Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction		 Help desk Village pump
copyright • proposals		 Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives

 

Start a new discussion

Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates of Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

Mass-rename tool issues[edit]

Is anyone else having problems using User:Legoktm's massrename.js tool? I'm trying to rename all 91 files in a category and it does a few then stops. If I start it again, in a new tab or even after restarting my browser (Firefox 50), it does nothing. I managed to get it going again after restarting my machine (Window 10), but this time it made eight changes then stopped again. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

While I remember that massrename worked very well a few years ago I sadly couldn't get it to rename even a single file when I tried to use it at several occasions in the past months. A fix would be very much appreciated.    FDMS  4    19:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If I remember well, I used this script few months ago to rename several tens of images in one category, and it worked well. Last night I tested it, two times: by one time on one image in one category:) and it worked, but this may be not enough to detect bugs, errors. Maybe there are some specific cases when the script does not work (e.g. long/complex file titles or category name, large categories, etc.)?
Anyway, there are some alternatives (generic scripts for all type of wiki pages):
  • en:User:Plastikspork/massmove.js - which is useful when is necessary only to add/remove some prefix to titles. (His version is available only for admins, here is one enabled for almost all user).
  • User:XXN/massrename.js - this works with two parallel pair lists of page titles (sources & targets).
These scripts probably are not so comfortable as Legoktm's script; they need to provide directly the list of page titles to work on (one can achieve these lists either with AWB, CatScan, DB query, or directly via API and then processing it with a text editor). --XXN, 14:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, XXN, FDMS: I've rewritten the tool a bit, the version from Legoktm has now also RegExp support (and using Commons libs) User:Perhelion/massrename.js. Be aware it is beta, so test it before. Cheers User: Perhelion 15:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Screenshot made on 2017-01-10 15.45.13 of errors generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.
.

@Perhelion: Thank you. I've just tried that. After making just two changes, it threw the errors in the above screenshot. See also Ajax error reports. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing, Hedwig in Washington: Ok, next round for test, I've updated, thanks for the report. User: Perhelion 01:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
No change. Doesn't move one single file, that stinker. No error msg, tho. Tried Chrome and Firefox, both latest stable version. Here's a screenshot of the new input box using regex. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot of input box generated by User:Perhelion/massrename.js.
.
@Perhelion: The script is not even loading for me, now. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Hej, yes, sorry, I'm working on a better version this days. ↔ User: Perhelion 19:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Hedwig in Washington, XXN, FDMS4: Check it out now. Every hint is welcome. ↔ User: Perhelion 14:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: Thank you for the update! Just tried it; the script moved the file to the name of the category instead of the entered new name and also somehow mixed up the previous name with the entered reason.    FDMS  4    21:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Oh* strange, I think I fixed this. Test carefully, I also saw this sometimes on reusing the input fields with new text are ignored (and the old ones used, but maybe this is a wider problem). :-O ↔ User: Perhelion 21:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: It worked, thanks! Could you add an option that lets users move non-file pages as well?    FDMS  4    06:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@FDMS4: Thanks for feedback. Hm* I can't imagine a larger application? Maybe the script from User:XXN would be better for this extension!? ↔ User: Perhelion 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

January 08[edit]

Potrace at wmflabs[edit]

Hi guys, I just forked javascript potrace (tool for tracing a bitmap) and put it on wmflabs for anyone to use. This was inspired by the amount of commons images marked with SVG template.

I am thinking I might try to extend/improve the code of the tool but I would like to hear from you if the community is interested in such a thing at all. I dont want to spend time on it if you think that the preferable way for people to vectorize images will be using other tools that are already available, such as inkscape etc.

