Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 5 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Commons:Village pump/Archive/2011/06.
merge from here
Line 598: Line 598:
:I can't believe this is a feature, all letters before x get converted?! --&nbsp;[[user talk:perhelion|<span style="white-space:nowrap;font:bold .8em serif;text-shadow:#400 0 0 2px,gold 1px 1px 2px;color:#fee"> <s>«( P E R H E L I O N )»<sub>*</sub></s> </span>]] 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
:I can't believe this is a feature, all letters before x get converted?! --&nbsp;[[user talk:perhelion|<span style="white-space:nowrap;font:bold .8em serif;text-shadow:#400 0 0 2px,gold 1px 1px 2px;color:#fee"> <s>«( P E R H E L I O N )»<sub>*</sub></s> </span>]] 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::That is the magical conversion, see [[:en:Esperanto orthography#X-system]]. It can be useful when writing Esperanto, but not for other languages./[[User:Ö|Ö]] 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
::That is the magical conversion, see [[:en:Esperanto orthography#X-system]]. It can be useful when writing Esperanto, but not for other languages./[[User:Ö|Ö]] 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

== Enable Group editnotices ==

I recently created [[Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Motd]] to provide a [[Commons:editnotice|editnotice]] for {{tl|Motd}} pages, only to discover that Commons doesn't have Group editnotices. I think Commons needs the guidance editnotices can provide at least as much as other Wikimedia wikis, and therefore I propose importing [[:en:Template:Editnotice load]] from en.wp, to provide this functionality. NB: making it work requires adding {{tl|Editnotice load}} into every namespace editnotice. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
:If you require any assistance, let me know. I went through the process of importing and setting up the implementation at en.wikibooks. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 02:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks. I have a general idea of what needs doing, but these things can turn out more complicated than they look. At the moment, though, I want to establish if people think this a good idea; I'm reluctant to go ahead and just do it because wider use of editnotices has some potential for disruption or annoyance. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
:::Group edit notices are default or something. See my learning experience [[m:User_talk:MZMcBride#Edit_notice_blah|here]]. In the meantime I've created the notice '''[[MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Motd|here]]'''. Might want to try to make it multilingual. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, that works. But see [[w:Wikipedia:Editnotice#Technical_details]] as for why this system would supersede that one. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 01:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::So it's cleaner and possibly more efficient? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::::Yes, and it's easier to work with. Would you know what [[MediaWiki:Editnotice-15]] would show up under? How about [[Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category talk]]? The latter would do the same as the former. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I had just created something that Rd could work with as I'm sure any such transition to a new editnotice system would be several days if not weeks away. I'm all for enwiki's system in that regard, but it's also good to know MediaWiki's default. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
::::(ec)That is interesting - I'd no idea. Thanks! I've added a note at [[Commons:Editnotice]]. Multilingual would be good, but maybe it can be improved first; I just knocked something up to show what I was trying to achieve. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In the mean time, can someone (Killiondude?) echo [[MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Motd]] to [[MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Potd]], with the appropriate change (I just created the parallel {{tl|Editnotices/Group/Template:Potd}}). Thanks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:Sure, done. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

== Summary box ==

I've added a little summary box at the top of this page to help track significant discussions taking place elsewhere. If Commons were just English I'd leave it at that for now, but for translation purposes I think it would be helpful to borrow the template approach of [[:en:WP:CENT]]. Whilst it doesn't serve translation there (obviously.. :) ), it would do so here; it would make it much easier to translate titles of significant discussions, and the {{tl|Autotranslate}}d template can then be transcluded on different language Village Pumps so that users not fluent in English at least have a clue about what's going on in English discussions (and can maybe ask multilingual users to comment on their behalf or keep them updated). Does this make sense? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
:Well I've put together {{tl|Centralized discussion}} with just a {{tl|LangSwitch}} for each entry. Localising the template needs a proper /layout setup and I'm not sure I can handle that. Perhaps someone could help out, because I think if this is localised and put on all Village Pumps in different languages it will help with cross-language communication on major issues. (We saw this being an issue recently with the [[COM:CSD]] discussion announcement.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

== Move copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing ==

Per some initial discussion [[COM:VP#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals|at VP]], I propose moving copyright discussions away from [[Commons talk:Licensing]] (currently listed in {{tl|Discussion menu}} as the venue for "copyright questions"). I understand that discussions about copyright will very often closely refer to [[Commons:Licensing]], but the talk page of the policy really should be reserved for discussion about the policy. The most obvious thing would be to create a new Village Pump ([[Commons:Village pump/Copyright]]). An alternative would be redirecting these issues to the [[Commons:Help desk]]. The argument against that is that Help Desk should be reserved for more general help, especially for newcomers. In terms of volume, however, using the Help Desk for copyright issues would probably work fairly well. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:As I've said in VP, I {{agree}} with the proposal of creating [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright]] and leaving the talk page of licensing strictly for matters dealing with what is written in that page. I disagree with moving it to Help Desk, I don't see any advantage in installing an advanced and specialized forum right into the newbies corner.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

:I also agree. The current system intermingles policy discussion and copyright discussion. It wasn't a good idea to start with. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:{{agree}}. Sounds like a good idea. We should have a clear message at the tops of "[[Commons talk:Licensing]]" and "[[Commons:Village pump]]" to point users to this new page. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 15:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:{{support}} The subpage might also work for issues on other copyright matters such as [[COM:FOP]] and [[COM:DM]], two topics that seem irrelevant to that talk page. --<font face="David">'''[[User talk:ZooFari|ZooFari]]'''</font> 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:{{agree}} [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright]] sounds good (interwiki: [[:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]). Help Desk does and will also get copyright questions - but should be reserved for the easy/newbie ones. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 18:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
::The interwiki aspect is an interesting point; 10 Wikipedias have such a page (going by interwiki links from [[:en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]) and I'm sure it would be helpful at times for them to have a good place to refer Commons copyright issues to (eg about potential moves to Commons where tricky copyright issues are involved). [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
:::+1. sугсг[[User:Syrcro|о]] 07:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:{{support}} Was originally my proposal, and it will be easier for interested parties (both new and established) to find the page than where it's buried now. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well this seems likely enough to be agreed that it's worth drafting what it might look like. See [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright]] and feel free to edit [[Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Header]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Also {{tl|Use Village Pump (Copyright)}}, for the top of the relevant talk pages, to direct discussions to the Copyright village pump. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless some opposition or reasons for delay turn up, I'll go ahead and put it live in a day or two. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
:It's already live, two brand new topics opened there. ;) --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

== Tracking template internationalization ==

I'm looking at [[Commons:Template i18n]] pages (eg [[Commons:Template i18n/Marker templates]]) and thinking that this is a useful overview of [[Commons:Localization]] needs. However, even ''more'' useful would be a template which provides a summary ''per language'', with a switch on whether to show all templates or just missing templates. That summary of missing templates could for example be added into the relevant template category (eg [[:Category:Commons templates-ru]]), in a collapse box. I've experimented a little to try and do this myself, but it's pretty tricky. Is it worth doing? If so, who might be able to do it? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

== Tracking policy translation ==

I've been fiddling with {{tl|Translated policy}} to try and introduce some parameters so that we can specify what version of the page was translated from what version. I've been testing this initially with [[Template:Translated policy/de]]<s>, in action at [[Commons:Löschrichtlinien]]</s>. Does this seem like a good idea? I'm thinking we could also add parameters for when the translation was last checked, and for an update being needed. (I would probably need some help implementing this.) Comments? PS In case anyone's interested, I was inspired by [[:en:Template:Translated page]]. Don't hold it against me... :) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
:On the same theme, how about internationalising {{tl|Commons policies and guidelines}}, so that links to the translated version are displayed if available? Perhaps in the style of {{tl|Commons policies and guidelines/de}}? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Example:
{{translated policy/de|insertversion=111|insertversiondate=1/1/74|sourcename=Commons:Licensing|version=222|versiondate=1/1/75}}
[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

:See also {{tl|Use local Village Pump}}. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

== Geograph.org.uk ==

Is it possible to integrate a filter for searches, which would exclude all images that are part of the geographic.org.uk project? It is becoming impossible to find anything in the commons because of this project, it has completely monopolised search functions. {{unsigned|86.5.140.21|17.15 1 July 2011}}
:How has it monopolised search? Can you give an example of what you're finding and what you wish you were finding? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
::You can simply use <tt>-geograph</tt> in the search since most geograph files have the project name in the file title or at least somewhere on the file description. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It monopolises search results, is a more apt description of what I mean. When searching for almost anything general, eg, coastal rocks. the search results [for me anyway], are 90 - 95% geographic.org project files. I find I have to go through pages and pages, to find one that isn't related to the project.
:Martin H.'s solution seems to work well enough: [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=coastal+rocks+-geograph.org.uk&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns6=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search] [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
:To draw out a concrete proposal from this then: we could improve search help. [[Help:Searching]] is poor and not helpfully linked from the system messages [[MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new]] and [[MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists]]. And given that those messages use a collapse-box approach, maybe we could squeeze in a line about using operators like "-" for exclusion. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:48, 3 July 2011

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03.

