyton List, from Mad Men (Jane) and FlashForward (Nicole); Meagan Good, Saw V; Tia Mowry, The Game.

I'll be honest, there's some questionable choices: Jayson Blair, the NYT reporter who plagarised stuff, Brandon Lurie, who as best I can tell is an aspiring South African actor, Devendra Banhart, a visual artist, Joshua Moore, who's either a new NFL draft or folk rocker or actor with only one role, not sure. Anyway, anyone want to do this? -- Nick Moreau (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Expected celebrity supporters include: Ashley Argota, Bailee Madison, Bella Thorne, Brandon Lurie, Bryce Cass, Devendra Banhart, Gregg Sulkin, Haley Hasselhoff, Jayson Blair, Jimmy Bennett, Joshua Moore, Meagan Good, Noah Munck, Nolan Gould, Peyton List, Ryan Eggold, Ryan Ochoa, Spencer List, Stefanie Scott and Tia Mowry among others!
Performing at the event are Arianna Grande from Disney’s hit show “Victorious”, B. Howard, The Beat Freaks dance squad, Destenee, Haunted by Heroes, Melky Jean of Melkey Sedek, NiRe Alldai, and YouTube sensation Savannah Outen.

Use of images created by artist submitted by artist?

I've read the various faqs and sections dealing with artwork and toys in particular, but am still a little confused as to whether or not it would be allowable for me to upload a specific photo of my own work.

A fan of mine has notified me that he is working on an entry for me, I am an artist and toy designer. I would like to allow the use of a few images of my toys. I understand why images of toys such as Star Wars figures are strictly not allowed. However, if aphoto is taken by me, of an original toy that I have created, and I upload that image myself with a CC share / attribution license specifically granting permission for the use of that image, will it still be disallowed?

Is it a matter of the source (the toy) being copywritten, and an image of that toy being considered derivative work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadzebra (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are the creator of an original toy, you can certainly upload a photograph of it to the Commons under a free licence. To verify that you are the copyright holder, you should send an e-mail to the OTRS – see "Commons:OTRS" for information on this. Consider, though, whether the photograph of the toy is useful for any project. Photographs of personal artwork are sometimes nominated for deletion on the basis that they are not realistically useful for an educational purpose, and thus outside the Commons scope. If you're not sure about whether your photographs are useful or not, feel free to post a message here and ask for opinions. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is a matter of the toy being copyrightable, and the photos being derivative works (there have been court cases over that in the U.S.). If you own copyright on the toys themselves, *and* the photographs, there is no issue with you uploading them (I would mention the toy-copyright-ownership part explicitly in the "Permission" section, lest someone assumes otherwise). It may be good to send explicit permission via Commons:OTRS, so there is a separate record (accounts here are essentially anonymous, so we usually require external authorization for previously-published works). As also mentioned, it is possible that the article may still be deemed "out of scope" on the wikipedia projects, which may make it deleted -- impossible to say without knowing who you are :-) (and just to be clear, I'm not asking). The photos may or may not be kept here in that situation, depending on if we could theoretically still use them in other contexts. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for clearing it up for me! I'll send up a picture or two and submit verification and then point the fellow working on the article to those images instead of the ones he was trying to upload himself. Cheers. --Deadzebra (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to improve our content! If the images are for an article, then most likely there won't be any problem showing they are within the Commons scope. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You could also give authorization, via OTRS, for the other person's photographs as well. We need a licensing statement from two people, for that one. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Next/Previous Image Button

Hi, I brought up the idea of adding the feature of a Next/Previous Image Button on engligh wikipedia for their small galleries, but have not got a lot of attention, though it's obvious the feature would be much more important here than in the pedia. When going through a page like [7] or Panthera leo, a person will most likely do two things, one, click on an image to increase its size so it can be appreciated, and two, do this many times, and for each image they must open a new tab or window than they have to go back to the original tab to open up another image. It would be much easier for readers if they could go from one image to another without having to change the page they are on by simply clicking a next image button under/beside the photo. And of course this is no revolutionary idea, it has been used on plenty of websites for many years now, and yet not on wikimedia, why not? Passionless (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It has been realised on commons, still not on wikipedia's. Were is the softwaredesigner able to do that? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikia has programmed such a feature for MediaWiki, I'm sure we could have it. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The Mystery of a Hansom Cab

Can this be moved to Commons? Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

If the author of the illustration is anonymous, then yes, because more than 70 years have elapsed since first publication of the work (1886): see "Commons:Licensing#Australia". If a PDF of the book is available online (for example, at Google Books), you should check if the illustrator is credited in the book. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Australia non-retroactively extended terms from 50 to 70 years in 2005; even if the author was known, if they died before 1955 it is still PD there. Pretty likely for an 1886 publication. "Anonymous" works are PD there if they were published before 1955. I haven't found that edition online, but Hume died in 1932, so if he is the author it has been PD in Australia since 1983. In short... yes, I think it's safe to move here. Use {{PD-Australia}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh wait, I see that cover was a London edition. If that was unique to the UK publication (and not the original Australian cover), then yeah the terms would be 70 years... that is a bit harder. There is a photo of the title page here; hard to read for sure but I don't see a cover credit there. Hm; could use {{PD-UK-unknown}} or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure how you can make anything out from that tiny photograph of the title page, even if the larger version is viewed :-). Wow, AbeBooks is asking for US$11,000 for the book! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you see anything which even looks like a credit? I see the name and address of the publisher, but not much else, unless it is in that paragraph. The company was primarily by someone named Frederick A. S. Trischler (bought the rights from Hume for £50), but it was a corporate entity. This actually seems like a fairly famous book, but I can't find any mention of a cover illustration credit anywhere, and don't see anything on that page which even seems to be a credit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't but the text is really hard to make out. By the way, the first Australian edition of the book (1886) had the same image: see http://blog.seattlepi.com/booktryst/archives/209429.asp. Maybe someone can visit a library and look at the book ... — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah cool, nice find. Back to {{PD-Australia}} then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So... okay to upload it locally here to Commons then??? :) -- Cirt (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been able to organise physical access to a copy of the first edition, but I can't do so for a couple of days due to the process. I can check to see if there's a name of the illustrator, if that will help. - Bilby (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks for your industry. Yes, look out for a name or even initials. If you find nothing, then {{PD-Australia}} can be applied to the image. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Flag

What happened with  ?----László (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And why's it working now? Was it something in general with svgs? -- Nick Moreau (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the same as happened to File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg some hours ago. It is usually displayed below each image in Commons. However, only a blue link to the image page was displayed instead. I hit purge and it worked again. I guess it is related to the 1.17 deployment attempts of the last day. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys----László (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DMCA Takedown, NCI Photos

Hi everyone, in compliance with the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and at the instruction of Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, I have removed seven eight files from Commons. Please do not undelete these files. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. Thanks! Christine (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC) whoops, missed one! Christine (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a new thing? I've been on the Village pump for a long time, and if posting DMCA requests to the Village pump is not new, we've had a sudden upspike in them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It is new; we're also posting the takedown notices to the Foundation wiki, which is also new. It's just a good way to make sure everyone knows when one of these comes in. Christine (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
At least in this case the request seems perfectly valid, and deletion seems uncontroversial. Thanks for letting us know. --Jarekt (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for informing us of this takedown notices, Christine - it's good for everyone to be apprised of these actions so that we have an opportunity to respond to frivolous claims. In this case the claim was not frivolous, but it's still a good reminder for us to keep an eye out for any government work actually done by contractors. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, still need to check this list of Navy courtesy photos. Some of them are free, a lot of them are not :-( Multichill (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've nominated a small portion (most obvious ones) of these photos: Commons:Deletion requests/Courtesy photos from navy.mil. Trycatch (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this added transparency is a good thing. Just a couple of thoughts: it would be good if foundation:File:NCI_DMCA_Takedown.pdf (or some sort of traceable case number) had been referenced in the deletion summary, it would be good if the names of the affected files were listed here (File:Adult African American Man NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult African American Man - NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult Hispanic Male - NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult Caucasian Woman - NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult African American Woman - NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult Hispanic Woman NCI Visuals Online.jpg, File:Adult Hispanic Woman - NCI Visuals Online.jpg and File:Adult Caucasian Woman NCI Visuals Online.jpg), and it is customary to notify the uploader by leaving a personal note or {{Copyvionote}} on their user talk page. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
What would be great to keep track of these DMCA-related deletions, is to have a DR for each notice where the notice would be linked to, and have all these DRs put in the same category (and of course, the deletion summary would link to the DR in question). This way, we would avoid undeleting these images by mistake, even after this message on VP is long gone and forgotten, and we would have a nice overview of these deletions by simply checking that category. –Tryphon☂ 12:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fay Wray photo error

A number of pages use this as a photo of Fay Wray:

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

It is attributed to an Argentinian magazine, from an ebay auction.

It is not Fay Wray. I have collected King Kong photos for decades, and I know Fay Wray when I see her. This is absolutely not her.

How do I contest it?

Thanks,

Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.33.182 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. Can you point us to some images on the Internet that are definitely of Fay Wray, or upload some images of Fay Wray from your collection that are in the public domain? If we can tell by comparing the images that "File:Fay Wray Argentinean Magazine AD.jpg" is not Fay Wray, the file can be renamed. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of any photos that are PD, but here a photos of Fay:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews19/a%20Merian%20C.%20Cooper%20King%20Kong%20DVD%20Review%20Fay%20Wray/K4.jpg

http://members.aye.net/~gharris/blog/obit_fay_wray_nyet107.jpg

http://www.trashfiction.co.uk/fay_wray.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_14OdXvnmpFs/SVbRH0C0k9I/AAAAAAAAAaA/3UIqxX_z8zo/s400/FayWray5.jpg

Hmm. Looking at these (and many other pictures of her online), it's hard to tell whether our picture is her. It's not entirely unlike her. I can't find any (other) picture of Fay Wray with her eyes downcast, so it's hard to make a solid comparison. - Jmabel ! talk 07:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. It's hard to tell from these websites. Unless there is some better evidence than the image in question is definitely not of Wray (for example, a source identifying the photograph as one of someone else), I think we'll have to maintain the status quo. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the other way around? If we have an image whose source is basically "ebay" and someone contests the theme of the image, at least on my view it should be renamed to something more neutral, at a minimum. My personal opinion is that it maybe is not her, due to the chin mark/cove (Fay Wray seems to also have one, but much less pronounced), but we shouldn't be discussing personal opinions and guesses. If the source can't be verified, the claim that she is someone we known should be removed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm inclined not to challenge the licensing of the image. The image has been around since December 2009 and no one has challenged the licences applied to it. Unfortunately the eBay link is no longer working, but the image is asserted to have been published in 1933 which seems to enable {{PD-Argentina}} to apply to it, and I have no other basis on which to say it is a copyright violation. The identity of the person depicted is another matter altogether. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Eh, Jacklee, either you misred what I wrote, or I was unable to express myself clearly. What shouldn't be there is the claim that she is Fay Wray, not the licence. I've no reason to doubt that it's indeed a picture from the Cinemania Magazine, but I do not agree with keeping that identified with Fay Wray based on what some Ebay user once wrote there, after it has been disputed.-- Darwin Ahoy! 09:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Guess I misunderstood your point. However, the problem is that at the moment we don't have enough evidence one way or the other. The source website is no longer accessible, so we can't check it. But no one has challenged the accuracy of the description for more than a year (though I realize this isn't conclusive). On the other hand, we don't have anything more than Mark's good-faith assertion that the person in the photograph is not Wray. In the circumstances, until more information comes along, I'd be inclined to maintain the status quo. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The image says it is from the October 1933 issue of Cinelandia magazine (Argentine edition). That is at the very least verifiable, though I can't find anything online. After looking at a bunch of pictures from that era... I have no idea. Could be her, could be one of a few others. There is some writing at the bottom left but I can't make it out. The same uploader had added lots of images from that magazine and others; they do seem similar. Most seem to have an ebay source, and do seem similar. There is one Flickr account with scans of selected pages of 1932 and 1933 issues, but not this one. Here are covers for most 1933 issues, but not October, and no contents. The doubt should be mentioned on the image's talk page, I'd say, but it seems as though the original identification was done by someone looking at the magazine. Hard to go against that, for me, at least for now. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure looks like Fay Wray to me. I looked at Google images and IMDb's collection of images and those pencil thin eyebrows and cleft chin sure stand out. Her face changes shape as she gets older, but this is also noticeable with many actors (e.g., Joan Fontaine changes drastically, imo). – Keraunoscopia (talk) 11:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

How to download pictures from wikimedia to my blog

Hi I would like to know how to download pics from wikimedia to my blog @ squidoo Thanx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazzieg (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Have a look at "Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why go on relying on a private picture authorizing OTRS system ?

Sometimes I think the pictures currently tagged with Template:OTRS cannot realistically be reused by reusers (because the reusers are not allowed to see the terms of the permission (1) and to know the identity of the E-mail sender). This absence of conditions where the pictures are realistically reusable by anybody apart from the Wikimedia Foundation itself (which can read the E-mails) make these pictures objectively unfree (even if from a legal perspective they are licensed under a free license), not belonging to the kind of free works mentioned on http://freedomdefined.org/Definition . The reusers must be in a position to check by themselves that the work is free. I.E. know the phone number of the person who reportedly issued the license and phone there to check that it is true.

(1) While the licensing terms are often clear, the extent of the permission (number of pictures, a whole website or not, whether the permission applies to pictures made available in the future, what happens if a discrepancy occurs in the future - not to say at present! - between the agreed terms and the mentioned website's terms of use) is not always so clear. The quality of the person (the boss of the company or corporation, or a person with a low rank in the hierarchy, a technical webmaster not usually having authority to engage the company's assets, or even a volunteer not hired as a salaryman by the licensing party, as was one envisaged hypothesis when dealing with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum) is never clear.

The above is an excerpt of the e-mail I wrote at http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-February/063819.html

Teofilo (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Who cares about conditions? As long as a valid license is on the picture (look at the image page history to check if it was changed after the OTRS template was put in) you've got all you need to reuse the image. Additional restrictions are not permitted. --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Teofilo, there are quite a number of paradoxes in the commons licensing and deletion practice. You notice a few more. Wat can be done about it? --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I have seen images from 1940's with (c) and name of the photographer as an watermark with OTRS from someone else. When I asked about what did OTRS said it was supposedly for all the images from some website related to history. I had little confidence that the website admin had rights to the images it was hosting and which he shared with us. There was DR about it but I do not remember which way it went. --Jarekt (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Teofilo, I think you are going.. no.. running, in the wrong direction. A phone number? Are you saying all my images are objectively unfree, because I did not put my phone number on the image pages?! --Dschwen (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No. In your case there is a record of your activity on this wiki and possibly on Wikipedia too, where people can see that you interact well with other community members, and that nobody has ever expressed doubts on your uploads. There is a public track of your reliability as a wiki user. This is as good as a phone number. It is similar with Flickr users. Some Flickr users provide pictures which are consistent (for example they explain that they made a trip to some place, and the first picture begins in an airport, then every picture follows a logical way in some country, then the last picture is another picture in some - possibly the same - airport). Other Flickr users provide pictures in an apparently random order and that is a bit strange and prudent people would rather not reuse their pictures. For a multitude of reasons, some Flickr users enter the Commons:Questionable Flickr images group. Teofilo (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not? If the Foundation lawyers decided that a string of bytes received from someone somewhere is a valid proof of anything - it's the rule of the house. It's a twisted compromise - neither the foundation, nor the "community" have resources for proper provenance research, but no one dares to eliminate the loophole and start mass deletions.
Another observation: diminishing returns. The number of obvious, blatant copyvios is quite high, and seems to grow every day. Deal with them first, OTRS is a distant third or fourth problem. NVO (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

February 10

Slideshow

What do you think of the slideshow gadget? Have you tried it?

Personally I use it once in while to review a category in detail. The script was revised some time ago and works fairly well since.

It's currently in Special:Preferences under the "gadgets" tab (heading "Improved navigation", option "slideshow"). --  Docu  at 06:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have it enabled. I don't use it a lot but it is useful and nicely done. I would support it to be enabled for unlogged users as well, if that is what you have in mind ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, when it works. It isn't working for me on Category:Stereo cards of Washington, D.C., though it is on several of its subcategories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a Mediawiki API bug to me: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27317 --DieBuche (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I can confirm it is not working for this category (maybe the "."?!) on FF 3.6. Other categories work - more or less smoothly. I would prefer a link in the toolbox instead of a button on the page since I do not need it often. And the color of the button is depending on personal taste. ;) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not bad, though the preview size is significantly smaller than the preview size is if you were to click on an image. I think it should be a tad bit larger, and I do not see how one can get to the full size image from the slideshow. The slideshow still needs some improvement, though once its glitch free it should be released for unlogged in readers to use by default. Passionless (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PD query

This image uses the (Chinese) WP logo as a background (which is a nice idea in many ways). The logo is not PD, can the image therefore still be pd? Rich Farmbrough, 14:07 10 February 2011 (GMT).

COM:DW → no. By the way: for me the map with the logo in background looks ugly and it reduces re-usability dramatically. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I've marked it and others by the uploader with similar problems with {{WikimediaCopyrightWarning}}. Some have the Wikipedia logo while others have the Wikipedia name in the background in English and Chinese. This appears to be an attempt by the uploader to limit use to Wikipedia/Wikimedia even if allowed licensing will not permit such a restriction to be made. – Adrignola talk 16:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Those images are unfree without any need for it. Maybe they should even be deleted as we do not host unfree content. I wrote the uploader a message (and a notification in his home wiki). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculus

This picture File:Dünen in De Haan.JPG has been uploaded in 2006 and nobody bothered to turn the image. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, well, you didn't tag it with {{Rotate}} either, after you discovered the problem. I've already done so. People are uploading hundreds if not thousands of images every day. I'm not surprised if a few dodgy ones slip through the cracks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I was to fast. The picture has been turned but under another name File:De Haan Duenen.JPG. Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, then replace the {{Rename}} tag with a {{Duplicate}} tag. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

February 11

Permission field in the template {{Information}}

The file upload script now defaultly places the licence templates below the infobox {{Information}}, although that has a special field for them. This behaviour should be changed so that the templates could be localised in the appropriate field.

The template {{Information}} now also defaultly shows the field Permission with the indication "See below", even if nothing was embedded. The field maybe should be omitted provided the permission template is below and nothing other is written in the field. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The topic was discuted more times ([8], [9], [10]) but never has been really executed any change.

In my opinion, it's very silly and ugly to have an always displayed field which is only rarely used, whereas the information, which the field should contain, is somewhere below. It is just the Permission field in the template {{Information}}. Somebody arguments that the licence information can be long and therefore unsightly in the box, I think the location out of the field looks much worse; besides, also other items can be long, despite of that there are not excluded out of the {{Information}} template, moreover preserving its proper field.

In the past discussions, there appeared an opinion that only broad consensus can be an impulse for such a change, although I do not know who concretely may and can execute it (especially what regards the upload script). Hopefully this is the right place to gain a broad agreement, or maybe vote about the affair.

Possible solutions

  • Adjust the upload script and set the Permission field behaviour: Adjust the upload script so as it may place the licence templates to the Permission field in the template {{Information}}, set the template {{Information}} in order that it shouldn't display the Permission field, if nothing is entered there (useful especially for already uploaded files).
  • Just adjust the Permission field behaviour: Let the upload script in the current form but adjust the template {{Information}} in order that it shouldn't display the Permission field, if nothing is entered there (no "See below" indication).
  • Just adjust the upload script: Adjust the upload script so as it may place licence templates to the Permission field in the template {{Information}}, let the template behaviour in the present form.
  • Create an apart Licence field: Create an apart Licence field and automatically place the licence templates there (more exactly distinguish licences and permissions).
  • Preserve the current situation: The upload script places the licence templates under the infobox {{Information}}, the field Permission is displayed even not having been filled in, with the notice "See below".
    •  Support At the beginning it take me some time to understand that I realy can edit file description pages, the sections for summary and license helped me to uderstand this. Aslo sections provide edit links from Wikipedia, so preserve this. Pressing license tags in the information box will decrease the readability of metadata, make it more complicated for new users to edit that part of the metadata that they can edit. And pressing boxes into boxes will not look very inteligent. Maybe the "see below" is dispensable or replacable with a more elgant note that uses the section headings and links to #Licensing, but I'd not take the unecessary "see below" as a reason to make the source code more complicated and more surprising for people who not know anything about templates (the majority of users). --Martin H. (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

If somebody wants to read: I had the same discussion some days ago here: User_talk:Bdk#hm.._gleichfalls (in German). --Saibo (Δ) 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that everyone neglects the problem, even including the administrators, that require a wide discussion to execute any change (duly justified) but do not participate in the discussion themselves. Maybe in several years the situation will improve. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Look for example at the file Výroba rohlíku (3).jpg: localisation of the licence informations below the infobox and the empty Permission field there forced the uploader to redundantly repeat in the field the information about the source and even about licences. It can be quite confusing for a visitor, not always is the licence name repeated correctly like here. Wouldn't this version be much better? --Petrus Adamus (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Dating a picture

I would like some help in dating a unusual picture (File:Mer de Glace 1900.orig.jpg and cropped File:Mer de Glace 1900.jpg). From the context it could be anywhere from 1879 to before WWI. Does anyone know when it was normal to put pictures on cardboard? The prints where probably not stiff enough at the time. This could also be a practical solution by a local photographer. Does the dresses give any clue? The seem to be going on a city walk except for the long walking sticks. They probably lodge at the hotel and came by train or mule. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I would dare something s 1905/1906 clothing with a 1905 hat for the woman, but apart from her nobody seems to be dressed in a fashionable way (and even in her case it doesn't look that sophisticated). There are two more figures there with "dresses" that, at least to my eyes, look like peasant men in traditional clothing (unless that's a really ugly woman). The remaining two men are not especially distinct, that's a strange group of fellows. Don't know if this would help, just my 5 cents.-- Darwin Ahoy! 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I notice that woman are probably wearing corsets to get the wasp bodyshape. (or it could be the big skirts) Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


I would search for other photos "edition R. & J. D." with a similar number. /Pieter Kuiper 15:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
And/Or look up the best-fitting Wikipedia articles (about fashion, photography, whatever) and find out the main contributors... and then ask them on their respective user talk pages. Sometimes they know quite a bit or know whom to ask. Another option with more of a hit-and-miss chance: Ask at the Wikipedia reference desk (or even more appropriate online forums). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Dating with fashion is very uncertain. Some people dress up in the "old fashion" and there are strong local variations. I wil try to get some local historian to date the buildings in the background. I wil try the French wikipedia. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it is possible that they were using old clothing indeed. The best way would be finding out if the R. & J. D. numbering has any meaning, as well as trying to date the buildings in the background according to their wearing (erosion).-- Darwin Ahoy! 10:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Fashion is good for establishing a lower bound (if you see someone wearing a screen-print T-shirt, you know the picture wasn't taken in the 1800s), but can't be used to establish an upper bound. --Carnildo (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Technically 'in use' vs common sense 'in use' (also, Indonesian speakers wanted)

I cannot quite believe this is how Commons intends to work, so I want to outline a particularly bizarre incident I am involved in, which to me looks like an amazing case of process wonkery.

