Commons:Village pump

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

  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help
  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 ↓
This project page in other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

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 a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read the 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


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals

Please help by translating these messages into other languages.
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
Village pump in India. [add]



The Charinsert extension is installed but I can't find its management in the Gadgets. In Wikipedia and Wikisource, I added a row of "User" characters and strings but here it doesn't seem to work. User:Ineuw/common.js -- 01:28, 21 June 2014 User:Ineuw

Copyright status of works by the North Carolina government[edit]

North Carolina General Statutes § 132‑1(b) holds that "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law. As used herein, "minimal cost" shall mean the actual cost of reproducing the public record or public information." Is this statement enough to consider works by the NC government automatically in the public domain? I'd like to get photos #9 through #11 from this page onto Commons, though I could settle for the Coast Guard ones, as well. (Uploading atm.) Cloudchased (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

NC government works are public domain, the statute just allows for admin fees if they are relevant. If media is already released online, then it can be taken as PD. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} is probably the best license to use. Take care if images are taken by independent citizens and uploaded to a NC Gov website, as these may not be PD. -- (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/March_2006#North_Carolina_public_records / en:Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_23#Template:PD-NCGov concluded the situation is not clear. Available to the public does not mean public domain. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
I briefly looked through the template deletion discussion from 8 years ago on the English Wikipedia, and I found it bizarre. The close appears to go against an overwhelming consensus to keep, and I note that the closer has not contributed to the projects for the last 5 years. That discussion should not be considered to represent an existing consensus for Wikimedia Commons. If you wish to find an example uploaded file that is public domain under the North Carolina general statutes, you may want to either take the time to write to the NC local government IP department, or create a DR on this project to test the matter. As far as I am concerned, if the local government has stated in a binding statute that the intellectual property in their works is to be owned by "the people", then it is intellectual sophistry to interpret that as anything other than public domain, as no individual or organization can ever have a claim of copyright in the work that they could defend in a court of law that could stop "the people" (i.e. us) from reusing the works as we see fit. -- (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The regulation is even older, so its hard to simply ignor previous discussions. But sure, it always worth reviewing someting like that. You say that "property of the people" means "public domain" and is not only related to public access. Can you provide a source for that? --Martin H. (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Ownership of property typically goes hand-in-hand with an ability to decide what can be done with that property. I don't think a source is needed, though it definitely couldn't hurt. Rather, I think a source would be needed for the opposite -- "you own this, but you CANNOT use it." That, it seems to me, would be a very strange thing for the authors of the NC law to have said, and I would definitely want to see a source for a conclusion like that.
It should be noted -- like PD-USgov, this is "public domain" for a limited group of people -- in this case, the people of NC. I don't have a clear idea how much that should affect our approach to NC gov-authored works. -Pete F (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
That does not mean that each individual has a choice over how it is used, as I said below, releasing the works -ND-NC would meet the policy, the state (for the benefit of its Treasury and thus the People of the state) could then licence the works for a fee. LGA talkedits 00:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The statute is about public access, it says nothing about copyright. The people - the sovereign - also decided that there is a copyright law, its not up to us to make a different decission. --Martin H. (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict × 2) @: I don't see the outcome of the enwp debate as bizarre, rather thoughtful "This issue cannot be solved by a vote. It requires us to do legal research, and possibly obtain legal advice" shows a high degree of common sense in fact. That aside, if the North Carolina government released it's works -ND-NC it would be complying with it's own policy so we need to have a more definitive source as to how they are licensing the works to host them on Commons. {{PD-US-GovEdict}} is not appropriate unless the works are of an administrative nature such as "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments or public ordinances", none of the images listed by the OP are such. LGA talkedits 23:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
