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 | авар | 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 | українська | +/−

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

See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]

Contents




Oldies[edit]

W.W.11[edit]

If there is anyone who would like to know what it was like growing up during the blitz in London drop me a line I was originally a Gael then moved to London so that my Pappa could work at Bletchley Park then on from there I warn you I can chat the hind leg off a donkey! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberta Adair-Denham (talk • contribs)

Massive copyright violation by Flick User Ashur Rikah[edit]

Hi! I just realized that the above Flickr user made multiple copyright violations. A lot of material from Wikimedia Commons especially from the Featured Pictures isused. The user pretends to be the creator of the photographs. The following photos of mine are affected:

I would strongly encourage other users on Commons to take a look on his foto stream if own photos are affected. For me it is the worst possible behaviour to pretend the work of others as own work. I've already made an abuse notice on [1]. If you like, you can do the same, probably the account of the user will be deleted. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Tuxyso Have you contacted Flickr, as this might be the best way to handle the situation, as it's obvious flickrwashing. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I did, Kevin as written in the lines above. I made an abuse notice but up to now nothing has happened. Any suggestions? --Tuxyso (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, I didn't see that link. I guess if worse comes to worse, you could always ask the opinion of the legal team to see if they want to get involved, and then go from there. I did once come across someone who was claiming our images as his own and issued rather weak takedown notices. I tried complaining to his ISP, but they got back to me after a week because I was not the author of the images in question, even though he had many of our images on his site advertising his photography wares. Unfortunately, this sort of thing keeps on happening, so I would definitely suggest going to Legal if nothing comes out of this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Also, I suspect that all of their images are taken from other sites, so that might not be a bad idea to add if anyone files a complaint. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
        • If contacting the violator fails, issue a "DMCA Take Down" notice (for your own images only) to Yahoo. You can do this since they are violating the license's conditions, therefore the license is terminated (in the full code it is located at section 7) and you've had no response from the violator. Your moral rights are also being violated, which is recognised in some countries (such as Australia, UK, Canada [US is rather interesting, since it is limited and only applies to "visual arts" though the Visual Artists Rights Act]), since they are fraudulently taking credit for your work. Bidgee (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Flickr user has been added to our Blacklist so images don't get uploaded with false authorship claims. --Denniss (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

promoting Commons:Upload tools at Special:UploadWizard[edit]

What do you think about adding a link to Commons:Upload tools next to the back to the old form link at Special:UploadWizard? I noticed (e.g. at Commons:Upload Wizard feedback) that even some more experienced users don't know that we have several alternative options for uploading that may suit their needs better than UW or the old forms. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but I do not trust that those wizards and tools actually/still work. Special:Upload never failed to do what I want. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least Vicuña works very well for me. Much more convenient than Special:Upload (especially when you want to upload several files at once) and much more stable than UploadWizard. I haven't used Commonist for some years, but it appears to still have a rather large userbase. The KIPI-Plugin for Digikam works quite well for the usual tasks, but it's not yet up to Vicuña when it comes to more advanced features. Can't say anything about LrMediaWiki since I don't have Lightroom. --El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding a link would not do any harm, it could only help those who are not satisfied with the Upload Wizard. Yann (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, so since nobody seems to have strong feelings against this: Who can edit Special: pages? Do I have to make a request at COM:AN? Or file a bug report/feature request? --El Grafo (talk) 07:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Found with Special:AllMessages and luck under u, do you mean MediaWiki:Uploadtext? The talk page is MediaWiki talk:Uploadtext for a local change here (edit request + admin). –Be..anyone (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 14[edit]

Incorrect translation[edit]

A quick search reveals that this description in Dutch: "Bioscoopjournaals waarin Nederlandse onderwerpen van een bepaalde week worden gepresenteerd", is present in no less than 2622 images in the Wikimedia Commons. In at least 1475 instances this is incorrectly translated as "Newsreels in which Dutch subjects of a certain week are presented". This should of course be: "Newsreels in which Dutch topics of a certain week are presented". I don't have the means to change this 1475 times. Could anyone be of assistance please? You may either show me how to do a search and replace, or do it for me. Thanks in advance. Mark in wiki (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You can install VisualFileChange, which adds a link to your "Tools" menu on the left side of the screen called "Perform batch task". Then navigate to the category containing the files you wish to alter, click "Perform batch task", and choose the "Custom replace" option. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is it really incorrect? "subjects" and "topics" have overlapping meanings in English, and the sentences mean about the same to me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You may be right, Prosfilaes. I took "subjects are presented" to mean something like "persons are presented to be investigated", but after verifying this in the Oxford dictionary (I'm not a native speaker of English) I found it to mean "a person or thing". So I'm guessing nothing needs to be changed after all. Thanks! Also thanks to SMUconlaw for pointing me in the direction of VisualFileChange, which I'm sure I will put to (some other) good use soon! Mark in wiki (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You're most welcome. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As a native speaker, "Dutch subjects" would normally only mean "People who are Dutch citizens" - not even people who are in the Netherlands, but the word subject also means "topics". "Dutch topics" would normally mean "topics that are related to the Dutch", and not include any topics that were related to a specific Dutch citizen. That being said, it does not need to be corrected, as it is really close enough, particularly if some of them are about citizens and some about topics, as that would be a nightmare to sort out. Delphi234 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Best promo videos[edit]

I'm in need of a couple of short videos, promoting Wikipedia and its sister projects, to show at an event. It's surprisingly hard to find them!

We have lots of videos in, but many, while no doubt useful for their educational content, are not the kind of things to show to a lay audience - either the quality is not high enough, or the content is too specific.

I'm looking for things with impact, like File:Open Letter for Free Access to Wikipedia - three months later, MTN responds.webm

Suggestions, please! Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Category: Instructional videos on using Wikipedia. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I already located the haystack, and am asking for suggestions as to where I might find the needles. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
The only needle I'm aware of is File:Wikipedia video tutorial-2-Reliability-en.ogv linked on Help:RSS, belonging to a guided tour produced for WikiMedia Deutschland. Professional, but four years old. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Wikipedia video tutorials making-of (low).ogv about this production could be also interesting (found in another category.) –Be..anyone (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Facebook using the smallest thumbnail from Commons for preview[edit]

ExampleBlownThumbnail@fb(fromWMCommons).png

At the right a screenshot showing an example of what has been happening in Facebook these last weeks when an url from Commons is pasted on a post or comment ("http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tight_corners_%2814656940745%29.jpg", for the “status” update post in the example screenshot, above). The optional embbeded remote site “preview banner” is created, as before, but seems that now the smallest thumbnail linked from the filepage is selected, and that is in turn enlarged to illustrate the said preview — resulting in a badly degraded image that doesn’t do justice to the photographic quality of so many items here in Wikiemdia Commons.

