Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Commons discussion pages (index) Commons Help desk Commons:Upload help Community-wide general discussion Copyright Proposals Graphics and photography discussion Image improvement Photography critiques Categories for discussion Deletion requests OTRS noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests #wikimedia-commons webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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. Please note 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. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. 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). 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 Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For photograph requests, please post at Commons:Picture requests. Search archives   Start a new discussion

A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive Rfc: Should we request a configuration change to shut down cross-wiki uploads? on something significant. (4 August 2016) Proposal to change organization/naming of US categories by state, territory, etc. (17 July 2016) Proposal to clarify de minimis policy with respect to "ancillary" or "incidental" reproduction of copyrighted works (11 May 2016) Request for comments concerning the naming of user categories (22 January 2016) Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Oldies

Time and station

Its probably not 2015, but it cant be that old because of the fairly modern car in the picture. There is a station name, with hills in the background but I cant read it.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The car appears to me to be a Maruti Alto, second generation, Which Wikipedia says existed from 2012–present. Oxyman (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also a mast with it seems elektronic equipment. Old fashion telefon and elektricity poles are still used everywhere in India.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I accept year 2015. I see that ´9999 in rail transport in India´ categories are not developed. There are only two.

Does the milepost (609?2) give any indication where this is?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

August 08

Real-time gallery of recent mobile uploads?

I patrol recent mobile uploads. I spot selfies and other uninteresting body close-ups, and nominate them for deletion.

Unfortunately the recent changes pages is a list of links, so I have to click (or hover) each of them individually, which is time-wasting.

QUESTION: Is there a way to see a gallery of recently mobile-uploaded pictures?

Like https://tools.wmflabs.org/para/Commons:Special:NewFiles but only for files that have the tag "mobile app edit". Thanks! Syced (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Syced, watchlisted User:Didym/Mobile upload yet? And https://tools.wmflabs.org/catfood/catfood.php?category=Uploaded_with_Commons_Reloaded --Atlasowa (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nice thanks! User:Didym/Mobile upload is great because it fits many pictures on the screen, and https://tools.wmflabs.org/catfood/catfood.php?category=Uploaded_with_Mobile/Android is great because it is live. Now a solution combining both of these advantages would be wonderful :-) Syced (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Syced: Make your own gallery via User:OgreBot/gallery! Works great, see for example User:Atlasowa/New video2commons for Category:Uploaded with video2commons. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Unlike the RSS feed, OgreBot galleries are not real-time, right? The fastest possible refresh frequency seems to be once per day. Syced (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Moving files to Wikipedia

There should be an easy way to move files that are ineligible for Commons onto the Wikipedia's they are used in - with the condition that the file is fair use. There is a tool for moving stuff from Wikipedia to Commons, why not the reverse?

As an example, see this list of images of Syrian banknotes that will most likely have to be deleted off Commons. There should be an easy way to move each file onto the Wikipedias that link to it (and allow fair-use). Brightgalrs (talk)

This seem like a brilliant idea to me but there is no doubt that such idea would create a lot of problems for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) because fair use laws vary from country to country. Content deemed acceptable under, for instance, US fair use concepts is not usable in the majority of other countries. In fact, the Licensing resolution of the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) explicitly forbids Commons to host fair use materials. Wikicology (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Your objection seems irrelevant as this is about moving stuff out of Commons to wikipedias, not about hoisting fair use material here. Rmhermen (talk) 04:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My argument is not solely based on hosting but the problem I foresee. I agree that instead of just deleting fair use files, it is better to move them to Wikipedia where such files are acceptable but this simply means that users will be permitted to upload fair use images to Common. The permission to move these files to Wikipedia would probably be given to administrators or a group of users who are familiar with file licenses. No doubt, there would be overwhelming backlogs of fair use files to be moved to Wikipedia. Prior to their moves to Wikipedia, a good number of them would have been used for commercial purpose with credit to Wikimedia Common. This will raise so many legal issues for allowing them here in the first instance. I believe the WMF would have considered so many factors before their firm decision not to allow it. Just my thought. Wikicology (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

there is User:Commons fair use upload bot. which requires some care and feeding, it would also require a change in culture, the anti-open, free only is quite happy to delete things even if it benefits the gettys and APs of the world. they selectively cite legal risk even while saying "bring it on" to the Prado. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly what I had in mind - it seems very inactive, and Fae himself is inactive at the moment. I'm not quite sure what the second part of your comment means. Brightgalrs (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

the second part means: step one is transfer file to english; and then you must write an article to incorporate the image within seven days or it will get deleted there. for images in use it is done, but for public art (for example) it will require some stub creation skills, and you will be limited to one fair use image per object. perhaps other wiki's EDP will be more inclusive. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Fæ for an insight. Wikicology (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the bot could be massively expanded by using this summary table of Non-free content rules. At the very least it could do all the "similar to enwiki" and actively skip the "no non-free content" projects. Then again, that assumes the table is up to date. Brightgalrs (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm overstretched on real life stuff for this month, so on a wikibreak. Getting the FUUB working again is not that hard. It's not been a priority and I would like to take care to test it out step by step, get it working with pywikibot-core (currently written for compat), and ensure that host wikis have formally agreed that images should be transferred. By the way, it works in a slightly naff workflow, so I would also like to take time to think about that too. In practice there were only ever a few images a month that were marked for transfer, though if admins were more aware of the options we might find more files being marked for transfer before files are deleted as a result of successful deletion requests.

By the way, adjusting the list of wikis where files can be transferred it easy to tweak. We probably should ensure that files are flagged for review in some way on the local wikis that have opted-in for Fair Use copies, and leave them in an easy to understand category. --Fæ (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Billboard magazine

Has anyone done a renewal notice search for Biillboard magazine? I see Google and Billboard went to court over the copyright status. If anyone is familiar, let me know the outcome so we can have a copyright tag like we have for Category:Time Magazine. That way we do not have to duplicate the research in the future and we can identify all the articles by the tag, should the copyright status change. The research is a lot of work, so if someone has already done it ... let me know. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): A quick check of the digitized records shows what at least appears to have been a continuous series of weekly renewals since the earliest date (the 1950 issues) that would have a renewal in the database. I'm not going to go hunting older ones wihout a specific target. Revent^talk 12:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I found the document that lists the earliest renewal filings for magazines and papers that did file. Most magazines and newspapers did not bother with the expense of renewals unless there was a market for republication such as fiction magazines. The New York Times was diligent because they always published yearly news summaries, indexes, and cumulative collections of obituaries, movie reviews, book reviews, and Broadway play reviews. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Image change request from the Prado Museum - Request for community input

Dear all,

TLDR: WMF Legal would like to know your opinion about whether and in what quality we should host images from the Museo del Prado based on their concerns about really high quality versions on Commons (list of images at the end of the post).

Background

The Museo del Prado has contacted the WMF, asking for the removal of a number of images from Commons. Initially, they simply wanted the images taken down, but after discussion with them, they have suggested that they are only concerned with Commons hosting very high-quality gigapixel images and they are willing to accept Commons hosting lower quality images of the artwork under a public domain license.

We’ve asked the Prado to define what quality they would find acceptable and they suggested that 1000 pixels would be acceptable. They also noted more generally that they would be fine with something that was “very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study all the details of the paintings.” They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones.

I’ve put a list of every image that the Prado brought to our attention at the end of this post.

As many of you might know from the limitations on reuse of PD-art works, Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright that may cover these images and could be brought against the uploaders of the images and anyone using them in Spain. Further, in this case, the Prado has argued that their gigapixel images, due to their quality and the techniques in creating them, go beyond mere 2-D reproductions and should not be covered by the U.S. Bridgeman exception or the Commons policy on reproductions of 2-D art. They, along with Google Earth, have made a video showing off the elaborate process used to create the images.

We don’t agree with the museum’s interpretation of Bridgeman, but we can’t say for sure how a U.S. court would handle this case. Because of these issues, we want to hear from the community about whether high-quality photographs of 2-D Spanish works should be hosted on Commons. We particularly want to consider how we should balance the desire to keep these images with the potential rights of the museum under Spanish law and consideration to safeguard image uploaders and reusers worldwide.

Our question

So, with that explanation, we want to ask you what you’d like to do with these images. Given the differences between the rules in the U.S. and Spain, and the different interpretations of these rules that are possible, do you think the WMF should make every possible argument to keep the high resolution images, or replace the current images with lower resolution versions? We’ve thought of a few different options for how the community could approach this issue and are open to others. We’ve tried to outline what we think the results might be for each one.

• WMF and community members work together with the Prado to change to lower quality images provided by the Prado and remove the gigapixel images.

• We think this may make the most sense in this case because it heads off a potential lawsuit, allows the images to all remain on Commons and be accessible for free worldwide, and is likely to lower legal risk to uploaders and reusers of the images.
• On the other hand, it would make it harder to do close-ups of the paintings or reuse them in other ways.

• Keep the images in their current quality.

• This would likely mean one or more lawsuits in Spain under their ancillary copyright, followed by an uncertain one in the U.S.
• Reusers would likely face higher legal risk as compared to replacing the images with lower resolution versions.

• Community members choose to remove the images from Commons entirely.

• This would avoid any debate about what quality is appropriate for Commons and avoid misleading reusers of the images.
• Other projects would still have the option to host the lower quality versions of the images acceptable to the Prado if they wish to do so under the Licensing Policy (Spanish Wikipedia perhaps).

