moved to:Village pump/Copyright#Share my Content here with CC-BY-SA and on Youtube with standard Youtube license

I just got confirmation that the global block that was unfairly placed on my account in IRC by RD will not be lifted for this channel. Apparently the Commons ops decided they did not want me to be able to access the channel. I never really felt all that welcome here anyway since the lies and hyperbole about me led to me getting banned on ENWP but now it's good to know how this community feels about my participation. Since a lot of discussion on commons issues happens in IRC I probably won't be editing much here anymore. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Reguyla: I think it's more accurate to say that the ops in the commons IRC channel simply 'cannot' do so... we can only edit bans on the -commons channels, and you are not banned in them. The only way for us to change it would be to 'unban' all users banned in #wikimedia-bans, and that would clearly be a rather bad idea (and would not stick). I am unaware of any decision to, or even discussion of, a ban against you in the commons channel... my impression was, when it was once discussed, that regulars don't think you should be. Revent^talk 02:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Since my ban was done as a global IRC ban, that affects the Commons channels as well. So its not that it was implemented by someone in commons, it was implemented by RD as a gobal ban on all (or almost all) IRC channels. As it was told to me, if a community wanted to unblock a member the global ops would have to do so. I was also informed that a discussion was held on IRC and the decision was that I not be unblocked on the channel. Which is unfortuate but I wished someone had told me instead of finding out second hand which is what pissed me off more than anything else. Reguyla (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm aware (as someone who has set up a couple of related channels and is an op for a couple of them) there is no community agreed process for how a channel community can establish a consensus for bans. Consequently if there was a discussion (which presumably has no record of having occurred) then all that establishes is the opinions of a few individuals that happened to be hanging out on the IRC channel at that moment. There is also, as far as I'm aware, no consensus agreement as to how ops, Wikimedia staff or people with other roles should limit their rights or document bans. I'd be happy to be set right if policies have been established with a verifiable consensus over the last few years and I've not stayed up to date. I'm vaguely aware that some WMF staff seem to believe that they have authority over IRC channels, but I don't think there is a reference list of channels anywhere, nor is there any legal rationale that forces authority, nor records of a community agreement to hand over control of channels like #wikimedia-commons to the WMF. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

User:Fae as an aside if you see this. Your Bot Script is dumping (or placing) Seed Catalogs in different Books by year categories. Please dump them all in Cat:Seed catalogs. I have to send them over there then resort. Sorry for the interuption in the discussion WayneRay (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well there may or may not be policy, but RD took it upon himself to ban me from all but a couple of the WMF related channels including the one for commons just the same. I am also not arguing that the decision to not allow me to participate in the commons channel was based on the opinions of a couple people logged in there at the time. Personally I don't think RD has the authority to do it and have stated as such and even complained about it in the past. Nothing was done and no one really cares so he remains able to do anything he wants. It's really not a big deal. People don't want me to edit because I have been outspoken that admins on ENWP should have to follow the rules. That's why I was banned there. It's no surprise that people here, who also edit there, would not want me to be able to edit commons or participate in IRC. Reguyla (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fæ and Revent: If the community here indeed agrees that I am welcome in the Commons IRC channel then we can go to one of the IRC ops or on Meta and ask for my access to the channel to be restored. If the community says it's ok then IMO they would be hard pressed to disallow it on their own volition. If you all don't want me there then just say so and I just won't be able to edit here much. It's up to you though either way. I can't do anything about it if you all don't want to tell the IRC ops I am welcome there. Reguyla (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've asked for feedback on #wikimedia-commons (@23:24 UK time). We'll see if there is anything like a consensus there either way. I'll keep a (personal) log of it overnight, unless my account drops out, and we can see if any of the powerful IRC overlords want to pay attention to this type of local consensus or not. --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok thank you Fae, I appreciate the help. Reguyla (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There was neither no discussion nor consensus for the jbans to be placed on -commons...enwiki arbs have no rights on other wiki or dictate who should be banned on other channels..there is and there never will be a policy on global bans on IRC and if one does come to pass, it will be in the hands of the WMF Staff and Stews to control, not IRCops or IRC GCs who themselves should have no actual rights outside on enwiki or #-en related channels..ironic how the lack of 'transparency' in this has gone from the BoT, to wmfstaff to now the IRC GC's and IRCops...what next? blocking ppl on other wikis just because they are blocked on enwiki....oh wait...... WMF's 'newish' policy on harassing and banning its own contributors would be its own downfall one day..mark my words..--Stemoc 02:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That was part of my complaint about RD before to Barras who doesn't care to do anything. Unfortunately they are both in virtually unlimited control of IRC and neither is disposed to undo my block on any IRC channels. With most channels it's not that big of a deal because their deader than a doornail anyway. Commons is a bit different though in that a lot of discussion does occur there. Since I was under the impression I was still welcome to contribute on Commons, I thought I would raise the issue here. Of course all of this is just collateral damage due to my abusive ban on ENWP that should have never been allowed and only remains out of spite and to send a message to the community. But that's another matter that won't be resolved here. Reguyla (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, here's the current situation after flagging a discussion about your block on-channel. There have been some past discussions (which I have not seen) about your block and questions about how an "unblock" can technically work just for the one channel (using +e, though I have no understanding whether this is a difficult technical thing or not). It seems that there is no agreed way of appealing an IRC block, so you writing on this Village pump is as valid as any other method, though in future you might want to take it up on your personal talk page and ping interested parties by email. Here's my suggestion for your "appeal" - If you are unblocked on #wikimedia-commons but then fail to stick to Commons matters and fall back into soapboxing about Wikipedia and other non-Commons issues, then you should expect bans to apply for a month and then increasing periods before you can appeal again. This has an advantage for you as the blocked party as you know it is time-limited and a fair procedure and it gives any on-channel aggrieved parties the sense that something is being done to ensure that perceived disruption to the purpose of the channel has consequences. Generally people will accept that permanent bans without the possibility of appeal should be avoided. It was also mentioned that you have been banned and unbanned a few times and this seemed to not change your use of the channel (I'm just relating the comment, I have not seen the background to support it). It was also quoted that "He has disrupted chanops with questions about his enwp-ban in this channel", certainly that sort of thing is off-topic for the channel, so please recognize that you can not and should not use the #wikimedia-commons (or this project) to have a go about how unfair your treatment elsewhere might have been.

