Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map 1 1 C.Suthorn 2024-11-01 07:41
2 Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end 34 11 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 15:57
3 I messed up making a mass deletion request 2 2 RoyZuo 2024-11-01 18:57
4 Your input... 13 5 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 21:53
5 https://ocr.wmcloud.org/ 6 5 Enhancing999 2024-10-31 21:33
6 Views through mobile phones 7 5 Prototyperspective 2024-11-03 12:28
7 Almost 400k files need license review 25 10 Jmabel 2024-11-05 19:41
8 Obtuse bot created categories 14 9 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 10:46
9 Commons Gazette 2024-11 1 1 RoyZuo 2024-11-01 19:15
10 Derivative works (FOP etc.) 6 6 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 10:39
11 Special:Uploads/Claudiupt 1 1 Strainu 2024-11-02 10:19
12 Help needed with a new userbox template 1 1 David Osipov 2024-11-02 11:54
13 Provinces of China by month and year 3 3 RoyZuo 2024-11-02 23:58
14 Edit summary on project chat 6 4 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 22:35
15 file description pages from IA Flickr stream 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 14:30
16 New page for establishing textured meshes on Commons 1 1 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-11-03 18:16
17 FYI 7 4 Enhancing999 2024-11-06 21:15
18 New law in Costa Rica: "Public Domain of Information" 3 2 LuchoCR 2024-11-07 01:04
19 Moscow State University Herbarium 1 1 Yann 2024-11-05 15:36
20 {{TOO-US}} 2 2 Jmabel 2024-11-06 19:29
21 Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2 1 1 Kadı 2024-11-06 14:58
22 External link detection is now live on Commons 1 1 Sannita (WMF) 2024-11-06 16:36
23 AI generated and licensing 13 5 Prototyperspective 2024-11-07 17:30
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

July 21

Maps of Palestine, and maps of Palestinian territories

Discussion moved to Commons:Requests for comment/Palestine and Palestinian territories

September 4

12.5 megapixel limit

Type No. too large
GIF 122
PNG 4,216
TIFF 12,529 
SELECT
  CONCAT("* [[File:", img_name, "]]") AS File, 
  img_width*img_height AS Pixels
FROM image
WHERE img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime="png"
AND img_width*img_height > 12500000;

It seems the categories Category:PNG files affected by MediaWiki restrictions and Category:TIF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions are for categorizing images affect by Bug 9497. Should more be tagged by bot? List all affect images on a subpage? Or untag as the developers who can actually fix this can run the SQL query too. Also, I've got a another query that'll finds frozen and unthumbnailable animated GIF. Dispenser (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be tagged with the template mentioned in the categories. This is a convenient way to categorise affected images and also link to a jpeg version, if available. --McZusatz (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that the GIF count is wrong. By the way, if you could run a search to generate a list of SVG files with 744x1052 or 1052x744 dimensions, that would be useful, since such images very often have inappropriate margins, and the old list User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px is out of date... AnonMoos (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The gif count sound reasonable to me because it did not take into account the number of frames of gif (which would push the number quite high). --McZusatz (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've responsed to the SVG question down at #Process for SVGs where the canvas doesn't match the content. —Dispenser (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Animated GIF
Average Framerate
Exceed Count
100 FPS 83
30 FPS 490
20 FPS 1,052
All 11,167
Internet Explorer does not animate GIFs faster than 20 FPS (related WebKit bug)
I've built a table with img_framecount, img_looped, and img_duration for the 131,714 GIFs. From this we now know that 1,493 animated GIFs have are beyond the 12.5 million pixel limit, freezing all but 5 (A B C D E, all weather satellite images uploaded by User:Originalwana) GIFs. Of these only 45 animate as a 220px thumbnail and a further 996 show on the 800x600 file description page. That leaves 447 GIFs that users need to download to view the animation. —Dispenser (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know why MediaWiki:File-no-thumb-animation-gif only shows on Commons? —Dispenser (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could we automatically categories broken GIF with the MediaWiki message? —Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the bad uploads Commons gets are from users not understanding what "own work" means. Special:UploadWizard seems a prime target to try harder to educate users, yet once we get to the "own work" rights page the user is simply asked to confirm "This file is my own work." I suggest incorporating more of the issues mentioned in the UploadWizard tutorial and at Special:Upload/ownwork. If the uploader claims "own work", we should have them clarify what they understand by that, and ask them to confirm (using checkboxes, so they actually have to answer the questions!) things like

  1. this is a photo, and I took the photo myself
  2. or it's an original digital work I created myself, without using or relying on any files created by other people
  3. the photo doesn't include creative objects or images created by other people (eg paintings, statues, etc)
    • except where photo taken in a public place, in any of these countries where Freedom of Panorama applies (...list...)

This list isn't exhaustive, it's just a first idea of what sort of thing to ask, and nor can the final list be exhaustive. But we can try and ask the most common questions where the wrong answer makes it clear that it's not "own work" and that either the file shouldn't be uploaded, or it should be uploaded and tagged for immediately needing additional information and/or help from more experienced users. Also we can link to Commons:Own work, if we improve that. Rd232 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not ever going to be able to explain this sufficiently to mortals. They will just click until something is submitted. TheDJ (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But we can try harder. And we can also try and set up the questions so it's not obvious (if you're ignorant of copyright) what the "wrong" answer is, and use the information collected to tag files for review. For example: "Did you take this photo yourself?" "no, I got it off the internet". If the user clicks the second one, get's told that's not OK and then ticks the other one, the wizard show know that and tag the file accordingly. (This is hard to explain and design quickly, but I hope my point is clear.) Rd232 (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the idea to tag based on questions a better idea then choosing a gated community model, but I still think the user will be thoroughly annoyed. This community however has chosen to uphold the values of our community, so I see little problem in putting a lot of burden on the community. As much as people don't like repetitive tasks, invalid uploads are like vandals. endless TheDJ (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "gated community". But if we can get developers on board to do something like this, we could hopefully do some split testing to see how different approaches, designs, question sets work. It would be great if at least some of the changes could be done via MediaWiki interface, rather than requiring developer action for every tweak. Rd232 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can do a lot better without having people to tick checkboxes. There is no clue in the upload wizard about what to do with derived works. If the file is my own work, then I am supposed to be the rights' owner and no further questions are asked about the copyright status. No hints about FoP, PD or anything that would potentially allow me (or not) to upload my photo.
If the file is not my work, then there are a few options, but freely licensed works are restricted to CC-licences. You have to go to "other reasons" for a GFDL or PD-self file. And if you do not know the templates, then "Internet/unsure is" the only option for those (the template link leads to a non-existing page).
--LPfi (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole concept of derivative works is one many people struggle with. The UploadWizard should absolutely try and get people to address that if it's relevant. I think checkboxes are a good way to do that - certainly worth testing compared to just providing more options for people to choose from. Basically, we should try and make it a little more wizardy, i.e. try and guide the user through the very basic copyright issues, and not just try and leave out all the more complex issues and hope the user understands when the Wizard options aren't sufficient. Rd232 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with checkboxes, unless you have to check "yes", "yes, really" and "yes indeed" to continue. I think a third option should be added to the two main ones "own work: yes/no", which would deal with derivative works. Derivative works are a complex issue of course, and I think our current template system does not work well for them, so there is a lot of thinking to do to make the wizard work smoothly. --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rd232 that such an approach would save a lot of work for later reviewers and admins. I won't prevent malicious people to upload files, but at least people just ignorant of copyright issues will get a better clue. Yann (talk) 04:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Rd232. I add that most innocent copyvios are by first-time users, so that any extra steps can be lifted once the user is a little more experienced. Ariadacapo (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the upload wizard automatically take account of the user's location? In terms of providing a relevant tip, this would help a lot by pointing the user to relevant copyright guidelines - for example photographs of 3D artworks in a public place in the USA versus the UK, or the public domain status of artworks created in Russia before 1917. --Fæ (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could make a guess, but it should not rely on guessing right. It could do something like "... freedom of panorama, as in [probable country]", adding warnings for special cases relevant for the jurisdiction, but not pretending it knows your situation. --LPfi (talk) 14:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - the Wizard can certainly try to be helpful based on any information available, but should take care not to appear to be definitive. Rd232 (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Next question: if we collaboratively come up with some concrete design for the additional questions, is there any developer available who can actually implement this? Rd232 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that this isn’t the best place to ask. The bug tracker (product: MediaWiki extensions; component UploadWizzard) might be better. I was not able to (quickly) find an UploadWizzard-related mailing-list. Ariadacapo (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Worth a try. I've submitted a bug: bugzilla:40255 - Ask additional copyright questions of users claiming "own work". Rd232 (talk) 21:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 7

