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:

Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | Boarisch | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | kа | 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
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]





Search β-testers for an application linked to Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I am part of a group of 6 students of a French engineering school. We are creating an application for Smartphones which proposes touristic routes illustrated with Wikipedia articles. We have just finished programming and we are actually testing it. So, we need some testers who want to help us by testing and creating routes. If you are interested, please contact us : marianne.hurault@gmail.com

Thank you,

Marianne—Preceding unsigned comment added by FatJagm (talk • contribs) 18:03, December 17, 2013‎ (UTC) 18:03, December 17, 2013‎

Geocoding: Arrow in Location template has wrong direction[edit]

I've geocoded some aerial photos, e.g. File:Thyssen Krupp Quartier Luftaufnahme Nordost 2014.jpg using the Location template and the direction field: {{Location dec|51.458686|6.985478|heading:NE}}

Camera location 51° 27′ 31.27″ N, 6° 59′ 07.72″ E   View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Maps - Google Earth info

Direction is north-east and the arrow goes to north-west. Has anyone an idea what's the problem here or who can fix it? Thanks, --Tuxyso (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the "arrow" is actually the azimuth. That is: if you stand somewhere on the Northern hemisphere and look towards northeast, your compass will show 45° anticlockwise because its direction is of course the north. --12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
If your interpretation is correct, the arrow is not really useful and hardly understandable. I am not interested in Azimuth but in the direction of view or in the heading. Azimuth might be useful for astronomy but imho it is very irritating to use heading in the Location template and get azimuth on the image description. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The arrow (marked "N") is pointing towards "North", that is a traditional symbol used on the maps that usually requires the least explanation. The input to the {{Location}} template is heading aka azimuth, or clockwise angle from the North to the direction your camera is pointing (assumed to be the same as up direction of the up pointing vector located in the center of the image). If your heading is 45 deg (heading:NE) than north is . There are not standards for displaying the heading direction. We could have used , but it is not as clear for about the same size image. --Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, I also know north arrows from maps. But in the case here there is great confusion with the arrow: The heading / direction of camera view is a quasi standard, everyone knows it. For the average user it is not obvious why with heading NE the arrow points to NO. Although it is semantically wrong from the viewpoint of a geographer I would strongly suggest to change the semantic of the arrow to the wide-spread heading. The compass rose shown here is imho no alternative. What do you think about different direction symbols like the ones [shown here]?. One symbol with appropriate text for every direction, N, NE, NW, ... Or a simplified compass rose with large letters? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the symbols shown at shutterstock, however they are copyrighted and would probably have to be recreated (with enough changes as not to run into copyright discussions) for 32 named directions, and added to {{Compass rose file}} template. If the result is as clear as current File:North Pointer.svg I would support it, despite the fact that I like the elegance of the current solution which uses a single file rotated with the help of {{RotateStyle}}. --Jarekt (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you (and others) think about a simplified compass rose? It looks like the current arrow but with a circle around it and four markers which symbolize an abstract compass. Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg. With such a symbol we can use heading instead of azimuth. Our SVG experts can surely do much better, just a first draft. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This image shows an arrow with label "N", what would usually indicate that arrow is pointing "North" which should not point in the same direction as "heading" but in "360-heading". If you want to point towards "heading" than you need to label your arrow accordingly. By the way, as far as I can tell heading means the same as azimuth, since both are clockwise angles from the North to the direction your camera is pointing. --Jarekt (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
First: My arrow was just an illustration how a rotated compass rose arrow could look like. The original svg has to start at 0° / 360° degree.
Second: There is a language misunderstanding: The key problem of the current Location implementation is that the direction of the arrow does not point to the heading which is according to en:Course (navigation) "[...] The units are degrees from north in a clockwise direction. East is 90, south is 180 and west is 270 degrees". With this defintion in mind the current Location implementation does not show heading but the direction to north and this is per defintion Azimuth. My first draft was wrong: We need only a rotation of the arrow, the compass rose remains in its position. Heading north-east should look like Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg. Better? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I hate to be splitting hairs, but we still have language misunderstanding: my read is that both heading and azimuth are exactly the same, and I agree with you that in the current implementation of the location template we do not show heading but the direction north which is calculated as 360-heading. I think we agree on the current implementation and on definition of heading, but not on definition of azimuth. However it is rather unimportant since we never use the term azimuth in relation to the {{Location}} template. Your File:Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg #3 is much better, I would prefer different style arrow since I usually associate this style with North. I also find current design too close to Cross-hair target sight Z.F. 20E reticle 8,8cm Flak 18,36,37 Direct Fire Sight.jpg, but that probably can not be helped. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that indicating the direction on a compass with a fixed north is a bit more intuitive. If you want a rotating north I suggest giving the compass perspective (so it looks like a handheld compass parallel to the floor), i.e. a compass held while facing in the direction of the photo. --Dschwen (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This might work but I am afraid that the perspective might get lost in the images of the size we are currently using (~20-30 pixels on a side). --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
There is also a more minimalistic solution e.g. for north-east: North-east-variant.jpg (30 Pixel). --Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
support, it's intuitive and correct. --A.Savin 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think, both types are intuitive and both can have their supporters and opponents. I was a bit surprised at first but it is not difficult to adapt to it. I personally lack direct displaying of the original (not recalculated) heading value from the template: the heading can be expressed by letters as well as by azimuth number in the template. --ŠJů (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The current implementation is contra-intuitive and I still strongly suggest to change it. The current arrow has some logic, but only for those who know that the file is directed to north in relation to the direction of view. At the moment I see NO argument against my new suggestion with North-east-variant.jpg. It is semantically correct (from the viewpoint of a geographer or compass expert) and it is intuitively understandable. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Tuxyso, while I generally agree with your opinion that the current solution is not good, the "minimalistic" arrow you proposed here might be not as intuitive as you think. Does the arrow indicate "north" (there's a "N" right next to it, and the arrow looks like north-arrows usually look like) or does it indicate the viewing direction, while the "N" indicates "north"? The second option is true, of course, but it's not completely obvious. I think you previous proposal (Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg) was easier to understand. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Might be, but my SVG skills are too limited. Probably some one who is better in creating symbols can develop an alternative. The problem of Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg is that the arrow and its direction (most important information) is not clear enough. I still prefer North-east-variant.jpg. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here when it comes to SVG, but I gave it a try: Compass icon NE.svg. --El Grafo (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Better than my version. Why red/blue? I would prefer a combination of gray / black or is there a rationale to use these colors? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I made it colored because I thought that would make it easier to differentiate the arrow from the compass rose in the background – here's a b&w version: Compass icon NE grey.svg. There's no special reason for choosing blue and red apart from green/red being a bad combination for many people and yellow not working well on a white background. Blue works well with the rest of the template and red for the important part seemed like a logical choice. Blue and black might be another option: Compass-icon bb NE.svg --El Grafo (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There appears to be a problem with this whole approach: Currently, only a single image file is used by the template, which is simply being rotated according to the direction (NE, 123 degrees etc.) speified in the template parameter (using Template:Transform-rotate). Whit this approach, this doesn't work anymore because only the arrow would have to be rotated, while the compass rose (or the "N" in the "minimalistic" version) in the back remains static. So simply replacing the graphics file used wouldn't work. --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Use two files? A static, non-rotated background with the compass rose or "N", and overlay a rotated arrow with transparent background over it? Lupo 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