To summarise, do you think it is worth developing the tool? --Wesalius (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. It looks like a client-only javascript, right? Why not host it here as a userscript or a gadget? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it has the potential of being very useful, but since the output is only black and white, its current usefulness is probably very niche. If it could accurately handle colours, I'd probably be using it all the time for astronomical graphics. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I just checked and there is no easy solution to tracing coloured images with potrace right now, BUT I found this https://github.com/migvel/color_trace I will try it out and if it yields good results, all that needs to be done is to put it on toollabs and write the frontend for input. --Wesalius (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata Commons[edit]

FYI: Wikimedia Foundation receives $3 million grant from Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to make freely licensed images accessible and reusable across the web. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

It has been posted here. With only 3 comments :-/ . If implemented right this will be an amazing change! Amada44  talk to me 13:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
yes, i hear user:Astinson (WMF) is organizing. (see above Commons:Village_pump#Structured_data_on_Commons_Funding) i'm sure there will be plenty of cleanup after their bots run. in the meantime, check out User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata or User talk:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 22:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the grant will be a good thing if done right, unfortunately I have not been impressed by the WMF's usage of previous grants on the purposes they were intended for. Astinson is a good guy though so my hope is he will be able to keep it straight with the WMF. Reguyla (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
well, they have not shared the grant app and plan, so wait and see. but i heard that it included input from wikidata folks, and had slots for 2 fellows, which is a hopeful sign. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: The full grant application is in fact shared at Commons:Structured data/Sloan Grant#What did the grant application look like?. Matma Rex (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thanks, that's good high level discussion. but i do not see a plan. i'm thinking more of a resource loaded schedule with deliverable milestones. it's a level of detail rarely shared. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Authorship of a modified public domain file-- who gets to claim it?[edit]

Hello, Pump! I have been having a discussion with User:Kevjonesin regarding the meaning of "authorship" on a public domain image which has had annotations added to it (the image is here: File:Opened scallop shell (with arrows).png). I had a look around Commons and could find no clear guidelines with regard to a situation like this-- I am interpreting the existing policy one way, and Kev is interpreting them an entirely different way that may also be perfectly legitimate (see his talk page for our discussion). I would like to A.) invite others to have a look at the situation and help us come to an agreement on what the correct outcome is, and B.) find out where the policy information exists that would have prevented this confusion (or does it exist?). Any assistance would be appreciated! Thank you! KDS4444 (talk) 08:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest folks start with a comparison ...
Here is the image uploaded by YuryKirienko to File:Opened_scallop_shell.jpg:
... to be compared with an image Kevjonesin uploaded to File:Opened_scallop_shell_(with_arrows).png:
... and then, if interested in further context, explore in detail the Wikipedia talkpage thread which KDS4444 linked above.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I made an attempt in the file page. Feel free to revert if you don't like it. ;) Jee 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Which I do like! The next question is, is that the correct answer? And is there a "correct" answer? KDS4444 (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
See my comments here and the links I mentioned there. (Here the source is CC0; so credit to source is not a must. But we can prefer it; CC too prefer it even for CC0 licensed works.) Jee 06:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
CC0 means you don't have to name the author when reusing the image. Still, it would be decent when you do name the author. I would say by adding some arrows and some letters to an image, it does not represent change significant enough, to be able to claim new authorship. The change should represent significant artistic and creative change, not just a brief explanation added to the original image. Respect (towards others) is at the basis of freedom. Feeling free to do something, shouldn't mean you can take liberties when walking a perhaps more gray area, where things don't appear 100 percent clear at first. When in doubt, do he most respectful thing. Besides this, the quality of the changes made to the original work are not of a very good quality in my opinion. Consider using a (freeware) vector image manipulation software like Inkscape to draw arrows. It would produce much better looking arrows. Just my thoughts on this subject. --oSeveno (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree -- there's no legal requirement that you mention the name of the author of a PD image that you've modified, and I don't think there's any strict Commons policy requirement to do so, but it's considered good etiquette to do this when uploading such modified PD images to Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I am getting the sense through this that there is no Commons page anywhere that specifically discusses the author= parameter of the {{information}} template other than the brief discussion of authorship on the information template's documentation subpage. I am now working on drafting such a page, and it can be viewed here. I would very much like input from others on this page: please feel free to view it and modify it. I would like to have a working draft ready to go in about a week or so. KDS4444 (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

