Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/12

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

Bill Cosby videos by US Government

  1. Bill Cosby's Acceptance Remarks - Lone Sailor Awards 2010, USNavyMemorial. Speech given: September 15, 2010. (uploaded March 21, 2012)
  2. Bill Cosby Biographical Video - Lone Sailor Awards 2010, USNavyMemorial. Presentation: September 15, 2010. (uploaded March 20, 2012).
  3. Bill Cosby's Introduction - Lone Sailor Awards 2010, USNavyMemorial. Speech given: September 15, 2010. (uploaded March 20, 2012)
  4. Bill Cosby made honorary chief petty officer, Stars and Stripes. Date of event: February 17, 2011. (uploaded February 17, 2011)
  5. Bill Cosby Speaks About His Time In the U.S. Navy, U.S. Navy. (uploaded October 12, 2012)

I've been having issues with my computer lately with video editing -- could someone please convert these to the free-use video OGV format and upload them here locally to Wikimedia Commons?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a couple more. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These videos have been referenced, today, by The Washington Post. Would really appreciate it if someone could help out with the OGV video conversion and uploading of these here to Commons. -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nevermind, all done, now at Category:Bill Cosby-related videos. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questionable policy on Wikidata regarding Commons categories

Model #1 currently implemented by the Wikidata
Model #2 which after long discussions found less support than the other model #1

Have a look at Bot-updated interwiki was better for Commons IMO. Who wants to see categories on other wikis related to athletes and other people who don't write or paint, etc, rather than just being able to click on and go right to the article on that person in their language? I want to see the 124 articles for Roger Federer linked from Category:Roger Federer here, rather than 14 related categories. INeverCry 01:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ran into similar problems a while back and my understanding of it is that "Wikidatians" regard Wikipedia articles as being equivalent to Commons galleries rather than Commons cateories. I think the problem stems from categories playing a secondary role on Wikipedias as compared to the major role they play here. I can see the logic but I too would rather see links to 124 articles than 14 categories. Green Giant (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree as well with INeverCry (talk · contribs) and Green Giant (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a lot of discussions on how to deal with Commons interwikis on Wikidata and here, see for example here. Many models were being discussed (like this one) but the model that gained the most support was described at User:Multichill/Commons Wikidata roadmap and latter at Commons:Structured data/Short introduction to Wikidata. In this model, current version of wikidata only support interwiki links between the same namespaces, and it is assumed that other types of links will be developed (if needed) through software. For example, once we can access properties of any wikidata item we could just write a template (likely based on LUA code) which will add interwiki links or sister-project links based on wikidata. Our commons-category to wikipedia-article interwiki links are often quite messy. For number of years I was maintaining those links and there was a lot of anomalies. Some of our category pages have interwiki links only to wikipedia categories, others only to articles, yet others to both categories in some wikipedias and articles. Wikidata wants a clean unambiguous schema. So the solution was to keep a clean schema and move the messy stuff into software calling the wikidata. --Jarekt (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I guess one temporary simple fix would be to start creating gallery pages here on Commons for the Commons category pages. -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please do not. We use software, software should not use us. Yet. -- (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just an idea. Throwing it out here as a suggestion, is all. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if I create a new category and then click "Add links" in the sidebar and connect it with Wikipedia articles (as opposed to Wikipedia categories) I'm doing something wrong? Looks like I've been breaking that policy for quite a while now. Whoops … --El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi El Grafo, I don´t know about a policy change here at Commons. So I simply keep on putting the article-links under the category description text. Works fine, though the bot that used to add all the other languages based on the first one doesn´t work anymore. I guess that someday somebot will take over and add the information to the Wikidata entry. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You still can have the interwiki links between commons-categories and wikipedia-articles the old fashion way by adding them to commons-category page (like here) and using wikidata only for interwikis between pages of the same namespace. The cross namespace interwikis will be dealt with at some point but the software is not able to handle them yet. We are in a weird in-between time when the old processes are no longer working and the new processes are not ready to yet. I heard someone comparing similar situation to a scenario when UK decides to change direction of traffic on their streets but in the first phase, apply it only to buses ;). Once software is ready for the task, someone will work either on Lua based templates, bots or both to fix those. In the mean time please link the commons-categories to wikipedia-articles on wikidata by using "Commons category" property on wikidata, and old fashion interwikis on commons (By the way, I usually just add interwikis to one or two Wikipedias). We should also be adding {{On Wikidata}} templates to categories. --Jarekt (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The most valuable thing for the longer term is to make sure the relevant article-like Wikidata item has a property P373 set, pointing to the Commons category. About 700,000 Wikidata items already have this property set.
User:TheDJ has created a prototype for a nice gadget, which automatically shows a template-style link to Reasonator on a Commons category page, if an article-like Wikidata item exists that has property P373 set pointing to the category.
The code is at User:TheDJ/wdcat.js; to road-test it, add importScript('User:TheDJ/wdcat.js'); to your common.js file.
It's still only a prototype, so it's a little slow to add itself to the page, and it might put too much load on the server if rolled out to everybody by default in its current form. But it does show the sort of thing that should be possible -- without having to change Category pages at all, or to hard-code interwiki links. So give it a try, and see what you think. Jheald (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wildert 1986 stoomdagen III.jpg

How can I classify this picture? Steam engines dont seem to have a relevant category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Could be 'Firebox doors' and / or 'Steam locomotive backheads' --Jwh (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ DoneSmiley.toerist (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to find an image we already host?

Last night I uploaded four new public domain images of Mareschia Rucker. I thought they were the first images we had of her, and I created a new category: Category:Mareshia Rucker. But when I worked on the brand new wikipedia article about Ms Rucker I found that there was a previous image out there, that was explicitly credited to the wikimedia commons.

I tried to include it in the category, and I couldn't find it by searching by her name. Tineye doesn't point to it. So, are there any tricks to finding an image, said to be from commons, when the re-user has renamed it? Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean the title image of that video (I don't see any other relevant image at the link you gave), showing Brandon Davis and Mareshia Rucker, seen in the original at [1]: I think the attribution to "Wikipedia Commons" [sic] at the link you gave is simply wrong. As I understand, they gave their interview via Skype to that TV station. It starts @29:51 in the video. In front of Brandon's T-shirt there's the sign: another indication that this title image was actually taken from the interview in this video. If we ever hosted that image, we shouldn't have: they publish their programmes under a CC-BY-NC-ND license. Lupo 22:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


None of this system of yours, makes any sense to me. A). I simply wanted to publish images of a project of mine. B). I uploaded 10 images. C). I don't recall ever being asked to name the collection. D). I don't recall being asked to choose a category. E). I was only asked to apply a "user name", i.e the lion's paw. F). My user name has zero to do with the subject. G). I seem to have wasted my time and effort. H). I uploaded images of a replicated 15th c. wrought iron breech-block cannon. I). It was intended for common interest, not for self aggrandizement. J). It is the public's loss. Not mine. K). It should be categorized and named, "MEDIEVAL CANNON". L). Do (K) or delete it. It is of no use as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Lion's Paw (talk • contribs)

I'm a bit confused. Do you need assistance in categorizing or are you asking to have files deleted? There are potential categories at Category:Cannons and Category:Medieval warfare; if you find that there is not a suitable category you can create a new one. Note that categories are generally sentence case and plural (e.g. "Medieval cannons", although "15th century cannons" would be a less ambiguous category). Your user name need not have any relation to your photographs, that's what the title and description fields are for (e.g., you can replace "gonne" with useful descriptive text). If you have specific questions please ask. Cheers, Animalparty (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 02

Bot request

Could someone place a bot request to have the engravings for Avventure di Robinson Crusoe by Louis-Henri Brévière listed in this search categorized under [[Category:Louis-Henri Brévière]]? Thanks in advance? 05:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose that you talk about Category:Illustrations from Avventure di Robinson Crusoe. I added this. I am not sure a link to each file is necessary, but it could be done with VFC (see gadgets). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing inscriptions texts in Google index

Hello everybody, i am currently adding the texts of inscriptions for existing photos on Commons to their metadata. My hope was that by doing it these information are findable by Google. For example, i added this inscription [2] a quarter year ago, but still Google cannot find it [3]. Only when using Commons search one gets the link to the photo [4]. I checked it for several other examples with the same results. Seems that these data is not indexed by Google. Has anyone an idea why this is so? Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I try a google search for "Grüß Gott lieb Waldvögelein" I get a single result, a link to File:ESA WALDTOR.jpg, so I can't reproduce your problem. Your supplied google link also works just fine for me... in both cases I did the search using the U.S. index in English. —RP88 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also am able to find the photo by searching "Grüß Gott lieb Waldvögelein", with and without quotation marks. Thanks for taking the time to transcribe inscriptions! Animalparty (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both for testing it. So it seems that the information in not contained in all indexes. I tried to use several proxies and really for one it also worked for me. However, the situation is not satisfying and needs to be improved. Therefore, i would try to contact Google Germany. Maybe they can help. If someone has another idea, feel free to suggest me. Bye, --Arnd (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stefan Stambolov's portrait

I found this old portrait of Stefan Stambolov from before 1895. Can it be downloaded? And if so, what would be the right tag? ~Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with institutions

I have been adding wikidata links to Institutions where these are missing and I came across Institution:Camera degli Stucchi, Palazzo del Tè, Mantua. The "Camera delli Stucchi" isn't an institution. It is a room in the Palazzo del Tè. We don't have Institution:Palazzo del Tè but we do have Palazzo Te and . I don't seem to have authority to move Institution:Camera degli Stucchi, Palazzo del Tè, Mantua. Can someone else do this? Then I suppose this Institution needs to be added to the rest of the files in the gallery and the Category. Filceolaire (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like Institution:Camera dei Venti, Palazzo del Tè, Mantua also needs to be merged into Institution:Palazzo del Tè. Filceolaire (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is attribution required for CC-By licensed content which does not request attribution?

Here is a typical CC-By license of the sort most frequently used here. This is {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}.

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

Note that it says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor". It has a field in which someone can list a name for attribution, like this {{CC-BY-SA-4.0|Blue Rasberry}}, to generate this:

w:en:Creative Commons
attribution share alike
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Attribution: Blue Rasberry
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • share alike – If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same or compatible license as the original.

If someone leaves the attribution field blank, then is it necessary to give attribution? What is the standard practice for "attributing the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" when the author or licensor has not specified a manner? Has this been discussed somewhere, either here or off-wiki with regard to Creative Commons generally? I ask because in our wiki-infrastructure, almost no one manually sets up the attribution tags, so few files specify a manner of attribution.

Has it ever been proposed to change license text to say that CC-By content must name the author or licensor when the media is reused? I think most Wikimedians presume that the license says to give attribution to the uploader or license holder, but unless I am missing something, I do not see where it does. It only says to do what the license holder says, and practically all license holders say nothing at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per default you have to credit the author. So, if the license template doesn't provide a name, the re-user has to credit what is written either in the author-field or what is provided by the creditline-template (example: File:RechtschreibreformBeiStrassennamen.jpg). --Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deutsch: Rechtschreibreformiertes Straßennamensschild in Aachen (Ecke Kongressstraße/Adalbertsteinweg)
English: Street name sign (translated in English as: Congress Street) in Aachen adapted to the 1996 German spelling reform
Português: Placa de nome de rua em Aachen adaptada à última reforma ortográfica da língua Alemã.
Français : Signe de nom de rue à Aix-la-Chapelle appliquant la dernière réforme orthographique de l'allemand.
Español: Placa de nombre de calle en Aquisgrán adaptada a la Reforma Ortográfica de la Lengua Alemana de 1996
Italiano: Targa stradale ad Aquisgrana che applica la Riforma ortografica del Tedesco del 1996
Source Own work
Author Túrelio
(Reusing this file)
Licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.5 (see below).