Reguyla, I'm reading the above thread as an IRC #wikimedia-commons unblock request. If you formally accept the conditions that you will only use the channel for "Commons matters" and accept that if you stray from that you will be subject to blocks, you may have a chance of being unblocked (so write out your understanding in this thread to make it formal). To make this happen in the absence of a documented procedure for appeals, I suggest some IRC 'names' chip in to this village pump thread with clear 'okays' or 'no-ways'. I'm happy to see you unblocked in the channel on the above condition, as it fits my sense of natural justice and transparency, however I would like to see, say, @Bastique: or @Odder: and maybe @Josve05a: comment here to make this look like a de facto appeal in the absence of a community agreed procedure or policy for how to go about it. --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fæ: Thanks, that sounds fair although I suspect RD or someone will find some petty reason to block me again. But it's worth a try. Really I shouldn't have been blocked at all so I feel like I am being forced into compromising on an agreement that the other party (not you) has no intention of upholding. Personally I think more effort should be focused on building content and writing encyclopedia's than in enforcing bans like mine that shouldn't even be in place at all because they embarrass some of the admins on ENWP and they don't want them discussed in public venues. Reguyla (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind ping, @Fæ, however as I have no advanced privileges on IRC, I feel that I am unable to help in this situation other than comment in my capacity as a (ir)regular member of the IRC channel. I believe @Reguyla's block has been discussed quite extensively in the past, including by myself, but as both of us have no influence whatsoever over anything happening on IRC, this was effectively ignored (multiple times even). odder (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Per Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#De-adminship straw poll it appears Reguyla is incapable of not using every possible forum to soapbox about Wikipedia and their "unfair" treatment there (e.g. "my situation on ENWP that only exists because people there want to create disruption out of nothing"). I suggest this request be denied and furthermore admins consider whether the threat of escalating blocks proposed by Fae be extended to Reguyla activity Commons. -- Colin (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok, First I shouldn't even be blocked in IRC to begin with. Secondly, I just wanted to see if I was even welcome to participate in this community and this discussion has at least shown that I am...at least by most. So I have continued to edit.