In contrast, when a direct image link is pasted instead ("http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Tight_corners_%2814656940745%29.jpg", for the comment in the example screenshot, below), a much better quality (and even bigger size) preview image is possible. That is deterimental to the project, as a filepage gives visitors and possible reusers a lot more of information about the file in question, including its direct url, while the opposite (going from direct url to filepage) is not evident for those not familiarized with Commons.

I hope this can be fixed WM-side: Showing our best side in Facebook is paramount, and shabby grainy blurry thumbnails is not the face we want to show in this very important social network. (I hope it takes less than 4600 € to fix, too!) -- Tuválkin 03:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there an attribution or backlink for this CC-BY-SA image on FB? I can't check it, everything FB resolves to 127.0.0.1 on my box. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
A backlink is created, yes — indeed this happens when an url to Commons is inserted in a fb status update or comment. -- Tuválkin 12:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
When I paste a link to this file on Facebook, there are two arrows in the top left corner of the preview allowing me to switch between a larger size thumbnail and the one you do not like before posting. The bigger size thumbnail was default for me. -- Rillke(q?) 08:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Those two arrows only show up when an remote url is posted in the fb “status” editbox, not in an fb comment editbox, and even so not always (I think it depends on connection timeouts and memory availability in the client); even when it appears, it shows the half-a-dozen thumbnails of the file in question («this preview», several «Other resolutions», and «Original file») in a small thumbnail swatch itself, so they all look the same and only the most aware will be able to pre-select a good quality version; the smallest thumbnail has been the one chosen by default for me these last couple weeks (that’s why I brought up the matter here).
It seems that this issue is more complicated, as different people report different “user experiences”. Some consultation with fb-people might be necessary to make this work in the best possible way (simplest for the user and yielding best quality) — that would justify some expense (although still way under 4600 €…)
-- Tuválkin 12:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

internetarchivebookimages[edit]

Hello, do you know this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/internetarchivebookimages. They are all free (At this time 2,619,833 items).--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): Project page at Commons:Internet_Archive/Book_Images_collection. Nobody has done very much with it or them yet, but you're welcome to take it on. Jheald (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of these may not be public domain. I clicked on one image categorized as 1839 which turned out to be the year the magazine was founded, not 1933 which was the year the image was published and past the 1923 cutoff. Rmhermen (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Image of a network address written on a machine[edit]

I'm trying to illustrate the early days of networking, from the 80's. One of the common things I recall from this era was that many devices, including printers and hosts, often had a piece of tape stuck to the front with it's network address written on it. Does anyone know of such an image? Thanks! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Servers and printers are still labelled with their host and or IP address. Or how would you find the proper machine a a datacenter that has thousands and thousands of servers? That is also very useful to assist a person remotely by asking the person whatever is written on the label.
An example File:WikimediaServersOct07_3.JPG Hashar (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

NASA sounds[edit]

Hello.

NASA has published some sounds here : https://soundcloud.com/nasa

--ComputerHotline (talk) 16:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it may be easier to download them directly from NASA … --El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

WLM and countries with no FoP[edit]

After nominating for deletion numerous 2014 WLM uploads of modern Ukrainian monuments (and many from earlier WLMs), I've considered the need for a warning of some kind during WLM, on Commons and on wikis of countries with FoP restrictions and/or no FoP, telling uploaders to upload modern images locally if possible, and only images of older PD monuments to Commons. Otherwise we end up alienating uploaders when their uploads are tagged and deleted for "no FoP", and flooding Commons with FoP copyvios. Thoughts and ideas? INeverCry 22:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I never did that before and don't intend to do it again, but today I visited 13 days of recent deletion requests. There were dozens (or hundreds) of "no FoP in Ukraine", and all with individual years to make your point. Kudos, Be..anyone (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support such a notice because it would reduce the extra work such uploads have created. After deleting several such images, I have temporarily undeleted them so a bot can copy them to Ukrainian Wikipedia as fair use images. From the requesters contributions it appears there are more than a few images needing temporary undeletion. Some of these might have been avoided if uploaders had had a notice about freedom of panorama. Green Giant (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is just difficult technically. Whatever notice you add, the uploaders (who are mostly newbies) do not read it, and if they do, they do not understand it as they have no idea what FoP means. The upload wizard can be slightly improved but I am afraid this is not going to solve the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I recommended to do the same to Ukrainian and Belarusian administrators couple of years ago. At least such warning may reduce level of frustrations by new users. Will be good idea to involve Wikidata to fetch of creation/installation/authors information for particular object so warnings may be much more specific. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
What about making the respective templates smart enough to know internally the FoP status of each country? Then, the user could just add the name of the country and the template would figure out if that particular country has acceptable FoP or not.--Snaevar (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Monuments is Dunglish (Dutch trying to speak English), it's actually about old buildings. For example in the Netherlands a building or structure generally needs to be at least 50 years old to be even conspired to become a Rijksmonument. So the number of entries which are not old enough and not covered by FoP will probably be low compared to the totals.
When I used to organize WLM, I tried to stick to it's philosophy. In this case you probably want to have some way to prevent a user from uploading these images to prevent the disappointment. If I recall correctly other countries fixed this problem my included this information in their lists. If the building is old enough the list entry includes a link to Commons to upload, if it's not old enough (and not covered by FoP) it doesn't include the link, but a note about the fact that it's not possible to upload an image of this entry. Multichill (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

Licensed images[edit]

What's the deal with licensed images? By these I mean the (typically high resolution) images museums make available for purchase at varying prices depending on the degree you wish to publish them. Purchasing one for publication on Commons would certainly cost you an arm and a leg, yet I've noticed quite a few leaking onto Commons which I'm prepared to wager haven't been paid for fairly.

I understand it's not a copyright issue, but the uploader is clearly at risk of a lawsuit is he not? Would Wikipedia support an uploader in that case? I can't imagine it would.

I ask because one of the English Wikipedia's most prolific editors, an administrator in charge of a high profile project involving images on the English Wikipedia, has recently done just that to a beautiful high resolution image from the Mauritshuis museum in The Hague. He was plainly aware of what he was doing because the mid-resolution image had already been uploaded and the editor copied over the notes from that upload (incidentally giving the false impression that the source was the museum page - but it wasn't - they aren't available as Zoomify images or similar - you have to fill out a form and pay good money for them). When I taxed him on the question (earning myself an indefinite block for my troubles by the way ), he said he was under no contractual obligation since he hadn't himself purchased it. Perhaps he's implying it was available in his department for research purposes (he's an academic) and he just thought to upload it to Commons as a service to our community. Can that really be justified?