KDS4444 -- If you do a lot of work vectorizing a raster, then I think that it's accepted Commons practice that you can add your name in the Author field (such work isn't necessarily always as "mechanical" as you seem to think). For File:Gender signs.svg, I included my name alone in the Author field, since while I was inspired by File:Gender signs.png to create a loose vector equivalent, I did not directly "vectorize" it at all in the sense of raster tracing -- rather I eyeballed the PNG when typing circle and line instructions directly into my text editor, and at the same time also applied certain corrections for a better visual appearance (which I then cycled back into the PNG), and I don't think I violated any Commons policies... AnonMoos (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
AnonMoos: would you describe your changes as creative ones? I understand that the changes were difficult, but if your goal in eyeballing was to improve accuracy, then that probably isn't considered creative or transformative. You can spend days and weeks making technical changes to an image and still end up with no right to authorship if your changes were not transformative of that original work. How would you characterize your changes? Do they reflect your own personality and artistic (not merely technical) skills? KDS4444 (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It was not "to improve accuracy" (accurate to what, pray tell??) but because the male sign was ugly and didn't match the female sign too well. And such abstract simple geometric symbols are only dubiously copyrightable in the United States in any case. My attempt to get File:How-to-get-your-ex-back-tips.gif deleted was rejected for that reason (even though the source of the originally-uploaded file version is quite problematic)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Hi y'all, there is related discussion taking place at File_talk:Opened_scallop_shell_(with_arrows).png#Acceptable_option?. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Language selector[edit]

Hi. I've played with it few times but I still could not get language selector (drop down list box for select currently used language of text of file description page) working for my image. Could you please fix it for me for this file? I just want language selector like on this page. Then I fix all files in series myself. Thanks. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The second file shows the language selector because it transcludes Template:Picture_of_week_on_the_Czech_Wikipedia, which is translated. Ruslik (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks very much. Artem.komisarenko (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Russavia flickr spam[edit]

May we delete Category:Photographs by Melv L - MACASR (check needed), which are 73 fully uncategorized files uploaded by Russavia's most recent sockpuppet?--Moritz Rodach (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No, the photographs are good quality and well within scope. They look pretty easy to categorize if you want to fix that issue.
As for the WMF's action in locking the account, this was noted as "Globally banned user", nothing was said about whom. Please do not speculate on things that the WMF has made no statement about.
By the way, I can see you are using a temporary sock, but just to make it clear to WMF legal, I have no idea who you are, nor have I been on IRC talking to anyone before responding. So no reason for the WMF to ban me for writing this, despite their past threats and ridiculous bad faith presumptions. --Fæ (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
"uncategorized" has never been a reason for deletion. you realize we have 300000 files without metadata? the vindictiveness belongs to english, that's where they RBI. no such essay or policy here. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
"uncategorized" is used like "out of Scope" and even a reason to deletion. There are severals admins that find more easy nominate a image to deletion instead of add a category to the file. BTW, Moritz Rodach is a clear suck-dramapuppet --The Photographer 11:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

New Facebook group to encourage photographers to add their photos to Commons[edit]

Hi all

I've created the Wikipedia Photography Club Facebook group to try to engage some of the 100s of Facebook photography groups who have 1000s of members with amazing photos. I would appreciate it if you would join the group so that potential contributors can ask questions. I decided to call it Wikipedia Photography club instead of using the word Commons because it is much more recognisable to people not in the community.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Video2Commons down[edit]

Video2Commons is currently down. It gives the error "Error: An exception occurred: IOError: [Errno 116] Stale file handle"

Jasonanaggie (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've had an audio file (File:Ainsley Harriott voice.flac) in the transcode queue for over 12 hours now. Is this related? Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: No, they are unrelated. Videoscaling system and video2commons are two separate systems. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Separate section opened, below. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie: Would you mind be clear about your issue and not crossposting? So far you have posted to here, phab:T155803, and a phab conpherence, and none of them contain the information required to debug the issue. Please read mw:How to report a bug and phab:T155803#2955339. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
it worked for me here File:Woman World War II Pilot Honored.webm but it was from IA. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Transcode queue backlog[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T155098
I've had an audio file (File:Ainsley Harriott voice.flac) in the transcode queue for over 12 hours now. Is there a problem somewhere? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The queue is a bit large just now, so it will take some time. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Surfeit of masturbation videos, still.[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/07#Educational_value_of_masturbation_videos.