List of images the Prado would like changed (Copied from list provided to us by the Prado, links added by us)

Portrait of Philip II by Sofonisba Anguissoña (Felipe II, Sofonisba Anguissola)
The Dead Christ Supported by an Angel by Antonello da Messina (Cristo muerto sostenido por un ángel, Antonello de Messina)
Fran Angelico: The Annunciatium (La Anunciación, Fra Angelico)
Lazaru’s resurrection by Juan de Flandes (Resurrección de Lázaro, Juan de Flandes)
Death of the Virgin by Andrea Mantegna (El Tránsito de la Virgen, Andrea Mantegna)
Artemis by Rembrandt (Judit en el banquete de Holofernes (antes Artemisa), Rembrandt)
Martyrdom of St Felipe by José de Ribera (Martirio de San Felipe, José de Ribera)
José de Ribera (San Andrés, José de Ribera)
Immaculate conception by Tiepolo (La Inmaculada Concepción, Gianbattista Tiepolo)
Self-portrait (Autorretrato, Alberto Durero)
Adam and Eve (Adán y Eva, Alberto Durero) (category link because we don't know which one they meant)
Las meninas (Las meninas, Diego Rodríguez de Silva y Velázquez)
La nevada o El invierno (La nevada o El Invierno, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
La maja desnuda (La maja desnuda, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (second category link because we don't know which image it is)
Peregrinación a la fuente de San Isidro (El Santo Oficio, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes)
Perro semihundido (Perro semihundido, Francisco de Goya y Lucientes) (third category link because we don't know which image it is)
Martirio de San Andrés (El martirio de san Andrés, Bartolomé Esteban Murillo)
Danae (Dánae recibiendo la lluvia de oro, Vecellio di Gregorio Tiziano) (4th category link)
Holy Family of the Lam (Sagrada Familia del Cordero, Rafael) (second version, also high-res)
Holy Family with Saints Raphael, Tobias e Jeronimo or the Virgin with a Fish (Sagrada Familia con Rafael, Tobías y San Jerónimo, o Virgen del pez, Rafael)
Christ Falls on the Way to Calvary (Caída en el camino del Calvario, Rafael (y taller))
The Garden of Earthly Delights (triptych) (El jardín de las Delicias, El Bosco) (second version, also high-res) 

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment The Commons community has established that en:1080p or "full HD" is the lowest passable standard for images to pass community quality checks like Commons:Featured picture candidates. That standard is 1920 × 1080 or 2 megapixels. From the beginning of negotiations it seems that the museum is requesting that Wikimedia Commons reduce the level of quality to a level below the community's quality standard for viewing on contemporary devices. If they chose that level without knowing what resolution photo groups want then that seems strange, and if they chose that intentionally to be below current expected photo specs then I am not sure what that means. Can the matter be renegotiated to ask about beginning at Wikimedia Commons' minimal quality specs? If discussion begins below that standard of quality then I think the comments will go in a different way. I wonder if they made an arbitrary choice not knowing that full HD is a contemporary expectation, because there is still a huge distance between full HD and gigapixel. Images could be greatly lowered in resolution almost to the level they request and still pass quality review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• I think the usual Commons policies handle it. If they are copyrighted in their source country and there's no free license, then Commons:Licensing says they shouldn't be hosted at Commons. However any images (e.g., lower resolution versions) that Museo del Prado want to put in the public domain, ideally using CC0, should be hosted. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No, that's not right. The usual Commons policy in this case is that "PD-Art" applies worldwide, regardless of local laws, and allows them to be hosted. In that case the usual thing would be to keep them unless there are uploaders facing potential legal risk in Spain who would like them deleted. A lawsuit in the USA would be useful for confirming Bridgeman (from the point of view of somebody who doesn't have to pay for legal defense). --ghouston (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Most of those images have relatively low resolution. The biggest is maybe File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg at 30000 * 17078, which is about half a gigapixel. --ghouston (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Couple replies. First to Bluerasberry's comment, I think they would probably be willing to go up to 1920 x 1080. 1000 was offered as an example, but their comment about making it appropriate for viewing online along with Commons existing standard makes me think that 1920 x 1080 is something that we could reach as an agreement with them. For the latter part, I don't guarantee that we got every picture correct. They sent us a big list of names that I copied verbatim, and we tried our best to find links to all of them, but a bunch have many copies on Commons. The concern that the museum raised to us in their emails was specifically about the gigapixel issue though. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Jrogers (WMF), please do threading. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait, wait — they just sent «a big list of names»? Names of what? Titles of paintings, or filenames? Apparently the former, in a show of (unsurprising) incompetence. Why are we here, then? How can a takedown be demanded if they cannot even pinpoint what they want taken down? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if they did not provide us with links to the exact files they want removed (or downsized), we can still discuss the general questions here: What resolution does an image on Commons need to be in order for it to be useful? What value is there in hosting gigapixel-scale images on Commons? To what extent is it worth hosting lower-resolution images (or removing images entirely) in order to avoid litigation and improve Wikimedia’s relationships with important cultural institutions? --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

My guess would be to have a look at thez pictures in Category:Prado in Google Earth. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Just at a quick glance (the first image listed) there are likely to be other issues with these images, anyhow. File:Portrait of Philip II of Spain by Sofonisba Anguissola - 002.jpg was originally uploaded as part of the Yorck Project donation, overwritten with a retouched version, and then much later overwritten with a version from some other (unidentified) source. None of these later changes are reflected in the file page, which still attributes the Yorck donation. It's unclear if the current version is actually derived from the Google photography, though I gather from the comments above that the museum only identified works, and not specific files. Revent^talk 01:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the 2nd version is possibly derived from the first, and the 3rd looks like a different scan. They should be split into separate files. A source would be nice, but since PD-Art applies regardless of source, it doesn't seem like a reason to delete anything. --ghouston (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

i know what user:Dcoetzee will say: "what is good for the national portrait gallery is good for the prado." if they want to sell their high resolution, then to be safe it should stay off-line, with the low resolution as bait. we need a major museum image metadata cleanup. i see User:Multichill is doing it with wikidata. maybe they should talk to User:Kippelboy about online strategy, and interacting with wikimedia. if the images are under 10 MB i would not sweat it, and the larger ones are out already, it is now closing the barn door. they might want to withhold future higher resolution, if they want to maintain their control issues. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

That’s a fair position, but it’s also unlikely to help us make friends in the GLAM world. Creating these gigapixel images did require a significant amount of effort and resources. Other GLAM institutions may hesitate to make the same sort of investments in digitizing their collections or making those collections available online if it’s impossible for them to maintain any control over the digitized works (even for a short time). That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t take a staunch position when it comes to PD-art images like these—we just need to be aware of the possible consequences. --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@CRoslof (WMF): It strikes me that the effort here was not actually expended by the museum anyhow... it was done by Google, by their team, with their equipment. When this images were originally released this was described by director of the Prado as "this project of Google Earth", and the announcement included the statement by the General Manager of Google Earth that "this project is a continuation of our endeavours to democratise access to information and culture". Did they mean this? Or is the access to these works only sufficiently 'democratic' if they maintain control of it, if they can 'brand' it? The article from New Atlas linked above, that includes the video, describes Google as having "become by default the gatekeeper of global information for this generation." I don't think access to our cultural legacy needs a gatekeeper. These works of art are the common property of all mankind.

There are many other major institutions, such as the Rijksmuseum and the Getty, that have truly opened their collections digitally, without it being paid as part of an exercise in corporate brand building, and I don't see that it has hurt them at all. I suspect, strongly, that this is far more about Google's interests than those of the Prado. Revent^talk 23:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe it's really about this. Revent^talk 23:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Humm, two main things concerns me, and they are in the same paragraph:

"'very good quality to be used on a screen and make possible to appreciate and study¹ all the details of the paintings.' They also noted, if we agree to make a change, that they would be happy to provide the new files to replace the current ones²."

• 1. For study, bigger is better, that's it; and our scope is related to education.

For that reason, do not make any sense to downsize this images. Plus, this is a 2D representation, and maybe in the future, this resolutions would be considerate average, and for that reason we request the max resolution possible... we need to understand the real reason behind this arguments, because if they want that we provide material for study, as they alligate, a giant image could be away better.

• 2. This is a blackmail posture.

Accept that will not bring any good for the Movement, if they want to provide some images, great, but we do not need to remove any image in their favour. And this could open a gate to hell... creating a precedent of bad attitude can be very harmful for the Movement. Actually, we do not encourage downsizes, and accept this move is say "yes" to downsize, and it would open another gate, that could be an even deeper hell, as we already have a gigantic number of images downsized by the photographers in order to protect the max quality, limiting the usability of the images...

So  Keep, and the worst scenario it's to resize the images, however we still not accepting the blackmail doubtful proposal, and we say that downsize is not for us. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 18:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• I would not agree to anything less than 5 MP. This is the resolution of low end cameras now. Ruslik (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep, of course, and refuse to bow down to their blackmail. Even in those cases where actual pixels in our files come from the Prado site (and not merely depicting paintings that are hosted there with pixels from other sources), their photography work (the kind which is «mere sweat of the brow») is paid for by the government of Spain as part of their (Prado’s) mission to dissiminate culture; that photography work should not have its costs covered by the sale of pixels. On the contrary, inasmuch Wikimedia Commons does promote through its hosting and curation the collections held at the Prado, we are actively contributing to their ticketing revenue — if anything, Prado should instead thank Commons and offer to facilitate more uploadings.