Process for SVGs where the canvas doesn't match the content

I've noticed a lot of the icons in Category:RRZE-Icon-Set are badly framed, with content disappearing past the left border, and often lots of white-space. Is there a bot that handles this sort of thing? Or at least a template/category for it? Or a bot that adds a template? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 06:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More standard terminology would be "margin problems". A lot of them in that category seem to have 744 × 1,052 pixel dimensions (see my request under section "12.5 megapixel limit" above). There's no automatic way to fix this that I know of, but it can usually be fixed with simple edits to the file's <svg...> header (change to viewBox=, or addition of viewBox= if there's none)... AnonMoos (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are for sure some SVG bots which can do that COM:BR -- πϵρήλιο ℗ 09:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can any Commons bot automatically determine what the margins should be? -- AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "margin problems" is as good a term as any, but there are images like File:Footnote-edit.svg (first version) where the content isn't even in the frame. I don't know the capabilities of bots, but Inkscape has a button that automatically adjusts the borders to the content. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long
side 		Short
side 		Count
512 341 49221
475 355 36681
660 600 22873
500 500 14325
375 375 11576
1052 744 7628
600 600 7406
1600 1600 7042
384 384 5871
450 450 5718
750 600 4957
512 427 4742
512 512 4190
601 601 3334
300 300 3138
600 520 3066
625 575 2972
900 600 2608
750 500 2540
600 400 2426
200 200 2140
385 385 2062
990 765 1998
48 48 1862
451 451 1842
128 128 1785
64 64 1634
800 600 1582
512 256 1544
751 601 1534
210 130 1521
700 300 1516
200 120 1500 
/* Frequently used SVG canvas sizes */
SELECT 
  GREATEST(img_width, img_height) AS "Long side",
  LEAST(img_width, img_height) AS "Short side",
  COUNT(*)
FROM image
WHERE img_major_mime="image" AND img_minor_mime="svg+xml"
GROUP BY 1, 2
ORDER BY 3 DESC
There are about 7,600 files at the 1052 by 744 resolution, but the list at User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px needs to be worked on more than updated. —Dispenser (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I wanted a list of some kind, not a count. I went through User:Ilmari Karonen/Queries/SVG 744x1052px two years ago and fixed a significant fraction of them at that time (not all of them -- some didn't need fixing, and others seemed to be low priority). AnonMoos (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Good luck figuring out what still needs to be checked. —Dispenser (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have fixed some (in the first part of the alphabet so far)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested above, I put a request at bot requests. Commons:Bots/Work requests#Adjusting margins for SVG files ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the "auto-margin" functionality of Inkscape puts drawing elements right on the edge of the frame, which is by no means desirable in all cases. Furthermore, this would involve Inkscape parsing the input SVG file, converting it to internal Inkscape in-memory representation, and then re-generating the SVG from scratch when the SVG is written back out according to Inkscape SVG conventions, and this whole round-trip process can create problems in some cases. We've already had problems with bots causing more problems than they solve (such as DieBucheBot's first run), and we don't need more... AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It auto-sets the margin to whatever you tell it to. I generally set it to 5px. Besides, weren't the vast majority (if not all) of 1052 x 744 files created in Inkscape? And in the case of images that are cropped by the frame, it could only be an improvement. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 03:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't use Inkscape to edit SVG files (only to test and convert SVG files), but I've seen far more zero-margin Inkscape SVG files uploaded than small-consistent-margin Inkscape SVG files, so I wonder if the margin option to auto-resize is very intuitively obvious, or was only added with a relatively recent version of the software. And the great majority of 744 x 1052 SVG files were probably originally created in Inkscape, but some of them will have been subsequently edited in other programs, and this can sometimes cause problems when the resulting files are rewritten in Inkscape again (as also perhaps sometimes rewriting a file created in one Inkscape version using another Inkscape version). AnonMoos (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well my hope was that someone could pull the algorithm out of the Python code (since a lot of bots are written in Python... I think) and use it with a bot, which would hopefully avoid the other issues. Either way, wouldn't it be better to have a bot do a run through problem cases and then fix the few that cause issues, rather than manually go through them? The category I mentioned above would make a good test-run, as they are new, mostly (if not all) unused, and more have serious issues than don't. As long as a list is kept of the files that are edited, we can skim through and should be able to see problems quickly. We could even have the bot skip over files that are in use. Even if we are only doing that one resolution of image, assuming that even half of them have good borders, that would still be 3800 SVGs to fix, which impractical manually. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if what I say sounds like quibbling, but part of what I do at Commons is troubleshoot SVG problems using a text editor (there are number of problems that are elusive to fix in a vector graphics editor which can easily be dealt with by opening the file in a plain text editor), and much of what I do in that role is to fix problems caused by Inkscape, so it's hard for me to be enthusiastic about an Inkscape bot... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but even a bot can edit text. Is there no way that you can see an automated bot editing SVGs on specific lists or in specific categories? Surely a bot can deduce where the content ends and where the margin begins without opening Inkscape. I was just trying to think of the easiest way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you fixed File:Footnote-edit.svg, its size expanded from 558 KB to 700 KB. The file wasn't harmed that I can see, but it's one indication of the issues that can be involved when reprocessing files in Inkscape... AnonMoos (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not arguing that, I agree with you. You obviously know more about Inkscape and SVG markup than I do, which I why I was hoping you could think of a way a bot could help this problem. Despite the size, I don't think it can be argued that File:Footnote-edit.svg is slightly more useful when the content isn't invisible. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With translations, rotations, "use" references, clipping paths, opacity settings, hidden elements, font width variations, and filters, it's not so easy to find the boundaries of the drawn-on part of the plane without fully semantically parsing the SVG file. Ideally, a margin-resize-bot would find the edges of the drawn-on rectangle like Inkscape does, and then readjust the margins by changing only the width=", height=", and viewBox=" attributes in the file header (instead of doing what Inkscape does when it reads in and writes back out a file). I don't think that such a thing currently exists...
Anyway, I adjusted the margins of roughly a third of the RRZE icons, which is probably about as many as I'm going to do... AnonMoos (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 8