It regards these two images:

  • Image 1
    Image 1
  • Image 2
    Image 2

Right. If you don't click on these images, you probably won't notice the difference. However, if you do, you'll see that image 1 is an example of a decent, usable image, which would be of use to other projects, and Commons users, and image 2 is a poor, out of focus image, of use to nobody. Per my understanding of the deletion policy, I put the poor one up for deletion (I read the DP as saying we can delete the poor image if nobody can give a good reason in the ensuing deletion discussion as to why the particular inferior image needs to be here, given the replacement's existence). However, in my attempt to do so, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:TFLMuseumBus.JPG, I have been frustrated at every turn. First, the uploader of the image wrongly closed the discussion himself, arguing it is some kind of valuable historical image about the use of camera phones, even though it's not used in that way anywhere. Then it was closed a second time, as it was in use. I rectified that by replacing it on the articles where the uploader had managed to place it, and (probably due to the fact the poor quality is not visible in the thumbs), nobody had noticed it before. However, the uploader has also managed to use it in the Wikimedia logo mosaic, in which on my screen, this individual image is displayed as a 7mm by 7mm tile - hardly educational, or remotely relevant to the subject. I replaced it there with the decent image, just incase anyone thinks its important that that particular tiny square needs to be of a bus, but any similar couloured replacement would be fine as far as I can see, (as the documention actually advises you to do if you intend to delete one of its components). This mosaic use has been reverted however by someone on the Indonesian Wikipedia (with no explanation), and later by someone here, on the Commons version (also with no explanation). So the deletion request was closed a second time, as it was in use on "two projects" (which at the time was technically only one - the Indonesian mosaic, the other usages being irrelevant user galleries. The re-addition to the Commons mosaic came after the closure, so now I guess it is 'in use' on 2 projects, but of course, for the same reason - being in the mosaic). Also, somehow this process is now being painted as "three deletion attempts", although obviously it is only two, neither of which has actually even discussed the reason for nomination yet.

We are here now because I have complained to that closing admin (Zscout370) making the points above, but he is having absolutly none of it. He is adamant that WP:SCOPE allows this sort of process wonky interpretation of 'in use' as regards the deletion policy, and apparently while the mosaic usage exists, discussion of whether this image is needed here to actually show what this bus looks like, when we have ample better, usable, replacements, is simply not going to be allowed to happen. I think this is utterly absurd - it simply cannot be right that this image must remain here forever, at risk of being used in articles where it should never be used (which is how I first came to realise it existed), just because I cannot seem to get it replaced in the mosaic. Anyone who can speak Indonesian is welcome to investigate why I was reverted there originally, but it would still leave the issue of why I was reverted on the mosaic version here also much later by someone else involved in the deletion discussion, who seems to only now be interested in winding me up by further gaming this 'in use' idea, to maintain a poor image here, and not have to justify it. I tried to note this situation on the poor image page's talk page, for the benefit of anyone who might be misled into thinking this was being hosted here as our only available image, but that was removed by the closing admin, who accused me of trolling, and is threatening to block me for this outrageous crime, which is seemingly a hundred times worse a crime on Common than putting articles at risk this way. I was going to drop the whole issue, but that frankly just tipped me over the edge as far as how outraged I am at the whole absurdity of this entire episode, so I'd like a sanity checking reassurance (or utterly depressing confirmation) that people think this is really how Commons should be using its rules to further its mission. I think this is a straight up case of enforcing the letter, rather than the spirit, of the law.

If the intention is to keep it as some historical part of the mosaic, or as some sort of educational tool about how badly camera phones can be used to take out of focus shots, I've really no objection to that, as long as the image is kept in an appropriate place, away from the categories for the actual usable images of this vehicle. If not, it's frankly impossible to tell from just browsing that this category contains pointless and unusable images. Commons is, to my mind anyway, not here to waste people's time like that. And while it is here, whatever category it is in, there is still the risk that someone might unknowingly use it in an article somewhere by not finding it through the category system, and then not noticing other ones exist, to the obvious detriment of article quality. I was frankly disgusted when I saw this being used in an article, but at least I have the know how to be able to rectify that situation. God knows how many readers saw this and don't, and just thought this is just what Commons thinks is a worthwhile educational image (and if this really were our only image of it, which it is not by a long shot, it is so bad I would have gladly made a special trip to the museum to take one personally). But my willingness to help the projects in these ways is waning tbh, having had to go through this farce, and be threatened for my trouble, as if the SCOPE really was written to allow situations like this to develop, and end up with this conclusion after a deletion discussion. So please, give me hope that it is not, or send me on my way to find a more worthwhile and less infuriating use of my time. Ultra7 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"In use" is not part of SCOPE. The fact something is in use, or even was (short of vandalism or something), shows that is possible to use it in an educational context. That fact, plus the fact it is correctly licensed, means it is within scope and stays (no matter if we get better photos later). Change usages on wikis, by all means, but deletion from Commons is entirely different. We try to accumulate as many images as possible, and let others decided which one to use. We do not try to make value judgements, and we do not try to clear out unused photos. Use on wikipedias is also not the only rationale; other photos make expose other details on the subject which are of interest to someone in another situation or studying the subject in more detail, even if it is not the best choice for the wikipedia article. The above reads to me that you are trying to get someone else's work deleted because you don't like it, and nothing more. That is not the way Commons works, and yes we do keep seemingly inferior images. We gather as much as possible not the minimum which is needed. Carl Lindberg 17:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
TL;SR. Seconding Carl Lindberg. --Slomox (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
While I appreciate the lengths to which Ultra has gone (anybody who puts that much effort into the project deserves kudos), I agree with Carl's view. The first image is the much better one, but it's a slippery slope if we start deleting images based on our own subjective opinions of value or usability. Let the users of the Commons images make that call. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The only reason to keep such stuff is to keep the license documented for those who - for what reason ever - have reused it. Indeed the usefulness of an image isn't measured by its technical quality alone, but wouldn't it be of help to give our most amateur photographers some technical advice at last? An unexperienced casual snapper won't get something better with his mediocre cell phone cam under such lighting conditions and I'm sure he would appreciate some advice from our side. Shouldn't there be some help page or some kind of "how to" for useful pictures here on Commons? (If such thing exists it should be announced much more prominently.) All I can find is this but there's not a single word about technical aspects. (See also last comment on talk page) -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Carl, I know what Commons is for, you cannot dismiss this as simple IDONTLIKEIT, I take that as quite an insult. 99% of the images I've uploaded/transferred, are not in any other project that I know of, and many do have superior alternatives here, but they are still here precisely because they also show unique aspects too. And I would be more than happy to defend those in a deletion discussion if someone nominated any of those images as redundant on that basis - but the issue here is that discussion has been prevented from happening for this image. The simple fact is, there are simply no unique retrievable details in that image compared to the alternatives - only the number plate is even readable due to how out of focus it is. And per the policy, we are allowed to make value judgements on images which are poor and have adequate replacements - Redundant/bad quality: "Redundant or low quality files only get deleted on a case by case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests" - the 'case' in question is a discussion of the specific image's value, over the alternatives - and that has not been allowed to happen, simply by process wonkery of the defence of 'in use', which is actually referred to in SCOPE (as Zscout370 used in his explanations) under File in use in another Wikimedia project: "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose, as is a file in use for some operational reason such as within a template or the like. Such a file is not liable to deletion simply because it may be of poor quality: if it is in use, that is enough". From the paragraph above that, the clear caveat to that is that the use on the other project must be by definition, "providing knowledge; instructional or informative". The Indonesian mosaic is none of those things (it is after all just a local import of a Commons produced work) and that's not an editorial judgement - that's just a fact from looking at the mosaic, and realising it has nothing to do with the actual image's use, being as it is, just a tiny tile. Do people here honestly believe that the people who made that mosaic intended it to lock in every single image as undeletable? If so, why does it advise people to make a replacement if one of the tiles is to be deleted (as I did). Without Indonesian mosaic use to technically justify an automatic 'keep' on SCOPE, the file is absolutely a candidate for a deletion due to an editorial judgement of its quality, through a deletion discussion. If this isn't the case, then WP:D needs to be re-written. Ultra7 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you took it insultingly... and yes, your work is definitely appreciated. However, I still disagree with your interpretations. The only criteria is that images be "realistically useful for an educational purpose", and appropriately licensed. If they fail one of those two conditions, then it gets deleted, but that is almost always it. Once on the project, images should almost never be deleted. It helps nothing to do that. We always want more (and better) useful images. The "in use" part is basically a proof that a file meets the first condition (the "realistically useful" part). However, was once in use does the exact same thing. That unfortunate wording often makes people go around and remove usages, thinking that will change the status somehow, but it really doesn't. It is just as realistically useful for an educational purpose as it was before. Yes, you can nominate things for deletion -- but usually, "redundant" is taken to be *very* narrow -- either exact duplicates, or a scaled down version, or an extremely similar photo taken about the same place at the same time (and even then, maybe not). They are a case by case thing only... but if people raise an objection, they will almost always be kept. Generally, there is virtually no downside to keeping such photos, and there is a large downside -- it was used in articles (meaning deletion breaks people looking at old versions of the article, as they cannot tell what image was once in place), we never know who across the internet is linking to it (we can break them), and it's even a part of the current mosaic -- you may think that is a waste of time, but someone spent a lot of time on it, and there is no reason to make people do extra work on it to maintain it. Any one of those far, far outweighs any benefit of deleting this file. So yes, that should automatically mean we keep all 500 or so of those images, unless there is a copyright issue. We normally only delete if it should never have been uploaded in the first place.
One old DR I commented on is Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Neustrelitz_Stadtkirche.JPG, and my opinion hasn't changed at all. There are multitudes of aspects where different photos can be useful -- taken at different times, or from different angles, or in different seasons, or in different weather conditions, or have different licenses, etc., etc. That one shows some of the surrounding objects, which may be of use for someone trying to determine what was on display in that museum in early 2010. It doesn't always have to be of use directly for the central object -- background or other details can be interesting too. In short, you have given excellent reasons to replace the image on wikipedia articles, but still no good reason for deletion (a much more extreme step). I'm sorry that you feel downright angry about seeing lower-quality photos in categories which don't help a given single purpose, but that is what they are there for... providing many more photos of a subject, in case they are useful for some other purpose. We should always err on the side of keeping images. If an editor chooses to use a seemingly-inferior image, that is their choice -- so change the image if need be, but please do not try to get images deleted, thus removing that choice. That is why we should add commons links to wikipedia articles, so editors can periodically check to see if better images have been uploaded -- that is a natural process of editing. If categories get so big as to be unbrowseable, then we subcategorize more and/or make a gallery with the best ones. Deletion is hardly ever an option, particularly when something is in use, when it was in use on a number of articles, or when uploaders (who spend as much time as you) want to keep it. I would have probably speedy kept that one as well. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
This post is way too big. Why are you wasting your time and our time on this? The image is in scope and was kept. Get over it. Multichill (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm wasting my time on this because I have to deal with editors like this uiploader who think their out of focus images are worth stuffing into articles when there are superior replacements, and more importantly, because the deletion policy is CRYSTAL CLEAR that redundant and poor images can be deleted after discussion. You haven't even read my post, WHICH IS ALL ABOUT SCOPE, and yet you are here sticking your arrogant oar in, telling me it's in scope and to 'get over it'. Yes, with input like that, infact I do wonder why I waste my time dealing with people like you. Ultra7 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You wrote 1,750 words here. That's too long to be classified as a short-short story. Sorry, but tl;dr seriously comes into play here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Since when was there a rule on how long a comment here can be? I can't see anything in the notes at the top. We can't complain just because of how long it is, it's pointless, if you don't want to read it, don't read it. I can't really see how you can explain the situation without using words. Complaining about it is just irrelevant to the discussion.
Seriously though, being annoyed when an image gets deleted that you really didn't want to be deleted is one thing: You'll never get it back. However, an image you want to be deleted that survives a deletion request is much less of an issue. Forgetting the whole issue of the deletion requests and everything else, if we go to the root cause (this image not being deleted) there is only one problem: A risk of it being used in an article. I don't see this as a massive problem, as there's limited scope for what articles this image can be used on, anyone looking to put it on an article will in all likelihood chose the superior image, and the file page lists where it is used, so you can keep an eye on it. Arriva436talk/contribs 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule on how long a comment can be; the point was not that he was breaking a rule, but that he was failing to communicate. Having read more of it, it just confirms my original belief; that had he been forced to write a terse message, he would have communicated to his readers much better. It's rambling, repetitious, and it obscures his main points under a slurry of side notes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You win some, you lose some. I've had serious copyright issues go against my best judgment; you have to just walk off and let it alone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe in In Use being in scope as an iron rule. We piss off enough users from other Wikiprojects who find their images getting moved to Commons and then deleted. We absolutely should not be deleting images that they've actually chosen to use, except for legal/license reasons. Doing so hurts our effectiveness as a tool of the real Wikiprojects, which is really what we are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I like parts of what you said but I disagree about the and then not noticing other ones exist part. If people are unable to look at the picture at a proper zoom size, I think we can't help it. Helping people beyond this is, in my view, overly paternalistic. Let people who want to do the mistake of reusing that pic do that mistake. Doing mistakes is part of freedom. And they'll learn from it. But in order to help people know about Commons' categories where they have an opportunity to find other pictures on the same topic, I have always been an advocate of A) putting categories at the top of the page (instead of the bottom) (instead of having a gadget putting the categories at the top, we should have the categories at the top by default and a gadget to put them at the bottom in user preferences) ; B) Have Commons' categories be visible on Wikipedia File pages. As a temporary measure, I add the category name in the |other versions= field of the information template (which is visible from Wikipedia) diff. Teofilo (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
We have 8,5 million images, counting. I wish we had time to cherry-pick the best images we want to keep (overlooking here whether we should do it), but we honestly don't. Please check Category:Commons backlog and you'll understand better why some users feel you are wasting time here.
And I concur with Prosfilaes about keeping in use files and avoiding pissing off projects (though I would argue we are a project in our own right, and not merely a tool for "real wikiprojects", but this is definitely part of our mission) . Jean-Fred (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Ultra7 here. That image is not realistically useful under any reasonable definition of the term. Simply having once been in use on a project is not sufficient, as simple vandalism and lack of oversight can result in a bad image being left in place for a long period of time. Interestingly, a similar case just arose at RfUndeletion: Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Naqshe Rostam Iran.JPG. Powers (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Also lots of bad images will clog up the cat's and make it difficult finding the good images. I also don't see any use for this image except maybe to illustrate blur as a result of long exposure ;) - Amada44  talk to me 14:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that - to my disappointment - the capacity of a picture to illustrate not blurring, but contre-jour was deemed a receivable argument to keep as "In Scope" 2 pictures I nominated for deletion : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Creative independence.jpg. Sounds like that the capacity of bad pictures to illustrate "badness" puts them "in scope". Teofilo (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a 3D object. We need at least 3 photos from different points of view for a minimal coverage. With the two pictures here, we are about at 1.5. --  Docu  at 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Redux

OK. Now I'm back from the naughty step for having snapped in response to that nice man Multichill, I've decided to just reboot the discussion by restating the basic points as briefly as I can, as I think some of the people who are interested in discussing it and have already responded, are missing some of the crucial details due to the original length. Thanks to those who have given general answers, but I really only came here to find out how this specific situation happened, and while I have no user page, I am not a n00b here by any stretch of the imagination, I've used Commons for ages, both in isolation, and for other projects, so I do actually think of myself as having a good grasp of what Commons is and is not for.

  • The deletion policy states that poor quality and redundant images can be put up for discussion
  • The said deletion discussion is supposed to be about defending that particular image (or why even have it?)
  • There is an image here of obvious poor quality, and there are numerous better quality replacements
  • The poor quality image does not contain a single thing not deduceable from the replacements
  • The poor quality image will never be used in any article, it really is that bad
  • The only person who ever tried to use it, was the uploader
  • The deletion discussion was simply closed because the poor image is 'in use' on another project, and thus in scope
  • That 'use' is now only as a tile in the Wikimedia logo mosaic, both here and Indonesian Wikipedia's local import
  • This mosaic is not an educational use of this image, it's barely even a 'use' - the tile is 7mm by 7mm on my screen
  • The mosaic images can be replaced if deleted - but I was reverted in both, with zero explanation
  • Because of this literal interpretation of 'in use', and the reverts, the deletion policy about quality is being ignored
  • If this image is not deleted, it stays in the categories about this vehicle
  • In those categories, it is indistinguishable from usable images without opening it
  • If this image is not deleted, it can (and was by the uploader) used in articles on other projects
  • In those articles, it's uselessness is only apparent after you open it
  • If this image is not deleted, it takes up space (8 times the space of its closest good replacement infact)