I noticed that one of my videos was added to Category:WebM videos, which mostly contains files, but also, as of right now, contains Category:WebM videos of male ejaculation‎ and Category:WebM videos of male masturbation‎, which I don't think are the most natural subdivisions of the category 'WebM videos'.

So I went down the rabbit hole; see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/01 for where I wound up. We have Category:Ogv videos of male masturbation and Category:GIF videos of male masturbation and Category:2010s ejaculation (animated) and Category:2010s videos of ejaculation and of course Category:Videos of ejaculation by format and I keep finding more of them. If we're going to accrete videos from exhibitionist men (and it does seem to uniformly be men) like a whale accretes barnacles, I don't think we need to make categories that don't even fit our style. Did this just flood back over the last four years since (apparently) it was last brought to the Village Pump? grendel|khan 17:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

What action are you trying to get support for? If you think the categorization is poor, then be bold and change it. --Fæ (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I am--see see this month on CFD; I've nominated a dozen categories and I'm about to paste another six to ten nominations in. I'm part kvetching, part passive-aggressively seeking help, part at least explicitly noting somewhere what I'm doing, part wondering if I've made some kind of mistake and it's very intentional that Category:Videos of the 2000s contains Category:Videos of 2000, Category:Videos of 2001, ..., Category:Videos of 2009 and Category:2000s videos of male masturbation‎. grendel|khan 18:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. If the categorization makes more sense, and ends up slightly flatter, then I can't see anyone getting far with criticising you for trying. If I notice someone working hard on a niche bit of categorization, I tend to stay away rather than tampering with their creation. --Fæ (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

delete me and my photos please who can[edit]

delete me and my photos please who can — Preceding unsigned comment added by VAPE buro (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by VAPE buro. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done per COM:CSD#G7. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect loop when saving Flickr photos using Wayback Machine[edit]

I'm going to save some photos from Flickr for license evidencing. When I go to https://archive.org/web/ I'm unable to save any page from Flickr and I get error about redirect loop. Do you experience the same problem? --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

This may be caused because the photographs are for Friends only or restricted. If you are uploading to Commons, using either standard upload tools or adding {{Flickrreview}} will ensure the license is checked automatically. The automatic bot checks are sufficient evidence against any future challenge. --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Thanks for hint! But in this case photos are public and in addition I noticed that Flickrreview bot is also unable to check licenses of new photos right now. I tried with this example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/microsoftsweden/15716942894/
--Rezonansowy (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Could you or someone help me with this please? The problem is still persistent and Flickrreview bot is probably affected. Try this example I provided above. --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Using your example, I see http://web.archive.org/web/20160803095328/https://www.flickr.com/photos/microsoftsweden/15716942894, which displays fine for me using Chrome. The issue may be your ad-blocker or similar. --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Does creating new snapshots of Flickr photos (on https://archive.org/web/) work for you as well? --Rezonansowy (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I get the same error you've had; "ERR_TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS". I suggest emailing archive.org or checking their forum for comments. --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll mail them soon. --Rezonansowy (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

First Soviet nuclear test[edit]

Does anyone know when this photograph (en:File:Joe one.jpg) of the first Soviet nuclear test will enter the public domain? It was taken on August 29, 1949. I would like to place it in some category of "undelete in ...". --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 04:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

If this photo was first published in Russian in 1949 and the author is truly anonymous, its copyright will expire in Russia on 1 January 2020 (1949 + 70 + 1) and in the US on 1 January 2045 (1949 + 95 + 1). As Commons requires works to free both in the country of origin and the US, if that information is correct it can be placed in Category:Undelete in 2045. —RP88 (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 02:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

COM:V is Commons' official guideline, right?[edit]

I am writing to let you know that I have just added missing, I guess, template to this page. Any objections? --jdx Re: 09:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

