Commons:Village pump/Archive/2010/03

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

Korean War Veterans Memorial

As posted on Slashdot [1], it is discovered that the sculptures at the memorial is copyrighted by the artist. Therefore, most, if not all images, at Commons:Deletion requests/Images of Korean War Veterans Memorial is copyright by the artist since US does not recognize Freedom of Panorama. Need discussion at the deletion request, as this is an unusual case. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Less unusual than you think, we've dealt with several similar cases before... I'm actually a bit surprised we didn't catch this one sooner. Good catch. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Disappearing notes

Hi. Why do the notes not show on this picture? I have uploaded a new version, but I don't see any reason for the notes not to show normally. --Eusebius (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The new image has not the same width as the old one (2167 pixel instead of 2166). Notes are disabled when the size doesn't match. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
As a note, I changed the recorded image width in the notes to match the new image width (since 1 pixel on 2166 isn't significative), so notes now are displayed again. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I probably should have noticed the parameter myself... --Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, it's a really beautiful photo. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Carrying things on the head

Hi. Is there a category for pictures of people carrying things on their heads like this one? If there is none, how do you think I should name it if I want to create it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is Category:Headcarrying. --Martin H. (talk) 08:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
And Category:People balancing or carrying objects on their head which I created without knowing that the other one existed... AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

new version or other version

I'm uploading images from a recent MRI and I'm wondering if images from the same series (slightly different cross-sectional slices) would be more acceptable as new versions with the same filenames or as other versions with different file names (12 images in series). - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hidden categories: change the default setting for logged-in users

Currently logged in users don't see hidden categories by default. From mw:Help:Categories#Hidden categories: "Each user can choose to see them in a separate 'Hidden categories' list, by checking 'Show hidden categories' in the 'Misc' section of Special:Preferences." Due to a bug, this is as it already appears on Category namespace for all users.

I like to suggest to make hidden categories visible for all logged-in users. This would make these maintenance categories more accessible. -- User:Docu at 12:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I support that. Another thing we can do is add this css: #mw-hidden-catlinks{font-size:87% !important;} to make them a little smaller. Rocket000 (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
"Show hidden categories" is in the "Appearance" tab, not the "Misc" tab. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 12:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree to these proposals. Croquant (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Support: Took me some time to figure out how to find the hidden categories, which can be quite annoying. If someone absolutely don't want to see them, then they can simply uncheck this option in their preferences. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose Interface is already overcrowded by all those links, buttons and information. Additional categories will make just more mess for the newcomer and in 99% wont be used. From the other hand advanced user who need / want to see hidden cats presumably will be smart enough to look at preferences or read help --Justass (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
But remember all categories used to be visible. I don't remember anyone complaining then (it was the maintenance workers that wanted the hidden cat feature for wikis that are more reader oriented, we're more editor oriented), but I do often here people complaining that hidden cats aren't shown by default (user categories especially...). If you got hidden categories shown, try that little bit of css. It really cleans up the appearance. Rocket000 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
At Wikipedia, articles are generally linked among themselves through links. Categories are really secondary. At Commons, the main link among the media are categories. Even hidden maintenance categories are crucial to the overall understanding. Looking at File:Kaipan 57 1.8T.jpg (the file description page of todays' POTD), I don't think 5 additional category links will clutter things up.
After some testing,  Support for the additional font-size suggestion. -- User:Docu at 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Support: since many useful non-maintenance categories are hidden, this would make things easier. I assume that they would still be hidden for IPs? --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 Oppose This is a nonsense to put "hidden cats" as "visible by default". What is the meaning of "hidden" if it's visible ? --GaAs11671 18:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) First, thanks to User:Jacklee, I was searching for this option a few hours ago and was puzzled after reading mw:Help:Categories#Hidden categories.
--> Documentation on MW corrected. --GaAs11671 18:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
We could change the name maybe. :) Rocket000 (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with GaAs that the naming is a bit odd. These categories are already partially visible now, but with the current name it would even be worse. Eventually, we should change the text in MediaWiki:hidden-categories, MediaWiki:hidden-category-category, MediaWiki:hiddencategories to something else. -- User:Docu at 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
On wp.fr there is a [+] on the rigth of the categories to show/hide "hidden categories", that even IPs can see (example). It could be a good idea ? --GaAs11671 17:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be confusing with HotCat too, but it's an idea. Rocket000 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 Neutral I don't see a pressing need. Perhaps we could just document it better, so users can choose whether they want to change their settings to view hidden categories. By the way, the initial summary at the top is kind of confusing. I had to read it several times to see how the "bug" part fit into the proposal. Killiondude (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have inverted that sentence with the following. -- User:Docu at 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Following your suggestion: Commons:Categories#Categories marked with "HIDDENCAT". -- User:Docu at 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 Support. It works well enough on en.wiki; I have hidden cats turned on and since they are on a separate line from the normal categories, there's no clutter at all. All categories have value on Commons, but changing how they are displayed is a fine thing. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 Support but it then needs a rename to "maintenance cats" or something. Question though - At the moment, some categories are hidden because they are "too general" to more specific categories and we don't really want users to pick them (like Category:Bowls vs the sport/the vessel), should we alert users that there are better categories available? (I know HotCat takes care of this, but not everyone uses this at all times). Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 09:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
A little addition to my own comment - perhaps it'd be enough to explain on a "help: what is a hidden category" page what they are there for/why disambiguation cats are listed there. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback and support. I filed the corresponding request at Bugzilla: 22689. Once it's working, I will attempt to find a solution for the naming question. -- User:Docu at 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Category/Creator names: "John Doe the Younger" v.s. "John Doe d. J." v.s. "John Doe (II)"

There are many artists who's name in English ends in "the Younger" or "the Elder". There seems to be three competing styles of their name used for category and Creator template names:

  1. English language: "the Younger" or "the Elder". Examples: Category:Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne the Younger, Category:Jan Brueghel the Younger, Creator:Pieter Brueghel the Elder
  2. Language independent: "(I)", "(II)" and "(III)". Examples: Creator:Jan Brueghel (II), Category:Gerard ter Borch (II), Creator:David Teniers (III)
  3. German language: "d. J." and "d. Ä.". Examples: Category:Hans Holbein d. J., Creator:Ambrosius Bosschaert d. Ä., category:Drawings by Hans Holbein der Jüngere.

Each style has its advantages: English version is often the best known version of the name and our category names mostly follow English language version. Language independent version is easy to understand by people not speaking English, it is short and easily extends to "(III)". German version is confusing for people not speaking German but since many of those artists were German, it is often the native language version.

There seem to be a some category and creator page moves switching between different styles: user:Vincent Steenberg was changing different styles into language independent style [2], while others changing it back [3] (some of the moves I have seen but can not find now). I think we need to agree on one style and I am equally happy with first two, and try to encourage moves in that direction while discouraging moves in the opposite directions. I would like to hear people opinions about which style we should adopt. --Jarekt (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot Jr./Sr. : Category:Harry Connick, Jr.. Can be also used for german people: Category:Johann Strauss II (or Johann Strauss the Younger, or Johann Strauss Jr.). ;-) --GaAs11671 15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
In line with "Commons:Categories#Category names", which currently states that "[c]ategory names should generally be in English", I would suggest the following:
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like your preference is version 1 then 3 and not 2. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
That's my preference as well. #2 looks unnatural. Rocket000 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the bottom line is to stick to the original orthography as much as possible. So Sr./Jr.-constructions, as well as constructions using Roman numerals (for example en:John D. Rockefeller (disambiguation)) should be left unchanged. Constructions like "the Younger" and "the Older", however, have nothing to do with any original orthography. For example, Pieter Bruegel was never called Pieter Bruegel the Elder. That's why I changed some of these names to the more neutral roman numeral in parentheses. This has 2 advantages: it is language independent and it is easier to work with when there are more than 2 people with the same name (see for example Category:Jacob de Gheyn). The roman numerals are put in parentheses to indicate that the original orthography has been changed. So the 'unnatural' appearance of this construction is on purpose to distinguish them from people who are actually called John D. Rockefeller IV, etc. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
To me it is not important that Pieter Bruegel the Elder during his lifetime was called Pieter Bruegel. Alexander the Great was also the name likely popularized after his death. 15 years ago George H. W. Bush was just called "George Bush". So I would not worry that persons name changes with time. --Jarekt (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can give you two references, if that's what you mean: one can be found here and one here. The first is from the website of the Netherlands Institute for Art History and the other from the Rijksmuseum. I know that people's names differ in various languages and over the ages, but I think a lot of that has to do with ignorance. A good example of that is the Dutch Jheronimus Bosch and the English/German/etc Hieronymus Bosch; the latter clearly being a posthumous name. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can some russian-writing wikipedian give help

Hello, a new user using russian script has problems with titling and licensing its images, see, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Senn2 . Can someone give him help? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You could use User Messages gadget for such purposes. Messages added with it will automatically translated to user selected interface language. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
User message gadget?? I can't find that. I used Bing Translator instead: http://www.microsofttranslator.com/Default.aspx
--Havang(nl) (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
You can also post a message (in English) on the Russian village pump on Commons. I suppose there will be English-speaking Russians there. As for me I speak a bit of Russian but not enough to do that job! Sorry... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 21:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.--Havang(nl) (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo uploaded over another one

How should I proceed with that case? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Difficult because the uploader is not the photographer/copyright holder but acts with permission by someone. Normally I would say you can separate the uploads, but in this case I wouldnt do this without asking the uploader, maybe he first uploaded the wrong image. --Martin H. (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The uploader added the flickr image number (ending with 266) only after uploading the second image. The number is listed in the emails. Thus, I think we can't unmerge the two images. -- User:Docu at 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Therefore we should delete the first one since it's still indirectly available and that could be a problem if the licence wasn't free. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How do you call that kind of headgear?

On this picture. Is it a crown? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather category:Diadems I would say. --Foroa (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Pure nostalghia! ;) It's a headband. It may be a diadem, but you'd need a source saying it represents Ms. Staller's claim to royalty, maybe as "queen" of porno or something. Paradoctor (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Merci pour le Wiktionnaire. --GaAs11671 17:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Sockpuppetry

In a recent wrap up of a long and difficult checkuser case on the Administrators' Noticeboard, there was identified a need for developing a sockpuppet policy for Commons. There was a lot of confusion in that case due to the lack of clear guidelines regarding different users sharing the same IP and editing in the same areas of Commons. Another case from September 2009 also caused a lot of turmoil and distress for some involved users (including myself) due to a lack of a policy in the area. That case involved a user who had requested a block of own account and later began editing from a new account within the same area.

To avoid misunderstandings regarding what is accepted and what is not we therefore need a policy within the area. I would therefore like to ask if someone would be interested in drafting a proposal for a Commons sockpuppet policy? I was thinking that one or a few administrators/checkusers experienced within the area and the Commons circuitry could be the right persons to draft a first proposal?

The cases mentioned above are closed (and beaten to death), so please only consider those as examples for areas of doubt where we need a policy. Let us not spend further time discussing the specifics in those cases again as that is not within the scope of this discussion.

--Slaunger (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am a bit too busy IRL to build a draft myself right now (although I'd be interested in it), but I will gladly comment and propose amendments (even though I'm not an experienced CU), so please don't hesitate to ping me again if I seem absent from the discussion. I think the policy should make it clear, among other things, when it is ok and when it is not for a single user to have several accounts (in which conditions do we respect a "fresh start" decision, do we link to previous warnings, what kind of behaviour might deny you the right to restart...), in which conditions your behaviour on other project may warrant a block of your account(s) on Commons... Ideally, it should define a precise pattern of warning and sanctions leading to indefblock (in which cases you are automatically and immediately indefblocked, on which accounts, and how you can receive messages or shorter blocks as warnings before). The policy should separate the various reasons for which it is possible to perform CU actions, and in particular the community-based ones (like vote stacking) from the more "disciplinary" ones (copyright violation, vandalism, block evasion, attacks...). The distinction might not be so clear though. --Eusebius (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to be involved in this - my time in such things is past. However, on the general point, such cases are very rare and contain very specific issues. A "general policy" will always mean there is room for challenges in interpretation, a detailed policy (apart from time involved) will probably miss some specific set of issues. Look at the vast amounts of time en wp devote to such issues. --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think policy is useful only when cases come up so frequently that we don't have the resources to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. What would be useful is to summarize past cases so we can view them as precedent or case law, which will enable us to be consistent over time (which in turn will make our expectations of users predictable). Dcoetzee (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a good approach to me. I think it would be helpful if previous closed cases of relevance for sockpuppetry could be listed here as examples of case law as an aid in drafting a policy. I only know of the two cases I mentioned here, but those were also two quite "big cases" IMO. And I also agree that it is better to start out small with a quite general policy and develop it as the need arise. I do not think we need an awful big flow of cases though to justify having a dedicated policy for the area, as these sensitive cases really tend to have quite dramatic and negative impact on inter-user Community relations in the aftermath due to the current lack of guidelines. --Slaunger (talk) 09:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I used several different accounts in the past on WikiMedia projects (GaAs I'm using now is my "historical" one) and will continue to do it each time my mind will tell me to do it. Please don't mix sockpuppets created to disrupt Commons (and other projects) with people who just like to be evanescent. --GaAs11671 13:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes - I've said to people in the past that they are welcome to have two accounts. Many do - alternate unsecured use is a very valid example, I have an account I edited under previously. These are usually made clear anyway. It is disruptive use of multiple accounts that is the issue and on Commons that is likely to involve voting either on images or on Rf*s. --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Dcoetzee has touched on an intresting idea with regards to rules and policies. In areas where contraventions are rare and different each time we could adopt an Anglo-Saxon Common law approach rather than a Roman Codified system. A codified system requires that we try and anticipate every eventuality and to set these down in stone. A Common law approach allows us to start from scratch with just general principles and to build a system based on previous cases. If something new comes up than decisions can be made guided by common sense, core principles and precedent. So rather than trying to come up with an exhaustive policy, we can start with a page with just a few general principles, e.g. multiple accounts are okay as long as they are not used disruptively for vote stacking etc, and a library of links to previous cases. Hopefuly the library won't grow, but as it does a greater number of eventualities will be covered.KTo288 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Guidelines for class projects created

As discussed earlier, I've created this page. Please help expand it, particularly if you have other ideas on what the students can do to help Commons, or if you have useful inter-Commons links to add to the existing suggestions. Also, if you are familiar with any current or past educational project involving Commons, please list it there. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Are graffitis like those really free ?

File:LAinkgrafitti.jpg, File:Dirty Harry's Dose.jpg, File:Clint Eastwood Mural.jpg. There seems to be two problems to me:

  1. Is a graffiti really free? Is it authorized only because FOP?
  2. Aren't the Eastwood examples a case of derivative works?

--TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The first one is definitely a mural (i.e. legally installed), not graffiti, and is not OK. The third seems to be by this person (or group), and similarly would be a mural, and not OK. The middle one, less sure about -- used a stencil probably, but does seem like graffiti, and would seem to be a gray area to me. It would only be a derivative work if there was a movie frame, poster, etc. with that exact view/representation -- though the stencil part makes that interesting (but not sure stencil makers hold a copyright over everything where it is used -- seems like implied licenses are often there). FOP would apply in those countries which allow it for 2-D works, even for murals, but none of the above photos seem to be taken in such countries (U.S., France, and Italy are the locations I think). Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel that unless it can be covered by FOP, graffiti ought to be deleted as a copyvio of the artist's work. However, consensus here seems to be that if it's graffiti it's illegal so no legal grounds for lawsuits, which imo flies in the face of COM:PRP. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
An author of graffiti could be condemned for doing it and at the same time win a lawsuit for copyright, as these are two independant questions. --GaAs11671 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
See this; the United Farm Workers sued Corbis :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Particularly in common-law countries, there is a reluctance to allow people to profit from crimes, and that can cloud things considerably for graffiti. There was a lawsuit where an artist's VARA rights (the U.S. version of moral rights, not strictly copyright) were ignored because the artwork was placed illegally. That is part of the graffiti issue. It's not really a case of "they can't sue so we keep it"; there are other issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

User:CommonsDelinker/commands and SVG

I know around the time that Delinker was first created, we had a major issue of changing from PNG and GIF images. Now, a lot of projects are welcoming the changes of images to SVG and I see no resistance in this. However, Delinker still has a command that if the first file being replaced is not SVG, then it will not be replaced. Do you, as the Community, feel this restriction should be dropped or modified? User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC) (and before you ask, I like to see this rule dropped)

In general, I dislike restricting people through crippling technology (leave that for policies). I would be perfectly ok with the restriction being lifted. We just got to be responsible and not make the mistakes we did before. Much of the technical and accessibility issues regarding the format have diminished as well. Rocket000 (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
And getting tons of complaints because one admin decides to use our bot to replace hundreds of jpg/png/gif files with "better" svg files? No thanks. Multichill (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a possible compromise: suppose we created a second bot account solely for the purpose of executing SVG replacements. Then any complaints would be levelled solely against the new bot, and if necessary it could be withdrawn with little damage to the reputation of the original one. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
A new bot would be acceptable to me too. However, I cannot code to save my life. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 05:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope the new bot will not replace with SVG files without humans' commands. :p – Kwj2772 (msg) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
@Multichill: Yeah, that's a possibility (regardless of policy), but I see that as a problem with that particular admin. If they can't use it responsibly then they shouldn't be a Commons admin. It's kinda like the difference between blocking vandals or protecting lots of pages, the latter hurts the good users too. Rocket000 (talk) 05:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Another reason I don't like it is because it's totally different than the current tasks. All current tasks are for technical reasons:
  • File gets deleted so it should be unlinked
  • File got another name (either because of moving or duplicate) and all links should point to the new name
With this new task we decide what images is "better". In my opinion Commons should provide images and it's up to the local communities to decide what images they actually want to use. That's not up to us to decide. If they want to use the png/svg/jpg version of a flag or a coat of arms, we shouldn't replace it with a totally different image.
So before you implement this you should first consult every local community if they want this (opt-in). If a local community wants this, than we can provide this as a service. It would be bad to just force this upon all local communities. Multichill (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. I will set up the accounts and stuff when I don't have work on my mind. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 09:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 Agree with Multichill here. Forcing people to use another image when an acceptable one exists shouldn't be done, unless a project says it's fine for them. However, I believe that could be done on Commons, as I believe the community wouldn't mind replacing images by SVG versions, but AFAIK the CommonsDelinker only has a Commons specific delinker, not a replacer (which I would have used already if it existed). I also believe that some other projects wouldn't mind replacing non-SVGs by SVGs if we were to do this, i.e. de.wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil IP address (talk • contribs) 11:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The delinker contains a universal replace tool. The replacer code is part of pywikipedia so it should be easy to set up another bot account for the replacement of svg files. Multichill (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
My argument here is twofold: first of all, I routinely use Delinker to replace bitmap images with versions of superiour quality/resolution, when working with PD-Art images of which many versions circulate. Here's an example: old image, new image. Usually this type of change is retained universally. However, local projects always have the option to revert - without somebody making the change, it's quite likely they may never notice the new image is available. The alternative is to announce images on talk pages, which I've also done quite often, and the response rate even on high-traffic articles is very low. On the other hand, it is important to not re-replace an image after it's already been reverted, since that's just annoying. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I created an account here and at en.wp called User:Zsvg370 so that the whole process can be tested. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Nice idea. I'm also pretty sure that you can create the bot account over at de.wikipedia, the users over there like SVGs as well. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dcoetzee. I come across articles with low quality images of which (undoubtedly) higher quality images exist quite often. This is especially true for smaller projects. IMHO such replacements would be a service for such articles/projects. --Leyo 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

February 24

Filename support for multiple languages

Would it be worthy to consider multiple names for a same media file? Writing articles in Arabic Wikipedia is often difficult when trying to insert a media file with English filename. To ease this problem, it would be helpful to have different filenames for the same media file, instead of uploading the same file with name written in different script.

It would be useful as well to rely on the media header to recognize the format of the file instead of the extension, since extensions are strictly using the Latin alphabet, which makes it hard and unclean when writing articles in scripts different than Latin. So IMHO, it would be more practical to having media files with no extensions, and multiple names. --Banzoo (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File redirects work, but I don't think that's a good idea. Don't think of file names as language. Think of it as just some random characters that call a particular file. The language shouldn't matter. It's not really any different than having to use Latin html, wikicode, etc. Rocket000 (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Btw, if you have an Arabian keyboard without Latin characters, you might want to copy & paste the filename. This is what I'm usually doing in case I don't have the letters on my keyboard. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The real problem in editing a right-to-left Wikipedia (such as Arabic) is not really combining left-to-right text and right-to-left text, but combining punctuation together with both left-to-right text and right-to-left text -- the display algorithm often kind of goes wacky in where it displays the punctuation (both MSIE and Firefox). AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
@Rocket000: Maybe the use of the word language may not be the best way to describe this, but when the set of random characters as you call it may induce weird behaviors when this set is written using LTR script inside a RTL text (per AnonMoos). Besides, having a text that describe the media is often more useful than using a random set of characters. And there is also the extensions which are mandatory while uploading a file. These extensions must be written using Latin script, this can be annoying while used in RTL script.--Banzoo (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Banzoo -- when you see punctuation characters moving around and being displayed confusingly out of sequence in your edit window, it can be quite annoying, but this is really a browser bug, not a problem with Wikimedia/Wikipedia configuration and software, and it would probably be misguided to radically restructure image naming here just to get around the bug. AnonMoos (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you know what browser works the best with switching between LTR/RTL languages? Or are they about the same? Rocket000 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I only have experience with MSIE5, MSIE6, and FireFox2, and they're all generally about the same (though MSIE seems to have a few sporadic bugs which FireFox doesn't). The general problem is that the browsers seem to continuously keep re-applying the "BiDi algorithm" on the fly, as you're typing or cutting-and-pasting characters into the edit box. The BiDi algorithm may be a reasonable compromise for the display of fixed static text, but it doesn't seem to have been devised for the situation of continuous iterative application within a Wikimedia edit box, which creates the problems we know. The page http://www.w3.org/International/articles/inline-bidi-markup/ has some info about the punctuation reordering problems (though again, the solutions it recommends mostly do not apply within a Wikimedia edit box...). AnonMoos (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The way I do it: type all text in the main script, then only after copy-paste the text in the other script inside the main text. -GaAs11671 13:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
@AnonMoos : You may consider it as a browser bug, but this bug is not related to a unique browser but rather all the available browsers in the market. The current situation is really annoying and slowing contributors. But it may be handled correctly if Wikimedia drops the use of file extensions or to handle mutliple names with different set of characters allowed for the name to be used.--Banzoo (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
It's really browsers applying the "BiDi algorithm" in a manner which creates problems, and where many of the tools to resolve such problems (that can be used in HTML etc.) aren't available in the edit box. It's annoying, but it it's not a problem with filenames only, and I doubt if it can be fully solved just by changing filenames... AnonMoos (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
There is Bugzilla:4421 about separating file name and file extension. -- User:Docu at 12:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it does affect article wikitext readability when you're not able to use a name in your local language. This is one motivation for image redirects. Tools have better support for image redirects these days, so I say just create a redirect if you want one, any time. Dcoetzee (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Possible solution to right-to-left / left-to-right / punctuation problems

Banzoo -- One idea might be to have a web-page form on Arabic (or Hebrew etc.) Wikipedia in order to add an image to an article. The form would have the parameters to [[Image: or [[File: separated out into separate fields (similar to the way it's done with the Commons upload form). So the filename would have one box to fill out, and any parameters ("thumb", "320px", "right" etc.) would be in another box, while the caption would be entered in a third box. The opening and closing brackets ("[[" and "]]") wouldn't have to be typed by the user at all, but would be automatically inserted by the form. That way, there would be a lot fewer problems with punctuation-placement wackiness... AnonMoos (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This would be indeed solving part of the problem, but unfortunately text would still be unreadable in wiki format whenever a contributor wishes to apply some modifications later. It would still be uneasy to identify which brackets corresponds to which filename, etc. --Banzoo (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be far easier to set up right-to-left language pages on a dedicated mirror site? Paradoctor (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Arabic Wikipedia is already a RTL page. The problem is not there, the problem is when editing wiki text and mixing RTL script with LTR script (this is unavoidable when including pictures, since the mandatory condition to have the file extension written in Latin script). All this makes it hard for contributors to make modifications or create new articles with media files.--Banzoo (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not limited to images. As a wiktionnary contributor, I sometimes create entries for arabic or hebrew words (even if I don't speak these languages), and I often curse against this editor which shows sometimes (but not always) [[]]أنا باهيباكي for [[أنا باهيباكي]] (imagine what I had to do to obtain this result on your screen) and typing a "X" after the "]]" results in [[]]أنا باهيباكيX or other crazy things. So:
  • names of media files are only a small part of the problem,
  • with current browser technology, you must faire avec, and wait for better days.
Regards. --GaAs11671 17:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I have such problems only when the Arabic text is mixed with LTR text. So removing the restrictions on file names would ease this a bit. But I agree that the problem would not be entirely fixed. Would it be so hard for mediaWiki to implement this, or contributors have to wait indefinitely in hope for a fix in the browsers? --Banzoo (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Banzoo -- It might be pedantic, but for exactness it's necessary to say that it's not mixing LTR and RTL characters together which causes the main problems, but actually mixing LTR and RTL characters together with punctuation (punctuation characters are in fact "neutral" -- neither LTR or RTL -- in terms of Unicode). The inventors of Unicode seem to have made strenuous efforts to accommodate RTL writing order, and I'm sure that their accomplishments were impressive in terms of 1991, but they left behind a few dangling issues which still continue to cause annoyance. Not only the BiDi algorithm problems we've discussed, but also the fact that the "combining classes" for Hebrew diacritics are completely wrong, which means that "pointed" Hebrew text almost always displays poorly in almost all browsers (unless highly specialized fonts which most people don't have access to are used), etc. etc. I still think that the idea of a web-form (with separated fields) to add an image to an article would probably be more practically helpful than trying to radically revise Wikimedia image naming practices in general... AnonMoos (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it really radical to revise the current files' naming method in Wikimedia since it will remain compatible with the current model, but with more benefits? Media formats, used in Wikimedia, can be extracted from the file header instead of relying on the filename extensions. So it would be technically better to refer to the file header instead of the extension. And this can have some benefits for users contributing in other languages than the LTR languages. And you are right, the problem is caused when RTL and LTR characters are used in the same time with neutral characters (which are almost always present in wiki texts). Since the use of neutral characters is unavoidable, one can think of minimizing the need to have LTR characters in RTL languages wiki text.--Banzoo (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

POTY 2009

Hi all. Currently, 2009's POTY is at a standstill; despite the starting date being initially set at February 27, we're still not able to vote on any images. Please help by commenting at Commons:Picture of the Year/2009/Preparation so we can get the ball rolling once again. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