El Grafo, you are right, but we need to agree on "what" before we tackle "how", and by the way your Compass icon NE grey.svg or Compass-icon bb NE.svg are my favorite options so far. Lupo, I like this idea, but I have never seen it implemented. Do you think you (or anybody else) can build a prototype with some 2 svg files, one static and one rotated, overlay on top of each other? I (or someone else) could take it from there. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Overlaying them is relatively easy. Centering them seems to be harder. A start is here (feel free to edit and improve, or just take it and run). Would need cross-browser testing. Lupo 17:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@Lupo: That looks very promising. I guess if both images were (partly transparent) squares with the exact same dimension and their visible content was centered perfectly whithin those squares, centering shouldn't be an issue, right? I think I should be able to do this … --El Grafo (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I also think with two square base images it would be easier. But note that the bounding box of a rotated square is larger than that square, unless the angle is a multiple of 90 degrees. Rotate a 20x20px square by 45°, and you get a bounding box of 28.28x28.28px (or just 28, I guess one could round). So you'll still need a way to align the centers, either through CSS, or in Module:Coordinates. In the 45° case, top and left of the inner span for the overlay should be both - (28 - 20) / 2 == -4. Lupo 18:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't consider that. Is it worth putting more time into this, given that a) we now can easily create several versions with differently rotated arrows (see below) and b) there might be problems with some older browsers? --El Grafo (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo: That should not be our (yours and mine) problem. We have excellent programmers and I am sure if we find a consensus here the template / parser experts will implement it. Using a different image for each direction is also not a big deal. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@Tuxyso: Once again I agree in general, but keep in mind that the template also accepts directions in degrees → that could mean 360 different images ;-)
@Lupo: If someone can tweak the template to do this I'd be happy to create two different files. --El Grafo (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
@El Grafo: BTW: Your new black / blue version is quite good. Do you (or someone else) know if overlaying of two svg images is possible in MediaWiki? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(2 Edit conflicts) Once there is a consensus I can volunteer to implement it. But unless we can get Lupo's solution to work, we would have to also get some help with creation of 32 (32 is probably sufficient, we definitely do not need 360) variants of Compass icon NE grey.svg or Compass-icon bb NE.svg, but we can ask for help on Commons:Graphics village pump. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've done some research and updated Compass-icon bb NE.svg to a handwritten version. It doesn't look exactly like the previous version, but it has one huge advantage: The arrow can be rotated quickly by just opening the file in a text editor, changing the "45" in rotate(45, 800, 1100) to the desired angle and saving it as a new file. You are of coure right: we don't really need 360 versions … --El Grafo (talk)
Rotations work perfectly. Only the arrowhead and the intersection of lines in the middle of the circle looks a bit unexact if you zoom in. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Jep, you're right. Has to do with how I constructed the arrow, using borders around a white arrow with a black triangle on top. I re-constructed the arrow, putting a white triangle in a black arrow and avoiding actual borders. Still not perfect, since the coordinates for the white triangle were obtained more or less by trial and error. I'd like to actually calculate them eventually, but my skills in trigonometry are kinda rusty … However, since the target size is rather small anyway, I think that should do for now. --El Grafo (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks good, OK for that usecase. Can that be implemented? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Tuxyso, if everyone is fine with this layout I think I can create the necessary files rather quickly using a bash script or something like that. The rest would be up to Jarekt or someone else who has the necessary skills. --El Grafo (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I am fine with the current version of Compass-icon bb NE.svg. Once we have 16 or 32 versions of it, I will add it to {{Compass rose file}} and {{Location}}. Does anybody else have any last thoughts before this file gets cloned? --Jarekt (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
No, I look forward to the implementation. Thanks El Grafo for the file and Jarekt for the plan to implement it. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done The files can be found in Category:Compass roses, filenames correspond to the "Abbr." column in en:Boxing_the_compass#Compass_points. Please let me know if you spot any errors. --El Grafo (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I added the files to {{Compass rose file}} and added the code to call it to Module:Coordinates which is the code I am testing that will (hopefully) replace large part of internal code of {{Location}}. The new version is accessible for testing as {{Location/sandbox}}. See for example this file. --Jarekt (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks great, imho. Thanks. --El Grafo (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I’m frankly appaled this discussion lasted so long, and where it went. The old (still current) pictograms are/were correct: That arrow points to wherever north is on the image — be it a map or a landscape. Now we’ll still have an arrow pointing to the north, which varies from image to image (or else it would be useless), but on its background a meaningless and misleading "N" on a fixed upper middle point. Genious. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Uhm, no Tuválkin, unless there's an error in the implementation, the arrow in Compass-icon bb NE.svg does not point towards north. It points into the direction the camera was looking (relative to to north). So if the camera was looking to the north, it points up; if it was looking to the east it points to the right and so on. That's like taking a map and marking the viewing direction by using a pen to draw an arrow on it. Just like it's done here, with the tip of the Commons logo giving the direction. --El Grafo (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • An arrow pointing to the «direction the camera was looking» seems pretty useless: It will most of the times point to the top of the page/screen, unless in special cases of severe camera tilt, misrotated images, or lateral crops from orginals with large depth of field. More importantly, it means (if I understand correctly) that not only the pictograms are being changed for the heading argument of {{Location}} but also the underlaying code. Is that so?
  • The current functionality is named "heading" in a straighforward fashion; it is said above to be rather the azimuth, but that’s a way of muddying the waters with irrelevant gobbledygook: If you’re labeling a photo taken on the earth surface in late March or late September (from a horizontal standpoint, with usual FoV and DoF, et c., et c.) that shows a sunset (i.e., facing west), you will use the heading argument of {{Location}} either expressing heading (heading:W) or azimuth (heading:-90 or heading:270), to achieve the same exact result: an arrow, with an "N", poiting to the right of the page/screen, meaning that the photo is looking/facing westwards, and north is to your right. So, for all practical ends in this discussion azimuth=heading.
  • The current functionality shows in a straighforward fashion whereto north lies for each given landscape view. You guys seems to be trying to change it to something else: Something less useful and something that will render unuseful (even misleading) all its installed usage so far. Please tell me I am wrong?
-- Tuválkin ✉ 14:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, forget what I wrote above, let me try to explain it in another way. In this example the camera was facing straight to the east (90°).
  • The current implementation would give you an arrow pointing straight to the left (270° or -90°), telling you: "If you were standing at that exact spot the picture was taken, looking into the same direction as the camera, north would be 90° to your left", indirectly telling you: "If […], you were looking to the east".
  • The "new" implementation would give you an arrow pointing straight to the right (90°), telling you "If […], you were looking to the east", indirectly telling you "If […], north would be 90° to your left"
Or yet another way to say it:
  • The current implementation is equivalent to what a compass needle would show you if you were standing at that point, looking into that direction
  • The "new" implementation is how you would mark it on a map (one of the common ones of course, with north being at the top of the sheet)
It's really just the same thing expressed in a different way. You obviously find the current implementation more intuitive, others (including myself) have expressed that they would prefer the new one. I'd guess that you are actually used to handle a compass – most people today aren't, but they are used to north being "up". --El Grafo (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for the explanation. One last question: How do I turn off the new implementation? -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
New implementation is not live yet and at the moment is only available as {{location/sandbox}}, but once it is live it is going to be the same for all. Just like you can not pick if you prefer DMS or decimal format for latitude and longitude, you will not be able to pick the heading icon. That is why we are discussing it here so we can reach consensus to change it or not. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
One ring to rule them all, huh? Okay then, so it has to be Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Lets see some voting here, too, and lets weight the votes of with each user’s number of edits adding or correcting geolocation of files and categories. We’ll see who wins, whether the oldschoolers who know what a compass is (haven’t held one in hand in 10 yrs or more, though), whether the flatearthers. (Or the template could show both icons — is its not like there’s not enough room in it right now…) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The Symbol support vote.svg 'Support's of many users can be found in their postings above. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 13:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
So how shall we proceed now? I had the impression that we already have a pretty clear consensus pro changing it, but wouldn't mind starting a vote … --El Grafo (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
It will be implemented within next few days. The new version is implemented in my recent rewrite of the {{Location}} template family to use Lua code (Module:Coordinates) and the templates are slowly being switched, while I do last minute teaks based on issues that come up. See here. I already switched less used {{globe location}} and {{object location}} templates, so only {{location}}/{{location dec}} are left. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 ✓ Done the new version of {{Location}} is deployed. --Jarekt (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Testing default deployment of FastCCI gadget?[edit]

New results page with strength-of-match slider to refine the results in real time

The FastCCI gadget allows quick display of all FPs, QIs, and VIs in and below a category.

I have been working on this since the initial announcement and would like to test if the backend server would hold up to a default deployment.

I believe this gadget would be useful to any reuser of commons content as it improves the discoverability of featured content significantly.

The gadget uses a backend server (currently hosted on Wikimedia Labs that is capable of performing fast operations on the commons category tree, such as intersection, files in Category A but not in Category B, listing of entire subcategory trees, and category chain path finding. The frontend gadget currently only uses the intersection capability on the three assement categories FP,QI,VI. In the future I will develop a power user interface that makes the other functions available easily. But for now I would like to start with a simple interface.