Also, to a degree that’s maybe not much more, but surely not less, than the average for such national museums of powerful nations with a long history, a sizeable portion of Prado’s exhibits is war loot. I’m personally in favour of ignoring provenance and of keeping artworks and historical artifacts wherever they are safely in public display, but if the game is outlandish legal minutiæ, it can be played by all.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We always defended {{PD-art}} so we should definitely do that now. Let's take the intro of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.: " Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), was a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which ruled that exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even though accurate reproductions might require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element to determine whether a work is |copyrightable under U.S. law is originality. "

That was back in 1999. In 15+ years the quality and resolution increased a lot, but still no originality in reproducing an image. Bring it on, Prado v. Wikimedia sounds like a good banner  Keep. Multichill (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Multichill. Unless we're going to surrender our position on PD-art in all cases, permitting images under PD-art only once the reproduction itself (not just the original work) is in the public domain locally, we have no reason to do anything here. Bridgeman v. Corel is only a district court ruling, not something that reached the Supreme Court or even an appeals court, but it has a great deal of w:persuasive precedent, and the chance that another US court would disagree is minimal; unless WMF Legal believes that we need to abandon PD-art for the sake of the survival of the WMF, we have no reason to listen. Let's not be rude, of course, but it's time for us politely to say no. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep Agree with "bring it on". The Prado would be profoundly stupid to take any of these high educational value public domain images into court with thin claims of copyright and unproven 'sweat of the brow' argumentation. Not only would they lose the case, it would set a legal precedent for all institutions ensuring that they can never make legal threats of this type in the future. Shame on the middle management wonks within the Prado that can find nothing better to do with their well paid for time. With regard to "Spain has a 25-year ancillary copyright", that can be shot down in the first minute of a legal hearing by pointing out where and when the same artworks were previously published before the Prado started making their reproductions, consequently there can be no first publication rights. Note for WMF Legal, it's better to avoid paraphrasing fear mongering legal threats. If the Prado want to make legal threats, please publish the legal threat fully in the Prado's own words and the community can then tease out more from the original words such as associated legal phrasing and intent. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum with respect to ancillary copyright, the rejection appears simpler than I presumed as I was interpreting this as similar to other European publication rights. A bit more reading shows me that the 2014 Spanish ancillary copyright makes a presumption that the original works are copyrightable in themselves, without this nature partial or other reproductions in ancillary publications do not create new copyrights. The Prado would have to provide a clear explanation of their argument, with links to legal acts and existing case studies, as this looks awfully like pseudo-legal chaff in order to spread enough fear and doubt that unpaid volunteers like us will not touch their stuff. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep I also agree with the bring it on proposal. Public domain is essential to our vision as a movement, and we have consistently and proudly defended it over the last 15 years. Our standing for what we believe to be right is what distinguishes us from other educational charities and organisations, and unless we change our opinion about {{PD-art}}, we ought to refuse this request, even if it means legal action. Incidentally, this should be a good sign that we should increase our lobbying in favour of the public domain in the European Union so as to avoid such situations from occurring in the future. We know we are in the right, we will have the public on our side—I wonder how the Spanish people feel about being charged for access to works they have already paid for—so if it comes to it, we should stand our ground. As @Multichill rightly points out, Prado v. Wikimedia is going to look great as a headline. Also, if there are any Spanish residents who might be in legal jeopardy because of their actions as community members, we should ensure they get all the legal help we can provide them through our Defense of Contributors policy. And as a last point, I would like to thank @Jacob and the legal team for starting this discussion here; I think we all appreciate being consulted before any action is taken on behalf of our projects, and it makes a nice and welcome change from the past. odder (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep If we could not keep gigapixels images, we should not accept anything lower than high quality DSLR images, i.e. at least 24 Mpixels (6000 x 4000). This doesn't require stitching several images, and would therefore be acceptable under Bridgeman. Beside, would they accept volunteers with a high-end equipment to take pictures themselves? Regards, Yann (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep Per odder's comment. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Keep but we should do courtesy deletions if the uploaders prefer to have the files deleted. (Someone else can always re-upload the files under their own name after a courtesy deletion of course.) Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• I am neither, of course, a lawyer, nor your lawyer, but I think we should consider this from a slightly different perspective.

The position of the USCO, as stated in the Copyright Compendium (310.6 and 310.7), is that neither creative skill and experience; nor time, effort, and expense required, have any effect on the copyrightability of a work. This is not a new rule from Bridgeman, which the USCO does not even cite. Instead, they cite a 1976 case which states that 'physical skill' and 'special training' cannot create originality, and that case itself cites ruling going back to the 19th century, that 'slavish and mechanical reproduction cannot create an author'. They also cite Feist: Justice O'Connor said "copyright rewards originality, not effort" and that the idea that effort mattered was against the basic principles of copyright.

Bridgeman was not 'new law'.... that it why it is so persuasive. The very effort of reproduction that the Prado expects to be rewarded for, that they are so proud of, was an effort to slavishly and exactly reproduce every detail of these works, down to the last brushstroke. It was an attempt to avoid the very original expression that copyright is intended to encourage and protect, and instead to mechanically replicate the creativity embodied in these works to the highest degree that could possibly be managed. That attempt at 'slavish and mechanical reproduction' is exactly what copyright does not protect.

I truly believe that the Prado does not have a leg to stand on, under US law.

But what about Spanish law? The very section 128 mentioned in our policy, that grants a 25 year term, is about 'simple photographs', ones that 'do not have the nature of protected works' that grants the normal term. They can't have it both ways. If it's granted that their effort is so special and extraordinary that it somehow transcends a lack of originality and thus deserves copyright protection, then it's not simple. It seems as if it's hoped that we, and possibly some court, will miss this inherent contradiction, or that they can somehow pick and choose what they claim to be true depending on where they are standing.

I say no, emphatically, to removing any images of these works on the basis of what I believe are baseless legal threats. Neither the Prado, nor Google, created these masterpieces.... this art is the common property of all mankind. Copyright is intended to encourage human creativity by rewarding authors for their efforts, not to reward those who simply manage to later hoard away the only copy. We are required, sometimes, to remove works because of laws we think are stupid... we should not remove works simply on the basis of threats. Revent^talk 12:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• so user:Jrogers (WMF), you see how the community is prepared to spend your legal budget in a spanish court. a nicer first step would be to dispatch a GLAM ambassador to work with their people to try and collaborate. perhaps User:Rubén Ojeda (WMES) or user:Iñaki LL but hey downsize an image? never, to the barricades. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If it takes taking to the barricades and starting an all-out war to defend the public domain, then so be it. But yes, as a general principle we should try to exhaust all other possibilities before going to court. And just as a suggestion, please try to avoid overstating the issue; a single court case will cost nowhere near to spending the whole of the budget that the Legal team have been allocated. odder (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies, and it’s unfortunate when we wind up in an adversarial position. In such cases, the legal team doesn’t hesitate to defend the public domain, as we have in the German Reiss Engelhorn Museum lawsuit. In this case, though, there is the possibility of avoiding a lawsuit and earning goodwill with an important cultural institution if we make some concessions regarding image resolution. The question we’re trying to answer is whether that trade-off is worth it. (The consensus so far seems to be “no”.) --CRoslof (WMF) (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@CRoslof (WMF): Make that a resounding no. Josve05a (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

What did the museum offer as trade-off for downscaling such images? So far they don't seem to have offered anything. Could they perhaps upload high-res images of a large number of their pictures (specially those not on exhibition) in exchange for such courtesy downscaling? Platonides (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Platonides: It seems apparent from the above that what they offered in exchange was "we won't sue you." Meh. Revent^talk 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

we also do not know the internal politics of the institution. we try to work with the outreach staff to get some wins, to argue against their legal staff, who tend to have bought the IP bar's practice. if we do not play nice with others, then commons gets a bad reputation, then they lock the door, as we saw with the Finnish photo museum. you can be as pure as you want about licenses, and you may become a walled garden. but hey, more wiki'splaining for me, thanks all. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: I didn't consider “we won't sue you -based on a law apparently not tested in court- for storing some public domain images” to be "anything"… Specially not if we are consider this as a polite request by a natural ally requesting a courtesy downscaling. Platonides (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"Museums and Wikimedians are natural allies" ehh... in a ideal word (not even wikimedias are allies...)... and for those saying that would accept 24 mpx, or 10... dudes, they are complaining about those, open up the list provided by them, there are some ~2'000 x ~2'000 pictures... probably they will provide a 2002 phone quality (1000 pixels) ... ¬¬

Anyway, Jacob, Charles, WMF talked directly with Google about it? As far we know, Google is who did the images, no? We can summary ignore Padro actually, because one of their allegation is violation of copyright based in the trouble to make giant pictures, and that the owner of those are images are the ones who took the pictures, and made all the process to deal with distortions... Google did it, based on the link that you provided.

The museum claimed that it contracted with Google and that, since Google worked with them under Spanish law, it agreed to display the images under a limited license that did not permit reuse. We have no reason to believe that's incorrect, and we're treating it assuming that if there is any kind of copyright applied to the pictures, it would be owned by the Prado. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Until now, I didn't understand why they are ...bi ... complaining about us have those images here, if anyone could access the same images in the Google Earth...