A lot of stuff seems to just have broke. See Commons:Image copyright tags visual#Creative Commons licenses and Commons:Templates#Created with... templates for examples of some of the breakage. Rocket000 (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

userpage in scope? - User:Viviana niño

this user uses his userpage for advertisement for his religious activities, she (?) has no other edits since 2008. Is this use of a userpage with the images in scope of the project? - If not all the images will be out of scope for reasons of quality and missing description (personal images) Cholo Aleman (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem worth worrying about. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- OK I revert my opinion - they are even useful to describe christianity in Brazil Cholo Aleman (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
In Brazil??? But all the texts on her page are in Spanish, including her surname "niño"! Of all the Spanish-speaking countries in Central- and South-America, you managed to pick the only country that doesn't speak it, lol (Brazilians speak Portuguese). In one of the pictures it is said that she belongs to Camino de Bendición church, which according to google is in Bogotá, Colombia. Please correct the categories added. Capmo (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, I've corrected the categories myself. Here's a tip for you to distinguish between Spanish and Portuguese next time: Spanish uses -ción/-ciones, -dad, ñ, while Portuguese uses -ção/-ções, -dade, nh. Capmo (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
- sorry , just a stupid mistake, as far as I know, theses churches are very active in Brazil. Normally I can distinguish it. Thanks for your corrections! Cholo Aleman (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

March 3

A picture with an incorrect name

This image shows a cassette adaptor for CD players and other digital devices; these adaptors were mainly used in car stereo systems. The image should be renamed "Audio cassette adaptor.jpg" or similar.--Carnby (Talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You can delete also the redirect page, since there's now no wiki linked to it.--Carnby (Talk) 13:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In general, redirects shouldn't be deleted. They don't hurt at all and ensure that all versions of wiki articles will display correctly, as well as possible links from outside Wikimedia. Pruneautalk 15:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
All past versions will display incorrectly if the file changes anyway. That is the dynamic nature of wikis (same goes for templates and redirects). Image redirects do have some negative consequences, most are negligible (more maintenance, more to watch, screws with search results, prevents a more appropriate file from using the name, technical issues like double redirects, etc.) but still it's good practice to use them sparingly, IMHO anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Compression

I noticed a number of common files are not compressed, so I compressed one(of many) and then uploaded only to get a message that I'm not an administrator. 1) It doesn't say you have to be an admin until you attempt to upload which is not useful 2) I suggest commonly used files are compressed 3) If you want me to do it, either make me an admin or direct me in way that compressed files can be uploaded. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

1) It should of been tagged with {{Protected file}}; you can always check by looking at the edit tab to see if it says "view source" instead (or try to edit first). Any more of a warning beforehand is unreasonable to ask for. (When do we know you're planning to work on a file before you upload? When you open up photoshop? :) 2) PNGs are already compressed. You mean compressed more, i.e. optimized. Yeah, optipng/pngout is good practice, but in this case, ~1kb isn't anything to worry about. 3) You can request changes to files on the talk pages of those files by adding {{Edit protected}} directing admins to your new version either temporarily uploaded here or elsewhere. Rocket000 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I see which files are locked now. It looks like mainly the ones used the most, which in turn are the ones most useful to compress. Yes, I mean optimise or compress more then say photoshop. pngout and optipng are good tools and knocking 1kb off when it's 25% of the size is well worth it, especially if the file is served thousands of times a day. Do we have any figures to show which images are served the most? SunCreator (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This commonly used image could do with compression but I can't work out if it's on the commons. I guess it's not. SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
That's actually part of the interface and included in the MediaWiki software (or extension). There's no way to change it on wiki; you'd have to file a bug report or submit a patch to the developers. It's located here in MediaWiki SVN. You can tell if a file is on Commons if the url starts with http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/.... The "upload.wikimedia.org" means that the file is somewhere on a Wikimedia wiki (not just Commons), so it will have a File: page somewhere. Next is the project ("wikipedia/"), followed by the language ("commons/" - all the multilingual sites like Meta and Commons are treated like Wikipedia languages), followed by where the file is actually stored (not the description page).
Okay, I realised that most en.wikipedia.org images come from the commons so thought others would. I will look to file a bug report I guess, even when it's not a bug. SunCreator (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
There was a bot one time that did a run through lots of PNGs automatically optimizing them. I forgot the name of it, but maybe the bot creator would be up for another round? Rocket000 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
It makes sense you've have a bot here, so it's the widely used images like play.png that are not stored on wiki commons and not compressed/optimised that are the ones to look at. Also gif's because they seem uncompressed at all, so perhaps bot had no optimisation process for that image type. SunCreator (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

triangular category loop

Hello, Category:Spain-->Category:Iberian Peninsula->Category:Geography of Spain->Category:Spain forms a triangular category loop. Idem for Category: Portugal. The loop disables catscans for Spain and Portugal above level 2. Must this loop be resolved? If yes, how? --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Add a see also to the header of the Geography categories and remove them as parent categories of the Peninsula cat. This will solve the problem and the logical inconsistency (parent categories should not be more specific than their subcategories). -Nard the Bard 22:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

March 6

Looking for info on a painting

I'm not sure where to ask about this sort of thing, since we don't have a help desk for paintings, but I recently ran across File:Dou, Gerard - Self-Portrait - c. 1665.jpg. This image was grabbed from Blogspot and it's certainly a self-portrait of Gerard Dou, but Dou painted at least 3 of these, and contrary to the title and the original image description, it's not the one in the Metropolitan Museum (which is at [4]). So my question is, where is it from? Dcoetzee (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerrit Dou, Self-Portrait, c. 1665, oil on panel, arched top, 59 x 43.5 (23 1/4 x 17 1/8), private collection, Boston [5] --Justass (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you - that actually appears to be the original source of this very image file. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

int:Original upload log

Hi everybody. Is there a template to replace "==Original upload log==" with an automatic translation, as there is =={{int:filedesc}}== ? --GaAs11671 07:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC) I use Commons with "French language" in my preferences, and I am very *** when I see these section not translated. Example: File:F06.Aulnay.2202.jpg

I found Commons:Interwiki words#Multilingual-tag templates. Would it be a good idea to create a {{Original upload log}}? --GaAs11671 10:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It would be better to create a interface message like MediaWiki:Original-upload-log instead like the others, but we would need to get everyone on the same page if we're going through with it. The upload bots would have to be modified. Rocket000 (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The message could be part of the translation extension. Multichill (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I added a message. Multichill (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sensational mass permission for mineral pictures

Hello together, Last night I received the permission from Rob Lavinsky (look at Category:Files by Rob Lavinsky from mindat), who gave all his pictures on mindat and his homepage free under the license cc-by-sa 3.0 (look at the links on the category page, but do not frighten. 28850 pictures only on mindat need a little bit time to load ;-) ). On the page User:Ra'ike/License for Rob Lavinsky, I prepared a license tag, which explains the license conditions and how Rob Lavinsky wishes to be named as the author.

Now I need strongly help for uploading all these wonderful pictures. Who has time or a good bot for this work? Greetings -- Ra'ike T C 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Make a new subpage at Commons:Batch uploading and me or someone else will help to make this a great upload. Multichill (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, definitely a job for a bot. Only question is how difficult it would be to not only pull the image, but to pull the associated name, chemical formula, and descriptions to flesh out each image's page. I know nothing about bot operations, so anyone else have suggestions on how to proceed? Now, two questions:
1) I've looked at the OTRS ticket, and I don't see where he's specifically agreed to the CC-by-sa-3.0 license. If I'm misreading something, or if it is in the German sections, I apologise, but perhaps this should be clarified somewhere?
2) If everything's in order, perhaps we should make your custom license ("User:Ra'ike/License for Rob Lavinsky") into a template, especially considering how widely it will potentially be used. I'll work on something tomorrow, perhaps with the auto-translate function.
Given how much I love this kind of stuff, I'm very excited to see such a vast collection be donated. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello again, a colleague asked once more about the really waterproof permission and the answere of Rob Lavinsky is:
"i am not one for formality either [...] YES, i AGREE on licensing pictures under CC-by-sa 3.0 , so that they may be chosen openly with blanket permission, as needed, and for all photos credited to me. sincerely, rob"
Now all doubt should be eliminated, I hope ;-) greetings -- Ra'ike T C 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
All doubt, indeed. While we'd like to think that simple permission should suffice, it's always good to completely cover ourselfs, especially given the vastness of this collection. Yay! — Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I aggree, it's really fantastic! :-) But there's something more, I forgot to write: Multichil showed me a better way to execute Rob Lavinsky's request for author attribution. So, we don't need my "special" license tag any longer. I will delete it. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's very good. Simple is always better. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
While transfered by a bot we should definitively use an template indicating for the source such the Geograph.uk template (example) saying some words about source, author and this great donation. In the users list of photos the ID is given, the weblinks to any random image is build very simple with this id. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second. Normally we ask people if the are they own the copyright and if the are the sole owner of copyright. Did anyone ask this? It is not registered in the OTRS ticket. This collection is huge and beautiful and great, so let us be 100% certain. Did he really take all 20000 photos himself without selling the permissions to anyone? Sorry if I'm over-careful. Nillerdk (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"selling the permissions to anyone" would only be relevant if this permissions were exclusive. --Túrelio (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but this does not make my concern any less relevant. Did Rob Lavinsky really take all 20000 photos himself without transfering rights (explicitly or implicitly) to his employer? Are none of the photos taken by friends/collegues? Hardly no-one take copyright as serious as we on Commons. It would be sad to delete all photos in a few years (like with the Ubisoft-screendumps) because some "clarification" is received by the OTRS team. Nillerdk (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ra'ike might know/answer that as she was in contact with Rob Lavinsky. --Túrelio (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as bureaucratic as it may seem, we need to verify that Rob Lavinsky is the only person with a copyright stake in these 20,000 images. Otherwise, someone later could claim otherwise and we would have to delete them all. Kaldari (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello together, how it was wished, I wrote Rob Lavinsky again, if he could answere the question with 'yes', that he is the photographer of all pictures on mindat and on his homepage http://www.irocks.com and if he is the only holder of the rights for the pictures. Unfortunately he didn't answer up to now and I fear, that he lost the patience.
To avert the damage, I will try last time to persuade the commons-community, that Rob Lavinsky's permission is correct, even if his permission did not take place word-exactly.
  1. he has expressedly written: you may use any photos of mine on mindat or irocks.com
  2. he has also written: so long as it is credited to "http://www.iRocks.com photo and Rob Lavinsky / iRocks.com photo" with the link is a good citation.
  3. he also offered more: I am glad to help, honored really. and please do help yourself to photos from my database on irocks.com. I also have many other photos, another 20,000 , archived here as well. Let me know if there is anything specific.
  4. (see also above) Asked about the license, he wrote: YES, i AGREE on licensing pictures under CC-by-sa 3.0 , so that they may be chosen openly with blanket permission, as needed, and for all photos credited to me.
In my opinion this corresponds to a correct release. His own images on his websites are unambigiously identifiable (and are distinguishable from images of other photographers), because all the pictures in Rob Lavinsky's gallery are marked with his name (and are distinguishable from images of other photographers). For example: Aegirine with "Photo Copyright © Rob Lavinsky & irocks.com" compared to Maurizio Dini's gallery and the picture Salesite on Gypsum with "Photo Copyright © Arturo Molina".
Now you are asked: Is Rob Lavinsky's permission in this form correct enough for Commons and it's fastidious community? If yes, I can write this Rob Lavinsky and hopefully we can get of the table that vexatious topic. -- Ra'ike T C 13:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 Support. --Túrelio (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 Comment. Licensing issues are of course important, but hounding contributors to the point of giving up or actively dismissing us serves no one. After looking at the situation, I see no reason to believe Mr. Lavinsky doesn't have the right to release these images under this license; I also see no evidence that the photos on Mindat.org are not his. If there is question about the totality of images on IRocks.com not all being his, then we can selectively choose to not upload them. No need to cut off the nose to spite the face. Leave it at this: thanks to Ra'ike for setting this up, and thanks to Mr. Lavinsky for his generous donation. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 Support From what I can read (on OTRS), those Mails show that Rob Lavinsky claims those pictures as "his". Unless there's a good reason not to believe him (and I don't see one), we ought to accept this permission. --Guandalug (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 Support Per Guandalug. After reading the ticket again, I'm convinced. I think it was not bad to have this discussion. It might save us some stress later on. Thanks to Raike for coordinating this. Nillerdk (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for your votes and trust in Lavinsky's statements. He was informed about that and I'm lucky to say, he answered delighted: good news! i grant full and open permission, of course. note ALL of my MINDAT photos now are also accessible on my newly expanded site search engine at http://www.irocks.com. formerly they were separated and shown only on mindat.
A Batch upload is already wrote. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 22:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Exclusive ownership

I've never understood this requirement that the person who gives permission have exclusive rights to the image. Why isn't unlimited license enough? - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that is important is that the person licensing the work is the copyright holder, or (possibly?) a legal representative of the copyright holder. If you're not the copyright holder, it doesn't matter what kind of license you have, you're not entitled to relicense the work. For example, in countries like Germany where copyright is inalienable, a company cannot release their work under a free license, the original employee must do so. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The holder of non-exclusive rights can't release it to the public domain, but why can't they relicense it? Releasing under a free license doesn't remove the copyright.
For example, my brother and I jointly inherited the rights to my father's (and grandfather's) photographs. We've agreed between us that we each have unrestricted rights, including the right to relicense. Why would the fact that am not the exclusive rights holder have any bearing on my ability to grant (for example) a CC 3.0 license? - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, you could say since both of you agreed to this situation, both of you are working together as a single entity that does have exclusive rights. You're not actually licensing/making choices without his approval because he already gave you approval to do whatever you want, and vice-versa. Rocket000 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Under U.S. law, copyright co-owners have the full right to license works as they see fit -- the other co-owners only have a right to their portion of the proceeds. Complete transfers or exclusive licenses do require permission of all owners though. There are a couple recent court case which have shaken that up a bit though, and I'm not sure the situation has been tested when it comes to a "free" license when another co-owner does not want that. They are not exclusive licenses, but it may be an interesting case. Also, some countries *do* require all owners to consent to a worldwide license, so even if a co-owner has the U.S. right to make the license without permission from another co-owner, that other co-owner could then conceivably sue in some other country, so it may not be really possible to make a *worldwide* "free" license solely as a co-owner... it does get twisted. It often seems overboard to require a licensing statement from all descendants, as it "feels" a bit different than a case with joint authors to me, though I'm not sure there is a legal difference. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
My feeling is that, just to be safe, we should require a statement from all copyright co-owners of a work in order to release it under a free license. It doesn't matter whether it's a jointly produced work, a joint inheritance, a photograph of a sculpture, or some other circumstance involving multiple parties, this is the safest way to go. The inability to release it into the public domain is moot in the US anyway, since you can only release all rights here (the {{PD-self}} tag mentions this, as does the {{CC0}} dedication). Dcoetzee (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there a problem of licence?

Hi. Because this is a collage made from this, shouldn't the licence different than the one mentioned ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... from what I understand, it should be either CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC-BY-2.5. It can't be CC-BY 3.0. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
No, there isn't. When you create a derivative work of a CC-BY work (which is one of the options) you can release it under any license you like. However, it should be clear that elements from the original work are still licensed under the original license. Dcoetzee (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Derivative works of CC-BY-2.0 or later can use higher "version numbers" than the original work, I'm pretty sure. Not entirely sure what the educational use of that image is though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Please check my recent changes to the licensing for that image. I noticed the attribution of the photograph was missing, and that appears to be required by the license. -84user (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Zap_met_12mm.jpg

Has anybody an idea into which category this should go? I just cant think of the name of these things and google isn't helping,... Amada44 (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know those things... or something similar. Special clamps to hold together those plastic bands that wrap around a parcel to make it safe for shipping. Now what those clamps are named, I don't know.... I only see them in closed, and shortly before they are trashed (together with the cut platic band they held close) --Guandalug (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the plastic band is called a (polypropylene) strapping band, or just strapping. What about "Category:Packaging materials"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Crimp seals. Created category:strapping. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, strapping seals was the term I was able to find. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done excellent! Thanks everybody! Amada44 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Images taken at football matches

Please see this discussion. Presumably this would mean that almost all football/soccer images on Commons would have to be deleted. Is such a prohibition on taking pictures legally enforceable? Jacoplane (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

(An over-eager bot has now archived that discussion at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 41#Spectator videos)) 84user (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Its not a problem of copyright, though. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
If anything, it is a non-copyright restriction, so we probably won't delete it unless you want us to. Most of us aren't lawyers (and any that are couldn't give actual legal advice, I'm sure) and besides nobody has any real knowledge of all possible laws which exist in all jurisdictions, so there is no good answer. I'm sure they could bar you entry to future matches -- that would be within their rights. If you have season tickets, and the video was against terms in the ticket contract, those could be at risk. Perhaps they could charge a violation of an w:adhesion contract, which appear to be nebulous but some have been upheld (and some not). The risk is yours, though -- Commons is not party to any such contract if it exists. The copyright is yours, so the licensing is fine and Commons would keep it under normal circumstances. But if there is an unanticipated fallout which you would like to avoid, you can always request deletion under those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
People collectively protesting against non-copyright restrictions ;)
See also FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 matches, similar discussions where held alredy on VP and COM:L. The same applies btw to most concerts, see the image. --Martin H. (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Are those people really protesting against non copyright restrictions? It's fairly normal for people to take photos are at concerts and presuming they don't ban cameras completely, I would expect they probably allow people to take photos but don't allow them to be used for commercials purposes which of course prevents people from licensing their images under a free license allowing commercial use, but does not stop them taking photos. Most people taking photos therefore generally aren't trying to protest anything and probably aren't aware of the restrictions and even if they were, probably generally wouldn't care. In some cases perhaps they completely disallow public display or sharing of these images or require you take them down on request which is more likely to irritate people although again I suspect many people wouldn't know and wouldn't care since they're primarily taking them for personal reasons. I'm not saying I agree with the restrictions, simply that it's misleading to suggest people are protesting restrictions if they aren't aware of the restrictions and often wouldn't care if they were. Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Added a ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Copyright is owned by the author (photographer) -- it can't be claimed by venue owners. It is possible that such "non-commercial" restrictions would be considered a valid contract, and the uploader would be violating that contract, but there are no strictly copyright issues. And it might also be an invalid, overreaching condition, trying to control what others do with their own works. To the best of my knowledge, property owners have no general right to control what happens with works created on their property -- they can ask someone to leave, and if they don't it's trespassing, but that is usually the limit of a property owner. But a court may also agree with trying to protect revenue coming from broadcasting the match, and subsequent replaying, particularly for video as opposed to photographs. It is up to the uploader to understand the law in their area and gauge the risks; Commons can't possibly do that, so we stick to copyright only (unless the author has second thoughts, and wants it removed). It is good to make sure authors aware of the restrictions though, and give them an opportunity to request deletion in case they were unaware. But, we won't unilaterally delete such works either. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Same question with museums forbidding taking photos. --GaAs11671 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yep. See Commons:Image casebook#Museum and interior photography and a related essay linked from there, v:Museum photography. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Money

I have seen Commons:Currency, and I'm aware that in some cases images of money are free, and in others they are not. Argentina is not listed in that list, but I couldn't add it either way: there's nothing at either the copyright law, the current currency law or the previous law it partially repealed, that sounds related to the topic. I would seem like there was a legal vacuum in respect to copyright over money.

The current scope of the copyright law is, in Spanish, the following:

"A los efectos de la presente ley, las obras científicas, literarias y artísticas, comprenden los escritos de toda naturaleza y extensión; las obras dramáticas, composiciones musicales, dramático-musicales; las cinematográficas y pantomímicas; las obras de dibujos, pintura, escultura, arquitectura; modelos y obras de arte o ciencia aplicadas al comercio o a la industria; los impresos, planos y mapas; los plásticos, fotografías, grabados y discos fonográficos, en fin: toda producción científica, literaria, artística o didáctica sea cual fuere el procedimiento de reproducción."

Which can be translated as

"For the purposes of this law, scientific, literary and artistic works, include the writings of any kind and extension; dramatic works, musical compositions, dramatic-musical, cinematographic works and pantomimes, the works of drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture, models and works of art or applied science to commerce or industry; the forms, plans and maps, plastic, photographs, recordings and phonograph records, in short: any scientific, literary, artistic or educational production, whatever the procedure of reproduction."

I'm not sure if money even falls within any of those criteria to begin with.

What should be done then? Do we consider Argentine money a work published the year such currency started to be used, and count from that date? Or do we consider it ineligible for copyright? Belgrano (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if currency is not listed as a separate topic, then generally go with the copyright rules of government works. Failing that, go with artistic work. Then apply normal Argentine copyright laws to it and see what happens. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

March 8

Deleting thumbnails?

I came here because of some discussion at en:Talk:Main Page#Animated GIFs on Main Page. It seems File:TectonicReconstructionGlobalthumb.gif was delinked and is likely to be deleted as a duplicate. This is a thumbnail of an animated GIF which as I understand it due to bugs are not automatically generated by the servers which always serve the full version allowing the browser to resize it. Is it normal to delink & delete thumbnails of animated GIFs like this? While I can understand doing so for thumbnails for other images where the server will automatically generate them, it seems a bad idea for animated GIFs to me (if it's true they are not automatically generated and my own quick tests suggest this is indeed the case).

For this example, the full image is 3.2MiB, the thumbnail is 97kiB. Even for someone using broadband this is hardly a small difference and I pity the poor person on a modem... If this is not normal practice, perhaps it should be made clearer, e.g. perhaps instructions at Template:Duplicate and User:CommonsDelinker/commands. While some may suggest to keep these thumbnails at individual wikis, this seems unnecessary in general because they will often be interest to multiple wikis who use the image.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your position as things currently stand -- see discussions at Commons:Graphics village pump... AnonMoos (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Help getting templates translated

Hi everyone, I added some more messages to translate at http://translatewiki.net/. These translations are in use or will be used in templates like for example {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} or {{Information}}. If you don't have a translatewiki account yet, you can start at http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Project:Translator. If you do have an account, you can go to http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special%3ATranslate&task=untranslated&group=ext-wikimedialicensetexts&language=nds (replace nds with your language of choice) right away. Some statistics on current progress can be viewed at http://translatewiki.net/wiki/User:Multichill/stats. Thanks for helping out, Multichill (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple of languages are complete and can be reviewed: français interlingua 日本語 македонски Nederlands Piemontèis русский

A lot of languages are almost complete (more than 80% of the messages are done): മലയാളം беларуская (тарашкевіца) čeština Alemannisch galego norsk polski português dansk eesti Tiếng Việt Lëtzebuergesch Türkçe magyar 한국어 සිංහල Zazaki ქართული español Deutsch

A lot of languages made a start (more than 10% of the messages are done): brezhoneg tarandíne svenska Esperanto български català slovenčina suomi Türkmençe vèneto 粵語 bosanski Ελληνικά العربية occitan саха тыла italiano Plattdüütsch українська Afrikaans ភាសាខ្មែរ dolnoserbski hornjoserbsce עברית ไทย norsk nynorsk къарачай-малкъар euskara Bahasa Indonesia română తెలుగు فارسی Ripoarisch Seeltersk

And languages which made a start: lietuvių hrvatski Bahasa Melayu հայերեն Gaeilge 中文（简体） slovenščina српски / srpski arpetan தமிழ் 中文（繁體） 中文（臺灣） Frysk português do Brasil íslenska shqip ייִדיש Igbo বাংলা ślůnski مصرى furlan Tagalog 中文 asturianu Deutsch (Sie-Form) Boarisch latviešu Malagasy Malti Simple English Ilokano Nedersaksies অসমীয়া беларуская Deitsch Kiswahili 粵語 Alemannisch Cymraeg estremeñu ગુજરાતી lombard मराठी sardu اردو Ænglisc беларуская (тарашкевіца) 閩東語 / Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ kaszëbsczi чӑвашла British English føroyskt Fiji Hindi Jawa Limburgs Basa Banyumasan Māori монгол پښتو sicilianu Scots Sunda татарча / tatarça vepsän kel’ West-Vlams walon 吴语 მარგალური 文言 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú aragonés azərbaycanca کوردی Gaelg Ido Latina नेपाली Plautdietsch romani čhib тоҷикӣ

Thanks for helping out and please help getting these messages translated in even more languages. Multichill (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

March 7

Shouldn't the licence be a PD Art ?

For this one and this other version. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like {{PD-Art|PD-Japan-oldphoto}} applies. –Tryphon☂ 13:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It should probably be PD-something, now for me, it's a free licence, it's enough and maybe better since it forces derivate of this work to be under a free licence. Esby (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
But if there's no copyright, it's wrong to say there is, even if you're goal is to force future derivatives into being free. Rocket000 (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the procedure for deleting corrupt or incomplete files...

I tried uploading an image taken by a US diplomat, on a tour of Nunavut. File:The Hudson's Bay Company in Nunavut.jpg That upload didn't succeed. I think it failed because I had used up all my RAM.

An administrator came and deleted the file, before I had tried uploading the image again. Their justification was: "Corrupt or empty file: The file is corrupt - please feel free to upload it again".

I ended up successfully uploading an uncorrupt version of the image. But when the administrator had deleted the file, they also deleted the template that contained the source url, author, date, liscense. A robot noticed the missing information, and the image faces deletion again, because that information is missing.

I tried requesting that administrator restore the missing template. But it seems they only log-in intermittently.

So first, some questions -- isn't there a tag contributors should apply when they think an image is corrupt? Isn't there a procedure, which includes giving good-faith uploaders a heads-up that their upload was problematic? Aren't administrators supposed to also follow the same procedures, except when deleting the image can be justified because that deletion is an emergency? And when they delete an image, because it is an emergency, shouldn't they inform the good-faith uploader afterwards?

Second, since that administrator is absent, could some other administrator restore the missing template?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrupt or empty files are subject of speedy deletion according to Commons:Deletion policy and the only tag for those files are {{Speedy}} as far as I know, of course it would be nice to wait some time to let user reupload and fix the problem --Justass (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick answer and the quick restoration of the missing template! Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. As Justass mentioned, corrupt images qualify for speedy deletion. And I should have informing you. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If asking the original deleting admin takes too long feel free to ask me or another (more active) admin if it's needed. I tend to delete corrupt file pages on sight (not that I find too many of them). Killiondude (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've had over a dozen uploads silently fail to complete on me. The file ends up corrupt, but without any warning that it failed to me the uploader. I haven't always noticed this. When I did notice it I thought, at first, it was due to the wikimedia's servers being overloaded. I now suspect that this happened when I pushed my own computer too hard, and continued uploading particularly large image when my computer had warned me I was short on available RAM. Geo Swan (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely FREE!

On this sight, [bird forum], it says, "Welcome to BirdForum. BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!" I don't see any information about the picture copyrights though. Are the pictures there really free like it says? --Neptuneroverคุยกับผู้ใช้ 09:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless they state otherwise, I would take free to mean free of charge. It probably does not mean free of copyright restrictions. --rimshottalk 10:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I found that: All photos posted in the gallery are the property of the original photographer and must not be reproduced in any format without the express written permission of the photographer and Bird Forum admin. (And Bird Forum admin ? If they are the property of the original photographer, this is nonsense). --GaAs11671 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Nice of them to hide the important details. --Neptuneroverคุยกับผู้ใช้ 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This doen't forbidd the photographer to put his photo under a free license. If you have specific ones in mind, the simplest way would be to convince the photographers to upload themselves these photos on Commons. --GaAs11671 11:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do you contribute to wikipedia?

I'm currently doing a project at CIID[6] on why people are contributing and giving away time and money to open projects such as Wikipedia and want to get the community view on it. If you have time I would greatly appreciate if you could write some short comments on my questions or any other thoughts you have in the issue. It will be used in a project trying to understand the underlying mechanics that makes sites such as wikipedia work.