This discussion about various U.S. states keeps coming up, and for some reason people keep wanting to reply by looking at laws, requiring public agencies to provide access and copies, and re-interpret them as laws about the right of random private people to copy things from other random private people when neither of the people were the creator. Just because a state law says that a public agency has to allow you to get a copy from them, it doesn't necessarily mean that you have a license or any other right to copy it to others. The laws are usually written to be a required behavior of public agencies; remember that public agencies are created and ruled by the state, and the state can tell them to do anything the legislature wishes. That is not the same as the state releasing the copyright or any other rights over the intellectual work contained in the copies. If a book author gave you a copy of a book as a gift, would you consider that to be permission to make more copies and distribute them? Copyright law does not make a distinction between a state or local government work and a private author's work. (In the U.S., any part of the work that is an edict of government cannot be restricted, however, regardless of its source.) For North Carolina specifically: I am not a lawyer, but I think the phrase "the property of the people" is more rhetoric than any legally defined meaning; many legislators are lawyers, and if they meant to say "public domain" they would say it. Absent specific law, court ruling, or order by the state to limit the power of the state to restrict further copying, I would say that North Carolina doesn't have a law releasing its (non-edict) works from copyright. --Closeapple (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Map of the State Offices, published by the North Carolina General Assembly and consequently "are the property of the people", i.e. you and me, who are free to try to sue themselves.
Perhaps I'm tired, but this discussion seems rather pointless, verging on discussing what the word "word" means. Creative works which "are the property of the people", and nobody can make a valid sole claim of ownership without overturning a statute, is pretty obviously intended to make the property public domain. To make this real, real easy, (A) the file uploaded and displayed to the right of this text has been made and published by the North Carolina state government, so that could be a suitable DR if anyone feels like setting a precedent and (B) if anyone wants to actually write and ask the North Carolina government, you can contact the Governor at or there is a phone number for the NC Secretary of State at -- (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
this upload is so clearly POINTY that I would think the first administrator that comes across it should speedy delete it as such. The North Carolina State Legislative Building is owned by the people, that does not mean anyone could demand to hold a meeting in either of the chambers, the same goes for these documents, they need a specific copyright release from the state not someone trying to bend a law to imply something that is not clearly intended. LGA talkedits 07:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Please follow either A or B above. It's easy, you can even see some past examples of my writing letters to governments at User:Fæ/email, I just don't see why it should always be me that does this when so many good contributors have time to put up hypothetical reasons against keeping PD works.
As for pointy, nonsense. I am well known for uploading over 300,000 public domain government works; this is just another on that pile and perfectly valid based on that experience. I just don't hang around talking about uploads, rather than getting on with it. -- (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not that familiar with US law (not living there), however the distinction between physical property and copyright is made in Title 17 U.S. Code § 202. Consequently property law pertaining to public buildings is quite a separate matter from IP law. -- (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My appreciation for your dedication. But one tip: It would be very helpful if you lable your personal opinion as such. "NC government works are public domain" is not a fact, it is nonproven or unprovable and it is very much possible that others conclude different on the basis of the same legal framework. Its your personal opinion. Just dropping it here like a fact can be seen as very disruptive by others - at least by me, dedicated to reliability rather than number of files. --Martin H. (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Your use of the words "very disruptive" has a conventional meaning within the Commons:Blocking policy. The words you have chosen to use appear to be a warning from an administrator which I do not find appropriate if we wish to encourage open discussion. I have no intention of qualifying every comment I make on the Village pump with a disclaimer saying that I am not a lawyer or that my views are my own rather than any organization I am associated with; it can be presumed that applies to every comment that everyone makes here, and were I to start doing it, it would probably be quickly complained about as pointy and sarcastic. My viewpoint is based on both my experience over several years with government copyright issues and as supported by the precise wording of the NC statute, as explained above, which I find convincing unless there is some evidence that the North Carolina government defines media files belonging to "the people" as something other than public domain when not (as the statute goes on to give an example case of) specifically qualified otherwise.
With regard to the idea that just because one Commons contributor creates ten times or a hundred times the number of uploads compared to another, that they must be more sloppy when it comes to copyright; if you wish to provide feedback on my uploads, I would appreciate some real numbers, perhaps you could spend a moment statistically comparing accuracy on copyright on uploads for this year before jumping to assumptions. Before I start a major upload project such as the HABS upload of 200,000 images above, I run tests, discuss options on a specific project page and canvass for opinion on improvements to accuracy and template use. During the upload I continue to respond to feedback and improve the process and make corrections to existing uploads. As a result the percentage accuracy in terms of copyright statements for my uploads is highly likely to be a magnitude more accurate than the vast majority of regular contributors to this project. Faster is not always better, however it is a lazy assumption that faster must always be worse. -- (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