Start hand.svg If you use this work outside of the Wikimedia projects, I would very much like to get a note from you. Nuvola apps email.png Thanks in advance.

Túrelio (author/photographer)

(required by the license)
© Túrelio (via Wikimedia-Commons), 2006 / Lizenz: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-2.5 [» please add this credit below or near the image]
© Túrelio (via Wikimedia-Commons), 2006
Túrelio You linked to Commons:Credit line, used the attribution field, listed your name, gave a Creative Commons license to be displayed along with the reuse, and gave instructions for how to display the credit. These are very explicit instructions that almost no other file has. Most people leave all of these fields blank, and I want to know what should happen in that case.
Where can I read what the default action is? Do we just take it for granted that everyone assumes the same default action, or is this explained somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bluerasberry, when in doubt refer to the actual license text. In the case of CC-BY-SA-4.0, the relevant license text (§3 a 1) reads "You must: A. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);". Commons makes it easy to create a proper attribution for any CC licensed file on Commns, just click the "Use this file" link next to the small globe icon just above the image preview. This will open a window that among other items, suggests an attribution that is fully compliant with the appropriate CC license. For example, clicking "Use this file" at the top of File:Engage Lab.jpg shows "By University of Waterloo Stratford Campus [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons" as a suggested attribution. —RP88 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RP88 I looked at what you quoted and looked in the legal code you linked and I fail to see anything that says that attribution is required when not requested. What you quoted again says "You must... retain... identification of the creator... in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor" but most licensors make no request at all. I think many uploaders presume that using the license is itself a request, but I fail to see where that is indicated with this license.
I checked the legal code for CC-By-SA 3.0. It seems different, because it requires that the author's name be credited even without request. In section 4c it says "You must... keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide... the name of the Original Author..." The 2.0 version says "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and give the Original Author credit"
On the Creative Commons website in their simplified text they say "Attribution — You must give appropriate credit," and the tooltext on appropriate credit says "you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties...".
Thanks for showing me the globe and the "use this file" button. It seems useful for people who are trying to meet attribution requests but I am still doubtful that most of the CC-By content uploads on Wikipedia come with a request for attribution. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Resolved

This should be discussed at the request for comment below. I still think there is a problem here but it would be fixed with the reform proposed at that board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to change Wikimedia Commons's Creative Commons text

Now that I look, how was it decided that the Wikipedia summary of the license was to be so different than the Creative Commons summary of the license? How would anyone feel if I changed Wikipedia's text above to match Creative Commons text? Why is there a Wikipedia version of the Creative Commons license summary, and why do we not just use the summary provided by Creative Commons? The Creative Commons versions all say this:

You are free to:

  • Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

Under the following terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

I propose to change Template:CC-BY-SA-4.0 and everything else English in Category:CC license tags to match the CC text. Does anyone know where I can read about why this was modified anyway? I feel like Wikimedia Commons is presenting a summary with a meaning which does not match the Creative Commons license, especially with regard to insisting that license holders must get credit versus the Wikipedia practice of saying that attribution should be done in the "manner specified", while by default not specifying anything. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Propose_to_update_CC_license_tags_to_comply_with_the_new_wordings_in_CC_deeds. —RP88 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes check.svg Resolved
Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

access to data on Wikidata is here

Hey folks :)

As announced the week before last we just enabled access to the data on Wikidata for you. You are now able to access data from an item on Wikidata like the date of birth of an artist or the name of a city in different languages. Where and how much you make use of that is up for you to decide. You can access the data in two ways. The first one is the #property parser function. The second one is via Lua. There are two big caveats at this point. 1) You can only access data for items that are connected via a sitelink to the page you want to show the data on. Access to data from any other item should be available around January/February. 2) You can not use this to store meta data (like the date a picture was taken or who took it) about individual files. This will in the future be stored on Commons itself as part of the structured data project.

The relevant help/coordination pages are Commons:Wikidata and d:Wikidata:Wikimedia Commons. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Cheers --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there a page or location on either Commons or Pedia to tell how many visitors there are to a page, similar to a Stat Counter that could be put on regular web pages. I have always wondered how many visitors there are on the sites. Can a Stat Counter code be inserted into a Cat or Gallery page? WayneRay (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See There's also raw per-hour data for statistical analysis at . External stat counters cannot be used for privacy reasons. A stat counter that only uses the official page count data, and doesn't send any user information to third party sites would probably be fine, but someone would have to make such a thing. Bawolff (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOW that was just what I needed. It is an amazing little hidden gem at Commons. Thanks WayneRay (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is also a JavaScript gadget for XTools, which shows various stats that include the last 30 days’ pageviews. It can be installed either globally or in individual projects. It works a bit intermittently for me, depending on server loads and whatnot I guess, but you might find it useful.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates for ary-Arab

I started to develop these templates from advices in French-speaking "Bistro". Former existing templates for Moroccan Arabic (ary) were in Latin alphabet with special diacritics, which makes this system unusable for common Moroccan-speaking people, educated in Arabic. It was suggested that these templates should be re-called "ary-Latin".

Some small problems with ary-Arab templates :

  • underlining of language name and language levels leads to disappearance of dots under the row, which are intrinsic parts of the letters. Non underlined type was reached in Walloon dictionary (I don't know why). See Modele:User_ary-Arab-3. The same way should be used in "Commons" and in other wiki's for templates in Arabic alphabet.
  • For categories (see User_ary-Arab-3), general linked templates (Template:User language-3) do not work. I am not sure to have used the best way for that level.

Can anybody help solve these small problems ? Thank you.

--Lucyin (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all

Pictures of the test session are already on Commons.

As french, it was dreadful for us to see so few illustrations of cheese on Wikimedia Commons. This is about to change.

A group of french Wikimedians, lead by me, designed a project to photograph many cheeses, up to 200 for the moment.

This project is perticular as we aim to have it found through a french crowdfunding platform, KissKissBankBank (

Of course Wikimedia France could have funded it itself, but we wanted to use the project as a way to get the larger audience aware of their ability to contribute and to give a fun image of contributing.

The project in few words iss follow :

  • 10 cheeses per session
  • During the session the cheeses are photographed and their articles improved
  • During the sessions experimented wikimedian would train new editors
  • At every session every participant would enjoy eating good cheese too

Of course, the kickstarter from Evan-Amos has been a great source of inspiration. Pyb (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mmmm, what a good idea! — SMUconlaw (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, brilliant idea! Love the diagrams ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please beware of commercial packaging. Cheese itself is more then enough, if packaging is not in public domain. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An idea nearly this was existing in Germany: WikiLoveCheese ;) --Ralf Roleček 15:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i'm happy to hear that. I've seen the discussion on de:. We would be happy to exchange tips. Pyb (talk) 19:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles de Gaulle allegedly said "How can anyone govern a nation that has 246 different kinds of cheese?" SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And may be more: there is a saying that there is at least a different cheese for each day of the year. ;oD Yann (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We hit our first goal! Thank you everyone! I hope this would give some ideas to wikimedians. Pyb (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Converted ON LSD Trip.jpg, File:Converted on LSD.jpg, File:Converted_on_LSD_2ndEd.jpeg, File:Borstal Boy.jpg, and File:Borstal Boys Stamp.png

These five images appear to be book covers. They have been uploaded by an editor 519Clarke who has been previously been blocked for repeatedly uploading uploading unfree files after repeated warning. Doing a Google reverse image search shows that all of five have been used on at least one other website apiece or are possibly derivatives of other image: File:Converted ON LSD Trip.jpg, File:Converted on LSD 2ndEd.jpeg, File:Borstal_Boy.jpg and File:Borstal Boys Stamp.png (possible derivatives), and File:Converted_on_LSD.jpg. Could somebody take a closer look at these and see if they are OK for Commons? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Given his user name, this could well be his own stuff, but we would need OTRS to sort it out. Any reason not to just ask him what's going on, and explain OTRS? - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Under some of those messages 2 weeks ago, he has said he e-mailed "Commons" about it. Maybe there's already an OTRS ticket for some of them. No indication of what happened if it went to OTRS though. --Closeapple (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the replies Jmabel and Closeapple. I have previously mentioned "OTRS" and derivative works to this editor in this VP post and they have also been informed about OTRS by another editor on their user talk page. The author of the books and the uploader may be the same person. Is the author of a book also the copyright holder of the images used on the book's cover? Even if that is the case, the files File:Borstal_Boy.jpg and File:Borstal Boys Stamp.png appear to be using "double barreled shotgun with both of the barrels smoking" taken from as part of the cover. This site sells images under this license which says "3. In the event that you create a derivative work based on or incorporating one or more Images, all rights in and to such Images shall continue to be owned by Shutterstock or its Contributor(s), subject to your rights to use such Image(s) pursuant to the terms and limitations set forth herein." To me, this seems to say that Shutterstock and someone named Guy J. Sagi still own the copyright on this "shotgun" photo. So, I'm not sure how these files can be claimed as "own work" by 519Clarke. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Then probably the best approach on those would be to nominate them for deletion with precisely that rationale. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jmabel. I have marked the two derivative files for speedy deletion per 3. Derivative work of non-free content. I will add a {{Npd}} to each of the remaining files and a corresponding {{Image permission}} for each file on the uploader's user talk page as well as links to both COM:OTRS and COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS?. I hope that is correct. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am the copy write holder of the following book covers and I have informed Wiki Commons via email on a number of occasions : Borstal Boy, Converted on LSD Trip, Converted on LSD 2nd Edition, Mr- Clarke, Mr-Clarke and- Maisie Clarke, Waddesdon Hill and Bierton Particular Baptist Chapel. I understand the file Borstal Boys is unacceptable for the reasons given so please ignore it. 519Clarke (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the response 519Clarke. Did you send your email to and specify a free license using one of the email templates specified at COM:Email templates? If you did, then it is possible that your request is still being processed. If everything is deemed to be in order, then a OTRS volunteer will most likely add a {{Permission OTRS}} template to the file in question, verifying that proper permission has been obtained. This might take a some time, but even if the file is deleted before your request is processed, it can be undeleted once it has been approved by OTRS. If you do not agree with reasons for deleting the file given by the administrator who deleted it, you can ask them for clarification at their user talk page, or you can file an "undeletion request" at COM:UR. Please refer to COM:UR#Appealing a deletion for specific details. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding File:Converted ON LSD Trip.jpg, that book cover appears to incorporate a page scan from the newspaper Bucks Herald and the image was published here on the newspaper's website in September 2011 almost three years before you uploaded it to Commons. Does that particular book cover use images taken from Bucks Herald? If it does, then this book cover could also be considered a "derivative work" and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to upload as your "own work" since you do not hold the copyright for it. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 01

Indiegogo to help Poco a poco restore stolen equipment

Hi everyone, I was recently informed about this Indiegogo campaign to help out User:Poco a poco, who is one of our most prolific contributors of high-quality images. He tragically had all of his equipment (and photos!) stolen in Buenos Aires after participating in a Wikimedia Iberoamerican Encounter with other contributors. I believe it's in the project's interest to ensure he can continue to contribute at the same high quality level by helping to get this equipment replaced and get him back to taking and uploading photos as soon as possible! I made a small contribution of €55, and every little bit counts (for Americans: current Paypal exchange rate is €1 = $1.28). Please take a look:

Thank you! Dcoetzee (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for alerting us. --Jarekt (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for posting this D Coetzee and for that not so small contribution! Poco2 15:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 03

Photos to migrate

Lots of great free photos of the protests in Hong Kong to migrate: here and here. Victorgrigas (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release of Personality rights

There is a new discussion on the possibility of storing the release of personality rights at Template talk:Consent. Jee 06:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A countdown template for Commons:Photo challenge?