So, anyone opposed to testing the default activation of this gadget? --Dschwen (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for activation. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose anyone who wants to use it can enable it in his or her preferences. Too much of a niche and overhead to enable it by default. Multichill (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Multibuzzkill ;-). Where do you see the overhead? How is making quality content more discoverable a niche? --Dschwen (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • It is far from being a niche. A key problem in the German Wikipedia is the missing visibility of quality media for article writers. If e.g. articles about cities are written, authors often use their own (bad quality) photos because they do not know better. IMHO Dschwen's gadget is very helpful for quality-oriented article writers and surely for everyone who uses contents from Commons.--Tuxyso (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • IMHO this Gadget is only a first step. The next step should be to open QIC for more photographers and encourage them to nominate their own photos there. Currently the participation (in relation to the overall content) is still too limited. My impression is that some photographers do not dare to nominate own images on QIC.
    Is there a way to generate an automated list (e.g. with a bot) of users who has uploaded more than 100 (20,50,200?) images but had not been active on QIC/FPC page? For those users a bot could make some advertisement for QIC participation on the talk page of the appropriate users. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    strong oppose: it would just overflow COM:QIC with dubious nominations by users who aren't familiar with the Image guidelines but see such an advertisement as an invitation to nominate nearly everything they ever uploaded. QIC needs more reviewers (!), not new nominators for the same number of reviewers. --A.Savin 12:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    I do not share your opinion at least not in that absoulte manner. On QIC we have disussed a guideline that for >3 nominations an appropriate number of reviews should be required. There are much more good photographers on Commons than active participants on QIC. Such an invitation should include a correct framing: If you spend usually a lot of work in doing good photos and are familiar with basic quality standards for phtos (e.g. ...) then QIC might be the right place for you. I am not a great fan of exclusive clubs. With Dschwen's widget QIs become a massively increased visibility. The logical consequence is to discuss how to encourage more photographers to participate on QIC. I know a lot of photographers who do good quality photos but have never nominated a single one on QIC. When such an invitation is not automatically done, a bot could figure out interesting participants and an admin (or another PH-2 / PH-3 photographer) who is familiar with good photos checks if this user might be a good candidate for QIC participation. If the check is positive a bot sends an invitation to participate on Commons. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, did I really ever suggest an "exclusive club"? Nonsense. I'm always glad if a good photographer joins QIC, starting with nominations only, later either participating in review. Not to make advertising is not the same as making QIC exclusive. The proposed tool is a very good idea, but I'm against targeted mass advertising by bot, as we simply don't have enough people to review and maintain it all. Of course, if you know a certain user where you're sure that they could be a productive contributor to QIC, you still can (and should) contact them and to make them aware of QIC. Btw, PH-2/PH-3 templates are kind of trash to me. I don't use any, many potentially good photographers on Commons do neither, but on the other hand it's a question if everyone who swanks with a PH-3 on their userpage is really able to contribute what we see as good quality images. --A.Savin 13:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think it will have only an adverse effect to attract more nominations. Sure; it will attract more nominations; but it will attract reusers too. So chances that our "good works" get more eyes and so more used (as Tuxyso said above). But if there is a resistance, we can consider it as an opt-in rather than a default. Thanks Dschwen, I love to use it. Jee 15:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Dschwen's comment below. Jee 07:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: first of all I would like to test default deployment to see what kind of traffic it generates to test how the server would scale under real world conditions. But I would strongly suggest to eventually really enable it by default, as anonymous users cannot opt-in. But I have to admit that I do not have usage statistics about commons (I'll see if I can find some stats). If there is a substantial IP user base that browses commons through our category tree (rather than google images) I am convinced that giving them the possibility to discover quality media more easily would be a benefit for the project. I have heard people say it countless times. Content is buried in our category tree and There is no way to see which images in a category are FP - This gadget solves both of those issues. And the backend could do so much more by the way. Like find all images below a category contributed through WLM, find all images that are not tagged with a location, etc. The FP,QI,VI thing is just the obvious start. The advanced options should of course not displayed this prominently. --Dschwen (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for activation. --Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mrwojo (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support activation for testing. If it turns out to cause an overflow at QIC we can still turn it off again. --El Grafo (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll activate it on Monday (I'll be gone for the rest of the weekend). Support for IE8 is added and I'm thinking of a simple userinterface for arbitrary category intersections now. --Dschwen (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How can I turn this off? 90.190.114.172 16:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Archiving this page[edit]

Those level 1 section headers are not handled right when archived by bots. As a result they are missing here (e. g. before Jan 6 at the moment) and are wrong in the archives. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 15:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean we need a better bot? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Or we do without level 1 sections. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 17:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Isn't having level 1 sections other than the title of the page (here: "Commons:Village pump") considered bad style anyway? --El Grafo (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Certainly in articles, but they're used to organize forum pages like these so that ordinary non-date sectioning can use basic "==" headers. Otherwise, people would have to start new discussions with "===" headers... AnonMoos (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyway I think it is not a good idea to add those headings manually every day. They are copied to the archives step by step leaving some paragraphes without level 1 headings here and putting those mostly wrong headings there. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Report of user (administrator) Denniss[edit]

The mentioned administrator is pushing his own political agenda by reverting maps like this one or this one, and protecting people that reverted these maps (there are more examples like these ones) without an earlier discussion on the map page or any permission to do so by the community...just like that....I hereby ask the community to comment and condemn these violations of the mentioned admin and warn him of any other actions like this one...--Ivan VA (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Denniss seems to have reverted the map to its original state, which seems reasonable. Different versions of the map should be uploaded into new files, and any argument about which one to use in a given context should take place elsewhere. --ghouston (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's true for the first, the second example seems to be the opposite situation. --ghouston (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
and there are more to come....1, 2, 3--Ivan VA (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Ping Denniss. (Right to defense or reply). Alan (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And for all of that i'v got rewarded with a block warning and accused of making nonsense edits....--Ivan VA (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Same here [1] --Milićević (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Strong support for Ivan VA, we see that the administrator Denniss is very problematic. Also, Denniss pushing his own political agenda by reverting maps, according to all the criteria it is act of vandalism by administrator.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Btw, just look with which argument he reverted and protected the file Milićevič mentioned below...→....i mean if this isn't a case of abuse of admin rights for, here in particular, pushing personal political agenda...i really don't know...--Ivan VA (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

more evidence....here (take a look at his argumentation)--Ivan VA (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What would really impress me here? If there were some evidence that any of the people here were involved in understanding that Kosovo has been recognized by 106 UN member states and that maps need to recognize that, and where a compromise can't be made, there need to be two maps. Native English speaking countries have all recognized Kosovo, which should probably factor into to how English-language maps should look. Make it work, and stop just attacking each other.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all i started this discussion coz it's obvious that a administrator used the powers trusted to him by the community for stuff hes not allowed to use for, so there have to be consequences for that kind of behavior, otherwise the whole project may take a road no1 of us wants to see...we had some examples some months ago how far some things can go (→ meta discussion on croatian wikipedia etc.)....so 1st of all as truly wikipedians, his behavior should be condemned b4 getting to the political stuff....
Secondly, i have to remind u, coz u mentioned the linguistic dimension in your argument, that no wikimedia projects are nation based - they are language-based projects (independent), so the decisions on problematical political questions can't be based on political acts of any states depending which language is spoken in them - by coping the same decisions (their point of view), but on decisions made by this community - a one which is writing an encyclopedia - on certain criteria, acting independently....(btw your english argument isn't hitting the center, coz many countries in which english is spoken, like India (1 billion people) didn't recognize Kosovo etc...)...so we need to set the criteria for stuff like this (maps here in particular), and my proposal is to act on the criteria of international law...in my opinion it's the best and most real one ....and thats the things we should discuss....
...but about the admin behavior there is little to discuss so things gotta move about that question....--Ivan VA (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Denniss' actions are commendable. This has been discussed before. I'm glad that admns are able to protect content against nationalist revert-warriors, and I trust that will continue. bobrayner (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
no they are not, for example here (one more evidence)....1st you “shaped” (reverted) the map to your own political agenda (updating to reflect 2008 borders), thereby vandalizing the map itself being posted to commons in its original, and after that, instead the admin Denniss reverted your edit and stopped the violation, like every admin elected by the community should do, he did nothing, but now after, he prevented a other user to reedit the vandalism done by u, and reverted to the vandalized map again, with a comment - this map is to show the current version, not the nationalistic serbian version....the case is clear!
i hereby warn the whole commons community of an dangerous precedent, that can danger the whole commons project....by this actions of such brutal vandalism and violation of admin rights, here in a particular sensitive political question, can cause in a stop of local branches of wikipedias in all the languages to stop sending their files to commons, knowing that they might be treated in a way they don't want, causing them to keep the files in the local branch stores....thats disastrous!
In this particular case its the administrative divisions of the Republic of Serbia, proclaimed by its laws and constitution....that are the facts in this file-case...and a dude just comes, violates, the admin covers him and then locks the file...like nothing happened....this hasn't to do a bit of encyclopedia and the reason we're all here...GOD--Ivan VA (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you take more care with your messages? Chat speak does not make it the easiest to read, nor do randomly varying the indentation of your messages. Yes, political maps are going to reflect a political agenda. Editwarring to force your political agenda on the map and then pointing fingers elsewhere and accusing others of vandalism doesn't help your case. We permit maps to reflect the differing political opinions, not enforce one interpretation of international law, so let's work on getting multiple maps when we need multiple maps to reflect differing opinions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Indentation fixed. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Offsite canvassing[edit]