If any other volunteer has a moment, particularly those that actually live in the USA, perhaps they could write or phone appropriate contacts as per if we don't get a speedy reply from the Governor. -- (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick thought on this debate. South Carolina also has a Freedom of Information Act which permits the public to have access to public documents (with a few exceptions involving on-going police investigations and stuff like that) at a very low cost. But, that has been interpreted by a court as not surrendering the copyright in the documents. It's the same idea as a library. Just because I have a right to access the materials for free doesn't mean I have a copyright in them. (Yes, I know there are differences, but it's an analogy.) Also important is who the "People" are in the law. In Virginia, it is only citizens of Virginia who can get cheap copies of government documents, not everyone. So, that would be a problem on Wikipedia.ProfReader (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
It is worth looking at the specific wording of this act. The whole leading sentence of sec. 132-1 is "The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people." The term "public information" would include the map above. Even if "property of the people" were interpreted by a court to mean "property of [citizens of North Carolina]", this would mean that if an uploader to Commons were a citizen of North Carolina, basic property law would mean they could provide a free release when uploading any media files published by NC government. A natural corollary would be that no court would bother hearing a case by an agent of the NC government to enforce copyright on such files.
Anyway, this is a bit overly hypothetical when we can get an answer direct from NC government by simply asking them. -- (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
They would not be able to do that on their own, they would need the consent of the rest of the population of the state. LGA talkedits 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
A literal legal reading would indicate that rather than consent from all citizens, all we would need would be a release from a single citizen. Just phone one up at random. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I contacted an acquaintance of mine at the State Library of North Carolina. She told me that it is the opinion of the State Library that North Carolina public records are public domain. However, she cautioned that the State Library is aware of no definitive ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction on this matter, nor is the library aware of a clear statement to that effect by a relevant official. Consequently, the official position of the State Library contains a few weasel-words and is as follows: "Public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people (G.S. § 132); consequently the State Library of North Carolina considers this item to be in the public domain according to U.S. copyright law (see Title 17, U.S.C.). Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item and securing any necessary permissions ultimately rests with persons desiring to use the item." The official State Library of North Carolina position is here, a link to which can be found on any NC state document in the North Carolina Digital Collections (e.g. following the Rights link at the North Carolina state government flag guide leads to that statement). While the statement from the State Library is not as official as we might like, the State Library is part of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, which is a state agency of North Carolina. We could probably build a template {{PD-NCGov}} with that statement as a reference, somewhat along the lines of {{PD-MAGov}} (assuming we agree that PD-MAGov is itself valid). —RP88 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Draft template started at {{PD-NCGov}} so it can be hacked about and discussed. It probably should stay draft until we have a statement from NC Gov itself. -- (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Please re-tweet![edit]

As there has been more than a week since my email to the Governor of North Carolina, I have tweeted here.

Please retweet! This can often get the attention of politicians more quickly than one email (especially from someone who is not a local voter). Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@: Your tweets are protected. It is impossible to retweet them. odder (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Now unprotected! -- (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 07[edit]



Commons:Tools needs a big update with replacement by WMF labs links. I am looking the replacement for [1]. The gadget needs updating too (as well as several others). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Some tools are listed but accounts are also listed. But I don't think a replacement tool exists (yet). Bidgee (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Updated the page (removed old broken ones, except daniel's) and added a few news tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Wanted: Clashing of the Swords[edit]

As I've commented at Jimbo's page, there are news reports that France (specifically w:Bernard Cazeneuve) is preparing to introduce draft legislation that "will not tolerate messages calling for or glorifying jihad to be shown on its soil with impunity." I think that this (like their previous actions on hate speech) will turn out to be a spectacularly counterproductive idea, and that a freedom of navigation exercise separating Commons from this idea would be useful.