Also, as Multichill so nicely asked above, why am I bothered? Well, in my opinion, those last five points annoy both Commons users, readers and editors of other projects, and finally also donors, and therefore, I think that how this has managed to happen does warrant a proper explanation/justification, if Commons does want to be seen as a grown up and responsible Wikimedia project, rather than a dogmatic follower of rules and web host of people's unusable holiday snaps. Ultra7 (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the contracts we have with the other Wikimedia projects is that we won't delete files they're using except for license or legal reasons. There are a number of complaints that we do delete their files without good reason. How exactly does breaking that contract make us look more "grown up and responsible"?--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, I am not interested in hearing the general case. I am well aware of that contract, and I am well aware that it is justified in 99% of cases. I want to hear you justify how it makes sense for this specific case, given these specific facts, namely - the only user of the image was the uploader, the only use of the image on another project is as a subject irrelevant 7mm by 7mm square tile in a mosaic, and it only got there because that is a local copy of the mosaic which was actually a Commons production in the first place!. Nobody is going to complain if this image is deleted as long as it is replaced in the mosaic with one of the better replacements, nobody would even notice infact, that's a simple basic fact, and that would be what I call the sensible, grown up way to handle this situation, rather than to simply keep insisting we do not ever delete images except for license/legal reasons, which is infact false, per the actual policy. Ultra7 (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
We do not delete images in use except for license/legal reasons. And one reason this rule is great is because the value in deleting that photo is far less then the value in the time spent discussing it. Another is, it's an external contract, and you follow the letter of an external contract so the other party doesn't have grounds to complain. Your "sensible, grown up way" to handle the situation has used way, way, too much time and energy for all involved then the value of deleting the photo. Making exceptions for the 1% in this case just ain't worth it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Your points seem purely hypothetical/dogmatic. I think you don't see any value in discussing this, because you aren't personally affected. It seems to be a case of out of sight, out of mind. There is value in deleting the photo, to those who are already directly affected by its existence, or who will in future if they work in this field. Are you able to put yourself in that position, or not? It's a well known fact in the real world, that even if you have just 1% of poorly handled cases, this has a disproportionate effect on perceived quality/competence of an organisation. Ultra7 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If you think you're personally affected by it, walk away. No single image is worth getting stressed out over. We are not a collection of high quality media. We just aren't; we have postage-sized pictures of paintings; we have my photographs, etc. I've been frustrated by the quality of my pictures inside the Harvard Museum of Natural History, but they're better then anything we had before I uploaded them. Our reputation is based on us having good coverage, not always good pictures. Wal-Mart can sell a lot more junk then Apple Stores can, because Apple Stores have built their reputation on quality and Wal-Mart on cheapness; Wal-Mart selling cheap junk is not a poorly handled case for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know all of that, but the argument here is that the image is now redundant. If it ever was our best work of this scene at one point (which I doubt), it most certainly isn't now. The situation we have now, to use your analogy, is that Commons is acting more like the kind of supermarket which creates a cheap and cheerfull brand, to sell alongside the mainstream quality. But where the analogy fails is that Commons is not a place where the 'customers' are going to willingly choose the inferior product, if the better one is on the shelf. And to take it further, if they can't even see the better one because the shelf is crammed with the low quality products they don't want, simply gathering dust because the workers decided it just wasn't worth throwing them away, then that is when the customer is probably going to complain to the manager. Ultra7 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
To continue this analogy, customers are buying this particular product, and we're concerned they will complain to us if we stop carrying it. If the shelf is crammed with low-quality products they don't want, then why are they buying them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Again, you are arguing hypothetically. This specific image is not being 'bought' by anybody in this case. Ultra7 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Several of your statements are incorrect. Yes, you can certainly nominate it for discussion. And other people can disagree with the nomination and close as keep. There are always special cases, but by and large, we will keep them unless they are the same image, or virtually the same. This is not, and was closed per process. Don't keep re-opening it. The image contains several things not deducible from the other images. They may be of seemingly minor importance, but they may be for somebody. As for never being used in an article anymore, yes you are probably right. Commons exists for many more reasons than that though -- again, you are looking at this from your perspective, and your perspective alone. You don't appear to care about any other purposes. Including, obviously, the mosaic. Replacing it in the mosaic is already far too much trouble to delete it. let alone that it was in use in articles and it is good to keep it just for historical sake. You claim the mosaic is not educational -- I would disagree. Again, a matter of perspective. If it is not deleted, yes of course it stays in the categories of the vehicle, which where it belongs. The deletion policy on quality is only for really, really bad -- worse than this. I.e., not usable at all. You are misinterpreting the guideline. This is merely a mediocre choice for an article, far from unusable -- as you say, at small resolution like most articles are, it is OK. It would be bad for print, which is why others are probably preferable. If others want to use it in an article for whatever reason though, they should have that choice. They can see the alternatives. If other editors disagree and change it, fine. That's what editors are for. All images should still be here if anyone wants them. If its "uselessness" is only apparent after you open it... it's not "useless". It is less useful, but not useless. A small resolution image is better than nothing, but now that we have better, sure, use the others. And lastly, deleting an image does not free up any space at all. The image is still here, forever, just visible to admins only. Really, deleting it causes lots of small aggravating problems, and possibly big ones by pissing off other contributors who have uploaded the images and want them to stay here for whatever reasons, and keeping it causes no issues at all. Please change your interpretation of "low quality" to "not even usable at low resolution", and "redundant" to "taken by the same person at the same time from the same angle with the same license" -- those are the ones we tend to delete. We may have higher leeway if the authors themselves want it to be deleted, but will be even more apt to keep it if the author wants it to stay, which apparently happened here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Stop unjustifiably questioning my motives please, I use Commons both in its own right, and for other projects, I know full well what this project is for. I never said this was usable at low resolution, I said its uselessness was not noticable at low resolution, which is a crucial difference if the goal is not deception of Commons users or readers/editors on other projects. If you think there is something in this particular image that is not in others - point it out. If you think this is educational in the mosaic, in a way that a near identical and non-fuzzy replacement isn't - then please explain how. Otherwise, these points seem purely hypothetical. Your perception of this image is way off imho (either that or you must work in a field where mediocre images are the norm), and there is a replacement from the exact same angle. This image really really is not useful or usable in any way given the replacements, even at thumb size, there's no way a competent editor would ever select it for use, ever. Enabling incompetent usages is not something we do, surely? This is the single reason why nobody but the uploader has ever used it. The deletion policy does not just cover completely unusable images - poor images which can be replaced with no loss of educational value are deletable too, because educational value is the purpose of Commons, even for the majority of images which are not being used elsewhere. We are not here to act as a historical archive of those images that have been replaced elsewhere either - if we are, please show me this policy. I don't see how the time it was taken is relevant, not for this situation (again, do not simply assume I do not deal with these issues day in day out here in this topic field, I do). In terms of licensing, it's the uploader's rather optimistic belief that people are going to use his out of focus camera phone pics commercially, that ironically actually makes his license the most restrictive of the lot. Fair point on the size issue, I am astounded. But if size does become an issue, not fixable by further donations, I'm pretty sure replaceable poor images will be first in line for space-saving permanent erasure. Ultra7 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As for usage: images may be used through mw:InstantCommons by countless other wikis without our knowledge (and good for them, it's here for them to use). Deletion here might break stuff over there. Don't be too quick to say that an image is not used : there is simply no way to know that for sure. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
All of those sites look to be educational, which only makes the thought that they are using this image, all the more depressing. Ultra7 (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not questioning your motives -- it's my opinion that your interpretations are wrong. Yes, we are certainly here as an historical archive -- we should not be deleting images for reasons like this. Bury them deeper in categories, fine, but not deletion. The chances are small that it will be of use, but it's always possible, and deletion is basically assuming it won't be useful in any situation, ever again. Could it be replaced in the mosaic? Sure, but why bother? I have mentioned a program which takes 2D photos and creates 3D models from them (old link here). The more photos, from the more angles, the better -- hundreds or thousands. Every little bit helps, and Commons could be a particularly good source for stuff like that, since almost anywhere else may be a derivative work copyright issue, but here we have a chance on that part. Perhaps someone is trying to do a 3D model of all the displays in the museum, so you could "walk" through it virtually. This photo shows the car to the left, while your "identical" replacement does not, so if I was trying to determine relative placement, this blurry one is much better. It doesn't show the central object better, no, but that is not always the purpose -- that is the main point I'm trying to make. Over time, people can figure out interesting ways to make use of stuff like this -- for example, I think there are variations on that 3D modeling stuff now to order the photos by time, and show changes in the subject over time. So, a similar photo of an area two years later is actually informative -- it shows what has and has not changed in between. Deleting photos is destroying information; don't do it except under extreme circumstances. My opinion is that you are looking at this only from the perspective of providing an illustration of the bus. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Not that I have any objection with the scenario as a justification for new/extended scope for Commons, I seriously doubt this is the current consensus on the purpose of the COM:D#Redundant/bad quality section. The temporal argument could be used as a defence in every single deletion request ever made under it (as photographers cannot go back in time), and the scene argument could also be used in pretty much all of them (requiring exactly replicated camera positioning and aspects/fields is unrealistic to say the least). From where I'm sitting, what you've just argued is that this whole section of the deletion policy is never used. So, it should simply be removed, no? If not, why not? In what situation would a file ever be deleted under it? Bearing in mind that the section only applies to deleting images that were once considered good enough quality to be in scope in the first place (because if they weren't, that is handled by COM:D#Regular deletion, or even speedy deletion if they are just nonsense). In addition, the idea that two identical images taken at different times are not infact identical, is not exactly supported by COM:SCOPE#Discussion. Ultra7 (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been the consensus as long as I remember. "Bad quality" is *really* bad quality, i.e., not even useful at low resolution (it does happen), or where any of the peripheral elements I mentioned before are not relevant. Redundant is for very, very similar photos (or identical ones). We even have .png (lossless) and .jpg (lossy) versions of the same photos in some instances; there is enough reason to keep both. Or, when someone does cleanup on an image -- the result is better than the original in almost every way, but we will keep the original for comparison and history purposes as well. As that section says, deletion for the above reasons is a case-by-case basis always, and quite often it will be kept. It really can depend on the subject matter... say a bird with random leaves in the background, there really is nothing else educational in the photo but the subject, so that is likely a different situation when it's blurry (and of course there is much less value for photos in different years there as well). The decision may also be different for recent uploads when we already have very good coverage on a topic, as opposed to older ones which once were the best that we had (there is value in preserving older article states). These are all very much case by case, and depend on the specifics surrounding each one. When nominating for those reasons, do not be surprised when they are kept, particularly when the original uploader objects, or when someone else sees enough other educational aspects to keep it. (And, this one is usable at low resolutions -- if I was making say a collage, and only cared about a low-resolution version, this one may be the one which aesthetically fits the best.) We do have the template {{Superseded}} for cases where a replacement is better in basically every way (usually used for things like SVG versions of bitmap logos, or higher resolution versions of the same painting, but I've seen its use on photos every now and then). That tag was once used as a rationale for deletion, but that practice was stopped years ago for reasons like this. "Redundant" nominations have a pretty high keep rate, in my experience, though I don't frequent the DRs as much as I used to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm still pretty doubtfull that this really is the case. Even for birds, there is an argument that time and location is educational information suitable for a historical archive, if Commons really is to be a historical archive. Yes, old versions since cleaned up is a good case for historical retention, but it's not relevant in this case. Whether the uploaders wishes matter given his evident competence both at taking photos and using them, is also debatable in this specific case. Still, a core part of the issue is that, I have purely for dogmatic/beurocratic reasons alone over the definition of 'in use', not even been able to argue in the DR as to whether these arguments are/are not relevant. If you made the collage case for example, can you see anybody really accepting that for this specific image, given the actual replacements? Retaining superceded images simply to maintain old article revisions also seems to be a real stretch too, but it has some merit, say if that article was considered of good quality at that time. Again, would that be a justifiable defence in this specific case? I very much doubt it, given the only article the uploader managed to stuff it into, is already in a completely sorry state, and he placed it into a classic en.wiki MOS IMAGE violating 'gallery', deprecated long ago because they have historically done nothing for articles except attract the exact sort of poor quality addition as it did here, where the image is only ever added by the uploader, and more often than not completely ignoring the already extant superior options, as they of course will always think that their photo is the best photo. Sometimes that's arguable, in this case, it's not at all. It would only seem to have historical value as a 'how not to do it' lesson. Ultra7 (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems while uploading

I keep getting "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still does not work, try logging out and logging back in.", logging out and back in doesn't fix it nor does clearing my cookies. My internet connection is solid but the errors keep happening more times then I can upload, which is really becoming frustrating. Bidgee (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really a solution - but you could try Special:UploadWizard instead of the upload form. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the UploadWizard, takes more time and I can't add {{Cc-by-sa-2.5-au}}. Bidgee (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll try to be as polite as possible... One problem with the "wizard" is that it is very shy about reporting tech problems to the user. The standard upload form defaults back to "It's freedom" error screen after each failure, whether it's broken connection or double spaces in file name. Sometimes it takes too much time, but at least the unmistakeable freedom message says it very clearly. The "wizard" just "gets over it" and keeps the uploader in the dark - whether it had, indeed, uploaded all 99 files, or not, and which are missing. Kinda strange to see this behaviour in a tool for batch uploads. NVO (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
You misunderstood me - my comment was a workaround proposal for a technical problem - nothing more.
You can comment the wizard here: Commons:Usability issues and ideas. By the way: I am also not very happy with it (see my older "story" at the linked page. But let's do not discuss it here in the wrong section/place. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Help for Aperture users

Anyone got any suggestions for making the contribution process to Commons more seamless for users of Apple's Aperture? It has built in modes for publishing stuff to Flickr, Facebook and MobileMe. Anyone built a plugin for uploading to Commons? Or anyone got suggestions for how to specify in the metadata system on Aperture that something has been posted on Commons, and perhaps storing a URL in there saying "hey, this image is on Commons at such-and-such a URL"? —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a URL in the metadata used to break the upload process and produce an error, so you might want to avoid that. The only upload tool I know of is Commonist, it's not what you're looking for, but you might find it useful if you`re uploading a large number of files. Regrds, -- Orionist ★ talk 10:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

February 12

Signs and inscriptions by language

Please notice and join the discussion Category talk:Inscriptions by language#Inscriptions?. There exist many technologies and many themes of inscriptions, letterings, text signs, text plaques etc. but we have only two category trees related to photos of such objects by language: Signs by language and Inscriptions by language, and nothing other similar. I think, these two themes have something in common with one another, in contrast to other subcategories "by language". We need some specific category which can contain all images of texts which are really placed somewhere, distinguished from books, paper documents and electronic writings. However, some similar "real letterings" can be neither "inscription" nor "sign" in the strict sense but something of that kind. Have you some idea what is the best common name for all such images? (I am sorry for my imprecise English, I cannot find the right English word.) --ŠJů (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm often puzzled by what should be cat as inscription and what should be cat as sign. My understanding is that sign is mainly an image, while inscription is mainly focused in the text, but "street signs", for instance, are mainly text. I don't know as well where to classify an informative placard in a point of tourist interest. And there are also the "plaques" which can be both inscription and sign. :(
I've added that discussion to my watch list, but unfortunately I'm out of ideas to improve the current state of things.-- Darwin Ahoy! 03:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

CatCheck

Some veteran editors need to look into this (Category:Media needing category review and subcats). Problem is, CatCheck a) creates extreme maintenance workload while b) interfacing badly with Commons and making usually suggestions that are complete and utter nonsense (see File:Euryapteryx curtus.jpg for a lineup of the most common errors).

The situation at present is that CatCheck generates on average several dozen requests per day, of which at least half (very cautiously; in my experience it's about 90% or more) are false positives. The backlog is much more than 100,000 media files, each of which needs manual review and template removal.

It does not seem that the daily workload accumulated by CatCheck stands in any sensible proportion to the workforce available to fix it, particularly considering the amount of false positives (i.e. the time spent is mostly wasted on removing nonsense suggestions, with very few actual categorization improvements being made). Hence, it would be a good idea to completely and radically abandon this entirely misguided scheme, at least until the most severe flaws in CatCheck are fixed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) To which "entirely misguided scheme" are you referring to? The files had no categories, after the tool assigned guessed ones the files in some cases have useful ones and get picked up and manually corrected by editors knowing the specific category tree. I do not see what's bad on the current system. Yes, there is a huge backlog .. but it does not really hurt that it is that big. If we switch off the cat guessing all files would be completely uncategorized and we could not make use of the specific skills of our workforce. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding your example: what's bad on this guess - it's pretty good: Extinct birds and a fossil category. So people who know this area of expertise can cat the file. Perfect. Without the tool first someone would need to add a category bird and bones. And then a knowing person could categorize further. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The tool (bot) only adds categories to images which would otherwise remain uncategorized. The images couldn't otherwise be found through categories. As such, I think it's a good idea.
File:Euryapteryx curtus.jpg was categorized based on its use in en:North_Island_Broad-billed_Moa and it:Euryapteryx_curtus and the categories these articles are in.
The one category that probably shouldn't have been added is Category:Regional WikiProjects as it isn't a topical one. To prevent this from happening in the future, it could be added to User:Multichill/Category blacklist.
I'm not sure how many people actually remove Template:Check categories when cleaning up categories. If this isn't done routinely, it might not be worth adding it to file description pages. Those who don't want to view the template can add .checkcategories {display: none;} to Special:MyPage/vector.css. --  Docu  at 07:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Neither "Regional WikiProjects" nor "North Island Broad-billed Moa" nor "Atlas of Oceania" nor "Birds of New Zealand" nor "New Zealand / Aotearoa" nor "Aves" are appropriate categories for this image. The only "correct" suggestion CatCheck made in this case is "Euryapteryx curtus", but this category does not exist. Thus, 7 suggestions with an error rate of 100%. This is definitely "entirely misguided" in my understanding. (FWIW, the correct categories for the image would be "Dinornithidae" and/or "Dinornithidae bones"; CatCheck did not suggest any of these. So we end up with 7 false positives and 1-2 false negatives and 0 correct positives). Another case of egregious errors is File:Archaeoraptor.jpg - again, 6 suggestions, 100% error rate, while the image is categorized perfectly well already. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you took the time to read thoroughly what I wrote. You are confusing Wikipedia articles and categories with Commons categories. BTW, please avoid inserting your comments within mine. --  Docu  at 14:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I consider this tool as a good and useful idea. However, the algorithm should be improved over and over again to preclude senseless suggestions and to discover more effective ways of searching. A link to the documentation of the searching algorithm should be available in the template and at the category page. --ŠJů (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I regularly browse "Media needing category review" and, IMO, around one half of auto-categorizing is correct - more categories may be added, but none needs removal. So the bot is not completely hopeless. There's a larger problem - this backlog swamp is a sea of copyvios, blatant and not-so-blatant. I'd say, 3/4 are deletion firewood (YMMV). A person doing category review by the book can easily flood deletion requests, - where are the sysops when they're needed? NVO (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the tool puts files in root categories or meta categories, but that makes them easier to find and move to relevant sub-categories. It's true that not everyone removes the templates, and that's probably due to editors using HotCat and not willing to go to edit mode. So if there's a one-click method to remove them, maybe automatically throught HotCat, I think it'd help. -- Orionist ★ talk 09:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Hotcat should show a "remove cat check template" checkbox if a "check categories template" is detected in a image page. Then a simpe check is enough to remove the template with Hotcat. Hotcat already does this with "{{Uncategorized}}" - here of course without a checkbox as the template is "done" if any cat is added. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Definitely, that would be the absolute minimum that can be done. But also, to make CatCheck work, it would be nice to have it "understand" the differences between Wikipedia and Commons better (to prevent nonexistent foreign-language categories from being suggested), as well as a method to check whether the image is not actually in some subcategory of the suggested high-level categories already (to prevent main/top/high-level category suggestions). But the CategorizationBot+CommonSense combination manages to do just the same work (or can be easily tweaked to do it) while avoiding all these problems. The basic flaw of CatCheck is its assumptions that Wikipedia pages correspond to Commons categories in a 1:1 fashion (i.e. anything used on a particular Wikipedia page should be in the corresponding category of Commons). This is of course complete nonsense. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

No. CatCheck browses Wikipedia articles (and categories?) and proposes Commons categories based on Wikipedia image use. This is done unselectively, irrespective of how the image has been categorized already. I.e. perfectly categorized images like the Archaeoraptor example above get tagged for categorization in root categories all the time, and inexperienced users tend to follow such suggestions. The result is wrong recategorization of images that really require no further categorization at all.

Tagging of uncategorized images is done by User:CategorizationBot, which works fine. See Category:Media needing categories, which also has a huge backlog but in most cases this is entirely justified.

May I request all people who think that CatCheck should not be stopped to contribute an hour or two of their time to help and clean up the huge backlog at Category:Media needing category review by date? I'd think nobody is able to appreciate the scope of the problem if you have not actually worked on it yourself. It is pure and utter hell, a maintenance nightmare the scope of which is unparalleled in the history of Commons. Go there, do some work, you'll see soon enough what's wrong with CatCheck.

Even if assuming it takes as little as 5 seconds to review and process each CatCheck suggestion, we still have over 1,000 (closer to 1,500) person-hours of work waiting to be done; this increases by about half an hour of workload every day (assuming 5 seconds' work per file). Essentially, one human user is needed to do nothing other than review CatCheck to keep the backlog from growing. And even if half the CatCheck suggestions are correct, this still leaves half of the time being completely wasted to correct errors that should not have been made in the first place.

So, who is gonna be that user? Simply saying "oh it's a good thing every now and then" and ignoring the hours and hours of pointless this broken piece of code burdens upon Commons misses the point completely. The question is: does it save us human editors work, or does it create additional and unnecessary workload? and in this case, I think, the ratio is so clearly in disfavor of CatCheck that it should be halted, immediately, until it is improved, and if that is not possible it should be removed entirely.

In this regard, we have CategorizationBot, and we have CommonSense which work together and though they do make mistakes these are rarely so outrageous as those made by CatCheck. The problem is that CatCheck assumes Wikipedia use of an image maps well on the Commons category tree, which is absolutely not the case. CommonSense in combination with CategorizationBot does essentially what CatCheck does, but with a far lower error rate. Therefore, CatCheck is a redundant nuisance; it burdens Commons with a workload that is probably not manageable, most of which is nonsensical, and which can be handled far better by the other means already at our disposal. The time spent on cleaning up the CatCheck mess is better spent on cleaning up "Media needing categories"; given that this has about as large a backlog, the unfortunate truth is that we can handle either this or the CatCheck suggestions if anything, but we will not be able to handle both (both backlogs have been accumulating since 2008/2009). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by this discussion. There is no User:CatCheck that does anything. User:CategorizationBot adds categories from CommonsSense. The suggestions from CommonsSense are useful in many cases but can also be really wrong, so they need to be checked by humans. Therefor CategorizationBot adds a Template:Check categories to put files in Category:Media needing category review and links to the Wikipedia articles it used to find the category suggestions and to galleries here that might help to find better categories. /Ö 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
+1. At the example image mentioned by you File:Euryapteryx curtus.jpg there was an edit by CategorizationBot "Image is categorized by a bot using data from CommonSense". I was only referring to this tool/bot. If there is any other bot running "CatCheck"(?!) - then I am not aware of it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Linguistic issue: English everywhere