Talking about that, why we did not seat with Google and bring all this processes documented? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 08:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg is one of those files that I understand the request. That's incredible detail that took quite a bit of work to produce. Most of the other stuff, eight megapixels are barely starting to see the painting, and one megapixel is so low we can probably replace it with a scan from a book and come out ahead. As for internal politics, it's not worth folding on the merest hope that maybe we'll be able to do something in the future.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I want to address the Prado's motivation in this discussion. In all the emails that I've had with them, they have been very reasonable. I think they are coming at this from the perspective that they have rights in these pictures and believe that they should protect those rights. I'm sure that's done in order to help them make money, but I think they plan to use that money to help preserve the art and disseminate information about it, and I don't ascribe bad motives to them in this whole matter at all. Rather than demand removal, they've tried to compromise and instead asked us just to lower the quality of the pictures. The list including images that aren't in super high quality was likely due to unfamiliarity with Wikipedia leading them to pull every link that came up with "Prado" rather than a bad motive to remove more content than they intended. The point of this discussion though, is that regardless of the Prado's position, we want to get community input about what to do in response to that offer. We weren't sure if the Commons community would even want to host the high quality images in a situation where the laws of different countries might come to different conclusions. Now, it does seem like the conversation is a pretty strong keep, but I do want to make sure it's because the people participating think it's the right thing to take a strong stand for placing these kind of gigapixel images in the public domain and not just because it might appear that the Prado may not have done things right in this particular case. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

few here collaborate with GLAMs, so it is easy for them to tell them to "bring it on". this community approves of w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, and w:Monkey selfie; and seeks to thrust bridgeman around the world. they have very little tolerance for the rear-guard revenue seeking (which is a delusion), or stewardship of the public domain. we need a wikimedian on the ground to collaborate, with some tactics to route around the adversive culture here. email is not good enough. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 03:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we do think that Bridgeman should be a principle world-round, and being stewards of the public domain ourselves, we're a little frustrated with groups who claim to be stewards of the public domain and who generally do so poorly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think if the issue is the gigapixel images, that the discussion has been miscentered, because the files pointed to were not generally gigapixel images.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment Hi all, this is Discasto, a former commons admin and WM-ES member (not talking here on behalf of the chapter). First of all some clarification:
  • Prado Museum possibly holds exploitation right over such pictures, but only for 25 years. That's so according to the article 128 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act. It creates new exploitation rights over works (even if they're in the public domain) and therefore, according to the Spanish law, Prado Museum possibly holds such rights. Such statement is registered here but has been universally ignored until now.
  • On the other hand, I can't see any difference with regard to I wonder why the official position of the WMF in this case should be different from the w:National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute.
  • Finally, if the community agrees to fulfill Prado's requirements, the same rule should apply to every equivalent picture and therefore, any picture from public domain works in Spain not actually taken by a person must be removed. Or I'm missing anything...
  • My €0.02 --Discasto _talk 14:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The problem is, that, as soon as we implement a special deal with the Prado, we acknowledge that there is a protection-right covering 2D-redroductions. And that opens the gate to any body else, to claim rights on the hundreds and thousands of Reproduktions here on Commons, without offering anything in reward.
  • And this in includes the cases, where the WMF has already taken legal action (namely Reiss-Engelhorn) as well as...
  • the reproductions done by private Persons, that have never been tagged with anything but the PD-tag (that may not be sufficient anymore).

I'm afraid that this case may have consequenses, that are going far beyond this small deal with the Prado. // Martin K. (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Keep, as long the Prado don't allow us (and others) to take pictures there, we need to get images of old art in different ways. We can talk about it, when the Prado stops sitting on their by the mankind borrowed (not owned) art. Marcus Cyron (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 10

Bulk Upload Problem

• I uploaded 30 images with the wizard. Wizard wanted more meaningful titles(they had dates) I changed them into texts and clicked "retry" Only "one" file succesfully uploaded which the system thought its title meaningful. I had this problem before, and hour of editing gone waste. Can we fix the wizard?--Kafkasmurat (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • use Commons:VicuñaUploader. wizard is designed for ones and twos. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 13:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • I upload large batches of photos with the Upload Wizard on a regular basis without problems. It's less of a hassle than external uploaders. --Sebari (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Slowking4: The upload wizard is perfectly capable of handling up to 50 uploads at once. We're currently working on raising the limit to 500 uploads. Matma Rex (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
      • i understand upload wizard is much improved, but if you want to save your session metadata, and it hangs for say a date input, or bad file name, you do not have options, it leads you by the nose. the java tools have save settings. wizard designed for single source; can't easily upload many multiple source items in artwork template. i regularly steer GLAMs to the java tools, after they ask about Glamwiki toolset. much work needs to be done on GLAM friendly tools. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kafkasmurat: I'm sorry UploadWizard let you down. According to our error logging (I work on UploadWizard and other multimedia tools), you got a bunch of 'bad-prefix' errors when attempting to upload files with filenames like "IMG_20150628_142525_Mevlana_Museum.jpg". UploadWizard will not let you upload files under titles whose prefixes are on this list: MediaWiki:Filename-prefix-blacklist, so if you weren't able to upload them, I think that's the expected behavior.

    I'm not sure what was the problem here, wasn't it possible to correct the titles? I just tested locally and I was able to correct each problematic filename and click the "Retry" button, at which point the corrected uploads succeeded. In the future, adding a screenshot is very helpful for bug reports. Matma Rex (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

    • see instead of blacklisting file names, how about some dashboard front end help in naming files. it's all trial and error and word of mouth. making people correct error before proceeding is bitey, how about autocorrect ? you realize each do not pass go hurdle is a percentage turn away? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Matma Rex:I shortened the names and it only uploaded a picture without any dated title. Why is the wizard prompting such a name? There's a date- hour and an explanation. I thought it would be nice to have them in the title. We can't say wizard works properly because my uploaded files gone missing without an explanation. System says uploading succeeded, but leaves me only one file which the title doesn't have a date.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Kafkasmurat: I am sorry, but it is not my decision. UploadWizard implements the file name policies of Commons. I'm not in power to change those policies.

    I'm afraid I can't do anything about the issue you say you're having with lost uploads… it doesn't happen in my testing, and I can't even guess what might have happened without a screenshot. As far as I can tell, you got an error message telling you to correct the file names, then closed the page without correcting them. Matma Rex (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

August 11

Wording for permissions for 3d artwork

Is there a sample letter granting permission to use images of a 3d work? I am trying to clear images from a few different photographers by the same artist, and would like to ask for one letter from the artist (granting rights for all works) and one from each photographer (for just the photos they took). Thanks, --SJ+ 19:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

You can use Commons:OTRS#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries and modify it appropriately. Ruslik (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --SJ+ 04:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 12

Trig points and geodetic control points

The classification between Category:Geodetic control points and Category:Trig points is confusing (which one should be included in which one ?). Both mean survey markers, used to make maps. They have 2D or 3D co-ordinates. Category:Benchmarks are 1D co-ordinates (included in Geodetic control points). Jack ma (talk) 06:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Trig points are intended for long-range surveying (trigonometric surveys, historically done to determine the overall 'shape' of the landscape), while control points are local reference points for normal boundary surveying. In the US, at least, trig points are marked by medallions much like those of control points, and originally had a temporary tower set up above them so they could be seen from miles away when 'making triangles'. Trig stations are marked with a triangle with a dot in the middle, on both the medallion itself and on topographic maps. At a quick glance, many of these medallions are incorrectly identified, and some are neither... things like reference marks and witness posts.

If you want to work on sorting these https://www.geocaching.com/mark/ would be a good reference, though it uses the term benchmark generically, and 'vertical control point' for actual benchmarks. Revent^talk 07:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So, presently, trig points are geodetic trig points, they are national base points for mapping purpose (pillars, monuments, ...). And ordinary trig points, used for small surveys (nails...), should be in another category, say Category:Control points or Category:Survey points. So the title Geodetic control points is ambiguous (not really control points, but base points)... Jack ma (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's hard for to look at too many of them now (on my tablet) to see how they are currently sorted, but it's probably quite mixed up, but.... the term 'geodetic control point' means any permanent physical monument placed on the ground (or a permanent structure) and then precisely marked, surveyed, and documented, for the purpose of providing a geodetic reference. Trig points, trig 'stations' (a station technically includes the reference marks placed around a trig point so it can be relocated if damaged), actual 'benchmarks', level gauges, etc.... all are types of geodetic control points. Given how hard it can be for even 'benchmarkers' (locating and identifying these is a hobby) to get them straight at first, the categorization is probably terrible. The term 'control point' is also used more generically in 'regular surveying' to mean locations marked for later reference, even temporarily.

Technically, it's only a 'trig point' if it was intended and used, specifically, for long-range triangulation... measuring angles over distances far too long to directly measure, and using trigonometric methods to 'locate' them, in order to establish a 'geodetic control network' of precisely located reference points for later surveys. Most trig points are only marked with medallions now (the towers were usually portable) and it's not unusual for them to have become buried over time....most actual geodetic surveys were over a century ago.

The exact terminology also varies between nations... Triangulation station might be useful.

Sorry I'm not being more helpful about exactly how the are sorted now, but... to be honest, I seriously doubt it's not all rather random, since identifyng a random point from a photo can be hard even if you know what the things are, and they are kinda obscure. Revent^talk 10:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

This post gives a perspective, at least in terms of the method used by the USCGS, of how complicated these can be...just for a standard trig station, there might be as many four different types of medallions in the same vicinity that a person might have photographed, all easily confused, and sometimes as many as six different reference marks within a few hundred feet. Revent^talk 10:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your answers. I just wanted to be sure. In summary, geodetic control points do include trig points (or triangulation stations), and benchmarks. So the present categorisation is fine. Just maybe we need to create Category:Survey points (name is ok ?) for all other kinds (not geodetic) : in particular very small survey points (e.g. this one or that one), see Other points in Trig points and benchmarks. Jack ma (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I likely got a bit verbose there, lol. Those kinds of markers are known as 'survey nails'...they are indeed marking control points, but ones for local surveys, not 'geodetic' ones. Such nails will sometimes be driven through a washer marked with some identifying info, but they are different 'in kind' from geodetic ones. Revent^talk 12:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A tidal gauge like File:Tour-du-maregraphe-de-la-Ra.jpg (or a modern one) is also a geodetic control point..... so, for that matter, are (technically) the tops of many tall structures (the top of the San Jacinto Monument, for example, is NGS survey monument AW6290) but the latter are probably not worth categorizing that way. Revent^talk 12:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

You're Right. Tidal gauges are geodetic control points as well. Not survey nails. Jack ma (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

File moving, catching errors

Hello!