Hello all, at Commons:Photo challenge we recently had some confusion with people uploading images after the deadline because of time zone related misunderstandings. It would be great to have a mechanism that counts down to a given day/time (UTC) and displays something like "this challenge has already ended" after the deadline. We already have {{Countdown}} which does exactly that, but it has a few quirks that make it less useful than it could be:

  • You have to hit a "refresh" button to get the current time remaining – would it be possible to have it count down automatically using JavaScript for those who haven't blocked it?
  • The code is rather esotherical, which makes translations quite difficult. Any chance to make this easier for people to translate without having to dive deep into the code? The Photo challenges are prominently featured at the Main Page and it looks like they are actually quite attractive to newcomers, so it's quite important to have good translations. At the moment there is only an Italian one …

My own experience in advanced template stuff is virtually nonexistent, so any help would be very much appreciated. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Commons:Translators'_noticeboard#Translating_an_esoteric_template. --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strangeness when uploading

Hey guys. Just wanted to mention a (potential) bug. I've noticed for some time now that when I try to upload a new file, sometimes the upload page is 'different'. I use this upload page. In the past, I've occasionally noticed that the add categories section at the bottom of the page will not be there. Today it was something different, other parts of the page displayed a bit differently, and things were missing. The URL I was using was identical. Here are two screenshots to explain what I mean: The way it normally and correctly appears and the way it was incorrectly displaying earlier today and the other half of the page showing the form. I tried to refresh the page numerous times and the same incorrect page kept re-loading. You can see that the URL is identical. There are a number of strange things happening here. The Uploads link at the top is missing, an additional 'navigation' section title on the left column appears, Step 2 is completely different, and instead of showing all the individual fields to enter information into, there's just a blank 'summary' field. Unfortunately I can't replicate the problem now as it's gone back to working fine for me (I didn't do anything except come back to it a bit later and reload the page). I also didn't try closing my browser and re-opening it, but it could have resolved the issue at the time. I'm happy to accept it could be my Chrome browser playing up, but I just wanted to run it past people here in case it's a known or as yet unknown bug. Diliff (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as the upload form itself and the differences in step 2 go: looks like the JavaScript that gives you the "correct" form wasn't loaded or didn't run because of some error. No idea about the rest (Navigation" header, "Uploads" link at the top.) Next time it happens, check Chome's error console to see if there are any JavaScript errors logged there. Sometimes it's also just that some scripts don't load properly because of some server hiccup: in that case, forcing your browser to bypass and refresh its cache usually works (note that closing and re-launching the browser does not force a reload of that cache). Lupo 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it's started happening again now, I've screen captured Chrome's console. Nothing JavaScript related as best I can tell in this one, but do those errors look normal? I haven't got a 'good' version of the page to compare it to right now. Diliff (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now it's working again. There was definitely something to the errors in the previous screen cap because when the page loads correctly, I get this in the Console... Diliff (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess it is possible that a bug in an unrelated Javascript module (the error mentions something about the banner stuff) stopped all script execution in your browser before the enhanced upload form code was executed. --Dschwen (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fundraising team appears to be very busy editing CentralNotice banners. -- Rillke(q?) 21:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This error has been occurring for a couple of months by now: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2014/08#Central_notice_javascript_error, #The_old_upload_form_stopped_working, #Basic upload does not work anymore. MKFI (talk) 07:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'm glad it's not just me. But I wonder if anyone is investigating what is going on, in that case. I see that a Bugzilla case has been raised but I'm not techy enough to determine if it's the same issue that they're investigating or a similar but unrelated issue. Diliff (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anytime any Javascript on the site is broken the upload form will suffer. I'm pretty sure these are all more or less uncorrelated events. The upload form is just one of the more visible places where javascript breakage is noticed immediately. --Dschwen (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, but why is the Javascript breaking so often in the first place? The Javascript is client-side (or am I wrong?) so why would it work sometimes and not others? The upload form is pretty fundamental to Commons, so it should be a priority to get it running reliably, surely? Diliff (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re:The upload form is pretty fundamental to Commons, so it should be a priority to get it running reliably, surely? I suspect you'll find that this not the case. The "standard" way to upload nowadays is the upload wizard, and the JavaScript that enhances the upload form to give you the form that you consider "correct" (BTW, thanks for that!) was developed by the Community (in fact, by yours truly), not by the WMF developers. The plain form that you got when the script didn't run is the normal default upload form of the MediaWiki software.
What is a problem is that erroneous banners can take down other scripts. But if you were hoping for the WMF devs to improve the (old, dated, pre-jQuery, pre-ResourceLoader, pre-UploadWizard, pre-pretty much anything) MediaWiki:UploadForm.js, I guess they won't. And I don't have the time to make substantial changes there.
Lupo 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I couldn't reproduce the problem exactly, but I think it may have been due to spaces in the URL in this banner which I've just fixed. Is anyone still experiencing the problem? Pcoombe (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's been fine for me today. I'll report back if it happens again. Thanks. Diliff (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 04

Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Please see copyright statement at:


The State of Rhode Island makes the content of this WWW site available to the public. Anyone may view information found here without obligation to the State of Rhode Island, unless otherwise stated on particular articles of information to which a restriction on fair use may apply. However, the State of Rhode Island makes no warranty that materials contained herein are free of copyright claims or other restrictions or limitations on fair use or display. The compiled information presented on this WWW site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. However, use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested.

Revised 03/25/2005

The last two sentences seem to go quite nicely in-line with {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}}.

Would it be okay for me to upload files from that site under that license?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifically this video file from 2008 and this publication by the Rhode Island Department of Corrections from 2008. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd recommend creating a specific license template, since they did not specify that particular Creative Commons license. Yes, I think it is probably compatible with that license, but this would be clearer. That license template can even say what CC license we believe it to be compatible with. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The license statement does not permit the creation of derivative works, and consequently, is more akin to CC-BY-ND and other impermissible licenses. --Carnildo (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 05

images by members of the Canadian Military

I was recently provided with a few images taken by an active member of the Canadian Forces, the archivist at CFB Shilo's artillery museum. The images are of a piece of equipment in Shilo's museum. He took these at my request, and provided them to me for use in a Wikipedia article. Can anyone out there speak authoritatively on what copyrights might apply to these images? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you actually need someone to provide you with a formal statement of legal advice you will need to contact an intellectual property lawyer versed in the laws of Canada, none of the volunteers here can provide you with an authoritative legal statement. That being said, If the photographer took the photographs in the course of his official duties as a member of the Canadian Forces the photos are likely subject to Canadian Crown Copyright (i.e. copyrighted for 50 years). If the photographer took the photos as an employee of the RCA Museum while not on duty with the Canadian Forces, it is possible the copyright belongs to the RCA Museum (copyrighted for life+50 years), depending on the nature of his relationship with the museum. On the other hand, if the photographer took the photos on his own time with his own equipment then the copyright likely belongs to the photographer himself (copyrighted for life+50 years). —RP88 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the photographer took the photographs in his personal capacity, then have him send you an e-mail confirming he is willing to license the photographs under a suitable licence such as {{Cc-zero}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}}, and forward that e-mail to (for more information on this verification process, see "Commons:OTRS"). — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked three times, and get one-line replies that say some other random thing. I give up, the unit in question, the last in the world, will have to remain unimaged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You would think an archivist would have some understanding of what and why you're asking... It's up to you regarding how much patience you have, but surely he will have no choice but to respond authoritatively if you explain in simple, meaningful language that you need clarification from him about the copyright status from him and/or permission to release the image, in writing, or you cannot publish it. Diliff (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocking meaningless names

File uploads with meaningless names like File:Name.png are blocked because there already is a file with that name and that file is fully protected, and also because the file is in the category Category:Commons prohibited file names. I think this is good.

Would it be possible for the name File:Seal.png to be blocked in the same way? I am asking because I encountered File:Seal.png and asked for it to be renamed. Once that file is moved, I would like to see File:Name.png copied to Seal.png and the page fully protected to keep any other user from uploading a file named Seal.png. I would also like to see File:Name.jpg copied to Seal.jpg, File:Name.svg copied to Seal.svg, and so on. I haven't done this myself because I thought the idea should be discussed beforehand, and also because I can't protect pages myself. Eastmain (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Name" is as meaningful as "Seal". Please keep in mind that file names are primarily unique identifiers, if someone uploads a filename like THX1138.jpg or Man.jpg, then there needs to be a good rationale to change that name rather than arbitrary interpretations of whether the name is meaningless or too short. This is especially true if the file uploaded is keeping to the same naming pattern as others in an upload set, or the source uses this name.
In short, we should avoid protecting names for the sake of it. If we did, we probably would not have such easy to find Cookies.jpg. -- (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eastmain, Fae -- short generic filenames are specially blocked mainly when it's observed as a practical matter that inexperienced users will continually be re-uploading their new files over the existing one (without fully understanding what they're doing). Most of the cases I've encountered are JPEG filenames... AnonMoos (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filter search by licensing info?

Is there a way to limit searches to public domain images?

add hastemplate:PD-layout to the end of your search (e.g. [5]). Bawolff (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 06

The right licensing template for MDPI Open Access License

Should we use/create a specific licensing template for this ( Or we simply use the {{Cc-by-4.0}}? Z22 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Shahmahmood Miakhel with John Kerry.png

Source of image is simply given as "facebook". No author is given, but the licensed used is "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International". Is this a candidate for speedy deletion per "Missing essential information"? Would it be appropriate to tag this with {{No source since}}? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I taged it as {{copyvio|Just another non-free image from the Internet. See [[Commons:Image casebook#Internet images]].}}. Based on the uploader's other uploads and the fact that no author is mentioned (which is required by the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 license), it's pretty obvious that the uploader's licensing claims are completely made up. There's no reason at all to assume that this photo has been published under a free license. LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 07


Hello, I have a question who can i be an file rename or remove ??. Iam one of the organiser of wiki loves monuments, earth and afrika of Algeria, there are a lot of fils withe not real names of places or with copyvio--Vikoula5 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If I understand your question correctly: you can just use the {{Rename}} template, someone with file move privileges can do the actual work.
  • Another way to request a move, especially if there are several requests that really should be grouped, is User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands.
  • Removals are another matter. If there are copyright violations, there is {{Copyvio}}; for duplicate images (not very similar images, only for actual duplicates or scaled-down versions of images we already have) there is {{Duplicate}}. Otherwise, typically you'll need to nominate for deletion (which requires discussion). This last would be the case even if you were an administrator. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • thank you Jmabel, all this i know all this, i would by the person who do that. this time i am an Autopatrolled user right, and its exist one partol with the name file renaming, i want to participate in this patrol to. --Vikoula5 (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global "Child Protection" policy change mooted on Meta

Sj has put forward, and supported, the removal of "proposed" from the Meta "Child Protection" policy. Discussion can be found here. Here on Commons, Commons:Child protection has failed to gather consensus, after much discussion due to numerous sticking points. I am disappointed firstly that Sj has failed to advise communities of the Meta discussion, due to its global implications, so I am placing this notice here so that interested Commons project members can voice their opinion on the matter. russavia (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does this work? If the Commons community find a problem and we vote to reject it here, do we get ignored because a vote by meta-ists is more important than the (significantly larger) commons-ist community? -- (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Russ, this is a long-standing topic of discussion on Meta as well, which needed kickstarting. After the initial meta discussion I will ping others who have been actively involved in the topic on individual wikis. Fae, usually if there is a global policy that significantly differs from local policy, the difference is discussed and resolved. If that's impossible, an exception is often made (as with fair use); or a much broader discussion is had. In this case, I hope we end up with a descriptive global policy (how is this aspect of the ToU implemented? & any variance), which should minimize such difference. --SJ+ 22:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sj why did it need kickstarting right at that very point in time. Particularly, when according to Jimbo Wales en:WP:CHILDPROTECT is already global policy; and in fact the WMF globally locked an editor here in 2012 in order to prevent Jimmy from eating his words. Not that I don't agree with that particular editor being locked, but it is already obvious the WMF will do what it wants, regardless of any local policy. So seriously, what is the entire point of any discussion on implementation of a policy on Meta for global enforcement, or here on Commons? russavia (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Explain what is the difference in this maintenance templates

Can someone clarify the difference between {{Image template notice}} and {{Autocat}} (it is also describet under Commons:Categories#Templates_for_categories)? I suppose to merge Autocat in the other (the style and the icon?). (KISS: In general it's not good for everyone to have much redundant confusing templates.)User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 12:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't see any difference. I'd be inclined to turn Autocat into a template redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent challenge for US historical sites

Thanks for your help, guys and gals. About 2 months ago there was a call for images for US historical sites with a map and everything. I took some photos but I can't find the original call for images and I am not sure how to upload them. Any assistance, thanks for your help.Jarhed (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You can upload them exactly as you upload any other images; I'm not sure what particular "call for images" you are referring to (might have been this year's "Wiki Loves Monuments" contest, which I believe has ended), but someone else may be able to help you. & my apologies if that is not on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 21:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we delete the redirect pages that lead to File:A new and accurate plan of Blenheim Palace - L'Art de Créer les Jardins (1835), pl.1 - BL.jpg?