I'd like to upload 3D models

I was going to make and upload a 3D model of one of our local monuments (I already have the about 500 images I took from different angles and locations, now all I need to do is run structure from motion and clean up the mesh). But, looking, I see no other model files. Is Wikimedia commons only for still photographs, audio, and video? If so, is there another place for open 3D models?

--BrotherE (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3D model files are currently (still) unsupported. The only alternative I know of is the unofficial Commons Archive site set up by User:Dcoetzee which is exactly intended to fill this gap: cover file formats Commons doesn't (yet) allow. See here. So you can upload the 3D file there, and an image or video rendering of the model on Commons, and link the two. Rd232 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the devs would be more inclined to do the work if a discussion was had about which format is most preferred? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 21:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The brief discussion at bugzilla:1790 tends towards en:X3D, which is an ISO standard. The trouble with new file format requests tends to be that devs want to do server-side rendering (which Wikipedia needs to display the file), and not just host the file and let the client display it if they can (which would be OK for Commons - better than nothing, anyway). Server-side rendering means getting appropriate software on the server, which may or may not exist, and being very careful about security issues. But yes, agreeing on a file format is certainly a first step. Rd232 (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have had this question raised by more than one GLAM organization (models of buildings, artefacts and archaeological ground surveys) and I have flimflammed on giving any advice and instead deferred real discussion until WikiData is available as a dumping ground for such stuff (and I have no idea if that would actually be a good working solution). If X3D is recommended and workable, please let's try and get an RFC or similar consensus done so we can get on with implementing some case studies on Commons as there are real opportunities passing us by to preserve, and give public access to, some great educational 3D models. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commons Archive is available right now (though it may need specific filetypes enabling, that should be done fairly quickly on request). Files can then be transferred to Commons as and when that becomes possible. Agree to try for an RFC. Maybe it's worth having a BIG BIG BIG RFC about all the unsupported filetypes, and advertising it all across Wikimedia?? Because lots of filetypes are affected by this "nothing happening for years" issue. Rd232 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd advise against big consensus processes, they are so much less likely to converge than small and focused ones, but maybe this is worth a shot if it can be structured in a way that folks can express opinions against one format but support others. It will at least be good to capture questions, alternatives and catalogue issues and sources (assuming that people drop by to express an opinion!). I will look again at Commonsarchive, but hesitate to recommend a stop-gap solution that may be superseded within a year or two to cultural institutions that easily take 18 months to agree funding or commit to a programme. --Fæ (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'd be best to stick to 3D format, as that is a totally new category of file, and they are increasingly more common. The other formats like JPEG 2000 or CML don't really add much, compared to the ability to host and render 3D models. Adding all of the other unsupported formats will make people less inclined to participate, and make the devs less inclined to implement any one feature. If we keep it focused we are a lot more likely to get positive results. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't mean that MW shouldn't support other formats, just that this RfC should be focused on 3D formats. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 19:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Rd232: Note that Commons Archive accepts any file type whatsoever and does not require enabling specific file types. If BrotherE has some models they wish to contribute today, I would be happy to accept them. It would be a great place to hold them while you guys deal with the bureaucracy of getting 3D model uploads enabled here, which could take a long time. It is very easy to move files from Commons Archive to Commons at a later time as they use the same software and templates. Note that as you mentioned earlier, to be eligible for upload at Commons Archive, images or video of the models must be uploaded here at Commons. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 9

EXIF metadata for Canon cameras is making up a parameter

I have been using Canon cameras since I became a wikipedian. Recently, I began noticing the EXIF metadata. There are two fields presented that should mean the same thing, but always have different output. The Exposure time and the APEX shutter speed seem to always be very different numbers. Typically, the former is a fraction of a second while the latter is typically a seemingly unrelated number between 2 and 10.

I have asked several friends about this number. I have also asked at a weekend demonstrations and seminars at Calumet Photo in Chicago. I have also called 1-800-OK-CANON. The Canon rep told me that the APEX shutter speed is not a field/parameter of their EXIF data and is probably calculated from some of their fields. What is this number suppose to represent and why is it presented in the wikimedia metadata if it is not a Canon parameter. I have noticed that this field does not show in files from Nikon images, but it does show in files from other models from other brands such as the W:KODAK EASYSHARE Z1015 IS DIGITAL CAMERA.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Nikon camera gets "APEX exposure bias", and my Canon camera gets 3 APEX fields. These aren't present in the original files before upload to commons. ghouston (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The field names displayed in Commons are translated into the user's language, and it seems even the English versions don't necessarily match the field names displayed in other software, and the tags in one camera model won't necessarily be present in another (this is the Nikon vs Canon difference). But I don't see why the value for the shutter speed is getting modified. In a file I'm looking at, it's shown as Shutter Speed Value : 1/79 but becomes APEX shutter speed 6.3125 in Commons. ghouston (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's happening is that the field value is coded in the APEX system, and Commons is displaying this APEX value, which is negative base 2 log of shutter speed in seconds. I guess my other software is converting it back to seconds for display. ghouston (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of having the negative base 2 log of the shutter speed as a separate number? We should just remove that from the metadata display.--TonyTheTiger (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Displaying the raw APEX number doesn't seem particularly useful, but I guess the Commons uploader is just taking whatever it gets from whatever library it uses to extract the EXIF data. But it seems that when a camera is adding two different shutter speed tags, they may not even have the same value - see a discussion at [1], which also says that it's actually the intent of the EXIF standard that one should be presented in traditional terms and one in APEX. So I guess that's why it's coming out that way in Commons. ghouston (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The exif metadata stores both forms (which is stupid. Don't get me started on stupid things in the exif standard). We print out most everything in the EXIF data, even though some of it is useless. (Some of the super useless stuff we skip). Bawolff (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...but some of the useful is skipped too; e.g. face detection data... ;)) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donating my Presentation on Youtube

In December of 2011 I have given a lecture on the topic reconstruction (architecture) and friends have created a video for me on the basis of this lecture. I am the copyright holder though , and I would like to donate this video to commons, but I did not succeed so far. The lecture was given (in German) at a book presentation, but it was not primarily a p.r. event, and even though the quality of the videeo is more than mediocre I would consder it eligible for commons. How to go about it?