Presently in the news is a very depressing but very instructive video, "Clashing of the Swords IV", being distributed by an al-Qaeda media center called "al-Furqan Media Productions" on CD. They seem very eager to have the world see it, though I don't think it will help their cause; for our part, well, I saw more IED attacks in that footage than I've seen in two decades of media, and that is alas by no means all that is in it. Presumably we want the whole series. The problem is, is there some way that we can see clear to claiming we have permissions on this content? (If so, we may need to find a version closer to the source - I don't know if those subtitles are al-Qaedas, and I haven't even figured out how to rescue the Liveleak content from its Flash prison. We want it in a format that is easily subdivided and stills taken at full resolution to assist commentary web-wide) Will we have any trouble seeing clear to getting this content for Commons? Wnt (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I should add that on searching, I found we have a current ongoing issue with a file from ([2]) which is under a flag for unknown copyright status at File:AbuBakrBagdadi.jpg. I remember there was some contention over "PD-press release", but seriously, is there any way we see clear to hosting content that is obviously being disseminated in an unrestricted way by the author's permission, when it doesn't use the formal magic words "public domain" because the people who made it tend to burn their passports and limit their legal issues to sharia? Wnt (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
They may want their video disseminated, but presumably there's no explicit licence that permits modifications and commercial use. Perhaps they aren't likely to sue regardless, but that's meaningless for Commons. --ghouston (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons cares about copyright even when a copyright owner does not. (Admittedly, sometimes that sucks.) --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The curators at have hosted these videos and have assumed a Creative Commons:Public Domain license. It has the appropriate license, so can they be used? - Technophant (talk)

image annotations broken[edit]

I noticed that adding annotations does not work correct. The Gadget-ImageAnnotator always adds |h=undefined| (h = height) so that there is no box but only a 0 or 1 px horizontal line for annotations, eg. see [3] how it happens. Can someone fix this please? Holger1959 (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Schau mal hier. -- Maxxl² - talk 14:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Auwei, that looks bad (lot of users know the problem for several days already). So if Krinkle is not active who else can help? Must be someone who understands this gadget. Maybe a developer?
I think we need help with finding all images with this sort of broken annotations. Holger1959 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Only those edited recently show the fault. As it is obvious to the editor immediately after implementation I guess there is no need for such an action. -- Maxxl² - talk 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Any Commons sysop could do it. As already mentioned in the relevant talk page, they could begin by correcting the line 645 in the page MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js. It is just one letter to remove to fix the typo in the line. I really don't know if that will fix the problem, but it can't hurt to fix that broken line anyway. Hopefully, it will be enough to repair the gadget. If not, they could just revert the whole thing to the state where it was before Krinkle broke it. Krinkle seems to believe that his code is cooler or whatever, but from the point of view of users it just not useful to have pretty code if the tool doesn't work. It's better to have the good old code and a tool that works. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Addendum: Jmabel just fixed it [4]. Thank you! -- Asclepias (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thank you all for the comments and Jmabel for fixing! Holger1959 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@Asclepias: Just to clarify a few things. I have no interest in "cool" code. Applications require maintenance to keep up with changes in the industry. In our case there are three factors relevant that drove me to update the gadget: 1) Browsers change, 2) jQuery changes, 3) MediaWiki changes. Keeping the old code as it is will not work forever! One of these days the entire gadget is going to be broken without having changed a single thing because it is relying on obsolete functionality that will change in web browsers, in jQuery, or MediaWiki. It'll do you no good to have a gadget that once worked on MediaWiki 1.16 in Firefox 4 when all your users have upgraded to Firefox 32 on a wiki now running MediaWiki 1.24. These kind of changes are generally a good thing, as they improve things (simpler, faster, better language support, compatible with newer browsers, etc.). And they're announced months ahead of time (on wikitech-l, mediawiki-l and wikitech-ambassadors mailing lists). Usage of deprecated features is also detected in the browser developers' console. Commons is one of few wikis with the luxury of various users experienced in javascript dedicated to keeping gadgets up to date. However there are still certain "large" gadgets that developers tend to avoid because they're so large and complex. ImageAnnotator is one of those. While updating it to accommodate for changes in the environment, I updated the coding style along the way because it makes a big difference in maintainability and readability to have consistently formatted code. It's like a dialect or accent in spoken language. One could learn any dialect, but it's much more productive to convert it to a dialect known by the developers active in the community today (incl. myself). The majority of our scripts and gadgets here on Commons are already written this way. The original maintainer(s) are no longer available to maintain it, so keeping it in that "dialect" only makes it harder others to work on it. So yes, I took it upon myself to try and update it before it's too late. In doing so I kept testing it to ensure it works properly and in the end made a stupid typo and typed 'sh' instead of 's' in an identifier string. I didn't revert it when I heard it was broken, I instead installed the old version as a separate gadget and disabled the new v3 gadget so that we can continue to work further on the new version. –Krinkletalk 17:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Crimea: NoFoP or not? that is a question[edit]