Please note:


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:


Search archives:


   
 
# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Category:People of the United States Department of State 8 5 Jeff G. 2024-03-23 13:08
2 Amateur drawings 34 16 Quick1984 2024-03-29 04:44
3 Camel? 7 5 Broichmore 2024-03-25 18:31
4 Inscription 12 7 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 16:57
5 Overlapping map categories 4 2 Kk.urban 2024-03-22 16:32
6 Category:Abusive people 3 3 Kk.urban 2024-03-22 16:32
7 Help with artist's signature 9 3 Broichmore 2024-03-29 05:52
8 Stools 4 4 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 17:02
9 Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey 2 2 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 17:03
10 Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese) 8 4 Miya 2024-03-29 05:39
11 Steinsplitterbot FUBAR: How to remove images from the queue? 3 2 Milliped 2024-03-22 14:43
12 General categorization of old maps 2 2 Broichmore 2024-03-22 19:30
13 Uncategorized categories 2 2 Prototyperspective 2024-03-26 12:52
14 Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates 2 2 HyperGaruda 2024-03-24 04:27
15 The Bagel Effect 2 2 ReneeWrites 2024-03-25 23:26
16 Scope of Commons 8 4 Jmabel 2024-03-27 22:31
17 {{Redacted}} source 16 5 Trade 2024-03-25 23:17
18 Pseudomummies 7 3 RP88 2024-03-25 11:23
19 Yearbooks and copyright 17 8 David.Monniaux 2024-03-28 17:48
20 Image seems to have been deleted against consensus, also questions about keeping ai generated images in scope 7 4 Pi.1415926535 2024-03-27 21:59
21 File:RuizPineda.jpg 2 2 GPSLeo 2024-03-27 17:52
22 Viewmaster 3D images of the moon 7 4 C.Suthorn 2024-03-28 23:27
23 Raiden (Mortal Komat) vs. Raiden (Metal Gear) 3 3 ReneeWrites 2024-03-28 22:47
24 File:Crocus City Hall attack, Moscow, Russia (2024-03-23-06-26-46 UMBRA-06).tiff 2 2 GPSLeo 2024-03-28 13:27
25 A building in Carcassonne 3 2 Pigsonthewing 2024-03-28 17:22
26 Guidance re possible copyleft trolling 6 4 Jmabel 2024-03-28 22:30
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive

Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

June 1

License cc-by-sa plus additional restrictions

Some people add additional license restrictions like adding my name ... directly under the photo ... additionally using or re-using only with my original file name. Who decides which additional restrictions are accepted at commons and whether and how re-users can be warned that this is actually no cc-by-sa license but something else (what exactly)? See the previous discussion(s) on the Adminstrator's noticeboard for previous discussions. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions. Unless we limit the use of such licenses, it is acceptable. --  Docu  at 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions". Which licenses allow restrictions, which licenses do not allow restrictions? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a previous discussion on this, but I'm not sure where it took place. You may want to try searching the archives of this page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing found. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the issue. The previous discussions had no conclusion or final result. In other words: We have no consensus how to handle this cases. In fact most licenses allow modifications. But this usually leads to a new incompatible licenses and to incorrect license tags.
  • Incompatible licenses: For example we have "CC-BY-SA" (A), "CC-BY-SA + X" (B) and "CC-BY-SA + Y" (C). The license itself declares that changes will create a new license. The compatibility part states that A, B and C are incompatible. That means that we cant combine A with B or B with C and in any other combination anymore. We loose the possibility to combine works, since the licenses are incompatible.
  • Wrong Tagging: Since a modification to a license creates a new license, the images are tagged wrongly. They are for example categorized as "CC-BY-SA 3.0" (using the template + X). But they are not licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. They use "CC-BY-SA + X". Automated services will trip over this issue very easily. They can't understand the additions and will accidentally create copyright violations.
In the end I'm very worried about such additional restrictions. We create a license jungle of incompatibilities and make correct (automated) re-usage harder or impossible. Keeping an eye on the main goals of the project I'm convinced that we should not allow such custom derivative licensing. Instead i would appreciate to limit the set of acceptable (minimum of required) licenses even further to enhance compatibility. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • cc-by-sa allows specific demands for attribution, but Commons limits then to common-sense (haha) also the demand can't be in the picture itself, as that would be an ND restriction (but we also allow German stamps you can't crop, this is a hypocrisy). These restrictions don't necessarily create incompatible licenses as long as the attribution demand is kept. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
cc-by-sa does not allow such restrictions: Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work? No.. So we do not have a cc-by-sa license but some other license with a misleading cc-by-sa tag. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me, for once, speak my mind : these claims are bogus and a abuse of the Creative Commons license − people « cannot insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for their work » (see their FAQ). We do not do anything against these abuses because we have to be extra-nice to our Photographs™ in fear they might Leave The Project™. Jean-Fred (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One very simple addition to CC-BY-SA 3.0 came to my mind when i explained the issues above. How about this additional restriction:
"Since my additional claims constitute a new license you are not allowed to combine this image with CC-BY-SA or any other not CC-BY-SA compatible licensed image, until CC-BY-SA itself claims to be compatible with this new license terms. The preceding sentence is the condition. You are free to modify and to distribute the image under CC-BY-SA 3.0 while keeping this license terms intact."
That sounds crazy. But it is what we have in this situation, even if it is not written that way. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements on the placement of attribution limit the range of transformations and adaptations that can be made. Therefore, works with such requirements are non-free works, which are not accepted at Commons. As an example, if the attribution must be directly below a photograph, it is impossible to use that photo on the cover of a book spanning the whole page. Attribution on the front page or on one of the first pages of the book are a reasonable, industry-standard means of implementing the attribution, but would not be compatible with such a requirement. Remember that works should be reusable in collages, motion pictures, in painted form, interpreted as a sculpture, and in any other conceivable form. LX (talk, contribs) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The history up to now is that I contacted the copyright holder and asked him to adjust his license. He refused to do it, so I made a deletion request. That particular image was deleted and the decision was supported during the undeletion request. Then the same copyright holder made an upload of another image under the same restricted license, I made a deletion request for the new image with the result that the new image was kept. The reason for keeping was Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss. Let's hope that here is the right place to find some conclusion how to treat such licenses. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly we should be consistent about this. I agree with LX's conclusion that such imposing restrictions on how attribution must be done restrict reuse in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with our policy and our mission. However, I also agree that, despite all the practical issues it creates, authors should be able to release works under any license they like, including a modified or extended version of a CC license, and that some of these are compatible with our licensing terms. The burden is on us to evaluate each new license as it appears. I believe the best way to do that is as follows:
  1. Move the licensing terms into a template, if they are not in one already (possibly a user space template).
  2. Nominate the template for deletion.
  3. (clarifying edit) If the template is deleted as an invalid license, delete all images using the template.
This is the way we have evaluated many custom licenses in the past, as in Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark. We should not evaluate such custom license terms image-by-image, but rather license-by-license. Dcoetzee (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I understand correctly: I should make a template with something like "adding my name ... directly under the photo", then delete that part from the cc-by-sa tag and add the restriction-template? Then we (possibly) delete the restriction-template and get a "pure" cc-by-sa license? Wouldn't this mean that I changed the license without permission of the copyright holder? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the restrictions are incompatible with the license and these restrictions were stated at the time of the upload, the upload was invalid and the files should be deleted (if the upload doesnt rectify the situation). If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them. This was done at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_23#edit_war_over_relicensing, however that resulted in a DMCA takedown so maybe that isnt a good idea. --John Vandenberg (chat) 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them." I agree with that part. Let's restrict our discussion to the case where the restrictions were stated at the time of the upload. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Dcoetzee: This is exactly the nightmare i was talking of. We invite our uploaders to create dozens of custom licenses which are in fact incompatible with each other. This also limits the re-usage, since combining images (collage, etc.) can't be done with incompatible licenses. That is a general problem with different licenses, even with the same goals in mind. But we would make it even more of a problem if we accept such licensing. I don't think that this is compatible with the goals of Commons. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Niabot. Custom attributions licenses -- well, I am not happy with that, it makes reusing much harder (often without any legitimate reason), but ok, it's tolerable if the license is not very strict. But custom copyleft licenses?! I don't see why we should allow this, such licenses limit reusers so seriously, that on practice they are free in the words only and are hardly compatible with our mission. IMO Commons should resist to the license hell, and not to encourage it. (It's sad to see pictures licensed as something like GFDL + CC-BY-SA-NC, so uploaders see GFDL as a rough equivalent of a non-commercial license, but Commons still allows it, because, well... I don't really know why, likely only because it's an RMS-approved thing. It's sad to see that such nonsense as all these pseudo-free licenses is still allowed.) Trycatch (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • obviously ignoring that the sa part places restrictions on who can use and how they use the media, in that only end users who themselves use the cc-by-sa license can use the images. Gnangarra 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You cannot make placement restrictions as part of a CC license. That is evident from a reading of the legal code, and is make explicit by their FAQ:
Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work?
No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the means used by a licensee to re-distribute the work. There may be differences based on the format in which the content is re-used. For example, providing attribution to the author when re-distributing information via a blog post may be different than how credit is provided to an author in a video remix. All CC licenses provide that attribution is to be provided in a manner “reasonable to the medium or means” used by the licensee, and for credit to be provided in a “reasonable manner.” This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees – minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.
The question on our side then, is the restriction legally not part of the license (since they said CC-BY-SA), meaning other editors here can simply remove or ignore the requirement, or is it part of the license actually given by the user (therefore not CC-BY-SA and therefore not free)? Restrictions added after an initial upload are more obvious; we can simply remove those, though that can obviously cause friction with the author -- something we'd all like to avoid. It should be made more clear these types of restrictions are not allowed by the CC licenses if possible, to head off these situations. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we all agree that this condition makes the license unfree? Martina said that it's not less free than content under GFDL-only or FAL. Martin H. said that "The «license addition "directly under the photo" is not acceptable» is not mentioned in COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms" and that it could be "a homebrewn license template based on {{Copyrighted free use provided that}}". If there were other licenses accepting that restriction, we could ask the copyright holder to switch to such a license. On the other hand, if we consider that condition unfree, this should be made clear in COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment As long as we accept GFDL licenses here, it doesn't seem to make sense to make all this fuss about Wolfgang license requirements. From what I understand, his requirements, though less free than the original CC-BY-SA license, would in many occasions be much less an annoyance than the limitations imposed by GFDL (reproduce the whole license every time we reuse the image). I also agree with Dcoetzee that the best way to handle this is to make a new license from or based in Wolfgang custom license and nominate it to DR, so it can be validated or discarded in a proper debate.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment AFAIK, this thread is meant to discuss license "amendments", i.e. mandatory-worded specifications of the credit location, in general, as a few DRs for this rationale have ended with a keep as well as with a delete. --Túrelio (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Demanding that the same filename be used may be impossible under some operating systems. Demanding that the author's name come under the picture makes it unusable on Wikipedia. That's much worse than the GFDL.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wolfgang has publicly stated that his additional license requirements don't apply to Wikipedia. Though this has been twisted as a "Wikipedia only license" (which I don't believe to apply here, since it only deals with an additional requirement), it basically makes the argument that the files can't be used in Wikipedia baseless. (I agree with Turelio that this debate should be more broad than Wolfgang license requirements, but it's a good case study to take as an example, nonetheless.--- Darwin Ahoy! 07:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO we should restrict the discussion to the license text as stated on the image description page on Wikimedia commons. Of course the copyright holders can give special permissions on some other places but we should consider them only as relevant when these permissions are explictely stated on the image description page. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Besides it not being noted in the file, it means that a Wikipedia mirror will be in violation of his license. That makes it a Wikipedia-only license.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. This gives us a possibility to handle the situation more systematically. What is still not clear to me: If one of these licenses is deleted, will we then get "automatically" a valid CC-BY-SA license? --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, if one of these is deleted, that indicates that the license is unacceptable - and all images bearing that license tag must also be deleted (manually or with bot assistance). (If this is not done, the images will have a redlink for the license, and should eventually be speedied as having no license.) We cannot change the license. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should not be speedied, they must be allowed the regular 7 day grace period so that the license could be changed, if the author is willing to do so.--- Darwin Ahoy! 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's silly. If the author does not change their license during the deletion review of the template, by modifying the template (which will last at least 7 days, and probably longer), why should they be given extra time to modify each file individually, which is an arduous and error-prone way of accomplishing exactly the same thing? (Moreover, you seem to be confused regarding what "speedy deletion" is - it's deletion without discussion, not immediate deletion, and includes deletion of images without a license.) Dcoetzee (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret speedy as {{Speedy}}, the no license deletions are not exactly "speedy" in my understanding, but possibly it's common practice to use that word for them as well. In any case, I maintain that the fair and correct thing to do is to allow the 7 day grace period. The user is not forced to change the license during the DR, which may decide for its approval, after all. If the license is not approved, the images are void of license and should follow the regular path, which is tag them as no license and wait 7 days. I don't see any reason that could justify the hasty deletion of all of them simply for the fact that their license was suddenly void.--- Darwin Ahoy! 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion request (for the image itself) came to the conclusion Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss. Discussion the license templates is a good idea from the technical point of view, but we still have the problem that "a DR is a wrong place to discuss". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 07:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the wrong place to discuss. I've already cited precedent in which the acceptability of a license was established by the community in a template deletion request. I agree that a file DR is the wrong place to discuss, since the discussion should concern all files using the license; I disagree that the license should only be discussed in a wider context (all licenses with a requirement like this one), partly because some of those licenses might be okay and some might not, and partly because it's often a good idea to let general to let rules emerge from generalization from particular cases, rather than abstract discussion. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been really puzzled about attribution, and bylines, since I started uploading images to Wikipedia. Since there is an on-going discussion, I add a few questions.

The picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg?uselang=en where it clearly says "you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute www.kremlin.ru". If I now use this picture in print (paper), which is correct:
put "photo: www.kremlin.ru" under the picture,
or put "source: http://commons.wikimedia.org" or
or put "source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg",
or are all these alternatives ok?

If I use the picture on my (non-wiki) website, what is then correct: to place "photo: www.kremlin.ru" (as text, not a clickable link) directly under the picture, or
state "image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org" (as a clickable link) or
state "image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg" (as a clickable link),
or are all the alternatives ok?

Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the CC FAQ states that image creator should be credited "in a manner 'reasonable to the medium or means' used by the licensee... minimizing the risk that overly onerous... attribution requirements are simply disregarded". Keeping this is mind, I think it is a safe bet to assume that that uploader of the image would be satisfied if I put "picture from www.kremlin.ru" as a clickable link under (or near) the picture, or possibly even the same credit as text non-clickable. One can also say that it is reasonable to have the name (website) of the picture provider under the photo, as it can be seen to be that way in many websites all over the world. It is clearly not unreasonable. Now my question is, would this kind of attribution be likely to fulfill the picture creators requirements?

Next question, would it be an acceptable way of crediting on my own website, or do I in addition need to state that the picture was found on Wikipedia, or commons.wikimedia?

Next question, instead of quoting "www.kremlin.ru", would it be fully acceptable only to link the image on my website to point to the Commons file descrition page (that is, no mention of www.kremlin.ru under the picture, no text on my web page, only a clickable link so that if you click the picture you get to the commons description page). I was thinking that the commons file description page has the title, creator, and license conditions.

When I read the license, another question pops up. It says something about quoting the title, and quoting a link to the license. Since I am free to change the title (or edit the picture), why should I quote the title? It says that I should reference the license as well. Would it be ok just to say "CC-BY-SA-3" as a non-clickable text? Or how should it be made? --Janwikifoto (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The attribution in your example should be "www.kremlin.ru", just as it says. In this case, there is no indication that it needs to be a clickable link, even when reproduced in a form where this is possible. Unless required by the author, there is no need to mention Wikimedia Commons. Commercial stock photo agencies typically require attribution of both the author and the distributor, but Wikimedia Commons has no such requirement. A link to the original work on Commons would probably be appreciated by most readers, though. I would not recommend linking to the Wikimedia Commons file description page as a means of fulfilling the attribution requirements, as there is no guarantee that the page will always be available. Requirements to quote the title mainly refer to things like textual works or films, whereas photographs usually don't have a title. The filename is typically not considered to be a title for the purposes of this type of licensing requirement. If the author specifies that the photo has a title, you should quote that. You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license when using a Creative Commons-licensed work. Simply stating the name of the license is not sufficient. See Creative Commons FAQ: How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work? for more details and suggestions. LX (talk, contribs) 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now the Title requirement makes more sense - for a book or a film. LX writes 'You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license', but the CC-FAQ says only 'Cite the specific CC license... If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license ...links to the ... CC website'. My understanding of the wording on the CC-FAQ page is that it is enough to just mention someting like 'Creative Commons SA 3.0' or similar, though it is of course nice to give the full information. Further, the CC-FAQ says 'They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work', however the legal text says something (I am not sure I am reading the correct part) '(iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;', and I understand this as I do not need to supply the requested URI unless it refers to a copyright notice or licensing information. So in the case of the Kremlin picture, I understand the FAQ as it would be nice and apprecieated if I supply the link www.kremlin.ru, but I also understand the legal text as I do not need to supply the www.kremlin.ru as that page does not contain copyright notice or licensing information. I am confused. Do others understand it the same way? Finally, for another practical example: http://comparexy.com/compare/Nashville+VS+Miami uses pictures from Commons. The webmaster has gone through the trouble of supplying both copyright and attribution info, right under the pictures, but per the above discussion I think it fails, by just providing the file desc page on Commons. There is no mention of the author, though it is clearly readable in the desc page. There is no mention of the license name, nor any link to CC. Is it correct to say that this attribution and copyright info does not meet the mark, even though it was probably well-meant? (If somebody just wanted to snatch the picture then it would be easy enough just to change the file name and not give any source, and in most cases nobody would find out). I look forward to opionions about the example I found on the net! --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for your example http://comparexy.com/compare/Nashville+VS+Miami, I think this way of attribution is - despite of the obvious good will of the user - formally not o.k., because the author is not mentioned anywhere on the site where the image is used. In addition, the problem of such external linking of the attribution is, when the original file is renamed/moved/deleted on/from Commons, all attribution and license information would be lost. --Túrelio (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement to provide a copy of the license or the address of the license is my understanding of Section 4 (a) of the legal code of CC-by 3.0: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License..." In my opinion, the FAQ doesn't accurately reflect that part of the license. The other requirement you mention – to link back to the original work where practicable – appears in Section 4 (b). The double negative makes it a little tricky to understand. Here's how I read it: if the author specifies an address to be associated with the work and that address leads to a page that has a copyright notice or licensing information related to the work, you must mention that address. In the example of File:Kremlin birds eye view-1.jpg, "www.kremlin.ru" is probably not a "URI associated with the work" in the sense of Section 4 (b), but rather an "attribution party" (the publishing entity, to be specific) as mentioned in the same section. I'm guessing the reason for the confusion is that the name of the attribution party in this particular case could also be read as a web address. LX (talk, contribs) 23:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it seem correct to make the following statements about (example) the Kremlin picture: that if I use it on my/any web page, with only the clickable link www.kremlin.ru under the picture, then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, however, I would not have fullfilled the CC reference to the license as I did not mention it at all
that using a clickable link counts higher (seen from the copyright holder) than using a text-only link, as clickable links generate search-engine points
that the missing license reference is not something that I might get in trouble with CC over, but possibly the copyright holder might complain
that the missing license reference is not something that a third party could sue me for (unless acting on behalf of the copyright holder)

that if I use it on my/any web page, with the clickable link www.kremlin.ru under the picture, and the text-only "CC-SA-BY-3", then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, and I have fullfilled the CC reference to the license by naming it, though I still would not be "nice" as I did not give the URI of the license conditions

If I now used the picture in paper print, then just putting www.kremlin.ru and CC-SA-BY-3 nder the picture would be an appropriate attribution and license information, as to what is common and practical in print, and probably that would make the creator happy, as well as the CC people.

In all these cases, there is no need to mention the title, as the title does not seem to be very important. Nor is it necessary to mention Commons.Wikimedia as the file description might change, and that it is not necessary in any way according to the license to mention Wikimedia - though it would still be useful information that might be of interest to some users.

Or am I wrong in any of these statements? I am trying to understand the conditions, as the FAQ and the legal text does not really match fully the way I read it. --Janwikifoto (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request for the license templates

As suggested by Dcoetzee 00:31, 17 June 2011, I know made a deletion request for the license templates, see Commons:Deletion_requests/License_"adding_my_name_directly_under_the_photo". --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New gadget : GoogleImages tab

Hi all,

Per request on the French-speaking VP, I just created a gadget "GoogleImages tab", based on the TinEye one. it adds a tab to search for an images using GoogleImages 'search by image' feature (rolled out a few days ago).

It’s in your prefs, Maintenance tools GoogleImages tab.