It is more like a help page than a guideline. Ruslik (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It is listed as a guideline in Template:Commons policies and guidelines. --jdx Re: 19:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
so you are locking a page indefinitely based on one vandalism episode a year ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 18:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: His edit had nothing to do with page protection. He marked the page as a 'guideline'. - Reventtalk 12:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
the page is marked "High traffic page ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (indefinite)" i do not see any discussion about whether it is a guideline or policy. i take it you will broadcast what your policy / guideline is by fiat, whenever you decide, no need for any input from non-confirmed users. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 12:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a bit strange to complain about "no input" in a discussion section started asking for input. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
no that was not an request for input, that was an asking for acquiescence in action already taken. just send out your broadcast notices, no collaboration here. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons cat -> Wikidata script now working again[edit]

Wdcat.png

This script adds a small box on a Commons category page, to let you know if there is a corresponding article-like item on Wikidata which has a P373 Commons category statement pointing to the Commons category page.

The script runs whenever you're browsing Commons categories. If the Commons cat page doesn't already include a Wikidata link on the page, it's well worth adding one, using e.g.:

I find it quite useful to spot when P373s are missing, for Commons categories that really ought to have them -- and also, to stop me adding a P373 for a Commonscat, if there's one I didn't know about from another existing item already -- a sign that, instead, the two Wikidata items should perhaps be merged.

To give it a go, simply add the line

importScript('User:Jheald/wdcat.js');

to your common.js on Commons.

It had stopped working because the service that it was previously relying on for its lookups (WDQ) has been withdrawn; I've now tweaked it to use the Wikidata SPARQL query service instead.

I think I got the changes correct, but do give it a try & let me know if anything doesn't work.

All best, Jheald (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Location map[edit]

Can anyone explain me how to create a location map? Xaris333 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Xaris333: Are you just talking about a blank map of a region that can be used as a basis for locator maps? Or do you mean something else? It would help if you can point to an example of the sort of thing you are trying to create. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: File:Limassol District.png I have uploaded this. The Border coordinates is wrong, I know that. I just cut the original map and put the coordinates I found from google maps. In not accuracy. Xaris333 (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Immediate biggest problem: that's not SVG. PNG is a raster format, not a vector format. Note the text in the {{Location map series N}}tag you added, "...SVG as file format..." Similarly, {{ValidSVG}} is obviously wrong if it's not even SVG.
    • It's pretty clear you are going to need more help here than I can give you. Unless someone happens to jump in and solve this, I recommend taking this to Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop, where there will be more people with expertise. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Xaris333 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Clean up of "tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense"[edit]

Daniel's old WikiSense tool has links all through templates and many other places within Commons. It would seem opportune for us to look to clean out the prominent uses of the link, especially help:, commons: and template: namespaces where it is directional to utilise.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What does "directional to utilise" mean? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Most likely, "directional to utilise" refers to situations where a page talks about using the WikiSense tool or suggests or directs the user to use the WikiSense tool. --Gazebo (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably, certainly it looks like tech jargon rather than English. --Fæ (talk) 11:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-04[edit]

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

Recent changes

  • You can see a list of the templates on a page you edit with the visual editor. [1]

Changes this week

  • Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 January. It will be on all wikis from 26 January (calendar).

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

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

Someone who knows Rome / Qualcuno che conosce Roma[edit]

In Category:Museums to be categorised by country there are a number of images of Rome from Panoramio, most (but not all) with names beginning "Via Veneto - Dolce Vita", that I suspect are not from any "museum" at all. I was hoping that someone who knows the area might be able to put these in appropriate categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass rename of Mauser98k uploads[edit]

The uploads seem to consist entirely of Russian coins. The user uploads the coins in their catalog number, which isn't descriptive for anyone who's not a coin enthusiast. The catalog numbers are described in ru:Список памятных монет России 2016 года (other years are accessible from the article, too).

The titles could be descriptive, and still list the numbers. For example File:RR3114-0001 10 rubles USSR 1991 Silver avers.png.