We seem to have a broader problem of offsite canvassing here. With Serbian editors conspiring to revert map updates on Commons and to make trouble for Commons admins who try to deal with the problem. It's not the first time we've had problems with offsite canvassing in this area, but the scale of this one is alarming. Ivan VA, who posted this complaint about Denniss, was canvassed here; Soundwaweserb was canvassed here. Does Commons accept or reject extensive campaigns of reverts, and attacks on administrators, which are coordinated offsite? bobrayner (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

1st of all it's not an offsite, it's the serbian language branch of wikipedia, and as i remember this whole thing is one project....secondly im here as an wikipedia editor contributing myself to commons, and i don't need an extra invitation to comment or criticise stuff here or elsewhere, not from you or someone else (this is not your private party)....3rd, and most important, most of the files here are used in wikipedia articles, and if someone vandalizes files here it affects the credibility of articles on all wikipedias they're used on...and thats the reason i'm here...4th, i wouldn't open this discussion if the commons project institutions would do their job, stopping the vandalism, but looks like one of the carriers of the institution is the problem, and the community has to discuss that.--Ivan VA (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
People off Commons coordinated an attack on a Commons administrator. You volunteered, and you did lots of reverts too, and never mentioned here that somebody offsite had told you to do it. The active commons editor who coordinated this crusade has carefully avoided this thread, and didn't raise this supposed problem on the relevant Commons pages - they know what answer they'd get. That person already left en.wikipedia after getting blocked for similar antics there. Instead they found willing proxies on sr.wikipedia. (According to that thread I'm some kind of Albanian nationalist, which is a farcical personal attack). Personally, I think it's all highly inappropriate. What do uninvolved Commons people think? bobrayner (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Attack on a commons admin? lol wt*?....all the reverts i'v done were a try to revert the vandalism You and some other dude did by cutting Kosovo from Serbian maps without any consensus from the community or asking the authors of the maps, being covered by administrator Denniss, who was acting due to his own political agenda....i wouldn't react if the admin would do his job and revert the vandalism....after i tried to revert, the mentioned admin threatened me with a block, and then i asked for a comment of the community after obvious admin rights violations....
...i reacted on this after reading an article on sr. wikipedia about serbian statistical regions, seeing 1 of them completely missing on the map....it discredited the whole article....
...the only crusade here was the one you made, vandalizing maps and being covered by that discredited administrator...its easy to check the dates when the conflict begun....
on that demagogic accusations and conspiracy theories i won't aswer....--Ivan VA (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Why did You upload new image over another, so we got two same maps under different names? -- Bojan  Talk  04:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I reverted to a better revision of the former map; I had no idea that somebody else had already uploaded a better version wth a different filename - I've never edited that one, so that's a non sequiteur. So, obviously, I did nothing wrong. However, you are active on sr.wikipedia, where this conspiracy was coordinated; just a few hours ago you were talking to Ivan VA, who has made similar comments on this thread, made similar reverts of maps, and agreed offsite to do all this on behalf of a different Commons editor. That smells bad, and it's not the only offsite canvassing. What do uninvolved Commons people think? bobrayner (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The only conspiracy is shown here(like on many other maps), and its between you and that admin...vandalism is obvious...Maps should reflect the real world. The old version does not show current borders., with the admin covering - Kosovo is not part of Serbia, please accept it....were your actions based on community consensus to make this revert?,or with permission from the mapmaker?, vandalizing the original file posted to commons...--Ivan VA (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"Community consensus"? I would be grateful if uninvolved Commons editors could comment on whether a conspiracy which was deliberately discussed offsite with a carefully chosen audience would count as "community consensus" here. And then look at the very large number of reverts on Commons by Ivan VA, who was canvassed over there and was previously inactive here. And which "community consensus" did Ivan VA have to stealthily coordinate an attack on a Commons admin? bobrayner (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, very nice. I just had aim to open discussion about this here, but seems that Bobrayner already reported himself. Behavior of user Bobrayner in commons is simply unacceptable. He is obviously an Albanian nationalist internet warrior whose goal is to remove Kosovo from all maps of Serbia in commons (see examples: [2], [3]). Due to wikimedia commons policy, commons should contain both versions of these maps: maps of Serbia with Kosovo and maps of Serbia without Kosovo and it is editors in each wikipedia who should decide which version they should use in their articles. If Bobrayner tried to follow this policy he would upload map versions of Serbia without Kosovo under new file names and then he would propose usage of his file versions in his home wikipedia. But, did he done this? No. He simply switched POV in original images in commons and, in that way, changed POV not only in his home wikipedia but also in other wikipedias, in which he is not active editor. In this image he even changed language in which this map was made: [4] (original map version was in Serbian language and with Kosovo, see: [5], while version uploaded by Bobrayer is in English language and without Kosovo, see: [6]). In another words, he changed map in Serbian language which showed Serbian POV and was used in Serbian Wikipedia into map in English language which show Albanian POV and which is still used in Serbian Wikipedia. In this way, he directly push his POV into articles in Serbian Wikipedia, where he is not active editor. If Bobrayer wants to have version of that map without Kosovo and in other language then he should upload it under new name and he should not overwrite existing file. I also suspect that account Nikswerdhond is a sockpuppet of Bobrayner since behavior of these two accounts is identical (see: [7], [8]). I will also open official checkuser investigation about this. PANONIAN (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is checkuser request regarding Bobrayner which I started: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Bobrayner PANONIAN (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
PANONIAN's comments here are part of a broader problem. PANONIAN's claim that I'm "an Albanian nationalist internet warrior" is obviously false, and obviously a personal attack. This repeats the attacks that he used here to start an offsite conspiracy to manipulate Commons content and attack Commons editors. PANONIAN tried to take Denniss down; this new sockpuppet page seems to be an attempt at revenge after he was caught red-handed. I've had the same on en.wiki - most recently at the hands of one of PANONIAN's allies, who got permablocked after taking me to Arbcom and now does a lot of sockpuppetry. And now PANONIAN canvasses people to go directly to the sockpuppet page, and an IP which has never edited commons before - and is blocked on de.wiki as a proxy - duly obliges. It's not the first IP sock used in this campaign. PANONIAN's canvassing, deception, personal attacks, and sockpuppets/meatpuppets should be clear to any uninvolved editor who looks through evidence like this. Offsite, on PANONIAN's thread, people are gloating about how they performed mass reverts on his behalf and attacked editors on his behalf. How long should Commons tolerate this awful behaviour? bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, Bobrayner, did you just admitted that you can read Serbian language in Serbian Wikipedia? As far as I know, many Albanians from Kosovo know Serbian, so my observation that you are an Albanian is just observation and not personal attack. Do you claim that you are not Albanian? Regarding discussion in Serbian Wikipedia, I only spoke there with other editors about files which showing Serbia without Kosovo in articles in Serbian Wikipedia and about persons responsible for such files. I neither called anybody to come to commons to revert your changes or canvased anybody to your sockpuppet investigation page. In fact, I got advice from other user in sr wikipedia to open this investigation about you. If you already read discussions in Serbian wikipedia then read all of it and read it carefully. PANONIAN (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It is a personal attack. I am obviously not Albanian. You tried to hide the trail; but I saw Ivan VM appear out of the blue to make a massive string of reverts, and I clicked on the Global Contributions button, which leads directly back to your conspiracy, and shows that Ivan VM is your meatpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, be free to open sockpuppet investigation if you think that Ivan VM is my meatpuppet. And this is not personal attack from your side? Also, if you are not Albanian, how you define your nationality? And where you learned Serbian? PANONIAN (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Really? That's the cornerstone of your argument - that I found your canvassing and meatpuppets and your attempt to bring down Commons editors who disagreed with you, therefore I must be able to read Serbian, therefore I must be Albanian? That's laughable, and I would happily disprove that by presenting proof of ID & address to a trusted third party (any uninvolved admin, feel free to email me) - or you could ask a friend on en.wiki. Anyway, back on track: My browser translates text. Not perfectly, but enough to follow the trail left by Ivan VM; enough to see your proxies and attacks, and a conspiracy to bring down Denniss. When that didn't work, you turned on me and canvassed allies to that too. Comments from uninvolved Commons editors would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Funny. So your "evidences" for "my canvasing and conspiracy" are this, this, this and this? First one is conversation between Soundwaweserb and Ivan VA, unrelated to me, second one is comment of Ivan VA where he agreed with me that we should use files with neutral titles in sr vikipedia, and the third one is also general comment of Ivan VA unrelated to me. My comment from last link in English means this: "Here I reported Bobrayner for sockpuppet. We now will see what will come from it". Do you have link to any of my comments where I actually called someone to come to commons to revert something or to do something? PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
All that is in the discussion you created on sr.wiki, where normal Commons users would not see it, and deliberately avoiding the usual Commons processes & oversight. Other editors diligently performed exactly the edits you wanted. They didn't disclose, here, that they were your proxies - although the pattern of editing is clear. Comments from uninvolved Commons editors would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I started that discussion in Serbian Wikipedia because it was related to issue in Serbian Wikipedia: POV maps of Serbia without Kosovo in articles in Serbian Wikipedia. And how you know that "other editors performed the edits I wanted"? I did not suggested them to perform such edits. I only informed them about the problem that I spotted, but they acted on their own with their solutions for that problem. You want to suggest that I am their "master" in sr wikipedia and that they all do what I say to them? I am not even administrator there. PANONIAN (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I´m not sure if a discussion about canvassing and/or a political agenda is much help in solving the underlying problem: Obviously, there is no widespread consent about the status of Kosovo, so there is neither "right and wrong" nor "old and new". I´d sympathize with the solution mentioned above: simply provide two maps with the respective description and - please - "speaking" file names that make the difference clear to recognize for everyone. But it seems we are talking about several hundred (or thousand?) files and it might be a bit overdone to duplicate whole category trees. Isn´t there a way to accommodate both views by ways of cartographical signage? Choosing perhaps a hatching for Kosovo that is indifferent to the controversial question? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Lord, in this moment Kosovo is disputed territory (and its not first and not last case in the human history). Here on wikipedia we must respect reality and try to stay neutral. Reality is that Kosovo today is not a full recognized country nor a member of UN, IOC, FIFA etc. Serbian and Kosovan politicians works hard to make acceptably solutions for both sides and thats the fact, we are not politicians or judges to cut who is wrong and who is not here. Why is problem to make two version of maps? When we talk about administrations in any country around the world we must use official statements of their governments. Thats all. We just can't wrote article about Georgia (for example) without their disputed territories, same for Cyprus, Somalia, Morocco, India, China, Azerbaijan etc etc etc. Wikipedia must stay neutral cause this is not private project sponsored by Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin or anyone else politicians. And please, but please don't call me nationalist, I am really sick of that accusations here (on Serbian wikipedia some users mark me as Albanian stipendiary loool) --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