Jean-Fred (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working like a champ, many thanks for such a useful gadget.--- Darwin Ahoy! 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's nickel chrome, thank you. --Myrabella (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful :) mickit 10:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tool it's really really useful, you can find evidence for violations of copyrights in a couple of seconds! :) --Broc (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useful tool, but I found that Opera 11.11 does not support the new google "search by image" function, in case others like me were trying and failing. It works fine with Firefox 4.0.1 . I used Opera's "Report a site problem" function to inform Opera of this. -84user (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 16

Template merge

{{Should be substituted}} and {{Must be substituted}} appear to serve the same purpose, since the former says "should always". Should they be merged? Rd232 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support. I thought of it too. Rehman 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Neutral. No (difference) in parameters as well. I see not much difference if we are using one or two templates--Ben.MQ (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, looking at the history they were very deliberately created to have different meanings. One marks templates that "must be" sustituted because they have a purpose and/or syntax that require them to be. The other is for templates that "should" be, but they will work even if you don't. If the distinction hasn't been observed by those applying them, then that is a matter of documentation and education. --Tony Wills (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it still can be merged with the help of a few parameters. Rehman 04:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parameters increase complexity and you'd likely see one of the above turned into a silent call to a combined template with the parameter specified. As in, {{Must be substituted}} would have {{should be substituted|must=yes}} within it. – Adrignola talk 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose The words do have different meanings, and there is a completely different look. The same user created both, so there is an intended distinction. As noted above, it was already discussed briefly at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Should be substituted and kept. They have already been translated into a bunch of different languages with their precise meanings; I see almost no benefit to changing things. It's just another template, which is no big deal, and trying to change it creates far more work than will be saved. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - While the original intent may have been to have two separate templates, the distinction between them is not so significant that we need to maintain two separate templates. The templates largely share the same look, other than the fact that one uses larger text. As Rehman suggests, have one template and use parameters. I actually think it increases complexity to have multiple templates that perform tasks that are only subtly different from one another, rather than having one template that accomplishes a related set of tasks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - subst technically required and subst recommended is a major difference. You can ignore a recommendation for good reasons if you know what you are doing, but things don't work as expected if you ignore a required subst. The effects of a missing required subst could be subtle and unpredictable, from "breaks if transcluded indirectly" to "kills the server if used by more than ten readers simultaneously". –Be..anyone (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone diagrees that there is a difference. As far as I am concerned, that's not the issue. It's not clear to me how having two separate templates eliminates the risk of confusion between the two, however (if anything, it adds to it). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Significant differences based only on parameter can be just as confusing, IMO. It looks like we would have a situation where based on the parameter, we choose one layout or the other -- there doesn't seem to be much overlap in terms of the template content. If that is the case, we may as well have two templates, and make the difference more apparent in the name. Lastly, there has already been lots of translation work here, and the list of languages in the two templates do not match up. You risk messing up a lot of that work, or at least forcing people to re-do translation work, where everything seems well enough if left alone. If the templates were just being created there *may* be an argument, but at this point... there's hardly a benefit that I can see. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the lists of languages in the two templates do not match up is precisely a major reason why these templates should be merged. Because the two are currently edited independently, seemingly in disregard to the complementary role the two templates play in respect of one another, we now have a situation where, for example, one template is translated into Spanish and the other isn't. So, a Spanish-speaking Commons user only gets half the story. This presumably would not have been a problem with one template. With two templates, you are always at risk of inconsistent and incomplete edits that have no regard for the sister template or the distinction between the two templates. There is tremendous benefit in eliminating that problem, and I disagree that suggestion that the templates work well as is.

As for overlap, the templates both consist of a box with the same icon. We are not dealing with completely different layouts. We are only talking about a message changing with the parameter. You suggest that we might change the names, but if we were going to that degree of trouble, why would we not just merge them and do things properly? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I wonder how well the existing translations convey the distinction between "should" and "must". Unless one speaks 10+ languages, it's hard to monitor this. Where only one template has been translated, I suspect there is a good chance that the distinction is lost. Where both templates have been translated into the same language, but by different editors, I also suspect that is a lot of room for confusion. Again, there is less risk of this problem if we have one template that allows users to choose between "should" and "must" (and thus forces translators to distinguish between the two). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak support (updated from oppose) — if there's a required parameter for MUST vs. SHOULD as per Skeezix1000 a merged template would in fact help with its i18n. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the technical merge of both templates. My experience with templates is that it's much easier to maintain one template with some parameters than a group of distinct templates performing similar things, given that the changes on the "mother template" are not very complex, as in this case. From the looks of it, it will be extremely simple to merge them and keep compatibility in the way Adrignola explained above. The separate translations are actually a good reason to merge them, and not the opposite, as has been told above, and I don't believe that merging them will be such a big deal as well.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Just to reiterate what I wrote above, you could have {{Must be substituted}} still exist, just calling {{should be substituted|must=yes}} in the underlying code. No difference for end users but far easier for maintenance and new translations. – Adrignola talk 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An optional required=no (or false or 0) with a default required=yes (or true or 1) might be clearer. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just threw one possibility out there. It bothers me not as to what the parameter is eventually named, nor the value. – Adrignola talk 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was just throwing the possibility out there, but the discussion here suggests a merge would be helpful. It would improve clarity to explain the contrasting meanings of "should" and "must" in a single place, and would make internationalisation clearer and easier. A template redirect would ensure that no-one used to the status quo need do anything different. Rd232 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - The discussion appears to have wound down, with 6 in support, 1 neutral and 2 opposed. Do Tony or Carl have any further comments/objections? Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I had proceeded on the assumption that both templates were widely used. But in fact "should" is used in only 12 templates [1] while "must" is used in well over 100 [2]. "Must" has many more translations (I've borrowed he and nds from "should", which "should" had and "must" didn't). The distinction between "must" and "should always" is unclear in English anyway, and the languages I can understand make the distinction even less clear. So I've just redirected "should" to "must", and anyone who wants to adapt "must" to introduce a sort of "should" meaning with an optional parameter can do so. Rd232 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mld

Another user just added a Template:Mld to one of my uploads - and I am not sure what to think of that. For me as user it signifies that I see will only the description language I have selected as my user preference - for all others I have to look at the source code - or change my user prefs (if I don't want to fiddle with style sheets). What will happen if a description is not available in the selected language of a particular?

Actually I'd rather prefer it the old way - being able to see all descriptions in every language alltogether, as it makes life for as an uploading user much easer, e.g. it facilates comparision between descriptions in different languages. Quite often I do add at least two descriptions, e.g. in English and German. I have read the Meta page about language select - but that does not really answer my questions. Does it mean that I am (and other users are) expected to create own <Monobook|Vector|whatever> CSS pages in order get a non default behaviour, e.g. "show all"? Couldn't that not be turned into preference setting instead?

Maybe I have missed some discussion about this topic? Might it be even commonly agreed practice by now? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found {{Mld}} very annoying as I prefer to see all languages. I discovered strange behavior of Meta:Language_select when trying to debug why parts of file descriptions were not showing up in some Bundesarchiv files. Adding "ls_enable = false;" to my User:Jarekt/vector.js fixed the problem. In my humble opinion that should be the default behavior and users that want to see only pieces of description should change their preferences. --Jarekt (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, annoying and unhelpful, I unconditionally prefer the old way, even with all the cluttering. The old way has a small problem, though. It displays something as "中文(简体)‬: 北京前门大街东来顺". this is frankly stupid, if I have my preference as English, 中文(简体)‬ (whatever that is) should be in English too, what is the point of showing the name of the native language in its native language? Glad thing that Google translation have an automated language detect tool, but this only works for well known languages, if it's some obscure dialect everyone that doesn't know how the dialect is written in its native language is left at a complete loss.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Annoying indeed. Thanks for the hint to add "ls_enable = false;" to "Special:MyPage/common.js". --  Docu  at 21:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed the problem to me as well. It's sad when a new feature is in fact a problem, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Meta page this feature is apparently five years old.  But clearly not working as expected for me, it shows en-gb (from my browser preferences) and treats this as "show all" instead of "en".<shrug />Be..anyone (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for showing language name in the native language, well, but then the language name must also be i18n-ed localised? Ben.MQ (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Bencmq, but "i18n-ed" is Chinese to me. :S --- Darwin Ahoy! 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Couldn't resist the pun, as I've found now that you are Chinese, and I suspect that 中文(简体) is something like Chinese Simplified ;) But I'm serious, I've no idea about what i18n-ed means.[reply]
oh sorry. Basically I mean that we should translate the language name into different languages as well? and yes that was Chinese Simplified :) Ben.MQ (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be of great help, at least to me. It makes more easier to identify the context of those pictures. My problems have been more with the Slavic languages than anything else, but when it comes to non Latin alphabets it's even worst to decode it. I don't k now if it is something technically easy to do, however.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(double edit conflict) My words (@Jarekt), excepted that I wouldn't say "humble" but "strong" opinion... I really doubt that this template will improve the usability of our media; at least, it is (for me, I guess also for other contributors) something that I'll remove from the descriptions of my uploaded files when it happens to be added to them. Dunno if we could even get it deleted: "A page can be deleted if it is: [...]Patent nonsense, a test or vandalism." (italic highlighting by me). ;-) This template adds too much barriers in the important work of improving the file descriptions as polyglot persons cannot see errors and inaccuracies in descriptions without comparing the source codes. Grand-Duc (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)([reply]
  • I think we need to differentiate between us users that are maintaining pages and the general user who just want to use the image. The whole point of adding seperate translations identified with templates is exactly so that the right translation can easily be automatically selected. For most pages there are so few translations that {{Mld}} isn't really needed, but if you ever come across pages where there are 10 or more translations, and not just the description field, but source, author etc also have seperate translations, you will welcome getting rid of the clutter. I expect that eventually the {{Information}} template will default to only showing the appropriate translation. I find the "show all" facility entirely satisfactory, but it is nice to see that there are ways to turn it off altogether. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have my reserves about {{Mld}} really helping end users. I suspect that trading less cluttering for less information is not a good approach when you have so many, many images that have a very complete description in one language (often English), while in the other languages the description is very scanty or plainly wrong. Even yesterday I came across an image of a Russian building which had 2 or 3 lines of description in English, while in Russian it said "Railway station". Sometimes it's even worst, and all that is there is some gibberish the uploader wrote in his language, such as "pretty building" or "Ulan Bator is a nice place to live". Hiding the best descriptions from the end users doesn't look like a good service to them.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not working, and it's good news. I logged out and I still see all options. I changed my language to Corsu then to Gujarati and then (horror!) French, and it showed all options at all time. Censorship failed, perfect! pleased don't make it work. Do you realize the embarrassment of an expatriate in Ulan-Baatar when all the major news sites show news in Mongolian because they think it's what the Mongols deserve? Ah, some runaway Russians or Aussies or (horror!) Frenchmen, they can wait until their flight home. No, there's no "take me back to English", only Google does it. NVO (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, or maybe things work differently for me for some reason, but {{Mld}} works independently of what language I have set in my preferences (English or Swedish, depending on what mood I'm in). If I select the "show all" option in the dropdown list presented on a page with {{Mld}}, that selection remains active on other pages with {{Mld}} until I change it. If I have selected a specific language and that is not available, it falls back to "show all" without affecting the remembered selection. I'm using Monobook without any relevant custom stylesheets, scripts or special options, as far as I can tell. LX (talk, contribs) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, we need something compact; if descriptions grow to cover all 270 supported languages, one will get too many pages before getting at the things you really want to see. On the other hand, descriptions in other languages are sometimes plain wrong. For items that need doc in many languages (cultural items with a large vocabulary or alternate names for example such as Category:Mbira and Category:Quadricycles, I set up first the doc for English and local languages, the rest I put them in a collapsable structure to limit the page size to less than half a page, so I can compare the texts in some languages against the English and local language descriptions which tend to be the references. I never bother to convert to Mld as it does not satisfies the needs and takes often 10 to 20 minutes of fidling to get it it right. It is only since a couple of months that the multi-language switch has an impact on such collapsable structures which results indeed in some confusion. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks LX for the hint about the "show all" option in the dropdown list - I admit that I simply did not notice the new field as my primary focus was on the summary section. Made me feel a bit dumb for a moment - but definitely points to a usability problem: users - regardless of being logged in or not - have first to find this language select option. In my opinion the placement below the preview makes it hard to find, especially for the more occasional users/visitors who are not aware of its existence. Nevertheless my question about making this a pref setting seems to be still valid. --Burkhard (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May be we should add an option to the preferences which allows disabling this feature without messing with Special:MyPage/vector.js. Is it technically possible? --Jarekt (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the Gadgets tab, under "language support", you'll find a gadget that says "Do not hide foreign languages on multilingual pages." Checking that box and clicking the save button at the bottom will do the same thing for you. (I just added this). – Adrignola talk 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Adrignola, I used this feature ASAP. :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On some pages, it seems that simply using {{En}}, {{Es}}, {{Fi}} etc does the same as {{Mld}}. These aren't nearly as complicated {{Mld}}. Couldn't we simply depreciate {{Mld}} in favor of these? --  Docu  at 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