The video in question is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFjrpQMgmAs --Robert Schediwy (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Another way to do this would be to ask the copyright holder of the video (YouTube user elkendaron I suppose) to change the license to Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed). The YouTube user could do this from this page (the owning user must be logged in to YouTube first). -84user (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eriosyce_napina_pm.JPG

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42037

I get this error instead of the file page:

[21a84683] 2012-09-12 08:30:02: Fatal exception of type TimestampException

--McZusatz (talk) 08:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the API output seems to be OK. After deleting the file, I was able to view the page. Editing is still possible appending ?action=edit to the page. Perhaps some Metadata in the file are causing this error? Anyway, a bug that should be forwarded to bugzilla or someone in IRC. -- Rillke(q?) 09:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look. It really was something with the jpeg file. It should be fixed now. --McZusatz (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty more corrupt files from this user: File:Echinocereus_fendleri_BlKakteenT143.jpg, File:Eriosyce_subgibbosa_wagenknechtii_pm.JPG, ... --McZusatz (talk) 17:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The files are not corrupt, it's a bug in MediaWiki. It will be fixed (not sure about the timetable though). TheDJ (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transferring a discussion from user problems noticeboard based on an admin's request

Request by user to rename against our generally accepted naming conventions regarding non-English names
My friend has requested renaming of a file which I've refused to rename twice. I look for opinions of others on this issue. I'm reproducing our dialogue from his/her talkpage:
Please read this guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. We cannot rename a non-English file into English. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Well I totally understand this rule, but it was for harmonizing as a set of images:
    • File:NATO Medal Yugoslavia ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal w Służbie Pokoju i Wolności BAR.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Eagle Assist ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Active Endeavour ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal non-article-5 Balkans ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal ISAF ribbon bar.svg
    • File:NATO Medal Macedonia ribbon bar.svg
as you can see, this one is the only "non english" filename, for this set of images. And as english is the official NATO language I thought its "better" if its english. I just want to highlight this fact. If I cant change ur oppinion its ok as well :) --Flor!an (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harmonizing a set of image names is an accepted reasoning for file renaming. I don't believe there's a over-riding and absolute rule that "We can't rename a file from one language to another" even when it's in the best interest of the file(s) and is acceptable under the 7 renaming guidelines. Fry1989 eh? 21:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fry1989, for your opinion. I now look for the opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers before deciding on the rename request as I see a conflict between the harmonizing rule v/s honouring non-English filenames. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
There are plenty of files in other languages in category:Ribbon bars of NATO; harmonisation is not desirable (and not feasible) in such case and has lower priority that the the respect of the uploader language. Harmonisation and/or extension of the file descriptions will be much more effective. --Foroa (talk) 07:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Foroa: FYI here I'm talking about the "NATO issued medals". Some nation wear different variation of these eg. Norway Version (File:NATO-medaljen Former Yugoslavia.svg) (with "fullsize" Plate on it) = Norwegian Name; or German Version: (File:NATO FORMER YUGOSLAVIA ribbon (Bundeswehr).jpg) (smaller size). And for allot images in this Category I requested a delete because there are simply wrong drawed. --Flor!an (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Commons_talk:File_renaming#Naming_convention_for_ranks_and_insignia. If you want harmonisation for templates, use a naming scheme that redirects to the best picture available in that class so that better versions/colors/formats don't need renaming of other files. --Foroa (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, as I see, Flor!an's rename request seems to be endorsed by Fry1989, whereas my cautious approach in not renaming the file straightaway is endorsed by Foroa. I still need one or two more opinions of at least two admins / fellow filemovers from this noticeboard. Regards, Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

 Comment This has nothing to do on the ADMIN noticeboard, no admin actions are needed. Please Hindustanilanguage use the village pump (COM:VP) for this kind of questions. You are regularly posting this kind of question on the COM:ANU. Please avoid this when not needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Selim, my personal view on the issue is that status quo should be maintained. But Flor!an insisted on "harmonisation" principle over our guideline for which files should not be renamed? # 2. Since there is absolutely no ego issue involved, I felt let me take the "opinion" not "action" of you people on the issue. If this open, friendly and democratic approach causes you inconvenience, sorry. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The approach is not the problem, but you'll get more answer from the village pump (which is the place for thoses kind of questions IMO). The administrator noticeboard is to be used when administrators are needed. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I'd say that this is an appropriate case for the harmonization rule to be applied. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prestige oil spill

Having a look at your information about Prestige, the ship,.your data are not correct, at least in the spanish version; displacent and death weight can't be the same — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.62.233.162 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 12 September 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I think "Prestige oil spill" is the gallery being referred to. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I'd like to report that there's File:Steve Wozniak at home in game room.jpg which was not considered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stevewozniak.jpg but appears to be in the scope of the DR. --151.75.10.39 18:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Thanks, I've tagged it for deletion. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get corporate representatives to donate photos?

In my volunteer job as a Wikimedia press contact, I've been doing rather a lot of liaison with public relations people and other corporate representatives wanting to get their clients onto Wikipedia. (e.g. [2][3]) You can see how this is a rather conflicted area.

However, it occurs to me that one thing we could do with more of is high-quality imagery, and companies have a pile of this stuff. Often professional shots of whatever that they've taken for promotion that sit in a box forever.

So we can't really lose by at least asking. What good approaches, phrases, soundbites are there that could be spread to get them into donating this stuff to the commons? Let's say CC by-sa, it's simple and works.

(In my experience, the head-explody bit is "you relinquish control". But PR people are not stupid and know a PR advantage when they see one, and this is stuff they'll already have spent the money on.)

Durova's piece from a few years ago advocating SEOs give us pictures may be apposite.