I don't think this is merely a Coatzee type issue involving in essence what is acceptable special processing when it comes to downloading. It's of a different nature and I should like to draw the community's attention to the issue. It's such a shame because the Maurtitshuis made a big effort at its revamped website to make their beautiful images available. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you please specify the image/filename to which are refering. --Túrelio (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The high resolution licensed version is File:Meisje met de parel.jpg. The medium resolution publicly available download version uploaded earlier is File:Johannes Vermeer -Girl with a Pearl Earring - Mauritshuis 670.jpg. The discussion I refer to (me now heavily struck through) is here. Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, the current source-entry for the high-res version is bogus as the file isn't available at that location, right? By the way, the link to :en page seems to be wrong or the target page has ben deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's correct, with this proviso that when we say "isn't available" we mean is not downloadable: you have to make a purchase - the link is this, or if you go to the museum page linked in the file description and choose the fifth icon down for uploading you are given two choices "downloaden privégebruik" (it always amuses me how the Dutch welcome loan words - you wouldn't see that in France) i.e. download for private use, which gives you the medium resolution file, or " Aanvraag beeld (commercieel)" i.e. "request an image for commercial use", which brings you to the page I linked before. I should make the caveat that I'm assuming the high resolution the Wikipedia administrator uploaded is the commercial image. He hasn't denied it, only that it wasn't a purchase (i.e. by, so I assume, him). I shall check that with the museum directly Monday. As for the discussion that's still there permalinked here.
Incidentally this is not the only high resolution licensed image that has been uploaded to Commons from the Mauritshuis. I can't get the details right now but I gather there are several that have been located, and in some cases the files' color balance were adjusted to add insult to injury (it's common for uploaders to warm images to their personal satisfaction).
What I'm seeking here is guidance on the principle of uploading such images. It's common ground that the image isn't copyright, but can Wikipedia allow it knowing that a contractual obligation has unquestionably been broken, whether by the uploader or the original purchaser for being negligent in his duty of care? As Yann points out below, no museum that runs this kind of service (the British Museum being a notable example in the UK) would license this image for reproduction on Commons. Marinka van Dam (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation has no responsibility to police contracts that it's not a party to, especially contracts that it doesn't know the text of or even necessarily that they exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's exactly the issue I want to see debated. Marinka van Dam (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
O.k., that means the current source-entry for the high-res version is invalid. I've requested information from the uploader.
Needless to say that, if the image is indeed available only under a paid-for-license, such a behaviour isn't in the best interest of Commons, as it may diminish the willingness of Mauritshuis and other museums to future cooperation with Wikipedia/Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The zoom function given as source goes from 2562x3000 (852KB) up to 5124x6000 (6.31MB). –Be..anyone (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
First museum images are not a issue, as most works of art in the domain public could be photographed by a way or another by a contributor. It would probably be more useful for famous personalities. Then if the work of art is not in the public domain, there is no point to get an image.
But even if you pay, an agency will never let you relicense an image under a free license. It would ruin their business. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, exactly. I mean consider the deal Commons has with the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam (or Fae's marathon LACMA effort to give another example, such a useful repository that). Are such deals more likely when editors behave like this? By the way I'm good for loads of input on Indonesia textiles at the English Wikipdia if some administrator is brave enough to unblock me Face-smile.svg Promise tio begave most of the time. El Classico beckons, back later Marinka van Dam (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Note w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Coat_of_Many_Colours, which makes the case that Marinka is a Coat of Many Colours sock, which would make her a sock here, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh for goodness sake P, stop being so city-hall. I am absolutely not a sock of Coat. See my talk-page. Their are people banned for perpetuity from English Wikipedia who make splendid contributions here. The ever faithful and very worthy Fae being an example that comes immediately to mind. Marinka van Dam (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Marinka van Dam is a researcher at the Victoria and Albert Museum. This "Marinka van Dam" is a sockpuppet of Coat. Bad taste choice of user name. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the Marinka acct, and left a message telling User:Coat of Many Colours to use that acct, since it isn't blocked here, etc. INeverCry 10:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Time zones of Europe[edit]

Brateevsky has re-uploaded File:Time zones of Europe.svg with a new version, anticipating Russia's switch 1 hour backward tonight. However, the templates using it, like {{Time zones of Europe}}, became out of sync with the image. I have updated the en, de, fr, it, es and pt versions, but I don't feel so sure with other languages. If anyone wants to proceed, that'll be really good. Of course, the cognates of {{Time zones of Russia}} should also be updated, but as yet it's not 100% clear how to label the time zones. And the articles should also be updated. But that would be a long story... YLSS (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

YLSS, ok, but what's the reason to mention me? I thought something is wrong, f.e. colors. :) Of course, thanks many Wikipedias to User:YLSS, but I think it should be a care of English, German, French and others versions of Wikipedia to update information by users who edit these Wikipedias on a regular basis. When I updating the image, I think about the subsequent updating templates only in Russian-language Wikipedia. Of course, if there are some questions or problems about changing time in Russia, you can write on my talk page on Commons. I don't understand the aim of writing the previous message, maybe to accent the users' attention to much work need to do in different versions of Wikipedia due to changing time in big country, which is in Europe and Asia... --Brateevsky {talk} 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Just informing the users of other Wikipedias about the situation, and preventing any questions. Changing a file at Commons is not as noticeable as it should be, so there's always this problem of de-synchronisation. WRT pinging you: well, that was just a hint for you that you made a potentially problematic edit... No, of course, great thanks for re-uploading that file! (Finally, it looks OK after three years of craziness!) But IMHO if you edit a file at Commons, you should think not only about ru.wp, but about others as well... YLSS (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I find some charts that have Wikipedia legends that say that they cover "1980-2007" even though long ago the chart had been updated to -2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and now 2014. A handy trick to avoid that is to use {{CURRENTYEAR}} so that the only out of sync that occurs is for the period of the new year before the chart is updated. This is particularly handy for charts that are used on a large number of wikis and are updated frequently. Delphi234 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is PubMed Central locking up CC-licensed images, or am I just confused?[edit]