except that mld allows to synchronize all translation at a given level. Actually, If there are several levels of {{De}} in a description and that one is missing, there will be no indication that one is missing locally. The basic behaviour in this case is to show all translations per mld block, to indicate a translation is missing. Esby (talk) 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a problem with {{De}} or also with the others I listed? What type of page is this relevant? --  Docu  at 06:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two differents things: the mld template, that is a logical construction that triggers {{En}} {{De}} etc. and encapsulate them in a single multilingual div, so each translation is corresponding to the same thing.
the java script that is used for displaying the information, MediaWiki:Multilingual_description.js. It triggers either when an mld block is present or when the number of languages is superior to a given value. the current value is 5 different languages presents to trigger the effect.
Esby (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

One file, two pictures

This one File:Prisches.jpg contains two pictures, shouldn't it be two files? --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, yes, but it could be that the first version was an accidental upload. The new version was uploaded only two minutes later. So I wouldn't split it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But in this case where both pictures seem to be valuable (though the one showing is the best), may it be separated, or is there any problem with the licensing? --- Darwin Ahoy! 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume they'd both be considered as uploaded under the same license. Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With such a quick re-upload, I'd suggest asking the user. He's still active as of two weeks ago. Powers (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both are valuable - but it could be, as I said, that it was an accident and that he did not intend to license the first picture and the license is possibly indeed not valid therefore. Ask him please. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asked, permission granted, new file now at File:Prisches 2.jpg. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMCA takedown

Pursuant to a directive by the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, I have executed a DMCA takedown on a number of files, described here. Please do not readd the files. Best wishes, Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. Out of interest, does anyone know what these were photos of? Also, Flying Elephants Inc? Nice name. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Photos in en:Ashes and Snow were deleted, for example this photo. Category:Gregory Colbert should be checked. I remember another photographer who said that his administrative assistant gave unauthorized permissions, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witch's Rock, Costa Rica.jpg. It is difficult to do business with such people. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Files were in category Category:Gregory Colbert, many were uploaded by Briennewalsh and moved from en wiki in 2008, they had low resolution and show "The Nomadic Museum which is the permanent traveling home of Ashes and Snow, created by photographer and filmmaker Gregory Colbert". One came from flicker others were very similar to other photos on flickr. One was a photo by Gregory Colbert with GFDL license but no OTRS. At least one did not seen to show any artwork but a night photo of Mexico City. Most of those photos would not survive DR. --Jarekt (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most uploaded by Briennawalsh on en.wp, lot of other photos still exist from en:Special:Contributions/Patiofurniture- some of that users uploads are even duplicates of those deleted files.--Martin H. (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most interesting aspect of this is that several files were OTRS approved. I have seen many emails where images were discussed with a member of an organization. In this case it was with an administrative assistant. Should we request an audience with every organization's legal department before slapping on the OTRS permission label? – Adrignola talk 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title of Administrative Assistant is frequently held by people with little or no tertiary education or prior work experience – and very little actual authority. Under agency law, a more senior title (director, officer, or agent) is generally required for apparent authority to come into play. A person without actual or apparent authority cannot bind the company to an agreement (such as a license). However, as part of the standard OTRS consent declaration, the submitting party makes an explicit warranty of authority. If a third party relies on such a warranty, the submitter is personally liable to that third party for breach of warranty, which should recover costs incurred as a result of the license being declared void. Thus, an OTRS consent declaration with a warranty of authority is still of some value. At least that's my layman's interpretation of the situation. LX (talk, contribs) 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LX is correct that under agency law the administrative assistant did not qualify. I assure you, we did this one carefully, and our general counsel spoke with the counsel of record. If we had any doubt about their claim, we would have fought harder - but in this case, it was fairly clean cut. The administrative assistant was not authorized to claim authority over those works. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt about that - our real concern is how to prevent this from happening in the future. If someone had reused that work before it was taken down, one of our content reusers could have suffered serious economic damage. It's clear that OTRS needs to be more methodical about assessing whether a given person is able to act on behalf of their company, and this needs to be communicated somehow to the OTRS team. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a potentially perilous situation, but there's only so much we can do. Powers (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be noted that we do a heck of a lot more than, say, Flickr. LX (talk, contribs) 20:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

There is a new report at Commons:Database reports/User preferences.

  • It shows that HotCat, Cat-a-lot and Gallerypreview are the most popular gadgets.
  • "CategoryAboveAll" (393 users) is used more frequently than "CategoryAboveBelowImage" (298).

Probably it doesn't distinguish between active and inactive users. --  Docu  at 06:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


As HotCat (4573 users) exists for a fairly long time and is a tool one probably needs for efficient editing, maybe http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#editdistribution
can be used as a point of comparison.
One could attempt to compare
  • 4573
  • with the 5502 users with more than 1000 edits
  • or 13071 users with more than 316 edits.
The conclusion might be the only one third of the users who could (should) use HotCat actually use it. --  Docu  at 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 15 users of the (long dead) Amethyst skin suggest that the statistics isn't limited to active users. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and editdistribution neither. --  Docu  at 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny to see that some admin only gadgets such as DelReqHandler have far more users than there are admins. --Leyo 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free FBI audio files

The following is a link to some audio files given by the FBI to The Oregonian. In these tapes, Swami Krishna Deva, the mayor of Rajneespuram, Oregon, talks with John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service. He prods Mathis for details about a secret federal investigation. Since these tapes were recorded by the FBi, i assume that they are in the public domain. As such, would someone please upload these five files in ogg format? I just thought these would be an interesting addition to articles related to the Rajneesh movement. Thanks.

Joyson Noel Holla at me 15:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, see File:Rajneesh-Part1.ogg - File:Rajneesh-Part5.ogg. sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀ (diskuto) 01:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, Avicennasis (talk · contribs)!!! I have added them into a category, Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation audio files on Rajneesh movement. -- Cirt (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Avicennasis! :-) Joyson Noel Holla at me 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... the FBI created the recording. But don't the two people talking have some kind of copyright to their conversation? It's probably not important in this case, as it was published in 1984, most likely without a copyright notice. But it might be interesting for similar files. --Kam Solusar (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In short, no, unless they wrote a script for their conversation beforehand. Only fixed (or tangible) works (recordings, documents, photos) attract copyright, rather than speeches per se. It is a rather complicated issue, discussed fully at [3]. Note that although at first that article seems to imply copyright, it is mainly asserting that the recorder would have a copyright, which would be the FBI; and that unfixed speeches are unlikely to attract copyright themselves. That's my take on it, anyway, but IANAL. Jarry1250 (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to upload the scans of FBI and federal government documents on Commons? If so, then i request someone to upload whichever documents (in the link) falls under the public domain. Thanks. Joyson Noel Holla at me 11:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Rail templates

I've come across some unused templates - should they be deleted or is there some use for these?

Rd232 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question raised at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways. Nthep (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry. They are used, just as a subst. Ditto for tbyl, tbyline, tbyo, toc, tocl, ukt, ukcs and whatever other rail templates I created and have forgotten. They're for creating train categories. Just a thought, but in future you may want to alert the template's creator (in this case me) when you come across this sort of thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to check whether the creator was still active (usually not, in my current cleanup efforts). So, can you create a suitable category for these templates, and perhaps some documentation (it could be a single /doc shared across all of them)? Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also {{Tll}}, {{Tint}}, {{Ukc}}, {{Tocint}} and {{Trainline}}. Rd232 (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unused uncategorized templates tend to get nuked (by me). So if you want to keep them you should properly categorize these templates. Multichill (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've done I quite a bit in Category:Uncategorized templates, dealing with the more obvious cases (like uncategorised /xx language pages). Increasingly, though, the templates remaining don't have obvious (to me...) categories to be put in, so some need creating, or someone else to figure out what to do with them. Rd232 (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think I got them all: Category:British railway templates -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Could that category be added to Category:Category navigational templates for the United Kingdom? (The category structure for these sort of specialised topic templates seems a bit unclear.) Rd232 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about template categorisation, please, do whatever you wish with it. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

How to delete my own picture?

