Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:PUMP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction		Help deskVillage pump
copyright • proposals		Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
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

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives

 

Start a new discussion


Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

August 24[edit]

Please help to remove profile pics from tweets[edit]

User:BevinKacon is doling out (speedy) deletion tags for PD-text tweets faster than I can fix them. I would consider these profile pics to be DM anyway (nobody cares about them), but BK keeps trying to get them deleted.

Please help to blur/crop them. I have done many but just can't keep up like this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: Photos and other images can be easily blurred, but isn’t the text copyrighted, too? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    Yes. Seeing as you wouldn't be able to put one of those tweets on a t-shirt and sell it without compensating the author I don't see how blurring the photos is really going to do anything. --Majora (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    Interesting read: Brock Shinen: Twitterlogical: The Misunderstandings of Ownership, including these lines: "The question is not: Are Tweets Copyrightable. The question is: Is This Tweet Copyrightable. The copyrightability of Tweets is not dependent on the fact that they are Tweets. Rather, it’s dependent on the analysis of the Tweet in question. The all-encompassing response that all Tweets are either protected or not protected is misguided. The real response is that it depends. However, when you analyze most Tweets, they would never individually pass copyright muster." Vysotsky (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    I fully understand that. My mistake for using a black-and-white statement like that. Such things are rarely so clean cut. It would certainly depend on the ability to type something that would meet the threshold of originality in some way. Is that possible in 280 characters? Of course it is. But as there are no court cases that I know of that have dealt with this there actually isn't a clear answer (one lawyer's opinion notwithstanding). Without a clear answer we can only make analogies. For example, taking a screenshot of a tweet and taking a photograph of a few lines of a book are the same idea in my mind. The latter is clearly protected and can't be hosted here, without the underlying work being under a free license. Logically the former should follow the same ideas provided it is unique enough to merit TOO. Even {{PD-text}} has a disclaimer in small text at the bottom regarding this ambiguity. --Majora (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
    Well, two lawyers. Well, three. Vysotsky (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    Most experts agree the response should not be an all-or-nothing answer, but rather "it depends.". Directly from one of your sources. Like I said, my original black-and-white answer shouldn't have been said. My mistake. Nor should it be black-and-white the other way. --Majora (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Tuvalkin: thanks! @Majora: quite some tweets that get uploaded here come from US federal government employees and are work related. The list above happens not to have many of those (except the DR) because I had already blurred/cropped those myself. Besides that, most tweets are not eligible for copyright protection. If a notable person tweets "I'm sorry for your loss @username" that may be relevant and within our scope (depending on who said it to who), but it can never be copyrightable. Jokes also can't be copyrighted. If I say "SILENCE! I KILL YOU!" you probably know what I'm referring to. Alas, Dunham can't sue me (and win..) if I put those four words on a t-shirt. The wording chosen for a joke can be eligible, but in that case the joke must be original (many are recycled) and the wording sufficiently original to be eligible. In 280 characters, this won't be too common. For old tweets with 140 characters, it's nearly impossible. The difference between books and tweets is that a photo of a few lines from a book would be a part of a larger work. In the case of tweets, the tweet usually is the work. Also, if I take a photo of the page of a book and the only readable text is "I'm sorry for your loss", I don't think the author will be able to come after me. I agree it is complicated, but in the end I agree with "However, when you analyze most Tweets, they would never individually pass copyright muster". I suppose the follow-up question might be "so I can import all the tweets some person has ever written and it's all PD? I don't know, it depends on the case, but that's very hypothetical. If any user actually attempted such a thing I would generally discourage it. If the tweets can be combined to become bigger than the sum of their parts, copyright may be possible. But we won't delete any photo that shows a single word from a book either. Unless someone uploads photos of every single word in a book. But that doesn't mean the author can copyright individual words. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with all that, but most tweets are out of scope. They are not educational in themselves, and not needed to illustrate anything. So the question is moot at best. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also note this category: Category:Soroush messenger comments on Google play. Some files have been used in a FAWP article just to "discredit" the messenger by user comments: سروش (پیام‌رسان). I think they are out of scope. What do you think? 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I note that the list includes some examples of fraudulent claims of "own work" and false claims of copyright ownership. (One does not become the copyright owner of what someone else wrote by taking a screenshot of it!) Any tweet images uploaded by anyone other than the original twitter author would need to have an explanation for why it is permissible to upload as free licensed - for example if it is the work of a US Federal Gov't employee written as part of their Gov't job, or the text is public domain for one reason or another, etc. Any screenshots of tweets taken by someone other than the author without explanation for why the original tweet is free licensed or PD should be deleted just like any other derivative work copyright violation inappropriately uploaded to Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Cat-a-Lot performance degraded[edit]

Cat-a-Lot performance degraded - hung at 42.png

Since when did Cat-a-Lot start asking for edit summaries? I've just given up on a batch of work, because the pop-up dialogue was slowing me down so much. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen that specific problem, but a day or two ago I was trying to move 200-300 files, and it kept hanging after 50 or so. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I have seen the long pause after file 43, but the tool resumed after a while. --Jarekt (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I have not seen this problem either. Please take screenshots, it may be worth raising a Phab ticket to capture the bug. --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