What I want to say can be resumed: "It's almost all in English!". Commons is suposed to be a multilingual Wikimedia project, but I always have to read it in English. When I come here, via Catalan Wikipedia, its apparently in Catalan, but then, wherever I click it turns to English. All the interface is in English, when I obvioisuly would like to be in my language. Besides when I upload files I always have to type the name of the categories I create in English, and if I don't know how it is named I have to look it for in a dictionary or a translator, or ask it. We are always relegated to English language. And I'm fed up with this. I'm tired of coming here -I just like to make photos of things related with my city and others, and disinterestedly upload them to Commons- and encounter this problem. I even don't know if most of just-english-speakers (monolingualists) realize of this reality: every day, people of everywhere in the world come here on Commons and meet with another language which is not his own. Just this. I would like you to respect mine and others language in equal conditions, for me and I guess a lot of more people this is a big problem. --Catalaalatac (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally, "?uselang=ca" should get you the interface in Catalan. It is included automatically for users coming from Català Wikipedia.
That aside, quite a lot around here is in English, obviously. --  Docu  at 12:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Go to my preferences and change your language to Catalan. It will display Catalan when available and English otherwise. By the way, it is not really the place to mention it, but wouldn't it be better for Catalan default to Spanish rather than English ?--Zolo (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
So if you would like to create an article on your Catalan wikipedia concerning the wall of China or the Catalan cultural centre in Russia, you would prefer all the related picture's texts end categories being in Chinese or Russian ? --Foroa (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
While Commons strives to be a multilingual project, due to present software limitations we have to have some content such as category names in a widely understood lingua franca. At present, it appears the consensus is that English is that lingua franca. It would not make sense to create separate categories with names in different languages for the same subject, as this would cause related images to be spread across different categories and make it very difficult for people to find images they want. Perhaps at a later stage the software will be developed so that there is multilingual support for category names. In the meantime, we welcome your participation in helping to translate pages, templates, etc., into Catalan. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Nja, det knepigaste är väl att alla mallar fungerar annorlunda än mot hur det ser ut hemma. Att namnrymder och projektsidor är så ovana. För att inte tala om alla wiki-förkortningar och att man känner en så liten del av gemenskapen. --- Lavallen (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel like being a small part of the community. But unfortunately these are the facts of life: english is understood by most contributors here. There is no point in complaining about it. What would you want me to do? Learn swedish or catalan? Sorry, the most economical solution is for minority speakers to try and adapt to the majority language, or at least stop complaining about it and continue contributing in their own language. There are automatic translation tools (see GoogleTranslate gadget in your preferences). --Dschwen (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
My advice! Do not put to much trust in "Google Translate". It may give you a hint about the subject, but no more! Swedish has many words in common with German, and has borrowed a lot of words from French and Latin. And on the TV, everything is in English. (Thanks Hollywood!) that is of much more help than Google translate! -- Lavallen (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Tough I have (or at least like to think that I have) a good command of the English language, I understand the frustration of Catalaalatac having to deal with English everywhere here. There is, however, a way to diminish that situation in categories, at least to some extent, with the creation of category redirects in the native language of the subject being categorized, pointing to the English named categories. That way it gets easier and more user friendly finding the proper category for people using that given language, which are expected to especially upload and categorize files in some way related to their language/country/region.
By the way, while I agree with creating categories named "Church of Nuestra Señora de las Nieves", I totally disagree with the entire translation to English, as in "Church of Our Lady of the Snow". It's total anathema to me reading such things, whatever the language they where translated from, it hardens the research on the subject by obfuscating it's real name, and in many cases there is a component of original research involved as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Place names should be treated differently from ordinary category names. I feel the rule should be that if there is a well-established English version of a place name, that should be used (e.g., "Category:Havana" rather than "Category:La Habana"). If there is no such version, then the name of the place in its original language should be used. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the "use english" rule for categories on the Commons is similar to the general "use english" rule on the English-language Wikipedia -- it does not mean that the words in a category name must invariably be in English; rather, it means that the title needs to be what an someone would most likely recognize as the usual name of the subject in actual English-language usage. Thus we have Category:Green areas in Paris or Category:Eiffel Tower (two examples where we use English, and not the local language in Paris, France), but we have Category:Avenue des Champs-Élysées (Paris) (where we use the French name, because that's the one that would be most common in English-language usage as nobody would say "Elysian Fields Avenue"). Not all terms, therefore, need to be completely translated into English as doing so would actually be contrary to English-Language usage. Where there is no established English-language usage, or usage is ambiguous, I would think you would stick to the actual name (with English-language modifiers, such as "Church of Nuestra Señora de las Nieves"), as that's most likely the approach an English-language publication or speaker would take.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but I don't see an easy solution. (There's an old Esperantist story that at the League of Nations, when the French voted down Esperanto, they were told that "if you don't want Esperanto, then you will get English!") One partial solution could be to make a list of translations of category names to Catalan on some page in Commons. I don't know how long exactly it will take, but you probably do have some idea. If you feel like it's too much to bite off, well, it's a critical part of any multilingualization of Commons category system. If we have such a list, we might be able to do some translation on the fly*, but the list alone will be useful, and it's the first step. The size of that step explains part of the reason why the category system is monolingual.
* It shouldn't be that impossible to translate categories on the fly like the interface. Naturally, the page text would have to be English, but things like the upload page and HotCat might be able to let you enter non-English categories and translate for you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It sort of works that way in HotCat with the category redirects. If the Catalan names of at least the most used categories of buildings, places, etc. are created as redirects, it helps native speakers of Catalan using Commons.-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, in many cases gallery pages can be created for non-English terms; they can be translated form English gallery pages already present, or the term can be made a redirect to the category. This is not a solution, but should in many cases be a sufficient fix.
I do not know if it is a good idea to copy gallery pages - that creates a redundancy and we need to maintain two pages. What about something like I tried at Collegiate Church of Quedlinburg? However - generally galleries here at Commons are often not maintained and outdated. I do not think the gallery system is a good idea except there are users for each gallery how donate time to keep them up to date. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that Commons should be based on a neutral language, such as Esperanto. Nevertheless, I do not know a way how to make the majority of contributors learn it in an applicable time.
Mi konsentas, ke la Komunejo devus esti bazita sur iu neŭtrala lingvo, kiel estas Esperanto. Tamen, mi ne konas manieron, kiel la plimulton da kontribuantoj lernigi pri ĝi dum uzebla tempo. --Petrus Adamus (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Öm en ba'a tála högt å löngɧamt så förɧtå alla ɧmålänska! - (Everybody understand Småländska, if you just speak loud and at slow speed.) -- Lavallen (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes very good, lots of knock about stuff, but there is a very serious point of accessibility here and particularly with Category names. Look at a parallel example, I have found a bird on an geograph image- it is called a Wheatear. I am using HotCat and want to put the little brown job into its category- Category:Wheatear. There isn't one- animal cats are in Latin. Tell where the thing goes? So frustrating that I don't bother. That is what it feels like if your home language is Catalan.
(Perdó no parle català) But this anglo-centric policy is stopping thousands of bilingual (Castillan/Catalan) children accessing the images that are available to English, Dutch and German children- images that would improve their schoolwork and possibly their futures. It also discriminates against the poor, as in most countries English is taught to the children of the elite in their private schools, making Wikpedia a tool for maintaining the status quo. Yes, generally limiting anything to English is a political decision.
When Commons was the domain of hobbyists- and there were only a few of us around- it had to be done this way- now, when Wikipedia is the world's principal source of peer reviewed infomation, we need to commission some software fixes so that Category names are language sensitive.
Many cats are of the form Category:Noun of Location- using the particle of/in as a trigger, a look up table could be used to translate the first part while holding the second. Top level categories could be fully translated while sub categories with out a trigger particle left untranslated.
It would then presumably be the responsibility of the project to maintain the lookup tables. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no project. There's only people. Just having a list of translations on a page would be a huge improvement and a necessary one. But it is a huge step. Let's see it done and then let's talk about software fixes.
Anything here is a political decision. Spending extra money and time to support multilingual systems is also a political decision. It's impossible to support an indefinite number of languages just by making more categories or category redirects (Quick: what is Category:Gift? Does it have gifts or poison?). So there's been a lot of calls for software, but nobody coming forward and offering a list of translations. Even most categories aren't translated at the top of the page, or are only translated into a few languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Error in naming File:Tintoretto, Jacopo - Pulcinella's Departure - 1797.jpg

The image is by Giandomenico Tiepolo.

I have changed the page information to fit, but the file name is there.

The odd thing about this error is that this image was downloaded from the Tiepolo section of the hu archive.

Was this the correct place to report this problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrytow (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to post queries here, but to request for a file to be renamed you should tag it with {{Rename}}. Click on the link for more information on how to use the tag. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

February 14

Hi,

can someone please talk some sense into User:Jcb. He thinks that it's right to close a valid and not unimportant DR because the uploaders were not informed this time (as it was the third DR in this matter you could think that all who want to participate in the DR already had it added to their watchlists) and thereby risking that copyvios remain on the project. Discussions were made on User talk:Jcb and Commons:Deletion requests/RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972. The current issue now seems resolved but he didn't show any sign that he understood his mistake so I fear he might do it again. Thanks --Isderion (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Why open a DR if you don't mention a reason for deletion and don't ask the creator to participate? --  Docu  at 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you didn't read the DR and the links completely. I did link to "good article" on the German Wikipedia which states that the works mentioned in the DR do not classify as official works and to thread on Commons:Forum where this view was supported and discussed that the previous keep decision from DieBuche was not valid. Of course I could have elaborated this to a greater extend but I (usually) see my fellow contributors intelligent enough to draw the conclusion that if no exemption (like "offical works") applies and the creator did not release it under a free licence that it is a copyvio. So your claim that I didn't "mention a reason for deletion" is not true. --Isderion (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that RAF fahndungsplakat ±1972 is gallery, not a specific media file. --  Docu  at 18:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If a nominator of de (mass!)-DR doesn't place deletion tags at the image description pages and and also doesn't notify the uploader, the DR is just invalid and can only be closed as keep, for the moment. This kind of DR's will normally be at several watch lists, so the nominator has the opportunity to start a correct DR. Jcb (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

How do you notify an uploader whose talk page is protected ? Teofilo (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't notice that. Jcb (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
And what are you thinking to do now in this issue? --High Contrast (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Simple, somebody should add the currently open request to the today deletion log and somebody can process it next week. I will not do. Nobody dared to process it for a long time, so please don't throw a bucket of shit over an admin who finally decides something. Jcb (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
A similar case has been addressed here JCB's Keep's.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, do not choose such hard words. As an admin you must allow discussions avout your actions. It is very important for you to accept this. --High Contrast (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Discussions about a case are OK, but you make something personal of it (e.g. here), and that is definitely not OK. Jcb (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing "personal of it". It shows again that GoogleTranslate is not working optimally. I have asked MartinH what happened there and where the problem lies there exactly because I had a similiar discussion about a different case one year ago. No libel and slander, please. This is no proper way to get in contact to each other. --High Contrast (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't need GoogleTranslate to read German. If it's not personal, why do you use my user name as the title of your comment, instead of e.g. the name of the DR? Jcb (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Asking for others opinions is ok. We want a sollution that underlines the necessity to follow the deletion process - e.g. to inform the uploader - but that also makes clear that process-related mistakes can not have effects on the outcome of the deletion discussion, no matter the reuslt will be keep or delete, but can only delay a decission. This especially matters in copyright related deletion discussions, a copyvio is a copyvio, procedural failure will not change this. Of coure in COM:PS related deletion discussions the compliance with the process is more important because it effectively goes about something that the uploader is more involved. A deletion discussion should not be closed if the uploader wasnt informed, and it should not be closed because the uploader wasnt informed. Procedural failure is an invitation to fix the failure and bring it back to the regular process, its not a reason to go over the arguments brought up outside the process (provided that there are any arguments, no reason to not revert obvious nonsense or vandalism deletion requests). In the example a deletion discussion was cuted two times: 1st because it was open so long and 2nd because of procedural mistakes in the reopening. I not agree to both of this closures. --Martin H. (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
In the present context and set of habits that reopening a DR is something quite exceptional, closing a DR for a procedural failure seems a bit harsh, but if we allow the reopening of DRs in a more casual manner, it is not that bad. Perhaps we should tell DR request makers to feel more free to reopen a case (including reopening 3 or 4 times) if they feel the closure has been a bit quick or based on mere procedural matters. (the same goes with undeletion requests). Teofilo (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Re-opening a DR will not harm the community, and it benefit with the experts eye with different opinions....sticking into one closure is not good...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Again a Keep with no reason ... Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:World Trade Centre Residence Is it mistake or purposefully doing it..???......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you explain why nobody at all responds to the nomination (done by a troll who has been blocked at EN.wiki and DE.wiki) for five months, nor processes it? And the same day as somebody finally closes the nomination you start immediately shouting around about it? This behaviour seems to have the purpose to make admins affraid to close this type of nominations, because immediately after closure you begin trying to cause personal damage to the acting admin. This behaviour is becoming to be a serious issue, because it disrupts the processes at Wikimedia Commons and it also seems to have that single purpose. Jcb 16:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, no one can tell from just "Keep" that it was kept because the nominator is a troll. Please try to use closing statements with more detail. Powers 16:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb, Five months is not a big reason to state only Keep...why don't you provide a reason to keep...i have seen only your keep's as controversial that's why its being followed...for asking a reason will not have any personal damage, If the troll's nomination's are correct we need to discuss on that.......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"If the troll's nomination's are correct we need to discuss on that" - and that is exactly what nobody did in the case of this nomination. I did at least delete one of the files nominated by this person and I always check them one by one. The pictures talked about now were just showing the contours of a building with a simple geometric shape. A mistake commonly made at Wikimedia Commons is that people, probably unknown with architecture and civil engineering, don't understand the difference between 'architecture' and 'a building'. Therefore you should be happy that somebody who does have some knowledge about those subjects processes this kind of nominations. Jcb (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You should raise this concern in the talk page of Freedom of panorama and a consensus need to be reached to identify what is a 'building' in commons and what an 'architecture' means...Now its clear that interpretations can went wrong, so a consensus need to be reached before taking another step to close the FoP DR's.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 09:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The nominator of Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Category:World Trade Centre Residence is still nominating images now on a dynamic IP, including some of my own, and I haven't had any indication that this user is a troll. If this user is indeed a troll - how did people come to this conclusion and what is being done about it? Captain is right that if that was the reason for the closure, it should have been noted on the DR, rather than leaving others to guess. As for the building vs. architecture issue, well it would be good if Jcb could explain his position in more detail and on DR re-runs such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Atlantis palm EDITED.jpg which is currently heading towards a consensus to delete. CT Cooper · talk 14:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Atlantis_palm_EDITED.jpg Deleted the 'functional building'..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record the DR was closed shortly after I made the above post. It is getting to the point in which FOP related DRs are a lottery on whichever admin turns-up to close such discussions. There is never going to be perfect consistency but clear contradictions need to be resolved. This not the first example of such contradictions, as I have explained at COM:UNDEL#Conflicting deletion requests results. CT Cooper · talk 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem with Jcb seems to be that he hasn't sufficient knowledge about copyright issues. That is not good for admin, but a problem that could be solved by learning and staying away from a DR up until he is competent enough. Unfortunately Jcb doesn't show that he is indeed learning and putting himself back for a while. I'm not assuming bad faith here, but his actions are negligent. If he goes on like this, we should think of a de-adminship. --Isderion (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
on 24th January he got an advice from another admin to learn the lesson...but still the same Diff, I think this will lead to de-adminship, third persons opinion is required in this regard...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 19:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
A mistake commonly made at Wikimedia Commons is that people, probably unknown with architecture and civil engineering, don't understand the difference between 'architecture' and 'a building'. Therefore you should be happy that somebody who does have some knowledge about those subjects processes this kind of nominations. No! If someone has a unique viewpoint on the matter, they should be discussing it, not closing based on it. US case law on the subject makes it clear that the US law is designed to protect tract homes, the most banal buildings you can imagine with a trace of creativity. I can not see why laws in other countries should ignore them. No one should close based on a reason not brought up in the discussion; if you have such an opinion, bring it up in the discussion and let someone else close it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
"and let someone else close it" - I'm sorry, but I can't take this serious if nobody touches a DR for five month's. Also what I sometimes see happen if I close such an outdated DR, is that somebody starts a new nomination and that finally a discussion takes place and a clearer consensus follows. I can't see a nomination of this IP, without any response of whoever, as a consensus. But if my closure causes a discussion to take place, the result is probably better. Please remember that nothing is final in Wikimedia/Wikipedia. This also applies to keep/delete closures of DRs. I don't worry if somebody renominates after a closure. I closed a few thousand DRs last month, of which maybe 20 (~ 1%) have been re-opened, and I saw at least one of them that already has been closed again by another admin with the same decision as I took. I hope you see that things are relative if you place it in the context of the total contributions of an admin. Jcb (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
100 Good thing and 1 bad thing, everybody will look into bad side only. Why don't JCB avoid such controversial keep's......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that almost all administrators avoid difficult closures. It would be great if some other admins would also take a look at Commons:Deletion_requests/Older_Discussions. (I know some others already do, but there is really a lot of work to be done left.) Jcb (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Clearing the backlog doesn't mean to create double work, your decisions are creating more backlogs and more disputes......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 3

Flag of Autonomous Albania

Here we can find the flag used in Autonomous Albania in period Jun 1912 - 28 Nov 1912 (second flag in the first row). I kindly ask that somebody investigate possibility for uploading image of this flag or to draw a new one according to the original.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You could ask Xavigivax if he is able to help, or if he can recommend another user. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gregors (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC) has redrawn the flag /Gregors

Problem with autotranslated templates

When I go to File:Roskilde_domkirke_west_fassade.jpg, click on "French" (but it is the same if I choose another language) on the "retouched picture" template, and then back to English, the sentence with "Modifications made by" disappears. Is there no way to prevent the message from disappearing when you switch to another language and back ?

If I click on French and back to English on the "Public Domain" template, the user name inserted in it disappears.

It seems that template parameters are lost when you switch to another language and back.

Teofilo (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this about this one set of templates. However, if I set another language, say French, as my language in preferences or add "?uselang=xx", as here, the full information appears. —innotata 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Well the language links link to the layout pages of those particular languages on my browser. So if I click on French, it takes me to Template:Retouched picture/fr. Is it not supposed to do this? If that's the intention, then it would make sense why "modifications made by..." is not shown; it is an optional parameter. The only problem I have with those links is that I have to open them in new tabs to render the page. If I click directly, my browser (Firefox) does nothing. --ZooFari 00:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The same happens on my computer when I disable javascript. If I enable javascript again, the page is displayed as I previously wrote. For a long time, I used to navigate with javascript off and did not mind. Now that my javascript is on, I think that the display with the "parameter vanish" function is not good. Teofilo (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A template must use {{LayoutTemplateArgs}} so that the parameters can be used by the script. There is no other way to gather the correct arguments from the html version of the page. Add this template, and the script should correctly pick the arguments up and use them in other lang versions. @Zoo: What is your FF version?--DieBuche (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm using 3.6.13. --ZooFari 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

{{LayoutTemplateArgs}} is already present in Template:Retouched picture/layout. I am still trying to figure out what is wrong in this and similar templates. Teofilo (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem wasn't the template at all, but the Javascript. It simply didn't look deep enough into the template to find the "layouttemplateargs" <span>. I edited it, and it works now for me. You might need to clear your browsers cache--DieBuche (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Well done! It works perfectly now. Teofilo (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

February 13

I want to upload a derivative work of a wikipedia file (which is ccsa2.0)

En-wiki does not seem to have a choice for derivative works (and has big urgings to upload here, not there anyhow), but here it talks about uploading derivatives of commons work. What should I do? I just want to upload a version that I cropped myself of this file: [11]

TCO (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

All free media on Wikipedia should be on Commons, so that they can be more accessible; now the one you want to make a derivative of is, at File:Galapagos Tortoise and finch symbiosis.jpg. I think Wikipedi doesn't have the option since there is no need to add free upload features since Commons exists; now you can upload here. Anyhow, that's a nice image, and it or a crop of the head, as I expect you're going to make, would be good for illustrating articles on tetrapod phylogeny. —innotata 03:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I just uploaded the crop on wikipedia as my own work and then went in manually and edited the file description to say it was derivative. I even tried transferring the base image over here, but then it wanted a TUSC and I went to the whole bother of gettting one, once and then it didn't work, so I gave up. :( TCO (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Were you trying to use CommonsHelper or CommonsHelper2? The "upgraded" version 2 doesn't work for some reason, so you will need to use http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php. It can take a little while, but it'll work for transfers. Your crop is now at File:Galapagos Tortoise and finch symbiosis crop.jpg. Just remember, in the future, to upload any freely licensed material to Commons. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Innotata: Quite the opposite. All valuable files from Commons must be moved to wikipedias - less accessible, but far safer than here. Today you think "it's just a turtle's head", tomorrow a sysop pronounces that turtle heads were copyrighed by someone somewhere ... NVO (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you find consensus for such an activity before doing it. Otherwise, we're stuck in a loop of moving images back and forth between the projects, and given that the mandate for Commons is to be the repository for free media, the media on local projects that qualifies for being here will always be deleted. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Should this be moved one paragraph up ? NVO (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It should have been, dunno why it's here rather than there...moved. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
TCO: I think that you have already found the path of least resistance. Use the It's from somewhere else upload option - it's just a clean sheet that has no restrictions of other forms or "wizards". Fill as much relevant info on authors, dates and sources as you feel necessary - that's all. NVO (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Image rename request

Sorry, didn't find a renaming requests desk here; please relocate if necessary.

Please rename the file:

  • File:Trudovaya knizhka obrazec 2003 year.jpg

to

  • File:Trudovaya knizhka USSR (1974) AT-VII.jpg

Reason: Author mistook a year when a document was filled (2003) for "a year of sample" (Russian: "obrazec", образец) approval, which is 1974. See details for all the series of this document here.

Apparent inconsistency: The Soviet Union (which coat-of-arms is clearly seen in a corner of a page) was split in 1991. Therefore, "the Soviet document with a 2003 year of sample" is a nonsense. Cherurbino (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, please tag the image with {{Rename}}. For instructions on how to use the tag, click on the link. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thank you! Cherurbino (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File movers and CommonsDelinker

I think filemovers should have access to the commands page if technically possible. The talk page is receiving too many requests for admins to check, per day. Yesterday I moved ~100 kb of requests and with every batch comes along with couple of errors, now raised on my talk page. I think filemovers should be responsible for what they moved and replace. Comments? --ZooFari 18:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot was down for a couple of days so the requests just piled up. Technically this is probably quite hard to implement. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Just give filemovers the right to edit protected pages :) --Isderion (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I do my best to keep Category:Media requiring renaming empty, personally. It seems counterintuitive to have some other group that can move files besides administrators in order to lighten the load but then require an administrator to verify every file move request anyway. – Adrignola talk 23:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
We could just unprotect the page, and create an abusefilter rule to guard the page from non-filemover edits. This one should work: Special:AbuseFilter/75. Objections?--DieBuche (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Clever. Not so hard to implement after all then. Updating the move and replace JavaScript would add the finishing touches. – Adrignola talk 04:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
And what about category moves ? --Foroa (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's possible, but we (the operators of this bot) don't want non-administrators to operate the bot. Multichill (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Good to know you can override the community at your whims now that you've gotten this bot so intertwined into the interface and procedures of the wiki that it appears on the surface to be built-in. – Adrignola talk 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to find a larger pool of administrators to operate the bot. I assume we have quite a number of administrators here. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that we have to do this is a bit anoying. The delinker should monitor the move log (just like it monitors the deletion log) and do an universal replace for every file it sees in the move log. This way it is a lot less work for everyone. We already talked about this when file moving was first enabled, we just never came around implementing this in the delinker. Multichill (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it makes a lot of sense to automate that. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Help in using "Template:Vector version available"

I am having difficulty using the Vector version available template.

Exactly what should I do with it?

Where do I edit what?