Picture is not in use, and it is a poor quality picture. --87.95.8.23 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please identify the picture? — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can tag the image for speedy deletion: {{speedydelete|reason for deletion}} mickit 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tineye Gadget

MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye.js is very useful, but tineye's database is relatively small. Now that Google Images allows you to search images by drag-drop, I wish there could be a way to update the gadget to automate searching images, so we can easily detect copyvios. Huji (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a new gadged for that: GoogleImages tab. MKFI (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, mentioned at #New gadget : GoogleImages tab on this page. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are extensions from Google for Chrome and Firefox, the Firefox extension is not compatible with Firefox 5 though.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Training area

I'm hoping to run some training sessions soon, teaching people to edit Wikipedia and upload to Commons. On Wikipedia, the trainees can use a sandbox to practise editing. Is there any facility on Commons, for them to upload images to a test area or category, from where, after a day or two, they can be deleted? Andy Mabbett (talk)

Image showing how to mark an upload as a test upload in the Upload Wizard.
I have taken the liberty of creating {{Test upload}}. During upload, uploaders should click "More options" on the "describe" panel of the Upload Wizard, and enter "{{test upload}}" in the "Other information" box. These will be deleted after at least 24 hours. Note that trainees should never upload copyright violations, even temporarily - instead they should either use an existing image on Wikimedia Commons, or a photo or artwork created by themselves. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant, thank you. can we get such images excluded from warnings such as "this is a duplicate"? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a category with test images: Category:Test images. Most images there should be okay to mess around with. Amada44  talk to me 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are images, such as this one, in that category that are used in wikipedia articles. However, this edit added the text "These are test images. Images can also be used for testing actions like moving, deleting etc. License may but must not apply. Images in this category may be deleted, moved or other images loaded on top of them." Is this truly intended? If so we should remove all "useful" images away from that category. If not we should delete that text. -84user (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, that one may have been the only image that was not a test, so I removed it from the category. -84user (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Golan v. Holder amicus filed by EFF, WMF, et al

From en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-27/News and notes: WMF moves to defend public domain: As announced earlier (Signpost coverage), the Foundation has joined forces with several educational institutions to support an Electronic Frontier Foundation Amicus brief regarding the Golan v. Holder case. The case stems from US acceptance of the Berne Convention in 1994, an act which granted copyright protection to several foreign works that were previously in the public domain according to the Copyright Act.
Last week, Geoff Brigham, the General Counsel of WMF, announced that the amicus brief had been filed, and explained the relevance of the case to Wikimedia "in light of the tremendously important role that the public domain plays in our mission": "To put it bluntly, Congress cannot be permitted the power to remove such works from the public domain whenever it finds it suitable to do so. It is not right – legally or morally." More information, including the Amicus brief, is available on the EFF page.

I'm overjoyed to hear that the WMF is getting involved with this. I actually raised this point in a discussion here earlier (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/11#Should Metropolis be on Commons?), where Metropolis is one of the films listed in the Wikipedia article as affected by URAA. I feel like the WMF is arguing a case before the Supreme Court on my behalf, and it's most welcome. Wnt (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Mission Statement ?

What is the Mission Statement of Wikimedia Commons? I have looked on the first page, and I do not find anything that describes what Wikimedia Commons is supposed to do, what commons is supposed to beneficial for, or in what way. Is there such a statement? If so, where? I would think that Wikimedia Commons is supposed to be a repository for media, to be used in various language wikipedia projects. Kind of an educational helper (excuse my bad english there) --Janwikifoto (talk) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Project scope. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the Main Page it says "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". "Welcome" links to Commons:Welcome; maybe "Wikimedia Commons" should link to Commons:About. I know About redirects to Welcome, but for those in Janwikifoto's situation, it's a lot more obvious to click on "Wikimedia Commons" ("what is this? aha") than on "welcome" ("what am I being welcomed to? tell me that first!"). So I'd link both, i.e. "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". Or possibly "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons" or even "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". Rd232 (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing files

Earlier today (at around 09:30 UTC) there was some temporary global tech issue and many new uploads seems to be missing. I have not encounter such situation before, so just want to ask if it is going to be fixed automatically? --Ben.MQ (talk) 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the file description page of any missing image and click "purge this page cache". They are there, just not showing up without a purge due to a technical issue. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

.RM and .MOV

Hi! I learned that Commons does not accept files with .RM and .MOV But there are some video files from the NTSB website that are in those formats. Do I need to convert them, or can there be an exception made? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No exceptions is the short answer. Have you seen Help:Converting video yet?--P.g.champion (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen it yet. I will check it out, and convert the videos. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request help, upload several files from pdf

Hi. Can someone help coordinate and get a whole bunch of sign images up that will make our collection better? Would involve extracting them from a pdf and making them individual images (think this is best.)

I corresponded with the USG and got an e-mail assurance that all of their DOT symbols are off copyright. Also, he pointed me to this file, when wanting a high res image (sorry, I realize it is not.) [4]. I can OTRS, although this would really ideally cover a whole set of images, not a specific file right now. So advise me on how to adress the OTRS!

TCO (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I actually have what I need in terms of helping out a specific article (Fluorine on Wiki), so I personally have no need of all these images. Just thought that Commons would be a GREAT place to host them. Surprisingly we have very few of them in commons. See here: [5]. The signes are helpful for element articles or other chemicals articles. Even our chemical and hazard symbols articles themselves on Wiki are pretty pathetic.

TCO (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is of any help, I use Nitro PDF reader to extract images from PDF files.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you do the work? I am really sort of an image idiot. I kind of tromp around and upload stuff at times, but am not a wiki veteran.  ;-) TCO (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't compromise with that, sorry. I'm already in the middle of a thousand projects here, many of them already severely delayed. :\ --- Darwin Ahoy! 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I'm downloading it now. I really don't think I'm good at this sort of thing though. Is there a way to batch upload all the images and not do the one by one thing? And I only know how to use the old upload form, btw.TCO (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can use Commonist for that and upload all them at once. The new Upload Wizard allows for 10 uploads at a time, but Commonist is much better IMO.--- Darwin Ahoy! 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting and pasting and putting into Paint was how I did it before. I actually still need to learn how to use the Nitro, the new upload, and now this program.  :( TCO (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are both very easy to use, especially the Nitro. You only have to click a button, actually. :) --- Darwin Ahoy! 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I played with the Nitro a little. Tried the extract images. However more than half the signs are not images somehow. So I still have to do the select individually and transfer to MS Paint, no? (which I can do in Adobe anyhow, no?_ And then some stuff was not really images. You know what...I will try. I just feel like this is so hard. And then...all the instructions for the communist program. I'm an article person.  :-( Do you really want me to learn how to do this?TCO (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK...I'm doing the cut and pastes and saves through MS Paint. Is png better or jpeg? TCO (talk) 00:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't take screenshots to extract images from PDFs if you can avoid it. If you must, zoom in on the image as far as you can before screenshotting, and save as PNG. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm just using that select button (that kind of gives you a square and then it takes it to the clipboard). then I take that to MS Paint and then save as PNG. Just hitting extract all images, really didn't work since a lot did not come over and I got things I didn't want (not signs) also. Am I doing it right?

We have some of them in Category:US DOT hazmat symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

Voting on policies and guidelines

Setting aside questions about procedure, are anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines counted?[6] We don't count anonymous votes on COM:RFA and COM:FPC. I don't think anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines should be counted, but I couldn't find guidance to that effect. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines should not be decided by counting votes – anonymous or otherwise. Anonymous contributors are certainly welcome to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines. LX (talk, contribs) 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOP of aircraft factory in France for EN:WP Featured Article in Candidacy

Moved to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

File not found in listed categories

A user recently added three categories to File:Siitolanranta talvella.JPG, but the file is not found in any of them: Category:Winter in Finland, Category:Trees in winter or Category:December 2010 in Finland. Only the Category:Imatra where the file was already previously shows this image. Does anyone know if this is caching problem, or what? Bypassing browswer cache did not help me (even tried with a different browser). MKFI (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hypercategorizing !

(fr) Bonjour, (be) une fois !

Some Users, here, are moving Coats of arms Files to – they say – better categories, e. g. here, creating subcategories for each village, « Category:Coats of arms of placename ».

As a village – even a city – has one and only one Crest, there is no need to such hypercategorization ! (This prefix, « hyper- », means that an action seems to be better, but is in fact wrong ; e. g. « hyperurbanism », when Late Romans spoke a bad Latin – Urbs ! – they thought correct because of its sophistication…) If a town has in its story more than one CoA, we may therefore create such categories ; but this one ?… here ?… Etc.

Budelberger (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

(Moved here from talk.) —innotata 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be for having multiple images of the same thing. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"has one and only one Crest" - why so? Sure, today it has one official blazon and (presume) one official graphics, but there could be historical versions; there could be COAs per se and photographs of COA in sculpture, murals etc. Even Klenov already has three files, then what about Category:Coats of arms of the City of London Corporation ? NVO (talk) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both approaches, the one complaining about hypercategorization, and the ones explaining the need for subcategories, are pertinent. There has to be some good sense on this, however. I've seen such categories being created with only one item inside. In my opinion this is unnecessary and counter productive. Those items can perfectly be in the village category and in "CoA of municipalities of ...", no need to create a proper category there. However, in the cases where multiple representations of that coat of arms (or historical versions of it) exist here in Commons it is indeed helpful to create a subcategory, or even a number of them, to place them.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I often try to sort out stuff from Category:Media needing categories and use hot cat. If I find a file called coat of arms of x, then I try to add it to the Category:coat of arms of x. If this fails to come up in HotCat then I might have a fiddle looking for alternate spellings of x, and then when this fails I just add the file to Category:coat of arms of country y. My geographic skills are not good enough to be able to work out which subdivision of country y to add the file to. The choice is to put up with files getting into the higher categories and having to be moved down, or having categories at the lowest level. I would expect there are very few subjects where you would expect only one file, so creating the category now with the correct name and position in the hierarchy for single files will reap future benefits. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, frankly I don't think that way. There are hundreds of thousands of CoA of villages and other locations. Creating categories for single items in that case is really unhelpful, and hinders categorization, since you have to fiddle with the whole category instead of a single file, which is much more difficult and can't be done by tools like cat-a-lot. It's really counter-productive. In the case you mention, IMO the CoA should be placed primarily in the village category, which is where it will be searched for. Then you may place it as well somewhere in the CoA tree, even if it is at the top category it is useful, but creating a category for those single items in that case is indeed bad practice, IMO.--- Darwin Ahoy! 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem. I have brought this up in the past as an article writer, Commons USER. What we need is some "botton" that you click and then all the subordinate categories are displayed. It's insane that when I'm looking for some type of animal and there are 10 pics at the higher level, but in 5 categories, to have to click, click, click, each separate one. give me a button that allows auto decategorizing and much of the pain is taken away.TCO (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the case. A while ago I organized Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar, which was a complete mess, with only the Lingaraj temple as subcat (with a lot of erroneous pictures inside) and the rest floating in the main cat, the majority of the pictures attributed to the wrong temple and erroneously used in wiki-en. Upon finding a reliable database of photos from those temples, I endeavoured the sorting of that mess, and managed to find the rich variety of temples you can now find there. I can say it was a very rewarding and amusing experience, almost a game. You will note that some of the temples only have one picture inside. I've done this on purpose, since they are less known temples, and it's identification was more difficult. Of course you lost there the "big picture" about the assortment of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar, but I believe that's not the use of categories, but galleries. I'm not interested in galleries and I doubt I ever will be, but people who find them useful may create them picking the images from the sorted categories in order to give the "big picture" about some item, let it be an animal or the variety of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar.--- Darwin Ahoy! 20:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have a button if you place {{Category tree}} in the content for the category itself. – Adrignola talk 03:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Category tree}} is now redundant because the software now automatically displays all the subcategories of a particular category on one page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect TOC may be asking for something that also allows to see all the images in the subcategories. That would be a great improvement for me, too.--- Darwin Ahoy! 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cat Scan allows you to see all the images subcategories, an example of the images in Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar and subcategories: [7]. MKFI (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(you're not getting me.) I know that I can see the subcats. What I want is a reversible mechanism to view the larger population of images. Am trying to save myself clicks. Imagine having a category of "painted turtle" with 2 images in the category and then 4 subcategories for subspecies (each containing subspecies). If I just want a general picture of a painted turtle I have to click all the subcategories. I would like a button to just be able to expand the view all at once, to see all the images in subcats and the parent cat. I'm not saying to permanently scrap the micro-cats. They can have use. However, I really do USE COMMONS. And it is a better resource for me...for article WRITERS, with some better features around search and layout. Don't get me wrong, this is a great place. Still...be very aware that this place is mostly a service resource for other people...and the easier for USERS, not just uploaders, the better.  :-) TCO (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MKFI just showed above how you can do it. Follow his link, and you'll get the idea.--- Darwin Ahoy! 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to shake my rattle. I do appreciate the assist and may use that tool in the future. That said, I really think something simpler, where you can just click on the page and it expands the views down a branch lower (or all the way) is desired. that's a pretty daunting looking window. Realize that the most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers.  :-) TCO (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[...] most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers.
TCO, have you tried to use the Add Media Wizard for that? Take a look on this screenshot ;-) Helder 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Why should I open license my pictures?