Is there any way to enforce the filling of the "reason" field in the "move & replace" dialogue? I just made a move where I actually forgot to name the reason (COM:FR#reasons 2, disambiguation). It would be nice to have a reminder here to fill out this field in case it got forgotten... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Preferences -> Editing -> "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Ruslik (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that setting will catch the output of a script like we use for moves, unfortunately. Revent^talk 12:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I would actually prefer the way, it is done for non-filemovers: The script RenameRequest.js adds automatically reasons according to Commons:File renaming#Which files should be renamed?, cf. Special:Diff/201328778. For filemovers probably it should be possible to overwrite this or at least to add something. Unfortunately Rillke takes a rest for some months now (hopefully it’s just this). — Speravir_Talk – 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmh, maybe it’s actually RenameLink.js doing this job for non-filemovers, and this calls RenameRequest. @Grand-Duc: We would need someone with script knowledge (and at best admin rights). — Speravir_Talk – 20:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 13

Differend file numbers in the same category

Who has an explanation for this.

• Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia in Higüey gifs by Catedral de Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia en Higüey‎ (1 C, 9 B)
• Category:Churches in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia in Higüey gifs by Catedral de Nuestra Señora de la Altagracia en Higüey‎ (10 B)

--Jos1950 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see any problem. Ruslik (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, the first option reported 1 (empty) cat and 9 files, the second option 10 files (normal). After a few days it now be mentioned good. --Jos1950 (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

August 14

Template:Regions of France

When will it be time to update this template to reflect the current French administrative regions? It still has the old ones. Its sandbox, which is used on many pages, has both the old and the new, so we could take the needed code from there. I would think we'd eventually want a template with just the current regions. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The new region limits are effective since January 1st 2016, but their names will be official only in October, after the final Parlement agreement. For instance, Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes is still the official name, but Nouvelle-Aquitaine is the chosen name internally in this region, that will be approved only in October. Jack ma (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the names aren't final yet. Even so, the new regions are in effect. If a region were to change its name, we could change the template. Is this name issue the reason that the template hasn't been changed yet? There's also the matter of the category structure, some of which has been changed, and some of which hasn't. Is any thought being given to how the categories will be organized, or to a method for making the change without anything falling through the cracks? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with deletion requests which are obvious vandalisms?

E.g. like this one. When somebody nominates a file for deletion using the script, four files are modified/created: file description page and uploader's talk page are modified (i.e. appropriate templates are inserted), deletion request file (Commons:Deletion requests/<FILE NAME HERE>) is created (however sometimes it already exists) and finally, the deletion request file is added to Commons:Deletion requests/<YEAR>/<MONTH>/<DAY>. I usually revert changes in file description page and uploader's talk page and leave a comment in deletion requst file. But perhaps there is a better/standarized way to deal with such vandalisms? --jdx ^Re: 06:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: If the fate of a DR as 'keep' is obvious and non-controversial (which something like that blatantly is) you can also just close it even as a non-admin... the bot will then archive it. You can also simply speedy the DR itself under the first criteria (gibberish). Revent^talk 07:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Revent: How can I close a DR as a non-admin? You mean manually insert appropriate stuff into DR page (and remove templates from other pages)? --jdx ^Re: 07:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jdx: Indeed, per the directions at COM:DR#Procedure. The gadget only works for admins, so you can't do it 'automatically'.... just speedy (and letting an admin use the tool) might be easier. Revent^talk 07:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Views from the Stockholm Helsinki ferry in Sweden

I uploaded 40 images taken from the ferry Stockholm - Helsinki. (File:Views from the Stockholm Helsinki ferry in Sweden 99.jpg)(01 to 40) It was a nice evening. There are numerous islands and it should be easy with the timestamp in the pictures to find the locations. Does this bird island have a name?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It is rather hard to know where exactly you were on 19 July 2016 at 19:09:45 CEST (assuming the time and date in your camera is set correctly). So take a good map and look for the island(s). Perhaps OpenStreetMap and/or Google Maps will be enough. Also you may read Commons:Geocoding. --jdx ^Re: 12:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The ferry passed the Oskar-Fredriksborg fort at 18:11:44 File:Views from the Stockholm Helsinki ferry in Sweden 23.jpg. Some other passing points can be determined. (for example local ferries). From there it is simple interpolation to convert the time to a position. The ferry had a fairly low speed until passing Köpmanholm on Yxlan to limit the bowwaves. A second passing point is File:Views from the Stockholm Helsinki ferry in Sweden 15.jpg (island Kungsborg) at 17:43 (see panoramio picture)(Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added some island categories and created Category:Köpmanholm. Köpmanholm was passed at 20:26:41.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

August 15

Images of threatened/destroyed cultural heritage in Syria

The Great Colonnade at Palmyra is one of the sites that have been damaged during the war.

Dear everybody,

Through a partnership between Wikimedia Sverige, Wikimedia Italia and Gruppo Archeologico Romano (GAR) a batch upload of 442 images of cultural heritage in Syria have recently been added to Wikimedia Commons. I am very happy that we can now share these images with the world as they depict objects and places that have been damaged or completely destroyed during the war in Syria.

To increase the value of this collection we hope that you can assist us with the following (it will help to encourage more image releases such as this in the future):

1. Translations of two templates used on Wikimedia Commons into as many languages as possible: Template:Connected Open Heritage and Template:Gruppo Archeologico Romano cooperation project. This task only take a few minutes but is of great value.
2. Identify if any of the images would be suitable VI candidates, as some of these objects can no longer be photographed.
3. With adding the images in the category to different suitable Wikipedia articles. This is a new collection and many articles would benefit from images being added that show the object or a specific detail. The more views the images get, the happier the GLAM institutions usually are. It make it easier for staff members to convince their boards to release more media files later on.

Please help spread the word!

Best,

John Andersson (WMSE) (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be better if you used the Translate extension for templates, see Template:BEIC for an example. Nemo 14:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

My fault. I hadn't seen the translation extension used for templates before. I just remember that it didn't work when the Translate extension was first introduced on Commons. I will try to migrate the templates (and any existing translations) but it will take some rearrangement to avoid puzzle style messages (which are not a problem in the autotranslate method). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nemo: I've prepared Template:Connected Open Heritage/i18n. Would you mind giving it a look? Is there an easy way of including a (discrete) list of languages and/or ideally some indication for readers that it can be translated (when it isn't already in their language). /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Figured that one out. /André Costa (WMSE) (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Duewag

Wie ist ordnung:

• Duewag wie category:Duewag M6D
• DÜWAG wie category:DÜWAG GT4

oder

• nur MGT6D‎ wie category: MGT6D‎  ?

sehen auch: Category:DÜWAG trams

Zwiadowca ²¹ 15:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest prefixing all with Duewag (or not prefixing when the names are long enough and usually used without the prefix. Cheers! Syced (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

FBI surveillance video of 2015 Baltimore protests

FBI recently released dozens of gigabytes of aerial surveillance footage taken from April 29 - May 3, 2015. I believe the footage has historical significance not only for being one of the largest if not the largest release of aerial surveillance footage, but for documenting the aforementioned event. Since taken by FBI, they are Public Domain. Is Wikimedia Commons an appropriate place to host the files, which may not remain accessible on their current site forever? Carlelliss (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

License tag for Copernicus satellite imagery

I created a license tag for {{Attribution-Copernicus}} for Copernicus satellites, which include Sentinel-1, Sentinel-2 and Sentinel-3. I based the content of the template indirectly off the Legal Notice on the use of Copernicus Sentinel Data and Service Information.

I have not yet applied it to any images but intend to add it to images like the ones in http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Observing_the_Earth/Copernicus/Sentinel-2/Sentinel-2_delivers_first_images (which are not free enough for Commons, though) and these two

• 
• 

Does this look reasonable and well laid-out? Did I miss anything? Any feedback is appreciated. —Quibik (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Category moving and action throttling

I am currently moving a category tree to a new naming scheme. Every few moved the annoying new throttling system kicks in. I think I am averaging two to four moves a minute, depending on my workflow and the number of sub-categories. Is there any way to raise the limit to a sensible value? --Sebari (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what approach you are taking or what is throttling. Are you using Commons Delinker? VFC? or what? - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I am manually moving categories and their contents. Throttling is that feature that was introduced recently that prevents people from making too many "bot-like" changes in a too short amount of time. Only that that limit is obviously too low in this case. --Sebari (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting additional comments on Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/06/Category:Deceased persons by name

The Category for discussion, Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/06/Category:Deceased persons by name has been open for 14 months. It was suggested posting a notice here might help attract more eyes on the page so in an effort to close this out and garner some kind of consensus on what to do with this category I would like to request additional comments. Reguyla (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-33

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• Last week Tech News announced you will get a notification when you mention yourself the same way as if someone else had mentioned you. This caused some problems and will happen later instead. [1]
• Creating and editing links to sections on other pages on the wiki now works again in the visual editor. [2]
• For some users, cross-wiki notifications haven't been working properly. The count has been wrong when only cross-wiki notifications were present. The cross-wiki bundle has been showing only the names of wikis and not the actual notifications. This will be fixed soon. [3][4]

Changes this week

• The login session when you choose "Keep me logged in" will now last a year. Previously it was 30 days. This will happen on August 16. [5]
• Some abuse filters will have to be updated during the week. This is because a bug will be fixed. [6]
• In compact language links, two new kinds of languages will be shown in the shorter language list: Languages that are used in the article's text, and languages where the article has a badge like "featured article" or "good article". [7][8]
• The visual editor will be available by default for logged-out editors on Wikipedias that use the Arabic script. It is already default for logged-in editors. [9]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from August 16. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from August 17. It will be on all wikis from August 18 (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on August 16 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Starting the week of August 22 there will be three software deployment windows. They will be at 13:00, 18:00, and 23:00 UTC. This is to have more times when software of the wikis can be updated and make it easier for developers in different parts of the world. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Cristian Montaño

Hi, could an admin restore Category:Cristian Montaño, as it is now populated? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Done. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

August 16

"Logs" and "Woodpiles"

Not a woodpile.