(after I have uploaded -at derivative FX - a vector version that i have drawn). Gregors (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

On File:SiouxBlue.jpg I corrected the listing to {{vector version available|SiouxBlue Belgian AirForce.svg}} with the vector version in the second parameter. – Adrignola talk 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Syntax is {{vector version available|vector file.svg}}. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cat's don't show

Cat's of File:Cathédrale de Maguelone-Vitrail.jpg don't show. What is wrong here? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Was fixed by Ö at 2011-02-14, 16:44:24. Resolved for you, too? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A tool proposal for dealing with Google Arts Project images

Hey all, I've been pondering how best to distribute the larger Google Arts Project images, bigger than Starry Night. I created a full-size TIFF file for In the Conservatory (see File:In the Conservatory.jpg), which is 81888 x 62626 or 5.1 gigapixels. The lossless version is 8.9 GB and the JPEG compressed TIFF is 3.7 GB. Photoshop CS5 64-bit cannot open the JPEG compressed image at all (it gives an error "Photoshop can only decode JPEG encoded images up to 32767 pixels wide or tall"). It eventually opens the lossless TIFF, after about 30 minutes, but only the first 1/3 of the image is loaded correctly, and the rest is corrupt. 64-bit ImageMagick on Windows dies when given large images, and 64-bit ImageMagick on Linux eventually (after about 30 minutes) gives out of memory errors. I have more RAM than most (8 GB) on my PC.

After some consideration, here's the plan I came up with: I can create a new cross-platform image editing application, which I call TileEdit, specifically intended for editing very large images, and capable of viewing/zooming and performing memory-efficient "streaming" edits on large TIFF images and/or directly on tile trees, with operations like cropping and resizing. It would import/export images either as JPEG, TIFF, or in the form of tile sets; tile sets can be processed using tools like Photoshop batch processing or ImageMagick with wildcards, so that I don't have to duplicate too much of their functionality. It could also compute and cache a complete tile pyramid, which would allow quick loading and browsing in the future.

I'd like to invite comments on the design, suggestions and criticism, as well as possible alternatives. Thanks! Dcoetzee (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree we could use such software, with viewing/zooming capabilities and may be editing capabilities. However I assume it is not a new problem and we should look for/at open source software which was already developed. One possibility is software used for map viewing (like Google Maps). It has been used in the past with very hi-rez panoramas like Yosemite Extreme Panoramic Imaging Project [12] stitching and displaying 10k high resolution images. May be OpenStreetMap has something? I searched the web a little and here are some possible links Origami Image Viewer (using "open Source" license?) or PanoJS (using license that sounds like {{Attribution}} license). --Jarekt (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of web based zoomify type software, which could easily be used for local viewing as well by attaching it to a local webserver, but my main concern is editing capabilities, e.g. if a Commons contributor wants to crop a detail from a painting at full resolution, there's currently no easy way to do it except screenshots from Google, which is annoying if the detail resolution exceeds their screen resolution. I'd also want to enable other kinds of derivative works like releveling to be done on the full size image and not just thumbnails, to avoid redundant work in the future. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Never mind then I was confused about the purpose of the software. --Jarekt (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
For the zoom, the Zoomviewer gadget seems to work pretty well. Maybe it could be included to everyone by default. For editing however, something would certainly be welcome.--Zolo (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

help finding a category

Is there a category for people drawing artwork?

Should the "artists" category include non-professional artists who are doing a recreational program at a prison?

I want help categorizing File:Correctional Activities at Central Jail Faisalabad, Pakistan in 2010 - Convict artists busy in drawing designs of carpets on graph papers.JPG - Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Art therapy may be applicable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll try that category WhisperToMe (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
comment - it needs more insight into what really happens in this jail. Interpretations may range from category:boredom to category:forced labor. NVO (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the idea is that it's a voluntary program that the prisoners can do to help themselves improve. That's what the author's original image description implied (view here) "Confinement of human bodies does not mean imprisonment of artful minds. Two convict artists busy in drawing designs of carpets on graph papers at Industrial Workshops of Central Jail Faisalabad, Pakistan in 2010" - Because it sounded too promotional, I changed it to the description that's on the page today - "Central Jail Faisalabad offers recreational programmes for prisoners - Two convict artists busy in drawing designs of carpets on graph papers at Industrial Workshops of Central Jail Faisalabad, Pakistan in 2010"
If you want, I can ask the author to come to this discussion to comment on it
WhisperToMe (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Greek pictures 1979

I have uploaded 1979 pictures of the Athens metro and trolleybuses. I however forget the metrostation I took the pictures from. File:Athene metro 1979 1.jpg, File:Athene metro 1979 2.jpg, File:Athene metro 1979 3.jpg. I suspect it is at the Piraeus Terminus, but I am not certain. I would like to put the question by the greek wikipedia, but I not certain wich cyrillic lettercode I have to use. I dont want to ask the Russians or other groups. I wil upload the discoloured original scans later on. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The file Athene_metro_1979_1.jpg is the Pireus metro station. The file Athene_metro_1979_2.jpg it seems that it is not from a station but somewhere in between.. Probably the Athene_metro_1979_3.jpg is from the Pireus metro station as well (the metro coming out of it). You can leave a message to the greek village pump Αγορά.
Writing Greek you don't use cyrillic lettercode but greek letter code. Ggia (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. Is there any copyright law for this nation, as its a micro nation and no copyright law available in their official sites...??
  2. How commons will treat the entry of sealand's logos, certificates, ID cards and others from website of sealand and this..??
  3. Is the works from sealand free from any copyrights..??

...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could get the US to take them over, since Wikimedia foundation is US based.TCO (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe we assume works of a nation to be fully copyrighted unless they is explicitly stated as not being so. Thus, works of Sealand are not free from copyright. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:59, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
For however much the population of 2 create content... they would appear to have no copyright law and are not members of the Berne Convention. So, something like Afghanistan. However I seriously doubt any content is actually first published in Sealand. The first site you linked to appears to be in Austria (and is probably the website of a rival claimant who once attacked the fort, according to their weird history), while the second seems to be a UK site (not surprising, as Sealand's "government" has a UK postal address). Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
So we need to keep UK law for sealand websites (No TLD for sealand), and need to assume that there is copyright...please see this discussion also, will throw some light Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Lord2.jpg - ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Looking into it more (en:HavenCo) they did and maybe still do have an internet hookup out to their fort (and at one time trumpeted the fact they were not subject to international copyright law, as they had no copyright). And apparently the main people regard themselves as dual citizens of Sealand and the UK (and I'm sure the UK would declare them only UK citizens and subject to their copyright law). Odd situation, since if the author claims they were first published in their "country", and that "country" has no copyright law, that is tantamount to PD-author. But of course they claim copyright on their website, which should only be possible if they are claiming UK copyright. A photo of that document though is an interesting middle case -- that does not necessarily come from the website. And in any copyright dispute the "government" could just pass a "law" retroactively granting themselves retroactive copyright. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
One main question is that, the nominated image is a copyvio or not..??? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Subcategories not appearing

For some reason when I go to Category:Art of the Edo period the subcategories are not there unless you click (next 200) and go to the next page. Does anybody know why this is?AerobicFox (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the whole Subcategory section got moved to the second page due to alphabetical reasons. 0_o. The last entry on the first page begins with an Sa, then you have subcategories at the top of the second page.AerobicFox (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It's the way category pages paginate. In this case, all subcategories have names starting with letters after "F" (as file and thus don't display. Eventually this should be fixed, eventually ..
In the meantime, I added {{Category tree all}} to help view the subcategories. --  Docu  at 04:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you.AerobicFox (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Template frames

Hi. I see that several templates (including OTRS tickets and {{Archive box}}) recently lost their frame and possibly other style attributes on Monobook. Why is that so? If there's no particlar reason, could it be restored please? --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it was only a temporary issue.
Resolved
--Eusebius (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kansas Division of Emergency Management logo.tif

Could someone please review my upload of this image to Commons per my slight hesitation about the licensing? So far as I know, Kansas state government works/images are copyright (at least the website has a copyright sign on it and there is no disclaimer saying anything is in the public domain), however I got this logo image off of a National Weather Service website, and content/images on National Weather Service websites are explicitly released into the public domain whether they are National Weather Service created or not, as stated at Template:PD-NWS. These conflicting copyright statuses have me a bit confused as to which one to follow, so I went ahead and uploaded it here under the PD-NWS template. If this was incorrect, could someone please transfer the image to the English Wikipedia under a fair-use rationale?

Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far in the interpretation... images directly submitted to the National Weather Service for display on its web pages go through that type of process where the user is made aware of losing copyright; it is pretty doubtful that these images were processed that way though. These are logos which are part of an advertising flyer for a Kansas event, and it is much more likely that the organizations made logo files available just for use on the flyer (linked on the web pages sure, but not a situation where the copyright owner knowingly waived copyright). The extra portion of the PD-NWS template is more for images shown in the user-submitted areas of their photo galleries, not stuff like this. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, that works. I just thought I would get a second opinion on it. I'll re-upload to en.wikipedia with a non-free fair use rationale and mark the copy here on commons for deletion. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have now completed both; the file is now at wikipedia:File:Kansas Division of Emergency Management logo.png with a fair use rationale and the copy here is tagged for deletion. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

February 17

Technical error noted using Translate on warning messages

Hi. I've noted a technical error on the translate facility for a particular warning message, Using this template, {{Autotranslate|1=File:Isfahan_mantaqeh.png|base=Image source}}, when you click on an alternative language, the message contains errors in the resulting output. The message shows up with broken links and templates in the translations, and I've noted this in every language there, Farsi, Euskara (Basque), Dutch, all of them do it.

As an example, I'll show you the output of clicking the Farsi link, on that message at User_talk:Nima Farid -

پرونده ای که بارگذاری کرده اید،[[:{{{1}}}]] ،اطلاعات مربوت به منبع و پدیدآورنده آن مشخص نیست، این اطلاعات برای اثبات وضعیت حق تکثیر لازم است. لطفاً [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=edit}} توضیحات پرونده را ویرایش کنید] و اطلاعات ناقص را کامل کنید یا پرونده ممکن است حذف شود.

I've included only the top part, where the errors are present. It shouldn't link to the template, the autotranslate should link to the translation of the whole message, plus details of the file.

If someone could check this out please, I'd appreciate it. BarkingFish (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I please draw your attention once again to this section, since it appears it's being overlooked. This is a fault affecting a template used in an awful lot of places, and as such, it should be taken fairly seriously. There are a lot of obvious issues with the autotranslate not working correctly, the most obvious being that if we post a warning message for a user who does not speak English, then without the autotranslate functioning correctly, they probably don't have a clue what on earth they're being warned for. This needs to be addressed as quickly as possible in order to prevent issues of this nature arising sometime in the future, and having to address complaints about warnings people can't understand then. FishingBark TEST (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the purpose of File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg

I have seen that under each image (for example File:Sarcococca_hookeriana_humilis_B.jpg) is added the link File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg. What is the purpose of it? Wouter (talk) 08:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

When I add "?uselang=de" behind the file name in the URL, the link File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg after "Notiz hinzufügen" is not visible anymore. With "?uselang=en" gives the same result and ... surprise, surprise ... with "?uselang=nl" it has also gone and remains gone for other images without the addition of "?uselang=nl". I use Firefox 3.6.13. Thanks, Wouter (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That file seemed to have a very strange problem, showing a completely unrelated thumbnail instead of the question mark image when visiting the file page at File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg. I've purged it, and it now seems to be mostly fixed, except that the thumbnails for the old versions are gone. No idea where that problem came from in the first place. Lupo 09:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see above #two recent svg issues. Cache problems? New malicious files filter?. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have again the same problem. Gtk-dialog-question.svg is again the blue lake with two lines. Adding "?uselang=nl" does not help this time. Further I have with an other image File:Lodoicea Maldivica C.jpg that a selection button is added for the language. Wouter (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, we're obviously having problems with this file...the current and old versions are being read as 0x0 pixels and 4 KB. Perhaps it would be a good idea for someone familiar with SVG to check out the file, clean or make adjustments, and re-upload over the old files, or even as a new file, and turn this name into a redirect? — Huntster (t @ c) 08:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope; it's a server-side problem and should be fixed server side. It appears to be a problem with MediaWiki's SVG renderer, which newly fails on this file (and on other files as well). Thus it cannot produce PNGs from this SVG, and hence you only get the link wherever the file is used, bogus 0x0 file sizes in the file history, and the display of the fileicon-svg instead of the preview image on the file description page. Looks like somebody royally broke the SVG parser/renderer when we switched to MW1.17. (Firefox's built-in SVG renderer still displays the file fine, see here.) Lupo 08:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification, Lupo. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, in fact... the XML of that file was a bit dodgy. It had no DOCTYPE, and no explicit default xmlns specification. So I take back the "royally broke" above—it appears now that the new SVG parser is just much stricter than the old one. I think I've fixed File:Gtk-dialog-question.svg now. Lupo 09:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't include a DOCTYPE declaration I mean that stays also in the Commons policy. --Perhelion (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Italian photographs - artistic vs. non-artistic photographs

Generally, copyright in Italy expires 70 years after the author's death. However, Italian copyright law provides that the copyright in simple/non-artistic photographs expires 20 years after creation. Commons can potentially benefit tremendously from this 20-year rule, as it would allow a lot of Italian content on the project that otherwise wouldn't be free under the 70-year rule.

However, the problem is that there does not appear to be any clear guideline or approach to determine which images are simple/non-artistic (subject to the 20-year rule) and those that are artistic (subject to the 70-year rule). Until recently, COM:L#Italy stated that the rule for "non-artistic" photographs "is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should not be used on Commons" (although I understand this wording may not have reflected current consensus over the use of the PD-Italy tag). Now, COM:L#Italy states "this rule is difficult to apply accurately, and hence should be used on Commons very carefully" (which doesn't offer any guidance whatsover).

Absent some sort of agreed-upon rule of thumb for distinguishing between artistic and non-artistic images, I would think that the precautionary principle would require many potentially free images to be deleted. That would be an unfortunate result.

If anyone can be of assistance, please join the discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Postcards of Italy, post-1950. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I was not aware that PD-Italy had been declared OK again last October. This inspires me another question at CT:L#Interaction_of_PD-Italy_with_PD-Art. Teofilo (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Most pictures can clearly be considered as non-artistic, there wil be some doubtfull cases. There are cases where there are clear defintions? For example when is a picture a portret picture? Judgement wil always be needed. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but why is that? Do you have reliable sources to which you can point us? Most photographs involve some level of creativity, which suggests artistry. Where does Italian law draw the line? When you say "judgment will always be needed", that's actually what scares me. It means that there will always be doubt as to whether the images are free, and then the precautionary principle kicks in and they get deleted. We need more that just a bald statement that says "most pictures are non-artistic", don't we? Perhaps we can continue this discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/Postcards of Italy, post-1950. Thanks! --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
is this image free in US and general (non Sweden)?

I tried looking at the template for PD Sweden and even the significant discussion within the talk page for that template. Really have three questions:

1. Does PD-Sweden make it free in general (for instance to use on (US-based) English Wikipedia in this article: en:Pipe Dream (musical)?

2. Are we really sure it even is PD-Sweden (as there is some discussion of harmonization with EU law, so I donno if the whole pre-1969 thing flies).

3. Can we tell for sure that this photograph was taken at Nobels in Stockholm (that it is not some stock photo taken elswhere, but on their site)? He is in a cordoroy jacket in the image, yet an award at Stockholm would normally have him in black tie.

TCO (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

3. The photo is probably not from Oslo. It could be from the Nobel Prize ceremonies in Stockholm, but I have no evidence for that. /Ö 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Fixed my Scandanavian city boner.TCO (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
You can read the longer discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:John Steinbeck 1962.jpg. Short answer, if in fact the "non-artistic" photograph situation does apply to the photo, then it would have been PD in Sweden in 1996 and the U.S. copyright would not have been restored. The U.S. does not make a distinction between types of photographs, but the URAA restorations were based on the law in the source country, so if it was PD in Sweden in 1996 then that affects its U.S. copyright. The uncertainties come from 1) is it a non-artistic photograph (there was some evidence supplied that at least at one time it was), 2) did Sweden change their definition upon the EU copyright directive (Germany did but doesn't seem like other countries did), 3) Was it really first published in Sweden (no evidence to the contrary at this point, but we don't seem to have author information), and 4) was it published with a copyright notice and explicitly renewed with the U.S. copyright notice anyways (in which case there was no need for the URAA restoration since its U.S. copyright would never have lapsed) -- that is highly unusual for foreign works but it is theoretically possible. Most of those may not be answerable without example court cases. Best guess at the moment though is that it is OK. More information (or future clarifying court cases) could always change that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

February 16

Username violation

Folks, where do I report a username violation, specifically YankeGroupofCompanies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What is being violated? --  Docu  at 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Commons doesn't have a policy against corporate names as usernames (cf Wikipedia's policy)?--ukexpat (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, at least not that I'm aware of and even if it's being brought up once in a while.
Personally I think it's even an advantage that we don't.
We would need a confirmation through OTRS that the account is authorized by the company though. --  Docu  at 04:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
And also, for attribution purposes, that it is a single-user account not a group account.--ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In the days of global user accounts we need global username policies. I wonder if EN Wikipedia restrictions would do if a user with noncompliant account is mostly active on other wikipedia. --Jarekt (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

CC BY 2.0

CC BY 2.0 is a legitimate license for Commons, right? Becuase Flickr2Commons is complaining that http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/5436836040/ has an "Unsuitable license." Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 08:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot replicate that error. When I run F2C, everything seems to work correctly, and it says "Checking license ... license OK ({{cc-by-2.0}})". However, nothing was uploaded to File:Worker with snowplow, 1923.jpg as it should have been. I have no idea how to access the debut logs, but its apparently at "/tmp/f2c_Xka4t4-dir/debug.txt", wherever that is. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I just used Bryan's flickr uploader and got File:Champion snowplow on Pierce Arrow flusher, 1923.gif. No problems there, either, and it actually uploaded. So the problem certainly lies within the F2C tool itself. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

New partnership : Château de Versailles

Hello every body ! I'm pleased to introduce you the new partnership between the Château de Versailles and Wikimédia France.

You will found more details about this project, and follow his development by following the page about the project here : Commons:Château de Versailles. And don't forget that : it is your project, and it will develop as long as you will have suggestions and ideas !

Regards, Trizek here or on fr:wp 14:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Are UK service providers now blocking parts of Commons?

This just started happening today. I can access all parts of Commons okay except the individual file description pages, whereupon my browser immediately shuts down. This doesn't happen on English Wikipedia which has copies of the pages here. I live in the UK with a British Telecom broadband connection. Is it possible that UK service providers are now blocking parts of Commons? The last three I tried just to check were File:Stele51CalakmulMuseum.JPG, File:Teatro-la-fenice-sala.jpg, File:Mary Garden in Debussy's Pelléas et Mélsande.jpg. I've been trying to look for new Featured Images for en:Portal:Opera. It's a real pain. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't be using Internet Explorer, would you? See this bug report above. Lupo 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes I use IE8 (I think), and what happens is exactly as described in the post you directed me to. I guess I'll just wait til the bug is fixed. Thanks!
IE will never run out of bugs. Microsoft will provide new bugs to replace the fixed ones. Probably the best solution would be to download a real browser like Firefox. Jcb (talk) 21:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way - it should work now again; IE should not crash now anymore.
Better links for people who are not from the netherlands: http://www.mozilla.com or of course Firefox in Wikipedia. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops, i didn't notice the /nl/ in the url :-P - Jcb (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Annoyance

Why oh why do you allow one user/organization to completely take over (dominate) the "Gallery of new files" pages? It is very disapointing!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.19.54.154 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because no other user provided files during the exact hour and minute when you watched Special:Newfiles. At present I can see more than one user uploading files right now, although the census data provided by User:RobotMichiel1972 are more numerous among the 48 picture set. I don't see what is wrong with users uploading many files during one minute. Perhaps the title "Gallery of new files" is misleading. It is not intended as something providing a viewing pleasure. It is just a maintenance tool. How about renaming it "list of new files" without the "gallery" word ? Teofilo (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
According to Category:Population diagrams of municipalities in France, these diagrams show the development of the population in French municpalities: "Simple population column graphs with values of census population shown on top of each column. These diagrams can preferably be used using a template (e.g. nl:Sjabloon:Grafiek inwonertal gemeente Frankrijk) with the INSEE municipality code as identifier." There are admittedly rather a large number of French municipalities, but I think these diagrams are quite useful. As to "disappointing": I see that we share the pastime of regularly looking at the new files to see what has been added. As of a few minutes ago, the stream of diagrams seems to have stopped. Perhaps Michiel 1972's bot has finished the job.;) Best Regards, MartinD (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I blocked him. Running without flag or approval: Commons:Bots/Requests/RobotMichiel1972 --DieBuche (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

< nowiki > produces major bug in preload template

Please have a look at Commons talk:Categories for discussion/preload this is a preload template used in {{subst:cfd}} on category pages. I have reported this as https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=27519 Teofilo (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

date field (what do we really do with it)?

For one thing, it says "and or". If I really had both creation and first publishing would you want both? Can I leave it blank? Should I list today's date? I'm mostly talking about images where I get a donation (not stuff of mine). Prefer not to be bugging donors for a bunch of metadata, but should I? TCO (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it should definitely capture the date of creation of the file if this information is available. If the date of first publication is also available, then that can be stated too. In general I feel it should not contain the date of uploading since that information is already available elsewhere on the file description page. However, in cases where the date of creation was not stated by the uploader and cannot be obtained from the EXIF, I have put "Uploaded on {{date|2011|02|18}}." in the field. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

2257 requirements (record keeping) and educational porn

The Wikimedia Foundation is headquartered in San Francisco, California. Some of its servers are located in Tampa, Florida. It certainly seems like a company located in the US. How is it then that the Wikimedia Commons "no censorship" clause seems to trump the 2257 regulations to obtain proof of age for all models in "sexually explicit materials"? Commons:Project_scope#Censorship seems to imply that as long as a picture has "educational motives" it shouldn't be deleted, but that section also says, "Files and other materials which are not lawful for Commons to host on its servers in Florida will be deleted immediately upon being identified as illegal (this includes copyright violations), even if the material otherwise falls within Commons scope..."

Wikimedia Commons already censors material for educational value, low/high resolution, etc. Honestly, how many images are deleted every day and for just cause? We should further censor for obscenity under the 2257 regulations that, as a US company, the Wikimedia Foundation falls under. I'm not saying that every "pornographic" image should contain publicly-available contact information which lets John Q. Public spam the person(s) in an image -- an OTRS filing (which some images have) would fulfill the requirements of the law just fine. The rest of the pictures should be deleted.