hello there! Russia has occupied Crimea (old news, i know) and Russia is going to have a limited FoP soon (October 1, 2014, everybody is looking forward to it, i am sure). what exactly means 'the legal status of Crimea is disputed' on Commons? practically. are we going to allow uploading pictures of buildings in Crimea as it will be ✓OK for buildings beginning 1 October 2014 in Russia+Crimea? or is this 'disputed' too much, thus Ukrainian law (actually) will prevail? --アンタナナ 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that Commons should keep to stricter law, in this case Ukrainian, to keep ourselves out of possible legal problems. But perhaps someone could pick WMF legal team? Those WMF teams never respond to my emails so better it'd be someone else to ask. --BaseSat (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
okay, let's do it this way: @GeoffBrigham (WMF):, @LuisV (WMF):, @Mpaulson (WMF):, @Slaporte (WMF):, @YWelinder (WMF):, @AVoinigescu (WMF):, @Dchen (WMF):, @MBrar (WMF):, @RPatel (WMF):, @JVargas (WMF):, @CRoslof (WMF):, @Philippe (WMF):, @Jalexander:, @Mdennis:, @PEarley (WMF):, @JEissfeldt (WMF): please would you be so kind to help us here? --アンタナナ 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For the WMF US law will apply, and since the US (as well as the UN) have not recognized Crimea, in any case where local copyright law was relevant, Ukrainian law would probably apply (though admittedly none of us can think of a case quite like this one!). Of course, for any uploader physically located in Ukraine, Crimea, or Russia, those local laws may apply much more directly, so individual uploaders in those areas should look to local law, and if they wanted to be conservative, comply with the most restrictive of the two potentially applicable laws. Hope that helps.—Luis Villa (WMF) (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not an issue for the legal team, AFAIK. The legal team is only concerned with US law, period. We honor local laws purely out of good will in order to keep the spirit of free works (and, admittedly, possibly to keep local Wikipedias from being blocked by home nations, a situation that doesn't apply here). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Luis Villa, thanks for your assessment.
@Magog the Ogre, our policy sounds a bit less chauvinistic. --Túrelio (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thanks, everybody --アンタナナ 13:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

Vandal ?[edit]

Please show at the contributions of this anonym IP here. Thank you very much. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with them. (Nearly) all of the talkpages were correctly tagged as being out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Talk pages out of scope? They are part of the category! I think a talk page cannot be out of scope... Perhaps the discussions in it, but sure not the page! Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's the content which is oos. Nevertheless, it's standard practise to delete such pages. --Túrelio (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the information. I did not know that it's a standard practise to delete such pages. Thank you again. --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Something wrong with an "OTRS" image[edit]