Colin I am trying to be patient with you but really you are trying my patience. Your attempts to constantly bring my ban into every situation is really annoying. I made a reference to ENWP's multiple venues. I didn't mention my ban until you did. Please stop attempting to derail discussions. I'm not sure what your motivations are, but it's really starting to get annoying. It's not bad enough I have to deal with people on ENWP trying to manipulate and disrupt every discussion to try to blame me for, I don't need you doing it here as well so please stop. If you cannot stop bringing my ban up every time I mention something on ENWP I am going to ask that you be blocked for disruption. Reguyla (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mention the ban. Not at all. Ok, given the "I have to deal with people on ENWP trying to manipulate and disrupt every discussion to try to blame me for" comment, I now propose an immediate one month block on Commons. -- Colin (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course you did Colin, I didn't bring it up at all until you did. Also there is nothing to block me for other than responding to your disruption and harassment. Now stop and go find something constructive to do for once rather than instigating because if anyone needs to be blocked on here Colin it's you. Reguyla (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fæ: Greetings Fæ, I just wanted to see if there was any decision on this yet? I tried to access the IRC channel last night and it still didn't work so I assume no change has been made. Reguyla (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is no special objection to you rejoining the channel. It will take one of the 'names' mentioned to actually go ahead. I suggest you try emailing one of the contacts. --Fæ (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok I'll see if I can find one thanks. Reguyla (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Fæ: No one seems to either know how or have the desire to unblock my account on IRC. I'm not even sure who is the right person to ask so I left a message at Meta for on the IRC Group talk page. Maybe someone will act on it but probably not. As long as Barras and RD are in absolute control it's unlikely anyone will do anything out of fear or retribution. Reguyla (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just FYI, I dropped a note on Meta asking for one of the IRC Ops to unlock me from commons and Barras and RD both told me, in no uncertain terms, that the commons community does not have the authority to unblock me and its their decision and discretion to keep me blocked there. Barras did state that there are commons ops who have access to do it and if they need to know they should look it up on Freenode. Sooo, if any IRC ops want to figure out how, great, otherwise Barras and RD get their way I guess and I am just as disappointed and frustrated with this one sided, unfair, unscrupulous and abusive system as I can possibly be. Reguyla (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ignore them, You are NOT banned on commonswiki and if those 2 idiots think the community has no say on who is allowed on that channel, then they should not be allowed to moderate that channel.. funny how they use "IRC=!Wiki" when it suits them....I say, come on IRC, use a proxy for all i care.. You are neither globally banned on Wikimedia NOR blocked on commons so there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER that you cannot come to just ONE F**KING IRC Channel...Freenode's new jbans was an idiotic move, no wonder all their staff ran away..it seems to be run by the same idiots running WMF.. (lol)...heck even russavia moves freely across the channels and he isn't even allowed anywhere near the project....I like how WMF knows how to screw people who follow the policies but is incapable of controlling those that don't ...I wonder if this is why Darth Vader went to the dark side? ...There was no transparency WHATSOEVER in your banning, no community input either so as far as i can see, You are very much allowed on -commons (just commons, I accept that you should not enter #-en or #wikipedia as u are technically blocked on enwiki even though its a dumb block but hey, dumb ppl make the rules, we just follow it... #GOTRUMP)--Stemoc 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

For the most part I do ignore them and I have stated openly that neither Barras nor RD should have any authority of IRC based on their past. It's not a coincidence that RD is the one that did the global block since I criticized him openly on wiki. It looks like I am going to have to just use a proxy to get on IRC I guess. I tried to avoid it but if clowns like Barras and RD are going to be allowed to force their influence on others then I guess that's what I have to do. Cheers! Reguyla (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well I tried asking the IRC ops to unblock me on the commons channel on Wiki and in IRC. In both cases I was told that they don't have to follow WMF policy, that they do not have to abide by community decisions and that even if they did the commons ops can unblock me if they want too. So, if the commons ops don't want to unblock me then that's fine, but its pretty obvious that the Alex, RD and the other group ops don't have enough respect for this community or WMF policy to unblock me based on this discussion. Reguyla (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright for books or printed official publications?

• moved to: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#What license?

I've been discussing potential improvements to the Upload to Commons Android app with folks here while drafting my IEG proposal, and one suggestion that came up (by Revent) was checking for duplicates to prevent contributors from (presumably unintentionally) uploading multiple duplicates of the exact same picture. I'd like to implement this feature, and the best way to do this would be to use an API that says whether a picture (identified by its SHA1 hashcode for instance) is already in Commons or not. We've asked around but haven't managed to find one - does anyone know if such an API exists?

Thanks! Misaochan (talk) 05:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Misaochan: Go to COM:SHA1 and monitor your browser's requests. The tool computes the SHA1 client-side and checks against all 3 file tables (top revisions [img], overwritten revisions [old image, oi], and deleted [file archive, fa]). -- Rillke^(q?) 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Of course it would be better to get a visual fingerprint of a file and compare that as opposed to a binary fingerprint. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The API call does exist and it looks like this: [1]. BMacZero (talk) 18:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Awesome! I have added this feature to my proposal draft, and we will be implementing it if the project is approved. :) Thanks for the help BMacZero and Rillke, and thanks for the suggestion Revent! Misaochan (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#archive.org

moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Great Britain & Ireland postcards

Admin and OTRS agent User:Jcb has recently deleted a number of files, despite OTRS permission by the copyright holder having been given in ticket 2015121610021807.