: I've had Cat-a-Lot ask me for edit summary. I'm not sure, but I think it happened for me when the pages weren't fully loaded. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC) My bad, I confused HotCat and Cat-a-Lot. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this problem too: if you do more than 100. It keeps hanging around 46. If you do around 60 it also stops a moment at 46 but proceeds after a while. a Rudolphous (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I have had exactly this problem as well. Smaller sets seem to work through okay, but larger groups (select all routinely means ~200 selected items) hang at ~40 to 52 (screen shot added to discussion). Josh (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Created on date at Special:ListUsers[edit]

Hi all. What does the "Created On" date refer to on this page: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop? Is that the date that someone became an admin, or when they created their account? And, what does it mean if that data is absent for someone? Thanks! Glammmur (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The "Created on" at Special:ListUsers is the date the account was created. Accounts created before 22 December 2005 don't show a date. See Commons:List of administrators by date if you want a list of administrators in order of date they were appointed. —RP88 (talk) 10:18, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, RP88. Is there anywhere that shows how the actual date they were appointed? Glammmur (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Glammmur, you can see a list broken down by year at Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful requests for adminship (although this list includes former admins). Visiting the specific page in the archive for an admin will show the date that admin requested the administrator right. If you want to instead determine the actual date of appointment for administrators you can examine the user rights log at Special:Log/rights. For example the changes to my user rights are shown at [1]. You can also use Special:UserRights to examine a user's current rights and see an excerpt of the user rights log. For example, see Special:UserRights/RP88 for my current user rights as well as log of the changes made to my user rights. —RP88 (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Glammmur: In some cases, for users promoted before 10:20, 13 December 2004 (UTC), the user rights log doesn't go back far enough. For instance, this log doesn't show when Yann, our longest-serving Administrator, was promoted, so you have to look at Commons:Requests and votes/Yann, which seems to indicate Yann was promoted shortly after 20:00, 17 September 2004 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
This is so interesting! I'm trying to figure out how many admins there are, and how long they've "survived", and how often new ones are appointed (as you may have guessed!). If I add up the people listed at Special:ListUsers, there are 225... if I add up the people listed at Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful requests for adminship and remove those noted as status removed/resigned etc, there are about 472 (from a total of 596 ever appointed). This opens the question about what Admin means... Is there a list somewhere that shows all possible user rights, like autopatroller or file mover? Is anyone with any of those rights considered an admin of some sort? Thanks again! Glammmur (talk) 10:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Glammmur: Successful requests for de-adminship here are categorized here in Category:Successful requests for de-adminship. Actual de-adminship here is reflected in the rights log on Meta (and from 10 December 2004 or earlier m:Meta:Bureaucrat log; search both for "@commonswiki" without quotes). COM:A details what Admin means here. Commons:User access levels details user rights / access levels here, some of which were unbundled from adminship.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G. ツ. I'm afraid you lost me there. I can't figure out how to operate the pages you directed me to, sadly. I don't expect you to - rather, I'll proceed with these two different snapshots of current admins: the one that's listed on Special:ListUsers (225), and the one I've generated rather manually, using Commons:Administrators/Archive/Successful requests for adminship and removing those noted as decommissioned there (472 active, 124 decommissioned, total 596), unless someone can easily suggest why those two admin counts are that different. Thank you, though! Glammmur (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Glammmur: I think many of the de-adminships were voluntarily initiated at Meta, with no corresponding decommissioning notes filed here. You are welcome to file such notes as you trawl through the logs on Meta, or file {{Editprotected}} requests if the pages are protected.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:53, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata does not allow "-" character in pictures[edit]

Or at least this is what it says when you try to add a picture that has one in the name.

So for every new person that adds a picture on Commons without knowing this you get a "renaming request", that consists in a direct request to file movers or a discussion in the Bar. Have I got it? I don't like at all this whole procedure; on the contrary it seems to me that giving file "owner" rights to rename its file would be way more practical. Has anyone already proposed this?

Anyway, can someone remove the "-" from my uploads?

Ogoorcs (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to work just fine for me. I'm not sure what the issue is. WD supports a pretty wide range of characters, including non-Latin characters and even emojis. GMGtalk 19:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: Were you using Upload Wizard or some other upload tool? (If some other upload tool, what tool?) Is it possible that something else was actually wrong with the filename (e.g. two consecutive spaces, which isn't allowed)? - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I used Firefox for android at first and Chromium for linux later. A popup reporting that files containing ":", "-" and other special characters could not be added appeared. Now it works. This is strange. Sorry for being a silly. Ogoorcs (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you just left the "File:" prefix at the start of the name. That always gives an error: File names are not allowed to contain characters like colons or slashes. Only paste the file name after "File:", please. I'm not sure why the Wikidata interface doesn't just discard the prefix. --ghouston (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, wikidata can be a little wikicode-ish. but they are very friendly at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

September 01[edit]

Is this a free license?[edit]

Just curious what other people think about these photos uploaded by User:Tyw7, for example this one and others in their Gallery. It doesn't strike me as a free license. Sionk (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems OK to me except for this part: "If you are a (commercial) publisher and want to relicense my pictures please email me first". There should be no other conditions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Well the license tag was run pass a few admins first at the time of creation. They said it's OK since that line meant that if they are relicensing ie wanting the picture under a different license, they should contact me first. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) How's the rewrite? PS if you do reply to me, please ping me as I'm not actively on this Wiki. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 12:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with stating if a commercial publisher wants to relicense to email the photographer/user, since a commercial publisher may want to use a photograph in such away it would in fact be in violation of the license. Bidgee (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@Tyw7: I think the new wording [2] is more clear. The word "relicense" was somewhat vague in my opinion, at least to my non-native understanding. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
vastly free-er than User:Fir0002/credits. if you want to change consensus about custom user license reuse messages, go for it. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Commons:Image sets[edit]

Transparent clock (1 min interval set) is an example of an image set. There should be wide consensus that its images should not simply be moved to a parent category, where they would be mixed with those in similar image sets.