Due to us not being able to fix the issue that we are having with the redirects that lead to File:A new and accurate plan of Blenheim Palace - L'Art de Créer les Jardins (1835), pl.1 - BL.jpg, I feel that the redirect pages should be deleted. What do you think? DLindsley Need something? 22:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 09

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Historical German linguistical area.PNG

The author of the map has been banned en:Rex Germanus. As far as I understand the map shows results of 1910 census but the 1937 borders suggest that the map shows 1937 data. In my opinion the map is German nationalistic propaganda nad should be removed.Xx234 (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is in use, so that's not a valid reason to delete. If inappropriate, check on Wikipedia. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which Wikipedia, ten or twenty of them? Eg. roa-tara.wikipedia , how can I discuss with the editors? You misinform people publishing trash, it's not exactly the goal of Wikipedia project.Xx234 (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The map comes from English Wikipedia where it isn't used any more. It isn't used in German Wikipedia, too. So it's used by people who ignore the context and believe they obtain valuable map.Xx234 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been told ( that probably the description should be modified. I belive that the current description shoould be marked as biased or unprecise.Xx234 (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you hear sound of this video? (Notice: brain anatomy video)

Brain anatomy video

Can you hear sound of this video?. 4 months ago, I had uploaded this video series (Category:Media from Sanjoy Sanyal). When I uploaded these videos, there were no problem about sound. That was fine. But now, in all these videos, there are no sound. Is this a problem of my browser? --Was a bee (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a problem in transcoding. I can hear the sound in the original file, but I can't hear it in the transcoded version that is embedded on pages. Maybe try the "reset transcode" buttons at the bottom of the description page. If that doesn't fix it, it's probably a bug. darkweasel94 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
its a known issue with files with opus audio tracks. Wikimedia uses really old versions of the software that transcodes files, which chokes on opus. On the bright side we are supposedly upgrading soon (people have been saying that for at least six months though). If you want the file to work you will need to convert it to use a vorbis sound track. Bawolff (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Darkweasel94: and @Bawolff: . Now I clicked "Reset transcode," but the situation was not changed. So I wait until updating of "opus", then I will try transcoding again. Thank you very much. --Was a bee (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 10

Porto postcard

Porto and ox drawn carts.jpg

I like to date this. I suspect it is probably before WW I. That the postcard was made in Switserland indicates that this was early days. Wat type of cattle is this? It looks like African cattle. Is (Tabacaria Africana) Portugese for African cattle?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. These are Barrosã cattle. Compare other images, for instance [6] or [7] or [8] or [9]. And "Tabacaria Africana" means "African tobacco shop"; or maybe "Tobacco shop Africana". (Where did you get that one from; and why did you think it might be related to the cattle breed? I don't see it in the image.) None of which tells us when this photo was taken. Lupo 06:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see now, "Tabacaria Africana" was the publisher. Here you can see photos of that shop. (Rua 31 de Janeiro, formerly Rua St.Antonio.) The building and the shop no longer exist;[10] the shop apparently still existed in the 1960s or 70s: [11]. Lupo 06:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Postcard number 23 from that editor is dated to about 1920 at [12]. (The new Teatro San João shown on that postcard was completed in 1918 and inaugurated in 1920.) So I guess number 27 also dates to the early 1920s. Lupo 06:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Lupo 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 08


This photo has been uploaded as "own work". However, there appears to be someone's initials written in white in the lower left hand corner. These may be the uploader's initials, but not sure. COM:WATERMARK#Discouraged watermarks says " uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited." On the other hand, COM:ENFORCE#Tools for identifying your work says "Do not add visible watermarks to your images, such as printing your name in the corner. These will be removed as they affect image quality." Which one of the two, if any, applies in this case? Do these initials need to be removed? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tagged the file with a {{No permission since}} template, and notified the uploader. The initials made me think: "Did the uploader even get permission to upload this?". DLindsley Need something? 01:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks DLindsley the uploader is Sterndmitri and their user page says their first name is "Dmitri". The first initial looks like a "D", so that could stand for "Dmitri"; the second initial, however, looks like a "T" and I have no idea what that might stand for. Either way, all they have to do is mail OTRS with proof that they took the photo and things should be OK. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Marchjuly and DLindsley! :D I am glad that my page about the Church of Nativity makes some interest. This is my own picture, and everything is quite trivial about the watermark: "DT" is my initials as Dmitri Trifonov. The picture being my own work indeed is made by myself personally this October, I would be glad if you'd like to see my other pictures made that day (
It was my desire to use my picture in my article. I am not sure if that's possible to get the picture without the watermark now. Sterndmitri (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Sterndmitri: . Thanks for your side of the story. If you don't mind, you'll want to read COM:WATERMARK and COM:ENFORCE, so that this confusion doesn't happen for any of your future images. DLindsley Need something? 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sterndmitri: No problem Dmitri. In addition to what DLindsley suggested, I also recommend reading COM:OTRS#Licensing images: when do I contact OTRS? for future reference. Having the photo OTRS approved might be an extra (and unnecessary) step in this case, but it will be positive verification that the image is yours and might stop others from questioning it as well in the future. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Marchjuly and DLindsley, how to confirm the copyright? After the settings, the copyright is not confirmed, and the file will be deleted in 7 days. Should I send email? --Sterndmitri (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sterndmitri: I believe all you have to do is send an email to OTRS stating that you are the original copyright holder. You can ask at the OTRS/Noticeboard to make sure. I also think that even if the file is deleted by mistake while your email is being processed, it can be undeleted by an OTRS volunteer if everything is in order. - Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey again @Sterndmitri: . You'll want to send an email to the OTRS team by following the instructions here. Also, an {{OTRS pending}} template will need to be on the file in question, so that anyone knows that the file is pending OTRS. DLindsley Need something? 12:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we don't need OTRS for own work. The uploader has declared it as his own, including disclosing his full name. The template doesn't apply. @Sterndmitri: don't worry, there's nothing for you to do, I've removed the template. --99of9 (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarification 99of9. Should initials, like the ones in Sterndmitri's photo, be removed from photos before they are uploaded? (Just for my own future reference). - Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Visible watermarks are discouraged because it makes them less likely to be used (e.g. on wiki). So if you're asking about your own uploads, and are ambivalent, we'd suggest not visibly marking them. If you're looking to police other user's uploads, it's more complicated... Our standard practice used to be to actually remove visible watermarks. But the legal position has recently become less clear or even against this practice of removal. So gentle discussion with the uploader is probably the best starting point. They are entitled to attribution, and many feel that this is a good means of ensuring it. --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the added information 99of9. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rotation of a video

Can you rotate my video of a bell tower? File:San Giacomo Maggiore, campanile (Ro, Italy) 02.webm--Threecharlie (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partial video transcriptions

Is there or should there be a category or template for video transcripts which are only half-complete? Somebody on Wikipedia has just pointed out that TimedText:Ward_Cunningham, lapses into clanging auto-transcription, and checking the transcript source it looks as if an editor has taken a YouTube auto-transcript, cleaned up half of it and uploaded it with the untouched portions flagged with HTML comments (but still present when the video is watched). It's been running like that since May 2014. Might be worth a top-of-page template that also includes a warning to viewers watching the video, if such a thing is possible with TimedText pages. --McGeddon (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 11


Do we have form of e-mail letter to sites that use files from Commons without credit to the author of Commons. Like in this case? -- Geagea (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe {{License enforcement request}} is what you are looking for Geagea. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:David A. Romero in Orlando International Airport.jpg

Image was uploaded by davidaromero as "own work", but file's description says "Members of the Campus Activities Board of the University Central Florida take Romero's picture as he arrives in Orlando International Airport." Could this be interpreted as the photo was taken by another person? Should this be tagged with {{Npd}} or is it OK as? File doesn't seem to be being used anywhere else online. Perhaps the description is just poorly worded?

How does Commons deal with "selfies"? What if I ask another person to take my picture using their camera and send me a file? What if I ask another person to take my picture using my camera and I send them a file? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have many similar photos (for example, File:Pablo Kleinman.png). It's a kind of magic, I guess. --Juggler2005 (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the reply Juggler2005. The Pablo Kleinman photo looks like it was professionally arranged and taken at a studio. Kleinman probably had final say over everything involved. It's possible that Kleinman also paid for the exclusive rights to the photo. The Romero photo looks more spur of the moment, like it was just taken by somebody (perhaps somebody Romero knows) when he arrived. I guess it's possible that Romero arranged it in advance, but it doesn't seem like that to me. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a lengthly explanation by Carl L. which says that for simple setup, the subject may own the copyright. In bref, if you choose the place, the time and the pose, and ask a friend to push the button, you own the copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Thanks for the added info. I understand, but it seems a little strange that Romero isn't even looking at the camera. Maybe that's the "pose" he wanted and asked them to take the photo that way, or maybe they just took it and "gave" it to him later. Seems to me that there is some doubt as to whether this is really "own work". Is this just a case of assuming good faith and leaving well enough alone, unless some compelling evidence to the contrary can be found? I'm just trying to understand how Commons work a little better; I'm not really trying to get anyone's photo's deleted if it doesn't deserve to be deleted. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File problem

Hi, I have tried to upload a corrected version of File:Last Tango in Halifax Rankings.png a few times but the top version always shows the initial incorrect version. In the end I tried to revert back to one that, from the thumb, is correct and though the top version indicates it is reverting to a good version the image still displays the incorrect version. Any idea what I can do to correct this? All of the versions but the first 2 can be deleted if that solves the problem. Keith D (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can only wait. This is a cache issue. Ruslik (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How long does it take for the cache to be updated, 30 hours is a tad long. I have tried a purge on the file. Keith D (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looked totally fine (I'm assuming the correct version is when the blue line starts at about 7.3, and the incorrect version is when it started at 7?) to me when I looked earlier (which was before you left that comment. I Also checked different geographic locations, and they all looked fine). I think it may possibly be just showing the old version for you (browser cache issue). Do both [13] and [14] look wrong to you? Bawolff (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First one looks wrong while second one looks OK. Keith D (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think its just your browser. Try clearing your browser cache or doung a hard refresh (ctrl+shift+r) of the image url i gave in my last comment. Bawolff (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia suggestions