No, not me! However, I'm sure we've all come across that response, when suggesting that someone might donate images to Commons (and the related "if someone wants to use my images commercially, they should pay me!"). And we all, I hope, know good answers. But has anyone compiled them, as a FAQ or blog post (here or elsewhere) to which we can point people? I can't see anything on Commons:Welcome or Commons:FAQ. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do, at Commons:Licensing/Justifications. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just upload an ugly picture of them to Commons and tell them if they want a nice one they have to open license it. That argument usually works. -Nard (Hablemonos)(Let's talk) 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think a good essay could be written on this. I don't have it all figured out, but have learned some things, the hard way. For one thing, just using the Wiki "standard request" generally leads to problems with the OTRS not satisfied that the releaser understands the donations is to Creative Commons (very "free"). I try to spell it out ahead of time and actually get them to give me a repeat back that satisfies the rights po-lice. I also usually say something complementary about their image or work in general. Maybe a phrase or sentence on how the thing is going to be used (the article, but have to be clear that it's not a one time donation). TCO (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

3-d files/formats

hello;

possibly a stupid/obvious question (& likely one that has been asked previously), but do we have ANY provisions @ commons for 3d media files?

like CAD, or etc...

such files are useful "onscreen" already, BUT in the "now-to-future" 3d-printable "images" are going to become increasingly important.

Lx 121 (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Previous discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/05#Other_types_of_media:_three_dimensional_objects_and_videos.3F -- AnonMoos (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 fat people picture

I saw two of the same image:

because both these images were the same topic, there's no point to be maintained one of them. If I select the image that is left to be deleted because it looks stain brush / dust. --Erik Evrest (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to keep both images in such instances. The left image is indeed enhanced from a scan with too low a contrast; nonetheless, it might have useful information. Also keep in mind that the Commons PD-Art licensing decision is one which may be prone to legal oppression - I would feel more comfortable keeping duplicate images so that in case one of them eventually falls to a "sweat of the brow" argument, the other might be spared. Wnt (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree with the above opinion; they are not EXACT duplicates. also; the one file is 56 kb & the other is 14.17 megs! commons is meant as a media repository, we don't just collect "one of everything", & it's useful to have at least some variety in file sizes...
i do appreciate the good-faith efforts of the user in raising the queation, however
Lx 121 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What everyone here failed to notice is the unfortunate fact that the original Yorck Project image was replaced by User:Shakko with a much lower-resolution and lower-quality image in 2009, with no update to the source metadata. I've reverted to the Yorck image, and warned Shakko. (So there are actually 3 versions here.) This is nothing in comparison to the number of versions of The Birth of Venus or The Mona Lisa we have (see Category:The Birth of Venus, Category:Mona Lisa). Dcoetzee (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new, open, Flickr Alternative?

This seems like it'll be worth watching out for: http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/29/yahoo-engineer-leaves-to-build-an-open-flickr-alternative/

Andy Mabbett (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MediaGoblin looks promising as well. http://mediagoblin.org/index.html --P.g.champion (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPT Files

Hi! .PPT files are not accepted by the Commons Well, the NTSB website has some PD PPT presentations: http://web.archive.org/web/20090228182953/http://ntsb.gov/Events/2000/Aka261/presentations/presentations.htm What format should PPT files be converted into? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PDF. PowerPoint has a Save as PDF feature that can accomplish this reasonably well. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I just created the PDF files! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call for image filter referendum

The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account.

Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at m:Image filter referendum shortly.

For the coordinating committee,
Philippe
Cbrown1023
Risker
Mardetanha
PeterSymonds
Robert Harris

Cross posted by -- DQ (t) (e) 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on this before, but will repeat: I think it would be more generally beneficial to allow users a setting to override page settings about the size of thumbnails, so that, for example, you could decide for all thumbnails to be shown at 30-pixel resolution (and perhaps all images to be shown as thumbnails) regardless of the Wiki code. This would help low-bandwidth users as well as those with specific objections. My hope is that at some low resolution - 20 pixels if need be - there is simply no picture that will be viewed as intensely objectionable. I wish your referendum would investigate in this direction rather than pressing for people to "neutrally" place ideological ratings on specific images. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you're probably aware, there is already a per-user preference for logged-in users (see "Thumbnail size" under Special:Preferences/Appearance/Files), for cases where "thumb" is specified for an image but no image size is given. The list of values is limited by MediaWiki. We could probably file a bug to ask for the ability for the user setting to override cases where image size is given, but I suspect there's good reason it's done that way, and anyway it would probably take ages for anything to happen. Plus, per Bugzilla1340, gallery thumb sizes are still handled separately (Bugzilla3276 made the width of the gallery adapt to the user's screen). Finally, I doubt reducing all images to "can't tell what it is" size is much of a solution for most people who want some control over hiding certain types of image. Rd232 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume filters would rely on proper tagging of those "particular types of images". I wonder whose job that will be. Also does anybody know what "particular types of images" are we talking about? I assume nudity, but what else? Grisly corpses, executions, Depictions of Muhammad, LGBT, Adult diapers, Kittens? It seems to me there is a lot of "particular types" of images that can be offensive. --Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must not forget about alcohol, hate/discrimination, mutilation/torture, weapons, German youth protection, health/medical, drugs, gambling, lingerie/bikini, religious, sexuality, and tobacco related images. – Adrignola talk 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A warning for you all, do not simply add "Category:Sex" to it, because you will censor every picture of anything which is identifiably male, female or other, and 10,000,000 old paintings. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The upload bots might add the words sex, porno, paedophilia, ... in a random combination and languages to all uploaded files. Then they will need real intelligence to filter. --Foroa (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are the least evil; I'm more concerned about a new generation of POV-warring slapping porn tags on opponents' images. NVO (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least categories would be put to some use. I think we should make that to work on Commons too. --  Docu  at 06:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Deleted Joplin tornado map (posted by US Army Corps of Engineers)

I had a map of the 2011 Joplin tornado which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had posted to its flickr account deleted at 9:06 today. Unfortunately the corps flickr account photo says "All Rights Reserved" http://www.flickr.com/photos/55127822@N07/5887813113 But it is definitely a U.S. government creation (which is also mentioned in its caption) and thus cannot be copyrighted. Flickr is the source for official government photos from the corps released at http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Flood/index.cfm (much as the White House releases its photos via Flickr). Therefore I am asking that it be restored. Thank you.Americasroof (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently refers to File:Joplin-tornado-map.jpg, which was later determined to be public domain by Túrelio and Lymantria and thus restored. Good response. Huntster (t @ c) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. It's confusing since the Corps has placed the wrong license it. I will discuss it with them.Americasroof (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr2Commons down?

I haven't been able to make uploads using it yesterday PM & this AM (July 1). Have others noticed problems? TIA, Tillman (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I've entered a second file after uploading one I've needed to submit the link and name twice, which wasn't the case previously, but that's all. Just used it to upload File:Passer montanus -Queenstown, Singapore.jpg. —innotata 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The F2Com button hasn't shown up on flickr images for me for 4 to 6 months. Geo Swan (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been uploaded as "File:Central peak complex of crater Tycho on the Moon - 20110610.jpg" by Pline. I don't know if this is the problem, but sometimes if there is HTML in the EXIF, Commons will regard the file as defective and refuse to allow it to be uploaded. The solution is to download the file from the source and remove the offending HTML using a program like GeoSetter before uploading it to the Commons. — Cheers, JackLee talk 18:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2

I need some definitions

  1. What is a talk page? is it the same as a discussion page?
  2. What is a user page?
  3. How and where do I install my Babel sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, "talk page" is just another term for "discussion page"; for example, your own talk page at User talk:Mumbo-jumbophobe. See Commons:Talk page guidelines for some more information on them.
  2. A user page is where you can include brief information about yourself, links to tools you use often, etc. See my user page at User:Huntster for an example. You can create your own user page by clicking here.
  3. Again, look at my user page for a working example...it's on the right hand side. In the code, it's the line that starts with {{babel|. You can find additional information at Commons:Babel.
  4. For future reference, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~), which will automatically expand into a full signature. Huntster (t @ c) 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you rename (move) a category?