After moving many image sets from broad subject categories to categories of their own, I have created this page about the topic. Currently it is an essay, but I think some of it is common sense and should become a guideline. Feel free to leave your thoughts on the discussion page.
TL;DR: Scroll to the examples on the bottom of the page, and ask yourself if the images in these sets should be mixed with other images in a parent category. (Example: The images in this and this set have originally all been directly in Star polygons.) Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 12:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  • (You need to read about the difference between categories and galleries.) Multiple categories can be created to account for all aspects of each media file. F.i., there could/should be a separate category for only and all of those clockfaces, regardless of other categorization, such as categorization by time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
(Galleries have nothing to do with this. This is about categorisation and nothing else.)
My point is that multiple categories should be created to account for all relevant aspects of each file, and that being part of the same image set is one of these aspects.
I am suggesting that bundling image sets in dedicated categories should become a guideline, because throwing all such images directly in broad categories creates chaos and destroys information. Watchduck (quack) 14:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (Fair enough. I would gladly get rid of the gallery namepace altogether, once the very few and far in between useful content is moved to the relevant category.) Okay, understood. But this is what’s already in COM:CAT — if not expressed at least implied. Then again many of us, including some admins, do have weird ideas about categorization, and often the kind of destructive dissimination or even uncategorization you mention does occur — and in that case, go ahead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would just like to make it explicit. (More importantly I would like to make bundling the default for mass uploads.) Is there an official way to propose a guideline? (PS: Your indentation is weird and unsemantic.) Watchduck (quack) 11:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • (No, your indentation is weird and unsemantic.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
(Good to have something to disagree about. Feel free to bring it up on the Commons:Talk page guidelines talk page.)
Here and here (cat for discussion) and originally here (user talk) is a real life example of why I would like explicit guidelines on image sets. For some reason Arthur Baelde is convinced that his images should be directly in subject categories. (He does not tell me if he wants to empty the other sets as well.) Watchduck (quack) 12:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please rename[edit]

Please rename this File:भामहालङ्कारः.pdf. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: ✓ Done but there’s no need to post here after tagging a file for renaming; I don’t think we have a shortage of file movers. And please provide whatever information you have about the source, even if incomplete: anything at all would be better than “unknown”.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

September 02[edit]

No source/no permission templates[edit]

I see the templates {{No source since}}, {{No permission since}}, and {{No license since}} often added to files that clearly have this information, but where the person including the template does not seem to believe this claim. I always was under the impression that the templates in question were for cases where the information is missing completely, and for other cases {{speedy}}, {{copyvio}}, or regular DRs are appropriate.

I don't like this practice and have started to convert such requests to regular DRs. As an admin I often have to divine why the tagger thinks a file does not have the appropriate information, especially since the former templates do not allow to include additional comments. This also has the unfortunate effect that often files that should have a proper DR get automatically deleted after a week without much scrutiny by the community. On the other hand it increases workload and time-to-delete when those files get converted to a regular DR after a week.

What's the current consensus on that? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Srittau: The templates you mentioned represent should represent a 100% lack of a particular Information field. What if we had {{No confidence since}} and {{Ncd}} templates to express a lack of confidence in textual format, with a 2 week timeline? Would that work for you?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think the existing templates are sufficient, but should be applied correctly. In case of non-confidence, I'd prefer a speedy deletion request (in obvious cases, like googled images) or a regular DR (in other cases), since the latter are much better suited for community discussion than files that simmer in another maintenance category until they pop up in the admin backlog. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 12:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: Okay, I promise to apply them correctly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
sorry, what is the standard of practice for proper use? what is the warning if improperly used? where is the discussion board? where is the "license disputed" maintenance category, and workflow. without these changed processes, the "no source" tags will remain discredited from widespread misuse. it is used as a prod delete with a sword of Damocles, not much collaboration there. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The main disadvantage of {{No source since}} and {{No permission since}} is that these tags somehow move away the responsibility to explain what's wrong from nominator to processing admin. I think if we would get rid of these two tags completely and demand a regular DR for such cases, we would have a lower workload for the admins and a higher quality of their decisions. The {{No license since}} works fine IMHO, I hardly see files with a license template having this tag. Jcb (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Jcb: I think removing those tags would be premature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:20, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course some steps are needed between one user voicing an opinion on these two tags and the actual deletion of these tags. Only if a discussion would lead to a community consensus that these two processes are obsolete, we can move forward to dismantle them. Jcb (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Some ideas, mostly brainstorming:
  • Allow {{No source since}} and {{No permission since}} only for autopatrolled users (or possibly some form of Extended confirmed, but Commons afaik doesn't have that group currently)
  • The same for {{Copyvio}} when the file is not claimed as "own work".
  • Copyvio must include a good rationale (like "see watermark" in some obvious cases, "Disney characters" or "movie screenshot", what is a good rationale varies) or a valid link. A Google image search link does not qualify, the link has to show a higher quality version (beware of upscales) or prove the image was online before it was on Commons. Maybe the gadget could be made into some sort of multiple choice thing.
  • Make some users completely immune to speedy deletions (including no source/permission/license). This would primarily include users who are known to create their own work and understand copyright as well as deceased Wikimedians who can't possibly defend their files.
  • Quite a while ago I saw a photographer start a DR as an IP-user. The report was hazy, didn't include the name of the photographer and without intervention may not have resulted in deletion. We may consider a guided form so copyright holders, even without an account, can create sufficiently informative DRs.
Some of these may be possible with an abuse filter, others would require some more substantial changes. These are just ideas, comments are welcome. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I share the concerns from Srittau by the way. If some clown tags one of my original photos with "no permission" or "no source" while I'm on vacation, wikibreak or retired I wouldn't be surprised if they end up in the bin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the status quo works, but we need to add some documentation to {{npd}}, {{nsd}} and {{nld}} templates and explain when to use each tag. Here are my suggetions:

  • {{npd}} can be used when the file needs to go through OTRS including 1) the uploader has not claimed own-work and their username differs from the name given in the author field; 2) the uploader has claimed own-work, but metadata suggests otherwise; 3) the uploader has claimed own-work, but the work has been published before somewhere else (whether obviously implied or explicitly expressed in the description itself). If there are other things to consider (such as size, resolution, username, etc) a normal DR should be instigated instead.
  • {{nsd}} can be used when 1) no source is given at all; 2) the given source is utterly vague such as "Google"; 3) the image cannot be found in the given URL.
  • {{nld}} can be used when 1) the uploader has claimed own-work but has not indicated a license at all; 2) the uploader has not claimed own-work and has not chosen a suitable copyright tag and it is not obvious which tag should be used to fix it yourself.

4nn1l2 (talk) 14:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I also think {{npd}} should not be used when there is no realistic chance we will get OTRS permission for the file.
As for previously published "explicitly expressed in the description itself", https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js ("This is a free work.", "This file is entirely my own work.") is not smart:
“Publication: (text field) Please indicate here if you have previously published this item elsewhere, e.g. on your own website, your Flickr or Facebook account, etc., providing a link.”
It might as well read "if you want your file to be deleted, enter something in this field". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I don't understand the enwiki link (I hardly edit there). File:Erythrina Mulungu.jpg is an example of the situation where the uploader themself has expressed that the file has been previously published elsewhere. I think adding another field to ask the uploader about the status of previous publication is a good idea. I have seen many users who have provided this information themselves manually in the description field.
I think if the evidence of permission cannot be provided even using OTRS system, then the file should not have been uploaded in the first place. However, I agree that {{npd}} should not be misused to get rid of unwanted/problematic images. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: I disagree with many of your examples. This is exactly the admin guessing game I was alluding to. {{npd}} is completely insufficient when the file needs to go through OTRS. How will the uploader know about this option? How will the admin know the user has been informed? How will the admin know that this is what the tagger meant? Same with all the other examples. If the metadata does not match the author, say so in a DR to give the uploader a chance to explain themselves and to keep the admin from guessing. If the file has been previously published, either do the same or tag as copyvio, if it is obvious the file was taken from the web. When a source like "google" is given, tag the file as a copyvio, don't let it simmer for 7 days in a maintenance category nobody looks at. If the image can't be found, file a DR, since this is not an obvious copyvio and how should the admin know that this is what you mean by tagging it with {{nsd}}? Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Srittau: I don't disagree with your proposal, but I think that extra DRs will decrease the overall speed of maintenance and will create heavier backlogs as few users monitor new uploads and fewer admins close DRs. Writing per se is demanding especially for non-native speakers of English. We need to reach a proper balance between speed and diligence. However, I agree that one should always festina lente. So, again, I don't disagree with your proposal, but I'm inclined to suggest whatever decision is made, it should be clearly reflected and explained in the documentation pages of the respective templates. I was hungry for such information when I started tagging activity on Commons, and I know I am not the only one. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I was under the impression the templates {{No source since}}, {{No permission since}}, and {{No license since}} were for cases where the information is partially or completely lacking leading to the files ability to be hosted on commons to be called into question. Not necessarily entirely missing. As was said, {{speedy}}, {{copyvio}}, or regular DR as appropriate any other files in question.
A user has to enable Quick Delete under gadgets to use the three previous templates in question so unless misuse by new uses is readily documented, in which case by all means, I don’t feel restrictions are necessary. Though little harm would result from having them in place.
I see Jcb’s point. When a user tags a file with {{No source since}} or {{No permission since}} I think in many cases it’s simply a file the tagging user feels isn’t allowed to be hosted on commons and rarely on files that I come across does the issue look like a source or permission issue. There is a shift of responsibility being moved to the closing admin in that case. It directly related to how this conversation began and tagged files being converted to proper DR’s.
If more files tagged were nominated with proper {{speedy}} or DR’s with legitimate stated reasons by the nominating user I would imagine we would higher quality of decisions on the files and it would be easier for the closing admin. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
exactly, "no source" is used to bypass DR to get a speedy after 7 days. cannot rely on a consensus process to delete files, which is the point of the exercise. why don't we test the thesis, by having a "no license" holiday, and requiring a DR or speedy from the edtors. it would require more collaboration, (such as it is). would the world come to an end? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: At least en:WP:PROD has a freeform text reason.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, good point, you do have to guess what the dispute is, since there is no requirement nor inclination to say just what you want the uploader to do. it is the limbo method of quality improvement. just keep iterating until the deletionist is satisfied. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I sometimes use {{npd}} as it is much faster than speedy deletion (one click only). I usually use it when the work is obviously not own work, but there is a remote chance to be fixed. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
@Yann: I have multiple two-click speedies among the AjaxDeleteExtraButtons in User:Jeff G./common.js.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Interesting. At least the COM:NETCOPYRIGHT option should be included in the gadget. Regards, Yann (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I find 'no source' sometimes problematic. In the clarification text 'postcards' should be added as a posibility. As much detail should then be included. (wich editor etc) 'personal collection' should never used as source. Sometimes among the old postcards I find lose pictures with no clue as to the origin. This could taken removed from an old family album or cut out of some periodical. I see no reason that this 'anonymous' should be treated differently as old postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