And here we have new example - User:Bobrayner redraw this map by his standards with reference on UN site. An here is the original map on UN site.--Ivan25 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The main problem here for Commons is that some people seem to be violating COM:OVERWRITE by holding edit wars over the content of certain image files. I'd suggest that an admin should protect each such file with the original version that was uploaded and give warnings to those involved so that they are aware of the policy. --ghouston (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I Symbol support vote.svg Support ghouston's suggestion, and would urge admins to hand out strong warnings, as there is clear misunderstanding of Commons guidelines here. -84user (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I also Symbol support vote.svg Support. But problem is that admin Denniss is avoiding this rule (see history of this file File:Map of Serbia (municipalities).PNG). Additionally he is scaring users, saying he will block them if they revert to old version. This is not way one admin should behave. Pushing his own POV and using admin rights for doing this. I hope some of other admins will give him a warning. Best regards --Јованвб (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support ghouston's suggestion too. BTW I am very disappointed with his behaviour here. It's just not acceptable, and at least that level of conversation is not collegial --ΝικόλαςΜπ. (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Since the main issue is that serbian wikipedia does not want a map of europe with Kosovo, I would suggest that they would create a new file where that country is excluded. They can then use that file on serbian wikipedia.
On a related note, but not the same subject of this case, I think the action from panonian to ask for an CheckUser on bobrayner is compleatly unacceptable and that bobrayner does deserve at the very minium an sincere appology from panonian. CheckUser should never be used like this. Perhaps it needs to made clearer to users how serious an CheckUser request really is.--Snaevar (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So, Snaevar, according to you, there is nothing suspicious or wrong if an new account is created today just to revert file to version of Bobrayner? see this please: [9]. Last time I checked, abuse of multiple accounts was forbidden by wikipedia rules. PANONIAN (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Whether it is suspicious or not is compleatly irrelevant when it comes to CheckUser. CheckUser would be used as a last resort where an editor has abused the wiki and is trying to get around blocks by switching ip-adresses or creating new accounts constantly. It is not something that would be used in a dispute. I reccomend that you read the Access to and release of personally identifiable information chapter of the Privacy policy (an policy that applies to all WMF projects, including serbian wikipedia and commons).--Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this is exactly kind of abuse that require check user: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Purushottama (A single purpose account created only to help Bobrayner and other involved accounts in revert warring). This account have no other edits. Put for a momment other involved accounts aside and tell me this: why supposedly new user in commons would immediatelly jump into this revert warring over file versions? If this is not case for checkuser then I do not know what is. PANONIAN (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Misleading attribution in articles[edit]

Attribution works well as image hyperlinks in articles. But I see some problems in "download as PDF" option. See Banteay Kdei as example. "Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors" in "Banteay Kdei.pdf" lists "File:Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 10.JPG Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Banteay_Kdei,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_10.JPG License: Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Parabolooidal, Poco a poco" where Poco a poco is the copyright holder and Parabolooidal is just a user who add one category and removed it soon. I think the WMF approach to fetch the contributors form the page history works for articles; but it seems a poor and unfair approach for media. Pinging Fabrice Florin (WMF) for opinion. Jee 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is the best that we can do currently, since we don't properly store this information, but instead throw it into templates. The multimedia team is going to work on this, but it's gonna take years to update all our uploaded image credentials into a more 'structured' format. Also once they have laid out the infrastructure, much PDF renderer will need some work to fetch the information in the new way. TheDJ (talk) 10:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
It's even worse that Jee points out above. Poco a poco has specified that they want to be credited using a different name (perhaps their real name?). I'm not sure attributing the image to their Commons username fulfils the CC-BY-SA license requirements. And if they had included a copyright statement on the image description page (which isn't unheard of), the PDF file would certainly be non-compliant. If we can't include an image in the PDF file in a way that complies with its license, we shouldn't include it at all. --Avenue (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The specific request by Poco a poco is one of many (oh, so many!) license variations we have, as TheDJ puts it, «throw»n «into templates». That information, instead of being “cleaned up”, should be dully used to insert proper licensing language in the PDF versions of the articles. It is a lot of work, but hey, apparently it is a lot of work doing it wrong, too, might as well do it right. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict.) I’d say it is a matter of parsing the current file page for media version uploaders — still not perfect, but way better than to lookup every Tom, Dick, and Harry who ever edited the page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
TheDJ, thanks if the multimedia team is going to work on this. But I didn't understand your argument "Unfortunately it is the best that we can do currently..." because the Multimedia Viewer successfully pick his name and credit to it. Remember, [10]: "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." Wikimedians may willing to compromise; but we have several third party uploads and we occasionally refuse deleting files even if authors asked so. So if there is a failure from our side, we are forced to be more generous on such deletion requests. Jee 15:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is worse than that. Try downloading a PDF for w:Greta Hall. In the PDF file, I am credited for making the PD-old-100 image which is used in the article, but I merely moved the file to Commons from English Wikipedia. Apart from this being confusing to the reader, it can cause legal problems when files which are still copyrighted are copied to Commons.
Also note that attribution for articles is broken in the PDF file when articles are split, merged or translated into another language, unless Special:Import is used. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm; the multimedia team should immediately chance the code so that attribution of media files must be populated from the "Author" parameter. Later they can consider reading from the "attribution" parameter used in the license tag or "attribution" parameter created by "credit-line". Populating attribution from page history is misleading and quite nonsense, anyway. Jee 03:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone identify the castle?[edit]