As I explained to Jcb in the OTRS discussion (to which I was CCd, having negotiated their donation), the wording used was that in the box on Commons:Email_templates:

I hereby affirm that I, [redacted], a trustee of [redacted], the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the work in the following files...

Jcb has subsequently rejected my request, on their talk page, to restore the files.

Please will someone review the OTRS permission and undelete the files concerned? Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The ticket was not in order and you know that. I clearly explained what was wrong. A ticket is in order if there is a valid permission from the real copyright holder. Pressure from a user should not lead to confirmation of a file if such a valid permission is missing. Jcb (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

And I clearly explained why it was right - not least because it uses Commons' own boilerplate text. And it was sent by "the real copyright holder". But I'm not asking you to restate your previous lack of understanding, I'm asking for someone else to review the case. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This should probably be moved to COM:OTRSN since nobody else can see the ticket contents. However, that said, I don't think that the fact that it was Commons' own boiler plate is germane at all. The only question is whether it was sent by the "real copyright holder". In the ticket, I do see an assertion to that effect... this was then questioned, and I don't see a material response. OTRS isn't some kind of incantation where the correct words said in the correct order will open doors, rather you are asking an OTRS agent essentially to vouch for the validity of the license. Of course, you can ask for a second opinion, however now that the issue has been raised and not answered, any future agent will probably also need to see evidence that the organization owns the copyright to all material it publishes in order to vouch for it, and assertions like "other organizations make these types of statements all the time" are really neither here nor there. Storkk (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Not just "other organisations", but "other uploaders". We all assert copyright over our (self-published) uploads. And no, no one is asking an OTRS agent to vouch for anything. Simply to record the assertion made by the copyright holder. Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

To your second sentence, yes we do, and when that is questioned, then the uploader is asked to provide evidence to OTRS. Your suggestion that the function of OTRS is simply to serve as a rubber stamp is just wrong. Storkk (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is anyone able to help with this, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You came to the wrong noticeboard to ask for a second opinion, however an experienced OTRS colleague had a look at the case. But his conclusion was not what you hoped. So now you are waiting of yet another OTRS colleague to have yet another look at this case? Jcb (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your second clause disproves the first; but you seem to have failed to read what was written above. Andy Mabbett (talk)

Some (all?) of the generic license templates points to a specific version, like Template:Cc-by-sa which is a hard redirect to Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0, but I think this is wrong. A generic version-less template should point to the latest version available (Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Cc-by-sa) and follow the update cycles. If a user wants a specific version s/he should say so by using the correct template. I would say change all present use of Template:Cc-by-sa into Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0, and let the Template:Cc-by-sa be a smart redirect/transclusion of the latest version. That is as of this writing the latest is Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0.

I noticed this problem at File:Fenrik_Werner_Christie_at_the_wing_of_a_Spitfire_AH-M_BL314.TIF where the source says "CC BY-SA" ("Mer…" → "Regler for gjenbruk"), but when I added the template Template:Cc-by-sa I got Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 which I believe to be wrong. Digitalarkivet does not ask reusers to use Cc-by-sa-1.0 but Cc-by-sa, which I believe is any version of Cc-by-sa up to the last one, and as such the last one would include all the previous versions of the license. The correct redirect/transclusion would then be to the last valid version of the license. Jeblad (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Comment Also see {{Cc-by}}. Josve05a (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that redirect can not be changing otherwise the images using Template:Cc-by-sa would be "relicensed" each time a new CC license comes along. So redirect Template:Cc-by-sa to Template:Cc-by-sa-1.0 is the simplest solution. A better solution would be to run a bot each time a new CC comes along and change all Template:Cc-by-sa to the previous latest CC version and once, Template:Cc-by-sa is no longer used change it to the latest CC version. --Jarekt (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe that redirect should be a generic CC template with parameters that govern which version displays, with "1.0" being the default.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

A CC License version has to be specified, we can't guess which version is intended. So these two templates default to version 1. --Denniss (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Info {{Cc-by}} doesn't redirect or defaults to a specific version, but is a "slow delete" template Josve05a (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The thing is; when someone doesn't ask for a specific version we can't replace s/his claim for a license with a specific version, the claim is for a generic last valid version. If someone ask for CC-by-sa s/he doesn't ask for CC-by-sa-1.0 or CC-by-sa-4.0, s/he ask for a generic CC-by-sa. To replace the claim wih a specific version and locking it there is simply wrong. Jeblad (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a request for comment on the English Wikipedia that may affect or be of interest to some here. My apologies if this is not an appropriate venue (feel free to move/remove if necessary).