September 03[edit]

Tech News: 2018-36[edit]

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

Recent changes

  • There is a new user right for users who can edit CSS and JavaScript for the entire wiki. Before this all admins could edit CSS and JavaScript. This was a security risk. This group is called interface administrators. Administrators can delete user CSS and JavaScript pages. [3][4]
  • There will be an A/B test on the Wikipedia mobile website. It starts this week. It tests how we show templates that show information about an article. The test will last two weeks. [5][6]
  • You can now use different CSS rules for different skins when you edit templates. This is because of TemplateStyles. [7]
  • wp10 in ORES is now called articlequality. [8]
  • When you get a new message on your talk page you get a yellow message in the toolbar. The preference to show or not show this has been removed. [9]

Problems

  • UploadWizard had problems with campaigns. Users could not upload files. This has now been fixed. [10]
  • You can get a notification when a link is made to a page you created. This has not worked since June. It was fixed last week. [11]

Changes later this week

  • Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 September. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 September. It will be on all wikis from 6 September (calendar).

Meetings

Future changes

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

16:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

September 04[edit]

Photo challenge July Results[edit]

Concert photography: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Singer - Tambours du Bronx.jpg Zapato 3 merida 2012.jpg The Rolling Stones.jpg
Title Singer - Tambours du Bronx.jpg Zapato 3 - La Ultima Cruzada Tour 2012. Merida, Venezuela. The Rolling Stones
Author Roumpf Davevzla Les Zg
Score 24 12 11
Telephones: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Phone of George Clemenceau during World War I.jpg Telephone booth in the land.jpg Alarm phone on the platform of a suburban train station (2).jpg
Title Phone of George Clemenceau during World War I Telephone booth in the land. Alarm phone on the_platform of_a
suburban train station, France
Author Ibex73 Roumpf Ibex73
Score 19 18 15

Congratulations to Roumpf, Ibex73, Davevzla and Les Zg. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:HA Neuhaus Mappe1 Militaria Kays Königl Generalitäts... 1817.jpg[edit]

Could someone help me to describe this picture and help me to put it into the correct Categories? I do not really know what that is exactly named nor what this is. But I am very sure, that some people will see it. I am sorry, normally I speak german, my English is not very well. Kann jemand mir helfen, dieses Bild korrekt zu beschreiben und den korrekten Kategorien zuzuordnen? Ich kenn mich mit Militaria nicht aus. Jedenfalls erscheint es mir interessant für viele Menschen. Zabia (talk) 04:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done I have added a description in German and English. De728631 (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplicate categories[edit]

Hi, Here are duplicate categories:

What's the proper name? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Assuming the intent is to include things that are along the lines of museum wall texts, I'd lean toward Category:Signs at Agra Fort, since we don't use the term "wall texts". Also:
  • some of the images categorized here probably don't belong in these categories, e.g. File:Agra fort- Diwan i aam.jpg.
  • Why are these wall texts OK in copyright terms?
- Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • These "wall texts" are certainly not ok in terms of copyright since FoP in India is only valid for 3-dimensional artwork like architecture and sculptures. De728631 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The Agra Fort is managed by the Archaeological Survey of India, so the texts are under {{GODL-India}}. Thanks for the answers. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
This is good news then. Thank you, Yann, for clarifying this. As to the categories, I would also tend to "Signs at Agra Fort" with a redirect from "Agra Fort description". De728631 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done Yann (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Dating London postcard[edit]

Thames Embankment postcard.jpg
I suspect this could even be before World War I.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
According to Alamy, this shot was taken in 1910, so it seems you're right. De728631 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Index categories[edit]

There appear to be a couple of different approaches to index categories (Topic by Sort criteria) used on Commons and I cannot find any consensus on which is the right way to go forward. One is rather strictly just to include categories which intersect the Topic with a named Criteria that is then sorted and grouped by said Criteria. The other is to add on top of this an entire lattice-work of sub-indices representing sub-categories of the Topic. These two seem to exemplify the different approaches:

  1. Category:Products by manufacturer - very limited, contains:
    1. Categories which combine the topic of "products" with a named "manufacturer" (e.g. Category:Kodak products or Category:Products of Bayer), sorted by "manufacturer" name ("Kodak" or "Bayer") and hence grouped by first letter of the manufacturer name ("K" or "B")
  2. Category:Objects by color - has a three different types of categories listed:
    1. Categories which combine the topic of "objects" with a named "color" (e.g. Category:Blue objects), sorted by "color" name ("Blue") and hence grouped by first letter of the color name ("B")
    2. Index categories for sub-categories of the topic "objects" in the format "Type of object by Color" (e.g. Category:Carpets by color), sorted with a space key + topic so they appear as an un-grouped list ahead of the "Color objects" categories, in order of topic.
    3. Double-intersection index categories (e.g. Category:Objects by color by location), sorted with a space key so they appear in the un-grouped list at the very top of the page.

It seems rather natural to sort something like Category:Balloons by color under Category:Objects by color, but looking at the result which is sort of a double list, especially one that obscures the primary items of the list (the "Color objects" categories), it maybe is not the greatest idea. Also, while it seems natural to sort it that way, it is not a use case that makes sense. If I am looking at Category:Fire hydrants and want to browse them by color, Category:Fire hydrants by color is listed there, so I do not need it listed in Category:Objects by color to find it. However, if I was for some reason to look for them in Category:Objects by color, I still would not find them because I would look under "F" for "Fire hydrants" and would come up empty. Either way, it seems that having this be done hap-hazard category to category is definitely not optimal, so I am looking for any discussion, guidelines, or consensus that can be looked to for help, or if anyone has any input on which method is the better way to do these types of categories. Thanks! Josh (talk) 11:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

After twelve years of editing and uploading here, I've never seen any guidelines on this subject, so I doubt you'll find any. As you note, when such a category has different classes of subcategories, it's normal to sort them separately (so you don't have "Red objects" sitting between "Rats by color" and "Roses by color"), but that's the only common practice that I've seen. Seeing that this isn't a problem unless multiple classes of subcategories exist, I don't think we ought to introduce any guidelines, but we'd do well to create more meta-subcategories, e.g. the "Category:Objects by color by location" that you note. We could have "Objects by color by type" and "Colored objects by color", for example. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Thanks for the input. I share your experience as far as seeing them gathered like that when you have both types of sub-cats...I certainly wouldn't want to see Red objects in between Rats by color and Roses by color, that would seem silly. I guess meta-metas might be the way to go if there gets to be too much clutter? I'm certainly not looking to get into a policy-setting effort, but I've seen both methods made out to be the one and only right way to do it, but I guess that is just some folks opinions. I wanted to make sure I'm not missing some neon direction sign somewhere. Thanks! Josh (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

500px geocoords[edit]

So far, every single set of geocoords from 500px that I've checked (over a dozen so far) have been incorrect, typically by at least 500 metres, often more, in one case by half a continent. When I can work out the correct geocoords, I'm replacing them, but when (for example) a closeup of a flower has geocoords in the middle of a large body of water, it's helpless, and I'm just deleting that location info. Are others having a similar experience, or have I just hit a particularly bad bunch? (I've been dealing with the ones that were placed in Category:Seattle). - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I’ve had experienced similarly, yes. Cannot say they are all wrong, but many are. I’ve been able to correct most; I delete the ones I’m sure they are wrong. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:42, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Is there something we can do to tag images that got geocoords from 500px with a category indicating that those coords should be checked? - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve only seen a few, but they do often seem suspect. Offhand I’ve noticed:
– (approximate) city centre for an image from somewhere else in or around the city,
– (approximate) object location instead of camera location for a distant landscape, and
– location of a building (that might be the photographer‘s home or office) for an image evidently taken in a park elsewhere in the city.
I left them alone at the time, but if it’s agreed that geodata from this site tend to be unreliable, I’ll be more proactive in correcting (if possible) or removing them. BTW I’ve also seen quite a lot of Unsplash coördinates of the first kind: precise city-centre locations for subjects from anywhere around the city.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Build a MAMCS bot?[edit]

Hello there. The artist Alfred Jungbluth is in the public domain (he died in 1914) and the Strasbourg Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art (MAMCS) holds 665 works by them, which are stored in that illustrated database: [13]. Nobody, including me, would want to transfer all these files manually, but if somebody could build a bot to do it, that would be very useful! The work of that MAMCS-bot could then be extended to the works of Gustave Doré ([14]), and of Lothar von Seebach ([15]). And that could only be the beginning, since the database of the MAMCS is just one among the many of the Videomuseum network, which also comprises museums from Grenoble, Lyon, Nantes, Nice, Paris (of course), Toulouse etc. In fact, there is a treasure trove of well over 5,000 works by artists in the public domain to be explored there! Will somebody make a start? --Edelseider (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro[edit]