AVE serie 100 de RENFE.JPG

I suspect it is a landmark along the Cordoba - Sevilla high speed line. Problem is that the categories are to specific to have a general search.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be this one: Category:Castle of Almodóvar del Río. -- Tuválkin ✉ 11:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
And copyvio via http://www.panoramio.com/photo/4102678 (2007, CC BY-ND 3.0 by Federico Verjaga Bue...) (or not, eventually... Fedekuki sounds similar to "Federico"... hmmm...). Gunnex (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Most likely not. Identical exif is quite present in other uploads of this user. False alarm :-). Btw, here the Google Map link for Castle of Almodóvar del Río from where I got the Panoramio-source... Gunnex (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Glad to know it is likely not a copyvio (unless it is a moderately clever one). As for the geoloc, the values from Panoramio, 37°48′28″N 5°01′26″W / 37.807648°N 5.023777°W / 37.807648; -5.023777, mark the object location, which I added to the Category:Castle of Almodóvar del Río; the camera location for this photo must be SW from the castle, to include the rail line in the foreground; my guess 37°48′15.080″N 5°2′2.5224″W / 37.8041889°N 5.034034°W / 37.8041889; -5.034034 may not be exact, but it is better for this photo than the Panoramio geoloc as given. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, I suggest this discussion should be moved/archived to the file’s talk page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

UK: Chiltern Railways block Commons[edit]

Chiltern Railways, a DB-owned company which runs trains between London and the English midlands, offer Wi-Fi to customers. Although referred to as a free extra, it is clearly used as an inducement to customers to choose them over rivals.

For some time, the service has been blocking Wikimedia Commons, with the message:

"This site was categorized in: Photo Sharing, File Storage, Software/Technology, Research/ Reference, Non-Profits, Visual Search Engines"

Wikipedia, including its commons-hosted images, is not blocked. More than once recently, this has stopped me working on the project, or finding images to add to articles, when working on Wikipedia. I have reached out to them to ask for an unblock, and today they responded:[11]

"Please be aware that we have looked into your request and this restriction will be removed. Thanks. E"

but less than three hours later followed up with:[12]

"I'm afraid someone has had a look at this site from the team and has found adult content so we're now not able to unblock. E"

I'm told that the similar companies, CrossCountry, East Midlands and East Coast all don't block Wikimedia Commons.

If you use Chiltern Trains, please ask them to unblock Commons, either on Twitter or by e-mail or post. Keep your comments polite, and give reasons why access to Commons is useful. Remember that the staff involved ("E" is the initial of one) are not those making the decisions. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't they also block Wikipedia in that case, since Wikipedia contains adult content? --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

PNG vs. JPEG for photographs[edit]

Hello,

I wanted to upload a JPEG version of a photograph which had been uploaded as a PNG on Commons, in order to reduce the filesize of the thumbnails displayed in pages using it. However I found (on Commons:File types#PNG and Help:Scanning#PNG vs. JPEG) that it may not be so obvious that JPEG should be preferred for photographs...

So, are there some guidelines about whether to prefer JPEG or PNG for photographs? (I'm talking about a random illustrating photograph here, not for instance a high-quality scan of an artwork or historic document) Maybe the filesize difference between JPEG and PNG thumbnails is not worth the trouble? (although reducing the generated bandwidth always seems to me a good thing...) Would the ideal behaviour be, for each photograph, to upload it as a JPEG for usage and as a PNG for storage?

Thanks for your views on the subject.

Cos-fr (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It is obvious to me that any "normal" picture taken with a digital camera should be uploaded as JPG. Most PNGs I've seen uploaded here have little benefit at the cost of an enormously increased filesize, or ther are downscaled to keep the filesize manageable, thereby sacrificing way more information content than a JPG compression at the same filesize would have lost. --Dschwen (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
So, you're saying that a picture that was made as a JPEG should be uploaded that way; now, when I find a picture that another user uploaded as a PNG, is it a good idea to convert it into a JPEG and upload the new file? Or are the benefits (smaller thumbnail filesize) not worth the drawbacks (slight deterioration in the PNG->JPEG conversion, additional file to manage on Commons)? and if yes, would it also be a good idea to suggest deleting the PNG as redundant? - Cos-fr (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If an image was uploaded as PNG there is absolutely no reason to reupload it as JPG. The bandwith you save (which is minimal for thumbnails anyway) is out of proportion to the downsides(quality loss due to JPG compression, additional maintenance work to deal with the two copies, potential to upset the original uploader with the duplicate; a deletion of the PNG is probably against our deletion guidelines anyway which state to normally delete the version with less quality or the newer version if both are equivalent which in both cases would be the JPG version). If you upload a new photograph, JPG is the way to go though. --Patrick87 (talk) 09:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Understood, thank you for that guideline. Shouldn't we write it somewhere, like in Commons:File types? - Cos-fr (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
{{PNG with JPEG version}} is documented in Commons:File types#PNG, maybe add Category:PNGs with JPEG versions and Category:PNGs_with_missing_JPEG_versions. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Model year or manufacturing year for cars[edit]

I would like a clarification regarding categories such as Category:2013 automobiles. Do we sort per manufacturing year or by model year? // Liftarn (talk)

  • Normally model year, though there might be some weird exceptions. - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Such as File:Saab 9-3 Aero MY14 02.jpg? // Liftarn (talk)
2013 category here seems like a poor choice to me. If someone wants a category for the time the picture was taken, that could be done in a separate category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

What are the good books / pictures on beinecke.library.yale.edu?[edit]

I've found a way to batch download high resolution images on http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/ where host many public domain works. Anyone can find interesting pulic domain books / pictures on that site? Please put the link / id here and I can download and upload them to Commons. --維基小霸王 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

One of bots and templates[edit]

Hi. I need some help. Yesterday I started to check this category. It's a container of lots of things (more than 3500 different pics). I think I finish of request rotation of all files than needed, but I need help to change categories and names.

Do you know if there is possible to do this changes and where can I request them? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"Cosplay"[edit]

We keep going around this, so I'm bringing the matter here. People keep adding "cosplay" categories to images in Category:Summer Solstice Parade and Pageant and its subcategories. File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2009 - 007.jpg is a recent example. I think this is wrong, but I'm getting tired of fighting it one image or category at a time.