I just had a hell of a time trying to smuggle an image out of a near identical twin of the MediaViewer at w:NCBI at this location (article here, my upload at File:Phylogenetic analyses of HRV and HEV.jpg). Like ours did, it was at least beyond my ability to find a download link for the full resolution version. I am inclined to read bad motives into this, especially since the page only works with Javascript enabled, which when viewing plain content is the sure sign of a villain anywhere on the Web. Anyway, my upload is proof of principle that it is manually possible to piece together the image from pieces like [2] (as per w:Zoomify, in my vague recollection). Can I get someone else to look - is there a simple way to get the hi-res that I missed? Or do we need to design a tool here that automatically downloads and assembles the jpg out of these bits and pieces? (I suppose they can go to Flash encryption, except theoretically that's against the CC license, isn't it?) The scientists are paying good money to open-license their work, and no one should be allowed to seize it from us with tricks and schemes. Wnt (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt: Hi, Could you please use the {{information}} template? Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: I'm not sure, but I think the reason why that template didn't get used was that when I went to upload, there was no option given for CC-by-SA-2.0. ..... unless the file is from Flickr! So I left it at none and spliced in a template afterward. Why Commons has a built in option for licensing from one company but not from the rest of the world is another interesting question! Wnt (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Weird. That never happened to me, even when I set the license manually. You can add it now anyway. ;o) Yann (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Wnt: Uhm, maybe I've missed something, but why don't you just go to the original journal's website and download the files from there? It's just one click away if you take the doi link above the paper's title. → full resolution of the first figure --El Grafo (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
PS: Your image is here, use the link at the bottom of the page to download the original TIF file as it was provided by the authors of the paper. --El Grafo (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
That's all well and good, provided that the journal makes it available. The point, though, is that PubMed Central is/was supposed to be a single common archive for papers from all over. If the journal goes out of business, or if it decides to impose the same lockdown on its own image server, it is no longer an option. Thank you for your effort, but I hope you understand why I'm not happy to have a public resource being made intentionally very difficult to use. (I should confirm that the download from your link appears to be the same as what I got by splicing together the images from PMC) Wnt (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Umm, El Grafo's link is 1885x1959 px. Yours is 1,200 × 1,528 (Note that on the website there is both an "original file" and a "high resolution" link. The original file is higher resolution, and also losslessly encoded). Bawolff (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bawolff: You looked at a different figure. The comparison is this one, also a jpg and 1200 x 1528. Of course, I have not confirmed that every image on PMC retains the full resolution when delivered in pieces, but this one does. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
http://www.virologyj.com/content/download/figures/1743-422X-10-305-6.tiff is a tiff that's 1885x1959. Bawolff (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Global deleted image review[edit]

More than 6 years ago a consensus was reached that commons administrators needed an ability to view deleted images on other projects. Due to the recent software changes it is now possible to give users an ability to view deleted revisions of files separately from other namespaces (See m:Wikimedia_Forum#Implement_Global_deleted_image_review). There is currently a discussion of implementation of this new userrirght. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

The University of Jordan Community service[edit]

Arabic Wikipedia community is at its final stages of negotiations with the University of Jordan. We are now talking about adding a photography tasks that would be considered as community service by the university. Each student should fulfill certain hours per semester doing some kind of work that would reflect back on his/her community. Arabic Wikipedia community suggested that each student should get and upload 50 photos covering different aspects within Jordan.

The photos are to be owned by The University of Jordan, and the idea is to release all this work under a free license. The University of Jordan are taking about the use of their own JU_USE license that only permits non-profit usages, but hopefully we will overcome that in a few days. In the meanwhile I will work on a few templates that will encourage them, it seems colorful templates with BIG-CABS names is charming. I will also create a campaign page to make it easier for the students to upload the photos here.

What I need help in is: A way to figure-out and count images uploaded by each student for each semester, so we can email the results back to the university at the end of each semester as a prof that the students did that part of the C.S.

Keep in mind we are talking about 43000 student. --Tarawneh (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

  • If they each have an account from which to upload, and we come up with a central page on which to list the relevant accounts, it would be easy for a bot to report on the number of uploads from each account.
  • Alternatively, or in addition, it would be nice to have a category (probably driven by a template) that was placed on all of the images for this (that would also allow people to upload images on the same accounts that they don't want counted toward this, especially if they retain their accounts after graduating). Again, it would be easy for a bot to limit its count to images in that category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Busan Gimhae Light Rail Transit[edit]

Ship on pontoon in Busan.jpg

I have made a trip to South Korea and uploaded a lot of pictures to Category:Busan Gimhae Light Rail Transit. These need complementary categorisation with local knowledge. I will be regularly uploading South Korean pictures.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

For local knowledge, you'd better post this at 사랑방, VP for Korean-speaking users. I'll try to have a look this week. — revimsg 08:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this the local Commons village pump? As by many local Commons forums there is little activity. Better to ask in the main Korean language discussion forum.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

How to categorise this picture? no local knowledge is needed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Identifying ships[edit]

Theatre ship in Busan.jpg
Haven Busan zeilschip 01.JPG

The three-masted ship (also File:Haven Busan zeilschip 04.JPG) is used for day trips with motor. The rigging is out of use (with fake elements such as sailor puppets in the rigging) and decks where added to load up a lot passengers. It has now an Korean name, but suspect it was a fully functioning sail ship before the conversion to an moving attraction parc. Has anyone any information about its history?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Pictures in high resolution[edit]

Hi, I have a issue about the resolution of a chemical scheme I made. It concerns the file Natuurproducten_biosynthese_bouwstenen.tif, which should be used on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. The original scheme was drawn by me in ChemDrawBio, version 12. Because of its magnitude, it was not possible to save it as a png-file, nor as an svg-file. The current tif-file is the best I can currently get, but I am not pleased with the quality of it, especially concerning its low resolution. Is there someone who can help me or at least has experience in uploading large chemical schemes made in ChemDraw? Thanks in advance. - Capaccio (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Meta RfCs on two new global groups[edit]

Hello all,

There are currently requests for comment open on meta to create two new global groups. The first is a group for members of the OTRS permissions queue, which would not contain any additional user rights. That proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Creation of a global OTRS-permissions user group. The second is a group for Wikimedia Commons admins and OTRS agents to view deleted file pages through the 'viewdeletedfile' right on all wikis except those who opt-out. The second proposal can be found at m:Requests for comment/Global file deletion review.

We would like to hear what you think on both proposals. Both are in English; if you wanted to translate them into your native language that would also be appreciated.