The Portuguese Wikipedia has placed a sitenotice advertising pt:Wikipédia:Comunicado Museu Nacional, which is basically a plea for anyone and everyone with pre-fire images of the museum's collections to upload those to Commons as a small-scale method of preservation. We're an international project. What if we did the same thing? I'm imagining a bilingual banner (Portuguese and Special:Mylanguage, if possible) reading something like "Upload your images of artifacts from the Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, and preserve them for the world". Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I've placed a note in Spanish Café (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9/Archivo/Ayuda/Actual#Museo_Nacional,_R%C3%ADo_de_Janeiro). It cannot harm! B25es (talk) 08:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

September 05[edit]

File:Clelia Iruzun.jpg[edit]

This 2014 image was uploaded by a reviewer but the permission link appears to be non-functional. If someone can access the permission and verify the license, please feel free to review this image...or tag it as 'no permission'. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that it had been sitting at Wikipedia for one year before uploaded here is enough evidence to let it pass without additional review. If De728631 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: OK, I have passed the image now. Thank You De728631 . Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Identifying two sailing ships[edit]

In Aarhus there where three sailing ships. One I could identify, not the other two. One has a logo 'J/L' and the other one has no name.

the nameles one, also File:Aarhus harbour 04.jpg, File:Aarhus harbour 05.jpg, File:Aarhus harbour 06.jpg
The 'J/L' one, also File:Aarhus harbour 02.jpg

Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Can see IMO number in first image 5128417 GEORG STAGE https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:157020/mmsi:219417000/imo:5128417/vessel:GEORG_STAGE Oxyman (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
For 'J/L' ship: Could be found on the port's marine traffic page. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
"J/L" is the logo of J. Lauritzen A/S, a Danish shipping company. I would guess that it's the "Lilla Dan".[16] Lupo 14:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is Lilla Dan, compare File:Lilla Dan1.jpg. --De728631 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Danish house[edit]

What is going on?
Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the resident is an avid collector of maritime stuff. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I've found a Danish newspaper article from 2010 about it. Two years before the man in the house began collecting things to get out of a depression. The things has to be a generation old as well as good or fun. The exhibition in the garden is there to make people curious and stop up for a talk. The things are not for sale however. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Yes, there is a lot of maritime stuff, but the roof looks like it is in need of repair.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
I can't tell where the collection ends and the mural on the next building begins :) Josh (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ship in Grenaa[edit]

What kind of ship is this?
Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

This goes into Category:Jack-up crane ships. I'll create a category for the ship name though. De728631 (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Template:Category redirect ?[edit]

Why is Category:Балет -- which is a redirect to Category:Ballet -- automatically a child of Category:Ballet? This causes it to be listed as a sub-category at Category:Ballet, which seems obviously wrong. I can't think of a reason why a category redirect should be a child of whatever it redirects to, and doing so clutters the parent category with totally useless links. Is this normal behavior for Template:Category redirect? --Lambtron (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Per this discussion of the template it seems that it is intentional, but should only happen for non-empty categories. Looking at the code, it is indeed so. So the only issue is caching of the number of pages in Category:Балет. The issue will resolve itself in some time. Compare, for example Category:Professions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You can remove it by editing and saving (you don't have to make any changes) the redirected category after all files/categories/pages have been moved elsewhere. Otherwise, it will self-resolve in time, though not sure how long. Personally I don't like the extra detritus left behind so once I've moved all of the contents to their proper homes, I do the edit & save which also serves to close the loop on not having any leftover files stranded. I go back to the target category and ouala! it is clean as a whistle. Josh (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
A null edit won't work in this case, because the automatic categorization by Template:Category redirect relies on number of pages in category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well you have me puzzled. The category is empty so a null edit should cure it. It has always worked for me without issue once there were no files left. Hope it cures itself in time? Josh (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The null edit works for the case of page still appearing in the category via a plain [[Category:Name]] inclusion. Template:Category redirect does something more tricky than just include a categorization entry. It checks the number of pages still in category. This number itself is cached. And I don't think that any kind of null-edits will help with that.
Here's the current number: "0" — using code {{PAGESINCAT:Балет}} —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The category is now empty (except for the cat redirect) but for some reason it still is automatically categorized as "Non-topical/index: Non-empty category redirects". BTW, I first noticed this problem when the category was already empty, before adding the discussion template. --Lambtron (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
 Hopefully the problem will fix itself soon (since there doesn't seem to be a way to fix it manually). As an aside, it seems illogical to classify any category redirect -- empty or otherwise -- as a child of its redirect target. Instead of automatically assigning a bogus classification to the category redirect, the system should prohibit assignment of redirect categories to files/pages/categories. --Lambtron (talk) 20:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree, it seems an imperfect solution. I think the idea was to provide a convenient bridge for moving files over to the new page with the idea that the bridge would disappear once the file move was complete. I know Cat-a-lot is quicker to use when there is a category link existing there. I've moved a lot of categories and this is the first time I've not seen one heal up as soon as the files are cleared. Do you know of any more instances? Josh (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
This is the only instance I've seen. I just discovered that the problem has been fixed by another editor, who deleted and then recreated Category:Балет. --Lambtron (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks ok now. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

September 06[edit]

My common.js showing up in undesired categories[edit]