What makes you spend time on adding/editing contents? What is your reward of doing it? Are you contributing freely in other projects or just wikipedia? Do you have any specific areas of interest of the wikipedia site or are you contributing over the whole scale? Why is wikipedia great?

Feel free to ask me any questions and I will try to answer them.

cheers and thx in advance/ david sjunnesson

Some data you may find interesting:
You might want to express your questions in a more neutral way. Asking why is wikipedia great is awfully biased; maybe people are contributing to wikipedia because it sucks and they want to make it better —or maybe they just contribute to Commons instead. –Tryphon☂ 12:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No idea where responses should be dropped and under what format. --Foroa (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't much anymore, because admins prefer to do all the work themselves. ¦ Reisio (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those crazy admins are always to blame. Killiondude (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not protect these images? Once they are used all over, there isn't really anything else to do with them here at Commons. -- User:Docu at 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Why not just allow only admins to edit everything? That would really cut down on vandalism... who needs to change anything on a wiki? Rocket000 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I was going to say that nobody would want to edit File:Flag of Spain.svg anyways, but looking at File talk:Flag of Spain.svg this is clearly wrong. BTW, in the meantime, didn't we get a feature to protect from re-uploads only? -- User:Docu at 04:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it got reverted for some reason I think. Believe it or not, flags are some of our most edited pages, both the descriptions and the files themselves. Odder looks like he's helping with the edit-requests after he protects them, so that's good, however, that probably also implies he has a special interest in them too. Don't mean to push this off topic. Rocket000 (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:OTRS

I just noticed Template:OTRS. That template seems to not require that the user add a OTRS ticket id when using the template. "[Ticket] is available for users with an OTRS account." tells OTRS users nothing of where to find the ticket if someone wants to verify the permission. --Bensin (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is why its uses must be accompanied with a parameter (usually the ticket id) which is then displayed in the template. For example the usage would be {{OTRS|xxxxxxxxx}}. I'm not sure how many digits each one is, but something to that effect. Killiondude (talk)
Usage with only {{OTRS}} witout any parameter should be collected in the already existing maintenance category Category:Items missing OTRS ticket ID. Or? --Martin H. (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That category appears to be empty. Have a look at this file calling the template and missing ID: File:Pågatåg_vid_Lund_C.jpg. It's missing an ID and does not appear in the category. Also, it would be really good if the template throws an error if the ID is missing. Something like w:Template:Internet_Archive_film perhaps? --Bensin (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Therefore the "or?". Was this category intended for that purpose? If yes we should fix the template to add images there. --Martin H. (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I did it. --GaAs11671 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And added _HIDDENCAT_ to the category. --GaAs11671 15:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
218 files at this time (for the record). --GaAs11671 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Great! Thanks! --Bensin (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

March 5

Changing image type

If a gif image without animation is best saved for compression/optimisation as a png or jpg, is it okay to upload the new version under the original name? I'm wondering because creating a new named file would possibly drop the license information from the original. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not upload a PNG or JPEG file under a name ending with ".gif", since this creates confusion and potential problems. We have various means of indicating that one image is a derivative of another image. AnonMoos (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, here are some means to show derivations: {{Derived from}}, {{Retouched picture}}, {{Extracted from}} and their complements. -84user (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Beginning by the "other versions" field in {{Information}}. --GaAs11671 14:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not re-compress GIFs as JPEGs! GIFs are 256-color images and they have large high-frequency components and compress very poorly with high information loss with JPEG. This is only acceptable if the image is very high-resolution and you first apply a Gaussian blur/downscale to eliminate dithering artifacts. Upload under a separate name if you want to do this. On the other hand, I think it's okay to upload a PNG over a GIF and then move it to a new title ending in .png, though some may disagree. Dcoetzee (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

50,000 New Orleans images

Hi all,

Disney filmmakers took over 50,000 images of New Orleans, when preparing for The Princess and the Frog. http://www.facebook.com/posted.php?id=99911703708&share_id=342211001445&comments=1#s342211001445 Various times, museums and archives have donated the rights to images en mass, I'm wondering if Disney would, seeing that the photos have no commercial benefit to them. Has there ever been any mass donations from a corporation, as opposed to an institution? If so, who arranged for the donations. I'd like to seek advice from them. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are the images located at that Facebook page? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The Disney people tend to hold on to things on the theory that they might come in handy. Think of all the "nature films" they got out of footage they originally shot as studies for animation. - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Back, a couple of decades ago, Disney was described as the main villain in the extension of the period of copyright -- as they tried their best to keep images of the valuable Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain. So, good luck with that. Geo Swan (talk)
I would expect that Disney will not voluntarily relinquish copyright to anything at all, ever. See w:Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

March 9

File:Guillotine.jpg

This file has been overloaded with a picture totally different from the first one, and by a different user. Should we do something (like creating two different files) ? --GaAs11671 10:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Revert the replacement of the original image, and upload the new image (which is a good one) under a new name. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
But it is used on several projects, may be it would be simpler to keep it and upload the original one under a new name ? Or do we consider that people on these project will notice the change ? --GaAs11671 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
At first I didn't see that the "new" one has been there since August 2007. In general, we shouldn't be changing editorial choices by uploading a completely different picture over an old one -- that can break captions, etc. on all the other projects. But, the new one has been there long enough that it is probably the one project editors wanted to use, so it should probably be left at this point. The license and description needs to be changed for the new image though. The old one should probably be re-uploaded in this case, I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
The original opload may have been a copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering about that. The Internet Archive has precious little of the original source archived, so no idea if there was any indication of license there. However, the user seems to have uploaded a large number of images from that source, and very little elsewhere, and has no history of uploading copyvios. It feels to me that the uploader was the same person, or related, or got specific permission to use them (in the days before OTRS requirements). Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm really thinking of reverting the replacement of the original image, just to show to everybody that this is not good politics to do such things as replacing files by other things.
Oh, no, I'm no thinking to do it : I'm about to do it.
--GaAs11671 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it would have been preferable to find a recent over-upload to make your point... that has been that way for 2.5 years, and neither contributor is active anymore. Both filenames should probably have been more descriptive in the first place, but that is another point. But this change has broken the captions on at least two wiki articles I looked at (de-wiki and ro-wiki Guillotine articles), which is exactly the thing we try to *prevent* by avoiding this type of upload... Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I will try to warn all projects. --GaAs11671 19:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC) See File:Guillotine1.jpg
Oh please, do not revert to make a en:WP:POINT. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have just replaced the File:Guillotine.jpg image in the German wikipedia article de:Guillotine with the new (but old) File:Guillotine1.jpg, but that old image was also used in a current discussion in the French fr:Wikipédia:Oracle. I really think the recent upload should have been reverted, as under the circumstances it was mistaken. Whatever happens, please now leave File:Guillotine1.jpg alone. The remaining affected wikimedia sister articles are now updated, so less important to revert now: ja:ギロチン, ro:Ghilotină and wiktionary:vi:guillotine (not counting a few user talk pages). -84user (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking "user talks" on a "file talk page": how to do it ?

I want to put on File talk:Bouquet fleurs.png the links to the discussions about this file. I made it this way, but as I stated « These pages, as every "talk pages", are subject to archiving, the links above are not guaranted to work are guaranted not to work in an unspecified future. »

Should I copy the discussions in the talk page ? --GaAs11671 18:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The second link in your comment ("this was") is about as permanent as it can get, in any namespace. -- User:Docu at 18:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand your answer, sorry. Could you explain? --GaAs11671 18:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Your second link in the sentence above ("this way") is a permanent link. It won't change. Rocket000 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, I'm stupid. Thanks. --GaAs11671 10:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

March 10

PotY slideshows?

Hi, do we have slideshows of COM:POTY like that (btw it lacks license information, sad)? I'd like to demonstrate Commons collection at a local conf this Saturday. If the latest one is available, in addition to 2007 one, it'll much greater. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 09:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC):

 Info There's a gadget in your preferences (Gallerypreview: previews categories and galleries when viewing an image. (discuss)), which you can use for this. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me that cool stuff, is there a way to download (and save locally) the generated slides in this way? I need to download such a slide in purpose of using it offline. Since we would like to run demos of Wikimedia Commons PoTY at a local conference, where we are not sure if net connectivity is steadily available. Cheers, --Aphaia (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody ever seen a file description thaaaaaaat long????

This is the longes file description I have ever seen. Should it be deleted? (advertising) Amada44 (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And the same on user's page User:MMSDR. Probably also some copyvios. --GaAs11671 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Dont think it's copyright violation, who will bother to violate some "miracle" drugs, just another spam --Justass (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I was speaking of the partial copies of scientific (?) articles.
Oh, and I found on their website that it cures AIDS... --GaAs11671 11:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Displaying hidden categories

category talk:hidden categories says there is a switch in "my preferences / misc", but there is none in my preferences. I'd like to unhide categories, advice? Paradoctor (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in the "appearance" section, near the end of the page. --GaAs11671 16:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It has probably changed (I don't remember), as I had to change the MW Bible a few days ago. --GaAs11671 16:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Preferences > Appearance > Advanced options, got it, thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category selection bug in image upload form?

Each of my uploaded images require a different category. There are many images to process and upload from Wikisource using this page.

When using the Categories selection bar, below the Summary window, to remove [-] an unnecessary category from the previously uploaded image, this doesn't remove the category from the end of the summary where it remains embedded and not readily visible unless one scrolls down after each image upload. Until this was discovered, numerous images were mis-categorized and it was a lengthy process to correct. Concern over additional unnecessary editing after upload prevents me from using this feature to add categories. The images of concern are found here, categorized only with the basic volume sub-category. and the estimate is 90 images x 92 volumes.

Not sure if it's a software bug, or I am missing something, like knowledge?Ineuw (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we link Wikispecies?

Sisymbrium officinale

Hi everybody.

Description of living entities identified by their scientific names are in fact mainly their vernacular name in different languages. Isn'it the work of WikiSpecies to list those vernacular names? --GaAs11671 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikispecies is good, sometimes not. With higher ranks, it's usually a good idea, however, they are very incomplete at the genus/species level. Some areas have been neglected for years (taxonomically out-of-date) while others have more information then any other database. There's not too many regular editors over there so it's kinda unbalanced with each user doing what they're into. I prefer to add vernacular names here so people can search for them. Rocket000 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess that a lot of people search the species through the vernacular name, so omitting them will make finding more difficult. --Foroa (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
True. --GaAs11671 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
May be a link on the category pages would be nice ? --> Category:Sisymbrium. --GaAs11671 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Use {{Ws}}. Rocket000 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks. --GaAs11671 13:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Do they like media at Wikispecies? If yes, maybe we could merge the two projects. -- User:Docu at 13:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I've thought about that many times. It makes sense to me since we have a pretty active TOL project here and what is a good species page without a picture of it? The more images there are, the better for identification. But I'm sure there would be protests just like when someone suggested it be merged with Wikipedia (but unlike Wikipedia, we don't have multiple language versions). The biggest concern would be all the other Commons stuff, policies and whatever interfering with what they do. I'm an admin over there but every time I edit I feel like it's a waste of time since I'm essentially repeating what I just did here (the only difference is the references and more intermediate ranks). I rather build one tree of life, which we need for organizing media anyway, than two. Rocket000 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
One would have to formulate a guideline how these categories (and descriptions) are handled. Already now, I doubt most users attempt to edit these descriptions (they are already well kept). The current solution on category description pages seems easy to handle, but creating a separate namespace "WikiSpecies" (similar to Creator:) or using "scary transclusion" might be other solutions. Namespaces and pre-/suffixes have the disadvantage that they have to be repeated each time. Transclusion also adds complexity. With something like "types of categories", Wikispecies categories might get easier to maintain. -- User:Docu at 00:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a total duplication of effort. Personally, I would like to see Wikispecies phased out, as it doesn't have enough editors to stay even reasonably up-to-date (taxonomically). If everyone focused there efforts on one project maybe we could at least have the taxonomy current to the last decade or two. And if we're going to focus our efforts in one place it would be far far more useful to do it here. Kaldari (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You don't know what you are talking about* Kaldari! Stho002 (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've notified Wikispecies of this discussion, FYI. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Your summary there might be misunderstood.
I think we all agree that WikiSpecies is a useful project. Simply it's an aspect that is (and has to be covered) by Commons as well and the additional information available at WikiSpecies could also be used here. This is independent of the relative coverage of the field by either project.
Whether a separate namespace at Commons, only pages at WikiSpecies through "scary transclusion" or Commons category description pages are used is primarily a technical issue. I would think specialists here and participants at WikiSpecies would want to choose whatever works best for them. -- User:Docu at 20:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Reworded then. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
* If anything, Wikipedia should phase out trying to cover the same information as Wikispecies, as it can't handle it so well. Most taxa are obscure, and Wikipedia (with its criterion of notability) should stick to giving information only on economically/medically/scientifically notable taxa. In general, Wikispecies is more up-to-date, and more reliable than Wikipedia on the constitution of most groups of organisms, and is becoming more so. Stho002 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Name a single group of organisms that has more up-to-date taxonomy on Wikispecies than on Wikipedia. I was initially interested in working on WikiSpecies, but the taxonomic information was so poor (regarding entomology in particular) that I decided it would be a waste of time. So I focused my efforts on the English Wikipedia and Commons instead. Why we need 3 versions of the same information is beyond me. Kaldari (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There are now so many, I don't know where to start! Look, if you prefer to work with Wikipedia, then fine, your choice, but being so vocal for the abolition of Wikispecies is completely out of order and has me wondering what your real agenda might be? Stho002 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, as I said, most species simply aren't notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page. Stho002 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's interesting to discuss the comparative merits of Wikipedia and WikiSpecies, but this being Commons the participants here might not be particularly interested in this aspect. -- User:Docu at 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Why Wikispecies shouldn't merge with Commons? Someone wrote this section in FAQ back in 2004 explaining why these 2 projects serve different roles. Wikispecies was created 1 month prior to Wikimedia Commons so any views of duplications in Commons was definitely not us forking out of you guys since it doesn't work chronologically. Oh, did I mention that Wikispecies is created by both community consensus as well as board decision? OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying it shouldn't have existed in the first place. Nor are we saying it's a fork or whatever of Commons. However, I know many dislike how disperse and redundant our efforts are. Not just within Wikimedia, but elsewhere on the web (think EOL, TOLweb, and all the various little taxonomy projects across the web). It's not a matter of who came first, it's a matter of what makes sense now. Can 'Species become Commons too? No. But it could work the other way. Keeping the projects separate because "we were here first" is just arbitrary and competitive. We're on the same side. The only real reason for keeping them separate is because the users working on either project (or both) don't want to merge due to having different goals and purposes. I think a site can have more than one purpose but only if everyone wants it to. Either way, what 'Species really needs is more help. It hasn't grown like the other wikis in the same time. :( Rocket000 (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2

Is it OK to upload new recordings over other's ones?

A certain user has recently uploaded pronunciation files for a couple of French surnames, but unfortunately his French accent isn't very good (he isn't a native speaker). Is it OK to upload better recordings over his ones or would it be considered too rude? Should my recordings be uploaded using different filenames? Capmo (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be considered rude, but this is a wiki so that's perfectly acceptable. The best thing to do would be to simply ask him (not us). Preferably they should be uploaded over the inferior files, but a upload war isn't worth it if for some reason your idea of better isn't shared by everyone. Rocket000 (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Generally, it's preferable upload it under a new name. -- User:Docu at 07:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Depends on what it is and who you ask, I guess. Rocket000 (talk) 06:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say it is preferable to upload under a new name. Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Unexplainable behavior of {{#ifeq: }}

I run into unexpected behavior of {{#ifeq: }} function which can be seen in the wiki-code of Category:Kao Ch'i-p'ei where {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kao Ch'i-p'ei|true|false}} statement gives: false instead of true. Is this a bug of the underlying software or am I missing something? The problem seems to have something to do with ' since other pages with ' in their name have the same problem. --Jarekt (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You're using a different ' character, see my latest edit to the page for the right one. Multichill (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am still quite confused. On my keyboard ' gives ASCII character #39;. For example if I go here and convert ' to binary I get 00100111 aka Hex 27 aka #39; so why {{#ifeq:'|#39;|true|false}} gives false? Also what is the binary code of ' ? Also when I typed {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|Kao Ch'i-p'ei|true|false}} the name Kao Ch'i-p'ei was cut and pasted from output of {{PAGENAME}}. --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Crossed a section. As I mention I am quite confused but no longer expect {{#ifeq:'|#39;|true|false}} to be true. --Jarekt (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Put in other words: {{PAGENAME}} normally expand as Kao Ch'i-p'ei (viewing the HTML source of the page), but when used as the first parameter of {{#ifeq}}, it apparently expands to Kao Ch'i-p'ei (you can't see that in the HTML source: I'm just deducing it). Then, {{#ifeq}} compares the first parameter with the second parameter, without considering the &#nn; sequences as special. That is, it results in a {{#ifeq:Kao Ch'i-p'ei|Kao Ch'i-p'ei|true|false}}, which gives false because they are different strings. Having {{PAGENAME}} giving different results for the same page is weird, and is a bug IMHO. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the PHP implementing the conditional expressions does not expand HTML numerical entities?
I mean, Value is A Test: {{#ifeq:A|A|true|false}} (source modified to correctly render ampersands) gives false. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Various tests done with {{PAGESINCATEGORY:{{PAGENAME}}}} don't work on these pages either. -- User:Docu at 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm... according to the edit by Multichill, it seems that the implementation of {{#ifeq}} considers the value of {{PAGENAME}} before performing substitution of some HTML entities (so an apostrophe is really the string ' for {{#ifeq}}), and compares it literally with the other value without performing substitutions on that (my test proves that). Since the string ' is not equal to ', it gives false. Seems a bug to me: some quoting of values (i.e. ' is internally converted to ' to handle it safely) is done early in the chain, and then undone later (&#39 is converted back to ' just before generating the final HTML), but {{#ifeq}} apparently acts before the final unquoting, thus giving false. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that is documented behavior of the parser functions. See the help. HTML entities are treated like a string of characters (as is any other HTML markup). Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that {{PAGENAME}} apparently gives different results for the same page depending on where it's used (inside a parser function it gives results with HTML numerical entities, while outside it does not). I don't known if that's a problem of the parser functions or a problem with {{PAGENAME}}. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Bug or "'a feature'" this issue causes a lot of categories to show up incorrectly in in a maintenance cat Category:Creator templates with non-matching home categories created by {{Creator}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Try making a template "FOO" containing {{#ifeq:{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}}|true|false}} and call it in the category page as {{FOO|{{PAGENAME}}|Kao Ch'i-p'ei}}. -GaAs11671 00:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried this FOO approach by creating {{Ifeq}} but I could not get it to work. I wonder if there is some template or parser function that can change Kao Ch'i-p'ei to Kao Ch'i-p'ei. Something like {{urlencode:Kao Ch'i-p'ei}} (gives "Kao+Ch%27i-p%27ei") or {{anchorencode:Kao Ch'i-p'ei}} (gives "Kao_Ch'i-p'ei"). Also should we report this as a bug? --Jarekt (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's try bugzilla. -- User:Docu at 05:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
See bug 14779 and bug 16474, they seem related to this. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. I added PAGESINCATEGORY to bugzilla:16474. -- User:Docu at 07:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Some (crazy) interesting things, which really don't help:

  • {{urlencode:Kao Ch'i-p'ei}} --> Kao+Ch%27i-p%27ei
  • {{anchorencode:Kao Ch'i-p'ei}} --> Kao_Ch'i-p'ei
  • {{PAGENAMEE:Category:Kao Ch'i-p'ei}} --> Kao_Ch%27i-p%27ei

3 different results... --GaAs11671 08:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's now included at mw:Help:Magic_words#Page_names. -- User:Docu at 13:35, 2010 March 13

Questions about free tools for editing portable document format (.pdf) files

In a recent deletion discussion I asked for advice about whether there were any free tools that enabled a user to black out pages from a .pdf, or portions of a page of a .pdf.

I uploaded a couple of hundred .pdf of The Wire (JTF-GTMO), a weekly newspaper published by public affairs GIs at the USA' Guantanamo Bay detention camp. It contains images and articles not published anywhere else. It also contains some chatty filler-type material, including a page devoted to reviewing the movie to be shown that weekend on the Base's open air theater. Those articles contain one or two images from the movie.

If the existence of these images inside the .pdfs is generally seen to be a problem, and there is a free tool that would allow those images, or those pages, to be blanked, I am prepared to make the effort to do so.

I am hoping there is an expert here on portable document format file who can refute or confirm my notion that this is possible.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only one I know is PDFEdit, running on Unix-like systems. In theory there is (or there used to be) also a version running on Windows, but I have no links for that. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
w:pdfrecycle looks like it could work for you, if you can get it to work. PDFEdit requires CygWin. Paradoctor (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Inkscape, on just about any OS. Keep in mind, though, that covering the images up won't be enough, as technically anyone else could just edit the file and remove whatever you've used to obscure the image. You'll need to remove the image altogether — judging from the one PDF I downloaded to look at, this will be as simple as open > click image > hit DEL, save. :) ¦ Reisio (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

upload to commons from en.wikipedia.org add media wizard

As mentioned on the commons email list, uploading to commons from en.wikipeida.org is in initial testing in the mwEmbed add-media-wizard gadget. When enabled, clicking on the "insert image" icon gives the option to upload to commons. You can play around with it on the en sandbox Mdale (talk) 07:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean en sandbox. :) Rocket000 (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
your right updated Mdale (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Commons-l...? I subscribe to that and didn't see anything about this. Just wondering where the discussion is so I could read it. The upload form for Commons doesn't appear to be functioning currently. Also, it doesn't like it when you try to preview the the page with the image you're trying to insert in the edit field. Killiondude (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the normal Special:Upload here at the Commons doesn't work? That's strange, I don't see any problems. Just tested the preview you mentioned, and that worked, too. BTW, Michael announced it at commons-l here. Lupo 08:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Killiondude means nothing happens except the endless rotating icon when you click the "Upload a new file to Wikimedia Commons" link. The "Your recent uploads to Wikimedia Commons" also displays the endlessly rotating icon. The steps are: browse to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WP:Sandbox&action=edit&withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js, click the rightmost add-media icon (spool of film with a "+"), click the "Upload file" button, click the "Upload my own work to Wikimedia Commons" link. Nothing. -84user (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, 84user understood what I was trying to say. :-) It was late and I wasn't very clear. And thanks for the mailing list link. I forgot that I just get the daily digest, so I hadn't received yesterday's digest until this morning. Killiondude (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
yea strange, it appears to be broken It was "working before" I will investigate that and push out a fix shortly. Mdale (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I just re-tested it and it appears to be working. Is it still broken for you? If you have ever used mwEmbed gadget you may have to entirely clear your your browser cache ( not just a shift reload ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdale (talk • contribs) (UTC)
Still not working for me, nor for the User:Test84user account I use for testing (MonoBook skin, empty CSS and JS, ie. tries to simulate a new user). As User:Test84user on Google Chrome I first enabled mwEmbed gadget on Commons and on Wikipedia, then tried the above edit Sandbox link with added "&withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js" : the icon still rotates. The test account had "Use the old-style upload form layout." checked, but even when unchecked the upload icon still spins. I tried the other upload links and the second also spins, but the third ("Upload my own work to en.wikipedia.org") displays an upload form. I was able to enter, upload and insert a small ISS photo to wikipedia, but each time I click the upload to commons link the icon still spins. -84user (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I User:hammack too get this never ending rotation of both the Wikimedia upload and also for the listing of what I've already uploaded to the wiki commons .... I am using the add media wizard to add a video to a wikipedia page ... this is in response to wikipedia's push for theora codec videos to be uploaded.

Copyright on images within a book

Could someone help me work out what the copyright is on the images within a book at the Internet Archive? The book is is For Remembrance: soldier poets who have fallen in the war (1918). The editor is Arthur St. John Adcock (1864-1930), so it is 70+ years since he died, but I think the copyright for the photographs would reside with the people who took the photographs (or drew the artworks). The photographs were probably all taken in the UK (though at least one was probably taken in Ireland), and they were published in the UK, though the publisher is Hodder and Stoughton, it was printed in Scotland, and the publisher had branches in London, New York and Toronto, and this is a copy of the book from a Canadian library. The editor's preface says "The Author's thanks are due to the relatives, friends and publishers of the Soldier Poets referred to in this volume for kindly lending him portraits, supplying biographical information, and giving permission for the use of extracts...", but some of the photographs have explicit credits. I've made a list of the twenty (20) photographs in the book, and will transcribe below the credits where given (they seem to be named individuals or studio photography companies, e.g. Elliott & Fry):

Do I have to try and find out the death year for all the photographers and artists, or are these OK to use? What happens in the case of studio photographers - are these works-for-hire with the copyright owned by the subject who paid for the photograph? Can I upload them to en-Wikipedia under PD-USA, even if they are not eligible for Commons upload? And what happens in: (a) cases where no visible credit is given; and (b) cases where the photographer is known, but the death year or other information is not known? What is the default status when information is lacking? In all cases the subjects of the photographs or artworks died in the war (death years are known and can be supplied on request), but I don't know enough about the subjects to know who their estates went to (it would vary between parents and wives, sometimes siblings). Oh, one last thing: the year when the photographs were taken is not known, but it appears that some were taken by studio photographers following enlistment to fight in the war (though some were professional soldiers and may have enlisted and been photographed before the war). Some of the non-military images appear to date from before the war. All were obviously taken before the subjects died. So, is there enough information here to work out whether the photographs can be uploaded to Commons, and failing that, to en-Wikipedia? Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 13:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer one small part, yes, you can upload any work published prior to 1923 to en.Wiki under PD-US without further knowledge of death dates or anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Where they will then be tagged with {{MoveToCommons}}, copied to here, deleted from en.wiki, and then eventually deleted from here due to lack of sufficient information to prove public domain status in the host country. Kaldari (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Not if you add {{Do not move to Commons}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
or en:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You should be using the w:Template:PD-US-1923-abroad template, which includes a note that the image shouldn't be moved to Commons. --Carnildo (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
As for other questions... knowing that works were published anonymously at the outset is a pretty significant bit of information, as opposed to finding something on the web. Credits to only corporate studios, unless it was a one-person thing, are also essentially anonymous. It can be pretty hard to prove that a photographer was not named later, so the initial publication is the best evidence. The EU also has a directive, though I'm not sure the UK has actually implemented it in law, which says for works owned by companies, the actual author needs to be disclosed with the initial publications to get the 70pma term, otherwise the term is 70 years from publication (no identifying authors later on). For works with a named author, we would need to find out when they died. For the "no credit given" and even the corporate ones, one of {{PD-UK-unknown}}, {{Anonymous-EU}}, or {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} may work. Also, Vandyk would appear to be Carl Vandyk (1850-1934), unless it was by someone else at the studio, in which case it would be effectively unknown or anonymous (company name only would probably qualify for pseudonymous). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Keogh Brothers would be the company behind this collection; another reference I saw said that Brendan Keogh was the principal photographer, and was born in 1887. They worked on Dorsett Street in Dublin. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
photoLondon shows four possible candidates for "Wykeham". Mary Wykeham died 1943; the life dates of her partner P. Wykeham are unknown. Their studio was Wykeham & Pollard as of 1905/06. In 1910, the studio was renamed "Wykeham Studios Ltd" and taken over by Frederick William Emuss (d. 1942) and Montague Picton Prout (life dates unknown; appears to have been alive in 1928:[7]). Lupo 11:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies and extra information - that photo London site looks very useful. I think this means that all can be uploaded except the Schell and Hoppe ones (these are known photographers and it has not been 70+ years yet since they died). If no-one disagrees with that, I'll go ahead and upload the scans (after suitable cropping). Carcharoth (Commons) (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
    If you find photoLondon useful, you might be interested in the far from complete list of assorted other resources at User:Lupo/resources. One day I really should move that somewhere else in the Commons namespace... Lupo 07:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 11

Audio articles

Hi. Is there a category for audio versions of Wikipedia articles ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is: Category:Spoken Wikipedia.
There are also templates to make file-describing easier (see Category:Audio templates) -- Krinkletalk 09:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I reorganized its categorizing a little bit in order to be easily found. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 07:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

download counter?