  1. Make all words in articles lead to new page related to the word, this can be done with programming when click on any word from article would lead to new articles but text would remain the same and standard wiki link to new article would override it or usual words or phrases.
  2. In each edit in history make report vandalism or spam with short explanation.
  3. Auto-sign when user begins with : but if edits inside between : an signature wouldn't sign it.
  4. Wikibot that would automatically translate via Google Translate articles from English Wikipedia and save them to other Wikipedia's that could save more time in writing articles but only for new articles links and files would be copied by Wikibot and then replaced after translation.
  5. Shortcuts for edit summary for example m minor edit.
  6. When signature is changed automatically change all signature of user (I have seen that in RPG Maker games you can type name of player and that name is displayed in whole game).
  7. TTS Text to Speech like Ekho I have read that it is possible to record ones own voice only vowels and consonants it is about one MB large and can read any text.And other languages as well.
  8. Also pop up translation for words from Wiktionary and how much times articles were visited.
  9. Input methods embedded in Wiki editor like Chinese.
  10. Also when make next word in new row in Wikipedia is displayed in same row this can be a problem for writhing many words one below other.
  11. Perhaps some translator like Google Translate which is online or for Android there are not much free quality translators today except Google Translate.
  12. When users edit is reverted or changed by different user would notify the user in special notifications, this would help if user has hundreds or thousands of edits so that he doesn't need to search all pages.Watch page is only for some pages it would be useful to have most although user can ignore it if he wants.
  13. Ancient Egyptian Babel for language knowledge.
  14. Wiki template that would make active count users edits and articles. Xand2 (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of your requests might be specific enough (e.g. supporting mw:Extension:Popups on Wiktionary) or already being worked on (e.g. mw:Extension:PronunciationRecording), other requests might not be specific enough or not interesting enough for a larger group of users, other requests are already possible ("minor edit" in the edit summary already has a shortcut). In general, suggestions should better provide reasons why those suggestions are made. --Malyacko (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikihiero has some errors for example < hiero > r:r < / hiero > should display r above r but it is in the same row
rr, or Ax&x & should display next character near sign but not above it like : isn't working < hiero > G25&x < /hiero >
Ax power of soul.Some errors were already reported on Wikihiero talk page but still no response.Also there are only basic Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph for example than A100 and free OpenSource JSesh has more than A500 and about 3000 hieroglyphs while others have almost 7000. Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pop up translation from Wiktionary when mouse over word would translate it to English or other languages.English Wiktionary has millions of words (most are inflections) and you can use free OpenSource Kiwix for offline Wikipedia and Wiktionary (but Wiktionary is downloaded separately try using Google) and that offline Wiktionary could be programmed with pop up window to display articles (you can also find pop up code on Google like C++). Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 08:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Display image from link to other website (not Wikipedia). Xand2 金日光旦照 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to remind everybody that this is Commons not Wikipedia. Rather than have your suggestions here its perhaps better to take this to wikitech:mainpage and meta:Requests and proposals.--KTo288 (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translation to Russian

Can somebody can translate the template {{License enforcement request}} to Russian. -- Geagea (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata behavior to Commons

Can it be that Wikidata has Commons again pretty circumcised? There are no such Interwiki links on Categories, this is a bit annoying. That means we need to add every Cat manually to Wikidata as page⁇ PS: As we can see here Wikidata made RfC over Commons without notice the Commons community.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes I see I've lost this thread: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/12#Questionable policy on Wikidata regarding Commons categories
I would give a very rare example where it is useful to connect to the same namespace. In the EnWP there is no direct Cat for photo[graphics image]s (as well as most basic categories and for sure of all other), there is only a Cat for the topic of articles.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't get what your problem is, and the mostly Cyril user talk page on wikidata can't help me. Please state something in the direction of on [[page]] the old behaviour was "something", and the new behaviour "something else" is worse. There was a recently closed RFC about wikidata here, is that related to your observations? –Be..anyone (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Perhelion, if you want Commons-category to Wikipedia article-interwiki than use the ond fasion approach of adding [[en:you link here]] to the category. --Jarekt (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Be..anyone and Jarekt: My problem is the same as INeverCry has described in the "old" (linked) thread. And the outcome was “not to add Commons-categories to Wikidata” to get Interwiki-links⁉ That is another problem for us (and Wikidata), for a common (Commons) user it is intuitively to do so (and not not to do so). I also was not aware of this. It is even more annoying as this is Bot-work and they have ceased their work. "but for the time being we have to live with it" My problem here was that I'm very wondering about this Wikidata problem here.User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should add commons categories to wikidata's wikipedia-article pages but as a property "Commons Category" not as an interwiki link. Wikidata is a work in progress and their main concern is working with wikipedias - other projects are of a second importance. But I think once they will overcome some technical issues they are working on for a while we will be able to use wikidata, but in the mean time if you want cross-namespace interwikis you have to do it the old fashioned way. --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introducing the Flags module

I have created Module:Flag to make categorization of flags by aspect ratio automatic. User:Ricordisamoa/sandbox/1 contains some testcases. Are there any features you'd want or any suggestions you'd make? --Ricordisamoa 10:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm doubing this is {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}}, but I can be wrong. Can someone check and tell me? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that logo does indeed appear in the archived copy of the source page at, contemporaneous with the upload to Commons. A smaller version of what appears to be the identical logo currently appears on the current 1st Battalion, 11th Marines home page. So it is probably licensed correctly. I added a link to the archived copy to the source field of file's summary. —RP88 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The process of converting classic talk pages to Flow

(BG: Flow). There are various ways to convert talk pages to Flow. Discussed at this page. I would like to know what we would like to have. Please join the discussion. Gryllida 23:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opt-in, svp. No global changes. Defaults for new talk pages depending on the namespace might be a good idea. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we revert the decision? I.e. could we move back the page if we find that it doesn't work as expected? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am against using FLOW in any capacity, to the point that I am likely to leave the project if it gets installed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On mw: I'm forced to use it. It's not too bad, it always figured out what I want (using raw wiki-markup with various templates, interwikis, etc.) Linking to threads is slightly obscure, but counting colons in a long "classic" debate is worse. They frankly admit that FLOW will replace the "classic" talk page culture, because it's hostile to new users. Apparently an application of WP:BITE biting old users, but not too bad from my POV. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Opt-in at most. If somebody would like to see the discussions using Flow, he or she may turn that on. Otherwise, leave everything as it is. It works perfectly. YLSS (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From my reading about Flow, it doesn't work that way. It's not a style that is applied to a discussion; a talk page is in Flow or it's not (although it seems there will be an option to edit in Wiki markup). I love the idea of bring able to follow a specific thread rather watching an entire page and trolling through the changes for posts I care about. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a whole-page, affects-everyone choice. It can be applied to a single page, but it affects everyone who reads or posts to that page.
The WMF just converted to Flow this month, and it has gone pretty smoothly so far. User:Quiddity (WMF) ended up doing some manual cleanup on unsigned comments, which the archiving bot, following normal practice, treated like header content rather than comments. There were a couple of bug reports, including one that I reported about WikiLove not being available on user talk pages, but nothing that was completely broken. I haven't seen any complaints about the general concept of Flow there. has everything from complete newbies (people in administrative jobs that have to keep track of conference rooms and office policies) to power users like me to devs, so it's quite a mix of user types. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you please answer my question above? Could we revert the decision? I.e. could we move back the page if we find that it doesn't work as expected? Then could we use Flow for a single talk page? If both answer are YES, I would try to move my talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Yann,
I'm not involved in that product, so I may be wrong. I'll see if I can get you a more authoritative answer. However, from what I've overheard, yes, you can go from "Flow page" back to "old-style talk page" if you want. (The other way around is very difficult, thus the 'archive everything' approach at Yes, you can have Flow on a single page. Right now, I think that turning Flow pages on and/or off requires dev intervention, so it's not a change that can be made instantly (at this stage in development). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Re: rollout - the team is still in the early stages of selective rollout, and is not currently offering an option to try it out on random locations. Flow is currently available at a few public wikis that have volunteered to test it out in specific locations, e.g. Catalan Wikipedia recently requested it at 3 pages, including their brand new ca:Viquipèdia:La taverna/Tecnicismes (Village Pump (Technical)), and the French Wikipedia has been trialling it at a secondary fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux/Flow (newcomers helpdesk) for a few months. Plus sandbox and feedback flow pages at each of those.
(The main global test page is mw:Talk:Sandbox, if anyone wishes to experiment and hasn't yet. Don't forget - most things can potentially be changed, based on (our) feedback and various types of testing - the end goal is something that is more efficient and powerful for oldtimers (combining the best bits of all prior experiments/extensions/gadgets/epiphanies), and less overwhelming for newcomers. The more constructive and actionable feedback the team gets - ("I like/dislike x because it helps/hinders me in task y.") - the better it will turn out for all of us, in the eventualism long-run. Over the coming months, I'll be back regularly to ask for wide input on more complex questions. For now, the global feedback page is mw:Talk:Flow.)
Re: reverting from Flow-to-wikitext, there's currently a simple script that will convert the text of a Flow discussion into a standard wikitext page (including appropriate indents and default user-signatures/timestamps), but it doesn't create any 'faked' edit-history for the new page - the history of the edits remains attached to the Flow Topics themselves. So there's room for improvement.
They're currently discussing and working on a few ways to change a page's contentmodel from plain-wiki to flow-board. One of those ways is probably going to be a special:page for admins to use to toggle pages individually. That's still quite a few months away though. So, [I'm sorry / don't worry] it's probably not coming to Commons any time soon (unless there's a broad group request to enable 1 or 2 pages for in-situ testing, ideally at pages that involve regular daily collaboration). Flow won't be ready for widespread rollout at the more complex wikis or namespaces, for a long time. The ideal situation, is that we all give enough regular testing and feedback as it changes, until it's in a state where the vast majority of editors are clamoring for it, at each wiki. Until then, slow and steady is the plan.
@PKM: Wikimarkup is the only option at the moment. They want to get that done right, first, and then add VE as an optional alternative later on. (It's not immediately obvious that everything is already/only wikimarkup, because the usual toolbar is missing, but when to add that in is being discussed at phab:T78346 currently. :-)
Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for your detailed answer. As the French WP enabled it for their local help desk, French speaking people may agree to enable it on the French language help desk on Commons. I asked the French VP (Bistro) here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would Wikimedia to adopt a proper discussion system. Now, Wikimedia has a long history of poorly developed pages.