Let me forestall the brunt of the arguments that I've seen in similar discussions on this topic in the archives. This is not about free-use, this is not really about educational materials, this is about the censorship that already occurs and whether it should be expanded to comply with this particular law, seeing as the laws of the land trump our individual policies. Banaticus (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

"It certainly seems like a company located in the US." By that statement alone, I feel deeply questionable of your ability to interpret 2257 and how it applies to us, given that the WMF is a nonprofit organization, not a company.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
That really doesn't make a difference. 1) From the bill itself, "Producer means any person, including any individual, corporation, or other organization..." The term I used doesn't make a difference. 2) From w:Nonprofit organization, "In the United States, nonprofit organizations are formed by incorporating in the state in which they expect to do business. The act of incorporating creates a legal entity enabling the organization to be treated as a corporation under law and to enter into business dealings, form contracts, and own property as any other individual or for-profit corporation may do." Incorporation is incorporation. All incorporated organizations (for or non profit) can all be called "companies" and except for taxes and how much money people can rake in off of them are basically bound under the same laws. Either way, whatever you think of me personally, it doesn't make a difference to the argument.Banaticus (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia's lawyer has expressed the view that 2257 requirements don't apply to the Foundation, and that while some producers of the content we host might be obliged to keep such records, we have no duty to ensure they keep them.[13] I see no reason for us to second guess that opinion, especially given how complex the legalities seem to be in this area. --Avenue (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, as far as the original bill went, he was right -- Wikimedia is not a "producer" of those images. Unfortunately for our record keeping purposes, the law was amended to also apply to "secondary producers". The secondary producers clause was struck down by one of the judges in the Sixth Circuit court of appeals in Ohio in 2007, but then in 2009 all of the judges (w:En banc) upheld the amendment. The case went to the Supreme Court who just a few months ago said that the amendment was valid. Mike Godwin posted before the Supreme Court heard the case, when the amendment's status was more iffy. Unfortunately, we can't ask him for a new opinion as he's no longer the Wikimedia General Counsel. Unless the Foundation hasn't bothered updating its employees page, they no longer have any full-time legal person working for them in that capacity, so we have to figure it out ourselves. Now, just a word of warning. The secondary producers paragraph says, "Secondary producer is any person who..." but you'll remember that the bill defines producer as any person, corporation, organization, yadda. Also, corporations (which includes all non profit organizations in the US) are technically a "separate legal entity" or "person". I know that sounds really strange, but see the Corporate personhood for more on that debate, but that's why a sole proprietor (whose business is by definition unincorporated, which means it doesn't have the "veil of incorporation" drawn over it) can use his Social Security number in place of an Employer Identification Number which corporations have to use, but I digress. It seems to me that the Wikimedia Foundation is a secondary producer, that we publish/duplicate/reproduce that sort of stuff, although the Wikimedia Foundation isn't a primary producer -- they don't make the material themselves. Banaticus (talk) 07:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The WMF is an interactive service provider and is not repnosible for the actions of its users. Google is not responsible for what people upload to youtube, Blogger or Picasa, neither is Yahoo for images on Flickr. The many failed cases against youtube for copyright infringement attest to that. I had a quick read of the relevant documents (§ 2257 and definitions C.F.R. Part 75.1) and in both of them there are provisions that exclude service providers from the definition of "producer" (see h.2.B in the first and c.4 in the second). I've also had the impression that these laws concern commercial activities only. However, IANAL, while the WMF new legal council is, he's to start working on March 7th, you can then take the question to him. -- Orionist ★ talk 15:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
@Banaticus: Mike Godwin's comment was after the amendment had been upheld, just not by the Supreme Court. Given how unequivocal his opinion was, I can't believe it hinged on an expectation that the Supreme Court would rule differently. But perhaps it's worth checking with the new Wikimedia lawyer once they start. --Avenue (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
See {{2257}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Some quite valid and cogent points have been raised. Let me address them separately, but they ultimately tie into why we already censor material (why we speedy delete copyright vios and non-free material).
Orionist, it's true that the Wikimedia Foundation isn't liable for things posted by its users, that's well documented. Even so, we delete copyvio material for roughly the same reason that, in my opinion, we should delete this material.
Thank you, Orionist and Avenue, it's good to know that the Wikimedia Foundation won't continue to be without "its own" legal counsel. :)
Dcoetzee, that template seems to fly in the face of the Commons ethos. The Wikimedia Commons is, as attested on the home page, "the free media repository". Let me quote some relevant sections:
“ Fair use depends on the context the image (or other media) is used in. That is, something that can be used on one page as fair use would be a copyright violation on another page. Also, fair use does not allow for the storage of material on a general media database such as Commons. This means that fair use concepts simply do not apply on Commons.

Both issues are against the Commons policy of attempting to provide media files that can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose. The Licensing resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) explicitly forbids Commons to host fair use materials.

”

—Commons:Fair_use

“ In addition, with the exception of Wikimedia Commons, each project community may develop and adopt an [Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP)]. Non-free content used under an EDP must be identified in a machine-readable format so that it can be easily identified by users of the site as well as re-users.

Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals. Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.

”

—foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy

Again, the {{2257}} template seems to fly in the face of the spirit of the Commons rules (as well as the letter of the law). The Wikimedia Commons does not host things that are not free and the media I'm talking about doesn't comply with 2257 regulations and thus isn't free (and shouldn't be on the Commons. Given how willing people have been to upload pictures/videos of themselves (and how many have already had to be deleted as duplicates of media that's already in use), I do not think that it is unreasonable to expect someone to upload a truly freely licensed file for the same educational purposes (by complying with the relevant laws). If we continue knowingly allowing media that isn't actually free and that isn't being kept in accordance with the laws, just because we find it useful somewhere, well... that's an incredibly slippery slope that we cannot go down. Personally, I think that template is rather rubbish. Banaticus (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Bull. You can't combine two things from two different contexts, to make a new truth. There are many illegal things people can do with our 'free files that can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose' that are simply illegal. Pretending you are an FBI cop using the FBI seal, taking a company logo and sending mail using that logo pretending that you are that company. making very defamatory posters using the image of a person that you found here. If we start counting like that, none of our files are TRULY free. TheDJ (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
How am I combining things from two different contexts and "making a new truth"? Are you suggesting that, because the two quotations clarified why fair-use material should not be here, we should ignore their statements that non-free material should not be on the Commons (especially the second quotation which is from the actual Commons licensing policy). You'll note that there is no EDP regarding pornographic material. {{2257}} explicitly states that the media it tags may not be free. This pseudo-caveat emptor statement thus seems to fly in in the face of the Commons rules (not to mention its ethos). Additionally, the template contradicts my original point of contention, that the Commons (as part of the Wikimedia Foundation, a US company) is obligated to follow the 2257 regulation, although the template in no way demonstrates how this conclusion was arrived at (it simply gives this statement baldly, with no attempt to verify or explain itself). The template seems wrong on multiple levels and I do not feel that it should be used as an authoritative source for settling questions regarding media and any applicable 2257 regulations. Banaticus (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The foundation's and the commons interpretation of non-free relates to copyright. 2257 has nothing to do with copyright. You are also confusing free (gratis) with free (libre). Both points are very critical concepts within Wikipedia/Wikimedia. TheDJ (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming pages and categories

Hi! I'm sure many people have asked that many times before, but I've read the policies and I think they aren't clear enough. We are working on WLM and I'm revising some pages and categories about towns and municipalities from Spain and I don't know which language we have to use. Now, there are categories and pages named in Spanish, in Catalan and bilingual, and sometimes that have caused that we have two pages or categories for the same place but named in different languages. I'll thank anybody explain me how to name that, in which language. Thank you. --Millars (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Category names are in English or if no English exists, the most commonly used name in English. So we use Category:Ibiza and not Eivissa. Categories like Category:Borriana/Burriana are incorrectly named. Multichill (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And the page about this municipality? I asked because I've found some pages with a name like this. --Millars (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC) PD On English Wikipedia the article about this town is Borriana/Burriana. --Millars (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The basic idea of category naming is to facilitate the finding of the right category, so to use the most likely used name all-over the world, where English is the most common starting point. Making categories like Category:Borriana/Burriana makes no sense since the chance that a user knows both the Spanish and Valencian name is next to zero (and in what order ? Spanish first ?). It is true that in some places, like in the Basque Country, dual names are used (separated by a hyphen, our tools get sometimes confused with slashes that mean sometimes subpages) but I have been told that this naming is the official naming in Spain. It just makes life more complicated for all users. If you really want to promote Catalan, the best thing one can do is to facilitate access to it, and then you can explain and document it; the other way round will mainly upset people and send them in the wrong direction. --Foroa (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I wan't promote any language, I want to categorize the best I could. And I've asked for this reason. So, when a place have an official bilingual name, Is it better to name it in Spanish? Where is this policy? The policy talks anout English name, and I've taken the name that apears on English Wikipedia. --Millars (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The ew:wikipedia name has been changed only recently, and this is most probably not the last name change. The situation there is different as article redirects work fine and there is no harm if one falls in the wrong article. With categories, the situation is different. If you look in [14], one can see immediatly that Burriana is the most used term, but I noticed last years that Catalan people are pushing hard to promote Catalan names. --Foroa (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ordering of images in category

Has there been a change in the way images are ordered within a category? In the Category:Images by Beyond My Ken, the images have always been alphabetically ordered, but now they're either unordered, or semi-alphabetical, or following some ordering I don't understand. Looking at the top of the first page it goes from 1 to 2 then to 5 then E then F then back to 1, and at the end of the last page are a number of images following the Z's. This disorder makes it somewhat difficult to locate images within it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I tried to remove one file from the category and inserting it again, but that doesn't help. Teofilo (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, I tried that as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
For me they are ordered by the file name. As all filenames begin with a numer they are ordered by number. However, I do not know how it was before. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 03:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The sorting depends if the file page was last edited before or after the software upgrade. Before the upgrade files were sorted by filename including namespace, "File:Filename.jpg", after upgrade it looks like they are sorted by filename without namespace, "Filename.jpg". (See also Commons:Bybrunnen#Sortering i kategorier) /Ö 04:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
All the files in Category:Images by Beyond My Ken are in the same namespace. Some new images I've added have gone into the stack, but in non-obvious places, while other existing images that I edited are now at the end of the list. Could this be a problem specifically with large categories? (Mine is 600+). In any case, would someone who knows how to do so please file a bug report on this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
No, it's worse. I see sorting patterns like KLMNO-X-ABCDE, all files of the same type and uniform naming scheme. ?? NVO (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have an example? The worst I can think of is something like: File:F.jpg (sorted without File) < File:A.jpg < File:X.jpg (sorted with File) < File:I.jpg (without File) < File:B.jpg (with old namespace Image) < File:J.jpg (without namespace). /Ö 05:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at png files in Category:Photographs by Nikolay Naidenov, specifically the files with "(1884)" in names. They are sorted (my guess) according to time of upload (I uploaded them in different batches, the first being images 64 to 96, then 25 to 63, then 1 to 24). NVO (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The example I gave above is filenames in the order: 1-2-5-E-F-1-2-3...9-A-B-C...X-Y-Z-F-N-S-T. It's mostly alphabetical by name, but with some wierdness determining that some files go elswhere. Some of the "wierd" ones are new uploads or files that I've edited, but others are not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
That is what I tried to describe. The files are sorted alphabetically, but some are sorted with "File:" prefix before the filename and some without it. Here you can see the sortkeys used for sorting the files. /Ö 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) For years, there is a sorting bug as files without key where sorted with file:file name, while files with sort key had no prefix in the sort algorithm. The resulting sort order was: A...E (Keyed), File:xxxx, G-Z (Keyed). At least, something is moving ... --Foroa (talk) 07:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added {{DEFAULTSORT:{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} like this (diff) and the file has moved to its expected location in Category:Images by Beyond My Ken. Teofilo (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's good, but we're talking about 600+ images. I shouldn't really have to force the sort of these through "default sort", the system should simply sort them by name, as it always did.

Has anyone filed a bug report? Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would not be surprised that there is only a refresh/rebuild needed of the internal tables. --Foroa (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
System administrators could run Refreshlinks.php, but in Bugzilla:23287 that script caused problems for Swedish Wikisource. /Ö 13:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

So here's a workaround: since any file that's edited in any way gets re-sorted according to the new system, (i.e. sorted by the filename itself rather than by the "File:" prefix), use an automated tool to do something to all the files in a category, and they'll be resorted. In my case, I used Cat-a-lot to move all the images to another category and then moved them back, and the sorting is now fine. This should work with any automated tool, as long as all files in the category are edited in some way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is sorting really so important that you want to make two edits to a page for something that will eventually fix itself (either by time, or by a sysadmin running a maintenance script). I would consider using Cat-a-lot in that manner disruptive, but that's just me. It's sorting, it can take a few days to get solved, the world won't end in the mean time, but you could probably sort a lot of non-sorted material in the time you spent to correct a problem that eventually will correct itself. I know how I would want to spend my time... TheDJ (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Then I suggest you spend your time doing that, and not following me around to snark at me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't even notice your name when I posted that. TheDJ (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ticket filed as bugzilla:27553. TheDJ (talk) 09:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The same file

Hello, I want to report these two files, which are the same: File:The Children of the Zodiac.ogg e File:Children zodiac kipling ce.ogg. --Superchilum(talk to me!) 10:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Next time, you can tag the less suitably named one with {{Duplicate}}. I've already done this for you. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
File:The Children of the Zodiac.ogg has a lower bitrate (which also means smaller file size) compared to File:Children zodiac kipling ce.ogg. Bidgee (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right. Is it worth keeping both files? Or should we keep the one with the higher bitrate? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I see no reason to keep the lower bitrate version, so long as they are otherwise the same. Delete the lesser version, and rename the better version to a more descriptive file name. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
What Huntster said! We always keep the higher quality file (except if its a crop, touched up ect). In this case I would keep File:Children zodiac kipling ce.ogg, rename. Bidgee (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget to redirect the deleted filename when deleting duplicate files. ✓ Done /Ö 17:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

two recent svg issues. Cache problems? New malicious files filter?

First issue. For some reason some svgs seem to be broken in the renderer cache. They are not displayed at all: Hitting the "purge" button on the file's page solves the problem. Examples: Commons:Village_pump#Canadian_Flag → , Commons:Help_desk#Non-displaying_image →

Second issue: Some svgs (maybe only those made originally by David Vignoni as I did only see it with those) either show fileicon only in galleries/cats or also as preview image. If they only show it in galleries/cats there is a warning on the file's page instead "Warning: This file type may contain malicious code. By executing it, your system may be compromised." It also happened for File:Sdm.svg some days ago. I then cleaned the svg file and it worked again. The interesting thing is: The file was ans is heavily in use so so it must have worked before. Do we have some kind of new malicious files filter which brings up false positives here? In the file I repaired I did not find anything that looked suspicious to me (I am quite expirienced in IT security).

  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
  • (do not fix for now for test purposes) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
    (do not fix for now for test purposes)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-16)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-16)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-16)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-16)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) fixed it.. is high in use - strange that I did not see this yesterday (2011-02-7)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    fixed it.. is high in use - strange that I did not see this yesterday (2011-02-7)
  • Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16) Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
    Fixed and broken again (2011-02-16)
    Fixed (svg:) (2011-02-17)
Thanks for any help to know why this happens. Of course also feel free to fix those files as they are all (some highly) in use. See my example File:Sdm.svg. Maybe leave File:Nuvola_desk_3.svg broken for now to have a example file where it does not work.

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I fixed now all except one: cleaned using inkscape's "save as normal svg" and deleted the trailing spaces in attributes

If I use Commons:SVG_Check it shows probably the error which causes the blocking by mediawiki: 

Line  16: *ERROR* Local file reference found.
	 These will not work (and may be blocked) by the Wikimedia software.
	 All required elements need to be included in the SVG directly.

I tried to reupload such a broken svg file using "upload a new version" and it returned the error "MIME type does not match" (in German).

All okay - but such more strict security filters should not apply suddenly to old files. Is there some maintainance category for blocked svgs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saibo (talk • contribs) 2011-02-15T01:50:49 (UTC) .. forgot to sign in night ;)

That is the same error message but I cannot fix it with the simple step in inkscape - it breaks the svg then completely. I have no clue what is wrong here. The official W3C validator shows loads of errors - but this may be normal. However, this file is unused - maybe it was like this all the time. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Some more are here Category:Nuvola_SVG_devices - how can this be? You cannot deploy a filter and breaking several important graphics which are in high use! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I found the reason (and a simple fix) of this (bug?). You can remove all svg: strings in tags and also rename the ns declaration xmlns:svg -> xmlns. That worked for --Perhelion (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Great.. I will try at the others one for one.. anyway: :-( Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, I fixed now all except one.
However - regarding this issue we do not need to fix not highly used pics:

(22:55:35) thedj: Saibo: i just fixed svg:svg issue in trunk. still needs review and deploy

Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, what does NOT need to be fixed, is the svg:svg case, a software update for that will follow. What DOES need to be fixed are any files that when you open them with safari or google chrome (the actual SVG) report errors alla: "Namespace prefix ... for ... on ... is not defined". These files are broken and need the missing xmlns: statements added to the <svg>. Very easy to do with google and a texteditor. Look at my contribution history for a few examples. TheDJ (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what I also see is that the most of this SVG have a XMP with a complete bitmap version included, which should removed!? --Perhelion (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay - the fix for the "svg:" bug is live. Remaining are e.g. those from Category:Nuvola SVG icons (incl. subcats):
  • Fixed - deleted font dev using base64 encoding block due to rendering problems and saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
    Fixed - deleted font dev using base64 encoding block due to rendering problems and saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
  • x:xmpmeta prefix was not correctly bound to a namespace (according to Firefox) Fixed - saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
    x:xmpmeta prefix was not correctly bound to a namespace (according to Firefox)
    Fixed - saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
  • same .... - saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
    same .... - saved in inkscape using "normal svg".
  • purgeing helped - apparently it is the fixed bug but the thumb I saw was still in the cache
    purgeing helped - apparently it is the fixed bug but the thumb I saw was still in the cache

annoying to fix all.... If the tech guys want such a strict svg interpretation we need better checking tool - also assisting those people who want to upload. They currently just get the wrong "MIME type does not match". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All fixed. — Edokter (talk) — 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ran into a similar problem myself just now. I tried to upload a SVG file with 2 accidental errors which both make uploading the image fail: missing xmlns="..." and a space before the <?xml at the start. I am glad that they were caught, but what bothered me was the error message: "File extension does not match MIME type." This is just uninformative and unhelpful. Could it be improved? —Quibik (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes good point, I'll file a ticket about that..... bugzilla:27537 TheDJ (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! —Quibik (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found dozens of bad SVGs in Category:SVG coats of arms of Switzerland which had been previously working. Examples:

-- Yekrats (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See here (in German). Lupo 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Mi sukcesis ripari File:Masein wappen.svg simple konservante ĝin per inkscape. Arno Lagrange ✉ 18:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

See the new section #SVG strictness revert to discuss if it is better to revert the change for now. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 01:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Many of the Swiss coats of arms were "Auto-generated by fig2svg tool" (whatever that is) and have strange incorrect headers... AnonMoos (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We could run a bot to add in all this svg (Xfig) to the header the missing line:
 <source lang="xml">  xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"</source>

--Perhelion (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 15

Housekeeping vs. sabotage

I regularly browse through "file needing attention..." categories - what a mess. A majority of these images are quite clear copyvios/foundsomewhere/notownwork cases. Some may be speedied quietly, others require proper deletion hearings. Being unrelated files from different uploaders, they don't fit mass deletion protocol. I'm talking about thousands of files conveniently placed into one bin.