Uwe kils (talk · contribs) asked on his talkpage whether there is a tool to know how often an image on Commons has been downloaded (likely he meant not within Wikimedia projects). Anybody aware of a tool/counter for that? --Túrelio (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As it is possible to count individual page requests, it should be technically possible to count file download requests. But I don't know any existing tool for that. --GaAs11671 15:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I just realised grok.se works also on commons. I let you discover the top 1000 for february... --GaAs11671 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. But as of the top 1000-result, what a shame; it seems people think of Commons as a sort of porn provider. --Túrelio (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Dont know of a download counter, but would be great. The stats.grok.se, a great tool obviously, needs some workaround for files. If you want to check the pageview for a file on Commons you have to check every wiki as every wiki is counted individually. A good pageview statistic for files would be a tool that 1) allows to recognizes the file namespace prefix for all wikis (File: in en.wp, Datei: in de.wp) and 2) sums the view statistics of all wikis.
To check the usage of Uwe Kils great image File:Salmonlarvakils.jpg I have to collect a lot of links and sum them myself. Example listed on his talkpage. And regarding the porn: Its not the hosting, its the what people think to find on a media database, regretably (from 09.2009). But we will not talk about this topic here and now! ;) --Martin H. (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
You are right, figures for Commons don't include "image views" of individual wikis. I made the test with the photo associated to the featured article of febr 9 on :fr:
You are also right for the top 1000: no comment. --GaAs11671 17:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
"you have to check every wiki as every wiki is counted individually". You should have added: not forgetting to use localised namespace (Fichier: on :fr:, as I did above), plus if you are not sure of usages generic namespace (File:), legacy localised namespace, and generic legacy namespace (Image:)... --GaAs11671 17:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it obbvious that people have no dilemna to search for possibly censored / taboo materials when they know they can browse the material while being anonymous? Besides, I'd like to know how much % of the traffic are the 1000 first articles. Esby (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not the subject of this section, if you want to speak about that please open a new section. I will be pleased to discuss such matters with you. --GaAs11671 19:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that one of mine got into the top 500; I have no absolutely idea whatsoever why, but at least it has nothing to do with "porn"... -- AnonMoos (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Probably spillover from Germans looking for contraceptives. Paradoctor (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding Image to Background box that is not an editable field.

Hi, i'm looking for how you are able to add an image to the background container that has date of birth, instruments played, etc. For example, this entry for Willie Nelson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Nelson

Thank you

This is the "Village pump" for the Wikimedia Commons, not for the English-language Wikipedia. Same foundation, different project. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
And I'm not sure what you mean by a "background container". If you mean the infobox at upper right, that already has an image. FWIW, the template is en:Template:Infobox musical artist, which shows up in the source as "{{Infobox musical artist..." - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 12

painting of a photo - artistic freedom or illegal derivative?

Expert comments/opinions about the legal status of a painting of a (copyrighted) iconic photography would be welcome at Commons:Deletion requests/File:BeyondTiananmen.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 08:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bug with "Add Information" gadget

It seems that there is a compatibility issue between "Add Information" and annotations. See this diff: when adding {{Painting}} it removes all texts of annotations (and put them in the notes= field of the template).

I had a look at Magnus page on toolsever, which lead me to https://jira.toolserver.org/browse/MAGNUS but I am not sure what to do there. Could someone help me? --GaAs11671 10:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm opening a ticket describing the issue. Not really a bug, but an incompatibility between the two. I believe Add Information should be made aware of ImageAnnotator's notes. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Opened ticket MAGNUS-170. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks . --GaAs11671 10:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Input request

I've opened a deletion request here and would appreciate any input. I'm posting notice here because participation rates aren't always what they ought to be. ;) Эlcobbola talk 16:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinal tea

I am looking for information on a tea made from a Russian sea sponge that contains lectin. It is a large pancake shaped sponge. A sugar and water mixture is boiled along with green tea bags, and then a piece of the sponge is floated on the surface. The mixture is covered with clean cheesecloth and put in a dark place for 10 days. The sponge grows to fill the container. The tea helps regulate glucose and blood sugar, can be used to heal skin lesions and has other uses. I need to find a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonkholmes (talk • contribs) (UTC)

You should try one of the reference desks on Wikipedia, or try searching on Google. Killiondude (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

March 13

I have a coupon-response international suede sverige 85 ore. Could someone tell me what is it?

Any information would be greatly appreciated. -- 13:17, 13 March 2010 98.122.52.14

International postal reply coupon| -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

save the flags?

Any idea how to legally save these heavily used flag images, that had been uploaded in years 2006 and 2008 without any source data or claimed as own work, but now were discovered to have been taken from http://www.crwflags.com, a website that hosts works of different people and has a non-commercial restriction? --Túrelio (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably a stupid question, but aren't the two 19th century flags public domain? Paradoctor (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, four of these are presumably 19th century, based on dates given. And I would certainly think they were public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 07:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Files were deleted, I asked Zscout370 for comment. Paradoctor (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The basic underlying designs can be copyright free, but there would still be a copyright on the image files themselves (recently-created flag images are not the same as photographs of old paintings with respect to copyright). Also, FOTW images are kind of small and generally use a reduced-color subset, which means that in many cases of complex flag designs, FOTW images will be of relatively low-quality. Finally, there's a longstanding policy on Commons that FOTW images should not be uploaded here, except for a few authors on FOTW who have given us specific special permission (such as Jaume Olle). See Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_from_www.fotw.net etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I see. That means the best way to "save" these images is to make our own SVGs, right? Paradoctor (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Or other bitmaps, yes :-) We basically just can't use the direct bitmaps from that site (or a direct trace). For what it's worth, two of the flags are the British blue ensign with the (at-the-time) badges of St Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago. The FOTW site has a bitmap version of the badge by Jaume Olle (though that may be GFDL only... forget which license was allowed for his works). This 1917 book also has contemporary (and PD) versions of the badges, so it should be pretty easy to recreate two of the above images. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I can try my hand, but I am sure we can use the badges drawn by Jaume and place them on a blank blue ensign. Too bad that early on in my FOTW career, I never did British flags (I did Soviet flags and now Japanese). User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 17:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

March 14

Category:Victims of animal exploitation

I'd like to have some opinions whether a category like Category:Victims of animal exploitation is POV or not. --Slomox (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Looks like standard PETA POV and a gross miscategorization from a Commons point of view. Most of our users would define that as the food distribution process, not as victims. -Nard the Bard 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
"food distribution process" — beautifully cynical sarcasm... --Pabouk (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice to include photos of the cats and dogs that PETA kills.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Just delete victims and call it "animal exploitation" and include all sides of it. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
good idea, i think. "Animal exploitation" or more precisely "Animal exploitation in the food industry". Trycatch (talk) 05:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like a pure propaganda category. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the parent category "Animal abuse" should be adiquate to cover in scope examples of animal abuse. Unless there is some clear distinction which I might not be aware of, I'd suggest merging into the "Animal abuse" cat. -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to have separate subcategories of "Category:Animal abuse" such as "Category:Abused cats", "Category:Abused dogs", and so on. I think the word "exploitation" is too vague. Are guide dogs and sniffer dogs being "exploited"? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Exploitation" usually means "the act of using something in an unjust or cruel manner" (def from en.wp). Some definitions use the word "unfair". "Unjust"/"unfair" implies POV. The broader meaning of exploitation, that being simply "use", is not usually meant in this context and if it is then it's way too vague to be a good name anyway. Rocket000 (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My concern was not only about the title, but also about the content. Most of the images do not depict animal abuse at all. Several of them just depict dead animals. Most of them taken in carcass containers in which carcasses are deposited until they are transported to the rendering plant.
The images of course are repellent for anybody not used to see carcasses, but that does not imply animal abuse.
Let's take File:Dead-calfs.jpg as example. It shows two dead calves in a carcass container. The image doesn't give any story about the image. So maybe animal abuse was involved. We cannot know. But in the image there's nothing that indicates animal abuse. Sometimes animals are born dead or die after birth. This also happens in nature. In nature it even happens more often cause the farmer has an interest to keep the animals alive and can rescue some animals that would die in nature. There's no way a farmer could avoid dead calves. The carcasses are intact and show no signs of abuse and the carcass container is clean. There's nothing in the image that even remotely indicates animal abuse or that the calves are "victims of animal exploitation" (except you accept that animal products are per se animal exploitation, but that is hardly NPOV). Of course I could just remove File:Dead-calfs.jpg and other images with the same problem from the category. But as none of the images gives any background information about the circumstances, that would essentially mean to empty the category. --Slomox (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, by plain reading the category is supposed to include any exploited animals, not merely abused mammals. Thus File:Brown Bear Feeding on Salmon 1.jpg and File:Nurse shark with remoras.jpg definitely qualify, though the question of whether the exploited fish are also being abused is more open to question. Yes, vagueness makes it a potentially huge category which in turn is possibly a detriment. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the category "Victims of animal exploitation" is poorly named as it is too vague. It should be emptied and, as I proposed above, new categories along the lines of "Category:Abused cats" and "Category:Abused dogs" should be created. Only images that clearly show abuse should be placed in such categories (since they are subcategories of "Category:Animal abuse"). Images showing the use of animals for food or other purposes, the hunting of animals, animals trained to perform for human entertainment, dead animals where the cause of death is not evident, and so on, should be placed in other appropriate categories. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd suggest "Category:Animals as food" which should be a subcategory of "Category:Animals" and "Category:Food"; note that "Category:Cats as food" already exists. However, I am not sure whether "Animals as food" should be a subcategory of "Animal abuse", as that seems POV. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course if you kill somebody (intentionally, without consent, etc.) then it's abuse. In any reasonable definition of "abuse". Nothing POV in this. Yes, there are meat without abuse (Roadkill, for example), but for me it seems not very good idea to wipe out any link from "abuse" cats to the "animal as food" cats (because of that link, in fact, is a quite strong). Trycatch (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That etc. hides a major issue of the argument--there are a lot of times when a person is intentionally killed without consent, like executions and self-defense, where it's not considered abuse--, as does conflating animals with someboby. Abuse is to use wrongly, and general consensus in our society is that killing animals for meat is not using them wrongly. Using abuse to cover killing animals for food is distinctly a POV usage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Slo-mo train wreck at deletion discussion

Can someone take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ryan White.jpg with an eye toward personal attacks, groundless accusations, etc.? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen are now under an interaction ban on en, so the sooner this is closed, the better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I closed the deletion request. Wknight94 talk 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that simplifies matters. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncopyrightable

I lack enough originality!

Is "Reggaeton-rated.gif" that simple as to lack any originality needed to be copyrightable? They're claiming here that it's as simple as Phillips or Google's logo and therefore uncopyrightable. My opinion is that it's far too of a stretch. Moreove the request was closed by interested party, so I'd rather have external eyeballs on the issue. -- Drini 15:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please no forum shopping. Open a DR for this image, that's the proper place to have this discussion. –Tryphon☂ 16:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
It's no forum shopping. I've got no intention to open a DR since I think it's rightfully deleted. But the problem here is that people are using PD-shape and Pd-textlogo as justifications on non-valid ways. So the practice needs to stop. -- Drini 17:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I originally shared Tryphon's concerns about this being raised here but I consider Drini's argument here to be quite convincing and, looking at the relevent categories suggests this problem could be quite widespread and so this could be an appropriate venue to discuss this issue rather than simply focusing on a single image. Adambro (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As I stated at COM:UNDEL, since this could be a contentious issue, it was bad to speedy delete the image. A discussion should have been had at COM:DR. (And a note here to gather opinions for that DR would have been totally appropriate IMHO). Wknight94 talk 17:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago I added a strong disclaimer to Template_Talk:PD-textlogo, which actually sort of had an effect of reining in some abuses briefly for a short while, but then various people complained that the disclaimer contradicted certain alleged court decisions (which they were unable to cite or provide any details about), etc. etc,. and the disclaimer eventually went... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated the undeletion request with some info (and links). It seems pretty likely to me that this particular image is PD-ineligible (or PD-textlogo, whatever), but in general it is quite true that the arrangement of PD-ineligible shapes can be creative in and of itself. It's just that the level required seems to exceed placement of text and choice of color, and obvious arrangements like centering and pinstripe borders; there needs to be a certain complexity to the arrangement itself. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If even File:Sochi logo for the 2014 Winter Olympics.svg (just text and PD Olympic ring: [8]) was recently deleted per WMF's legal counsel opinion, then I think we should be very careful with PD-textlogo. Trycatch (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The double specularity between the "hi" of "Sochi" and the "14" of "2014" goes beyond text, it's hard not to notice it. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
That still doesn't mean it is copyrightable (in the U.S.) :-) The U.S. Copyright Office distinguishes "aesthetic appeal" from copyrightability. In their Copyright Compendium, they state Quality, aesthetic merit, ingenuity, and uniqueness are not considered in determining the copyrightability of a work. To me, they are still letters in a simple combination, regardless of the effect they create (which is aesthetically pleasing, but not necessarily artistically creative in the copyright sense). From 37 CFR 202.10, In order to be acceptable as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, the work must embody some creative authorship in its delineation or form. The letters are still letters in their form, so the only possible copyright claim would be in the arrangement -- and I don't see it. From one of their rulings, It is true that some combinations of common or standard shapes or other unprotectible elements can embody sufficient creativity with respect to how the elements are combined or arranged to support a copyright. [...] However, merely combining non-protectible elements does not automatically establish creativity where the combination or arrangement itself is simplistic. Also in that ruling is that the Office does not consider a work's aesthetics, attractiveness, symbolism, visual effect, uniqueness, commercial success or design choices, nor the time and effort expended in creating the work. To me, the placement results in a nice visual effect, but as mentioned that does not add to its copyrightability. There is a collection of U.S. Copyright Appeals Board decisions here (a few things which were accepted on appeal, and many which were not); it can make for some interesting reading if you want to get in depth. Some of the rejected examples include the Best Western logo, the DUB logo (en:DUB Magazine), the decision already linked which was about a S-shape in a box, a rosette beaded design, the Nikken USA logo, a Bruce Lee Core Symbol, and a Heartagram symbol. As mentioned though, all of this is specific to the U.S. -- Russia may be entirely different. (And Olympics symbols have special laws to protect them, over and above trademark, something they make a country do if they want to host the Olympics). Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
All due respect, I was quoting the U.S. Copyright Office :-) On the other hand, the one you refer to is a Russian image, where the specifics of the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines don't apply (nor does U.S. law), so there is much greater uncertainty with that one. As a counter-example, German cases set the bar really high for logos, much higher than the U.S. even. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ultrasound images

This category [9] contains valuable images for Commons. But the category name seems to be wrong: would't it be sufficient if all files from this category will be moved in a better named category? Does any experienced user know how to handle this? Greetings, Alba —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.187.97.90 (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Aren't many of the images already in other categories in addition to "Category:Ultrasound images by User Nevit"? To take a random example, "File:Ultrasound Scan ND 034.jpg" is in the categories "Category:Twins" and "Category:Ultrasound images of pregnancy". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

March 15

To be deleted

I created a presentation on adult material here on commons at File:WikiP0rn.ogv (possibly illegal to view unless you are an adult - please don't) - two of the files I used in the presentation have since been deleted, so could a passing admin possibly delete the presentation for me? - I intend to re-make the video using other (not deleted) material, so will pop it back to that filename once it's done. Thanks, Privatemusings (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What would be interesting is if you recreate with all the images that have withstood a deletion request. I see a couple in there, I'm sure most admins would delete. Rocket000 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
that's a good idea! - I did plan on making a couple future presentations too, so I'll add it to the list of ideas :-) - I think the file still needs to be deleted currently though, no? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah >< ✓ Done Rocket000 (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Newbie cannot upload photo

Newbie cannot upload photo. I have read everything but still can't seem to upload a file properly. What am I doing wrong??? It is a jpg photo of my grandfather, Public domain Canada, taken in 1917. It was in a family album but I don't know the photographer. Any help greatly appreciated. I have created an entry on Wikipedia and want to include this photo. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbilityGuy (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Commons. It would be helpful if you could describe what you do, and what happens when you do it. Paradoctor (talk) 08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is en:Jeremiah Jones, but this doesn't help. --GaAs11671 11:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Category rename

Some time ago I needed to change a category name. I found the the way to do it. But I cant find the explanation again in the general explanation page, just a lot off rules for deletions. "Category:TGV Atlantique en construction" should be changed in "Category:LGV Atlantique en construction". TGV is train and LGV is highspeed railway in French.

I can of course create the category, link all the pictures to it and start the removal proces for the old empty category. But it is a lot off work and can better be done by bot. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category — The article is linked directly from the main article about categories Commons:Categories. If you search for "category rename" you have to include the Commons: space to the search. --Pabouk (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
If it's a simple non-contentious move ---- like this case, esp. since you're the creator ---- it can be listed at COM:DL for speedy renaming. I'll do this one now. Wknight94 talk 17:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with picture in Naples, Italy

I'm after a picture of a sculpture in the National Archeological Museum, Naples, Italy (Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli) to illustrate an article. The museum allows photography. Is there a way to find a Wikimedian in Naples who would take a picture of it for Commons?

FT2 (Talk | email) 13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You can try Commons:Picture requests and w:WP:RI. Paradoctor (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
it:Wikipedia:Immagini richieste --GaAs11671 14:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Try User:DenghiùComm, he works in an Italian museum, possibly even in the Category:Museo Archeologico Nazionale (Naples). He is extremely friendly. --Foroa (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Cathédrale d'Évry

I asked for the deletion of 81 images which imho don't satisfy the criteria for beeing on Commons. If you don't agree (you are free to disagree with me, of course lol), I will consider that it is a change in Commons policy, and so I'll upload things like fr:Fichier:Creteilcathedrale.jpg. --GaAs11671 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Default template for a third language

When I upload, I can add the PD-Sweden-photo template, since my default language is Swedish. I also frequently upload Finnish pictures and would have use for the PD-Finland50 template. Is it possible to make it an option in my license-field?

By the same token, a Finnish description field would be welcome. Right now, I have to add it manually; only English and Swedish are default fields. --Jonund (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The license drop-down menu is not customizable per user.
To get a Finnish description field by default, see MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Initial languages for descriptions for how to do it. In short: add the following line to your monobook.js (or vector.js, or other user script file for the skin you're using):
var UploadForm_description_languages = ['en', 'sv', 'fi'];
Then reload your browser's cache. HTH, Lupo 07:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, that was useful!
How about making a reform that enables users to customize the license drop-down menu? It would be far easier to add the license you wish than to very often have to change it manually. --Jonund (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

March 16

autopatrol

It'd be nice if the site notice would mention that regular contributors can help out with the patrol effort just by becoming autopatrolled so the logs aren't cluttered up. As worded right now it seems to only be asking for people to make patrols. -Nard the Bard 21:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I can't speak for everyone, I believe patrolling edits of registered users in a systematic way is not on the agenda. (Aside from New Pages ofcourse). Therefor, per COM:Autopatrolled I think it's not contributing in any way for regular users to become autopatrolled. However, also per COM:Autopatrolled those that are regular page creators should ofcourse become autopatrolled ! --Krinkletalk 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
That page is a bit outdated, all edits are now marked for patrolling, see the discussion up the page. -Nard the Bard 00:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I know cause that discussion was started by me. Anyhow, let's continue over there then. --Krinkletalk 01:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 17

File:YHR Logo.png

What would you do ? --GaAs11671 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably delete it since it doesn't seem to have an use. Rocket000 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Weblinks in Author line

Hi everybody, coming accross this picture I saw, that it seems to be possible to include weblinks with the author description. How do you do that and what kind of links are allowed to not be considered as spam? Justcameby (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, this one may not be a good example. Generally, we put links to external sites (ie not Wikimedia sites) only in the "source" field, as a proof for the license. Links to personnal website of the author don't seem to me a good idea (they have no added value for the description)
Links to other Wikimedia sites are encouraged (if they are useful). --GaAs11671 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Authors can be credited as they wish -- I see no issue with links to authors' sites. Source links should be more specific though. This particular one does seem odd though... seems completely unrelated to the author, and the site has Google Ads all over it. Doesn't make sense to me, but may give benefit of the doubt to legitimate contributors (if the images were uploaded primarily to advertise another site, that would probably be different). This particular image though appears to be a photo of another photo, put on a public information display in the town square, so the uploader really can't consider themselves the "author" -- it is a copy of someone else's photo. Unsure if that is covered by freedom of panorama in Germany or not. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
"seems completely unrelated to the author": Please check back with the user before you make unwarranted assumptions (topmost box on the right). For the benefit of those not speaking German: The impressum of the site states that Ralf is legally responsible for its contents. Paradoctor (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, "seems" :-) I didn't investigate much. There are also subpages on the site on aspects of freedom of panorama I believe, which would have made me assume a probable association. Not that it really matters; unrelated links aren't necessarily a problem either. Certainly they aren't blatant spam and shouldn't be removed without asking the uploader directly, particularly those with a longtime track record of contributing a ton of stuff to the project, but since I wasn't recommending that I didn't bother spending any more time on it ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
"subpages on the site on aspects of freedom of panorama": That might be related to his current position as teacher of photo editing and image rights at Hochschule Hof. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
4390 links to this site, that's clearly spam, and we need a bot to remove that. --GaAs11671 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see how it is spam. Authors are free to be credited as they wish, including with a link to their website if they want. How is this case any different from links to a personal website in a custom permission tag, links to a personal website in the source field or links to a personal website in a custom template? guillom 17:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Guillom here. The person who free-licenses a photo has a perfect right to insist that their credit include a link or, really, anything else they want. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, if this is correct for you I will add a link to my eBay account on each image I have uploaded (it's a joke ) --GaAs11671 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey, if you upload 5000 images, I'll make sure the link stays up to date. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Spam; also the file name of File:2010-03-08-berlin-mauer-by-RalfR-12.jpg is rather misleading as to the authorship of this photo. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh please, check his German userpage! He is clearly old enough to have taken the shot himself. Did anyone bother to check his contributions? It's nonsense like this that drives valuable contributors away. Paradoctor (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, this image is taken from a public info board under application of Panoramafreiheit. How to credit it is a topic at the german language Forum as well as at the german Wikipedia, its not yet resolved. However, thats not the problem here. The question was about the attribution weblink, and yes, thats ok as Carl Lindberg said above. --Martin H. (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, another of his photos (File:2010-03-08-berlin-mauer-by-RalfR-14.jpg) shows the board in question it was taken from. It's the top-right photo on the public display shown there. As for the links... there are tons, but they all appear to be on the contributions of this particular user and not any coordinated spam attempt. If someone wants to license 4,000+ usable images and upload them, then I especially have no problems whatsoever with links like that, related to the user or not ;-) Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the snapping at. It's just that it isn't the first time I've seen people in here assuming that intelligent life on earth arose only moments before their own birthdate. Looks like I'll need to keep in mind my own advice on not jumping to conclusions. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Justcameby (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Upload headers

MediaWiki should add multilingual headers at the point of upload. When contributors successfully upload a file at Commons, the headers used are "Summary" and "Licensing", when they should be "int:fildesc" and "int:license". Is this possible? Thanks, Blurpeace 22:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

See COM:FAQ#Why is the text of my new uploads corrected soon after upload? and the FAQ entry just one below that. Lupo 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Not currently. Platonides (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

March 18

Marking edits as patrolled

Hi folks,

Since a few weeks now I'm active in the IRC-channel #cvn-commons, and albeit there are ± 10 other nicknames online I feel quite lonely. But this post is not a call for help, that's for another time.

I come here to address a topic which is either never addressed before on Commons or is outdated. Since ± 2004/2005 MediaWiki 1.4 has an option to enable/disable patrolling on recent changes. In other words edits made by users on any page. Not just page creations !

In the Village Pump at the English Wikipedia back then was some discussion about it, which may or may not have been the reason why $wgUseRCPatrol became 'false' by default on Wikimedia projects (see also noc/InitialiseSettings.php).

Though a lot of major wiki-projects have in the mean time filled a bugzilla ticket to have in enabled, it apparantly never got enabled on Commons. Causing the current situation in which vandalism is hard to find in the giant feed of edits (other then live-changes on #cnv-commons).

Especially now that uploading to Commons has become a standard accross many wiki's, the step for a vandalistic user to spam on Commons has gotten smaller and smaller. So small that some regular users and vandals dont even notice the difference (clicking a local image -> clicking [edit]; seems no different then clicking a Commons image and then [edit]).

So now then a lot of vandals are coming to Commons via all the projects, it has become a place where users also potentially avoid local blocks (those dont apply here, obviously).

Since not everything is caught live on CVN I believe it would be extremely handy to be able to list the RecentChanges to only show anonymous edits and filter the unpatrolled ones out (hideliu=1&hidepatrolled=0). And while being on live CVN duty clicking the patroll-linkon a diff-page when something has been checked (preventing double work afterwards).

Especially with all those tools (like AjaxPatrol) it's no more then a click and a blink away for a Patrol-user to mark an edit as patrolled.

So to come to the point: What do you think of enabling this option on Wikimedia Commons ? Giving us the ability to mark edits as patrollled and getting insight into vandalism (and fighting it) in a much more efficient way.