I requested the successful rename of one such file to File:Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016).png not knowing about what the original name represented (and unaware of the rest of the set). The uploader has reached to me on my talk page, but hasn't replied to my last response (he agreed with me that the specific file that I requested the rename for be renamed to Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016) - RR5111-0178-16.png, but not the rest of them according to a scheme like Russian Silver 3-Ruble coin (2016) - RR5111-XXXX.png). —Hexafluoride (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Why the theme is called "Mass rename of Mauser98k uploads"? In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia, almost all files have similar names. And I downloaded a smaller part. --Mauser98k (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mauser98k: I promise you this isn't personal against you. I'm merely trying to make the files accessible. If I'm just looking for a commemorative silver ruble, I'm not going to type "RR5111" into the search bar. I'll type "Russian silver ruble 2015". —Hexafluoride (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I want to draw attention to the following features of this files.
1. In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia so many coins. Everyone who download and use the files in the wiki enjoy existing names.
2. If you rename the files on the proposed scheme "Russian silver ruble 2015 5111-0178 obverse.png", the search query such as "Russian silver ruble in 2015" will be found many different files, but difficult to find a particular coin.
3. In the Category: Commemorative coins of Russia so many coins of different metals and different denominations, when manually renaming the very likely errors in the name of some files. --Mauser98k (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All of which seems to argue in favor of the scheme which uses both descriptive text and the catalog number. Then both would be easily searched. (By the way, really, search does fine with the "description" text in the "information" template, so as long as the catalog number is in there somewhere, the search should still work fine, but I do think it's best to have both in the filename.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:CETA[edit]

... has two conflicting concepts contained under the same lemma. Three files concern the free-trade-agreement between Canada and the EU, two others a historic computer device that is also (and solely) represented in the supercategory-structure. I'm not sure on where to start unravelling this. What are the proper new lemmata to be used? Does one lemma take precedence over the other so it remains without bracket addition? --chris 論 11:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Looks like someone already unilaterally removed the trade agreement ones; no idea where they put them, but if anyone does, a {{distinguish}} template on Category:CETA would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I have created Category:Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement and added a hatnote to Category:CETA.    FDMS  4    16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate photos, non-matching information[edit]

File:Roma Rome Italy Italia Art Monument - Castielli - CC0 - panoramio - gnuckx (9).jpg and File:Mascaron in Rome.jpg (renamed from File:DSCF1142-Castielli-Italy-Roma-CC0 (3491535823).jpg) are clearly the same photo, and both give the same username (from Panoramio and Flickr, respectively) as the author.

Normally, I'd just slap {{duplicate}} on the newer one (from Panoramio), but I notice that the EXIF information doesn't entirely agree (different date) and also that the one from Panoramio is geotagged (though I suspect not accurately). Is there anywhere we state best practices for merging information in a case like this? Of course I can merge it successfully, but I was wondering if there is anything to give other less experienced users as guidance if they run across things like this.

By the way, if anyone can work out correct geocoordinates for this, that would be nice, too! - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

Why we don't have "permission" in Upload Wizard[edit]

I never realise that we do not have the permission label in Wizard, someone know why? Or if it's hidden... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Not sure I follow you. It asks whether it's your own work, and gives the alternative "Use a different license". Or are you just remarking that it doesn't give you the opportunity to explicitly filly out the "permission" field of {{information}}? I'm pretty sure the latter is deliberate: an assumption that the few percent of people who need to do something more complex than just provide a license can either use Special:Upload rather than the Wizard, or can go in and edit after the fact, rather than confuse the bulk of uploaders with a rare issue. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • UploadWizard does allow you to fill in custom licenses. You have to select (on the "Release rights" screen) "This file is not my own work." → "Another reason not mentioned above". Matma Rex (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

When will it become in the public domain?[edit]

Hello.

  1. Microsoft Bought all the rights of File:Bliss.png, When will it become in the public domain?
  2. If the book was written by several people, Will it become in the public domain "cash all in one"?Or over parts by Author?

Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The photographer (Charles O'Rear) isn't even dead yet! If the past is any guide to the future, there will be several rewrites of U.S. copyright laws before copyright expires, but it could easily remain copyrighted past 2100... As for your second question, there are sometimes special copyright rules for "collective" or "corporate" works... AnonMoos (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@AnonMoos:Can you help me to know these rules to know what to do with these works?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Prospective files[edit]

Hello.I suggest creation of a project (the draft) to suggest uploading files not yet in the public domain in certain years.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Erotic" art[edit]

There seem to me to be some very odd inclusions in categories such as Category:Erotic paintings in the National Museum in Warsaw. For example, this particular category includes Madonna and Child paintings that I presume ended up there because of a visible nipple. Is an image of breastfeeding inherently erotic? I would think not. Even more bizarrely, there is a scene of torture (File:Kalteysen St. Barbara Altarpiece (detail).jpg); I shudder to think who would find that "erotic". The category also includes a number of classical nudes that I would not usually expect to see classified as "erotic". Do we have any consensus on the use of this word in category names? Clearly, there is art that is intended as erotic (there is even some in this category), but equally clearly the mere depiction of a human with flesh below the neck doesn't make - Jmabel ! talk 23:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC) it so.

Feel free to recategorize them; I'm a little weirded out by the 'Historic BDSM art' category being used there--it seems overly broad. Not all violence is sexy violence. grendel|khan 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I can work on some of these, but does anyone know whether we have any guidelines on these (to my mind) rather loaded words in category names? I'm hesitant to start into the potentially contentious task of adding or removing categories for which no objective criteria exist. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There are no guidelines, but you can always add a comment to the category for logical inclusion criteria. I suggest sticking to works intended to be erotic, or where it can be found that catalogues and exhibition of older works are now described as erotic by the gallery, even if this was a subtext at the time. --Fæ (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I removed the Madonna and Child images; someone else seems to have dealt with the St. Barbara; other than that, I have other things to do with my time right now, but someone may want to pursue this. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Women's March mass deletion[edit]

many womens march flickr transfers marked PD, are being challenged as "requires a specific reason why this image is in the public domain." for example File:DC Women's March (32412372506).jpg. clearly the intent was to release the photo into the public domain. you could message / email the photographer, but you might want to defer deletion which will bring on needless drama. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes the unsolved mess of Flickr users tagging their own photographs as PD using Public Domain Mark (PDM). Originally {{Flickr-public domain mark}} was written in such a way that it encouraged people to replace the template with {{PD-author}} for such images, but that line was removed per Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. I guess we no longer accept PD files marked by their authors as PDM. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Common sense can and should apply. There are plenty of uploads using this license which we have amended licenses on (including some of my batch uploads), and the intent of the Flickrstream owner when they are the photographer can be taken into consideration; for example sometimes a statement on their profile is perfectly good evidence of their intended copyright release. --Fæ (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
That was how {{Flickr-public domain mark}} was originally written: to follow common sense. But I think eventually the very narrow interpretation won that PDM by author is not the same as {{PD-author}}. We have now a long text why flicker users should not have used PDM, but reality is that not many flickr users will ever see that message and in thy mean time their PD images are being deleted here. --Jarekt (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
if you want to send a message, write a telegram. i'm sure most flickr uploaders upload there because it is easy, and the ones that know of commons do it, so as not have to interact with editors here. PD for everywhere but commons. "PD is revocable" = lol Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Endless discussions without a solution. Jee 16:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless a new Request for Comments has been made, the outcome of it and consensus stands. It is like a psudo-policy, which should not be undermined, but instead be followed to the letter. If you disagree with the outcome, please start a new request for comments, or follow the current position and consensus of the Commons community. (t) Josve05a (c) 22:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The RFC had no absolute outcome and did not say that PDM have to be deleted within any particular time frame. --Fæ (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
ok, i will go change them to "PD-author" - i see no consensus for "Flickr-public domain mark". Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
DON'T! Consensus for it was on the RFC. Feel free to start a new one to gain 'new consensus' for pd-author, which currently there is 'no consensus' for. (t) Josve05a (c) 01:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

January 27[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=231117254"