An editor simply nominating each of these cases for deletion, one by one, would flood COM:DEL in no time - it's just a case of server response time. Where's the line between "good faith" housekeeping and outright sabotage? Say, is nominating 100 unrelated files in one night acceptable? What about 300? NVO (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think quantity is the right metric to use to determine that. As long as the nominations are well-founded, I see no problem with making lots of them. Throttling back nominations for fear of building up a backlog of nominations will just build up a backlog of files to be nominated instead. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I was asked to comment here, as this was partly inspired by a long string of deletion nominations I made yesterday (I'm guessing 15-20). I would like to point to a good essay: w:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. I tend to agree with it, as a programmer; I don't see the number of nominations I've made causing a huge issue. Once we're hitting 100, yeah, that's becoming a bit obnoxious (and a pain for the closing admins). In any case, if you'd like, feel free to combine all of my Russia-sculpture nominations into one (you can redirect the nominations to a single page, and remove the transclusions). Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not think it is a number but quality. If you think that 200 files uploaded by someone are all copyvios and you create separate DR for each of them with the same reason - that is annoying since one mass-DR would be better. But 100 DR's each for different well explained reason would be great. Also before tagging large number of separate files with DR for some reason you might want to do one or two test cases to see what people think. --Jarekt (talk) 14:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Its better to make a script for selecting those images for mass DR......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In case of real obvious mass copyvio even a nomination of one file, with a comment that the same applies to all uploads of that user would be fine. Or, specially if the uploads are ongoing, you could leave a comment at the administrators noticeboard as well. Jcb (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the software could cope with mass individual nomibations, if a users upload is suspect {{no permission since} may be appropriate to speed up deletions in cases where speedy is not immediately obvious.--KTo288 (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Jcb -- unfortunately, that procedure wouldn't give people who are interested in any of the other files a chance to participate in the discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Tracking inadequate image description

We have so many images here, and often the uploader is not very active or has no particular knowledge about the image he uploaded. So if we have technical questions about the image, we may never get any answer. I think it could help to have a system that tracks unanswered questions about the image. Do we already have such a thing ? I have created a stub-level {{Unclear description}}, improvements are welcome.--Zolo (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that we already have Template:Doubt ? However, your idea to create a maintenance category for such files is not fulfilled with Template:Doubt. Teofilo (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
No I didn't know it thanks, it is very similar. I suppose I can add automatic categories and perhaps parameters for easier tracking. I think the text should be something like "The description of this media appears inadequate or ambiguous", which would be clearer than what we have now (this is the description that is in doubt, not the validity of the media itself, which to me implies a deletion proposal).--Zolo (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
POTD 20 February 2011 titled "An unknown gear mechanism found at an abandoned concrete factory in Benagéber, Spain"
I suppose you are not interested in {{Fact}} that is somewhat different.
If there are mountains in an image and these aren't identified in the description, you can put it into Category:Mountain puzzle and they are usually identified fairly quickly.
For plants, this works (or used to work) quite well too.
Obviously there are quite a few media like today's POTD that could gain from better descriptions. --  Docu  at 07:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

February 18

USG picture of a statue, please advise

I know there is the whole FOP thing and statues and all in the US. (Not taking pictures of them.) But then I see this site, which is advertised as PD. Thoughts? Any chance that the image might really be free? [15]

TCO (talk) 06:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

  • No. Photographer's affiliation with US-Gov does not change the subject of the photo. The inscription clearly says that the statue was funded by private money. NVO (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Remember there are 2 pieces of 'creativity' here. It is not the copyright of the image (composition of the photograph) that is the problem. The problem is the copyright of the architect on the statue itself. TheDJ (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, possibly. The photograph is PD-USGov, but that is still subject to the copyright on the statue itself, which is separate. The sculpture had to follow U.S. law however, which involved copyright notice requirements and in some cases registration. The statue in question was unveiled in February 1973. There appears to be no copyright notice on it; certainly not on the plaque in front. I cannot find it on the Smithsonian's art inventories site, which usually documents all the inscriptions along with the copyright notices, so I'm not sure how certain we are there is no copyright notice (odd that it would not be on the plaque though). The plaque is marked "C. W. Brown, sculptress", which is a Carol W. Brown, sister-in-law to Carol Steinbeck Brown (Steinbeck's first wife). I can't find any registration on the U.S. Copyright Office site, though that doesn't really mean anything, as renewal would not be required anyways, and pre-1978 records are not online so it could have been registered earlier. So, really, it hinges on whether there is a copyright notice on the statue I think. There doesn't appear to be one on the front, and it seems doubtful it would be anywhere else, but it's sometimes good to have someone really looking for it rather than rely on photos. Still, notices were supposed to be reasonably visible, and anything on the back would not be too visible in that location, so... perhaps we could claim PD-US-no_notice for the statue and allow the photo. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Language button does not work

In Category:BASIC (programming language) is a language button. Whatever language I select, it does not show up. In File:Lodoicea Maldivica C.jpg there is also a language button and that works, although I don't have an idea how that button arrives there. For example File:Tradescantia Osprey A.jpg has the same type of description in more than one language and there is no language button. Wouter (talk) 11:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Everything is working.. but: you need to uncollapse the grey box... the collapse template should be removed and {{Mld}} used... or is there any other way to trigger the display of the lang select button? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not recognize the grey box, because as I am used to the Template:Multilingual description, I clicked only on the language button.
Still remains for me the difference between File:Lodoicea Maldivica C.jpg where there is a language button and nothing in the code of the page and for example File:Tradescantia Osprey A.jpg that behaves "normal". Any idea? Wouter (talk) 18:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tried to convert it to mld but somehwere is a bug in bold/italics and I cannot find it.. (i've reverted my change) see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:BASIC_(programming_language)&oldid=50074737
For your file: like in the category: the selection box seems to appear if a specific number of language tags (apparently 4) is exceeded on file pages. But I do not know more in this matter. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
If there are more than 4 language tags next to each other, the dropdown is created even without mld--DieBuche (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your fix in the cat. However - I do not think it is necessary to always display en but we can leave it like this. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In Category:Örebro there are 12 language tags next to each other, but there the dropdown is NOT created without the mld. Not that important but just to mention. Wouter (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that I create frequently cat documentation with data from sum it up. For items that need doc in many languages (cultural items with a large vocabulary for example such as Category:Mbira and Category:Quadricycles), I set up first the doc for English and local languages, the rest I put them in a collapsable structure to limit the page size to less than half a page, so I can compare the texts in some languages against the English and local language descriptions. I never bother to convert to Mld as it does not satisfies the needs and takes often 10 to 20 minutes of fidling to get it it right. It is only since a couple of months that the multi-language switch has an impact on such collapsable structures which results indeed in some confusion. --Foroa (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

February 19

New license template with review

File:Sathyan23.JPG and many images by User universalhero is associated with an OTRS ticket, a review template will be good to verify the sources of the images are okay with the OTRS, same like {{Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama}}..tags, that will help others to upload with the OTRS tag......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 15:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

PD-self

Is it not anymore a proposed license option in the upload form?? --Eusebius (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's still in the upload form --Isderion (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Not in mine ("frownwork"), where the "public domain" one results in a CC-0 template. --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It's deprecated in favour of CC0. You can still use the permission field to enter PD-self manually if you really want, but we want to encourage use of CC0. I just noticed CC0 is also listed. The other "public domain" option in the upload form should not automatically do CC0. That's tantamount to claiming uploaders agree to a contract that they have not agreed to. If it were up to me I think this other public domain option should simply be removed from the list to prevent confusion. Dcoetzee (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I can only see one PD option in MediaWiki:Licenses/frownwork. --Isderion (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed all the licenses some time ago, but I guess I missed one. Fixed. Multichill (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, don't confuse us, you fixed the english one (MediaWiki:Licenses/ownwork). --Isderion (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Releasing a work into the public domain and licensing it under CC-0 can be very different, and I certainly do not wish to use the CC-0 licence. I was very upset to realize that Commons could interpret a PD release in this way. Could the CC-0 be explicitly stated in the dropdown list please, just like for other CC licences? --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It not only should but must be - if a user inadvertently releases an image under CC-0, they have not released it under that license at all. I was under the impression the drop down lists were changed to remove the "Public domain" option, which is the right thing to do. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really mind as soon as the options are properly documented, but why is removing PD alternative "the right thing to do"? --Eusebius (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion PD-self should not have been removed from the list without wider discussion. I have raised the issue at Commons talk:Licensing#PD-self removal from upload form list. MKFI (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

How (mechanically how) do I upload a high res image for an existing file?

I have now gotten a high res copy of an image. How do I change out the existing file? Like what edit buttons do I go to?

TCO (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

By going to Commons:Upload and picking the applicable choice? --  Docu  at 07:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You are wanting to replace the existing file with a higher resolution image? On the image description page, toward the bottom, look for "Upload a new version of this file". Click that and upload the new file. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hunster, thanks, your instructions worked. TCO (talk) 07:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Note that although I haven't examined this particular case, generally you should upload different images under a different name; only nearly-identical higher-resolution images should be uploaded on top of existing images. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Which is exactly the case here: a low-res image was replaced by a near-identical high-res image. Examining the particular case does prove useful. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for comments: VOA material in public domain

According to this, "All text, audio and video material produced exclusively by the Voice of America is in the public domain." The page also mentions "VOA has a license from Associated Press to use AP photos and graphics. All AP material is copyrighted and the property of Associated Press, and may not be copied, published or redistributed without the written permission of Associated Press."

Users in Persian Wikipedia are considering to take high quality screenshots from the Persian VOA television channel and upload them to commons with Public Domain license. This can be helpful because there are a significant number of articles in Persian (and other) Wikipedia about notable Iranian people for whom a free photo has not been available so far.

I would like to seek advice about this before any action is taken. I would particularly want to know if it is appropriate (in terms of copyright as well as Wikipedia traditions) to derive photos by cropping above mentioned screenshots and upload them to Commons.

Please advise,

Huji (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It would depend on where the VOA material is coming from. What the VOA is essentially saying what they themselves create is in the public domain, but what they use from AP is still copyrighted to the AP and thus not in the public domain. So in terms of using screenshots from the VOA channel, you'd first need to check to see who created the video... My suspicion is that if you checked, you'd find most of the actual news stories to be AP material originally and the VOA material is the announcers and hosts' comments in between those stories. Tabercil (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. However, it is our intention not to use news reports; we want to confine ourselves to in-studio interviews with famous people. Since they are recorded in VOA studio, I don't think there is a reason we can think they are not exclusively VOA work. In that terms, is it acceptable to make screenshots and submit here?
Also, part of my question is about whether it is acceptable to "crop out" photos of people from high-def screenshots. Such photos will not have EXIF data, and are different from regular photos. I've never seen such a thing on Commons but my experience is limited. Is there a reason one should avoid this (copyright not being an issue)? Huji (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
To see some example matching with what Huji said, I have found these screen-shots from NASA TV (which is also in Public Domain). [[16]] [[17]] [[18]] [[19]] and [many more --Pouyana (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
If the in-studio interviews really are all PD then by all means upload them (I see no reason they wouldn't be). Use the highest quality possible, but be wary of the 100 MB file size limit. Cropping is allowed and encouraged. However I recommend uploading both the original work and the cropped work and putting linked between them using {{Image extracted}} and {{Extracted from}}. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice, I will follow your instruction. --Pouyana (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

February 20

Tag advising that image should be in different graphic format?

Do we have a tag advising that a graphic file uploaded in PDF should be replaced by a version in some graphic format such as JPEG or SVG? I applied {{Source file please}} to "File:Affiche Championnats de France de semi-marathon Lyon 2008.jpg.pdf" but am not sure that is the right tag. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a "PDF to X" template, but that's not really the issue here. I see no evidence that the uploader has the right to upload said file and release into public domain. The file also contains copyrighted elements, including the McDonalds and Caisse D'epargne logos. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to DieBuche for deleting the file. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for helping to resolve the issue. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

PNG pictures no more supported

Attempting to upload a PNG file as I made several times before, I now get a message saying : "Dosiera sufikso ne kongruas MIME-tipon" (File extension don't match with MIME type). What's happening ? How to fix ? I uploaded a JPG file instead, but is it no more able to upload PNG files, or what ? Arno Lagrange ✉ 13:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Check that what you're trying to upload is actually internally a PNG file, and has a name ending in ".png". At Special:NewFiles, I see a PNG uploaded in the last few minutes, so they haven't been disabled... AnonMoos (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've recently encountered at least two cases where the software rejected valid JPEG files due to a bug. That might be going on here. Try re-encoding the PNG using a different software tool. Dcoetzee (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Dcoetzee -- One known issue is that JPEG files with HTML tags in the embedded metadata are rejected; this might or might not be considered to be a bug. For these kind of problems, the jpegtran tool in the IJG JPEG package can be used to put a JPEG into a bare-bones "canonical" form without any "lossy" image manipulations. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The first PNG file I found in the newfilew came after 30 not - PNG. Since years I make screenshots with ACDSee in PNG format and when needed upload to Wikimedia commons without any problem. Since MediaWiki 1.17 I encounter problems. Should I change my way of working or should MediaWiki software be fixed to support PNG files as it worked before ? Arno Lagrange ✉ 16:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, see e.g. File:8645-01-samsø-høst.png. That's a PNG file uploaded today, without any problems obviously (like many others). I guess the software you use sets a wrong MIME type. --:bdk: 17:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Creativity in specific logo, OTRS complaint

Hi. We have OTRS communication regarding a logo, File:Timet logo.svg, which was originally uploaded with an erroneous PD-self tag (my thanks to User:Dcoetzee for correcting that). To fairly resolve the complaint, we need a determination as to whether the image is sufficiently creative that it must be used under exemption doctrine on local projects. Given the tendency of deletion debates to move slowly with little feedback and the rather more timely requirements of OTRS, I'm hoping to get quicker feedback and resolution, so that we can communicate the outcome to our correspondent. If you are willing and able to participate, please provide input at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Timet logo.svg. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Trams in Lisbon

There seems to be some confusion in this category. Practically all the old trams are "Remodelados" but there are also modern trams and I thougth some of them where shown, but I dont see them anymore. Some remodelados trams where reclassified under "Trams in Lisbon". Nowadays the old trams only run on the lines 12 and 28 and there are a lot of pictures for them. (to many) Pictures of old trams on other lines should be kept separate, as these are rare. I think it is handy to keep modern trams separate (own category?) as they are not very popular for pictures takers. (not one?)

Are all old trams (today) remodelados or not? I suppose it means rebuild in Portugese.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I live in Lisbon, and I never heard of that "remodelado" thing. Until now I supposed we only had the old Scotish built trams and the new ones (and some fancy old ones for tourists as well). I'll have a look in that.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I found where that thing comes from: [20]. Back in 1995 CCFL rebuilt 45 unities, only preserving the exterior wooden case. 10 units were preserved in their original condition, and still do occasional service. About the fancy red ones used for tourists, they are actually a modern refit, dating from the 80's, which had nothing of old nor original (red colour and velvet seats). But looking at the pictures, I really can't tell what is rebuilt ("remodelado") and what is original, though the rebuilt ones are supposed to be modern electric unities. :S -- Darwin Ahoy! 16:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Sincerely, if we are unable to easily recognize which is it, I would drop that "remodelado"/rebuilt division all together, since it looks to me a lot like original research, if not picking at random. The category "Remodelado tramways in lines 12 and 28" is also nonsense, since non-rebuilt tramways also do occasional service in those lines. A better approach would be to start categorizing them by number, when available, and then check for modern electric gear on the roof to decide if they were or weren't rebuilt in 1995 (though this sounds A LOT like original research to me, as well).-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Here it is, a bit more. Carris (CCFL) names their rebuilt/refitted unities as "históricos" or "remodelados", units 541 to 585. The new ones (line 15) are called "articulados". There is also a lot of technical info in that page.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The "Remodelado" cats, apart from that hideous name, were quite prone to confusion, since the tourist trams were also refitted (though I don't know if they changed anything besides decoration). The cat about lines 12 and 28 doesn't looked that helpful, since almost all the trams doing that line are the refitted variant. I've now moved those files to Category:Trams in Lisbon refitted in 1995-1996 and subcats, and some misplaced files were moved to other cats. I also created a cat for every tram I could read the number, so that it is much more organized now (though I sort of miss the "group view", but I guess that's what galleries are for).
Actually, while doing it, I found an easy way to see if they were refitted: In the roof there are 4 semi-spheres, which are absent in the 700 series, for instance. It seems that those 500 series were converted from the 700, but I couldn't determine it in the sources I saw.-- Darwin Ahoy! 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The reason I created the separate line 12 & 28 category, is that these are the only lines wich stil have old trams and are endlessly photografed. These pictures swamp the other lines where pictures are much rarer and older. I wil look if I can find any modern trams pictures to correct the present inbalance. (no modern trams) I wil create an (empty) category for the modern trams. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Then I believe it's more useful now that it's organized by vehicle, as we can now follow a particular tram through the time, sometimes even documented with inside pictures and such (example: Category:Lisbon tram 575). A further organization may still be possible, grouping the series as in "Trams in Lisbon - series 700" or "Trams in Lisbon - type "caixote"", but I couldn't find any source for clear names for those different types of trams, though the common people sometimes nicknamed them (as in the "caixote", wooden box, example: File:Lissabon-Tram1.JPG).
The former category dealing with lines 12 and 28 was not ideal, since old trams still occasionally do those lines, and older photographs would display old, non-refitted trams in lines 12 and 28 as well (some were already there, as File:Lisbon_Tram_1997.jpg).
I'm under the impression that series 500 were made from former series 700 vehicles, but couldn't find if that's indeed the case.
As for the "modern trams", maybe it would be better to name that cat as "Articulated trams in Lisbon", since it is their "official name" by Carris, and that the 1995-1996 refitted trams are, for all effects, modern units as well.-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Done, I put a rename request in. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I still find it important to also classify by line as many people are more interested in location than in the exact type of car number or type. If I want to find all pictures of line 15, 18 or 25, I have to scan all the pictures. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I also miss the "by location" categorization, but I'm not sure if using the lines as start point would be the best approach, since those lines have a rather complex trajectory, often overlapping each other. Maybe it would be best to study the tram paths and define some regions for use as location, like "Trams in Praça do Comércio", or "Trams in Alfama", which would then be categorized into the corresponding tram lines. I don't know if the same tram was always assigned to the same line, if it was it could be interesting to do something as "Lisbon trams in line 28" with the corresponding Lisbon tram subcats.-- Darwin Ahoy! 12:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Trams are generally bound to the depot where there are stalled and a depot provides trams for specific lines. In practice on what lines a specific tram runs can change frequently and is of no use for categories. In Lisbon old type trams runs only on the lines 12 and 28, because articulated trams cannot ride in the small streets. The only other lines stil running are 15 and 18 and these only use articulated trams. Line 12 is only a shortcut between parts of line 28. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
You take a look at the classification of Category:Trams in Brussels. There is another problem: Tramlines can change routes and destinations over time. To avoid posible confusion sometimes a period should be added to a line category. Most times thats not a problem as there are few old pictures and these can be classified under historic trams or old type trams. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I want to check something: are the original Lisbon trams, Škoda trams, as the main category of (Trams in Lisbon refitted in 1995-1996) would suggest? Or is this only for articulated trams? Out of the English Skoda article I suspect they only build trams after WWII. Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Articulated trams are build by Siemens. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Redacting private info

A while ago, I redacted the license plate numbers from File:Loughner family home.JPG and asked for the non-redacted version to be deleted. This was done, but an admin recently unredacted it and restored the privacy-violating version. Does this make sense? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with the decision (& agree with you) but the "logic" is here. I dislike wheel warring but that version should go for privacy reason IMO. --Herby talk thyme 15:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm not disputing the outcome of the deletion discussion as a whole, only the display of version with the visible license plates.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Likewise :) --Herby talk thyme 15:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The decision was the only possible outcome of the dispute. If you disagree with the outcome, you'll have to start a new DR instead of reverting the decision. Jcb (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No, the dispute was over the inclusion of the file as a whole, not the inclusion of that particular version. Only one person in that discussion addressed the version question. I have reverted again to the non-privacy-violating version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
And please note that the _last_ admin to come along agreed with me, and deleted the version with the visible license plates. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In that DR, more than one user requested that the original version would be restored. I agree with them, so I restored that as part of the closure. You were already told which procedure you should follow if you disagree with an admin decision. You are not allowed to just revert the admin decision (several times!). Jcb (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, where? One editor asked for the original version to be restored, that I can see -- everyone else was just saying that the picture of the house should be kept. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
In Januari another user already reuploaded the original version, which he also stated in the DR. That part of the version war has already been deleted. Jcb (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Check the timestamps. Diego was uploading a full-res version after the original author uploaded a low-res version -- both of which were _before_ I uploaded my version and PeterSymonds deleted the ones with visible license plates. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see any reason at all why the version with the actual license plates on needs to be kept? --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Me too. I certainly reject the argument make at the deletion discussion that we need to host unadulterated pictures -- I'm sure that most of our best pictures have been edited. When I posted a picture of a NRHP location that I took at a family get-together, I painted out the dad and children playing on the front steps.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see an issue at all. There is also a picture at Wikimedia Commons in which my personal license plate is readable and I just don't care. Whoever can read my license plate wherever I drive. Jcb (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but the Loughner family is slightly-higher profile than you are -- and as an admin, if you had a problem with it, you could do something about it. Even as an experienced editor without buttons, you could get something done about it fairly quickly -- for example, the exact same thing I did. The Loughners have nothing to do with WP/WM as far as I know, so if they became aware of it, they'd have to start from scratch on figuring out how to deal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I too fail to see why this was reversed. I completely disagree with the outcome of this, and I'm rather surprised and disappointed to see it. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, Herby and SarekOfVulcan, and I think that a privacy issue is a very serious matter that need to be handled carefully... Manuelt15 (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Turkish people" and "People of Turkey"

I happened to arrive at the Category:Turkish people. There is also the Category:People of Turkey. What is the difference between both? I added the category "People of Turkey" to the "Category:Turkish people". Wouter (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say that "People of Turkey" refers to people actually living in Turkey, while "Turkish people" is for people of Turkish descent living elsewhere. See "Category:Chinese people" and "Category:People of China". You should add suitable usage notes to the category to guide other users. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that Category:Turkish people appears to be full of content pertaining to people who live in Turkey, while we also have Category:Turkish diaspora for people of Turkish descent living elsewhere. Given the overlapping content, I am not sure how good it is to have two categories that are so easily confused -- Chinese People is somewhat different, perhaps, given that people of Chinese descent make up the majority of persons living in Taiwan and Singapore as well as China.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I have now seen that for example Category:German people redirects to Category:People of Germany. Wouter (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should do the same here. Category:Turkish people is also inconsistent with the standard form of category title, whereby the object is first, then the modifiers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like the whole tree needs cleaning up. Maybe we should use clearer category names like "People of Turkish descent" rather than "Turkish diaspora" or "Turkish people", like at the English Wikipedia. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Category:People of Turkish descent is already a subcat of Category:Turkish diaspora. The latter is broader in scope, and captures everything from festivals to churches, etc., while the former is for (obviously) people. However, there is a bunch of stuff in the diaspora cat that should be in the descent cat.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. The branch is really untidy. The subcategories like "Turks in Austria", "Turks in Belgium" and "Turks in Egypt" should be in "People of Turkish descent". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is also the small matter of people who live in the state of Turkey who would rather die (and those who have died in fact) then be called Turks.--KTo288 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, it is a mess, even on the en:wikipedia. If they want a separate category; it will need to be called Category:Turkish people (ethnic group) or so, otherwise we will need to merge and unmerge it for years. --Foroa (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The Turkish people or the Turks are a subethnic group of the Turkic peoples (Category:Turkic peoples). The Category:People of Turkey should include the people that living in Turkey and the Category:Turkish people shold include the Turks. The en.wikipedia category arrangement is different. They include all the people living in turkey in one category (Category:Turkish people) and have a different category for the Turk people that living out of Turkey - Turkish diaspora. in that case they dont have distinguish between the Turks and others in Turkey. The Category:Turkish diaspora in Commons is not necessary but I dont mind to leave it. Geagea (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"People of Turkey" and "Turkish people" are way too similar, even with explanatory notes. The latter should be Category:People of Turkish descent in Turkey or something to that effect. Category:Turkish diaspora exists because there is a whole diaspora category tree. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I've not investigated how this issue is dealt with at the Commons and at the English Wikipedia, but from a content perspective it seems to me that people can be categorized in relation to their "origin" or nationality in the following ways:
  • According to their ethnicity.
  • According to the nationality of their parents or remoter ancestors – for example, people whose parents were Singaporean but are now living in Australia ("People of Singaporean descent in Australia"?).
  • According to the country in which they presently reside.
  • According to their citizenship or nationality (which, of course, may not be the same as their country of residence).
Perhaps we should be trying to clean up our category trees along these lines. I can see that it may be difficult to choose category names that convey these distinctions clearly (for example, does "People of Chinese descent" refer to ethnicity or nationality?), but perhaps the problem can be minimized with usage notes. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
One answer which I think was tried out several years ago was to name all the categories "People of X" (e.g "People of China") and put each individual in as many categories that apply... AnonMoos (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand how this is a solution. It doesn't seem at all appropriate to place a photograph of, say, a famous Chinese American actor whose ancestors came from China in "People of China". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The "People of [location]" categories cover off people who originated from (the actual person, not their fore-bearers), live/work at or died at that location. To use your example, the famous Chinese American actor whose ancestors came from China shouldn't be in Category:People of China directly, but rather Category:Chinese Americans (or, better yet, Category:People of Chinese descent in the United States or Category:Americans of Chinese descent, since not all Americans with Chinese ancestors necessarily self-identify as "Chinese Americans"). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Multilingual descriptions not displaying