I think that Flow-style pages could be added to Wikimedia websites, but as long as people are still allowed to discuss in regular pages as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 12

I can't log in

I can't log in to the Commons since two days. The error message is as follows:

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
Request: POST, from via cp1066 cp1066 ([]:3128), Varnish XID 4096443035
Forwarded for: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX,,,
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:27:55 GMT

Fizped (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forwarded to T78450. -- Rillke(q?) 02:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been unable for more than week to log in. Probably this does not depend on computer (I tried in public library and at home). Probably this does not depend on browser (I tried in Internet Explorer 11.0 and Firefox 34.0.5). Probably this is not Commons problem (happens in other projects also). After 33 seconds I get error message "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." But when entering wrong password, I get correct error message after less than 10 seconds. I have no unified account, because some Taivos in other projects – that's not me. But I registered a new account (this happened to be unified) and then I am able to log in normally. But, of course, this new account has no administrator buttons. I can still normally log into sites, not related with Wikipedia. 15:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC) (User:Taivo)Reply[reply]
The Taivo SUL is not created yet, you can use Special:MergeAccount to create the SUL for your account. (but you need to be logged in as Taivo. I added your comment to T78450) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Taivo: You seem to have been able to make contributions at English Wikipedia on 13 December. Are you able to log in there? If so, log in, then go to w:Special:MergeAccount to activate SUL. Does this fix the problem? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taivo in English Wikipedia – that's not me. Language links in my user page show, which projects I edit. 15:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (User:Taivo)Reply[reply]
If you are able to log in as Taivo somewhere, then log in there and go to Special:MergeAccount on that project. You could also try registering a "User:Taivo" account on a project where none exists and then go to Special:MergeAccount on that project. If you manage to go to Special:MergeAccount, it will also help people figuring out on which projects you are editing as Special:CentralAuth/Taivo then lists your accounts in one list and the accounts of the other Taivo users in another list. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Stefan. Now I have unified all my accounts and I could log in. Taivo (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 14

Category Slideshow

What is it decides the order in which Category Slideshow displays images? Checking one of my own categories I was startled at the apparent confusion. Can I control the order of display? Apologies if I am asking in the wrong place. Eddaido (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No need to apologize; it is a known issue. C.f. MediaWiki_talk:GallerySlideshow.js#Order_of_presentation_does_not_work_with_Safari and sorry that I am out of resources for maintaining this script properly. -- Rillke(q?) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No great disaster. Many thanks for your reply. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inquiry on needed evidence for IDF's permission to use photos of three victims on poster

At User_talk:Russavia#IDF_file_of_three_teens_of_2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers I have started a discussion on an image of three boys who were the victims of the en:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. I would like to upload the photo but I would like to know what the IDF needs to provide in order for this photo to be used in the Wikimedia Commons (proof that the IDF has the proper license to use this photo)

Note: If this image is uploaded please ensure that there are descriptions in both Hebrew and Arabic (Russian may be good too) WhisperToMe (talk)

These don't look like official Israeli military photos -- none of the three is in uniform (and two were below the ordinary age of military service)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not photographed by IDF. Many sites using that photos as "images provided by the Israeli Defense Forces". So what we can assume is IDF collected those photos from the victim's family or school for their search purposes. Little chances that they got permission from original photographers; family members or school authorities may not copyright holders. Wikipedia may use those pictures as fair use rational. (There is one more picture deleted from Commons; I don't know whether it is the same photos.) Jee 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image rotation

Is it normal that the previews of File:Bus (3363713821).jpg are all in "normal" way while the original picture is "Rotated 90° CCW", as said in the Exif data? I made a rotation request, but it didn't change anything... What could be done to remedy the situation?
BarnCas (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, use the thumbnail to determine the rotation degree. Secondly, c.f. to COM:Rotation. And the third point: Since the original photo has metadata about its orientation attached, most Linux and Mac software will display it properly orientated. Only some Windows software struggles with that. If you feel, it should be physically rotated and the orientation bit set to default (so Windows software will display the full resolution version correctly), request a rotation by . But we generally discourage doing so in favour of adding pressure to phab:T33366. -- Rillke(q?) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I don't ask it for myself, as I have the necessary addons in my browser, and if I need to download this picture, my (Gnu-Linux) softwares will indeed automatically rotate it. I just found really weird to have first this CCW oriented original image when looking at it in the browser (same thing in Dillo, Midori, Firefox and Pale Moon...).
As I already asked for a (90°) rotation that didn't apparently work, I really wonder if a 0° one will change anything.
BarnCas (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BarnCas: The 90° rotation request you placed onto the file description page had been reverted, this is why it didn't work. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rillke: I didn't place the request anywhere: there was no {{int:filedesc}} at that time, I just clicked on the link for the request, so I didn't choose the location of the request template, if it does indeed matter lol. And Finavon, who reverted the rotation, has most probably tools in his/her browser that don't "allow" to see the problem with the original picture (as it also occurs on my computer with a particular profile of Firefox, due to any addon?).
Ok, I don't see the point to go further, if nobody else seems to be concerned by people who don't have our tools to see that picture correctly. After all, I just wanted to give this file the appropriate category, and that's what I did Clin. Thanks for your help.
BarnCas (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(Edit: Finavon made a request for a 0° rotation. Wait and see... -- BarnCas (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Bug report - #ifexist updates

Hello (technical discussion ahead, sorry for that).

I just created the Template:ACCcategorsation which works as a "subroutine" to Template:ACClicense ‎ - it takes two parameters (for instance, "seal" and "豕") and tests for the existence of a subcategory using {{#ifexist: category:ACC containing {{{1|}}}-{{{2|}}} | , that is to say with my example:

This is meant to allow the Template:ACClicense ‎ (ACC = Ancient Chineese Character) to categorise a chineese character according to its various components, inside the Category:Ancient Chinese characters by components subcategories, without knowing in advance whether subcategories exist for such or such style (seal / bigseal / bronze / oracle / ...) and such and such character component. And, of course, subcategories may be opened when the parent category becomes too crowded

My problem is, to work corectly, that #ifexist: should be evaluated in three different cases :

  • Obviously it is (correctly) evaluated when a new file is uploaded and described through the ACClicense template.
  • It is also (correctly) evaluated when the ACClicense is modified, apparently causing all files usig that model to be (slowly) re-evaluated. This was the problem described in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/06#Bug report - category modification and Bugzilla Bug 50135, and it seems to have been correctly solved.
  • But when a previously non-existent sub-category is created, causing some #ifexist: tests to change result, the corresponding file indexations are not ubdated and the new category remains empty. The only way to force a re-examination of their case seems to be to make some apparent modification to the ACClicense template and force a reevaluation on all the files using that template (3000+ files so far).

Is there a way of updating the template instantation specifically when non-existent files tested for in a #ifexist: test are created ?

Thanks in advance for your suggestions, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, when a category is created, it will re-parse all the relavent pages (updating the display), but it won't do links update (update the categories). What you can do, is any time you create one of these categories, go to the url豕 (replacing the Category:ACC_containing_bigseal-豕 at the end of the url with whatever category you just created). That should force all the things that are doing #ifexist: for that category to re-evaluate what categories they should be in. Bawolff (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works ! sounds like black magik to me, but thanks a lot. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of one of most important and famous tenor in the list of opera singers!

I visited several pages and in none I found the name and history of Francesco Tamagno, "Il tenore canone".

See, for instance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Service: Category:Francesco Tamagno. --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 16


I was looking at the file "File:SouthRiverNJ1936.jpg", and it is low quality. There is a higher quality photo here. I know there's a certain way to formatting Library of Congress photos. Perhaps someone there could help. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, Chrome uploads fail after about 5% of the 105MB TIFF, and Firefox also fails (much later). For Chrome I'm not surprised, it could never really download big files, so why should big uploads work. For Firefox I'd guess that this is a problem on the side of commons. The LoC also has a smaller TIFF, but the purpose of this exercise would be to get the real thing, not some minor version. But the 86KB thumbnail here has now a link to the real TIFF. Disgusted: Be..anyone (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded it - File:SouthRiverNJ1936.tiff. However, MediaWiki has a bug where it doesn't work for tiffs with a 16-bit bitdepth per channel, so the thumbnail doesn't show up properly. Bawolff (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I tagged the variants with {{LargeTIFF}} + {{compressed version|...}}. Is there a simple tutorial somewhere how uploads of huge files might work? Ideally explaining why it doesn't work with esoteric tools such as Special:Upload, Chrome, Firefox (10 ESR for W2K vintage 2013 running on Windows 7), and mobile wannabe-broadband (as defined by o2-DE). –Be..anyone (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You folks are amazing. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Be..anyone: Files over 100mb need to be uploaded with chunked uploaded. The only official way is via Special:UploadWizard, after enabling chunked uploading in preferences (The Chunked uploads for files over 5 MB in Upload Wizard in the chunked upload section, under experimental options). However, I personally use User:Rillke's User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, which I find works really great. Commons:Chunked uploads has some information. Bawolff (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tnx for info, I saw the JS page (wikilinked in your upload edit history, IIRC), but there was no obvious this works. Apart from "whatever Rillke did should be better than some upload wizard".:-)Be..anyone (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some docs at User_talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, but basically, add the importScript statement to your special:Mypage/common.js, and then go to the file page for the file you want to upload (even if the file page doesn't exists), then in the sidebar, under tools, there is an "upload (chunked)" you can click on. It works very well if you want to upload things without the hand holding of the upload wizard. Bawolff (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum, if you're an admin, and if the url is on the upload by url whitelist (, and are on it, but I'm not sure if this image is accessible from those domains), then you can directly upload by url from Special:Upload for large files (up to 1000MB). Bawolff (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addendum II: You can request license reviewer status and then make the Wikimedia Servers fetch from one of the domains listed on Commons:Upload tools/wgCopyUploadsDomains. -- Rillke(q?) 12:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was actually the first time since I have an account here (2011) that I couldn't upload what I wanted for technical reasons. Adding about ten times, where I could have overruled a license review bot is still less than a dozen in three years, not enough for a flag permitting read access on deleted files, if I understood this right correctly. Besides Special:UploadWizard would have told me immediately that 105MB is not less than 100, only Special:Upload ends up nowhere in this case. Your script apparently works for me—I aborted it, because it was the TIFF already uploaded by Bawolff. However, some procedure for users without this right to trigger uploads by URL (not counting whining in the VP as "procedure") would be nice, my failed attempts with this TIFF ate about 280MB of my 5GB/month, about 1€. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 15

Connection reset errors when uploading file

A woman preparing areca nut for chewing in Myanmar

Hi! I am trying to upload a 256 Mb WebM file, but I keep getting a "connection has been reset" error. I tried the upload several times with Firefox and with Chrome from two different locations (office and home), but keep encountering the error. What's wrong? Any suggestions? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You presumably do not use COM:Chunked uploads. As a power user, you might want to check out User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js instead of UploadWizard. It tends to be more reliable and does not conceal error messages. -- Rillke(q?) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, no, I haven't tried that. This is the first time I've tried to upload such a large file. Thanks, I'll have a look. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm, it's not working. I added the specified text to /common.js, bypassed the cache as instructed, and selected chunked uploads in "Preferences" but am still getting the standard Firefox "connection reset" error page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine, of course you'll have to follow User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js#How to use (meaning you navigate to File:MyDesiredFileName.webm, press upload file (chunked) from your tools box, sidebar) or Special:UploadWizard. Special:Upload can't handle this. -- Rillke(q?) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I successfully uploaded the file using the UploadWizard. However, I didn't really understand the instructions at "User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js" (what is the "second option of the upload link of any file page"?) Maybe you'd like to update these instructions with what you mentioned above, and also specifically state that UploadWizard can be used. Anyway, thanks a lot! — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! Thanks, clarified instructions. -- Rillke(q?) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge these items?

I believe pages Creator:Karl Sterio and Creator:Károly Sterio need to be merged. They are both associated to Wikidata item Károly Sterio. Laddo (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates and category layout

Category:Tonga, by way of example, has the template info overlaying the list of category content. It looks like some sort of template coding issue. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swapped, the sisters first, please check if it works for you (for me it's only minimally better and wasn't broken.) –Be..anyone (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That fixed it. The "P" heading is no longer amongst the template text. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a whacky template, but I added {{Clr}} to separate it from the listings. Delphi234 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a lot of categories that need the same treatment. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 17 under CC-BY-SA!

For Your interesting: This collection is under CCBYSA! -----> --Pallerti (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fortepan is an online photo archives. All of the images are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 and can be freely used. If you wish to publish any of them, please give the credit in the following format: FOTO:FORTEPAN / name of donor.

--Pallerti (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent! Looks like a case for batch uploading… -- Tuválkin 23:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 18

guidance for Panoramics

Is there some consensus, are there some guideline of what photos to put into Panoramics of/in categories? Should Panoramic views of/in be treated differently?

According to en:Panoramic photography (similar en:Panorama), characteristic for a panoramic image is

  • elongated fields of view
  • wide aspect ratio
  • (and I want to add) the image containing a full and not a partial view.