The image says it is from 2010, but this is impossible. The woman in the middle, Nastassja Kinski, would have been 39 years then, and in 2009 she looked like this: -- 09:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The movie is en:Maria's Lovers and has been shot in 1984. Pleclown (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The date given in the file description corresponds with the Date and time of digitizing in the EXIF data. Should probably be changed to 1984 if the permission is valid. I'll leave a message at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
@Pleclown: Sorry, didn't notice you have OTRS access. So the permission is valid? --El Grafo (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As I don't speak or read hebrew, I didn't even try to see the ticket. I was just pointing that the date of the photo is likely 1983 or 1984 and not 2010. Pleclown (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Alright, then let's see if someone else can help here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Why is this here instead in the photo’s talk page: Better, why not simply fixing an obviously wrong date introduced as an artifact of a well known mechanism (exif date from scans). And why would a wrong date question an OTRS validation? -- Tuválkin 13:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Who does look on a talk page? How should I know the real date? How should I know what exif is? How should I know that this might have been added automatically? And if someone says "This is my picture and it is from 2010" but it is form 1984, then why shouldn't this question the validity of the permission? -- 15:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You dont know what EXIF is yet you know what is OTRS? Very selective. -- Tuválkin 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
This is the way you treat people here? Before assuming people are liars, you should have a look at the picture page. There is a big box explaining OTRS, and somewhere at the bottom is a paragraph "Metadata", where the word EXIF is mentioned. Even if one scrolls to the bottom, how should one know that "exif" could have anything to do with the date added to the page? -- 19:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
You did fine by asking here. Just don't pay attention to the inappropriately confrontational behaviour of one individual. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Asclepias is right: This is the way I treat people here, while most others, especially admins, are ultra mellow with newbies: the dumber and destructive the newbies are the mellower the reception — they save their fangs to rip apart interested and hard working contributors. As for Mr./Mrs.’s concerns: Yes, an IP/annonymous request that comes to the Village Pump trying to asperse doubt in the work of the OTRS team on transparently bogus claims and then backpedals to say «Oh, I dont even know what a manner of frivolity an exif is, my good sir»… nah, I dont buy it. If you’re a genuine newbie, well, here’s a handy link, but I don’t think you are. You’re someone with a grudge on a fishing expedition. -- Tuválkin 01:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Filtering Latest files[edit]

Hello, is there any way to filter Special:NewFiles? Every once in a while, we have experienced users uploading huge amounts of images that don't really require checking. Hiding them would make patrolling new uploads much more convenient. I vaguely remember that there was something like "recent uploads by new users" but all I can find is Special:Contributions/newbies, which doesn't have thumbnails. --El Grafo (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't updated in real time, but I think you're looking for User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users. darkweasel94 10:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I always use -- Rillke(q?) 10:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
right now on special:listfiles, we have filter out bots button. Maybe we should also have filter out autopatrol (as a rough marker of who is "new"). Bawolff (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
That would be truly helpful for Commons. Though, on Special:ListFiles, I can't discover a bot-filter; only on Special:NewFiles. -- Rillke(q?) 08:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

flickr2commons down?[edit]

I just tried unsuccessfully to upload photos using flickr2commons, several times: I always get the red box («Transfer failed [1] :») for all photos: They are all confirmedly absent from Commons, the licensing is compatible, the suggested filenames include nothing weird, I confirmed my OAuth… What’s going on? -- Tuválkin 10:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me: File:33 Lazarettgasse (5155209623).jpg. darkweasel94 10:37, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Dankon. Afero mia, do. Nu, des pli bone. -- Tuválkin 10:56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

A proposal of limitation of applying Commons:Courtesy deletions policy[edit]