Category:Logs is a soft redirect to Category:Woodpiles, but clearly File:Timber for the construction of the Mechanics Pavilion at the Chicago World's Columbian Exposition, Seattle, Washington, ca 1893 (LAROCHE 166).jpeg or File:400 Y.O. Log - panoramio.jpg are logs, and not woodpiles. I see no "redirects for discussion" page; is this (Village pump) the best place to discuss this, or should I just be bold and make it a category in its own right with "woodpiles" as a child category, or is there some equivalent of "Categories for discussion" for redirects? - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

logs?

To me, a category redirect stays a category, so I think it would be OK to discuss it at the CFD. Incidentally, I wouldn't call these logs. --rimshot^talk 07:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that a woodpile can be made up of things that are too small to be logs. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

We've had a good discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Logs and seem to have a basic consensus about what to do, but not about the best mechanism to achieve it (e.g. is it OK to have a category redirect to a category disambiguation page?). We could probably use participation by someone who is genuinely expert on policy around things like that. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

A great gift for wikisource projects: CropTool for djvu and pdf files

@Phe, John Vandenberg: Wikisourcians, please give me your attention! Just to let you know that recent update of CropTool allows to crop & upload illustrations of books from multipage files (pdf & djvu) and converts the work from a heavy and difficult one, into a simple and fast one. Please help me to spread the word. Thanks a lot Danmichaelo! --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 10:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Using description as title: Is it OK?

Entering both a description AND a title can sound redundant. And indeed, sometimes we see that one of them is just random characters. The problem is especially important on small devices where typing and copy-pasting words is difficult.

Idea for the Android app: How about requiring a description, and using it as a title (filename)? We can shorten it and make it unique if needed.

Reducing to a single field would allow users to spend their typing effort for a more meaningful result.

Thanks in advance for the feedback! Syced (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Syced: Using the description as file title isn't a good idea at all, see Commons:File naming. Is this the same app which has created a lot of problems (copyvios) in the past? --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The proposed policy page you link to essentially says that a title should be "descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray" and "accurate, especially where scientific names, proper nouns, dates, etc. are used". Fortunately enough, descriptions fit this criteria. As for your question: No, not the same. The vast copyvio scandal you are thinking of was caused by the mobile web upload wizard. Our app's copyvio rate is currently less than 5%, and we have plans to completely make copyvios a thing of the past, for instance by blocking beginners from uploading images without EXIF, etc. Cheers! Syced (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I have seen, the vast majority of the images submitted by the app appear to be legitimate. Also, AFAIK the past copyvio issue was caused by the web app (as in, the mobile version of the web upload wizard), not the Android app. Feedback noted re: the desc though, thanks! Misaochan (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Syced: Description != file title. Please follow standard practices. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand this is your point of view, but there is no policy backing your claim. And in practice, many veteran-uploaded files naturally have the same title and description, and that does not make them bad, if descriptive enough. You recently uploaded a file with the same title and description, and you did the right thing, because if you already explained everything in the description, then what else would you say in the title? Furthermore, we are talking about a mobile app here: Typing is painfully slow while walking outside taking pictures, so we won't get people to enter more than 200 characters anyway. Splitting that typing effort between two redundant fields would only have negative consequences in terms of quality. Cheers! Syced (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The upload app that I am using allows me to upload multiple files, and copy the description and/or title from one to the rest. I can see the utility of designing a mobile app that allows you to copy the title to the description if you wish, and to modify one from the other as well. In general though I would not expect the title to be the same as the description. Sometimes I cut and paste the title to start the description, but tend to spell things out more in the description, using "United States" in the description, but "US" in the title, for example. Right now though most of my files are ones that get updated with new data, so I do not want the date in the title, but have to put it in the description, in order to properly show context. Delphi234 (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your input! Is there any drawback to using "United States" in the title as well, besides it being longer in wikicode? I agree that files that you update every once in a while (for instance yearly population charts) should have the year in the description but not in the title. In the special case of our mobile app, though, nobody has ever used it to upload such a chart: Only static pictures/videos/sounds have ever been uploaded. How about having by default a single "Description" field, plus the ability to add a shorter name if wanted? Cheers! Syced (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Another tool that always use the same title and description is the Panoramio upload bot, and nobody has ever complained about its titles being equal to its descriptions :-) Syced (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Special:Upload no longer allows custom templates

Special:Upload recently, the old upload form, shows the old field layout, and then changes to a new set of input fields including "description", preventing the use of custom templates, such as "photograph" or "artwork".

so now there are no commons tools enabling GLAM uploads. i am quite happy with all the java tools, but you realize that the newbies will have no clue what to do when you try to pound their square metadata into your round description?

would the person who "improved" that, care to change it back, and dispense with all the old "tips" at the top (tl;dr) ? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 14:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Slowking4 Can you say again, in another way, what is missing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

once upon a time you could upload images of artworks, since there was a large input field into which you could put your "template:artwork" in wikicode. but not any more. when you click on the old uploader (above) you see a tantalizing transformation: the old field is there for a second, and then the new field overlays prevent use of the old fields. someone has reconfigured the special extention out of reach of mere editors.

it is quite a hurdle for new GLAMs to figure out how to upload images, since none of the tools work for them, rather we have to counsel them one on one, about all the java scripts to work around the UX. i guess we can also use flickr as intermediary as long as they last. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you need to turn off the javascripts in your browser. — regards, Revi 15:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

this reconfiguration of special:upload is across chrome, firefox and ie regardless of java settings. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 15:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Go to Preferences -> Gadgets. Find "ImprovedUploadForm" gadget and disable it. Ruslik (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

why, thanks you, i'll just turn off upload wizard while i'm there. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 17:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

User talk pages created by Wikimedia Commons Welcome

User talk pages such as User talk:Mwojcikiewicz created by Wikimedia Commons Welcome do not show up in Special:NewPages, they are not automatically patrolled, and their creations are marked as minor edits when this generally cannot be done with creations. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@GeoffreyT2000: Please generally indicate whether you have some question and your intention behind this comment. Do you think the current behavior is incorrect? If so, please explicitly say so and why. Thanks, --Malyacko (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

August 17

Maiden names or married name or both?

We categorize by surnames, should we categorize women by both the married name AND their maiden names? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Well I think it depends. I think it should generally be the one they are most known for but I wouldn't be opposed to adding something like Category:Smith (maiden name) if applicable. Since some women could change their names multiple things it could get a little confusing. Reguyla (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should not treat maiden names differently from other former names. Also men can take the spouse's name when marrying, and there are other reasons for changing names. And yes, a former name may be the most well-known, or even still in use as stage or pen name. --LPfi (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need to create Category:Smith (maiden name), I think the best strategy is just to list all surnames, most married women will have only two, and in some special cases they may have married multiple times like Elizabeth Taylor. We can't guess how someone will be searching here. It appears that Wikidata uses both the surnames too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is probably best to echo Wikidata's practice. We need to remember that Commons does not only reflect English language practice, but also the practice of many every language around the globe. Even within the English-speaking community practices are known to vary. For example, I believe (though I am open to correction) that in the United States, the Duchess of Cambridge (as she is usually know in the United Kingdom), is still often referred to as Kate Middleton. Martinvl (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's also relevant that not all names are "surnames". Middle eastern and Asian names do not necessary use the Given name/Surname structure and in the case of married people, to say that their "married name" is their surname is not quite right to me. But maybe I am just being picky. Reguyla (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Iceland is another example where surnames do not follwo the "Normal" Western pattern. Most people in the country use patronyms - boys taking their father's first name and adding "son" to it and girls taking their mother's first name and adding "dottir" to it. Wives do not take their husband's name on marriage. Thus a household consisting of husband, wife, son and daughter will all have different surnames. It is also normal for everybody to use first names when addressing each other. Martinvl (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Old German wikipedia pictures