Participants in this annual parade in the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle variously wear uniforms, costumes, body paint, or occasionally nothing at all. I don't see wearing a costume in a parade as "cosplay", and as far as I can tell neither does the en-wiki article on cosplay. This practice predates even the word "cosplay". - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to treat this on an image-by-image basis. If I'm dressed as a character which is typically associated with cosplay at one of these events, the fact that I'm at one of these events does not make it "not cosplay." On the other hand, if I'm dressed as a character NOT typically associated with cosplay, the fact that I'm at one of these events does not make it "cosplay." However, in the interests of minimizing disruption, I would recommend that if anyone adds the "cosplay" (or any sub-category of cosplay) to one of these images, that they explain themselves on the image talk page. Likewise, if anyone removes such a category, they should explain themselves. If two editors disagree on whether an image should or should not be labeled "cosplay" then there should be a discussion. In any case, it's not going to do great harm to the project if a few images are improperly categorized for the duration of the discussion. Davidwr (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, so, to take the example at hand: would the Mad Hatter be considered "a character typically associated with cosplay"? - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Further comment: there is little chance that the person who is the subject of any such photo will be offended by not being described as doing cosplay. If they do not see themselves as doing cosplay, they are likely to be offended by such a category. - Jmabel ! talk 06:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If the man is costuming himself specifically to remind people of the Mad Hatter character, and we have a category "Cosplay of the Mad Hatter", then I don't know why the category wouldn't apply. Of course, merely wearing semi-random bodypaint and loincloths, without attempting to appear as a specific character from art, literature, film etc. is not Cosplay... AnonMoos (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess my issue is that the term "cosplay" refers to a certain type of fandom, and that wearing a costume in a parade does not necessarily indicate an affiliation with that type of fandom. To take a more loaded example, it's as if we were to take self-flagellation by people in a Catholic religious procession and classify it under sado-masochism. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
If they dress and adorn themselves to appear as specific characters from art, literature, film, etc. then I really don't see why we're stigmatizing them by adding specific categories which reflect this. It seems to me that adding categories such as "Cosplay of the Mad Hatter" helps accurate image classification. AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Folks appear to be making up their own definitions of cosplay on the fly, which may be unhelpful. There is a definition at Cosplay which is sourced and represents a consensus view there. It turns out to be quite wide, in that someone engaged in cosplay does not have to be dressed as a specific character. --Fæ (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The first definition at the top of that article says "Cosplay, short for 'costume play', is a performance art in which participants wear costumes and accessories to represent a specific character or idea." I don't think it would be useful to categorize people merely wearing semi-random bodypaint and loincloths, without attempting to represent a specific character, in the Cosplay categories... AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, though, our article says "Cosplay is generally considered different from Halloween and Mardi Gras costume wear," and the parade here is much more like Mardi Gras than like a cosplay convention or even a cosplay parade. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
However, if they garb themselves with the specific intention of appearing like a particular media/literary character, and we have an appropriate cosplay category for that character, then it would not seem inappropriate to add that category. It's not like we're accusing them of being furries or anything... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

File name[edit]

Could someone who does these things please change "File:Klarfeld Lord Alistair McAlpine.jpg" to "Klarfeld- Alistair, Lord McAlpine.jpg" Klarfeld is the artist. The subject, though often called (in Australia) "Lord Alistair McAlpine" was properly called "Alistair, Lord McAlpine". Amandajm (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Uncontroversial file renamings can be requested by using the {{rename}} template on the individual file page. They are usually dealt with in a day or two. No need to come to a site-wide forum for this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Move done. But in the future, please just use {{rename}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Global usage for redirects[edit]

Do I understand right that Special:GlobalUsage started showing usage via redirects as well now? If so, I would request that an option is provided to show only direct usage, i.e. not via redirects. This is really needed for replacing renamed files in those cases when CommonsDelinker is unable to do it (e.g. with BSicons). YLSS (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It does. However, I do not understand how that hinders with replacing the usage. (The redirect only shows the usage of itself (and possibly preceding redirects) ant not the usage of it's target file) --McZusatz (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the usage of the target file now shows both the direct usage and usage via redirect. Sometimes these need to be separated. YLSS (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
However, keep in mind Special:GlobalUsage doesn't show all usage, so if nothing shows up, there is no guarantee that something is unused. For example, mw:InstantCommons usage isn't shown. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

So what, can anybody deal with this problem? Because otherwise, quite a lot of BSicons will need to be moved... YLSS (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Category:Time by hour[edit]

Dear all, I would like to get your opinion on Category:Time by hour. This example is given at Template:Category definition: clocks and watches by time displayed : For 15:45 / Time 15:45: clocks and watches displaying the time 15:45 (3:45 pm). 12-hour clocks are categorized in category:Time 03:45. Seconds are ignored. See the parent category description for additional information.
This sounds a bit odd. Shouldn't this be: 12-hour clocks are categorized in category:Time 03:45, unless clearly being 15:45? Otherwise strange things happen, like this one: File:StationVoorschoten5.JPG (see gallery), where time is clearly indicating 16.00 hr (afternoon) and not 4:00 -as is now the category. Or this one: File:Tann-Rüti IMG 3491 ShiftN.jpg. The sun is clearly shining brightly, but the time category indicates Time 02:46, which is clearly nonsense. I think we should bring in some common sense into this category by relaxation of the definition of analogue clocks, and adding into the definition unless clearly being afternoon or evening. Vysotsky (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • StationVoorschoten5.JPG
  • Tann-Rüti IMG 3491 ShiftN.jpg
Unless there's a 24h clock, as is the case with your first example, I'd categorise 12h clocks into both categories, i.e for a clock displaying 3:45, I'd categorise into 03:45 and 15:45 categories. That way end users can easily find images of relevance and there's no longer an issue about where to put images, guessing about whether it's morning or evening etc. It was pointed out when we discussed this via the IRC channel earlier, EXIF data could be used to determine the 24h time the clock actually displays, if you're prepared to accept EXIF time to be correct (I'm personally not sure about that as there's obviously the risk someone has put in 12h time into a device expecting 24h time so it ends up out by 12h - I'd imagine there's a lot of afternoon photos taken with an early morning 24h time, if that makes sense).
The other option we discussed, is specific categorisation for 12h clocks, linked to from the other categories.
Nick (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I think EXIF data are unreliable. In my opinion, best solution would be to change (relax) the current Category definition of 12-hour clocks, so obvious examples like the above 16:00 won't be changed into 04:00. If the definition will not be changed, changes like these will continue. Vysotsky (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem is some areas, especially more northerly and southerly areas around the world can have very long hours of daylight during summer and it is not impossible for clocks to be photographed in bright sunshine at 04:00hrs (i.e early in the morning). I believe the best option is either to have specific categories for 12h clocks or to dual categorise into both times, i.e 04:00 and 16:00. I agree there should be no changing of categories until this is resolved and a proper workable solution is agreed upon. Nick (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good proposal. Perhaps the categorization could be done within the rules, applying common sense. I guess there won't be much fuss about the categorizations, since most pictures are not taken in the polar regions. Category definition|clocks and watches by time displayed|15:45 now translates into: For 15:45 / Time 15:45: clocks and watches displaying the time 15:45 (3:45 pm). 12-hour clocks are categorized in category:Time 03:45. Seconds are ignored. See the parent category description for additional information. Perhaps this could be changed into: For 15:45 / Time 15:45: clocks and watches displaying the time 15:45 (3:45 pm). 12-hour clocks are categorized in the appropriate category: either Time 03:45 or Time 15:45. In case of doubt, use both categories. Seconds are ignored. See the parent category description for additional information. Vysotsky (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Doubled upload log[edit]

Something strange occurred with File:BSicon uxSPLa.svg. I uploaded it once, as can be seen its history and in my contributions, but in the "File history" section there are to entries with identical information. Likewise there are two entries in the logs for the file, and so two entries in my uploads. If this a one-off bug or a common issue? YLSS (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Speakerthon results[edit]

At the "Speakerthon" event at the BBC's New Broadcasting House in London on Saturday, volunteers and BBC staff identified and extracted around 300 sound clips of notable people speaking, from the BBC's archive of broadcast radio programmes. The BBC have agreed to release these clips under open licence (CC-by).

Around 100 of these have already been uploaded to Commons and many added to the (English) Wikipedia articles on the speakers, including, for example, Tim Berners-Lee, Alice Walker, Agnetha Fältskog and Morgan Freeman; with many more awaiting templating upload.

Colleagues are welcome to assist, by documenting, templating and categorising the files, and transcribing them, and adding them to articles. How to do all this is described in the project guidelines

The Open Knowledge Foundation have a blog post about the event.

This project is the first time the BBC have agreed to release extracts of broadcast material under open licence. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

FLAC on Apple devices[edit]

Following the Speakerthon (see preceding section, in which files were uploaded in FLAC format, I've seen comments from users of iPad and iPhone devices, that the audio cannot be played. This is also true for some Android devices.

I'm aware of the MP4 debate, which might impact on this, but in the meantime do we have a FAQ to which people affected maybe referred, which will advise them of the reasons, and work-arounds? Is there anything we can do on Commons, in the short term, to make the files playable on such kit?