While the status of the policy is proposed and in development, I have seen an example of the application of the policy which can significantly affect ordinary Wikipedia articles. As per this discussion about the issue with a WMF staff, I fear that Commons:Courtesy deletions policy can be misused by thousands of public figures as a form of censorship at this way, since "just they don't like hosting their image here". So I propose that the application of the policy shall be with limitations, at least including this case "taking and publishing a picture if the person depicted is a public figure and the picture is taken in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody". Most of laws of democratic countries allow taking and publishing a picture of a public figure in a public event or in a public space, open to everybody to support freedom of speech and press/right to know, even Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Libya do. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Unless I misread, "courtesy deletions" have to be requested by the uploader, so I don't see how your concern would apply. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see the need and it is not a policy (Mabye a {{guideline}}?) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • It is actually quite hard for a notable person to get their photographs removed as a courtesy from Commons. My understanding and experience from real past cases is that Administrators and OTRS volunteers are pretty resistant to deletions based on claims of personality rights, when photographs are taken in public places, such as conferences. Please keep in mind that there may be reasons discussed in confidence for a small number of deletions, such as contractual disputes with a photographer, or the possible falsification of a release, these hardly ever remove images from Commons that cannot be replaced by existing alternatives.
It should be true that Commons is not heartless, if a photograph was snapped by a fan at a conference of a celebrity at a bad moment, it is not unreasonable to consider deletion on request, so long as there are better alternatives. Sometimes discussions like this on OTRS result in their PR agent releasing better alternatives on a free license, an outcome I am always pleased by and only happens by being nice rather than a ruthless wikilawyer. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg -- (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
What do you think, should {{guideline}} be added to the page? --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Fæ, unfortunately Commons have no alternative of the deleted images of the person I mentioned as an example of Commons:Courtesy deletions. "Sometimes discussions like this on OTRS result in their PR agent releasing better alternatives on a free license" does not apply in this case. --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: yes, though for a guideline it raises more questions than it answers. -- (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@: Do you really want to strengthen Commons:Courtesy deletions rather than limit? If a person never permits hosting his/her images here, we will never be able to host the images and Wikipedia will never be able to use the images in the article about his/her? --Puramyun31 (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in the guideline that would specifically endorse the DR you have referred to, though I have been involved in confidential cases of public photographs in countries with FoP that were deleted based on expectations of privacy, even in a public place; in my view there are circumstances where this is the best outcome. I suggest you go ahead and raise it at Undeletion requests. By the way, opinions from WMF employees are nice to have, but this is neither consensus, legal advice, nor the way Commons establishes its policies. -- (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
says that «it is actually quite hard for a notable person to get their photographs removed as a courtesy from Commons» — well, not: All it takes is a DR that gets closed by Fastily, as this one, among many: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Melanie Tipton.JPG. -- Tuválkin 20:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As an editor, photographer, and admin, I've generally been sympathetic to anyone's request to remove a picture when we have (or they will offer) other pictures of them that are clearly as good or better, but if the person is at all notable and we don't have other pictures and they won't offer one, then I'm completely unsympathetic. - Jmabel ! talk 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
As the admin on the grill for this deletion, I think it would have been a good thing to at least notify me...
This was a courtesy deletion, and courtesy is not a vain word in french.
Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated the images for undeletion. --Puramyun31 (talk) 12:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Fortunately, the undeletion request is concluded as undeleted. Thanks for Commons community, and User:Mdennis (WMF). best regards. --Puramyun31 (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Separation of advanced user privileges[edit]

Hi community—I just started a request for comments on the idea of separation of advanced user permissions. The proposal aims to prohibit users from holding more than one of the following functions on Wikimedia Commons: bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter, and is currently awaiting your comments. Thanks a lot for your time :-) odder (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 17[edit]

Commons communication concrete (English)[edit]

Because here are many not native English speakers (or readers and English is the main language), so it would be very very helpful, more or less, for everybody, if someone who replies, is invited at the same time to correct the text on coarse misspellings (for example, it is desired in the German WP). But it seems forbidden in the English WP!?! I've never seen this by other users here (and here are really many and big misspellings), this an clear evidence of (social) incapacity of Commons. So I propose this clearly, somewhere to mention this in a recommendation page. Greetings User: Perhelion05:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it, and personally I'm glad when someone corrects me. But on the other hand, I don't feel comfortable directly editing other people's messages and pointing out errors "publicly" in an own message feels too much like smart-assery (ist that a real word?). --El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Whether "smart-assery" is a word in English, "ist" definitely isn't. :) SCNR darkweasel94 11:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
darkweasel, you made my day! I was laughing so hard, I had to step outside for a minute to come down again :D --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Ok, an user-page is somewhat a bit others (good to see a 5 years old edit :P). In your second link, I don't see any correction!? PS: Sorry, thats not my humor. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)20:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
@Perhelion: yeah, sorry, that's probably not exactly what you had in mind: I had written "neither" in my comment (which was wrong) and two edits later Jee responded with a friendly "either. :)" – pointing out my error rather than directly editing my comment and correcting it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Friendly edits and correction are fine. But it is always wise not to edit comments by people to whom we have problems. :) Jee 08:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

Custom Search[edit]

How can I search for images by upload date?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 11:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. county seals[edit]

Hi there. I noticed a user adding a lot of seals for U.S. counties, such as this one. I found a copy of the seal online on the Mercer County website [5]. I didn't want to tag a bunch of images for deletion because I'm not sure of the copyright status of county seals. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

One more question... I'm trying to undo this edit, but I'm getting a message telling me it's already been undone. However, there's no history of an "undoing", and the picture hasn't changed. Thanks again! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