Why cant Rummelsburg-Ostbahn.png be uploaded on to the Commons? 1894 seems to be old enough to prevent any license problems.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Not really. If the photo was taken by a young person, that person could have lived into the 1960s. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a map, not a photo. If it is anonymous, it has 70 years of protection from the day it was published or distributed. If we discover the creator, then the 50 year rule from the creator's death kicks in. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We already seem to have a few parts of that map in Category:Parts of old maps of Berlin and actually the whole map in better quality. --Sebari (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The file is categorized in dewiki as “Datei:Gemeinfrei (100 Jahre)” which translates to “File:Public Domain (100 years)”. So, I think (Sebari’s hints in mind, as well), it should be safe to transfer to Commons. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It’s 70 years in the European Union, and especially in Germany since 1965 70 years after death; before it was 50 years. Hence, only if we discovered the author died in early 1915, we could use the 50 years rule. @Smiley.toerist: The warning “Do not transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons without an individual review!“ is added for all PD templates in dewiki. It does not mean that any transfer is forbidden. — Speravir_Talk – 18:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Anonymous-EU tag, as in existence here, isn't applicable to German works. That is because German law says that pre-1995 anonymous works are only really anonymous if the author (here: the cartographer) was never publicly disclosed anywhere, not even in a lecture or similar. One cannot prove that, so pre-1995 "anonymous" works from Germany are not suitable for Commons (or de.wp). The "Gemeinfrei (100 Jahre)" files of the German wikipedia are likely free because they were published at least a 100 years ago and there is nothing known about an author who died less than 70 years ago. That's the theory at least. --Rosenzweig τ 18:58, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rosenzweig, so for the maps, that are already here, it is pure luck, that no one has sued Commons until now? — Speravir_Talk – 21:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Complaints are rare for material that old I guess. --Rosenzweig τ 18:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Maps generaly dont have one author, but is a teamwork and a incremental compilation of data and maps from before. ´The cartographer´ is a fictional figure here, but there is probably an editor/publisher in charge of the whole mapmaking team. (most maps are existing maps where the new features are updated) I see no reason to treat maps differently from other collective works such as newspapers (where only the signed articles are treated seperatly) or dictionaries. For the US licence it does not matter as anything published before 1923 is PD.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• We should have an article Commons:Collective works like we have one Commons:Anonymous works that discusses the issues. One question I have on fair-use: Can you display more text from a large collective work such as a newspaper since it represents a smaller percentage of the total larger work, the day's edition. One paragraph out of 1,000 paragraphs is 0.1%. If you publish an entire paragraph of a two paragraph copyrighted story you are displaying 50%. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File without image

Hi there, there is a file on Commons which has no image and only the description: File:'13-'14 Ford F-150 King Ranch Crew Cab. Could somebody please repair this? --Arnd (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not a file. In is a page created in error. I marked it for speedy deletion. Ruslik (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arnd (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice for librarians and other gatekeepers for how to deal with adult content on Commons

I expect this is a well-worn subject, and perhaps better for the help desk (feel free to move if so), but a search is failing me. Do we have a page of advice/guidelines/information for librarians with regard to adult content on Wikipedia? A librarian arguing to delete a particular explicit media file has an anecdote about being shocked that the inappropriate content a kid at the library was looking at came from Commons. I thought there was a good place to direct that person other than just "not censored", but I'm not seeing it. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think that is the place. We also have Help:Sexual content. I think we have no page on the issue written for librarians or other non-commonists. Except for child pornography, copyright and personality right issues and bad quality files there are no restrictions that I am aware of. If you search for it, you will find it here (although we lack good images about many aspects of sexuality). We try however not to show too chocking images in other than specific categories. --LPfi (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I think you will find nothing set up to meet the need you describe.

The closest thing to a content filter is en:Talk:Muhammad/FAQ#FAQ-q3, where you can find guidance for English Wikipedia on removing images of Muhammad.

On Commons, one perspective is to divide adult content into two sorts: the kind which should not be here and the kind which should. Already, lots of porn is deleted from Commons just because Commons is not a broad porn collection. Commons does keep some adult content, including porn for the sake of illustrating the concept of porn, historically significant adult content archives, erotic content said to be art and not porn, medical images including nudity, and adult content of other sorts. If content is in Commons which should not be here, then it should be deleted. If there is adult content which should be here, then it is supposed to say and there is no filter although any developer might propose one. If anyone proposed to develop a filter then I think it would get support if the proposal included thoughtful insight about being minimally invasive to other needs. There also are not clear policies differentiating what should stay and what should go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

They tried to suggest filters, but there was too much resistance, if I recall. The resistance was mostly out of principle, regarding it technically impossible to construct a filter that would actually work (i.e. without risking too much false positives). --LPfi (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I personally think filters would be a fine idea, but imagine the technical difficulty of setting them up to meet the differing standards of (say) the U.S., Germany, Japan, and Saudi Arabia. My experience with Flickr's three levels of "safety" has led me to understand how tricky this all can be: e.g. having to carefully scan my photos of naked body-painted cyclists in the Fremont Solstice Parade to determine just what body parts might be visible in each photo, definitely not the way I normally think about the pictures. - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

tell the librarian that commons is a "cultural buzzsaw" [11] - filters are a tool for admins; commons cannot trust users to set their own filters; rather commons will jam their free speech down their throats. see also m:Image filter referendum/en don't read the talk - it's ugly. and we do not have a wiki'splaining page, since the community has their slogan, they think that is all they need. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Fortress of Guaita 2013-09-19.jpg

There is fortress of Guaita in the foreground and City of San Marino in the background. Could somebody translate into English Italian description introduced in this edit? The author is native Italian speaker, not fluent in English (neither am I), and his English description sounds like a nonsense to me. --jdx ^Re: 13:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pejorative categories

Raised this in February without a conclusive response, and have just chanced across the problem again: does placing a photo of a person into Category:Hipsters trigger COM:BLP#Defamation? "Hipster" is (at least according to Wikipedia's definition) often a pejorative term, and one which people typically don't self-identify as. --McGeddon (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That whole category seems totally subjective to me. As such, I'd vote to  Delete it. --Sebari (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It could potentially provide a useful selection of cartoons, related images, fictional characters, fancy-dress shots and people happy to self-identify with a pejorative for whatever reason, as seems to be the case for similar categories like Category:Chavs and Category:Rednecks. If there's consensus that there's a defamation issue here, perhaps a {{pejorative category}} reminder template across all such categories would be a good idea. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Colourblindness template requesẗ

Some diagrams can be illegible to colourblind viewers (e.g., the red line might look just like the green line to someone with red-green colourblindness, and the key won't help). This article in Nature covers it pretty well. I'd like some tools to help me make diagrams intelligible. I suggest templates that sayː

1. This image is unintelligible/problematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (tagged by a person)

2. This image is intelligible/unproblematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (tagged by a person)

3. This image has been tagged by a bot as probably being problematic to a viewer with [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness. (possible, for especially for SVGs)

4. A review of this image by a person with any of [form(s) of colourblindness] colourblindness is requested.

For further reading, this page has some good advice on making stuff intelligible to the colourblind, and a palette of distinct colours. If you have ideas, please post them. HLHJ (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

̺

@HLHJ:, we do have {{Colour blind}} template. MKFI (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Surname categories

If a person is added to a surname category should they be taken out of "Category:People by name"? I am not familiar enough with the hierarchy of "Category:People" to figure out on my own. Category:William Salter is an example. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The surname categories fall under the People by name categories so my opinion is having both of those (and in some case a third one with People by name (flat list) is unnecessary. I brought this up some months ago however and it was decided then that it was better, for the purpose of commons, to have one gigantic category as well, so I didn't argue it. I do agree though that I would prefer to see this cleaned up and use less redundant categorization. Reguyla (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not all the surnames are under people by name. I don't think any of them should be. I think people by name should include only categories for individual people. Surnames are a separate thing from full names, as are given names. For one thing, the surname and given name categories can contain files where the people by name category cannot. Also note that the people by name category is a hidden category, and so maybe shouldn't be treated the same as non-hidden categories when it comes to overcategorization issues. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

August 18

Interwiki links

Should interwiki links be created on Commons Galleries or Categories where both exist?

I attempted to add interwiki links to Category:Mount Gambier, South Australia but failed as there is already an interwiki link to Mount Gambier, South Australia.

I searched the FAQ and the closest answer I found was Commons:FAQ#What are 'gallery' (main namespace) pages for? How should they be designed? which includes The files should be followed by interwiki links (also generated by Sum-it-up) and at least one category. but since the Sum-it-up tool has been replaced by MultiDesc, I assume the advice is somewhat dated and may not fully reflect current practice and interwiki links are now provided by WikiData rather than in-content links. --Scott (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• As a rule, do it via WikiData. Even if that's not yet all rock-solid, it is future-oriented. See, for example, Wikidata page for Seattle. The Commons category is given in a "statement"; the Commons gallery page as "Other sites/Commons" near the bottom of the page. - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, it looks like Mount Gambier (town) on WikiData already has Commons category and Commons gallery properties, but there is nothing in the "In Wikipedia" list in the sidebar of Category:Mount Gambier, South Australia and nothing in the FAQ to tell me that what I tried to do was wrong or how to do it "right". --Scott (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I added an {{Interwiki from wikidata}} template, which seems to be the best option so far. --ghouston (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I use this picture from 1870 on Wikipedia as found on the Canmore website

Hi, not sure if this the right place to post this, but I was wondering if I am allowed to use this picture of Loch Slin Castle that was drawn in 1870 on Wikipedia ? It is on the Canmore website here: [12]

The licencing on the Canmore website states:

Attribution: © RCAHMS

You may: copy, display, store and make derivative works [eg documents] solely for licensed personal use at home or solely for licensed educational institution use by staff and students on a secure intranet.

Under these conditions: Display Attribution, No Commercial Use or Sale, No Public Distribution [eg by hand, email, web]

Any advice appreciated.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's public domain, so yes. The copyright claims are meaningless. --Fæ (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Technically, they're not "meaningless", but they clearly have no legal force in this case. Which is to say, this is not carte blanche to use everything on the site, but in the case of an obvious public domain photo, their claim of rights has no value. - Jmabel ! talk 22:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

i would upload it, but such claims are not meaningless, and they have some value. they give them an opportunity to litigate in a British court, that might well hold for a "sweat of the brow" claim. the Prado would have a better case. until the court decides, you do not really know for sure; after all, we have "right to be forgotten" jurisprudence, and the Swedish case. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 23:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I hold that the claims are meaningless and morally repugnant. I respect any attribution requested both as a courtesy and so that appropriate metadata stays with the image.