Thanks in advance for your reponses, Greetings -- Krinkletalk 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as we don't do that nonsense over at de.wikipedia (or what's planned at en.wikipedia), where the reader only views the patrolled version, I have no problem with this idea. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Indeed, this is not to be confused with FlaggedRevisions. Just regular patrolling as most major wikis have. This enables to have insight in what has been checked by a patroller and what not. Especially now Commons is integrating more and more into the wiki projects this is essential in my opinion. -- Krinkletalk 18:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
After some short chit-chat on IRC apparently there was still confusing as to what I mean in this proposal. The patrolling functionality I have proposed to be enabled on Commons is the same functionality we currently already have for NewPages. It adds [mark as patrolled] to edits, it allows filtering in RecentChanges and will only be noticable for Patrollers. See the functionality for NewPages here. -- Krinkletalk 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Having patrolled edits will make CVN task very easier specially when there's no one to check at the time of edit. The patrolling can be done anytime later without missing any edit. -- Meisam (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And it's live. I think we need to start giving out auto-patrol status to more trusted users to lessen the work load. Rocket000 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Though I don't disagree with you perse, it's mostly meant for anonymous edits. Which can be filtered in the recent changes. See also COM:ANON. -- Krinkletalk 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
True, but those red exclamation points are still there by the others when viewing all edits. I think new user edits should be monitored as well. Rocket000 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Rocket000 regarding giving the flag to some users. And I thought sysops edits were automatically patrolled (that is what is stated on Commons:Patrol anyway), but some of my own edits are not (and some are). Any explanation ?
Does flagging for autopatrol should be made after formal request at COM:RFR, or can we just give it already to long-time, trusted users ? Jean-Fred (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't answer your first question. I never noticed that. See Krinkle's comment below. As for the second question, I've gave it to a couple users already without them asking and I trust my fellow admins to make the right choices. :) Rocket000 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 Request Let's put in in the sitenotice and we'll get a flood of requests. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
For a few minutes to an hour sysops' edits were not automaticly marked as patrolled, I re-opened BugZilla ticket and it has been solved in the mean time.
For the rest, though I certainly think more users should sign-up for patrolling, I think just giving auto-patrol is weird, then Patroller aswell.
@The Evil IP address:  Support for that -- Krinkletalk 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This feature has been in use a long time on no.wikipedia. From our experience I imagine that you might want to make some users automatically patrolled, even without them applying for the patrol userright, as this will leave room for a larger part of the patrol effort on those edits that are most likely to be vandalism. Haros (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Wifes

User:Sir Gawain is removing categories of wives from the main categories of husbands[10]. I belive he's wrong (User talk:Sir Gawain#Categories) and category of some king or prince should have his wife, as it always was in commons, 'cos people should be linked directly. Could some one said something about it?--Shakko (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

e.g. we have Category:Aleksandr Pushkin for a poet and category:Aleksandr Pushkin's family, though there is main category:House of Pushkin. But if remove category:Aleksandr Pushkin's family, the link between poet and his family will be weaken. Why in case with royalty the family of king should be removed from his cat?--Shakko (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
My opinion: The purpose of commons categories is to bundle similar objects in groups, and the purpose of sub categories is to indicate that some groups of objects are (completely) contained in other groups. But e. g. an Austrian princess like Category:Marie Antoinette of Austria (resp. her portraits) is not at all similar to a French king like Category:Louis XVI of France (resp. his portraits). By (sub!) categorizing Marie Antoinette in her husbands category she is indirectly categorized in Category:1754 births and that's wrong. And btw: Why should a woman's category a sub category of her husband and not vice versa? -- Sir Gawain (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's important for wiki-articles about persons, but here we are talking only about groups of images. From category of some person should be 1 clik to his family. And now, if I want to see his family I should go to en-wiki and search her name, and then go back. Here is 3 clicks or more. You're talking about right tree of categories, I'm - about usability of common user. If you'll replace with "see also" it could be the way.--Shakko (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Why should a woman's category a sub category of her husband - if husband was ruler and wife was consort. If vice versa - so it goes: man category:Alexei Razumovskiy is sub-cat of reigning category:Elizabeth of Russia, his wife; category:John Brown (servant) is sub-cat of queen Victoria. Why favourite can be in someone's cat and wife - not?--Shakko (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
And this is not only about royalty. You're talking about main thing: any category of person in category of other persons is (by your words) is indirectly categorized in some trees of cat. So it means remove ALL sub-categories of persons from main-categories of other, more important, persons? But is not in commons traditions, here people always was linked through categories.--Shakko (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think, it's right, that John Brown is sub-categorized in "House of Hanover", "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", "Monarchs of Britain", and "Queens regnant"? Categories are not the right instrument to point out family relations, master-servant-relations or anything like this. Nor are they suitable for indicating a person's importance or power. The best way to achieve this is imho a short abstract in a person's category as it already exists e. g. for Category:Marie Antoinette of Austria. Her husband is (user friendly) just on click away. -- Greetz Sir Gawain (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
It's absurd. In Category:Victoria of the United Kingdom is also category:Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, in category:James I of England is Category:King James Bible, in category:Peter I of Russia is Category:Peter I's boat. Diamond, boat and Bible can't be born and aren't from Stewart, Hanover or Romanov dinasty. Remove? Why e.g. shoes of king can be in category and his black slave (person) couldn't? Categories are not the right instrument to point out family relations, master-servant-relations, Nor are they suitable for indicating a person's importance or power - do we have rule for it? If there is some usual man (Category:Fyodor Dostoyevsky), and his wife file:Annagrigdost.jpg - there is no need in category for her only and she is in Category:Fyodor Dostoyevsky, what a problem with it? Many pictures are categorized using family relation. If she will be only in category: women of Russia, nobody ever will find her.--Shakko (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we want to keep to that tradition, at least COM:CAT should then be amended to mark this as an exception to the general rule. It still sounds wrong and broken to me, but I can live with that. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say that Sir Gawain is right: that's a job for {{Cat see also}}. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I would say too that Sir Gawain is right. Let's look at Shakko's example Category:Aleksandr Pushkin's family. This category is wrongly a sub-category of Category:Aleksandr Pushkin. It should be vice versa. Alexander Pushkin is a part of Aleksandr Pushkin's family the same way as Natalia Pushkina is. It is not the other way, Pushkin family is not contained in Pushkin. Sir Gawain showed problems which this could bring. Unfortunately it seems that the family categories are problematic to categorize. --Pabouk (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The situation might be different once the person has its own category (and probably article at WP), but it seems convenient to use Category:Delbert Black for images of his wife. -- User:Docu at 14:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

To me the only rational way is to create a category for the husband/wife (even if there is only one image) and use {{Cat see also}} to link both categories to each other. --GaAs11671 15:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Or, if you prefer, a "category:family of xxx" for every secondary member of the family, and as a subcategory a "category:xxx" --GaAs11671 15:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess spouses are categorised under the more famous individual (which because of history and our society is usually the male) because most of the time we would not be interested in the spouse if it wasn't for the more famous individual. I suppose we could create subcats Category:spouse/s of xxxx like we have for Qing Emperors but unless they are Chinese Emperors or Henry VIII most of these cats would be just an additional layer with a single category or smattering of images in it, and to do so would be little different from placing the category of a named individual in the category of another. Putting a wife's category in her husband's category may not be ideal but not doing so would mean that unless you know the subject you would be unaware of the link for example Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan are cross categorised to each other but there is nothing to link Jane Wyman to Ronald Reagan. KTo288 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This comes down to the purpose of categories. Should Category:X contain things that are X, or things related to X? There's a reason Category:George Washington doesn't contain pictures of (say) macaroni wigs. I'd argue that it's okay to throw related items into a category until such time as they can be properly categorized, but this shouldn't be seen as a final solution, no matter how insignificant a person's wife is compared to them. Instead have a supercategory Category:Family of X containing Category:X as a subcategory and other files just tossed into the main cat. This may put them two clicks away from their more famous family member but that's what links are for. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice to mappers

Here is a brand new page to promote (french;) Geolocalisation. Have a look to "From image to its parametrization". (please fell free to fix my poor english)

I also want to (re)create Commons:Template:Map to document ... maps ;)

Finally, I'm looking for good maps to test fr:Modèle:Géolocalisation/Projection perspective (fr:Modèle:Géolocalisation/Stéréographique/0/0 is awful (unusable?) and too simple)

Best regards.   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 19:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You were speaking of Template:Map ? 6 avril 2009 à 01:38 Cecil (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « Template:Map » ‎ (duplicate or a scaled down version of Template:Location dec)
yes, but for a different use.   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
But in concrete terms, what do you want us to do? --GaAs11671 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
nothing   <STyx @ (I promote Geolocation) 22:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Offer for Afghanistan map data

I just want to make sure this gets seen in a timely fashion by the right people. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(deleted - was stupid) --GaAs11671 23:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Jimbo is asking for advice on how to proceed with an image donation and has posted a pointer to the page where the question is discussed. That's all. What's your problem with that? Lupo 23:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I second Lupo on this. Arseniure, please refrain from such useless comments. I fail to see any problem with anyone pointing here an ongoing discussion on some remote talk page, which relevant/interested people might have otherwise overlooked. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, JW is GaAs' great white Wales. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, forget. --GaAs11671 17:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Video of Frankfurt international motor show (IAA)

I've got about an hour of video sitting here of the 2009 Frankfurt international motor show, which may be useful for the description of this event, but the legal status may be a bit problematic.

This is a trade show (not free, on private property), so of course there's a lot of stuff on the screen that is in some way protected. The cars for one, but probably the design of the halls as well (however photo-taking is allowed).

The majority of the videos focus on the cars and I would expect them to be useless for Commons as they directly depict a protected design, but there are also about two minutes where camera just shows the halls in general.

The event is not free, but it is semi-public with a few thousand visitors, so maybe, just maybe COM:FOP applies. But that would still leave the problem that the law apparently focuses on the "outside of the building". However one could argue that these aren't actually buildings, but just roofs over the exhibition floors.

Any ideas would be welcome. I'm German BTW, so German law applies here.

--Hansschmucker (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Add File:Stop hand nuvola.svg to Category:Nuvola icons and Category:Nuvola SVG apps

could someone carry out? please--Pierpao (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done. Bidgee (talk) 08:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You couldn't do it yourself ? (no blame, I just try to understand) --GaAs11671 09:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The page is protected, only admins can edit it. –Tryphon☂ 09:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn't try, shame on me. --GaAs11671 13:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
And just to note, the usual procedure is to add the template {{Editprotected}} on the image's talk page along with the suggested change, and an admin should come along to add it. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Disable site notice

Resolved

Live near San Francisco, or in the US, and have an hour to help Wikimedia Commons?

How can I disable this notice? -84user (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, that was recently discussed on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Hide please. :-) Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Lupo's monobook.css suggestion worked, here is for others:

"adding the following to your monobook.css, vector.css, or other user css file: 

div#centralNotice { display: none ! important }

-84user (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This will hide all CentralNotice messages; you're free to do so if you wish, but be aware that by doing this, you will probably miss later announcements about topics you care about. If you want to just hide this particular message, just click on "let's do it" and close the subsequent invitation. guillom 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Galleries vs Categories, with few photos of people

Can you explain the interest in having galleries with (hopefully) the same content as categories? Galleries will probably not be updated in a timely way (unlike categories) and this will be bad for users who are not aware they can access more photos by clicking on the category. You can see this diff (only five photos) vs the category (seventeen photos). For me, this kind of galery have no interest. If only we had hundreds of photos for each person... Okki (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Good thing we have a whole section about that on COM:G#Galleries vs. categories. :-) There are advantages and disadvantages to both. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
« Ideally, galleries should contain the best of what we have. » It's difficult to choose the best when we usually have very few photos for each person. I am not against galleries, which are probably very good for enhancing our thousands of cats or making a selection for one city or country. But for the overwhelming majority of people who have their photo on Commons, it has no interest, and it would be nice if we finally decides to set rules. Okki (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
« In the absence of a gallery, or if there is only a gallery with little or no content, a gallery title can be redirected to a corresponding category (a cross-namespace redirect). » There are some interesting things in this article. Because it's finally the case of almost all the galleries of people, someone to revert all that ? :) Okki (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that the bot Emijrpbot once created thousand of people galleries with only an English description (containing the name and a link to the Wikipedia page) and one image. Such galleries are rather useless. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Gallery usefulness stems from being to group differences, like plant - flower, leaf, bark, timber, uses, seed, drawing etc making it easier to where we have or lack photographs. It also assist people in finding features rather than trawling large categories. Gnangarra 12:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, galleries are useful in cases such as that but that's not what Okki is talking about. The reason we have such a hard time with this gallery vs. category thing is because people always bring up the general benefits of galleries when there's lots of content. We're talking about when there's little content (2-3 images). Rocket000 (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Thats just it galleries arent normally beneficial until they reach a critical mass, the thing is finding what the critical mass is for the subject, in general terms its when a category starts to have multiple pages. Before that galleries struggle to be useful beyond expanded descriptions Gnangarra 13:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Thuresson does make a good point regarding Matt Damon. When there's useful captions like that and the category has that many images, that's the start of a good gallery. I would leave those alone. But some of the others shouldn't be galleries, IMO. Rocket000 (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

March 20

We need your help at the Wikiproject medicine

Hello, on the behalf of the Wikiproject medicine at the en.wikipedia, I am inviting you to be a part of the discussion going on the project's talk page about Patient images, The discussion started after I obtained a permission to more than 23000 dermatology related images, and about 1500 radiology images. As some editors of the Wikiproject medicine have some concerns regarding the policy of using patient images on wikipedia, and regarding patient consents. Also they believe that common's policy is not so clear regarding the issue. And since you are the experts please join us at this very important discussion -- MaenK.A.Talk 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning Category:Warning signs crowded

Category:Warning signs. I moved a few signs into Category:Triangular signs but File:Imbox deletion.png and File:Icon Now Commons.svg refused to follow their chums :). They need an harder push. Thanks--Pierpao (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe an admin can help. Fun stuff BTW: File:Not more triangles.svg. -- User:Docu at 20:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
O dear... that's the guilty one--Pierpao (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The heart of matter is: two protected file must be moved--Pierpao (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

 Info If you can't edit or move a file because it's protected, you might want to add {{Editprotected}} to the talk page telling what should be changed about the file. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks --Pierpao (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

March 21

Which tag for personal files?

Noticed File:Time travel paradox - KyleReese -By Diego Viegas.pdf, which looks like unpublished original research. IIRC, a few personal files are permitted, so I'd like to categorize it as such. Paradoctor (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

{{Userpageimage}} might be what you're looking for. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Paradoctor (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
That file is not in use on a userpage and it falls out of our scope, it is COM:PS#Excluded_educational_content. Eligible for deletion. Uploading such pdfs here is like writing some spam article with personal opinions to the Wikipedia article namespace, so I wouldnt disagree with speedydeletion. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Russian names

Can anybody be of help with translating the shipsnames on Category:Ships of Murmansk. Trying to add IMO numbers to all vessels, but it is impossible for me to read and find the numbers by Russian names. --Stunteltje (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Added ships name to description. Most of this are Ледоколы типа Арктика (Arktika class icebreakers), the IMO is in the russian wiki article Номер ИМО. --Martin H. (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

March 22

Singapore photographers?

Are there any photographers in Singapore, that I could try and get to commit to being photographers at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics? I'm going to try and get Wikimedia accredited. -- Nick Moreau (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try Terence as he used to be quite active. However, I note that he hasn't made any edits since 22 February 2009. Oahiyeel is another possibility; he's more active. You might also try leaving a message at the talk page of the SGpedians' notice board at the English Wikipedia.
Outside Wikipedia, I have often uploaded to the Commons high-quality images from yeowatzup (real name: Kok Leng YEO) and eustaquio (Eustaquio Santimano) at Flickr. You might try contacting them to see if they are interested. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Some potential categories

I just now thought of some concepts that probably deserve a category, but cannot think what to call it (or quite where to put them in the hierarchy).

What I first thought of is buildings that were left unfinished at the time of the fall of Communism and were eventually completed with a different purpose than was originally intended (e.g. Business Center Club in Kraków or any of a number of shopping centers in Bucharest (although the latter lack pictures here because of Romanian limits on FOP). But then I expanded that thought to two other concepts: buildings that were left unfinished at the time of the fall of Communism and are still sitting unfinished (e.g. Casa Radio in Bucharest, unless something happened recently that I didn't hear about) and, in general, buildings anywhere that never served their original intended purpose but were used for other purposes (e.g. Stadium High School in Tacoma, Washington, originally built to be a hotel, which never opened).

Any thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 06:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

  • You could start with a fairly descriptive category name and extensive category description, then add images. Eventually Ingolfson or Jacklee will come by and suggest a better name. -- User:Docu at 06:20, 2010 March 15
It might fit into Category:Buildings by condition or Category:Buildings by function. -- User:Docu at 06:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Two comments:
  • There are millions of buildings that changed purpose, so it looks most important to have a category for its last known function (and possibly previous functions). This information is more important than the fact that it has been "repurposed".
  • Unfinished (or never occupied) buildings are related to the state of a building, not to its purpose. --Foroa (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. What I wanted to say is that the function and possibly the state of the building is the most important category. I have no problem with a "repurposed" side category (or parallel category), I would have a problem with a "repurposed" subcategory that pushes other more important categories away. --Foroa (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the above seem to be genuinely good thoughts, but I don't see an easy synthesis. Does someone want to make a concrete proposal? - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Just make a cat category:Repurposed buildings at root category:Buildings and make there the specific subcategories. I don't think that it is important to state at this level that the repurpose has been done during construction. I guess that those repurposings are interesting for Commons mostly because of regime or political power changes, so they better have a specific subcategory name as suggested above. For the rest, nothing should change I suppose. --Foroa (talk) 07:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed category scheme

I'm still not sure I see exactly how this would work out (and would rather have something workable before I proceed). How does the following look?

Comments? Suggestions? Or is this getting too abstruse and should I just not bother? Because I'm not really very happy with the result. - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

To me, this is an overkill (for the moment) and repurposed has nothing to do with the current (or past function); it is just an attribute to the building. So simply:

I don't think that the former function or former association needs specific categories.

--Foroa (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I could go with that (although being more consistent about using English: Shah, not Sjah). Any objections? - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the Foroa's proposal. I think that there should preferably be Shah and Romania. --Pabouk (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-functioning parameters in autotranslated templates

I recently noticed that template parameters do not function properly in templates that are translated in languages other than English. I encountered this problem when I translated the {{ModernEgypt}} source template into French and Arabic. I initially thought I had done something wrong but then realized that the same problem existed with the widely used {{LOC-image}} source template. To better visualize what I'm talking about, take any image using one of these two templates (for instance, this image for the {{LOC-image}} template or this image for the {{ModernEgypt}} template). You'll notice that the template parameters work fine in the English version, but are dysfunctional in all other translated versions. Could someone with the technical skills please explain why this is the case and how this serious problem can be fixed? --BomBom (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • The templates don't seem to work at all if you switch to a language besides your interface language. If you set your interface language in preferences to a language the template supports (french for example) and reload it, it comes up just fine. I don't see this as too much of a problem. -Nard the Bard 06:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Autotranslate templates work just fine : they settle for the language of your interface (in my case, french), and the parameters are okay. If your language does not exist, it goes for english.
The language links at the bottom are just that: links to the xx-version of the template. There goes the brand new script MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js which loads the template in the page instead of loading the template page. Parameters passing has always been a limitation. The creator, User:Ilmari Karonen prototyped a solution. See for example {{Palissy}} in Category:Orgue de la cahédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Annonciation de Nancy. I do not know how stable his solution is, and if it can be mass-used. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had time to work on it further, but since it basically works and no-one (as far as I know) has reported any problems with it, I'd say it's probably ready for wider use. There are instructions for using the feature at Template:LayoutTemplateArgs. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Information form for uploading videos doesn't seem to work

In response to Wikipedia's request to support the theora codec I'm uploading videos to Wiki Commons -- as appropriate I will link them to wikipedia articles. Here's the problem: I dutifully fill out the form to upload a file in wiki commons - descriptions, license info, categories, etc. - and then press the upload file button. The file uploads, but all the info I've filled out isn't there. Its a pain to add it by hand. Is there some "save" button that I'm missing ... and of course the bot comes through and saves I haven't entered copyright permissions. Please help me support theora! Hammack

It's happened to me a couple of times on Chrome... strange and annoying. I'm sure someone must know what's been going on. Jarry1250 (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There does look like there was some issues I have pushed out an update let me know if you can still get empty metadata? Mdale (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I tried a trial upload the metadata did not take. I am using Firefox 3.0 on Ubuntu Hardy. Hammack
Oky sorry it was working locally, but not work on the live mwEmbed gadget because of some out-of-order interaction between the commons upload form hacks and the add-media gadget. I have added some workarounds and tested the current deployment "wEmbed:remote:r115" with firefox 3.5, chrome 5.0.356.2 dev and IE 8 sorry for the initial false positive, clear your cache give it another shot. Mdale (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Tried again, but still uploaded metadata did not take. I am using Firefox 3.0 on Ubuntu Hardy. Hammack
Is it possibly a cache issue? I just tested again and its "working" I just uploaded File:Test_jets.jpg for example. What mwEmbed version does it say your using at start-up? it should be 115 or later ie: "mwEmbed:remote:r115" is printed to the console ( you may have to install firebug to view console msgs ) Mdale (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 23

Source code?

Is it possible to upload a ZIP file containing the source code/project used to create an image here at Commons? Thanks! SharkD  Talk  00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ZIP is not one of the file formats that can be uploaded, but some file description pages include source code (Category:Images including source code in their description). There is even a {{Source code please}}. -- User:Docu at 06:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
But what do we do about binary files? SharkD  Talk  09:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As a zip can include just about anything, it's unlikely that it will get enabled. There was a proposal for a more specific format back in June 2009 (COM:VP#Proposal to enable uploads for DNG files). This might answer some of your questions. -- User:Docu at 09:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not a very elegant solution. I.e. we're supposed to provide source code but have no natively supported means of doing so. If sites like Source Forge don't see this as being a significant problem, why does Wikimedia? SharkD  Talk  04:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because this is primarily a multimedia repository. We allow some PDFs, but textual content really belongs elsewhere. Are you talking about source code for programs? Rocket000 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the 3D models, 2D textures, PSD files and so forth used to create an computer generated image. Sorry for the confusion. SharkD  Talk  18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I thought you meant actual source code (i.e. plain text). Yeah, unfortunately, we can't upload that stuff here. However, if you're working with SVG, everything is human-readable and can be contain in a .svg file (kinda like a .psd but non-binary, except for any embedded bitmaps of course). I know some have uploaded SVGs that contained vector and gradient resources instead of being for a single image. I've also seen users post the code they used to generate 3D models so anyone else can reproduce it without actually downloading a pre-made file (they just copy'n'paste the text into whatever program is necessary). I suggest uploading your resources to a place like deviantART and link to it from the image description page here. Rocket000 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Note that tricks/hacks are often used to get SVG images to render properly on Wiki(*)edia making them uneditable afterward. For instance, converting text to paths eliminates the original textual data. So even SVG is not the be-all format, at least when it comes to Wiki(*)edia. SharkD  Talk  05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is you can upload resources in a SVG you used to make another file (that renders how you want it). We do that all the time for translating diagrams. First we upload with text (for translators), then paths (for display). Rocket000 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you mention SourceForge, wouldn't hosting the source code on an external website be a nice solution to this problem? After all, we don't host a copy of Firefox's source code for every screenshot of it that we have. There are plenty of free services such as http://sourceforge.net, http://github.com or http://gitorious.org. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. If that were the case, we could instead host discussions at some external site or usenet as well. Until some internal means of archiving is added, I don't see a whole lot of people providing their "working" files unless they happen to also be few in number and in plaintext format. SharkD  Talk  03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
An external link isn't much different than a local link (MediaWiki isn't that user friendly, as you know). Rocket000 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, except that MediaWiki handles text quite well, so we use it for our discussions. If you want to wait until functionality is added to host software projects (which might never happen since it's not our primary goal), fine. But in the meantime, the best (and only) way is to use external services, which specialize in this task and do it well. As long as they're not ephemeral, I don't see a problem. Again, we don't host the entire source code of Firefox, OpenOffice or Ubuntu, although we have screenshots them, which technically are derivative works of the entire source code. We rely on external sources all the time (flickr, NASA, LOC, etc.) –Tryphon☂ 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You could file a request on bugzilla for allowing the uploading of compressed archive files to Commons for such purposes. This would have some technical and practical issues, since such archives could contain pretty much anything and it would be hard to check them for safety automatically, but if we could come up with a workable mechanism for manually reviewing such files, I do think it might be possible. Limiting the ability to upload such files to only trusted users (e.g. via a custom, admin-grantable user right) might be a good first step. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of image deletion on other projects - who or what is responsible?

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg, the original file located at File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg was deleted over a week ago. I have no issue with that deletion decision itself. However, over a dozen different projects had over 40 uses of that image, and nothing was done in the past week to fix that issue. As the deletion of an image from Commons does not show up as a change in any watchlist on any other project, it took me noticing the redlinked image on a chance viewing of an article days later. This is an especially glaring omission given that there was an informationally-identical replacement image of Scalia available at File:Supreme Court US 2009-2.jpg; as there were only five pages pointing to that image, I've uploaded a copy to the filename of the deleted image, and changed those five pages to point to that file. Problem solved, but only after days of redlinked images in multiple projects, with no notice given to those projects.

I'm a frequent uploader here, but I spend most of my time on the English Wikipedia, so I'm less familiar with Commons deletion policy and practice. So please tell me frankly if I'm missing or misunderstanding anything; maybe there's a policy page that I simply haven't found yet. But I'd think that whenever an image is deleted, its uses would be dealt with promptly. And ideally, whenever an image is nominated for deletion, some notice should be given to the projects that use it, and I see that there is at least one resource for this purpose. I initially thought that the worst result would have been to just remove the links after the image was deleted without replacing the image, but at least that would have shown up on users' watchlists on other projects. I understand that User:Commonsdelinker does this work at least some of the time, but I don't understand why that didn't happen here.

I know there are many areas in which procedures and instructions tell Commons admins to check project usage before speedy deleting an image, such as when an image is renamed or is a duplicate. I am not aware of whether it is codified anywhere that a deleting admin should do the same thing when an image is deleted as the result of a deletion request, but it certainly doesn't make sense to treat such deletions differently, particularly given the additional time involved in the deletion decision; here there were three days in between the deletion request and the deletion. And where, as in this case, there is clearly a suitable replacement available on Commons, it is surprising and disappointing that there is apparently no procedure (or even recommended course of conduct) in place for executing that replacement, even if users on every project ultimately decide that it's not a good replacement and remove it. Once again, at least it would show up in watchlists, and it would be better than just doing nothing and leaving a redlink for who knows how long. This can't be a new issue, right? Postdlf (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was some lag with the toolserver recently, maybe this is why CommonsDelinker didn't remove it from all 40 occurrences. -- User:Docu at 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to have been any lag when the file was deleted [11]. For some reason this file wasn't processed. You'd have to asked the bot's maintainer (Siebrand). -- User:Docu at 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On de.wp we use a bot generated list to check for links to nonexisting media. Commonsdelinker seems to not process some deleted pics quite frequently. --Rosentod (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Licenses and project hosting

Must an image and the source code used to create the image share the same license? Wikimedia's preferred license is GFDL + CC-BY-SA. I would like to use Google Code to host my source files, but they seem to support the LGPL not GDFL, and use CC-BY-SA as a separate "content"-only license. What am I to do?