Any other ideas? - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could say something like this: "Well, we'd love a high-quality image, but if this isn't something you feel comfortable with, a web-resolution version (72 dpi) is fine too." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, but I wouldn't bring up resolution or image size until they do (you don't want to negotiate for them). Remind them that giving up copyright on an image doesn't mean they give up patents or trademarks. Free images mean more exposure. You can show them Category:Pebble E-Paper Watch, who released their press pack under CC-BY-SA at our suggestion, and went on to have the most successful Kickstarter bid ever (en:Pebble (watch)). Now their images are used in articles like en:Smartwatch, giving them a commercial advantage over companies that do not release free photos, as their image is now associated with an entire category of products. Their image can be used worldwide (de:Pebble (Armbanduhr)), reaching customers who may have never even heard of them otherwise. Releasing free images allows fans of the product to do marketing and coverage for them. Stuff like that. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The point to emphasize is that it would be in their interest to make some good-quality images available for free use in Wikipedia articles and other contexts. If not, then they cannot complain if people use less flattering photographs. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 11:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably start by floating the idea with the PRs I've been talking to, who are actually fans of Wikipedia, see what they think - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corporations usually don't get their employees to take photographs, they hire photographers. Therefore, as I have experienced before, the photographs would be speedily nominated for deletion without a OTRS from the photographer. --Eternal-Entropy (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

MIBAC agreement for Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy

Dear all,

Great news from Italy! After over one year of talks between Wikimedia Italia and MiBAC, the Italian Ministry of Cultural and Artistic Heritage (MiBAC is a quasi-acronym from its official Italian denomination "Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali"), we have managed to sign an agreement which will allow us to participate to Wiki Loves Monuments in a much broader way that we could before. MiBAC explicitly states in the agreement that «the Ministry considers particularly useful, in order to promote awareness of such goods [the ones managed by the Ministry - note that this is different from "owned by the Ministry", see below], the production of specific items about them on wikipedia.org, in all its languages, and the publication of images on Wikimedia Commons, at the site http://commons.wikimedia.org.» Moreover, it will explicitly ask to its local branches to give us the list of "lesser" monuments, those which are not usually known but are nonetheless beautiful... and poorly described in Wikipedia. Italian law however puts some constraints unrelated to copyright issues: this means that the pictures uploaded must bear the the template {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}[1]. The text of the disclaimer is shown below; to understand what it actually means we put up this text, which provides a bit of context about the history of the agreement and the Italian law.

As you know, Wiki Loves Monuments started in 2010, and went European in 2011. Wikimedia Italy wanted to participate to that edition, but we discovered a great obstacle to the project, a law called "Codice Urbani"[2].

"Codice Urbani" is an Italian law which states, among other provisions, that to publish pictures of "cultural goods" (meaning in theory every cultural and artistical object/place) for commercial purposes it is mandatory to obtain an authorization from the local branch of the Ministry of Arts and Cultural Heritage, the "Soprintendenza"[3]. The Superintendence can require the payment of a fee; moreover, the authorization granted is will be for the requester only (usually a publishing company) and only for a given publication. Personal use and use for study and research are allowed without a request for authorization. You certainly noticed that Codice Urbani is problematic for a smooth realization of Wiki Loves Monuments. In fact, I can make pictures of monuments I can give up my copyright allowing others to copy my image without requiring my explicit permission; but the Codice Urbani says that if I want to publish those picture a fee can be requested to me, so anyway a third party can't make profit out of my picture without asking in advance an authorization to the Soprintendenza. This issue is completely independent from any issue regarding copyright: Coliseum and the Leaning Tower fall (no pun intended) under Codice Urbani. So we were in difficulty in organizing a photocampaign in Italy and asking people to (potentially) break the Italian law, since the unclear points where many.

We started challenging this problems in Summer 2011: we contacted people from the Ministry, we set up a draft of the project, we met once in Rome to speak with high delegates. To make a long story short, we managed to obtain the promise of receiving the lists of the monuments which could be photographed: but then things slowed down, our contacts were moved to other offices, and the Ministry himself (who was aware of the project) was replaced or political reasons (unrelated to WLM, of course). Thus, we could not participate in WLM 2011.

In December 2011 we started working out a new strategy: meanwhile, as you can imagine, endless discussions were made in our mailing lists. We contacted NEXA Center for Internet and Society[4a], an institution from the University of Turin which supports and promotes Creative Commons: they are actually the official contact for Creative Commons in Italy! We decided to allocate some resources and hired Deborah De Angelis[4b], a lawyer specialized in Creative Commons and cultural heritage. Deborah, who is based in Rome, started contacting again the (renewed) Ministry of Cultural Heritage, proposing a draft for an agreement between the Ministry and Wikimedia Italia. Several months of discussions and bouncing of documents followed.

In January Wikimedia Italy also hired a Project Manager for Wiki Loves Monuments, Emma Tracanella. Emma started developing and pursuing another tactic developed by WMI to get permission for taking pictures of monuments: asking directly the authorization to specific municipalities and institutions. In fact, it is the "owners" of a monument who have the right to authorize pictures of it. It's Codice Urbani itself which gives them these rights, indeed.

Thus, we had two strategies: one top-down, that is discussing with the MiBac to obtain an agreement clearly stating that we could organize Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy, and explaining which were the boundaries of the law (the dream here would have been to change the law itself, but we would have needed to bring the issue in Parliament, and more urged matters pressed); the other bottom-up, that is asking the permissions to the single institutions. Note that the bottom-up strategy meant having to deal with 8000+ different municipalities, endless cultural institutions, uncountable churches (every parish priest has the right for is own parish, unless this is in some special list from the Ministry). We let you imagine the complexity of the landscape that was opening in front of us: it was a nightmare, but at least it could give us some "free" monuments.

Emma started making calls to everyone who could give us authorization for taking photo of monuments. We started spreading the word, calling friends of friends for help, starting a blog (our wikilovesmonuments.it), begging for authorization everywhere. We had a great ally in APT Services, the Tourist office for Emilia Romagna, with which we already partnered in the past for some Wikipedia-related projects; they organized meetings with mayors and regional politicians. In the end, we reached different regions and provinces, and several municipalities (here there is a list[5]). Our list of monuments counts in hundreds, and it's still improving everyday (here there is a map of the lists[6]). A drop in the ocean, if you think at the enormous Italian cultural heritage: but it is all we managed to get.

This up to yesterday. Today, we had finally an answer from MiBAC, and it was positive. The Ministry signed an agreement with Wikimedia Italia saying that:

  • the Ministry, with the aim of promoting the knowledge of the Italian Cultural Heritage, finds useful that the monuments have an article on Wikipedia with photographs. (yes, it is *actually* saying that).
  • the Ministry will send an internal communication asking to every Soprintendenza to send us a list of the monuments they control, along with a permission to take photos of them. Pics of these monuments can be released in CC-BY-SA, in the sense that the maker of the photograph can relinquish his own rights; no fee is needed to be paid to the monuments' owners by the photographer if he does not want to use them for commercial purposes.