It would be simply great if the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland were to attempt to take someone to court for ignoring the Canmore copyright claims for a poor reproduction of a work created 150 years ago for which they have no claim to represent the estate of the artist, nor have any claim as the original publisher. In terms of British or Scottish courts, there is no case law or existing legal acts that make the pseudo legal flimflam about "sweat of the brow" in the least bit meaningful. It is not morally defensible for public sites such as Canmore to claim that they cannot add more accurate licensing claims, it would be extremely easy (i.e. cheap in terms of resources) for Canmore to separate out documents published, say, before 1911 and apply a 'no copyright known' statement rather than the current vague way material is presented that leave academics and teachers so unsure about reusing material, that in fact it never does get used for educational purposes. --Fæ (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

i tend to save my outrage for the gettys sending a dunning notice to Carol Highsmith. also here, for people who nominate works for hire with a CC by 4.0 license, that happen to have an AP notation in the exif, or "no known copyright" we have to hand-hold these institutions as they evolve towards a freemium model, getting sanctimonious is not helpful. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion from the UK Intellectual Property Office

For a credible expert opinion, any views expressed by the IPO would be central to a UK court's understanding of the copyright act. In Copyright Notice: digital images, photographs and the internet ref: 1/2014, the IPO made an extremely clear statement that effectively debunks claims to old UK public domain works on websites like Canmore's:

“Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
... according to the Court of Justice of the European Union which has effect in UK law, copyright can only subsist in subject matter that is original in the sense that it is the author’s own ‘intellectual creation’. Given this criteria, it seems unlikely that what is merely a retouched, digitised image of an older work can be considered as ‘original’. This is because there will generally be minimal scope for a creator to exercise free and creative choices if their aim is simply to make a faithful reproduction of an existing work.”

I think it's worth keeping this IPO notice handy for future questions like this, and to help GLAMs understand UK IP law a little more accurately. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems that IPO comment referred to the context of how the European Union affected the UK situation. That may not be the case anymore. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the UK has not left Europe, and will not until after 2018. At this time nobody is lobbying UK government to do anything other than comply with European copyright standard practices, I think it would be bizarre if the government started to drift away on a legal tangent due to the complexity and (financial) risks associated with corporations not believing that the UK was compliant with European intellectual property rights.

Anyway, Commons volunteers that make reasonable effort to understand and comply with current UK/European legislation now, are at no risk of later prosecution or civil claims after 2018 as that's an acceptable legal defence, and the law would not be retrospective if changed in bizarre ways. --Fæ (talk) 12:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The New York Times archive has their pre 1923 articles stamped with a new copyright notice, I think it is just routine to all items they add to their archive and I do not think they are trying to reset the copyright clock. Whatever program they are using just stamps every item in the archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 19

NARA terminology

• At File:Theodore Roosevelt - NARA - 559330.jpg what does the field "Record creator" mean? the notes say "Creator's name". The Author field says unknown. Can someone help me with the terminology. Is creator meant for physical works and author for written works? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), author is the original photographer and Record Creator may mean compiler or collector. Wikicology (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I think I am correct. Wikisource uses "Author:Charles Dickens" and at Commons we use "Creator:Ansel Adams" to designate the person who authored the text or created the photograph. If the item is part of a collection, that should be a category.

But your question was about the terminology of the NARA and of the special template for NARA. To that question Wikicology gave the correct answer. You can see also the documentation of the NARA template. The record creator means the collector or the organization who created the record, who provided the objects to the archive. It must not be confused with the creator of the work (author), which is what Commons means by "creator" in the creator templates such as "Creator:Charles Dickens". The creator of the record is noted by the archivists when they acquire the objects. Commons is more interested in the identity of the creator of the work. For example, for the portrait of T. Roosevelt linked in your question, B.C. Reece happened to collect a copy of the portrait from somewhere and one day his copy was transferred to the National Archives. For Commons, this is only anecdotical. It was copied along with the rest of the description from NARA. What is more interesting for Commons is the creator of the portrait. This information is not written in the NARA description. However, we can find quite easily from other sources that this photograph is from the Pach Brothers studio. Compare with this file from the Library of Congress. It's not the exact same photograph, but it's obviously from the same photographic session. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a way to search for files available under a certain license in a category tree?

Hi all

I want to prepare some social media messaging for Wiki Loves Monuments however sharing images on Facebook requires a CC0 license, is there any way to search for only CC0 license images in the category tree for Wiki Loves Monuments? It would be really help if I could also do this search within the winners of each national competition to make sure the images are high quality.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• If a usable flat category exists for what you are looking for, for example Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2015, then you can simply use the usual search box directly on Commons. Example of search terms: incategory:"Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2015" incategory:"CC-Zero"
• If you really need to search trees of categories, then you can use the tool PetScan at wmflabs. Use CC-Zero as one of the terms and the name of the main category you want to search as the other term. Don't forget to set the page properties to "file".
• Not many files of Wiki Loves Monuments use CC-0. I guess that may be because new participants are prompted to use CC-by-sa or some other license. If you search a very specific category, you may get 0 results.
• Sharing images on Facebook does not require a CC-0 license. IMHO, that's an exaggerated interpretation by some users. If the image has a free license and in your post you clearly identify that license and the other mentions required by that license, you're not claiming to be giving Facebook more rights than you have.

-- Asclepias (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Asclepias, this incredibly helpful, thanks again. --John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to embed an audio or video clip from Commons that would only play a section of the file?

Hi all

I'm working on importing a few 1000 audio files into Wikimedia Commons, however they are all quite long (between 5 - 60 minutes) and whilst small sections of the files would be very useful for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects it would not make sense to add the whole file to e.g a Wikipedia article. Currently the only process I am aware of to offer an shorter section of a file on Wikimedia Commons is to create a new file which is an excerpt, the process of doing this is quite long and I think it will discourage people from reusing the files:

1. Download the audio file from Commmons
2. Download software to crop it that works on your computer
3. Learn how to use the software
4. Crop the audio
5. Save in a format that Commons will accept and that won't lose audio quality from the original
6. Reupload to Commons, linking correctly to the original file and categorising correctly.

Is there any way to embed an audio or video clip from Commons onto another Wikimedia project that would only play a section of the file? I'm thinking about something similar to the cropping function on Template:Annotated images where you could specify which part of the file was played when the user clicked the play button?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You can set the start/end using this type of syntax: [[File:Accordion chords-01.ogg|300px|start=6|end=10]]
Starts at 6 seconds and ends playback at 10 seconds Offnfopt^(talk) 15:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Amazing Offnfopt, thanks so much, are there any written instructions any where for this? --John Cummings (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The features are provided by the TimedMediaHandler Extension so you can find the information there. Offnfopt^(talk) 23:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mini biographies

Category:Henry Justin Allen some categories have a few line mini biography, some do not. Which is proper? I find it helpful when the category gets disconnected from Wikipedia. Otherwise they are just photos of John Smith, they may not have the same name at Wikipedia and may be difficult to connect again. We had two problems last month because there were several people with the same name born close together, and the wrong photos were linked to the Wikipedia biography. They may not even have a Wikipedia entry. For people with no Wikipedia entry is ok to add a full paragraph mini biography to give the image context? After all, if we upload an image of a public domain book page, we add the full page of text. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Categories can be used to give information of the type in your example. Any text should be kept to a minimum, because this is a file repository, not an encyclopedia. If there is not a Wikipedia article, maybe one can be written. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You are the one that either deleted outright, or nominated for deletion, my last 5 entries at Simple English Wikipedia here despite their having extensive obituaries in the New York Times. Your behavior stopped me from contributing there. I do not put a lot of faith in your opinions based on that. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I would also say mini biographies are the way to go. A Commons user should see what person a category is about without having to click category or wp links. Categories are not guaranteed to give any clear picture about which namesake (or similarly named person) the category is about. Also, there are many persons who are in scope on Commons but do not have, and in some cases should not have, biographies at Wikipedia. The mini biography I'd write for Commons would hardly survive on en-wp, and if I am writing a proper biography I am not likely to write it in English.

The same with other categories. A description of a few sentences is important especially when the name itself is not clear enough. Often the name is an English word that I do not understand, at least not fully. Sometimes the words used to name separate categories have overlapping meaning. What images should go in the Sleighs category and what images to the Sleds‎ category? Is the structure a hut, shelter or cottage? Do log homes include homes the logs of which are covered with planks?

Even when the category is not ambiguous, an explanation is very valuable. E.g. national parks have names that say little to people not knowing the region, The description may give a hint about whether the feature I am looking for is likely to be found in the category. I might be creating a category about the feature, or the feature may be one often not used in categorization.

--LPfi (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Gamma problem

I just reinstalled GIMP so that must be the problem. Look at the full photo and the thumbnail. See how washed out the thumbnail is? Is this the GAMMA problem? It use to cause the full image to look washed out if I did not check the "save GAMMA" box. Is it worth re-saving the image with GIMP and check off the "save GAMMA" box and re-upload it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do suspect that gamma settings are the problem. The uploaded image has a colortype "grayscale with alpha" but the thumbnail is just plain grayscale. Imagemagick does not seem to be able to handle this correctly. MKFI (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

August 20