It is possible for individual projects to opt-out, so that users in those groups do not have any additional rights on those projects. To do this please start a local discussion, and if there is consensus you can request to opt-out of either or both at m:Stewards' noticeboard.

Thanks and regards, Ajraddatz (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I seem to be getting to keep getting discussions whereby nobody really reads the arguments[edit]

I put 4 files for renames: The case seems clearcut: In the pictures there is no electric locomotive, mentioned in the file name, visible. Only an electric multiple unit. However the rename suggestion is refused under with the mention: No valid reason stated, see the rename guidelines. The second time I added the numbers out of rename guide lines, but it is refused again by somebody else. I dont understand: If the file text states that: Bombardier electric locomotive at Dijon and it is not in the image. It is clearly rename reason: #3 (Correct misleading names into accurate ones) and also # 5 (Correct obvious errors in file names)

The files are: File:SNCF 27545 Ter Bourgogne, Bombardier electric locomotive at Dijon, France p1.JPG File:SNCF 27545 Ter Bourgogne, Bombardier electric locomotive at Dijon, France p2.JPG File:SNCF 27505 Ter Bourgogne, Bombardier electric locomotive at Dijon, France p1.JPG File:SNCF 27505 Ter Bourgogne, Bombardier electric locomotive at Dijon, France p2.JPG

For those who are not familiar with railways: In File:SNCF 522356 at Dijon, France p1.JPG there is an electric locomotive.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea, why the - obviously correct - rename request was removed twice, but I have renamed the files now (by replacing electric locomotive with EMU). --Sebari (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The only slight problem might be that - except for the hardcore railway-fans - near-to-nobody knows what "EMU" means and that soon Category:Emu will be added. SCNR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Correct EMU-Cat would be Category:Electric multiple units, motor coaches and railcars. --Túrelio (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The images are already in the correct specific subcategory: Category:SNCF Class Z 27500Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Necropoli dei Monterozzi (Tarquinia)[edit]

Hi, Should we rename this category and these subcategories into English? Regards, Yann (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

search down?[edit]

The search function on Commons seems to be down. When searching for a simple string of 2 words, I get reproducibly no results, but the error-message "An error has occurred while searching: Search is currently too busy. Please try again later..". I've never seen that. Any idea what's going on? --Túrelio (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Also on mw:, not limited to c:. No idea what's wrong. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Strange. It's perfectly working on meta and on :de and :en Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Working again. What ever it was, it is gone. --Túrelio (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Still does not work as expected: e.g. some complicated search like [3] gives timeout (An error has occurred while searching: HTTP request timed out.). As catscan does not work at the moment everybody is using search instead, which in turn … --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bug Report --Herzi Pinki (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
got a response: There is an outage on elasticsearch currently. Folks are working on it. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

deletion request question[edit]

Recently a picture I loaded up years ago was nominated for deletion - by the person depicted - but kept. I myself supported the deletion request. First because the picture is in fact of such (bad) quality that I would not upload it nowadays, second - and even more important for me - because to me it is a question of respect for the people I take pictures of (which are quite a lot) to comply to their wish, if they find one such picture and ask me (which she also did peronally) to delete it.
Now I face the very unpleasant situation, that one - in fact four - picture(s) I made available here are kept although the person depicted and also I, the creator, myself would like to see it/them deleted. I am aware that this complies to the license. On the other hand we would loose nothing of real importance, because none of the four pictures is used in any Wikimedia project.
It is hard to accept somehow, that even as the creator I have to beg and plead to see one/four of my more then 9000 contributions here deleted. It also makes me wonder, if loading up pictures of identifiable people - which is my main activity here - is really a good idea. As much as I enjoy contributing to illustrate biographies and other articles, I definitely do not want to be the one who puts images online, the people depicted find bad and detrimental. It also, in two other cases unrelated to this pictures, already made really interesting people (with Wikipedia biographies in several languages) refuse my question for taking some portraits. So, what can I do? --Tsui (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This is what's known as a "courtesy" deletion -- when we're not required to delete an image due to copyright considerations or basic Commons policies, but we sometimes choose to delete such an image anyway, out of an abundance of good will...
Probably this image was not deleted because no very substantial specific issue was alleged, or appeared when looking at the photograph. She may not like the way the lighting made her make-up look, but Commons is not in any relationship with her which gives her contractual approval rights over such things. A few times in the past, photographs of living people have been deleted in such circumstances when other photographs approved by the person photographed were offered to Commons under suitable licensing terms and uploaded as replacements. AnonMoos (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
A very unsatisfactory and aggravating (English is not my native language, not sure if this terms are exactly how native speakers would express it) situation for me. As I wrote above: When providing pictures to Commons first of all I am concerned about the depicted. I do not want to be the one who publishes pictures they do not approve of. I am not a paparazzo. If I come to know that someone I took a photograph of finds it "bad" and "detrimental" I would really prefer to comply and see it deleted. First of all simply out of respect. To me this is a pastime, to them it is about their very own faces, their image in the public and their personality rights. That's something I take very serious. Second it can also become a problem for me (and others) in the activity as a photographer for Wikimedia/Commons/Wikipedia. The more people have to face such problems, the higher the risk that accreditations are refused or people personally state, they do not want to be photographed for our projects (e.g. because they had to face huge troubles, often failed completely, when trying to get a bad picture out of their biography at Wikipedia). That's something I already had to experience, not often, but it always is very unpleasant. And it is a hindrance to our goal of illustrating articles.
Additionaly: The four pictures discussed would be no loss for us, they are not used in any of our projects. You wrote "Commons is not in any relationship with her which gives her contractual approval rights over such things". True. But do we really (want to) treat the people out there we take pictures of and write about with such - as it appears to me - condescendence? Legally the images should be alright. By putting them under GFDL/cc-by-sa I agreed to the license terms. On the other hand Commons is not obliged to host them. We can and may keep such images, but we do not have to do so.
Lastly: Asking her to provide another image of hers with a suitable license, so that maybe some administrator here might be complaisant and delete the old ones, seems to me almost like I'd try to blackmail her somehow. That may sound harsh, but that's how I feel about it. --Tsui (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support the deletion. I do not see anything wrong with File:Laura Gosch, Women's World Awards 2009 d.jpg, but I see no need for the image since other images in Category:Laura Gosch are fine too. We currently have no articles on Laura Gosch. I usually support "courtesy" deletions which do not affect existing articles, as I see no need to alienate our contributors for no apparent purpose. --Jarekt (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done I've deleted them, but whether or not they stay deleted is another story. @Tsui: Be very careful what you upload. Situations like this aren't all that rare. INeverCry 10:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I am really thankful for your help and decision. The images were from 2009, since then my own standards concerning the quality of images have risen considerably - and I more and more started to send pictures to the people depicted, asking for their approval in advance, before uploading them. So in recent years I'm trying my best to avoid situations like this, that are awkward for the people depicted, for me and for the administrators here or at OTRS. --Tsui (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Tsui, the license you used was and still is very clearly irrevocable. The argument on the deletion request was that it was a bad depiction and was detrimental to the subject. Neither you nor the subject explained why it was a bad depiction or detrimental. As far as I could see, the photos were taken in a public place, at a time when she was due to receive an award. There is nothing to indicate that she was being depicted wrongly or that you had invaded her privacy. Your second argument was that the image was not being used on another project but Commons images are used by many people and websites outside Wikimedia. We have no way of knowing how many copies of the photos were viewed, downloaded and otherwise used. However if anyone did download the photos over four years, they are now in an awkward position because the source images are not public anymore and they may not have proof that their copies are legitimately licensed. I'm not going to be antagonistic and restore the photos but please do me a favour and read the license terms carefully before you upload more images. If you really think an image should be deleted after such a length of time, please give a better reason than "subject suddenly decided she didn't like it". Green Giant (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD 31 Oct[edit]