As part of the agreement, we however have to add a disclaimer to the pictures; the one in {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. The text of the advice is shown below:

This image reproduces a property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage as entrusted to the Italian government. Such images are regulated by Articles 106 et seq. of the Italian Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape under Legislative Decree No. 42, dated January 22, 2004, and its subsequent amendments. These regulations, unrelated to copyright regulations, establish a system for the protection Italy’s historic and artistic heritage and its standards of dignity. Among other things, these regulations provide for the payment of a concession fee by those who intend to benefit economically from reproductions of property belonging to the Italian cultural heritage. Reproduction of this image is permitted for personal use or study. A further authorization by the Italian Ministry of Heritage and Culture is required for reproduction for any other purpose, and particularly for commercial use. Such commercial use includes, but is not limited to, use in (a) any form of advertising, and (b) any company name, logo, trademark, image, activity, or product.

Our lawyers (which are people from Creative Commons Italy) assure us that this license is compatible with CC-BY-SA, because the provisions of the license, which deals only with intellectual propriety, is saved and the limitation occurs on another, different, level. In other words, the photographer releases the picture in CC-BY-SA, the Ministry allows to put it on Commons waiving its own right to get a fee, but Codice Urbani keeps staying in force, protecting the pics from automatic commercial use by third parties. To be more explicit, please have a look the the section 5 of the Legal Code of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 [7], which we quoted below: boldface is ours.

5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer
Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties in writing, licensor offers the work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantibility, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, or the absence of latent or other defects, accuracy, or the presence of absence of errors, whether or not discoverable. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so such exclusion may not apply to you

As you may see, it's true that the author of the photo cannot vouch for the merchantability of the images, since this is not a right of his/her; but CC-BY-SA explicitly takes into account that case.

To the best of our knowledge, this agreement is the first one of its kind in Italy, and sees an official recognition of the existence of Creative Commons licenses; moreover, it is a necessary step towards new regulations recognizing the importance of the free dissemination of information about the cultural and artistic heritage, which cannot just be "museum stuff". We are thrilled to see what will come out, and how Italians will answer to this challenge.

We are very proud to have obtained this. Feel free to ask us anything you think relevant, we'll do what we can to answer. We are also open to prepare some FAQ, if we see the need for them.

Best regards,

Cristian and Andrea
on behalf of the Wiki Loves Monuments organizing committee in Italy

References

[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer

[2] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codice_Urbani

[3] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soprintendenze

[4a] http://nexa.polito.it/

[4b] http://nexa.polito.it/fellows

[5] http://www.wikilovesmonuments.it/istituzioni/

[6] http://www.wikilovesmonuments.it/monumenti/lista-monumenti/ ; also on wiki at: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:Wiki_Loves_Monuments_2012/Monumenti

[7] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode

Congratulations your great results. It is amazing how many quirky national laws one run into, and has to take into consideration. --Jarekt (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jarekt :-) --Aubrey (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, and thank you very much for your perseverance! MartinD (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nogg hoax pictures

FYI: Hoaxer Special:Contributions/Ritterhahn has uploaded four pictures purporting to be photos of the Nogg hen from which eggnog is made (ar ar), in support of his Wikipedia hoax attempt w:Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nogg. Whether you wish to keep that sort of file is up to you... 62.147.58.130 13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add Arabic to picture

I would like to add the Arabic to: File:Ambassador christopher stevens.jpg

From the Arabic Wikipedia: كريستوفر ستيفنز (John Christopher "Chris" Stevens؛ (أبريل 1960 - 11 سبتمبر 2012)، واسمه الكامل جون كريستوفر ستيفينز , ولد وترعرع في شمال كاليفورنيا ,درس في جامعة "بركلي" وكان سفير الولايات المتحدة في ليبيا منذ مايو 2012 وحتى وفاته.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Commons:Metadata redirect to Commons:EXIF or do we need a separate page?

Please see Commons_talk:EXIF#Commons:Metadata_redirects_here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

Third opinion process

Commons doesn't have much in the way of dispute resolution processes compared to English Wikipedia in particular. Many of these processes are quite "heavy" and "bureaucratic", but one which we might consider adopting is a form of en:Wikipedia:Third opinion - basically a simple way to say "somebody else comment here please!". A page listing requests can be widely watchlisted, and then prompt people to enter discussions as needed. Thoughts? Rd232 (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upload problems

For some reason, the upload window keeps hanging on me. No matter what I do, images just refuse to upload. It stays on the upload page forever and never puts the image up. TenPoundHammer (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Details? Are you using UploadWizard or something else; is the file large or small; what browser/OS are you using; what error message if any is there? This may well be an existing bug, but to be sure we need more details. Rd232 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It actually worked this time. Before then, it was just saying "Sending request to commons.wikimedia.org…" forever and the file never uploaded. But it worked now. TenPoundHammer (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might just have been a generic server load issue then, rather than a bug. Rd232 (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help wanted: nature videos for Wikimedia Commons

The Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision wants to make 50 films from the collection of Stichting Natuurbeelden (Foundation for Nature Footage) available under a CC-BY-SA license via its Open Images website. This also makes them suitable for reuse on Wikipedia. The collection of Stichting Natuurbeelden contains many hours of video footage made in the Dutch nature. To make sure the 50 videos suit the needs of the Wikipedia community Sound and Vision would like to actively involve the community in the process. If you want to help, you can find more info on this page. Openbeelden (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki software

Hello fellows!

The Wiki software has obviously a problem to show these two images: 1 and 2? Regards, High Contrast (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might have to do with MediaWiki parsing the image metadata incorrectly. 68.173.113.106 02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McZusatz did something that solved that problem. Thanks for that. --High Contrast (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

Proposal to get an OTRS for Charging Bull (Wall Street bull sculpture)

I think we should get permission to use pictures of the Charging Bull sculpture on Commons, since it is such an iconic figure and derivative works will only serve to promote the image it evokes. 68.173.113.106 02:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the artist has sued companies for publishing images of it, so I'd guess he doesn't want a freely distributable image available. ghouston (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "we", really. If you want to reach out to a copyright holder and ask them to release a work under a free license, you pretty much have to do that on your own as an individual. Don't let this discourage you, I've done it, plenty of other people have done it, all I'm saying is that we can't do it as Commons, the website. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tracking categories

There are many files directly in Category:Tracking categories - shouldn't this category only contain subcategories (which are "tracking categories")? Or what exactly is the point of placing files in this category? Gestumblindi (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be accidental. The files could be removed en masse from the category with Cat-a-lot, but it may be worth checking them individually for other problems. Rd232 (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone made a bit of a mess by starting some new system. The category was only created a month ago. Multichill (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some bots seem to place images in this category. See for example this bot action, adding the category to an image uploaded with UploadWizard. Also, many files bot-moved to Commons from Wikipedia are affected, e.g. File:Harlemheights.jpg. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See {{Tracking category}} for some clue about what this is (hopefully).--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, but still doesn't look as if files belong directly into this category :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we try to convince wikis to close for local uploads when admins on Commons delete files used on talk pages?