The current version and the previous version of the description page being identical, the system interprets your undo command as if the non-existent change you are telling it to undo has already been undone. Perhaps you are trying to revert to the previous version of the file. You can do that by clicking "revert" to the left of the corresponding thumbnail in the file history. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor made corrections to the photo, and that photo is not to be edited. I'm tying to "undue" the edit but it's not letting me. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Did you find the "revert" link? -- Asclepias (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes! It was way over on the left side. This was an old NARA pic that had been photoshopped. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Complete Darwin posted online[edit]

See here This is a real coup for Commons and Wikisource if someone has the wherewithal to upload it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I will look at the books in French language for a start. Thanks a lot for this notice. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
After a short research, it appears that most French books are already available elsewhere, notably on Internet Archive in a better quality. E.g. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres and the Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles. The manuscripts are probably not available elsewhere however. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic user (wrong categories)[edit]

Please excuse me if there is a more appropriate forum to this subject. Parabolooidal (talk · contribs) seems to be well intentioned, but it keeps doing a big mess with categorization, removing right categories, putting redundant ones, creating duplicate categories and others with poor or wrong categorizations, etc. I contacted him the 8th of July and someone had already had done it the 30th June but it didn't solve the problem, which is aggravated by the fact that he changes a lot of photos

How do we deal with such cases? Anyone who ever tried to organize a couple of categories knows how tedious and complicated that is and often reverting wrong categorizations more complicated than just looking for the right categories. --Stegop (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Clifton Royal Adams[edit]

According to [6], Clifton Royal Adams died in 1934, so the lovely colour pics on that page should presumably be PD. Any reason they're not? Anyone have a tool to scoop them up? Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malaysian[edit]

Does this belong at Category:Featured pictures on Wikipedia, Malay? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd say so, since the Malay Wikipedia is Malaysian (the Indonesian Wikipedia is also a variant of Malay). --ghouston (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


«1st uploaded as the 22,000,000th file in Wikimedia Commons»

Meh… I was uploading a batch of 87 mostely lovely photos of Lisbon taken in 2012 by flickr user Sharon Hahn Darlin when it crossed the line from 21 to 22 million… So I have this counter added to every my upload’s description (under {{Information}}):

| other_fields={{Information_field |name=1st uploaded as the|value={{subst:formatnum:{{subst:#expr:{{subst:formatnum:{{subst:NUMBEROFFILES}}|R}}+1}}}}<sup>th</sup> file in Wikimedia Commons}}

It turns out that number 22M got given to a derelict façade crocodile graffiti, which is located in a central spot in Lisbon and gets lots of tourist camera attention — not my favorite subject, not a really good photo, either (though interesting as it is framed on the balconies, not on the superimposed image). If I had cheated the system, I’d have chosen a better pic… -- Tuválkin 22:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Congrats :)
(Not sure how reliable your system is though − after a quick look I noticed that File:Lisbon, Portugal (Sharon Hahn Darlin) casa amarela.jpg & File:A whopper of a graffiti art (Sharon Hahn Darlin).jpg whare the same number).
Jean-Fred (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
There were no deletions at that time, so it seems the counter takes some seconds to update. Still better than the manual method, though. --McZusatz (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

Monthly contests : Where?[edit]

Sometimes I get a ban or an advise about a monthly theme contest going on: Colours, pairs of objects, insects... But now if I try to search for them I cannot find any link to get into. I searched on the main page, on the village pump, I digited Commons:Contests but noting happens... Would it be possible to link them in an easy place, such as the main page? Or to make a resuming page with all the links (like Commons:Contests). That would be a way to make them more popular too. Thanks --Sailko (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The thing you mean is called Photo challenge. darkweasel94 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I think a link can be added to "Participating" in "Main Page". Jee 17:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Video editing software[edit]

I am planning to upload some videos to Commons, including video of a presentation about Wikipedia. I am trying to find free video editing software that supports OGV and WEBM. Does anyone have suggestions? I am using Blender but it has minor problems with synchronizing the audio and video. --Pine 18:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've never used it, but have you tried w:LiVES. Bawolff (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)