In the caption of POTD for 10-31 the name was misspelled (Prysen, correct Pruysen). I corrected all the templates in different languages (except for Chinese) here on Commons. The file itself has the correct description. However, I do not have time to check all 200+ projects using POTD. If someone transferred an incorrect spelling to a project, or if you are active in a Wikipedia and can easily check whether the spelling is correct on that project, I would much appreciate the effort. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Editing an existing photo in Commons--How to upload to the same location as original[edit]

I have edited someone's photo in Commons--How do I upload to the same location as the original so that it adds to and slots in with existing data? And, for my edited file version, should I change the file name? Paul Goggins (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolvedanswered on the help deskBe..anyone (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Julius Simonsen, Oldenburg[edit]

Sailing ship and lightship.jpg

I am trying to find out the photografer of an sailship picture on a postcard and trying to date the picture. On the back is the mention Verslag: Julius Simonsen oldenburg. when I check in google and the Commons it seems to be a postcard editor with a long history, so I suppose the photograph is anonymous. The postcard however is posted at 21-2-1944 Swinemunde in the middle of the war (going badly for the Germans)so I suppose the picture was taken before the war. The postcard is of sailing three mast big ship sailing past a ligthship.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oldenburg was purchased by Finland and renamed Suomen Joutsen in 1931. Before 1922 the ship was named Laënnec. That would give a date range between 1922 and 1931. MKFI (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
There is an other posibility: The German text seems to be: Segelschulschiff Horst Wessel (Sea school ship Horst Wessel) wich would match with en:USCGC Eagle (WIX-327). Oldenburg is only the city of the postcard editor website.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Announce: Campaign to find 10,000 digitised maps in the British Library's online Flickr stream, starting Friday 31 October[edit]

The Battle of Cerro de Pasco in the Peruvian War of Independence, 6 December 1820
Map of Preston, as it was in 1774
Aleppo Vilayet, in 1892

Hi! This is to let people know about a campaign to try to find 10,000 digitised maps (and ground plans) 'hidden' in 13,000 books in the set of a million images that the British Library uploaded to Flickr last year.

Once they've been identified, the BL will then run the maps through its Georeferencer crowd-activity (from which we can download the full output). But first the files need to be identified on Flickr, and tagged as maps. More information can be found in this draft article for the en-wiki Signpost, still under development, and this main information page for the campaign. There's also going to be an all-day tagathon session at the British Library in London to launch the effort, to which anyone who can make it is very welcome. (More details here, with registration link).

There is coverage of maps from all over the world, as shown by this plot of 3,000 maps on the globe, that have already been found and georeferenced. (Non-map images in the collection have a similar distribution, and are also well worth browsing.)

Make-or-break for this is whether people can be encouraged to help on the internet.

The sooner we can get the map images found and tagged the better. For one thing, the BL Labs group are having their annual symposium meeting on Monday 3rd November. It would be fantastic, as a demonstration of the power of openness, if the lion's share of the index could have been worked through by that afternoon. Also, more importantly, the BL won't start the next round of its Georeferencing activity until the map-finding has been completed, which is really the key to making the maps findable and useful.

Realistically, we might be able to get about one quarter of the list checked at the event in London. The remainder will depend on people logging in from all over the world.

So I would really appreciate anything anyone can do to help get the word out -- eg perhaps with mentions in the equivalents of the Signpost in other languages. I'm afraid everything is in English so far, but perhaps there is still time to do something about that. The project status page is at c:Commons:British_Library/Mechanical_Curator_collection/map_tag_status. This page has links to all the geographical index pages, with their pink "Untagged maps" templates. These pages will go live at 11:00 UTC on Friday. (Edits to them before then will probably be over-written -- though tags added on Flickr would be okay).


I would be really grateful for any help anyone could give with this over the weekend, or that anyone can encourage others to give. There are about 13,000 books with Flickr pages to look through in total. Even an hour, or half an hour to go through a block of 15 books in the index, will make a difference.

So anything anyone could do to get the word out between now and then -- eg on local wikis, or mailing lists, or any other ways -- would be very very appreciated.

The pages don't go live until 11:00 UTC on Friday. But after that the more people, from all over the world, that could get involved, the better.


Thanks to everybody, Jheald (talk) 22:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

To do this one would need a flikr account, which effectively means a yahoo account, amirite? Rich Farmbrough, 16:41 29 October 2014 (GMT).
@Rich Farmbrough:. Yes, that's right. Flickr does (I think) still let people log in with a Google ID, but only (I think) if a Flickr account had previously been linked to that Google ID, which may no longer be possible. Is it a problem, or just something that people need to be aware of ? Jheald (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it need to go into the instructions. (Personally I have an antipathy to telling yahoo my date of birth and mobile phone number, and even my gender - it's none of their business, but I wasn't particularly referring to that.) Rich Farmbrough, 17:35 29 October 2014 (GMT).
You're right. I've a couple of things to do first, then I will fix it. Jheald (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
It's now the first thing mentioned in the method section of the campaign main status page, and I've also updated other places. Thanks for this catch! Jheald (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Chinese mainpage[edit]

These pages have been diligently licensed with sub-licences of the included works. But then newer versions of the page have been uploaded. (And one of the works deleted, albeit for a valid reason - which means that the historical versions of the Chinese main pages won't work.)