Some useful apps for Apple devices are listed at [14]. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Commons:Media_help might be relevant − does it appear up to date?
(though it does not mention FLAC ; but if I understand correctly a transcoded Vorbis version is available for every FLAC file).
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, but that seems to be for desktop/ laptop devices, not mobile devices. There's no option for Android, and the Mac section doesn't mention apps. It would be good if someone with the requisite knowledge could expand and update it accordingly. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
the mp4 rfc is for video and audio, so it would have an impact on such things. My understanding (i dont have an iphone, so ive never put it to the test):
  • neither audio nor video works in iphone/ipad due to lack of free format (ie vorbis, in the future opus) support
    • you may be able to download the media file and then play in vlc app if you get that app.
  • audio should work on all android devices (after android 2.3) if it doesnt work on your android device please let me know including what version of android you are using and what browser.
  • on the desktop audio wont work on internet explorer or safari without a plug in. For best results use firefox or chrome. In theory it should work if you have java installed, but i tested that today, and it didn't. Hopefully that issue will be resolved soon.

Bawolff (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

actually after testing, i must conclude that things are pretty bugy on android. First of all, if you arebrowsing in mobile interface, all videos seem to get stripped. In android browser (but not firefox app) only the first couple seconds of the video play. So pretty much ugh. Bawolff (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Windows ffmpeg experiments: Chrome, Windows Media Player, and MPC-HC like the FLAC. I added "bare FLAC" again to the list of working file types, from where I removed it erroneously some hours ago. After that I tested File:Tim_Berners-Lee_-_Today_(ffmpeg_FLAC_in_OGG).oga. Windows Media Player crashes, MPC-HC works. So from my POV either FLAC in an OGG container is a dubious plan, or my ffmpeg.exe 2.1.1 doesn't agree with Xiph.org how to get this right. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Another version created with ffmpeg -err_detect aggressive -i source.flac -vn -a:c flac -sample_fmt s16 -f ogg output.oga, 3.12 MB instead of 7.33 MB after stripping 8 unused (?) of 24 bits. However, the commons transcoder does not more grok the duration (48s). –Be..anyone (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea what any of that means. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what it means. If your 7 MB FLAC is the same as my 3 MB FLAC we're wasting disk space. If FFmpeg got it right the FLAC support on Windows (XIPH codecs) and Commons (duration) is "incomplete" (buggy). Otherwise FFmpeg is buggy. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Why do you think the original flac file is not 24 bit? --McZusatz (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Andy: Ok, added links from COM:Media help. Now someone has to fill out Commons:Media help/iOS & Commons:Media help/Android ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll see if I can find anyone who can do that. Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)[edit]

This user seems to have stopped uploading files from Wikipedia, but is still uploading files from Flickr. What's wrong with the bot? --Stefan4 (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I was also unable to migrate a file from en.wp a week ago, but I thought that was a temporary problem. CommonHelper produces "Querying image data ...done. Retrieving image description ...done. TUSC verification successful. The image should now be at <...>. Edit the new description page." However, the new description page doesn't exist. YLSS (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
I have had this problem for a couple of days. Looking at the 1000 most recent files at Special:ListFiles/File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), I only find Flickr uploads, but no Wikipedia uploads. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Vector.tutsplus.com tutorial on how to create File:Titan's atmosphere.svg!![edit]

I was paid to write a tutorial on how to draw my Titan's atmosphere diagram! See it here!!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Video support[edit]

For efficiency reasons, there was a slight change in how the Javascript that supports videos is loaded. Well hopefully this should affect nothing, if you happen to see a video which has the play button to the right of it (instead of on top), and clicking on it links directly to the file (instead of playing the video), please let me know. Bawolff (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Innovaxiom[edit]

Can someone review the contributions of this user? They appear to be uploading files on behalf of this organization and the terms of use are currently in French, so perhaps we need a good translator of French to determine whether it fits into the CC-By-SA or not. If it isn't we might need an OTRS ticket to prove that this user is a representative of the company who chose to release their files under the license indicated. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wellcome Images[edit]

Thousands of years of visual culture made free through Wellcome Images, 2014-01-02. Tons of high-resolution images. Do we have any systematic plan for incorporating these? In any case, we are going to have a decision to make, because they say they are releasing them under CC-BY, and we'd usually argue that these are Public Domain. Still, it might be most polite to stick to the CC-BY, in the interest of good relations. ~- Jmabel ! talk 06:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

License-wise, we do have {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-100|cc-by-3.0}} for such cases. Jean-Fred (talk) 07:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The Wellcome Trust logo should be on Commons as PD-textlogo, so I would propose a dedicated template showing source and licence. I had a quick look to see what delights await and there's lots of excellent work, but there's a number of rights managed images in the library which are released under the CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0 licence, so we will need to make sure there's none of those imported. It does say on each page what the licence is however, so there should be no need for any guesswork. Nick (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
The EXIF also doesn't match the updated license, but we can get over that. -- Katie Chan (WMUK) (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Cross posted at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_I_upload_CC-BY_images.3F too. Jee 13:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's great to have these images available, digitally, but Wellcome are claiming copyright over, and to be the original source of, artworks and images from books which are already in the public domain. They have added a strapline underneath each image; and the precess of downloading high resolution versions of these public-domain works is tortuous, with a CAPTCHA, irrelevant terms & condition, and zipped files – why not make them available directly? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a great public resource. I have contacted Wellcome to ask about API access which may solve some of the technology issues for a batch upload. We often find that agreeing good context/metadata and providing links back to the source catalogue means that the desire for the source organization to add straplines or watermarks is avoided. As for the PD vs. CC-BY discussion, I suggest deferring that issue as the outcome may vary depending on the nature of the work; for example under UK law, there is reasonable precedent for a high quality photograph of an ancient papyrus to be considered a 3D work and the photographer may well claim appropriate rights. --Fæ (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
We could create something similar to {{Walters Art Museum license}}, reflecting individual copyright status. Are you also approaching the Wellcome Library explaining our stance on copyrigh? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
One step at a time. You know my track record on these things. --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Image review request help please[edit]

Please see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#Image_review_request

Thank you,

-- Cirt (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

booker t washintong[edit]

hey everyone this is what i need help on im doing a project for black histroy and i need info about booker t washington with your help thumbnail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.234.34 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 22 January 2014‎ (UTC)

You can find out more about him by clicking here. --AdmrBoltz 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Error: Invalid time[edit]

Why is there no maintenance category for such errors? See File:Adam Dutckiewicz-masfield.jpg for an example. --Leyo 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why there is no maintenance category for this, but it was fixed by this edit. Lupo 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, this google search yields 2330 pages with that problem. Lupo 09:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Strange: [15]. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That is odd and there seem to be many causes:
--Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
We should really rewrite User:Torben/Info to use standard templates and merge User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass with Template:Flickrreview. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In contrast to the other user template, User:Torben/Info is not used so many times. Hence, replacing them with {{Information}} might be an alternative.
@Lupo: Thanks, but I was aware of the cause and the solution. I think that creating a maintenance category is essential. --Leyo 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

Illinois Supreme Court[edit]

Are decisions made by the Illinois Supreme Court considered free-use to upload to Wikimedia Commons?

For example, Supreme Court opinions listed at:

http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/recent_supreme.asp

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 08:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why they would be. The Illinois Supreme Court is not part of the federal government, to {{PD-USGov}} does not apply, and section 5 of the Official Court Reports Act indicates that the court holds the copyright to its publications. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they're okay. The US does not recognize copyright on edicts of government like court decisions. Use {{PD-EdictGov}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well this is embarrassing... —LX (talk, contribs) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 24[edit]

Special:Contributions/Pandaravadai[edit]

Sorry to have to bother you guys again, but I found that all the contributions of this user and his other accounts Sharfudinpdv Rajaghiri and Sharfudin have all uploaded pictures containing pictures containing watermarks, so if someone could either review and tag their file uploads with the {{watermark}} template and/or dedicate their time to directly removing the watermarks from the contributions, it'd be great. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Try Visual File Change, you should be able to tag them all yourself en-mass. --AdmrBoltz 21:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

January 25[edit]

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=114643398"