Is it just me or is it harmfull for Commons to delete files used on talk pages? Feel free to Comment... --MGA73 (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think other wikis will delete files simply because they are unused. This doesn't happen at all on Commons. Instead, files are deleted because there's some reason why they shouldn't be on Commons, and usage elsewhere is irrelevant. ghouston (talk) 01:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bilateral maps of <country> should be a subcategory of Category:Bilateral relations of <country>

I believe that the 200+ categories that follow the pattern Category:Bilateral maps of <country> should be subcategories of the category for that country that follows the pattern Category:Bilateral relations of <country>. In other words, Category:Bilateral maps of Greece should be a subcategory of Category:Bilateral relations of Greece. There are no bilateral maps that are not also part of bilateral relations, IMO.

I wanted to get some feedback from everyone else though, before changing 200+ categories and all of the files in both of the categories. Sven Manguard Wha? _should_be_a_subcategory_of_Category:Bilater" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">20:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Including Template:Information and licences through a template

I found this template on a user subpage. The purpose is to transclude an {{Information}} template and licences on file information pages. Looking at the history, the licences have changed a number of time, which looks troubling to me, as it changes the licence for certain files. How do we handle this kind of pages? I would say that templates such as this one have to be substituted, not transcluded, to avoid a sudden change of licences on lots of pages and to make it easier to modify the {{Information}} template. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License templates should be at the file description page. Allowing all these user templates, we are already very permissive. But the license should be at the file in order to make it easier to see whether someone changed it. -- Rillke(q?) 22:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eu sempre uso o subst:, as duas imagens atuais (nas quais está transcluída minha subpágina) foram um descuido que já vou consertar. Luan fala! 23:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Pronto, licenças corrigidas e outras informações também. Luan fala! 00:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
That's good, thank you! -- Rillke(q?) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Transcluding license templates is very dangerous for the reason you cite − as they could be changed and no one noticing the impact on files. COM:USER was meant to prevent that, among other things, but the fact is that this guideline is more than often ignored in both its letter and spirit.
(As Rillke mentions, there are other issues with transcluding Information-based user templates, but not as serious as the licensing one).
But in this case, though, the template is not used. Did you already proceed to the mass-subst: of it?
Jean-Fred (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 16

Rising number of uncategorised images?

Am I correct in thinking that the number of uncategorised images is rising steadily? My impression is that the number of contributions from what economists call "emerging economies" is growing rapidly, which is something I am very glad to see. But I think that proper categorisation will enhance their usefulness. Being Dutch, I am reluctant to add categories on assumptions that amount to guesswork, on the lines of "this looks like India". May I call on Commons editors with the relevant local knowledge to assist? Best regards, MartinD (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some bots working on uncategorized files, e.g. User:DrTrigonBot... ;) Greetings --DrTrigon (talk) 10:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Please thank your bot for the assistance rendered. ;) Best regards, MartinD (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do categorize images based on guessing an googling if they are stuck in the uncategorized-category longer than a year. And I would support your observation that an above-average part of them is related to "emerging economies". But I´d see the reason rather in the lacking prevalence of english-speaking contributors in those countries than in the economic status. How does anyone come to expect someone from South America/Asia/Eastern Europe to identify the correct category? Even using a dictionary does not help much if you haven´t a deeper insight into the probable synonyms used by the english-speaking world based on their perspective of things and structures. Even one of the most active photographers of Wikipedia in Germany (hardly an emerging economy) has declared to refrain from categorizing his images on Commons because he had the bad luck to grow up in the part of the country that was educated in Russian rather than in English. Personally, I´m at peace with Commons being English and even consider it as part of the fun to be challenged by the language barrier (I´m german), but in terms of the files being accessible and well-ordered it will be an ever-increasing and one day an unmanageable problem. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems may be that Upload Wizard doesn't show the categories form by default; you have to press "Add categories and more information ..." to access it. As such, it is quite possible to overlook it (I've done so in the past), especially for new users. I think it should be always visible, although not mandatory to fill out. InverseHypercube 22:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Rudolph Buch: I quite agree with the point you have made. It's just that I think that it would be a pity if images remain "under-used" for lack of categorisation. I would certainly not require contributors from these "emerging economies" to be fluent in English - which is why I was asking for assistance from (other) Commons editors. Best regards, MartinD (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intersection of categories

Does anybody know of a way to find an intersection of categories, and if not, would anybody be willing to have a look at creating one? I'm going through Geograph images of the English West Midlands, and I keep stumbling across images that have been put in both Category:West Midlands (or subcategories thereof) and Category:Warwickshire (or Staffordshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, Herefordshire). Ideally, I'd like to see a bot go through and remove images from Category:West Midlands (or the subcategory) where they also appear in a category or subcategory of one of the other counties, because in the vast majority of cases, the category refers to the West Midlands county and has been conflated with the much larger West Midlands region.

Anybody know if anything like this is possible? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

catscan2: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php?language=commons&project=wikimedia&categories=Warwickshire%0D%0AWest+Midlands&ns[6]=1&ext_image_data=1 MKFI (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship and date in file templates

As I understand it, in the case of copies of two-dimensional images, "author" in image templates is intended to refer to the author of the original work and "date" is intended to be used for the date of creation of the original image. After all, this is what is relevant for copyright.

Nevertheless, one often finds these fields used for the name of the uploader, who may be the person who scanned or photographed the original, or simply the one downloaded a public domain image from somewhere else and uploaded it to Commons, and for the date of the scan or even the upload. (Example: File:Montmartre télégraphe dessin.jpg.)

Not only are these things (photography excepted, depending on jurisdiction) less relevant for copyright, but it will appear as if the uploader is taking credit for a work they didn't actually create, even though that may not at all have been their intention when filling out the "form" presented to them by Commons.

Clearly these templates need to be modified to be more precise in their intention. Perhaps splitting the author and date fields on two would be a good idea? --Hegvald (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the person who took a photo of a painting, even though there may not be copyright in the U.S., it may exist in other countries -- so having that person in the author field (in addition to the painting's author) may well be appropriate, and additionally if the photo has a free license it is good to keep that. See {{Licensed-PD-Art}}. For scans it's a bit more dubious, but perhaps credit could be given. For simply uploading it, no, their name should not be there. Granted, "credit" is a different concept than "author" -- the uploader could well be given credit, as part of the effort of making it more available. The upload date should not be there at all usually; we document all that stuff elsewhere. So yes... do fix things when there are mistakes. It is a collaborative project :-) The image you point out should not have the uploader in the author field, correct. Granted that was uploaded almost six years ago and some instructions have improved since. But, I'm sure they could be improved more -- it's hard to both be accurate and precise on the upload forms, but I'm sure there are instructions which could be improved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In general images with artworks should use {{Artwork}} template, which allows more precise description. And I agree that we frequently see names of uploades or people that scanned images in the "author" field, which is incorrect. Those are often added by both transferring files from wikipedia to Commons. Hegvald, if you see cases like that feel free to fix them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 17

Audio from Brazil, 1939, uploadable?