I always want to see all language translations on an image description page, and that's the way it has worked before. But now on File:Miraculous medal.jpg the non-English descriptions are not displaying unless I go through a special drop-down box (easy to overlook, by the way), and going through the general account preferences, I don't see any option to configure this permanently to always display all... AnonMoos (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, selecting languages by two-letter codes ("en", "fr", "de") will really not be intuitive to many users... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
1: I am sure you can set this in your skin.js file. But do not ask me what you need to put in there. ;)
2: In most cases the language code will not need to be selected since it is auto-selected for the user. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Set window.ls_enable = false; in your /common.js --DieBuche (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's slightly annoying that that I have to resort to custom script hacking (something which I've never done in the last 5 years) just to get all information which is intended to be publicly-displayed to in fact display. When there are several language descriptions present, they're very often NOT direct simple translations of each other. I can read French fairly easily, and can often make out the basic gist in several other languages, so I want to know everything that's said about the image -- the more information the better. And if people are adding tendentious descriptions in Arabic to middle-eastern flag images (as happens from time to time), then I want to know about that too. Code which puts the browsing user's native-language description first in the list might be convenient, but code which completely suppresses the display of all other language descriptions is not at all helpful to me... AnonMoos (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur that this "feature" doesn't seem to be an improvement. The dropdown is hard to find, and all of the options (including "All") should be available as default settings. Powers (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
But what do you want if there are 30 languages? See all by default? Then you cannot see anything else of the description page. I unterstand the concerns. Maybe we should display all by default for logged-in users (and provide a checkbox in the options to hide by default) and collapse except one for anon users? Or have the last selection remembered? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, if there are 30, then I want to see 30! Right now File:Flag of the United States.svg has 33 (if I count correctly), and I like to be able to know that they're there without having to remember to pull-down some little finicky box, and so be able to scan down them and check out selected entries... AnonMoos (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Now there's File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpg, which is even more annoying, since there's not even a finicky and easy-to-overlook drop-down box. How am I supposed to easily scan down and verify the various title translations on File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpg without editing the page source?? -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That case is different since {{LangSwitch}} is used to explicitly only display the preferred language. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 21

Syntax error

Hi, since the MW update I've been getting this error msg: Error: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist at line 8: syntax error In a few pages, always "at line 8: syntax error", what could be wrong? --Màñü飆¹5 talk 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

What browser are you using? I don't encounter this problem with Mozilla Firefox 3.6.13. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I disabled one of your scripts Manuel, that was generating an error. Better now ? TheDJ (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks TheDJ, but the guilty is this, that explain why ZooFari had the same error :) Cheers, Manuelt15 (talk) 03:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 22

Madame Tussauds' sculptures

Are the wax sculptures on show in Madame Tussauds museum protected by copyright law? If so, is it allowed to take a picture of them an upload them on Commons or a sister project? Please advise, Huji (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I would regard such wax sculptures as any other kind of sculpture in the UK, which means that in general unless you can show that 70 years have passed since the sculptor's death the statue remains copyrighted. On the other hand, if you can prove that a particular wax sculpture at Madame Tussauds is permanently on display and not part of a temporary exhibition, then freedom of panorama will apply. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Google Art Project uploads done

I've finished uploading all the works from the Google Art Project at Category:Google Art Project and Category:Gigapixel images from the Google Art Project. (For the curious, I have included a list of all images not uploaded from the Google Art Project at: Google Art Project/Not uploaded). Help is still needed to:

  • Identify and link other versions of the same images on Commons, and copy their categories (or create/use a single artwork template)
  • Use CommonsDelinker to replace existing uses of inferiour images by the new images
  • Create retouched versions of the images under different names, in cases where the images have poor histograms, etc.
  • Remove non-free frames
  • Verify metadata - in particular, a lot of the dimensions are missing decimal points on the Google Art Project, leading to incorrect (or even implausible) dimensions
  • Add metadata, such as accession numbers, links to the museum's work page, provenance, notes, etc.
  • Add new categories
  • Place the images in relevant articles on many different projects

I still haven't uploaded the full gigapixel images anywhere - this will have to wait for me to implement tools to handle them. Thanks everyone for your help! Dcoetzee (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

  • "replace existing uses of inferiour images by the new images", "Place the images in relevant articles" - did I miss all the fun? Stocking these images won't hurt anyone but what's the point in using files that are unusable on practical equipment at practical speeds ?? NVO (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The software automatically creates thumbnails of images when they are used in articles. The thumbnails are low resolution JPEGs that are convenient for readers to download. Moreover, most of the images in the collection are not gigapixel-sized, but 10-20 megapixels, the same as a normal digital photograph. Moreover, all the gigapixel images have been reduced to under 100 MB for Commons, which is practical to manipulate with existing software on ordinary PCs. Finally, I am in the process of developing software for dealing with the full size gigapixel images. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Topjabot

In 2004, several thousand images where uploaded from http://www.biolib.de/ by this bot (see this thread from back then). It's very unclear on the images and on the bots userpage whether they were given permission however as there are no links to a licence and the site has copyright markings. I've contacted the author and they have confirmed that they did give permission and told me that the licences are present in the same folder as the images on his site as added to File:Polypodium_crassifolium1.jpg. Another problem is that the images don't have a link to the original source which isn't ideal - most are like File:Rosa sp.91.jpg. Is there anyone who could make a bot to go through and add links and confirm the permission? There was some discussion about it here in August 2009 and apparently the author sent something via OTRS then as well. It would be good to get this sorted, as it will only continue to cause problems if left as it is. Cheers Smartse (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes they need some serious clean up: adding {{Information}}, Creator template for the author, group them in a single source category, make sure all the licenses are the same, etc. Links can be added to the website, but I am not sure how to add links to individual files. It would be good to find OTRS for it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
A start can be made by leaving a message at "Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard" to ask that a search be done to find the OTRS confirmation. (Hopefully it can be found.) Or, if we are in touch with the author, it may be easier to ask him to send another e-mail. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I could find ticket 2009081310043318 . Subject: "Fwd: Re: biolib.de image permission". The subjetc is misleading though, it's only about three pictures from another site. --DieBuche (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
How about the content of the OTRS email - can it be used on all the images? --Jarekt (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I created {{Information biolib}} and Category:Photographs by Kurt Stüber and are adding it to all the Kurt Stüber photographs. There is a link to GFDL license at the website hosting the images so OTRS is probably not needed. But if we have one or are going to get one it should be added to the template. Improvements to {{Information biolib}} are welcome. --Jarekt (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Pretty efficient cleanup. Thanks. --  Docu  at 06:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Awesome work. Cheers Smartse (talk) 13:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

When did the duplicate files checking get disabled?

Didn't it used to be that when trying to uploading an image which was already available (i.e. the exact same file is already on Commons) a warning would appear, similar to that which occurs if you try and upload something with an already existing filename. After having spotted that the duplicate checker seems to be broken I also spotted that this feature seems to have gone. Anyone know why and when? /Lokal_Profil 16:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Worked ok in last three hours NVO (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
    • However, in the last few days I frequently ran into uploading duplicates because of broken upload form. It works fine for a while, then at some random point it crashes and stops refreshing "destination filename" field - so the new file ends up uploaded on top of the older one. Then the old one must be reuploaded etc... and if the user has not fixed everything, then it may easily end up in having two identical images under different names. NVO (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Seems to be working again, must have been something on my end. As for the file in the duplicate checker link it's (visually) identical to another image here, with the same metadata but with different md5 sums which I guess is why it doesn't identify them as the same. /Lokal_Profil 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

February 23

Not all contributions show up (?)

Checking contributions of anonymous users I found a contribution of 2011-02-11 11:45. Looking at the contributions of that user I found only one contribution. I wanted to make a comment on the talk page and found there already a comment of 2010-12-10. So apparently there has been already contributions of that user before that one of 2011-02-11. Is there an explanation for that? Wouter (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Users contribution from 10 December 2010 was deleted as Test page[21] and can be viewed only in Special:DeletedContributions/194.218.146.194 --Justass (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. When I observe vandalism, I always look at the contribution list of the user to check whether there has been other acts of vandalism not observed yet and it determines the way I formulate my comments on the talk page. Does it happen frequently that user contributions are deleted? Wouter (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"Deleted contributions" are edits made to any page that is then deleted after the edit was made. So, yes, it does happen frequently. When somebody nominates a file for deletion, he or she will typically add a deletion tag to the file page. When the file is later deleted, this edit (as all prior edits to that file) then become deleted contributions. You yourself currently have 1095 deleted contributions, mostly from categorization edits to files that subsequently were deleted. I currently have 4207 deleted contributions. Lupo 13:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

We broke 9M

Seems we broke the 9 million milestone - congratulations, among other people and projects, to the Geograph upload! Jean-Fred (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant. If anyone would like to join in checking and adding categories they would be very welcome. Just a technical question. How would I look at upload number, for instance #9000000- it would be a good party trick. --ClemRutter (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Upload 9M isn't the 9Mth file. Some 1000s files have been deleted, since Commons started. sугсго 15:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Elizabeth Gillies

I found several pictures of Elizabeth Gillies on the following website: http://wireimage.com/SearchResults.aspx?navtyp=SRH&sfld=C&logsrch=1&s=elizabeth gillies

Some of these pictures are also used in the IMDb. Can anyone ask the owner (WireImages) for permission to use one or two of these picture here on wikipedia? I have already sent an email to WireImage and they replied to me, I should call the phone number: 1-800-IMAGERY for permission requests. Because I live in Switzerland, I can't do this. Could anyone help me? --Simon.hess (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that WireImage is going to release material free to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

February 24

Just checking

Category:Hills in Derbyshire

should be merged into

Category:Hills of Derbyshire

shouldn't it?--ClemRutter (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

of course, I filed a CommonsDelinker request a few minutes ago, so one of the bots should handle this case soon (it seems none is active right now, but it's not an urgent case, so "no problem") -:bdk: 14:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

I know this isn't normally the place to make a deletion request, but while attempting to correct a number of errors, I have just made a series of mistakes myself, and I thought listing them all in one place would make things clearer. The categories and redirects to be deleted are as follows:

With my apologies for the mess and my thanks to the admin who takes care of this. – Mu (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is easier for admins if you put also speedy delete templates on the pages.--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I have just done this. – Mu (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

February 25

Copy right question

Image:Asrc.jpg seems to be out of the PDTEXT as the letters merge into each other thus it does not seem to be simple Text and seem to me to pass the threshold of Originality . Am I right in thinking that?

- ResidentAnthropologist (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No. The image is still composed entirely of letterforms, which are common content. That they overlap is not germane. Powers (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Arrangement of letters can, in some cases, cause a work to rise above the threshold of copyrightability. This is not such a case. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User avatar image

I found http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pengguna:Superanimal that the user avatar image here is freely licensed?

Can I move it to Commons right away? Or do I need to think of an educational use of the image first? Maybe it could be used to illustrate an archetypical style of superhero dress? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The scope policy contains an exception for a small number of images for user pages. The license is appropriate. Just go for it. CommonsHelper may be helpful. Dcoetzee (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Alta Vega.svg

I just uploaded this flag to the wrong name. Could someone move it to Flag of Vega Alta.svg? Thanks. Lexicon (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I just deleted the file as being a dupe of the target file name, File:Flag of Vega Alta.svg. Rehman 06:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I noticed a jpeg version of the file in use on the English Wikipedia and just assumed there hadn't been an SVG version created yet (several other Puerto Rican municipalities had their flags vectorized, but not that one). Thanks. 74.12.21.215

Speedy deletion

I have submitted two copyvio more than 10 days ago. Could somebody have a look?

The creator died in 1955... --Anneyh (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, but as a layman, I don't know how to verify that the stamps were created by the person you identify. Perhaps a deletion request would have been more appropriate here. Powers (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, on the second one one can read the name "Rigal" at the bottom, and a quick googling finds this page confirming the author, Louis Pierre Rigal. Another quick google for this name confirms his death year (1955). The first file mentioned is a version of the same stamp. Lupo 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I have deleted the files. For future reference, please be sure to notify the uploader when you tag a file for deletion, and either provide specific evidence or direct non-obvious cases to COM:DR. Powers (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I had actually notified the uploader of the second file, as for the uploader of the first one, if I remember correctly was not active for very long (> 2 years). I would have expected somebody to change the request rather than leaving it open for 10 days + 3 days here!--Anneyh (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:The A.V. Alexandrov Russian army twice red-bannered academic song and dance ensemble

I think this category is inappropriately named for the following reasons:

  • It's too long, and this long name is rarely used, even by the Ensemble itself
  • After much discussion, Wikipedia editors settled on the name "Alexandrov Ensemble" for the English Wikipedia article
  • In Russia the Ensemble is usually called KAPPSA - a shortened version of the long name
  • Worldwide the Ensemble is usually called The Red Army Choir

Since the en.Wiki editors have already agreed that "Alexandrov Ensemble" is the appropriate name for the article on en.Wiki, shouldn't the category have the same name here? And if so, please could you tell me how to move the category to the correct name, or who can do it for us? Thanks.--Storye book (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Anybody can change it. All you have to do is to create new category; move all images; and redirect old category. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

February 26

Is this license adequate? California State Assembly site

This is the Use Policy from the California State Assembly site (www.assembly.ca.gov): http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/Assembly_web_site_privacy_dec_9.doc and it states on the bottom of page 2:

"Information collected through this site may be deemed a public record that is subject to inspection and copying by the public, unless an exemption in law exists. In the event of a conflict between this policy and the Legislative Open Records Act, or other law governing the disclosure of records, the Legislative Open Records Act or other applicable law will control."

Is this enough for using all the images of the politicians? Quite a number were uploaded and are at Category:Members of the California State Assembly. If indeed these are PD, what license template should one use? {{PD-CAGov}} does not seem to apply, as there is no evidence that a government employee took the photos. --Muhandes (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement doesn't seem anything close to a release of the content of the website into the public domain or under a free licence. It doesn't seem to address copyright at all. Essentially, it is stating that information collected through the website (for example, if someone fills in an online form and provides personal information) may be considered a public record and thus disclosable to other people under freedom of information legislation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

February 27

Hi. This is for the image I recently uploaded, File:FAO food-price-index 1990-2011.png. The Food and Agriculture Organization's copyright policies are here. Main source cited is not the FAO since the original link nominally containing this file is not accessible due to an HTTP 500 error. Thanks. AstroImager001 (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The original is here, its data set is in an Excel file right below the image. The one you uploaded is a photoshopped version (orange line is removed, artifacts still visible). As for copyright status, I don't think that such a simple graph (a simple representation of facts) is copyrightable, if you think color choices might be a problem (I don't), you can remake it using data in the Excel file, or you can request an SVG version with different colors made in the Graphic Lab. Regards, -- Orionist ★ talk 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Personality rights and images of living people

Looking at some recent requests by subjects of photographs who want their images removed, I am impressed by how speedily those deletion requests are closed (and kept). My instinct would be to be sensitive to people whose photographs are posted to Commons against their will, for whatever reason, and to see whether there aren't good replacement images on Commons that clearly don't infringe on personality rights by any definition. But the current policy seems to be "Put a 'personality rights' template on the image, to warn potential reusers; otherwise ignore such requests."

Can we make this process more respectful of the requestors? Here are two examples:

  • Raquel Oliveira asking for five images of herself (none in use) to be removed
  • ObiWolf asking for images he took (one in use, with natural substitutes) to be removed

Both of these sets of deletion requests were posted by newbies -- apparently the subject and author respectively. Both sets of images were at some point posted to Flickr under a free license, then (for reasons unknown) removed. The first request didn't get so much as a personal reply; simply a comment that she had no standing vis-a-vis copyright to request removal. The second was assumed to be lying about his identity but, after three unsuccessful deletion requests, an editor here followed up with the creator's Flickr account via email to confirm it and get a repeat of the request for removal by email.

There seems to be precedent for removing images on the request of the author. But the precedent when the subject of a photo requests removal seems to be immediate refusal on principle. I can see this making sense for famous subjects (who might push for their copyright press photo to be used rather than the best freely licensed one available; I have seen that happen more than once), but for non-famous subjects this isn't about copyright; it is about dignity and privacy. Can we respect the desires of non-famous people who feel Commons is hurting them by refusing to remove their photos, without compromising the value of Commons to free culture and knowledge? I know Commons currently has no firm standards for notability nor for what determines 'distinct educational value', but this seems like an area where both would come in handy. --SJ+ 08:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's language I like from a proposal to clarify Commons:Photographs of identifiable people:
"An image of an individual in a private place should normally be deleted if evidence comes to light that the subject did not consent at the time of taking the photograph. An image of an individual in a public place should be deleted if the subject (not the photographer/uploader unless also the subject) states a wish to rely on legally-binding Personality rights that are available under local law (such rights are available only in some countries)."
Was this language in particular controversial? Both sentences above require a stated request by the subject to have their photo removed. The full proposal was opposed in part because it proposed broader revisions, including deletion of images that "might realistically be expected to cause the subject harm, distress or embarrassment". I am concerned about the simple case of images that "have definitely caused the subject harm, distress or embarrasment" because the subject has found Commons and told us so directly. The net effect on the number of images we host will be tiny, but the effect on our community tone may be significant. --SJ+ 09:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I fully agree to deletions on request of persons pictured. Most deletion closures about such requests are based on a copyright argument. But the copyright argument does not refute the request, which is not based on a copyright issue, but on a a privacy issue. Wikipedia is bound to the web-rule that personal data, including pictures, have to be removed on request of the person. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
How do you come up with this stuff: "Wikipedia is bound to the web-rule that personal data, including pictures, have to be removed on request of the person"? What is this so-called "web-rule", and in which jurisdiction does it apply? And how is a picture of someone in a public place "personal data"? –Tryphon☂ 12:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC) ======>Is this a public place? Web and Commons policies (rules) are not laws but can gain cause in court. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Um, personality rights is another name for publicity rights -- the use of an image in advertising, implying endorsement etc. by the person, and areas like that. I firmly believe that that should never be a reason for deletion. I would definitely argue against your wording above. If you are talking about portrait rights, that may be different. A small number of countries have things like that. But that still may be a case-by-case basis... for example, if a person from one of those countries was pictured while in another country, and things like that. And if it is our only photo of a person, it may get touchy. Also, giving people that much control over their image here may rub the wrong way in some cases (maybe trying to remove evidence of something they don't want people to see). I would still leave this as case-by-case, but perhaps mention countries with portrait rights, and consider that situation more strongly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
As a rule for case-by-case: in doubt, respect the request and delete.--Havang(nl) (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I usually will go along with this for my photos if someone asks more or less politely and (especially) if they are a private person who just happened to be in a photo I shot (e.g. a barista). But I'm not at all so inclined when (to take an extreme recent example) a public figure of whom we have no other photo, and whom I photographed while they were giving a public talk, and who had signed an audiovisual release upon entering the conference where they gave that talk decides they don't want any pictures of themselves here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

szemétbe dobják a kokárdát?

Legnagyobb ünnepünk közeledtével(március 15.!)megjelent a különböző élelmiszerláncok polcain egy kokárdás szeletelt szalámi,melyen közvetlenül a kokárda mellett annak a császárnak a képe van,aki vérbe folytotta az 1848-as Szabadságharcot! Ezt hívják történelemhamisításnak? Ezt is letolják a magyar torkán? és aki megveszi és elfogyasztja belőle a szalámit az mit csinál a már üres tasakkal? Kokárdástól kidobja a szemétbe?! Vagyis szemétbe kerül a legnagyobb Magyar ünnep jelképe a Kokárda?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.130.214 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a link to the image or content to which you object.[22] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Polarbjorn.jpg

I have uploaded the image with {{Copyrighted free use}} based on the statement at [23]. Does this need more confirmation? Finavon (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The only statement I see on that page is that you can download images, but nothing about what you can do with them or that they are free in any way. /Ö
I read it that the company is making a gallery of images available to the media. Finavon (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Finavon, please disregard that warning on your talk page. I've gone ahead and tagged this image for deletion, as that page in no way releases images under a free license. A shame, since I could not find *any* free images of this ship online, and it's such a good-looking ship (to me at least). — Huntster (t @ c) 07:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Noindex

I would like to use the Sjabloon:Noindex ({{noindex}}) template. In Wikipedia this works, but on my user page here on Commons it won't work. Is that correct? REGARDS Saschaporsche (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just use __NOINDEX__. --Leyo 15:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Saschaporsche (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2011/02&oldid=373531800"