What I do find is that standard photos or even telelense partial views make it into these categories. My opinion is that Views of or Cityscapes of or similar would be more appropriate. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panorama or panoramic is also a synonyme for landscape or cityscape view. Even if we make any guidance, the ambiguity of the word will cause new categories out of the quidance. The words "view of" are also very ambiguous and unclear. In fact, every image is a "view of" something. The categories "views of" really mean "panoramic views of" or "global views of" or "distant views of". And there is also a problem with parent categories. We can have categories "Views of A village" and "Views of B village" or "View from C viewpoint" but the parent category cann't be named "Views of X district" or "Views of X region" because none of the included images is a global view of the district or region. We mean "Views of something particular in the X region". But not view of houses, nor views of sculptures - only landscape and cityscape images, ie. panoramics. Unfortunately, panoramic is also a term even for 360° image of room interior. For the photo-technological term, an appropriate Category:Panoramics by technology‎ subcategory should be used to avoid ambiguity. --ŠJů (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with "full and not partial view" is that you might have a partial view because a truly "full view" isn't actually possible. For example, consider the Grand Canyon: a truly "full view" involves photographing all 450 km of rocks and dirt... times at least two, so that you get both sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where to upload handout files for an event?

Dear Wikipedians, I am developing handouts for use at an upcoming event (Draft event page at this link),_MD/Wiki_Loves_Small_Museums We will be circulating the information in advance, to people at various sites, so I would like to upload the handouts so that people can get them from the Wiki project page. Is it appropriate to do this as a normal commons file upload? Is there a better place to upload event-related materials? Are there categories I should use to identify these? Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: the root category for stuff like this is Category:Wikimedia meetups. It's probably best to create your own subcategory for the event (e.g. Category:Wiki Loves Small Museums 2015), so that you have a place for pictures of the meeting etc. Put that category at the right subcategory of Category:Wikimedia meetups in the United States and Category:Wikimedia meetups in 2015 and you should be good. By the way, you project page says the meeting is/was in 2014, you might want to change that ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly forgot: Yes, handouts for Wikimedia-related meetups should be fine. But if you use other people's work in you handout, remember to make sure everything is under a free license and the original authors are appropriately credited. --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I think I managed to get it done correctly! I appreciate your helpful replies. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ListUsers special page not working for OTRS-members group? returns "No user found." Is something wrong? -- 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, can you tell us from where you did follow this link so we can fix it? Secondly, the local OTRS identification group has been emptied after the global group on Meta has been established. -- Rillke(q?) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's linked from Category:Commons OTRS volunteers. There should also be a way to let users who are directly looking up the special page know, though. -- 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have fixed the link at the category page. Thanks for notifying us. Jcb (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way: I filed phabricator:T78814 (the group is empty, therefore uncontroversial maintenance). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's also linked on Special:ListGroupRights. Apparently T78814 is already fixed (code reviewed, but not yet deployed.) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is not already fixed. See the link to Gerrit, where it says "Status: Review in Progress" and not yet "Merged". --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New and disease mongering (perhaps also transphobic) categorizations?

The totally new user Apsesrival (registered today at 03:50am) has IMO primarily intended fairly obvious disease mongering categorizations, without the slightest prior discussion. In the new Category:Pseudo-gender (with its new sub-Category:Pseudo-gender symbols) for example, "Pseudo-" means false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not. Or how about the new Category:Sexual disorders, now with the sub-Category:LGBT in it! Are Apsesrival's categorizations also tinged with Transphobia? What now?
--ParaDox (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, explain your objections directly to him on his talk page, he might see the point that categorization should be based on facts or general consensus and category names should not be judgmental. If he agrees, revert the changes and all is fine. If he doesn´t react, revert the changes and all is fine. If he doesn´t agree and has no good reason (like an ICD-10 code), revert the changes. If he re-reverts you, see him blocked for ew. But avoid accusing him of things like disease mongering or transphobia, as this will rather lead to an unnecessary conflict instead of leading to a swift solution. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your very good advice. I've already informed Apsesrival on his/her talk page (at 10:33 UTC) of my objections/questions on this "Commons:Village pump page". English is foreign and very hard work for me, so I'm reluctant to get involved in an English discussion. How long should one wait for Apsesrival to respond to this here? --ParaDox (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me myself, I´d wait at least 24 hours for a response if there´s no need to rush thing. But as the categorizations in this specific case could be seen as pejorative and not based on good faith, I´d fully understand if you acted earlier or even at once (I´m assuming that "pseudo-gender" is not a scientifically used term and that LGBT is not seen as a sexual disorder by current medical standards, which I don´t know for sure). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That user seems experienced (knows wiki syntax). You may revert on sight or report to COM:AN/B. Jee 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, being LGBT was never a real disease, anywhere. One can be kind and presume ignorance, however these categories are blatantly offensive for LGBT contributors such as myself, and should be promptly deleted. -- (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks everyone, it's all been reverted in the meantime. --ParaDox (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just over seven hours, not bad, but maybe a sanitary blocking of this account should be done, just in case its work is resumed in a less blatant manner? -- Tuválkin 18:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 19

Advice on deletion

I took some photos at a public meeting a little while ago, and snapped some photos of my Member of Parliament and some of the officials who organized the meeting. Because it was a public meeting it didn't occur to me to clear with my neighbours when they were captured in these photos. Well, one of my neighbours was upset. Other neighbours are cross over what they perceive as a serious lapse in judgment on my part.

I uploaded cropped versions of those photos, and renamed the images.

I'd like to arrange for the uncropped earlier revisions to be deleted. I don't know whether I should have just requested a courtesy deletion of all these images, or whether I can request the earlier uncropped revisions to be deleted. If so, I'd like to get the redirects left behind deleted as well.

None of the images is in use.

Advice please.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can request it directly without convoluted delete old+upload new procedure on COM:AN (there is an "other" button near the upper right of this page.) If you find a better place please post it here for info. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be..anyone is correct. If you prefer more privacy and want to avoid public attention, just ask to a friendly admin through talk, mail or IRC. Jee 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done. Did I catch them all? --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome

The category 'Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome' was redirected to category:Tower of the winds back in 2011, but that Tower of the winds is in Athens, not Rome. Can we undo this redirect please, so we can connect these to their proper Wikidata entries? - PKM (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, you could start a CFD (category for discussion), or, because that's not controversial, remove the "#REDIRECT" blurb on Category:Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome. If you want category:Tower of the winds for Rome and category:Tower of the Winds as is better start a CFD, because that's confusing (but possible, if others agree.) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'll undo the redirect and go with Torre dei Ventii for Rome. - PKM (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload a new version of this file notice

How do we get a more meaningful notice than "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." First you can not change the license when you over-write a file, and second, there is not even any place to provide a license. How about instead "Copyright violations will be deleted without notice. Thank you for your understanding." Delphi234 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that MediaWiki:Uploadtext does not know it's a re-upload. I will see what I can do to hide it with JavaScript if no one else comes up with a better suggestion (or I am able to fiddle through the upload code server side and pass an additional parameter to the message in question. -- Rillke(q?) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I know enough to ignore it now, but early on it gave me a great deal of confusion as to what to do. Delphi234 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


GLAMorous in the "Tools" section of the left sidebar is temporarily not working. The maintainer knows about the problem. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wassily Kandinsky Red Spot II 1921

Dear commons people. The work of one of the first modernist (abstract) painters, Kandinsky, has come in the public domain. At least I think this is the case, because he died more than 70 years ago, on 13 December 1944. Google doodled him this week. My question is, do the specialists on copyright agree on this? And the next question is, who will help me to upload his work (with some sort of bot??). He has been very influential. Thanks Elly (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright terms run through the end of the calendar year in which they expire, so Kandinsky's French or German copyrights will expire on January 1, 2015 (U.S. copyright can be more complex). Commons has more than dozen of his paintings scheduled for evaluation and possible undeletion next month. —RP88 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. So a lot will come back automatically next year (I hope the image I uploaded today will remain here for another 2 weeks, because I used it in Wikibooks.) Elly (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 20

File metadata cleanup drive: We now have number for commons


As many of you are aware, we're currently in the process of collectively adding machine-readable metadata to many files and templates that don't have them, both on Commons and on all other Wikimedia wikis with local uploads. This makes it much easier to see and re-use multimedia files consistently with best practices for attribution across a variety of channels (offline, PDF exports, mobile platforms, MediaViewer, WikiWand, etc.)

In October, I created a dashboard to track how many files were missing the machine-readable markers on each wiki. Unfortunately, due to the size of Commons, I needed to find another way to count them there.

Yesterday, I finished to implement the script for Commons, and started to run it. As of today, we have accurate numbers for the quantity of files missing machine-readable metadata on Commons: ~533,000, out of ~24 million [15]. It may seem like a lot, but I personally think it's a great testament to the dedication of the Commons community.

Now that we have numbers, we can work on going through those files and fixing them. Many of them are missing the {{Information}} template, but many of those are also part of a batch: either they were uploaded by the same user, or they were mass-uploaded by a bot. In either case, this makes it easier to parse the information and add the {{Information}} template automatically with a bot, thus avoiding painful manual work.

I invite you to take a look at the list of files and see if you can find such groups and patterns. Once you identify a pattern, you're encouraged to add a section to the Bot Requests page, so that a bot owner can fix them.

I believe we can make a lot of progress rapidly if we dive into the list of files and fix all the groups we can find. The list and statistics will be updated daily so it'll be easy to see our progress.

Let me know if you'd like to help but are unsure how! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Template:Copyrighted free use doesn't seem to be recognized as a license. Do the machine readable tags have to be added? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circa 700 files are using Template:Audio upload which is some form of an infobox, this one either would need some machine readability or the instances should be moved to another templated (or simply used next to another template). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basvb: I've added the markers to {{Copyrighted free use}}, so that's a few dozen thousands more files with a machine-readable license. Thank you! As for {{Audio upload}}, I was waiting for the patch on phab:T75332 to be deployed, but it's already here and I didn't realize it :) I've added the new classes and the information is now machine-readable. Let me know if you find others! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it a good idea to create a (small) project on commons for the information adding/cleanup drive? I've been adding loads of information templates but run into samples/batches which could use some input from other users. For example I ran into 1600 files which use User:221.20/BusInfo and don't know what to do with those. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dating Egyptian postcards

Bedouin in the desert postcard.jpg

I uploaded several postcards. I suspect they from before WW I. This looks like a very old rifle with hammer. File:The piramids inondation postcard.jpg Wich flood? File:The Nile postcard Cairo.jpg Wich bridge in Cairo? Wich Pyramids are in the first two postcards?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wild guess, the yearly flood of the nile, and maybe this view (4th photo; credits: Google, w:en:AfC,, query "pyramids nile"). –Be..anyone (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 22

Images from Mars Express' HRSC now available under a Creative Commons licence

Just a heads up. Images from the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA's Mars Express should now be compatible with Wikimedia Commons (released under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0, like Rosettta NavCam images). Details here. Njardarlogar (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice, my first test: File:Flying_over_Becquerel_crater.ogv. Always looking for FFmpeg nerds to learn new OGV or WebM transcoding tricks. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created Category:Photos taken by Mars Express. Please add images to this category. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Be..anyone Just wondering about the ESA logo intro and the background music in videos, have you read anything specifically about that? Wouldn't the logo be copyrighted, or how is it? --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's their license, the video includes credits for the music, and the credit line links to their blog entry.<shrug />Be..anyone (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do see that they've licensed it that way, my question boils down to whether they knew exactly what they were doing or forgot about a couple of details. ;-) --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's their first joint CC BY-SA IGO video, so maybe they don't know that exactly, because they only talk about their images.:-)Be..anyone (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Outstanding. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Very nice to see ESA continuing to expand its library of freely licensed images. Huntster (t @ c) 13:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

looking for a license tag for CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO

Hi all

I'm looking for the correct copyright tag for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO license, which is a variation of the normal BY-SA license created for intergovernmental organisations, the details are here, I cant find it in the list of license tags. I'm working with UNESCO to upload their content to Commons and this is the license they use, help would be appreciated in how to proceed.


Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's called exactly what you'd expect: {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}. darkweasel94 16:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually not as expected, I also often stumble over the "missing" upper case. Just in case I created {{CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO}} as redirect, the server can handle a few bytes more, bots can get rid of redirects when required. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much, I've added it to the licenses tags page but haven't added it to this page, I don't want to mess the table up. Thanks again Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 24

Background colors

At and under our Category:Images by color of background, some items are said to be on a given background, while others with a given background. With one exception, this seems to be random — e.g.:

Regardless of the best word, the main problem here is inconsistency, and the same approach for identical situations should always be followed. I call for general renaming in order to achieve such sought consistency, and I favour "on" against "with" for its clearer meaning — and also for this exception. Opinions? -- Tuválkin 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The affected categories would be:

-- Tuválkin 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

on and with background

In some cases, the background is part of a design, which is in toto the subject of the category, namely images themselves: Those should not be changed from "with", of course. A special case would be paintings (o.s.l.t.) hanging on walls, where two backgrounds can be considered: The background the painting is on and the background the painting depicts (“with”):

WLANL - Pachango - Een op zijn rug liggende krab, Vincent van Gogh (1889).jpg
Here we have:
  • Crab on green background
  • Painting with green background
  • Painting on white(ish) background

-- Tuválkin 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd hate on if with already exists, or vice versa, but both variants are okay. I don't know how I'd pick what, it could depend on the size of the object or the relevance of the background. DEnglish en-3 alert, Be..anyone (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both seem correct depending on context. For example, that cat has a black background (the photo is of a cat with a black background), whereas the spider is actually on a white background (it is physically on a white card); the cat is on a ledge, not a black anything, it is in front of a black background. So, if I had to pick one, I would pick with, as it indicates a connection or accompaniment, whereas on (generally) suggests a physical connection. I don't see why both can't stay side by side with Template:See also indicating that there is more related media in another category, or another term such as against a be used. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should any standardization be implemented, I favor the more general "with" versus the more specific "on", in order to accommodate both possibilities. As long as the main subject (animal, plant, food, etc) is placed against a (completely or predominantly) solid color background (regardless of whether that color is a wall, a sheet of paper, the ground, a cropped/photoshopped background, etc.), "with" can easily accommodate the image, obviating discussions about the color the subject is physically resting on. Should a substantialy subset of "with" images be more appropriately "on", then the category "on" could potentially be nested under "with", but I think it's preferable just to have one category versus two. I don't think a third term such as "against a" needs implementation at this time, as that would only further complicate the issue. Animalparty (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark this thread as sufficient and give it a go. I avoid implementing taxonomic changes, before you know it you have spent 3 years rearranging your brickabrack. -- (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 25

Easiest way to get quality images from PDF files?

I obtained File:PunjabmapJDCunninghamHistoryoftheSikhs.png from PDF p. 35/203 of - I thought the resolution at 100% would be sufficient, but after I uploaded the file I zoomed in more and found that the resolution is of a much higher quality than I thought.

I could stitch together pieces of the map in paint via Print screen but that seems like a hassle. What is the best way to get the quality image of this PD map? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try the pdfimages command-line program in the xpdf package. It doesn't always give convenient results, but it's the way to go beyond screen-dumping to access the original images embedded within the PDF file... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WhisperToMe, I like the program Nitro PDF. It has a function to pull all images out of a PDF file at full resolution, and you can choose the output format (jpg, png, etc). Good if you're like me and have no ability to use command line stuff. Ping me if you need help using it. Huntster (t @ c) 14:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would help to know what operating system you use. In Linux, the most common PDF reader, Evince, simply lets you right-click on an image and save it. In this case, it produced a 3240×2272 pixel 5.6 MB PNG which could be optimised down to 5.5 MB. There is also an abundance of command-line tools for extracting images from PDF documents, perhaps most notably the aforementioned pdfimages.
Gimp can also open pages from a PDF as an image at the resolution you specify. This is not quite the same as extracting the images. It provides no guidance on the ideal resolution for a given image, and it essentially renders the whole page before converting everything to an image. In other words, it's quite similar to the screenshot approach. LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but if you can match the resolution of the embedded image, you won’t lose a significant amount of detail—colour fidelity might be more of a problem. Some PDF readers can tell you the resolution; for documents created using typical “print quality“ settings, 300 ppi is probably the best guess. (Caveat: where the originals are between 300 & 450 ppi they’re often not downsampled to the 300 target, and moreover black-and-white “linework” images, one bit deep, are often kept at 1200 ppi or more.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyone, thank you so much for the feedback! I have Windows 8, but I plan to get Linux soon. Anyhow... @Huntster: I tried using Nitro Reader but the PDF file is asking for a password (I need a password to have it converted) and I don't have the password WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s because the PDF has been specially protected by the creators, to prevent modification or extraction of content. However, not all PDF editors honour such restrictions. I was able to extract the page with Inkscape, saving it as an unprotected file, which was accessible to my usual workflow: open in Acrobat, pass image to Photoshop (I imagine Nitro PDF and the GIMP would make a similar pair but open-source) … in this case then cropping and converting to grey, then saving as a PNG (6 Mpx in 3 MB). I wonder if a better version could be found, though, considering the scan is a little crooked, has pronounced JPEG artifacts, and of course has lost its colouring (see legend, bottom left). If not, though, WhisperToMe, I’d be happy to upload the file I extracted, which is at least an improvement on the present version in terms of clarity.
For general advice, I’d stress the importance of using a tool that can extract the actual image data from the PDF, to minimize loss of quality & detail. Then save it in an un- or losslessly compressed format (i.e. not JPEG) before doing any further work on it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479: Thank you so much! Is there a similar/better quality in these versions of the book on the Internet Archive? and (1918 revised edition) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, not AFAICT. The first is a full-colour scan, but seems to lack maps. The second includes a high-resolution linework version of the map (evidently a redrawing), but IMO it’s visually inferior to the one from the Lal thesis, particularly when viewed at less than full resolution, and it’s missing a narrow vertical strip in the middle (presumably from the binding).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479: Ok. Is it alright if you upload what you have? (The redrawing may be nice too anyway even though it has a defect) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Odysseus1479: Found the new version. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone should feel free to start a page Commons:PDF by summarizing the above. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming standard for categories for individual airliners ?

There appears to be a (de-facto ?) standard for names for categories of individual commercial aircraft : ABCDE (aircraft) where ABCDE is the civilian registration. Unfortunately, these codes are often re-used, with the consequences that ABCDE may apply to multiple aircraft over the years, and also that the same aircraft at another period of its existence may be registered as e.g. VWXYZ. Hence we get images of obviously different aircraft in the same category (e.g. Category:C-GMWJ (aircraft) and images of the same aircraft in separate categories. Hence this naming convention is really unworkable - only something unique like the aircraft's construction serial number gives a robust category naming scheme. Is there any task group that deals with these issues ? With Commons now being swamped with aircraft photos from many spotter's groups we need a robust standard before it gets out of hand. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe checking up the way the a similar problem was dealt with for ships would be a good idea: Category:Ships by IMO number. -- Tuválkin 06:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently, the workaround is to move to something like ABCDE (Airbus A320) if there are several aircraft per registration. That works quite well I think. The number of cases where this applies is relatively low. The construction serial number is not really an option for categorization because it is often not known or at least difficult to find out. The reason why registrations are a good idea for categorization is that they are always visible on the aircraft. I don't think the current system is a problem, really. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure? As far as I understood callsigns, they apply to the airframe itself - whichever livery it is found in. The example you gave, is the same plane with different colours. 6th Common Sense (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only difference I can see is that winglets have been fitted in the most recent photo. --ghouston (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some websites, such as [16] say it was built in 2006, which would imply that the photos from 2001 do show a different aircraft. --ghouston (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely different aircraft - early 737 with original low-bypass engines under wings versus later model with forward-mounted high-bypass engines. Tail is also different. This re-using and re-registering seems to occur often enough that a naming convention needs to addreess it. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. All correct. Callsigns can indeed change over the course of a plane's life. Sorry for the confusion. 6th Common Sense (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I’ve done in the past is create a disambiguation page. But that may not be the best approach: see C-GGWJ (aircraft), where it seems a couple of files have been put there by an infobox, despite having only their disambiguated category visible in the wikitext.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks like a decent solution, but the template would need to be modified so that it doesn't add the category. Commons:Categories even says "Topical categories shouldn't be included through templates", although that isn't generally followed. Using a system like the "Ships by IMO number" seems like overkill unless duplicates are quite frequent, and it would also require that the unique ID number is easily obtained for any particular aircraft. --ghouston (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case I mention, this would give us Category:C-GMWJ (Boeing 737-200) and Category:C-GMWJ (Boeing 737-700). However, it doesn't solve the problem of what the 737-200 was reregistered as (N751AA). I suspect there are huge numbers of old aircraft still flying and being photographed with minor airlines that lived under differtent registrations with major airlines... some aircraft exist for 30+ years and get traded around. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One could install cats with old registrations as subcat to the current/last registration if there are images available. Otherwise older registrations should be mentioned in the category desription. --Denniss (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subcategories would work. Although I'm curious about these serial numbers now. So the older C-GMWJ has a serial number of 21771 assigned by Boeing. Is this a Boeing unique number, or just unique to 737s, or 737-200s? How would you construct a category name from it? --ghouston (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other examples regarding this issue: Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. MKFI (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm starting to think Rcbutcher has a good point. Check out this list [17] to see how often registrations can change. Airbus aircraft seem to be often given a temporary registration for delivery, in addition to any assigned afterwards. One aircraft, for example, has been registered as F-WWIF, 9H-ABP, A6-ABY, TS-INK, N101LF and 9Q-CCA. --ghouston (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think part of the problem is how to show categories as just tags that apply to a particular photo only at the time it was made, not to an immutable attribute of the photo subject. In archival terms, we have a series : all photos taken during the life of an airplane/ship etc. We have entities/tags linked to that series over time e.g. construction number, registration, location, owner, which apply only to a particular date range. I.e. GN-XYZ applies only to photos within certain date range. Folks are doing this correctly by linking the civilian registration (as a category) to individual photos. The failure is in also using this category as the "name" of the series, as its parent category. The name of the series has to be unique, and the fdolks at Ships have made a start here. I started to apply this on heritage & museum warplanes, where the airplane first had a unique airframe number, possibly several civilian registrations, possibly fake military serials, then a static seat in a museum and maybe more museums. Hence I tried Category:Hawker hurricane (F12345) as the parent, with subcategories for its appearance as a civilian warbird Category:(ABCDEF (aircraft), and a final subcategory as Category:Hawker Hurricane at ABC Museum and if it moved Hawker Hurricane YYZ). I encountered problems getting this accepted, I think partly because I implemented it using category redirects to the parent category rather than an actual parent/child structure in order to simplify the structure - folks say they want to see all the photos in a single page, without using special tools to accomplish this. Hence we really need a simple category-flattening tool to meet people's "simple view" needs when the subject has a complex hisdtory. Folks also told me I couldn't create a category for a single image even though logic warranted it. The key is that each photo should be on only one of these categories. But I can see that it's a total pedantic pain and in the real world is way too complex to survive. We need somethging more intuitive and usable. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See here Category:EI-ETL (aircraft) for an example of how aircraft being shunted about is handled. Problem is, only link is in comments, not in Category structure. I maintain the categories here shopuld share a comment parent with a unique key such as cn/serial number: 0954 (but obviously needs further coding to make it unique !). Rcbutcher (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it okay to upload images with logos?

Hi, I just found some images of people in burkina Faso but I see that the uploading account Institut Olvido (which is also the same name as what seems to be a charity) has posted their logo on all of the images. Is there any policy about this kind of thing?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The logo is, at worst, a minor issue. Just add {{Watermark}}. But are these images either in the public domain or free-licensed? If not, we can't have them on Commons. See Commons:Scope. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[