Any solutions? Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 29 October 2014 (GMT).

Image files with no image content[edit]

Currently there are 14 images in Category:Media without a license: needs history check where the file name exists but they contain no content. Can someone just nuke them? It seems rather a waste of time nominating them for deletion as they appear to never have been uploaded in the first place. Ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Unfortunately I do not know of any tools to speed it up, so there is no "nuking". VisualFileChanges does not see those files, AutoWikiBrouwser speed things a bit. Problem with those files is that they are created when inexperienced users are trying to communicate in relation to recently deleted files, and they often contain text in exotic languages. --Jarekt (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Well I see some are tagged as speedy, so that should go it. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jarekt: The "nuke" tool available for files like this is Help:Gadget-autodel.js. INeverCry 10:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Modify or replace "Copyright by Wikimedia" template?[edit]

Although I have alread posted something regarding this matter in the copyright section, I think the general VP has more readers, so I'm asking here: As per a recent Wikimedia blog entry, the Wikimedia logos are now CC-BY-SA 3.0 + (still) trademarked instead of non-free copyrighted material. Yana Welinder, Legal Counsel, says there:

We would really appreciate your help in replacing the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} templates for all Wikimedia logos on Commons! Each of the Wikimedia logos in every language version should instead carry the {{Wikimedia trademark}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} templates. The only logos that will not be licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 are the MediaWiki and the Community logos, which were originally released under free licenses and do not need to be changed.

So, I wonder what's now the best course of action: Start a bot request simply replacing all {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} occurrences with {{Wikimedia trademark}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}? Or change {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} itself, i.e. changing it to a Wikimedia-specific cc-by-sa-3.0 + trademark template? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I did change about half of {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} occurrences with {{Wikimedia trademark}} and {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but got stuck with all the cases where {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} is mixed with several other license templates. For example {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}+{{cc-by-sa-3.0}} should become "{{Wikimedia trademark}}+{{cc-by-sa-3.0}}" not "{{Wikimedia trademark}} + {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} + {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}". But other combinations are less clear.--Jarekt (talk) 16:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we should just change {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} template. --Jarekt (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

October 30[edit]

Automatic archives don't work on Commons:Photography critiques[edit]

Can anyone figure out why ArchiveBot doesn't seem to work on Commons:Photography critiques anymore? I'd like to try to rivive the page and having those very old threads lying around there makes the page look even more dead … --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a link on User:MiszaBot to a help page on Wikipedia. I think the configuration has to start immediately before the content (same idea as here), otherwise the Bot doesn't know what to do. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
{{autoarchive resolved section}} is a much more comfortable way to archive pages, and it now has the same functionality as MiszaBot/ArchiveBot.    FDMS  4    12:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Vindictive deletion requests[edit]

Is there any consistent Commons policy on how to deal with an editor who's launching a slew of deletions requests out of revenge because of a dispute about other things on English Wikipedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Consistent? Perhaps not. If the deletion requests are valid (e.g. the bulk of them are gathering consensus), the motive isn't that important, but if it's tit-for-tat raising of dubious deletions, that is usually considered unacceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Duplicate discussionhere too. Jee 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeated Images[edit]

We collected a huge list of Images (about 6000 Images) which are repeated with en.wikipedia (name or content) please make a decision about them (deleting them here or on en.wikipedia) Yamaha5 (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You can get any local wiki query with commons here by changing from and to in Url Yamaha5 (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at two examples: en:TwoPortNetworkScatteringAmplitudes.svg has en:Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons; and that could be replaced by en:Template:Now Commons if an editor (not a bot) confirmed it. But that is not the case, and File:TwoPortNetworkScatteringAmplitudes.svg has various issues (PD degenerated into CC-BY-SA, bogus author, no categories, the works.)
Second example en:File:Network,_phase_eq.svg has en:Template:Keep local, it needs only categories here, keeping it also on Wikipedia (no idea why apart from "the tag says so"). There should be some simple cases in your long list, maybe ignoring all "keep local" without checking why helps. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I would think it is an en.wiki problem. If a wiki has duplicates on stuff on Commons the normal procedure is to delete their local copy unless there is a specific reason not to, but not much to be done from this end. If a name conflicts (ie same name, different content), again it is the local.wiki copy that needs to be renamed, rather than all other wikis having to be updated if you change the Commons copy. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI at this moment there are:
  • 4,520 files on en.wiki which are identical (by comparing SHA1 values) to files with the same name on Commons. The query took 1 min 50 sec.
  • 5,234 files on en.wiki with the same name on Commons which are not identical (by SHA1 values).
  • 1,657 files on en.wiki with identical SHA1 values but different names on Commons. Perhaps the most interesting cases? I have included a sample of 20 of these files in a table below.
I'm quite busy with other stuff, and Yamaha5's webtool above is pretty handy, but if anyone would like me to pull one of these full lists (or a more specific type of list) for them, I'll be happy to dump a report on-wiki for you to work on as this part of the work is relatively easy compared to deciding what to do about it.
enwiki.img_name commonswiki.img_name
file:University_of_Westminster_1.jpg University_of_Westminster.jpg
file:San_GCFF2012.jpg San_at_GCFF.jpg
file:HallofFameGame.JPG Fawcett_Stadium.jpg
file:Roshan_perera_entreuperner,_bussinesman_&_maria_colombage_miss_sri_lanka.jpg Roshan_perera_entreuperner_&_maria_colombage_miss_sri_lanka.jpg
file:Tethys_83d40m_AntakyaMuseum_Turkey-fix2.JPG Tethys_83d40m_AntakyaMuseum_Turkey.JPG
file:Justice_Cancio_Garcia.jpg Papa_small.jpg
file:The_runway.jpg Dipolog_Airport_Runway.jpg
file:FibroScan_by_Echosens,_Cut_Offs_Scoring_Card_for_measuring_stages_of_Fibrosis.png FibroScan_Scoring_Card_for_Liver_Stiffness_Diagnosis.png
file:Rashid_Alvi,_Shashi_Bhushan,_V.P_Singh,_Mufti_Syed,_Jaswant_Singh,_I.K_Gujral,_Sharad_Yadav.jpg Raashid_Alvi_67.jpg
file:Raashid_Alvi,_Europe_1.jpg Raashid_Alvi_5.jpg
file:Spezia_1906_logo.svg Spezia_Calcio.svg
file:Model_of_Patch_Pipette_with_circuit_diagram.jpg Patch_pipette_model.jpg
file:12_ECC_Sokolniki_Equiros.JPG 12_ECC_Sokolniki_Equiros.jpg
file:Wamdeo_dance.jpeg Wamdeo_Dance.jpg
file:Wamdeo_hill.jpg Wamdeo_Dance.jpg
file:Skidmoreowingsmerrilllogo.PNG SOM_Logo.png
file:Cheonan_logo.png Cheonanlogo.png
file:Danny_Ray_NYC_saxophonist.jpeg Danny_Ray_-_NYC_Saxophonist.jpg
file:Wangoom_country_fire_brigade_building.jpg Wangoom_Country_Fire_Association_Station.jpg
By the way, here is a similar sample from ru.wiki, where there are 1,051 files of this last type. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg
ruwiki.img_name commons.img_name
file:Стадион_Гандзасар_(вид_с_трибуны).jpg file:Gandzasar_Stadium.jpg
file:Lumen_in_Yekaterinberg_31.10.08.JPG file:Concert_de_Lumen_à_Ekaterinbourg.JPG
file:Панорама_МИТХТ.jpg file:Panorama_of_MITHT.jpg
file:Крест_Признания.jpg file:Atzinības_krusts.jpg
file:Ревелсток.jpg file:Frontier_Motel_in_Revelstoke.jpg
file:Tatianamalama.jpg file:Dmitrij_Yakovlevich_Malama-4.jpg
file:Улица_Ревуцкого.JPG file:Вулиця_Ревуцького_Київ_2010_01.JPG
file:Верховный_Суд_Российской_Федерации.gif file:Sud_departament_of_Supreme_Court_of_Russia.gif
file:Брейткрейц_-2.JPG file:Palasta_Street_in_Riga_1.JPG
file:Formulatwologo.png file:Logo_Formel_2.png
file:Kovshova_and_Polivanova_monument.jpg file:Kovshova_and_Polivanova.jpg
file:Pack_of_cigarettes_Kazbek.svg file:Pack_of_Kazbek.svg
file:Красноярский_государственный_цирк.jpg file:Krasnoyarsk_State_Circus.jpg
file:Интерьер_северного_вестибюля_Маяковской.jpg file:Mayakovskaya_new_vestibule.JPG
file:500_величайших_альбомов.JPG file:500greatestalbumsofalltime.JPG
file:Памятник_Нариману_Нариманову_в_Сумгайыте.jpg file:N._Nərimanov_adına_Mədəniyyət_Evi.jpg
file:Mexico_City_Previous_Terminal_Layout.jpg file:Mexico_City_Previous_Terminal_Layout.JPG
file:Monticello_Dam_from_usbr_gov.gif file:Monticello_Dam.gif
Addendum/wrinkle One last thought, there are multi-way comparisons to be done, for example I make it that there are today 5,415 files which have different names but are identical on enwiki and ruwiki, but do not exist on commons; similarly there are 1,498 files which are identical but under different names on frwiki and enwiki but do not exist on commons. If we could find easy ways to filter these we might not only find out which proportions could reasonably be moved to commons and used across all other projects, but perhaps provide motivation to find a better way to harmonize these assets and flag their cross-existence (such as when uploading a new file to a wiki), even when not suitable for commons. -- (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer Update: New Improvements[edit]