I use my User:Joshbaumgartner/common.js file to add useful snippets to my editor, but in doing so, now it shows up in undesired categories. e.g. I have a snippet that quickly adds Category:Aircraft by registration with one click. This is very useful and efficient. However, my commons.js now shows up in that category as well, which is not useful or in any way good. It is also somehow recognizing some of the templates that are in the snippets even though they are separate pieces of the code! I use the "includeonly" tag for templates to prevent this, but it does not work on the script page. Does anyone know an elegant way of keeping my script page out of this category while not reducing the utility of the snippets? Josh (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Try to add some js comments into the middle of the category names like: [[Cat//Comment//egory:Aircraft by registration]]. I hope this will disable the categorization of you JS-script. --JuTa 11:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner, JuTa: I have been having a similar problem with en:User:Jeff G./JWB-settings.js being categorized, as documented at en:User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/August#Userpage in category redirect (and before that at en:User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2018/August#categorisation of JWB-settings.js further up the page) since 13 August.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps [//<!-- -->//[Category:Aircraft by registration]//<!-- -->//] could do the job to disable the double brackets for Mediawiki. --JuTa 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
@JuTa, Jeff G.: Figured it out! Add nowiki tags to the start and end of the JS and it appears to eliminate all of the problems of unintentional template transclusion and categorization while not impeding function:
//<nowiki>
//
//...your JS here...
//
//</nowiki>
Thanks for the help and we all keep learning! Josh (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Read-only mode for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October[edit]

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will be testing its secondary data centre. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

They will switch all traffic to the secondary data center on Wednesday, 12 September 2018. On Wednesday, 10 October 2018, they will switch back to the primary data center.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop when we switch. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday, 12 September and Wednesday, 10 October. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (15:00 BST, 16:00 CEST, 10:00 EDT, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Thursday 13 September and Thursday 11 October).
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • There will be code freezes for the weeks of 10 September 2018 and 8 October 2018. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. Please share this information with your community. /User:Johan(WMF) (talk)

13:33, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons - Structured statements[edit]

Mockups of structured licensing and copyright statements on file pages are posted. These potential file page design changes are specific to Commons only, file pages on other wikis will not change. Please have a look over the examples and leave your feedback on the talk page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

September 07[edit]

How to upload a new version of the file that is larger than 100MiB?[edit]

Here's the problem, let's look at File:World Strategy Conference - 13.04.2015 Opening Ceremony (eng).ogv, currently it has borders, I would like to remove the borders and reupload that file, but I also think that we should keep the history, so "Just nominate it for deletion and then after it is deleted reupload" is not the option. I also think it will be silly to upload under the different name just because of this issue. If I try to upload new versions of files, I can get to about 20 or maybe 30 MiB until the connection times out. And even if that were not the case, there is a hard limit of 100 MiB on the basic uploader that is used to put new versions of files. This is something to do with the way server is configured. File uploader and every took I checked refuses to overwrite the file if it already exists. Am I missing something simple? Is there a checkmark somewhere saying "If you cannot find this checkmark while trying to overwrite, you are an idiot"? How would I go about doing this? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 07:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: Have you tried using Help:Chunked upload#Chunked uploads with script bigChunkedUpload?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:45, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will give it a try. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 12:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: You're welcome. Chunk size should be no more than your "about 20 ... MiB", and no more than 1% of filesize.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
It worked like a charm on a smaller, 40MiB file. I will give it a go on 100+MiB a little later. This should really be linked to from somewhere on the "upload new version" page. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 14:44, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Date at sea categories[edit]

Stena Nautica 2018 1.jpg
We have many year categories by country, region, city etc. But for pictures taken in international waters far from shore there are no such categories. In this case I could use '2018 at Kattegat' and the head category: 2018 at sea.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • You are allowed to create categories. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, it's hard to see why someone would be looking for a particular body of open water in a particular year. Presumably, it doesn't change much from year to year. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, however if the image is relevant to climate change, seasonal algae bloom variations, marine life depletion, being able to sort them out by date would be useful. --Fæ (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
"presumably" (Laconic phrase). ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 15:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
However, personally... even though I classify files uploaded by me in all available categories, I do think that it would be better to just keep top-most and then work on making category intersections an easier task. So you should have date categories, that are inside month categories, which are inside year categories; then add a category for the body of water, and for the person who was presumed not to exist (i.e. the person who need this body of water in a specific year) can just intersect year category with the body of water and look at results. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 15:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
^ +1 --El Grafo (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Most images are taken in coastal waters so the year can be attributed to a country. However I do have examples of algae blooms: File:Zeealgen in de Baltische zee 1.jpg, File:Zeealgen in de Baltische zee 2.jpg. There are also whales, dolfins and other sea 'subjects'. However 'nature' pictures on land are not often dated.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fæ: I can see getting down to century or even decade for that, and I can even see getting to [year] at sea, but by year in a particular body of water would mostly function as a way of getting relatively useless microcategories. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpg category damage[edit]

I do not wish to edit war. I have reverted removing of categories once, but can somebody else please look at this and see what is happening. It is a featured image. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 22:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted my revert for now, since at this moment it appears to be a case of poorly communicated recategorisation attempt. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 22:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Agreed on the first point. I would prefer macaque to monkey, though (maybe even change Sulawesi monkey to Celebes macaque?), and the present title should probably be kept as a redirect because of its popularity in the media (and that WMF conference).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

September 08[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=319172846"