Would a music, published first in 1939, uploadable in its original 1939 version under {{PD-Brazil-media}}? Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 04:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean an audio recording? Audio recordings made after 1927 in Brazil were restored to copyright by the URAA and are still in copyright in the US; and in a sense any audio recording is in copyright in the US until 2046.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted SVG file not downloadable

Any reason why I cannot download the SVG file at File:Birdwing.svg ? Shyamal (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get "404 not found" error when trying to see the full resolution version. I suspect something has gone wrong when uploading the 12th september version. Reverted to previous version, try uploading again. MKFI (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 13:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this COM:DR

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple iOS.svg 68.173.113.106 21:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment period on the Wikimedia United States Federation

There is a proposal for an an umbrella organization for chapters and other groups in the US called the Wikimedia United States Federation. A draft of the bylaws is now up at meta. There will be an open comment period on the bylaws 17 September, 2012 to 1 October, 2012. The comments received given will be incorporated into the bylaws and they will be put up to a ratification vote from 8 October, 2012 to 15 October, 2012. --Guerillero 21:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to enable the Slideshow by default

Hi folks,

There is currently on COM:VPP a proposal to make Gadget GallerySlideshow default.

You are invited to voice your opinion there.

Jean-Fred (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

No permission

I see that File:Afghanistan arms 1974-1978.svg is deleted. When I try to find the reason behind the delete. I get no farther than a general link to OTRS. I seems to me that a delete decision should be verifiable. Has the picture been uploaded without permission, the wrong licence? was it pending OTRS permission? etc. Privacy should respected, but I bit more information is needed, for the non-OTRS people.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by the robo-admin. He ignored the fact that Commons:Deletion requests/Afghanistan coat of arm files is still open, but what else is new. He always deletes blindly without checking. Multichill (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wil it be reversed? Are we ruled by robots?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason probably means that the file was tagged as {{No permission since}} for 7 days. One could have linked COM:PERMISSION instead. Though indeed this doesn't explain how the deletion request could have been missed. This would probably gain appropriate attention at COM:AN. 88.196.241.249 11:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Usurpation process

There is an RFC on the usurpation process for user names that would benefit from a wider audience. -- Earle Martin (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merits deletion, or should stay?

Please voice your insights on Category:People by occupation by alphabet (on its talkwall better than here I think). Orrlingtalk 09:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steles vs stelae

I've just come across the use of steles instead of stelae as a plural form of stele in Category:Steles and most of its sub categories, before I start a CfD am I over reacting in seeing this as a monstrosity, since it would seem to be an understood and understable (though wrong) plural formation.--KTo288 (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's understandable, but still a monstrosity; obliterate it. cmadler (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ones killes themes with fires, evenes if understandables; theyes bes bad practices. No roome here for Shakespeares. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photography in Saudi Arabia

[copied from a note on my talk page .     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Hi, I admit taking photos in Saudi Arabia can get quite exciting and over the years I have come to know a lot of nice police men trying to do their duty in an area with somewhat unclear regulations. Yet by 2009/10 I got arrested a lot less and have even had police men showing me the best photo points to take pictures of special buildings. Of course coming back some hours later on the same day to take photos from a different angle and changed sun light still got me arrested because I hadn't noticed a raised flag in the background indicating the region was now of limits because some royal had arrived in a nearby palace. I have found at last the documents that got me out of most of the trouble and put them on the web. Sadly I have not documented where I got them in 2008 or can't relocate the site. The Saudi Tourism Authority has changed its web page several times and seems to discourage deeplinking to the archives. So please have a look at these documents and copy them to a place where Wikipedia can use them. I am not sure how official they are but they are cited by several newspaper articles and at an Aramco site. As I understand the regulations they clearly allow taking pictures from public places to promote the image of the country. If there is no sign it is principally allowed to take photos, providing you do not violate security or privacy issues.

I don't know who translated the document so it may be good to have somebody fluent in arabic check the text and maybe find better sources. Maybe someone from here could help [4] If yoo know someone else that is better suited for this issue please direct the information there as I am only very infrequently on the Wikipedia site. --T.woelk (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added those links to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Saudi_Arabia. They could be useful. --Jarekt (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for file over permission

I'd like to get file mover rights, chiefly so that I can clean up my mistakes without relying on (and waiting for) the goodwill of others. Where do I ask? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Commons:Requests for rights look right? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

A snapshot of Ernest Hemingway & a young man with necktie, with a bridge on the left

Hello happy images pumpers ! I am looking for a B&W photo I saw in WP in a parodic article written by an user pretending he was the son of a celebrity (seems bad onirism, but I swear it's true). The photo featured Hemingway in his 40ies, with beard, crouching & holding by the neck (& so showing the label of) a western-european wine-bottle, the bottom of it poised on the ground; next to him is a lean, mediterranean typed young man, well dressed, with a white shirt & tie (I thought of Gustavo Durán  ???, or a torero ???) ; they are both smiling to the photographer. In the background, a bridge (railway-bridge rather than aqueduct), fashion Segovia aqueduct. Could you trace this photo (taken in Spain, or maybe Cuba, in the '40-'50 , I think...), and tell me who is the young man ? And BTW, the WP article Gustavo Durán needs a good photo, I'd be happy if you find one... . Thanks beforehand for your work, and t.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it this? Dankarl (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ! Thanks a lot Dankarl ! Since I see you are interested in North-West, if you want to add a photo of a customised canoe named "Snookwis" at the end of the WP french article on Tilikum (boat) ), feel free ! T.y. Arapaima (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taiwan.jpg

Hi,

I am not sure if this is the correct place for this, but it looks like a user has uploaded a completely different image that overwrote the existing File:Taiwan.jpg, which has led to pages that use that image across Wikipedia displaying an image that does not match the associated text. Not sure how to go about reverting an iamge back to a previous version? --Sumple (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

September 20

Problem with PD-art/1923

File:1922 0121 krazykat det 650.jpg is appropriately tagged {{PD-art/1923|1944}}; the artist died in 1944. So why is this showing "This work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 years or less." when it's not 2015 yet?--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1944 + 60 = 2004... it'll be OK for 70pma countries in 2015. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Monuments: Photograph a monument, help Wikipedia and win

While uploading an image for a monument you need to understand the licensing part.It is the most important where most of the people don't understand what kind of the license is suitable for them.I am among the one who finds it difficult to find that.Could someone please help me understand as to which license i have to give for my Pictures to be updated.The pictures which I am updating is my own and not from any website. i.e it is my own pictures taken from a digital camera. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishesh.nov (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=78607079"