Lastly, most of the images I've created are tagged as GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Can I relicense them to LGPL? What is the difference between CC-LGPL and LGPL? SharkD  Talk  05:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I answer only about "relicense": you always can add a license to your own work, you are still the author! Removing one is more difficult, as this is a contact contract, all the parties must agree (the question is: does anyone have used your image with this license?).
So imho you can tag your old images as GFDL + CC-BY-SA + LGPL without any question. --GaAs11671 11:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean "contract"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
lol Yes. --GaAs11671 09:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No, in general you don't need both to have the same license. There's two possibilities. If you retouch your pictures or make a montage using Photoshop, you can still release them under a free license. But if you take a screenshot of a proprietary program, you can't. It all depends if the creativity is on the software programer's side or on the software user's side. If you are both (the software user and author), then you can do whatever you want (you don't need to release the source code in order for your images to be free).
If you still want to have a wider choice of licenses for you code, you can consider other hosting sites (I mentioned a few above); I know that gitorious allows you to chose pretty much any license (free or non-free) that you want. –Tryphon☂ 12:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's say I upload a computer generated PNG file. Are the 3D models subject to the same license as the image? How about if I use Photoshop to create a PSD file that is then mixed down to PNG? SharkD  Talk  03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you created the 3D models yourself, then you can have different licenses for the 3D model and the image. If the 3D models are someone else's work (or were automatically generated by a copyrighted software) then the images are a derivative work and their license follows that of the 3D models (so if they aren't free, the images aren't free).
If you use Photoshop to create an image, since the creative input comes entirely from you (Photoshop is just a tool), then you're the sole copyright holder of the resulting image and are free to license it as you see fit.
I hope that answers your questions. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo Moodle

I am not sure about if it can be allowed to upload the logo of Moodle ( http://moodle.org ) Can someone tell me if the logo is allowed or not on Commons? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Only the most simplist of logos (text only + basic geometric shapes) are ineligible for copyright. The illustration of the graduation cap is enough to qualify for copyright. You'd have to upload the image on a project that allows non-free images, under fair use claim, such as the English language Wikipedia. -Andrew c (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The moodle website contains the text

All content on this web site is made available under the GNU General Public License, unless otherwise stated.

There is a trademark claim about the logo (ie {{Trademark}} is required) but no other statement about the copyright or license of the logo. So shouldn't that mean the moodle logo is GPL too? --Wimmel (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
License talks only about trademark restrictions over Moodle name (and/or logo), so {{GPL}}+{{Trademark}} should be fine --Justass (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
But what is the usefulness on Wikimedia projects? --GaAs11671 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
We only have 32 articles about Moodle. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgive me. I didn't even bother to look for the licensing information, and figured it was non-free content based on how the question was phrased. My bad. Sorry. Ignore my comment in this content, but it is still accurate as a general rule.-Andrew c (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 24

Creatures from Spore

Hi all. A user has uploaded a group of images of creatures created by the videogame Spore with license GFDL-self and CC-BY-SA... As the game is property of Electronic Arts, I doubt that the licenses are correct. Before sending them to destroy, I prefer to hear more opinions. Thanks, Lucien (es·m·com) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even screenshots from real open-source games are more commonly under the GPL licence than GFDL or Creative Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The page says: Graphs you have created entirely yourself and I think creatures aren't screenshots, they are graphs created using Spore Creature Creator a design program for making Spore creatures. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Is like doing a picture using Photoshop. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... but for images like this one I'd say that some UV maps are needed, and I wonder if those are copyrightable (in case you didn't provide your own) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not okay IMO. And the Photoshop analogy doesn't hold. You're not creating those creatures from scratch, you're using pre-defined pieces and textures and assemble them to create something new; so part of the copyright is with the software editor, and part of it belongs to you, but you can't release the result under a free license without the software editor's permission. If you want to compare this with Photoshop, it would be like importing several copyrighted pictures, making a montage out of them and saving the result. That image wouldn't be free either. –Tryphon☂ 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Source code?

Is it possible to upload a ZIP file containing the source code/project used to create an image here at Commons? Thanks! SharkD  Talk  00:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ZIP is not one of the file formats that can be uploaded, but some file description pages include source code (Category:Images including source code in their description). There is even a {{Source code please}}. -- User:Docu at 06:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
But what do we do about binary files? SharkD  Talk  09:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
As a zip can include just about anything, it's unlikely that it will get enabled. There was a proposal for a more specific format back in June 2009 (COM:VP#Proposal to enable uploads for DNG files). This might answer some of your questions. -- User:Docu at 09:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This is not a very elegant solution. I.e. we're supposed to provide source code but have no natively supported means of doing so. If sites like Source Forge don't see this as being a significant problem, why does Wikimedia? SharkD  Talk  04:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Because this is primarily a multimedia repository. We allow some PDFs, but textual content really belongs elsewhere. Are you talking about source code for programs? Rocket000 (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the 3D models, 2D textures, PSD files and so forth used to create an computer generated image. Sorry for the confusion. SharkD  Talk  18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, ok. I thought you meant actual source code (i.e. plain text). Yeah, unfortunately, we can't upload that stuff here. However, if you're working with SVG, everything is human-readable and can be contain in a .svg file (kinda like a .psd but non-binary, except for any embedded bitmaps of course). I know some have uploaded SVGs that contained vector and gradient resources instead of being for a single image. I've also seen users post the code they used to generate 3D models so anyone else can reproduce it without actually downloading a pre-made file (they just copy'n'paste the text into whatever program is necessary). I suggest uploading your resources to a place like deviantART and link to it from the image description page here. Rocket000 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Note that tricks/hacks are often used to get SVG images to render properly on Wiki(*)edia making them uneditable afterward. For instance, converting text to paths eliminates the original textual data. So even SVG is not the be-all format, at least when it comes to Wiki(*)edia. SharkD  Talk  05:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
But what I'm saying is you can upload resources in a SVG you used to make another file (that renders how you want it). We do that all the time for translating diagrams. First we upload with text (for translators), then paths (for display). Rocket000 (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Since you mention SourceForge, wouldn't hosting the source code on an external website be a nice solution to this problem? After all, we don't host a copy of Firefox's source code for every screenshot of it that we have. There are plenty of free services such as http://sourceforge.net, http://github.com or http://gitorious.org. –Tryphon☂ 12:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
No, not really. If that were the case, we could instead host discussions at some external site or usenet as well. Until some internal means of archiving is added, I don't see a whole lot of people providing their "working" files unless they happen to also be few in number and in plaintext format. SharkD  Talk  03:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
An external link isn't much different than a local link (MediaWiki isn't that user friendly, as you know). Rocket000 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, except that MediaWiki handles text quite well, so we use it for our discussions. If you want to wait until functionality is added to host software projects (which might never happen since it's not our primary goal), fine. But in the meantime, the best (and only) way is to use external services, which specialize in this task and do it well. As long as they're not ephemeral, I don't see a problem. Again, we don't host the entire source code of Firefox, OpenOffice or Ubuntu, although we have screenshots them, which technically are derivative works of the entire source code. We rely on external sources all the time (flickr, NASA, LOC, etc.) –Tryphon☂ 09:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You could file a request on bugzilla for allowing the uploading of compressed archive files to Commons for such purposes. This would have some technical and practical issues, since such archives could contain pretty much anything and it would be hard to check them for safety automatically, but if we could come up with a workable mechanism for manually reviewing such files, I do think it might be possible. Limiting the ability to upload such files to only trusted users (e.g. via a custom, admin-grantable user right) might be a good first step. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup of image deletion on other projects - who or what is responsible?

Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg, the original file located at File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg was deleted over a week ago. I have no issue with that deletion decision itself. However, over a dozen different projects had over 40 uses of that image, and nothing was done in the past week to fix that issue. As the deletion of an image from Commons does not show up as a change in any watchlist on any other project, it took me noticing the redlinked image on a chance viewing of an article days later. This is an especially glaring omission given that there was an informationally-identical replacement image of Scalia available at File:Supreme Court US 2009-2.jpg; as there were only five pages pointing to that image, I've uploaded a copy to the filename of the deleted image, and changed those five pages to point to that file. Problem solved, but only after days of redlinked images in multiple projects, with no notice given to those projects.

I'm a frequent uploader here, but I spend most of my time on the English Wikipedia, so I'm less familiar with Commons deletion policy and practice. So please tell me frankly if I'm missing or misunderstanding anything; maybe there's a policy page that I simply haven't found yet. But I'd think that whenever an image is deleted, its uses would be dealt with promptly. And ideally, whenever an image is nominated for deletion, some notice should be given to the projects that use it, and I see that there is at least one resource for this purpose. I initially thought that the worst result would have been to just remove the links after the image was deleted without replacing the image, but at least that would have shown up on users' watchlists on other projects. I understand that User:Commonsdelinker does this work at least some of the time, but I don't understand why that didn't happen here.

I know there are many areas in which procedures and instructions tell Commons admins to check project usage before speedy deleting an image, such as when an image is renamed or is a duplicate. I am not aware of whether it is codified anywhere that a deleting admin should do the same thing when an image is deleted as the result of a deletion request, but it certainly doesn't make sense to treat such deletions differently, particularly given the additional time involved in the deletion decision; here there were three days in between the deletion request and the deletion. And where, as in this case, there is clearly a suitable replacement available on Commons, it is surprising and disappointing that there is apparently no procedure (or even recommended course of conduct) in place for executing that replacement, even if users on every project ultimately decide that it's not a good replacement and remove it. Once again, at least it would show up in watchlists, and it would be better than just doing nothing and leaving a redlink for who knows how long. This can't be a new issue, right? Postdlf (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There was some lag with the toolserver recently, maybe this is why CommonsDelinker didn't remove it from all 40 occurrences. -- User:Docu at 16:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to have been any lag when the file was deleted [12]. For some reason this file wasn't processed. You'd have to asked the bot's maintainer (Siebrand). -- User:Docu at 17:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

On de.wp we use a bot generated list to check for links to nonexisting media. Commonsdelinker seems to not process some deleted pics quite frequently. --Rosentod (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Licenses and project hosting

Must an image and the source code used to create the image share the same license? Wikimedia's preferred license is GFDL + CC-BY-SA. I would like to use Google Code to host my source files, but they seem to support the LGPL not GDFL, and use CC-BY-SA as a separate "content"-only license. What am I to do?

Lastly, most of the images I've created are tagged as GFDL + CC-BY-SA. Can I relicense them to LGPL? What is the difference between CC-LGPL and LGPL? SharkD  Talk  05:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I answer only about "relicense": you always can add a license to your own work, you are still the author! Removing one is more difficult, as this is a contact contract, all the parties must agree (the question is: does anyone have used your image with this license?).
So imho you can tag your old images as GFDL + CC-BY-SA + LGPL without any question. --GaAs11671 11:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean "contract"? -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
lol Yes. --GaAs11671 09:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No, in general you don't need both to have the same license. There's two possibilities. If you retouch your pictures or make a montage using Photoshop, you can still release them under a free license. But if you take a screenshot of a proprietary program, you can't. It all depends if the creativity is on the software programer's side or on the software user's side. If you are both (the software user and author), then you can do whatever you want (you don't need to release the source code in order for your images to be free).
If you still want to have a wider choice of licenses for you code, you can consider other hosting sites (I mentioned a few above); I know that gitorious allows you to chose pretty much any license (free or non-free) that you want. –Tryphon☂ 12:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's say I upload a computer generated PNG file. Are the 3D models subject to the same license as the image? How about if I use Photoshop to create a PSD file that is then mixed down to PNG? SharkD  Talk  03:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you created the 3D models yourself, then you can have different licenses for the 3D model and the image. If the 3D models are someone else's work (or were automatically generated by a copyrighted software) then the images are a derivative work and their license follows that of the 3D models (so if they aren't free, the images aren't free).
If you use Photoshop to create an image, since the creative input comes entirely from you (Photoshop is just a tool), then you're the sole copyright holder of the resulting image and are free to license it as you see fit.
I hope that answers your questions. –Tryphon☂ 09:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo Moodle

I am not sure about if it can be allowed to upload the logo of Moodle ( http://moodle.org ) Can someone tell me if the logo is allowed or not on Commons? Thanks! Romaine (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Only the most simplist of logos (text only + basic geometric shapes) are ineligible for copyright. The illustration of the graduation cap is enough to qualify for copyright. You'd have to upload the image on a project that allows non-free images, under fair use claim, such as the English language Wikipedia. -Andrew c (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The moodle website contains the text

All content on this web site is made available under the GNU General Public License, unless otherwise stated.

There is a trademark claim about the logo (ie {{Trademark}} is required) but no other statement about the copyright or license of the logo. So shouldn't that mean the moodle logo is GPL too? --Wimmel (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
License talks only about trademark restrictions over Moodle name (and/or logo), so {{GPL}}+{{Trademark}} should be fine --Justass (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
But what is the usefulness on Wikimedia projects? --GaAs11671 21:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
We only have 32 articles about Moodle. Multichill (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgive me. I didn't even bother to look for the licensing information, and figured it was non-free content based on how the question was phrased. My bad. Sorry. Ignore my comment in this content, but it is still accurate as a general rule.-Andrew c (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

March 10

Creatures from Spore

Hi all. A user has uploaded a group of images of creatures created by the videogame Spore with license GFDL-self and CC-BY-SA... As the game is property of Electronic Arts, I doubt that the licenses are correct. Before sending them to destroy, I prefer to hear more opinions. Thanks, Lucien (es·m·com) 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Even screenshots from real open-source games are more commonly under the GPL licence than GFDL or Creative Commons... AnonMoos (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The page says: Graphs you have created entirely yourself and I think creatures aren't screenshots, they are graphs created using Spore Creature Creator a design program for making Spore creatures. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Is like doing a picture using Photoshop. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... but for images like this one I'd say that some UV maps are needed, and I wonder if those are copyrightable (in case you didn't provide your own) -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not okay IMO. And the Photoshop analogy doesn't hold. You're not creating those creatures from scratch, you're using pre-defined pieces and textures and assemble them to create something new; so part of the copyright is with the software editor, and part of it belongs to you, but you can't release the result under a free license without the software editor's permission. If you want to compare this with Photoshop, it would be like importing several copyrighted pictures, making a montage out of them and saving the result. That image wouldn't be free either. –Tryphon☂ 15:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Photo Upload

Hi, I'm trying to upload a photo to a Wiki page I created and it doesn't show up. I uploaded the photo to Wiki, but when I put the link where I want the picture to go all I get is 1 with a link back to the original document, how do I get the photo to directly show up on my site?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watermill333 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 24 mar 2010 (UTC)

On what wiki are you trying to use the image? On WikiMedia's wikis (including Wikipedia), which are configured to use WikiMedia Commons as a source of images and other media files, you can just use something like [[File:Splash bottle.jpg|thumb|left|description]]. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Please also read Commons:First steps before uploading files, and ensure you have the rights to release the images you upload under a free license. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I am using wikipedia but was uploading images from the commons. For some reason I was only able to upload photos using File:splash bottle.jpg]] If I wrote any of the thumb or left, it wouldn't work, but thanks for the comment.

Images disappearing

In case no one else noticed...
As of 2010-03-24 17:30Z, Commons images began disappearing. At 17:34Z, the style sheets for most pages disappeared as well. Oh, and Wikipedia (en) is down. Is there some kind of system-wide maintenance or reorganization going on? — Loadmaster (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple English wikipedia and commons are partially working. Everything else as far as I can tell is kaput and went down about an hour and a half ago. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see image pages in Commons, but not the actual images, or even the thumbnails. I did search one of my images in google images and a thumbnail appears there but links to just the image page in Commons, sans image itself. The images themselves are apparently not recognised:
"The Proxy Was Unable to Fulfill Your Request
"The proxy was unable to fulfill your request because it could not find a directory entry for the website upload.wikimedia.org.
"The website may be temporarily unavailable. If later attempts to access this website are still unsuccessful, you may wish to contact the website's ::administrator.
"Sun Java System Web Proxy Server at ns1:8000"
regards, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what's happening, it would be helpful if a statement from someone who knows what's going on were to be published. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Global Outage (cooling failure and DNS)--Justass (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, up and running now. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

For people still having issues, try adding the following to your hosts file: 

208.80.152.2 commons.wikimedia.org
208.80.152.3 upload.wikimedia.org

Someone suggested this in the comments on the blog linked above and it worked for me. It bypasses the DNS/cache issues. Rocket000 (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Posting as IP warning

OK, I'm a little ticked off. I just accidentally posted as an IP because I didn't realize that I wasn't logged in. The problem is that there was no obvious warning that I was about to do that, since all that users are presented with is a plain wall of text, in various different languages, which is easily ignored. Please fix this.

How does oversight work here on Commons, anyway?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how is the software supposed to tell the difference between someone who is intending to edit without an account (or logging in), and someone who wanted to log in but didn't? There is no reason to discourage editing as an IP only. Best thing I can think of is look for your username and associated links at the top right of the page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, if I'm not mistaken, he's just saying that the long list of multilingual messages (telling that you are editing a page without being logged in) doesn't catch the eye enough, and tend to be ignored. Actually, the list is so long that you have to scroll down the page to see the text area for message editing, so the messages aren't visibile on screen when you are about to hit the save button. Not that I have a better idea at the moment, though. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Just spit-balling here, but couldn't we pick three or four languages, and include the others in "hidden" or "rolled up" text (something similar to {{Hat}}? The big thing, to me, is A) Just shorten it's vertical height, and B) add some sort of visually eye-catching icon (coincidentally, File:Stop hand nuvola.svg seems to be a decent choice here, although "stop" may not be the most appropriate message either...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Humm... that's kind of an odd response. There's nothing about this that's related to the software, or telling the difference between someone intentionally using an IP and someone who isn't. The problem is that the MediaWiki message which Commons uses is overly obtuse, and is in fact an incomprehensible Wall of text. I was going to post the one currently use on en.wikipedia as a comparison, but I'm having some trouble locating the message... anyway, the one obvious issue, that Commons is obviously striving to be language agnostic, is not something that I really care about, or even want to address. There needs to be something added to the message which grabs your attention, is all, which is how all of the other Foundation wiki's, that I am aware of, handle it.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion... I have forgotten to log in from time to time and had never seen that screen, to be honest ;-) Thought you were wondering why such a screen didn't come up at all, rather than being incomprehensible. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
On some wikis, preview is required for IPs and not for logged users, that's a very efficient warning. --GaAs11671 09:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The message is at Mediawiki:Anoneditwarning also on Wikipedia, but there isn't a wall-of-text problem over there there, since Wikipedia's wikis are monolingual (the warning is only a brief message in the wiki's local language). -- IANEZZ  (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the i18n method used here is m:language select. To be useful in cases with more than a couple of languages, this requires a default language setting. This is of course not available to IPs. {{LanguageSelector}} provides a workaround for that, I'll suggest using it at Mediawiki:Anoneditwarning. Paradoctor (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Update: MediaWiki_talk:Anoneditwarning#Switch_internationalization_method Paradoctor (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think that we need to get all technical with this. Currently, meta:List of Wikipedias says that English, German, and French are our primary languages, which basically makes sense in comparison to the real world (for the "Western World", at least). So, I propose as a general standard that messages on Commons displays those three "in the clear", with as many translations as possible "hidden" underneath those three, within a {{Hat}} section. That keeps Commons language agnostic, while cutting back on the massive walls of message text, and it doesn't require any real esoteric technical tricks.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
That won't help those IPs who don't speak either, or simply prefer to edit in another language.
"our primary languages": No, they're just the three with the highest article counts. Please note that the English Wikipedia is also the oldest. More to the point, those three represent only a third of all articles, so these supposed "primary" languages cover only a fraction of our article base.
"esoteric technical tricks": Huh? That's standard web technology, nothing out of the ordinary here.
Let's keep in mind that usability is especially important with IPs, they are much more likely to need assistance than named accounts. If a wall of text is enough to tick off a vet like you, what will it do to timid 192.168.0.0? Paradoctor (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to get too deep into the whole language issue, since having a huge argument about that will hardly help resolve the issue, and it's really not that important as long as we can all communicate. There are a couple of easy points I'd like to make which I think should at least deflect the criticisms that you're offering, though. The first is that, if you read what I said, I specifically did not advocate removal of the messages in any language. I simply advocated hiding those translations which are not one of the major three, but they would still be there. Avoiding the presentation of a wall of mostly incomprehensible text to seems like an obvious accessibility/usability improvement.
As for the language choices themselves, I don't really care what is chosen. Picking the languages representing the three largest Wikipedia's seems obvious to me, is all, since that's seems like an obvious representation of the userbase that Commons happens to be supporting. If you'd like to argue with others over the choices though, I'm fine with that.
Re: the comment about using a tech trick, I'd like to point out that the sort of solution I'm advocating here requires nothing new. You're apparently bringing up a change to the software, and we all know how quickly that goes. I'll stick with a nice, simple, and straightforward formatting change to what already exists. There's no need to be building any Rube Goldberg mechanisms to solve a fairly simple usability issue. But hey, if you'd really prefer to do something more complex, don't let me stand in your way...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
"don't want to get too deep into": Har, har, too late! You know too much, and we know you know. ;)
"did not advocate removal": That's I how I understood you. The problem with hiding is this: Imagine yourself faced with a Klingon page filled with Klingon characters and Klingon links. Now start hunting the easter eggs.
"language choices": If you have to choose, your choice is perfectly sensible. But if even the best possible choice is so bad, alternatives become attractive.
"tech trick": Templates, mere templates. No "change to the software". Just letting the technology at our fingertips do what it's meant to do. ;)
"if you'd really prefer to do something": You might want to read the discussion at anoneditwarning. If nothing new comes up, the only thing left is road testing and a handful of translations. Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
English, French and German make sense for the Western World, if by that you mean Western Europe. Most all of North and South America south of the Rio Grande speaks Spanish, except for Brazil, which speaks the closely related Portuguese. Spanish certainly has far more speakers than French or German.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, if we use English, French, and German, we'd at least catch a representative sample of languages which I would guess that upwards of 99% of those who use Commons read at least enough of to understand the basic gist of the message, at least enough to understand that they could open the hatted text to see the message in other languages. To the best of my knowledge, most South Americans understand a basic level of either English or French, so that covers them (unfortunately, the Spanish Wikipedia has had problems, apparently due to the Spanish government or something, which is similar to Chinese). Keep in mind that, unlike us Americans, most of the rest of the world (especially Europeans) are multilingual.
Anyway, rereading the earlier post (for the third time!), I see now that it's primarily about using {{LanguageSelector}}? I'll chalk this up to being a completely new issue for myself, as I have no real clue how that works. If it works for IP's, and everyone else, then that's fine by me. All I care about is not being presented with a wall of mostly incomprehensible text when I receive a MediaWiki message while on Commons. I think that some of you who are here more often have probably become inured to the situation, but it's really like playing Where's Waldo when you're presented with one of those messages. I don't think that I'm unusual in preferring my own solutions, but ultimately all I really care about is getting the issue addressed. Regards,
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
"like playing Where's Waldo": That's what inspired me in the first place to create the template! lol
"upwards of 99%": Did you know that between 80% and 103% of all statements containing "99%" are the product of human creativity? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A higher percentage of the German speakers in the world speak good English or French then do the Spanish speakers, of which there is almost twice as many.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add my 3 cents to this discussion: I seem to be often logged out by by the software so occasionally even when I am logged in while I started editing I am logged out when I am ready to save. In that case I do not get the hint of long list of warnings in dozen languages. I find that scenario quite annoying. --Jarekt (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not use a skin/background/colours that is very different from the default and most used skins/backgrounds/colours? --Foroa (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I choose the beta skin when logged in; when logged out, I see the usual monobook.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The root cause of the problem is that IPs have no way of setting preferences. Paradoctor (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

So when an IP goes to edit, a "wall of text" appears in a place where an experienced user doesn't normally see such a wall. Shouldn't the simple fact of its unexpected appearance tip off an experienced user that something is out of the ordinary with this edit? Seems to me it should. If so, where's the problem? With no disrespect to User:Ohms law intended, this seems to be a case where an experienced user has become so accustomed to executing a particular script of keystrokes and clicks that s/he has begun ignoring the prompts that are right there on the screen. It's not clear to me how paring down the number of warning languages or any other fix of that sort is going to get such a user's attention better than the existing wall of text. User:ArséniureDeGallium suggested requiring a preview for IPs that logged-in users can skip (like on the French Wikipedia), which is the only suggestion here that might grab an editor on autopilot. But I'm not even sure of that. —Werewombat (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

television channels from/of/in?

Could somebody (preferably an English native-speaker ;)) please explain which form is correct:

  • television channels from ...
  • television channels of ...
  • television channels in ...?