Media Viewer's new user interface, with 'More details' button.
Prominent Disable/Enable tools make it easy to turn Media Viewer on and off

Hi folks: we're happy to let you know that our multimedia team has released many new improvements to Media Viewer in recent weeks, based on community feedback.

Here are some of the new features that are now live on Wikimedia Commons:

You can try out these features on this 'Featured pictures' page.

Next, we are working on these last 'must-have' improvements for this release:

(Note that the layout change above has just been released for testing on MediaWiki.org.)

These features are based on the most frequent requests from our recent community consultation and ongoing user research. For more information, visit the Media Viewer Improvements page -- or the Help FAQ page.

Many thanks to all the community members who suggested these improvements. Our research so far confirms that they provide a better experience for readers and casual editors, the primary target users for Media Viewer.

Please let us know what you think on this Media Viewer discussion page. We will post one more update in mid-November, once all improvements have been released and tested. Best regards. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a CSS/JS hack I can use to remove the "Open in Media Viewer" link on file description pages? I don't use it and don't intend to, so it's just extra junk cluttering up the page.   An optimist on the run! 23:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Try
.mw-mmv-filepage-buttons { display: none }
In Special:Mypage/common.css (Or even meta:Special:Mypage/global.css) Bawolff (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the update, personally I think the Media Viewer is on the right track now. I'm looking forward to the last two outstanding changes. --Sebari (talk) 21:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

October 31[edit]

SVG Image Problems[edit]

I uploaded two files, 136th Signal Battalion Coat of Arms (Obsolete Insignia) and 449th Support Battalion Coat of Arms which both have something in the background at the top causing black bars to appear. What is causing this, and is it something y'all can fix for me?

Thanks, --Glasshouse (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It is unsupported flowed text, go here: Help:SVG #Black rectangle (Flowed Text bug). Next time you can better ask in the COM:Graphics village pump. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 06:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Search is currently too busy. Please try again later.[edit]

I have been getting this message for all Commons searches this morning in the past half hour. It's tripping up one of my projects quite badly. Is there a know bug? -- (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a know thing. See #search down?. Josve05a (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Since when the searchfunction is ignoring "-" etc. , and why i get zero results somethings? :/ --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Per wikitech:Server_Admin_Log, between 11:24 today 13:25 today, search was temporarily switched to the "old" search system due to the new (Cirrus) system breaking. There's more information about the cause at wikitech:Incident_documentation/20141027-CirrusSearch (tl;dr: The insource: operator had a bug where it used too much memory, causing the server to freeze. They have been temporarily disabled until the code can be fixed [4]). Bawolff (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

British copyright[edit]

I hate to be a pain, but I need to remind everyone that extensive restoration is more than enough to gain copyright in the UK. See Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom and remember that this was granted copyright protection. (See [5] [6])

I'm not a bear when it comes to things. If you see something where you think that my licensing is substantially hindering reuse, poke me and I'll look it over.

But don't violate my copyright by changing licenses on it without asking me. That's not just rude, it's technically illegal, and it's particularly galling when someone changes the licenses without even telling me they are. (I shan't link to examples to spare blushes). Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(Just a question, if I use an IP from the UK, does UK rules apply for me as well? hmmm...) There is one example of this (redicules) thing on my user talk page... Josve05a (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

November 01[edit]