I can't find any info on how to do this. Sounds like a frequently asked question to me, should be in help. Palosirkka (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Commons:Rename a category? It's linked from Commons:Categories. Powers (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deconsecrated churches categories or similar?

Hi to all: I'm working on church categories in Italy, for a better and multi-subcategorized categories (for diocese and patron saint), and I find a lot of deconsecrated churches (but not only in Italy) I think be worth in this different category. However many now laical buildings are categorized in Category:Secularized churches. Is only a problem of linguistic shades from italian? What the better word in english?--Threecharlie (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In additoin we have cats Former churches (sort of mother cat) and Abandoned churches. --Túrelio (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.. There is a difference between deconsecrated churches and secularized churches. The later implies that they were reused in some secular function (like a disco, or a shop, or whatever), and should be a subcat of deconsecrated churches.--- Darwin Ahoy! 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the distinction between "abandoned" and "reused", however, they often come together ("abandoned and later reused" or "reused and then abandoned"). Which one should prevail? And then, all too often, there's no <easily available> records. We know that it stood abandoned for the last hundred years, but how did it happen, precisely? So the editors are left to decide on their own, and similar cases will end up here or there based on each editor's own judgement. There already is a multiple-choice riddle about ruins (Ruins, Abandoned, Derelict) already, no need to reproduce more ambiguities. NVO (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume 'abandoned' should be a subcat of 'former', and would specifically mean that it is not currently in use. But, yes, I can see that it would be a problem for categorizing a church (rather than a photo) over time. I would tend to use 'abandoned' more on individual photos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to host Commonist on Toolserv. Can anybody make this happen? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 3

Replaced images doesn't refresh - Purge doesn't help

..this problem seems ubiquitous. I really wonder if the admins are aware of these problems and if someone is working on it. --Alexrk2 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed that too. Yann (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Commons' admins are well aware of this problem. But we have no means to do anything about it, beyond soothing angry uploaders/users and filing Bug reports. --Túrelio (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please all complain, add notes and vote at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613 . Multichill (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx, voted.. seems like this could take some time to resolve. Maybe it would be nice to place a hint on Commons so users don't get frustrated. --Alexrk2 (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So nice to find out that I'm not the only idiot in the neighbourhood... Just wasted half an hour to try to understand what I did wrong... Ha ha ! It was not my fault. But the problem remains. Indeed, placing a hint somewhere (if possible, somewhere one could notice it) might be a good idea... In the meantime, I'll try voting, in case it would help anyhow... Oblomov2 (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) (Oh no, I have to create a Bugzilla account or whatever and this will probably make me lose some more hours, I give up). Oblomov2 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug: EoMagicalConversion

I've deactivated this Gadget because it converts some word (which I do not typing), after I saving a page. Example Linux get Linŭ. Can someone reproduce this (FF, Chrome12 tested)? -- «( P E R H E L I O N )»* 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is a feature, all letters before x get converted?! --  «( P E R H E L I O N )»* 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the magical conversion, see en:Esperanto orthography#X-system. It can be useful when writing Esperanto, but not for other languages./Ö 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enable Group editnotices

I recently created Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Motd to provide a editnotice for {{Motd}} pages, only to discover that Commons doesn't have Group editnotices. I think Commons needs the guidance editnotices can provide at least as much as other Wikimedia wikis, and therefore I propose importing en:Template:Editnotice load from en.wp, to provide this functionality. NB: making it work requires adding {{Editnotice load}} into every namespace editnotice. Rd232 (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you require any assistance, let me know. I went through the process of importing and setting up the implementation at en.wikibooks. – Adrignola talk 02:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have a general idea of what needs doing, but these things can turn out more complicated than they look. At the moment, though, I want to establish if people think this a good idea; I'm reluctant to go ahead and just do it because wider use of editnotices has some potential for disruption or annoyance. Rd232 (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Group edit notices are default or something. See my learning experience here. In the meantime I've created the notice here. Might want to try to make it multilingual. Killiondude (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. But see w:Wikipedia:Editnotice#Technical_details as for why this system would supersede that one. – Adrignola talk 01:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So it's cleaner and possibly more efficient? Rd232 (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it's easier to work with. Would you know what MediaWiki:Editnotice-15 would show up under? How about Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Category talk? The latter would do the same as the former. – Adrignola talk 02:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I had just created something that Rd could work with as I'm sure any such transition to a new editnotice system would be several days if not weeks away. I'm all for enwiki's system in that regard, but it's also good to know MediaWiki's default. Killiondude (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)That is interesting - I'd no idea. Thanks! I've added a note at Commons:Editnotice. Multilingual would be good, but maybe it can be improved first; I just knocked something up to show what I was trying to achieve. Rd232 (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, can someone (Killiondude?) echo MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Motd to MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-Potd, with the appropriate change (I just created the parallel {{Editnotices/Group/Template:Potd}}). Thanks. Rd232 (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary box

I've added a little summary box at the top of this page to help track significant discussions taking place elsewhere. If Commons were just English I'd leave it at that for now, but for translation purposes I think it would be helpful to borrow the template approach of en:WP:CENT. Whilst it doesn't serve translation there (obviously.. :) ), it would do so here; it would make it much easier to translate titles of significant discussions, and the {{Autotranslate}}d template can then be transcluded on different language Village Pumps so that users not fluent in English at least have a clue about what's going on in English discussions (and can maybe ask multilingual users to comment on their behalf or keep them updated). Does this make sense? Rd232 (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've put together {{Centralized discussion}} with just a {{LangSwitch}} for each entry. Localising the template needs a proper /layout setup and I'm not sure I can handle that. Perhaps someone could help out, because I think if this is localised and put on all Village Pumps in different languages it will help with cross-language communication on major issues. (We saw this being an issue recently with the COM:CSD discussion announcement.) Rd232 (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing

Per some initial discussion at VP, I propose moving copyright discussions away from Commons talk:Licensing (currently listed in {{Discussion menu}} as the venue for "copyright questions"). I understand that discussions about copyright will very often closely refer to Commons:Licensing, but the talk page of the policy really should be reserved for discussion about the policy. The most obvious thing would be to create a new Village Pump (Commons:Village pump/Copyright). An alternative would be redirecting these issues to the Commons:Help desk. The argument against that is that Help Desk should be reserved for more general help, especially for newcomers. In terms of volume, however, using the Help Desk for copyright issues would probably work fairly well. Rd232 (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said in VP, I  Agree with the proposal of creating Commons:Village pump/Copyright and leaving the talk page of licensing strictly for matters dealing with what is written in that page. I disagree with moving it to Help Desk, I don't see any advantage in installing an advanced and specialized forum right into the newbies corner.--- Darwin Ahoy! 12:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. The current system intermingles policy discussion and copyright discussion. It wasn't a good idea to start with. – Adrignola talk 14:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree. Sounds like a good idea. We should have a clear message at the tops of "Commons talk:Licensing" and "Commons:Village pump" to point users to this new page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support The subpage might also work for issues on other copyright matters such as COM:FOP and COM:DM, two topics that seem irrelevant to that talk page. --ZooFari 16:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree Commons:Village pump/Copyright sounds good (interwiki: en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions). Help Desk does and will also get copyright questions - but should be reserved for the easy/newbie ones. --Saibo (Δ) 18:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The interwiki aspect is an interesting point; 10 Wikipedias have such a page (going by interwiki links from en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions) and I'm sure it would be helpful at times for them to have a good place to refer Commons copyright issues to (eg about potential moves to Commons where tricky copyright issues are involved). Rd232 (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1. sугсго 07:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Was originally my proposal, and it will be easier for interested parties (both new and established) to find the page than where it's buried now. Dcoetzee (talk) 10:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this seems likely enough to be agreed that it's worth drafting what it might look like. See Commons:Village pump/Copyright and feel free to edit Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Header. Rd232 (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also {{Use Village Pump (Copyright)}}, for the top of the relevant talk pages, to direct discussions to the Copyright village pump. Rd232 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unless some opposition or reasons for delay turn up, I'll go ahead and put it live in a day or two. Rd232 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already live, two brand new topics opened there. ;) --- Darwin Ahoy! 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking template internationalization

I'm looking at Commons:Template i18n pages (eg Commons:Template i18n/Marker templates) and thinking that this is a useful overview of Commons:Localization needs. However, even more useful would be a template which provides a summary per language, with a switch on whether to show all templates or just missing templates. That summary of missing templates could for example be added into the relevant template category (eg Category:Commons templates-ru), in a collapse box. I've experimented a little to try and do this myself, but it's pretty tricky. Is it worth doing? If so, who might be able to do it? Rd232 (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking policy translation

I've been fiddling with {{Translated policy}} to try and introduce some parameters so that we can specify what version of the page was translated from what version. I've been testing this initially with Template:Translated policy/de, in action at Commons:Löschrichtlinien. Does this seem like a good idea? I'm thinking we could also add parameters for when the translation was last checked, and for an update being needed. (I would probably need some help implementing this.) Comments? PS In case anyone's interested, I was inspired by en:Template:Translated page. Don't hold it against me... :) Rd232 (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the same theme, how about internationalising {{Commons policies and guidelines}}, so that links to the translated version are displayed if available? Perhaps in the style of {{Commons policies and guidelines/de}}? Rd232 (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Example:

Rd232 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also {{Use local Village Pump}}. Rd232 (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geograph.org.uk

Is it possible to integrate a filter for searches, which would exclude all images that are part of the geographic.org.uk project? It is becoming impossible to find anything in the commons because of this project, it has completely monopolised search functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.140.21 (talk • contribs) 17.15 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How has it monopolised search? Can you give an example of what you're finding and what you wish you were finding? Rd232 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply use -geograph in the search since most geograph files have the project name in the file title or at least somewhere on the file description. --Martin H. (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It monopolises search results, is a more apt description of what I mean. When searching for almost anything general, eg, coastal rocks. the search results [for me anyway], are 90 - 95% geographic.org project files. I find I have to go through pages and pages, to find one that isn't related to the project.

Martin H.'s solution seems to work well enough: [8] Rd232 (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To draw out a concrete proposal from this then: we could improve search help. Help:Searching is poor and not helpfully linked from the system messages MediaWiki:Searchmenu-new and MediaWiki:Searchmenu-exists. And given that those messages use a collapse-box approach, maybe we could squeeze in a line about using operators like "-" for exclusion. Rd232 (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]