All three forms are used in Category:Television channels by country and I'm a bit confused... ;) --CLI (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Imho, the 3 are grammatically correct. In this case, it seems to me that the 3rd one fits better the content of the categories, but I'm only en-2.71828 ;-) --GaAs11671 08:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
It depends what the scope of the category is intended to be. If it is only intended to cover television channels originating from a particular country, then either "Television channels from ..." or "Television channels of ..." is grammatically correct. "Television channels in ..." is probably not a good way to name such a category, because it could potentially include channels that can be received in the country even though they originate from some other country. If you are interested in tidying up "Category:Television channels by country", you may want to decide on either the "from" or "of" form, and list categories worded the "wrong" way for renaming at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" or at "User talk:Category-bot". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I can have access to 20 to 400 channels (depending on provider), so indeed the "in country" is not the best choice. I would align to Category:Television by country where the "of" seems to be dominant. --Foroa (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact my concern is with the word "channel". Images in these categories are mainly buildings (so my answer "in", they are located in the country) and logos. Is the use of the word "channel" a good idea in this case? Shouldn't it be something like Category:Television companies by country? --GaAs11671 10:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember vaguely indeed discussions about television companies versus television channels: television companies have one or television channels and often radio channels too. But anyway, for the public, the channel is the "unity" that is visible to the public, so at least the channel must be present. --Foroa (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
In fact I'd rather be able to cite two different television channel names, so... page turned. --GaAs11671 20:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

March 25

Additional licensing under CC-by-nc-3.0

Hi, I want to license some of my works additionally to a GFDL and a CC-by-sa license under a CC-by-nc license (Yes, I'm aware that Commons requires other licenses). The template Template:Cc-by-nc-3.0 is not used by anyone, but locked and pointing on the speedy-deletion template, so I'd like to get an edit permission for that page unless there are good reasons against that. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Schau dir mal die Lizensierung von Ralf an, z.B. File:Reflexion-rr.jpg, vielleicht kann das als Muster dienen. --Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Do I understand correctly that you wish to tag a file you plan to upload to the Commons as licensed with both CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC (or CC-BY-NC-SA) simultaneously? If so, that really doesn't work - the two licenses are simply incompatible, and you wouldn't achieve the control over re-use of your file that you wish. Someone who wanted to use the file commercially could simply reference the CC-BY-SA license, which would allow them to do so. Honestly, I think you misunderstand why Commons users are directed to the CC-BY-SA licenses in preference to CC-BY-NC(-SA). It's not that Commons has a positive requirement that you use CC-BY-SA: you're always free to release your file to the public domain and skip all licenses, for example. The issue is that the noncommercial licenses are specifically prohibited: one of the core founding principles of the Commons is that all content should be re-usable by anyone for any purpose, including commercial use, unencumbered by copyright restrictions. If you wish to keep your file from being re-used commercially, then you really don't want to put it up on the Commons. —Werewombat (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it would make it more permissive since it allows authors of derivative works to restrict commercial use. The more copyleft licenses there are to choose from (free or not), the more freedom reusers have. It weakens the copyleft restriction. Rocket000 (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
@Túrelio I thought about it, but "official templates" would be cleaner. @Werewombat Nice username :) Perhaps I haven't made myself clear enough: I don't want to prohibit commercial use of my works and I'm totally okay with putting my things under the CC-BY-SA license. I thought of the CC-BY-NC license just as a addition, that - as long as you don't use it commercially - you are not forced to put your derived works under the same license (e.g. you would allowed to create totally copyrighted works). @Rocket000 Exactly. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
We have such templates, e.g. {{GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa}}, but we prefer not to have such standalone templates to avoid that people think Cc-by-nc-sa might be fine w/o anything else. If your combination doesn't yet exist, you might want to create it. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
UnreifeKirsche- I apologize, I guess I didn't give you the credit you were due for understanding the licenses. After I saved my last comment, I began to wonder if you meant what you just explained. (What you just explained wouldn't work with CC-BY-NC-SA and you never suggested it would, I just incorrectly assumed that's what you meant.) What you've explained is doable and consistent with a strict reading of Commons principles. However, as a matter of my personal opinion only, I'm not entirely sure I can agree with you and Rocket000 that "freer" is better in this case. Yes, what you propose would make re-use "freer", but only for people who are willing/able to sit down and parse the licensing principles correctly. For most downstream users, however, having both CC licenses will only complicate and confuse the process of understanding what they can and can't do with the file - the file will in effect become less free simply because people will have difficulty understanding just how free it is. Many people will see the NC license and assume the NC applies in all circumstances, regardless that the technical/legal reality is just the opposite. The standard model that's in general use (i.e. only one CC license) makes it much easier and cleaner for people to re-use a file because it's easier for them to understand what their rights are. Then again, the counterargument to what I just said is that next to nobody re-using these images is actually sitting down and asking these questions about their licensed rights anyhow, and what you're proposing makes it less likely that they'll inadvertently cross a licensing line. People asking these questions about their rights will probably be able to work things out the way you intend. Okay, you won me over. I withdraw my objections to your proposal. —Werewombat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
BTW, I wish I could take credit for coming up with my user name. The name was invented by a former neighbor of mine who took a photo of me in strange light from a strange angle, and was "inspired". I've used the name on-and-off ever since. —Werewombat (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about which was better. I just pointed out that multiple licenses give reusers more options, thus more permissive. I used the word "permissive" instead of "freer" since one could argue that require things to stay free (e.g. not allowing a derivative work to be NC) is actually "freer" in the spirit of free software/culture. Rocket000 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The Template:Cc-by-nc-3.0 is of course not used by anyone, using it leads to speedy deletion. Its a valid reason to multilicense, its described in Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing. Thats the third section of COM:L, so relatively prominent, maybe too prominent. However, we will not create generic cc-by-sa-nc/nd license tags on Commons, the redirects of the various tags to speedydeletion will stay. If someone sees a need to multilicense with at least one free license and various non-free licenses they must use a combined license tag, if the desired combined license tag not exists you may ask for creation or create one yourself. Search in Category:CC license tags for the very few combined tags we have. With Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0-dual (GFDL and cc-by-nc-sa-2.0), Template:GFDL-CC-triple (GFDL, cc-by-nc-sa-3.0, cc-by-sa-2.5), Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa/2.5, Template:GFDL or cc-by-nc-sa, Template:FAL or cc-by-nc-nd I count 5. And just noticend, todo: The first two have a very bad naming & many usages are now redundant after the license migration. --Martin H. (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought the danger that someone licenses his/her works just under a cc-by-nc/nd license is not that high. The Problem is, when I use a dual-license that I can't use the self-template and it's Autotranslation anymore. I think I'll create a cc-by-nc Template under my usernamespace and include it with the self-template. That should be okay. @Werewombat No problem that you misunderstood me. And I don't think multible licenses are this complicated. The self-template says, when you use two or more licenses: "You may select the license of your choice." So you are not forced to use all, but are allowed to use and redistribute it just under the license you need. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 06:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

County map of Washington state.png

Can someone with admin rights tell me what happened to File:County map of Washington state.png? I had used it as the basis of a fairly complex imagemap at Category:National Register of Historic Places in Washington (the imagemap code is preserved in the source of the category page if it's of interest), but the image has apparently been deleted. I'm just wondering why. Copyvio? What? —Werewombat (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. —Werewombat (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Monitor Calibrator available to be shipped to you on request

User Marcela has made a colorimetric monitor calibration device (eye-one display 2 by X-Rite) available to all interested parties. The device has so far been used to calibrate screens of Wikimedia users in Germany in the Nürnberg/Fürth region, and will travel via Helsinki to Stockholm and the international Photo-Workshop in Nyköping. After that it will travel to Senegal, Africa. Its further route is yet to be determined. If you are interested in calibrating your screen you may request the device to be sent to you here. Software for Windows computers is packaged with the calibration device. Linux computers can be calibrated using Argyll CMS (see write-up here [13]) --Dschwen (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

March 26

Category:Requested moves (50+ days) available

FYI, with Category:Requested moves (21+ days) getting out of control, I created Category:Requested moves (50+ days). It too now has a large backlog so if anyone can chip in, please feel free. Thanks. Wknight94 talk 01:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not 49 or 56 days instead? We have 7, 14, 21... doesn't fit the pattern :) Rhetorical question. Rocket000 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to place requests on User talk:Category-bot. -- User:Docu at 07:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
@Rocket000, it's divisible by 10, and it's half of 100. Nice round number.  ;) Actually because it was clear the backlog couldn't be measured in weeks anymore - it was creeping out into months. I could have gone further back - this category helped me find one that was proposed last July! Wknight94 talk 11:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonshelper

Does anyone know, why when you upload an image from Russian wikipedia, the description is given, and when from Goergian - it doesn't exist. See the desvription exists - uploaded from ru wiki, desvription doesn't exist, though it was in the wiki. Can it be corrected?--Gaeser (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It was proabably an admin at Georgian Wikipedia who deleted the file description to soon, before someone was able to check that all information was transferred here correctly. Now we are missing description, author (only uploader is mentioned), and source (Wikipedia is not the original source). You need an admin at Georgian Wikipedia to look at the deleted image description there to find the original description, author, and source and fill that in the template here. /Ö 11:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was I who deleted it :) I just am asking, why doesnt' the description transfer automatically, as it does with files from ru wiki.--Gaeser (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked closer at CommonsHelper and found code ([14]) for recognising the Russian version of Template:Information. Maybe you can ask User:Magnus Manske to support the Georgian version too. You should not delete files before you have checked that the information was correctly transferred and have fixed any mistakes. Most automatic transfers needs fixing since the tool usually puts upload date, uploader, and Wikipedias in the template instead of creation date, author, and original source. /Ö 12:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank's alot :)--Gaeser (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vector" on Wikimedia Commons on April 5

I didn't see an anouncement here, so for those who don't already know:

--GaAs11671 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

See also #The change in the interface is coming higher up on this page. /Ö 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw it. --GaAs11671 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

User:<Username>/common.js

commons is running r64051, and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10183 should have been fixed in r63300. So I'm wondering, why my common.js is not working. Any ideas? --Dschwen (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand the MediaWiki version we are running is wmf-deployment branch. The changes in r63300 are not in that branch yet. But some other files from later revisions (r64051) are already in use in the branch. /Ö 15:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

archive.org Terms of Use

First sorry for my bad english.

I see that archive.org is largely used as a source for files (ie Commons:Batch_uploading/Photographic_History_of_the_Civil_War Les_vrais_pourtraits_et_vies_des_hommes_illustres_grecz,_latins_et_payens, etc) and it's also suggested in commons:Free_media_resources/Video and commons:Free media resources/Music as source of possible free video/audio files. But the Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001) linked at the bottom of every archive.org page (also in the one with material classfied as in public domain ie [15] [16]) say that In particular, you certify that your use of any part of the Archive's Collections will be noncommercial and here we don't' accept non-commercial limitation. I think there is a problem. --Yoggysot (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

In general Commons rejects sweat of the brow doctrine and copyright claims over the media that are in the Public Domain due to age. I think Internet Archive put all those restrictions and "own risk of usage" because they host enormous amount of archived web content that is copyrighted and there is potential legal issues with this --Justass (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
But, for the Public Domain, the original media (e.g. an old book) can come from country where the Sweat of the brow doesn't apply (e.g. here in Italy the law protect the photo reproduction of pubblic domain painting for 20 years, AFAIK), so it will not be free in the original country. In the archive.org case the disclaimer with non-commercial restrictions seem to be present also in page that link media not in pubblic domanin for oldness (e.g. creative commons media). --Yoggysot (talk) 03:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Country of origin of the scan in that case would be the U.S., if scanned and uploaded there. The country of origin of the original doesn't matter any more, as long as it is PD there. It's also not clear that a scan would qualify for copyright anyways -- that is different than a reprint, the usual target of the publication-right type of laws. (Photographs of the sort mentioned are also different; those laws are specific to photographs.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Is such a file allowed?

I made a picture of books in my possession, see

Is such a file allowed? If yes, what has to be its licence? --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no. If the book covers were relatively plain and consisted mainly of text and simple shapes, then {{PD-textlogo}} would apply. But in this case the cover artwork of some of the books is not simple, and the uploader has not provided information stating that the artwork is already in the public domain. We had a similar case a while back where an uploader, no doubt acting in good faith, had laid out all his CDs and taken a photograph of them. That image had to be deleted too. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 13:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Pareil. --GaAs11671 13:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, i make the file a speedydelete. --Havang(nl) (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
You could upload a photograph of the book covers without complex artwork such as Georges and Le Chasseur de la Nuit (or individual scans of those book covers), and apply the {{PD-textlogo}} licence, if you would like to illustrate an article about Pourrat or his writings. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • when were the books published, though I think some are too recent to be PD, alternative would be have some or all of the books standing so that you can only see the spines presume the titles are on the spines, just make sure that a plain cover is on the end.Gnangarra 15:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

.Thanks for the suggestion.This should be OKE, I think. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is Catscan menu in beta?

Where is Catscan menu in beta? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Asked above, #The change in the interface is coming. --Martin H. (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bundesarchiv pictures still marked with wrong dates

Wikimedia Commons is dating File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-263-1580-13, Frankreich, Atlantikwall, Soldat.jpg with "January 1944", although what [view=detail&search[focus]=1 the source website] merely says is "Anfang 1944" or "Frühjahr 1944" which means "beginning of 1944" or "spring 1944". So it could be in April, May, or June.

This problem has been reported a long time ago, but it is still not being corrected. So it looks like it will never be corrected. Teofilo (talk) 08:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)(edited 12:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

You might want to file a request at COM:BR. -- User:Docu at 08:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Collection for Escuela Virtual de Deportes

Escuela Virtual de Deportes (EVD) is a government sponsored initiative in Colombia for creating e-learning material for different Sports. During the project they have created some important multimedia material that they have already released under a CC license and are willing to share to Wikimedia. They would like this material to be grouped as a Collection.

A small sample of their work can be found at Special:Search/escuela virtual de deportes.

Please let me know the procedures needed to create this new collection and to batch-upload the material. For the following days I will be uploading some of the material while complementing some articles in es.wiki.

Thank You

— Chlewey (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the material being released under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Note that "non-commercial", "no derivatives" and "Wikipedia only" licences are not sufficient. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The CC logo on the site links to BY-SA 2.5 Colombia. --GaAs11671 16:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
And in the bottom left of the web page they say "Todos los derechos reservados © COLDEPORTES 2009" and link to terms of use that don't mention CC at all, but that say that anything on their site was copyrighted. (Which in itself does not mean it couldn't be licensed as CC-BY-SA. But the "Todos los derechos reservados" contradicts a CC license.) Lupo 16:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Chlewey, perhaps you can contact the government department managing the website and clarify whether it intends to release its images under the CC-BY-SA-2.5 licence. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I have been assured that the multimedia material is CC by the producers and by the same lawyer that represents Creative Commons in Colombia. I do not know if the website design or other such elements are copyrighted (I actually suspect that the "todos los derechos reservados" is just legacy), but the videos and images that will be uploaded are CC-BY-SA 2.5.
— Chlewey (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
PD. I will, of course, take any action to clarify that there will be no doubt that the material is correctly licensed for Wikimedia.
Great. I just wanted to clarify that there are many different types of CC licences. For example, one can have a licence such as CC-BY-SA-NC-ND (i.e., Attribution, ShareAlike, Non-commercial, No derivatives). It is still a type of CC licence, but not one accepted by the Commons, because we only accept the CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licences. Images cannot be tagged as NC and/or ND. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for category move Category:Skin lesions to Category:Cutaneous conditions

Hi, this category was named by mistake, and there are 747 files uploaded to it, we need fast renaming of the category in accordance with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Categorization thank you MaenK.A.Talk 18:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

List it at "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands" or "User talk:Category-bot". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Why the "fast" renaming though? Wknight94 talk 18:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Because it's better than slow renaming? Rocket000 (talk) 08:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for the replies and the advise, nothing with the fast renaming, its just that we don't have any controversy here, the renaming is according to an approved and well organized scheme on the wikiproject medicine at the English Wikipedia, that is why we don't have to delay the process :-) MaenK.A.Talk 08:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do we need to use the "User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands"?? MaenK.A.Talk 08:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I add images to the category before the move?? MaenK.A.Talk 09:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. I believe the editors who manage CommonsDelinker and Category-bot have a bot that can conveniently move large numbers of images from one category to another. This saves you the effort of individually recategorizing many images.
  2. Yes, you can add images to either the old category or the yet-to-be created category. If you add them to the old category, the bot will move them over to the new category. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Were this rename should be proposed, I cannot say. However, I do support the rename. ---Kilbad (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be proposed. User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands is simply the place where people make requests for admins to give commands to the category move bot. I think Wknight94 was just asking if there was a reason we needed to do this "fast" (vs. "when someone gets around to it"). I don't think he was implying it should be proposed/discussed more. I issued the command and it should be done in a minute. Rocket000 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the great help you offered :-) MaenK.A.Talk 13:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLANL - mchangsp - 090626-110151 1482 50D.jpg

Hey all, Commons:Deletion requests/File:WLANL - mchangsp - 090626-110151 1482 50D.jpg was closed as keep because the artwork in the photo was licensed under the appropriate CC licenses (otherwise it could be a copyvio as a derivative work) but shouldn't the artwork be attributed to the copyright holder(s) on the file page? It says the file was a part of the "Wiki Loves Art / NL project" I guess I'm somewhat confused by this. Killiondude (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree if the artist that draw those pictures released them under CC license that those images in the current form do not meet CC license requirements of attributing this artist. --Jarekt (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's still a copyvio. We're good at honoring "all rights reserved" but we're not always so good with "some rights reserved". I call these silent copyvios and we have who knows how many laying around. Rocket000 (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
If it is a copyvio, do I really have to start a new DR on it? I have little faith in the DR system to get things done (as evidenced by the first DR for this specific image). :-/ Killiondude (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I started the DR for you. I agree if it has a cc license then it is not being followed. -Nard the Bard 20:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the difference between these and non-free copyvios is that adding the right information can make it keepable so a DR is generally the correct method, but I agree with you, it's not the most reliable system as cases like this prove. Rocket000 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

March 27

Cratons West Gondwana.svg

Hi, does anyone know what is wrong with this file: File:Cratons West Gondwana.svg? It won't scale into a thumb and is only visible in its real size. Added to a project as a thumb or rescaled image, it won't appear either. I have this problem with many SVG's I create with Inkscape. Is there a way to avoid this? Woudloper (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's depending on things on your hard drive; it's not visible at all to the rest of us. It says
Error creating thumbnail:
librsvg-ERROR **: _rsvg_acquire_xlink_href_resource called for external resource: C:\Documents and Settings\Bureaublad\Wiki\atlantic_shield.png base: (null)
--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I must have forgotten to remove an imported file. Woudloper (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Football venues for the 2016 Summer Olympics.svg

Hi there. I tried to upload a map of Brazil showing the football competition venues for the 2016 Summer Olympics, File:Football venues for the 2016 Summer Olympics.svg, but it was different from File:Rio de Janeiro venues for the 2016 Summer Olympics.svg. Someone could standardize the map of Brazil using the same text formatting of the map of Rio? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 17:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Category title suggestion

Hi everyone. I want to create a category for pictures like File:Cours de nu.JPG. How do you suggest I name it ? Category:Art modelling? Category:Art models? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say life modelling, see e.g. [17], if the emphasis is on the modelling, but life drawing if the emphasis is on the artistic activity, see en:Figure drawing. Man vyi (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Life drawing wouldn't fit with pictures like File:Multiple exposure 33.jpg. But life modelling, why not ? The expression seems strange to me though. What would be non-life modelling ??! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Another possibility would be Category:Figure modeling. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmmh... Why not ? I think I'd prefer this one. By the way, what do you think about my suggestion ("Art modelling") ? Wouldn't it fit ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There should be only one l in modeling. As far as "art modeling", it can also mean (1) fully clothed modeling and (2, oddly) the making of miniature artistic replicas. "Figure modeling" is unambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Modeling: US, modelling: UK w:American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#Doubled_in_British_English --Foroa (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
TwoWings, avec ça t'es pas sorti de l'auberge. --GaAs11671 20:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Tu l'as dit bouffi ! ;-D --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced

Hi, someone has overwritten a little study (54.6 x 67.9 cm, estimated with only 20000 Dollars) http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Genrich_Ippolitovich_Semiradsky_-_Roma,_1882.jpg&action=history with an unsourced full version. Please delete the file history to avoid confusion. 92.230.86.59 08:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Which versions do you want to delete? Of the old one or of the new one? In my opinion we should keep both versions but under different file names. The paintings are clearly different and are both PD-old. --Slomox (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, at any case the first version with an correct description from an auction should be kept. And if the uploader of the second version can name a source it might be also fine - but only as a new file. Regards 92.230.86.59 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I split the two versions of the file. Please verify. --Jarekt (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I reverted to the first description, and gave the uploader of the second version a note . Regards 78.55.113.139 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

March 28

Uploading a new version of an image should somehow reload page

I just uploaded some edited images and I got stuck in a trap where I thought I was uploading the old version by mistake because on the "new page" showing the image and its revisions, the browser (Firefox 3.0.18) was using the old cached version of the image in each new instance of the file. It took me a few tried before it occurred to me to do a hard reload of the page to see if it was a caching issue. Most users have no idea about caching so I can imaging this would lead to confusion. Is there a way the software itself can prevent this problem by telling the browser to force a reload? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this is a FAQ. There's not a way yet. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
On a related note, how do I delete the versions that I uploaded to File:Johnny Knoxville.jpg? Only the first red-eye fix is worth keeping. Is there a way to do that? Or are versions always keep link with articles on Wikipedia? (Sorry, not nearly as experienced on Commons as the encyclopedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted the duplicate versions for you. In general, there's no real need to delete such old file versions (if they're not copyvios or something), and we usually just let them be unless someone specifically asks for them to be deleted. Deleting them doesn't really save disk space or anything like that, since the "deleted" versions are only hidden from general view but still kept on disk. Still, it does make the file history look less messy, and, in a simple case like this, it's not particularly difficult for an admin to do, either. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

March 29

Gallery list much shorter than contribution list

When I wanted to check for media needing categories, I switched from contribution list to gallery list. In the gallery list there is only one image, whereas I would have expected at least 10. I have seen this behaviour more, but now it was very clear. Is there an explanation? Thanks, Wouter (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As a sample: at File:5x66 in Uiwang.JPG, another editor uploaded a slightly improved version of the image. This made it disappear from the gallery list.
It remains that way even if someone else later reverts the image to the initial versions. -- User:Docu at 07:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. But just now I found an other example. Compare contribution list and gallery list. The gallery list contains not any image. I checked a few but they have not been re-uploaded by another editor. Wouter (talk) 07:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
That does look like a bug, especially when you compare it to the upload log: Special:Log/upload&user=Timo244. You might want to mention it on User_talk:Duesentrieb or file a bug on toolserver -- User:Docu at 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Turn on the "Pretty log" gadget if you want thumbnails in the upload log. This makes it somewhat like gallery view. Rocket000 (talk) 08:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be a temporary problem specific to that tool, e.g. tools:~para/GeoCommons/geocodingtodo.php works. -- User:Docu at 10:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

where does this go File:The Universal Songster and Museum of Mirth.djvu

I can't think of a category for that file. any ideas? Amada44 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that it is a songbook from the US. Then it belongs to various subcategories of Category:Books. By genre: music books(?); by year: 1835 books; by language: Scanned English books. Additional it should be added to at least one subcategory of Category:Music of the United States. --Martin H. (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories usage

Is there a way to check the usage (on other wikis) of a category on Commons? CheckUsage works fine for files, but what about categories? -- IANEZZ  (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not easy to do, since there is no interwiki link table in the database. On some wikis it is possible to use Special:Linksearch to find usage of commons categories. For example on Swedish Wikipedia sv:Special:Länksökning/commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category. That depends on the Commonscat template using external link syntax to specify a uselang parameter, and it will not find ordinary interwiki links. I know some other wikis use similar commonscat tempaltes, so it may be possible for someone to create an incomplete category checkusage tool. /Ö 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the (good) hint. Unfortunately, it.wiki uses ordinary interwikis. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical problem: I dont see all the pictures in the personal gallery

When I use the gallery script to see all the pictures I uploaded, I mis a lot off them. For example: File:Nieuw-Vennep 1.jpg. I seems as if all the pictures I uploaded on 15/03/2010 are not shown. Is there some index not working? Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Seattle Municipal Archives

The Seattle Municipal Archives have been uploading a certain number of their images to Flickr, from which we've been able to upload them, licensed under CC-BY-2.0. I talked to a couple of people at the Archives yesterday and they would gladly license everything they've got on the same basis. They have about 100,000 images online. In my experience, a very tiny proportion of what they have there may have some rights issues (e.g. materials from the '62 World's Fair that didn't originate with the city government, or political pamphlets), but overwhelmingly it is material that would be appropriate for Commons

Nearly all of their photographic material (plus some film and audio) is available on a database-driven site. They tell me that if we wanted, they could probably arrange to give us a copy of the database so that we could effectively "scrape" the site.

Does anyone have a sense of how we might best proceed? Should we just have them file an OTRS so that people with Commons accounts can freely upload on an ad hoc basis from their database-driven site? Or would it be worth setting up a bot to "scrape" the whole thing?

I'll drop a note to someone at the Archives letting them know I've started this conversation here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. For such a volume, a systematic approach seems better. For the technical side, see Commons:Batch uploading. --Foroa (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
If the entire information is available, the batch should be easy to do. The main question will be how to categorize them. -- User:Docu at 19:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It should be available. Am I correct that the first step is for them to give us a clear OTRS? - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes and no, it really depends on how much preparation you (or the uploader) want to do before. -- User:Docu at 05:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, without OTRS, I guess that nothing can start. No idea though how the city can garantee that they have all the rights before putting them in the public domain. Needs specialist assistance. --Foroa (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
The few images I looked at, were works produced by city departments. Thus providing the permission shouldn't be that complicated. Ideally the permission would be mailed together with the full list of images to OTRS. -- User:Docu at 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
They tell me that about 2 percent of the images have rights issues, and that typically that should be obvious (e.g. campaign literature, memorabilia from other entities; some of these have already shown up on their Flickr account, and I've avoided uploading them when I see them). Overwhelmingly, the images in archives are either the work of Seattle City employees or (for some early photos) employees of other jurisdictions that were absorbed by the city. The bulk of it is from the Engineering Department. But I agree that raises an issue for doing a bot approach. And an awful lot of what is in there is awfully routine and not of much interest.
I don't think a list of 100,000+ images is practical, and, besides, they are always adding more. Also, I don't think they've ever gone through the database looking for what might have rights issues, so they couldn't provide us a particularly useful list.
Maybe the best approach is just to get them to provide an OTRS that says that anything on their site that they have rights to is available under CC-BY-2.0, and that should apply to all work of city employees and all work on which the city owns copyright (photos, city pamphlets & posters, etc.). And then we'll have to use a certain amount of judgement, just like we do when drawing on U.S. federal sites.
I'll give at least a couple of days for response here, but if no one objects, that is what I'll suggest to them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This sounds prudent to me. Note that much of their material is definitively first published in the US prior to 1923, so that chunk of it should be good to go. Dcoetzee (talk) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Jmabel, you might want to have a look at the Starr batch. For these, the full list with descriptions was available (and probably still is). This makes it much easier, not only for the uploader, but also for people categorizing the images. -- User:Docu at 02:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For now, I'll just try to get OTRS so people can feel free to upload. - Jmabel ! talk 20:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed that the site already gives something tantamount to CC-BY: "The photographs are public records and are available for public use. When using our photos for publication or display, please cite the source as 'Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives' and include the item number of the image." (from http://www.seattle.gov/CityArchives/About/faq.htm#copy). - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I just had a quick exchange with them; among other things, they are trying to work out how to characterize the small percentage of the images that they don't own. Sadly, that might include some that we already uploaded off of their Flickr page; they've been placing everything there as CC-BY, but I now gather that some of the images I assumed they had clean rights to they may not. In particular, this might be a problem for some mid-century images of Pike Place Market. Anyway, I'll keep on top of it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I got a clarification, the Market issue is mainly about ephemera, which I haven't uploaded in any case, rather than photos. There was only one problematic Market photo they had on Flickr, and it isn't one of the ones I uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This may prove a bit trickier than I initially thought. I talked to a couple of people from the office yesterday. They don't usually like to give formal releases beyond the statement above about "public records... available for public use". As I understand it, that's because they don't want to be in a position of liability by unnecessarily exposing themselves to any claims of rights issues. However, they believe they can identify many series that are definitely taken entirely by city employees, and where the right issues should therefore be clear. I'll continue to follow up, and I'm hoping I can get someone from the department either to comment here or to craft a suitable statement for OTRS. - Jmabel ! talk 17:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be possible to get a list of authors for which the OTRS permission can be requested. I was under the impression that image titles are pretty good and to the point (could be used to make up the file name and maybe even for temporary category names). --Foroa (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's going to be a matter of them listing overtly attributed authors. Generally the internal stuff, on which they have the rights, is just in a departmental collection (e.g. Engineering Department) and has no indication of author, because it was an employee in the routine course of work. Most likely, they can identify collections that don't have issues. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Draft for OTRS

After some back and forth with Jeff Ware at the Archives, here is what I've got; will it suffice if he emails the following to OTRS?

The Seattle Municipal Archives is willing to provide photo data and images--especially subsets of the Photograph Collection which include images taken by City photographers performing City Work. These subsets should not present copyright issues but could possibly implicate other legal questions depending on the end-use of the image including Personality Rights (see RCW 63.60). The Municipal Archives cannot actually guarantee nor has the authority to guarantee that any or all of the images in its Photograph Collection are free from rights issues. It is up to the users of the photograph to perform the research and make this determination themselves.


When using our photos for publication or display, please cite the source as "Courtesy Seattle Municipal Archives." However, we ask for credit as a courtesy to the Archives and to those that view the photos, but do not demand a "right of attribution." Users legally may choose to credit the Archives or not. Most responsible people that use photos created by others credit those photos' sources/authors without being prompted.

To the extent that a valid copyright may exist and that copyright is held by the City of Seattle, the City of Seattle treats these records as if these are in the public domain, requires no license for reproduction, nor limits how the image may be reproduced. However, the City of Seattle makes no representations as to the copyright, ownership, content, or any issues arising thereof for all photographs in its collection. Please contact the Seattle Municipal Archives at archives@seattle.gov with questions or to receive more information about any specific photograph.

- Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I see some problems with §1, as we need to be quite sure that the images are free. Is there some kind of identification which images might be not theirs?
Kind regards, Kameraad Pjotr 16:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
They've identified when they know the image isn't free, but they don't usually make guarantees because they don't want to be legally liable if there was some omission in records over the course of the decades. They say there are some series they can identify that are absolutely certainly taken by city employees in the course of their work.
It seems to me that a statement like this is still useful, if only to be clear that the city itself puts no restriction on rights, so we don't need that signoff individually every time we take an image from the archive that is clearly taken by a city employee. - Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If and when rights are cleared it's probably best to create a new subpage of Commons:Batch uploading to discus this and to get all the images to Commons. Multichill (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Waiver

There is a line from the license Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic... "Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. " The conditions are Attribution and Share Alike. I would like to get permission from the copyright holder but I do not know how. I cannot find any contact email associated with the photos I wanted to use. Very much appreciate your advice.

Every File: has description that includes the author and the source. Also each File page has the upload history where you can link back to the uploaders talk page who'll be able to further assist you. If you provide a link to file I'll be abe to provide more specifi information. Gnangarra 09:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. this is the file, File:Thar Khuri.jpg My apologies as I am new here in wiki.

Onits (talk)

No worries no need to appologise we were all new to wiki's at some stage, the author is User talk:Flicka follow the link you can leave a message or email the user using the emial this user link in the tool box, note you must have your email enabled. Gnangarra 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I use the discussion but no reply from the user. Also, there is no email link in the tool box. Thanks anyway. I still hope Flicka will do reply. 203.116.34.62 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew upload file link

Hi,

There's a technical problem with the Hebrew version of the file upload page. See Commons talk:Upload/he. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi admins here, what if I try to fix that myself? --GaAs11671 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks, i fixed this. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain location in Basque country

I uploaded this File:ET Baskenland Deba 3.jpg image. This was taken in 1981 and I unfortunately dont remember precisely where I took it. I suspect in Deba on the coastline as in the other pictures. (File:ET Baskenland Deba 1.jpg and File:ET Baskenland Deba 1.jpg) I hesitate because the tracks look like being broad gauge instead of small gauge. Can someone from the region shed some ligth on this? Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You might try setting up an appropriate subcategory of Category:Unidentified locations and putting it there, and/or go to an appropriate WikiProject or discussion board on es-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
eu:Wikipedia:Txokoa. --GaAs11671 11:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Categories

Hello, editors. I've not uploaded pictures in a long time and got myself into a bit of a muddle. I have three questions about the following file that i just uploaded: File:St Paraskeva night.JPG

1. I accidentally added it to the non-existent category Category:St Paraskeva Church, when I should have added it to Category:Church of St Paraskeva, Sofia (which i later did), but now i cannot delete the red link to the first category, which is redundant and doubles up in the categories section of the file page. (i redirected the first page to the second, but hopefully this will just be a temporary measure)

2. I accidentally pressed the "purge" button on top of the file page...what does this button do? have i accidentally nominated the file page for deletion?

3. I added the photo to the relevant wikipedia article, however the link to this has not yet appeared on "File Links" section on the commons file page. Has the procedure changed so that i now have to somehow add it myself?

Thank You! BigSteve (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

1:
1.a. A bot normally cleans up the redirect created at Category:St Paraskeva Church: format the category redirect correctly and eventually move the file to Category:Church of St Paraskeva, Sofia. Generally, you wouldn't need to worry about this further.
1.b. As Category:Saint Paraskeva churches is a better target for a redirect at Category:St Paraskeva Church, I will change it to point there and add Category:Church of St Paraskeva, Sofia there too. As File:St Paraskeva night.JPG doesn't need to be in both, I will remove Category:St Paraskeva Church from the file.
2: no it just refreshes the cache between the Commons' database and website
3: It appears there now. -- User:Docu at 10:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation, Docu! BigSteve (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons poster for Maker Faire

Local San Francisco Bay Area Wikimedians will participate in this year Maker Faire (May 22, 23). Main goal to present and promote WMF project to wide audience. We'll have booth there and we need Commons poster. Help from graphical artists is greatly needed.

Thank you.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Asked: bot for DEFAULTSORT

Hello, in the Category:people by name there are many names unsorted and without defaultsort, but which have sortkeys. I did a few manually, but a bot could make defaultsorts from sortkeys, just for the category People by name. (see f.i. Category:Abraham Salm or Category:Ada Jones. Can someone take care of this. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should try COM:BR ? There is already work requested for Category:people by name.--Foroa (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In Febuary user:JarektBot went through 25k out of 62k subcategories of Category:people by name and added DEFAULTSORT statements when it was missing (see the edits). I got some criticism for adding it to the pages which used some templates like {{Lifetime}} which also adds it and for not removing sortkeys from categories that used them, so I stop correcting. However I could try to fix those problems and rerun it again on all 62k files. --Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems a good idea to me. Categories in templates always give trouble, that's not Jarektbot's fault. Regarding removing catsorts upon adding defaultsort, I didn't do that manually either. BUt nice that you try to make bot-improvements. Good luck and thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
user:JarektBot is adding DEFAULTSORT to subcategories of Category:people by name. It should be done by tomorrow. --Jarekt (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a good occasion to convert {{Lifetime}} to categories, too. -- User:Docu at 07:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is going to throw somewhat of a spanner in the works, but I don't think JarektBot can assume that the second name in a person's name consisting of two names is the last name and that the category should be sorted on the basis of that name. Here are some examples:

  • Chinese names, e.g., "Mao Tse Tung": In Chinese names, the last name is usually placed in front (in the example, "Mao"). Korean and Vietnamese names are similar. Therefore, the category should be sorted according to {{DEFAULTSORT:Mao, Tse Tung}}.
  • Indian names, e.g., "Sellapan Ramanathan": Not all Indian persons have a last name. In the example, "Ramanathan" is in fact the person's personal name, and "Sellapan" is a patronymic (his father's personal name). Therefore, the category should be sorted according to {{DEFAULTSORT:Sellapan Ramanathan}}.
  • Arab and Malay names, e.g., "Zubir Said": Most Arab and Malay persons do not have a last name. In the example, "Zubir" is a personal name and "Said" is a patronymic (his father's personal name). Sometimes the word bin ("son of") is also used: "Zubir bin Said". The person is usually addressed as "Mr. Zubir" ("Mr. Said" would be his father). Therefore, the category should be sorted according to {{DEFAULTSORT:Zubir Said}}.
  • Icelandic names, e.g., "Björk Guðmundsdóttir": Most Icelandic persons do not have last names: see "Icelandic names". In the example, "Björk" is a personal name, and "Guðmundsdóttir" is a patronymic meaning "daughter of Guðmund". The practice in Iceland is to list people by their personal names. Therefore, the category should be sorted according to {{DEFAULTSORT:Björk Guðmundsdóttir}}.

The bot's work should be halted until how to deal with this issue is resolved. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Jacklee for this most interesting summary. I would suggest to insert it in Help:Category#People. So basically, for Indian, Arab, Malay and Icelandic names, the sort key is the name of the category (unless they have a "westernised" name), for the Chinese, Vietnamese, Korean names, it takes an additional comma. Right ?
User:Jarekt, could you confirm that your bot only inserts a Defaultsort when there is none, but in principle, does not change the existing defaultsort ? --Foroa (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
How about royals? Prince Rupert of the Rhine made to sort by "Rhine". Is that correct? Wknight94 talk 11:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JarektBot was going through subdirectories of Category:people by name which did not have strings: "DEFAULTSORT" or "{{Lifetime" and was adding {{DEFAULTSORT:%%key%%}} to the end of those categories. %%key%% is replaced by "reversed human name key" calculated by wiki software or AWB software from the page name. User:JarektBot script does not have any logic to come up with the sortkeys by itself and only inserts default values which are used by all the other wikis. In addition it replaces "|%%key%%]]" with "]]" in order to remove individual category sortkeys if they are present. As I mentioned user:JarektBot was skipping past all the files that already had DEFAULTSORT. I do not think I will be able to add logic to create sortkays mentioned by User:Jacklee, I am not even sure if I would be able to do it correctly by hand, by only looking at someones name. I would propose to finish the run ( I still have 49k out of 62k to go) and than correct by hand the sortkeys of the categories where default is incorrect. I was doing it with a lot of creator pages ending with d. J. and d. A., like Creator:Hans Holbein d. J. where default sort was "J., Hans Holbein d.". I need other opinions to establish if I should finish the run or not or if we are better of with DEFAULTSORTs in those categories (with some fraction wrong) or without DEFAULTSORTs. --Jarekt (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jacklee's list is only the tip of the Iceberg. There are numerous other cultures that do not use Western first and last names, not just the four he specifically mentioned. Kaldari (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree. What are we going to do about it? --Jarekt (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
My original question was about subcategories containing already a keysort in some parentcategory, which keysort could de adapted to form the defaultsort. Is that possible?
  • A complex exemple: Category:Eadweard Muybridge contains
    • Category:Photographers from the United Kingdom|Muybridge
    • Category:Photographers from the United States|Muybridge
    • Category:Locomotion
    • Category:Black and white photographs by author|Muybridge, Eadweard
    • Category:History of cinema
    • Category:1904 deaths
    • Category:People by name
    • Category:Chronophotography

Can a bot from such a series of parent categories pick the longer sortkey and convert it to a defaultsort? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

When I was testing JarektBot's script I have a hard time finding examples of categories without DEFAULTSORT but with individual category sortkays, so this approach will work only for fraction of categories that need DEFAULTSORT keys. Also as in your example there are often multiple sortkeys with need to pick one. The approach for using the default key uniformly calculated from the page name seemed like the most general and safest solution. --Jarekt (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
OKE. And couple the people by name bot with the defaultsort bot, is that also an option? At this moment, the people by name bot just adds many, many files without sorting. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry but you lost me. What is "people by name bot"? I am not familiar with it. --Jarekt (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Category-bot of User:Category-bot which has filled Category:People by name with some 50.0000 names. Jarektbot runs now after Category-bot, see f. e. history of Category:Oliver Plunket --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I think each bot has its own narrow task it performs at one time. It is the safest not to make it to complicated to ensure you can test it properly. That is why you see many bots editing a single file or one bot doing multiple different edits to a single file. --Jarekt (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
IMHO, for Pbn to be of use, it's more important that it includes most relevant subcategories rather than that it's also sorted. The sortkey is more important for smaller categories. For those interested, maybe a DBR could be created to compare category sortkeys at en_wiki (e.g. from birth/death year categories) with the ones in Category:People by name. At some point someone would have to review the differences and decide which ones to use. -- User:Docu at 04:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I hear opposition to the idea, I am planning to continue current run of adding DEFAULTSORT to Category:people by name subcategories that do not have them. I am also planning to manually look through my bot edits and correct the edits to the names that the bot is likely to get wrong. I would also encourage users who know more about sorting rules for different kind of names (like User:Jacklee) to verify correct sorting for Chinese and other types of names he mentioned. --Jarekt (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, is it a good idea to continue running the bot when the above issue concerning last names has not been sorted out? How are you going to limit the operation of the bot to avoid it making incorrect changes? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No robot and few people can do what you are asking for, so lets just forget it. I will switch to other tasks. --Jarekt (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Another thing we can do is that I can give you a list of categories with no DEFAULTSORT. You can manually add sortkeys to the names which should not follow western sorting (or tell me how they should be sorted) . I will than add DEFAULTSORT to the rest (probably about 99%) using bot. Would that work for you? --Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
How many categories are we talking about here? And are there other editors willing to help with the manual sorting? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Better manuelly sorting 1% than manuelly sorting 100%. Is it possible to make a "no defaultsort" testrun for categories beginning with for exemple "Ed" (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_by_name&from=Ed) or "Na" http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:People_by_name&from=Na and see how it works out? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I switched my bot to task of finding which categories do not have DEFAULTSORT. My bot was working on it through the night and was about half way done. I will run it again this evening. Based on that run I will generate a list of the categories and place it somewhere where other people can find it. I assume that there are 3 possible sorting orders: 1) the western "surname, first-name"; 2) the name as is 3) something else which has to be specified case by case. I do not know how big that list will be but if we can split it into those 3 types than I can go and do the the edits automatically latter. I will let you know when I have the list ready. --Jarekt (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Very well, at least it will progress. --Foroa (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I identified so far 6k categories with no DEFAULTKEY out of ~50k categories I looked through. I still have to look through ~8k. The categories I found so far I listed in groups of 2k on 3 pages:

  1. page 1
  2. page 2
  3. page 3

Each of the pages has 3 sections. Each for 3 possible sorting ways. Right now all the categories are in group for reversed name (LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME). If anybody identify any categories which should be moved to to other sorting orders than please move them to the other sections. --Jarekt (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I created the final page page 4 of 2k files that have to be looked at and decide which sorting approach to take. User:Havang(nl) was working hard sorting the categories and identified about 1200 categories which should not use the standard (LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME) form but {{PAGENAME}} as the sort key. I would like to ask other users to look at them too and "Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Piece". --Jarekt (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Handling of redirected categories

The bot should not add default sorts to redirected categories (that should in principle be not categorised themselves). --Foroa (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Would redirected categories show up as sub-categories of Category:people by name? Those are the only ones I am adding DEFAULTSORT to. --Jarekt (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Correct, Eusebot and Category-bot have been adding categories wrongly before in Category:Dominique Pire and Category:Dwight D. Eisenhower. --Foroa (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC) ‎
I can probably fix that, if I can such such pages. I tried [intersecting "People by name" and "Category redirects" but it returned an empty set. --Jarekt (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
After several tries (server availability), it returned 117 results. As the cat is template generated, not sure if it will respond correctly to all the redirected templates in [18]. --Foroa (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I was trying intersecting Category:People by name with Category:Category redirects as possibly safer than intersecting Category:People by name with uses of template:Category redirect. I will try either way and remove all categories from redirected cats. --Jarekt (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

✓ Done I never got CatScan to work but AWB list comparer did the job. I have removed categories and default sorts from 97 categories using {{Category redirect}} --Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Arabic names el/al

I seem to remember that the generic "el" or "al" prefix in arabic names such as in Category:Abdullah el Tell is not prefixed in the sorted surname. What's the rule on wikipedia's and commons ? --Foroa (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I try to follow english wikipedia defaultsort, and if there is none, I look if the article gives a clue: in this case the article talks of El Tell so it seemed to me the best to do. But every improvement is welcome. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The el/al prefixes, generally written in lower case, like the Germanic lowercase van/von prefixes are not part of the surname part of the sort key. --Foroa (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
In my view, Arabic names should be sorted by the individual's first name. "Abdullah el Tell" means "Abdullah, of Tell", so "Tell" is not a surname but a nisbat that may indicate a place from which the individual's family originates, the name of his clan, or another person to whom the individual is associated (see, for example, "Nouri al-Maliki" – "al-Maliki" means "associated with Malik ibn Anas" (c. 711-795), who was a highly respected Sunni Islam scholar). I believe the name should be sorted according to "Abdullah". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is so simple. Most names in Europe that start with van/von/de/du started as a nisbat. Long time ago, I had to change a sort algorithm in a name database in the middle east to ignore the al/el prefixes as 80 % of the names started with it. A simular rule seems to be used (sometimes) on the en:wiki as for example in en:Category:People of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, en:Category:Arab nationalist politicians and en:Category:Arab nationalist thinkers. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Please, correct whatever has to be corrected. And please, help sorting at User:Jarekt/a, User:Jarekt/b, User:Jarekt/c and User:Jarekt/d --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you explain what is supposed to be done at those pages? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
You see at User:Jarekt/a: four headings: DEFAULTSORT:name1 name2 is for categories which first and full name is the defaultsort, DEFAULTSORT:name2 name1 is for categories which last WORD is the defaultsort (not counting what is after comma or bracket), Other defautlsorts can be put with explanation under the second heading, the last heading is the to-be-sorted list. If you hesitate, look at english or other wiki (I use google-fastsearch-button). You may also check the lists I sorted and change whatever needs to be under another heading. Good luck and thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy regarding sorting of names?

[Copied from above.] In my view, Arabic names should be sorted by the individual's first name. "Abdullah el Tell" means "Abdullah, of Tell", so "Tell" is not a surname but a nisbat that may indicate a place from which the individual's family originates, the name of his clan, or another person to whom the individual is associated (see, for example, "Nouri al-Maliki" – "al-Maliki" means "associated with Malik ibn Anas" (c. 711-795), who was a highly respected Sunni Islam scholar). I believe the name should be sorted according to "Abdullah". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is so simple. Most names in Europe that start with van/von/de/du started as a nisbat. Long time ago, I had to change a sort algorithm in a name database in the middle east to ignore the al/el prefixes as 80 % of the names started with it. A simular rule seems to be used (sometimes) on the en:wiki as for example in en:Category:People of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, en:Category:Arab nationalist politicians and en:Category:Arab nationalist thinkers. --Foroa (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Foroa, I'm assuming we don't have a general policy on how names such as "al-Maliki" and "van Buren" should be sorted? Is there one at the English Wikipedia or some other language Wikipedia that we can adopt? Otherwise, any attempt to start sorting the names will just be a mess. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 10:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
No policy that I know of and I found only fragments at the en:wikipedia when looking quickly. As I stated above, it would be nice to group that, maybe on a specific help page to start with because there is a lot to say about sort keys. And maybe insert a reference in Help:Category#People. --Foroa (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, Second Edition have got some guidelines on this. I will dig these out when I am next down at the library. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Defaultsort people by name

On 8000 defaultsorts added the last four days, there are cetainly a few percent to be improved. Please feel free to change the defaultsort without discussion, whenever you think it an improvement. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"AddInformation" should not tag as "minor change"

Almost each time I use it, AddInformation gadget makes some mess, ie it needs human intelligence to put it on his feet. So it is a nonsense that it checks by default "minor modification". Could anyone fix that ? --GaAs11671 17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Further, the AddInformation gadget should *not* try to intelligently sort any information, since it almost always fails. Just add the Information template and let the user sort through things...it'll save time and agony in the long run. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I was never happy with AddInformation gadget either. The intentions are right, but it does not seems to work correctly. As an alternative I added in my User:Jarekt/monobook.js some code to insert empty {{Information}} template. It works great with the monobook skin but I still have to figure out how to do the same in the vector skin. --Jarekt (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I still think the AddInformation gadget is usefull. In many situations it helps gathering scattered pieces of information. But you have to check every character it modifies. --GaAs11671 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the tool isn't meant to be used without double checking its results. It's really for you to make sure that the edit remains minor or unchecking it.
Please avoid using the tool if you don't bother filling in author and source correctly. It just makes things worse if you don't. -- User:Docu at 07:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant categories

Who can check Category:Cathode ray tube (category as redirect, but contains a lot of files) and Category:Cathode ray tubes (created by User:1-1111 today)? Which to keep, which to delete? --188.174.22.209 09:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Already fixed. --Jarekt (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Tne redirect should be deleted, no? --GaAs11671 13:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Delete would be fine with me, too. I tend to redirect instead of delete, just in case someone from the outside links to it, but I am unsure what the best practice is. --Jarekt (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I would leave this redirect because the category existed since 2005. If it was only recently created I would not object to deletion. Having said that, I would still leave otherwise harmless redirects alone in order to reduce work for admins. -84user (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Upload-maxfilesize/he

These two URL's appear at the first page of the Hebrew file uploading wizard:

  1. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=he
  2. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=heownwork

They should probably show similar things, but they are very different. URL number 1 shows a full introduction, while URL 2 doesn't.

What's worse, URL number 1 says "גודל הקובץ המקסימלי: 100 מגה־בייט" = "Maximum file size: 100 MB", which URL number 2 says "גודל הקובץ המקסימלי: $1", leaving the literal $1 instead of saying "100 MB". This is not really a terrible bug by itself, but it may point at other problems.

Is it possible to fix it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • For the maximum filesize message, I've just tried a correction. I've also fixed the "Source filename" label (was in English instead of in Hebrew). Might take some 24 hours until these changes becomes visible; the message cache isn't refreshed immediately. Lupo 09:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I did it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, copied over. Lupo 07:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright-disputed

On Wikipedia, there is a forum called Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files, where images can be nominated for deletion due to copyright problems. There is no equivalent process here, so images are just sent to the morass that is DR. It would seem useful to create a similar process. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Morass? Oh, yes. What percentage of DR would be concerned in your opinion? --GaAs11671 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand...

Isn't there a contradiction between what's written on {{PD-Japan-film}} and the fact that files like File:Takashi Shimura in Ikiru.jpg are available on Commons ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wondered that too. For a PD template it seems weird to implicate that Kurosawa is still under copyright. feydey (talk) 22:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's even weirder because he wasn't the rights holder, the production companies were. I would like to see how this was actually ruled. The template links to a blog/fansite and is a pretty poor source. Without the any legal documents, how do we know the blogger's interpretation is correct? The two news sources it links to are about the case in general, not the court's decision. Rocket000 (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I also would like to see more clarification (I added the last part of {{PD-Japan-film}} by the way). This has been discussed before:
-84user (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated two Akira Kurosawa images for deletion: File:Takashi Shimura in Ikiru.jpg and File:Drunken Angel109.png. Category:Akira Kurosawa has quite a few images which are probably not free. Depending on how the two nominations are resolved I will consider starting a Commons:Deletion requests/Mass deletion request for Akira Kurosawa films before 1953, grouped by film, unless there are better suggestions. -84user (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
You can also try to nominate the image as featured image on Japanese wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That is the case that obvious wikipedians are unable to solve. I would like to know, why Japanese wikipedians are also fine with situation, that pre-1953 Kurosawa's screenhots are here. We have no official document of Japanese court available neither in English nor in Japan. The section in http://akirakurosawa.info is not sufficient enough to do such decision. I see no difference in for example Yasujiro Ozu (died 1963) and Kurosawa (died 1993). Why an 1952 film by Ozu is public domain? When I would apply protection for Ozu as a director, then pre 1970 law: 1963+38 = 2001, but meantime it was prolonged in 1970: 1963+50=2013 and meantime it was prolonged in 2004: 1963+70=2033. Why only pre-1953 Kurosawa's films are protected? Why Kurosawa's films are protected only 38 years, when according to the 2000s law they could be protected 70 years after Kurosawa death? Where is the difference in Ozu and Kurosawa? How to apply that film are published by film companies? What is the important thing between director and film company in Japan? Rules and templates on Commons must to be applicable to every film according to the publication date, director death or any relevant thing. How is the year 1953 important then? Maybe the situation will be clear in Japan for Japanese courts, but it should also be clear for international courts. And the decision can be theoretically different in different countries. Update the template with primary sources and then it will be easily understandable and optimally show us the situation graphically. If there are cases that have to solved by courts, we can not make decision based on non-primary sources. --Snek01 (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we recreate as a separate image...

...the first version of File:July 9 2005 - The Lahore Fort-Hall of public audience pic1.jpg, which is a totally different image? --GaAs11671 17:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an uploading mistake, has been reloaded after 2 minutes, and there are no other images that look like it, so we have probably no description of the other image neither. RIP ? --Foroa (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything is fine, the uploader already did it: File:July 9 2005 - The Lahore Fort-A building near the museum.jpg. Trycatch (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Good! Thank you. Clear history of the 1rst would be good I think. --GaAs11671 22:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Would an administrator make a separate image from the 19:54, 2010 March 29 version of File:Bandırma.JPG? -- User:Docu at 08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've just uploaded that version as File:Bandırma harbour 2009-08-17.jpg. -84user (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. It might have been cleaner if it was split out, but maybe not. With two images, we could almost use them to illustrate sister ship. -- User:Docu at 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
By "split out" I assume you meant cropped. I've uploaded File:Bandirma_ferry_IMO_9188867.jpg and File:Bandirma ferry 2009-08-17.jpg, but I cannot determine the name or IMO number of the second ship. -84user (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I thought to use the version as a separate file (as you did initially), but the detailed views are nice to have. BTW, the website of the operator has a fleet list [19]. -- User:Docu at 21:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Contributions History

One more question that i have just noticed...

On 28 Dec 2008 i uploaded the file "Bulgarian Olympic Committee logo.jpg", which has since been replaced by w:File:Bulgarian_Olympic_Committee_logo.png. (My original file is mentioned in the file history here: w:File:Bulgarian_Olympic_Committee_logo.png#History of File:Bulgarian Olympic Committee logo.jpg, however i can't remember if i uploaded it to Commons or directly to Wikipedia.)

however, nowhere in my contributions history is this fact mentioned: neither here nor here nor here nor here does it say that I added the original .jpg image, whereas i distinctly remember adding it to commons minutes before uploading it to the wikipedia page.

Now, i understand if files get replaced, as the w:User:718 Bot hasreplaced my original .jpg file to a .png one on 16 Mar 2009, however the replacement does not erase the fact that i uploaded the original file in the first place on 28 Dec 2008. Why has the 28 Dec 2008 info been completely erased from all wikimedia history pages?

I am asking not so much for the original file, but on a point of priciple, for future reference, to know what might happen to any future files that i upload.

Thank you once again! BigSteve (talk) 10:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Bulgarian Olympic Committee logo.jpg never existed here. The file on Wp has been deleted 01:32, 23 March 2009 East718 (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Bulgarian Olympic Committee logo.jpg" ‎ (CSD I5: Non-free image that was not used for more than seven days). Deleted contributions (ie contribs to deleted pages or contribs "purged" by admins) don't show up in user's contribs. --GaAs11671 11:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Composite image comparing JPEG and PNG: notice artifacts in JPEG versus solid PNG background.
Thank you, GaAs, for your reply!
one point that you raised, hewever: "CSD I5: non-free image used more than 15 days": how come this does not apply to the current w:File:Bulgarian_Olympic_Committee_logo.png .PNG file? dont get me wrong, i do want there to be an image file, and the current .png one is just as good as my original .jpg one, however what is the rationale for this replacement? i'm asking so that i know when uploading in future.
Thank You BigSteve (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the policy of en: about that, but in this case the image is used on en:Bulgarian Olympic Committee (may be you missed something when reading: Non-free image that was not used for more than seven days). About the preference for PNG files, aside the fact it's a free format (JPG is not), I understood that it is more efficient for non-photo images (eg drawings, where the number of different colors is small), but someone else will probably make a better answer. --GaAs11671 08:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
See en:Portable Network Graphics#Comparison with JPEG. --GaAs11671 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
GaAs, what do you mean JPG is not a free format? The patents are expired, so what's not free? Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I spoke a bit too fast, even if it is no so clear when reading en:JPEG#Patent issues. But I am not a specialist of the question. --GaAs11671 21:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for a statue?

In the case of an image of a bronze statue of en:Emperor Kameyama of Japan, I added categories relating to the life of the subject -- 1249 births & 1305 deaths?

Was it incorrect or unacceptable to add these categories? --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the only "image of a bronze statue of en:Emperor Kameyama of Japan" on Commons and it does not have death / birth categories. But either-way Category:Emperor Kameyama is a better place to add them. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
There is also en:File:Emperor Kameyama cropped.jpg which is not on Commons. --GaAs11671 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Once the image is on Commons, start with Category:Statues and try to figure out which sub-categories apply (in addition to Category:Emperor Kameyama). -- User:Docu at 22:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

April 1

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/03&oldid=260061887"