The question concerns articles about films/videos for which the full-length work is available on Commons. In such a scenario, should the article embed the video, link to the Commons page in the external links section, or neither?

The discussion and additional context are at: en:Wikipedia talk:Videos#RfC: Full-length films/videos in articles.

Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Although my vote doesn't count, I would prefer the use of option B over A or C assuming that the video still displays the same and otherwise renders the information to the reader. Reguyla (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It seems many people have the wrong impression that the video automatically start downloading while reading the article. IMHO, this RfC is complete nonsense. We are in the 21st century where streaming video is a common feature, so an article about a film without the film looks completely ridiculous. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Yann: When I noticed a few parallel discussions on the subject I was also surprised that embedding wasn't an obvious extension of current policies/guidelines/practice. The problem is the original subject under discussion was sexually explicit (en:Debbie Does Dallas). I think that in an effort to take down that video based on its content, people began making much broader arguments about policy. Those arguments then started spreading and we had another RfC at en:A Free Ride, a historically significant but nonetheless sexually explicit film from the 1910s. When I noticed that enwiki's guidelines for video use were woefully underdeveloped, I started this RfC in an effort to divorce the question of typical media usage in articles from content-specific objections/exceptions. Whether it will be successful in doing so is uncertain... — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Am I missing something here? Why are there subcategories for things named California, Pennsylvania, etc. ? Shouldn't everything in the category be named some version of United States or America? Rmhermen (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Apañado: Those categories are no longer in category Things named after the United States as they are not named after the United States. B25es (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The reason for that, I believe, is due to the volume of things and to improve ambiguity. If someone is looking for something in California, it's better fro it to be there than have to scroll through thousands of pages for all things US to find it. Reguyla (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Category:Things named after places in the United States would make sense but putting them in "Things named after the United States" doesn't. Rmhermen (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

While trying to resolve "Shadows Commons" situations on enWikipedia (i.e local files which hide Commons files thus making them not usable via InstantCommons) I've encountered some instances where copyrightable logos (e.g ) are stripped of copyrightable elements and then uploaded here as "logos" (here File:Eurogamer logo.svg). I've to wonder if such derivatives can still be called a "logo"; they appear more to be a now as logos are usually used in their original appearance.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific suggestions of how they should be called? Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

II think such things are usually called "wordmarks".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In April 2016 a photo contest about the Spanish Civil War of 1936-39 is going to be carried out.
During that month we want to increase the contents in Wikimedia Commons about 371 places related to the conflict. Those places are representative of many different kinds of items: former hospitals, prisoner camps, airfields, coastal defenses, government offices, air raid shelters and many others.
Our list is too short to include every significant place, but we have done our best to provide directions and instructions to reach the places. Some of them are easily found, some others are in unusual places, from a bar terrace to a nudist beach.
And as it is a contest, we have prices. We have opened a registration page here.

B25es (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noticed that File:Camilla Collett 1839.jpg had the license template {{PD-old-100}} and that this license template gives "false" as "AttributionRequired" [2] but this is wrong for Norwegian work of art. Even work of art that is sort of PD must be attributed. They are not PD, but close, they "faller i det fri". It is the same with Swedish and Danish work of art. I think we need something like a "PD-by" which says that even if this piece is old and sort of in public domain you still have to credit it properly.

The relevant law on this

• Norway: Lov om opphavsrett til åndsverk m.v. (åndsverkloven) §3
• Denmark: Bekendtgørelse af lov om ophavsret §3
• Sweden: Lag (1960:729) om upphovsrätt till litterära och konstnärliga verk §3

And a lot of existing files must be relicensed, unless someone have a clever way to avoid this. Jeblad (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Jeblad, we just ignore this. The PD-art template clearly states this: The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". So no, we're not attributing images because we have to, but because we can. Multichill (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As I said, 'They are not PD, but close, they "faller i det fri".' I have argued previously that marking Norwegian work of art as PD is wrong, they will never be PD but something like CC-by. Note also that an uploader in Norway can't just ignore Norwegian law. That is why we said that we follow the law both in the US and in the country of origin. Jeblad (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I guess artworks from Scandinavian countries should be encouraged to use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} license when possible. The case you mentioned is one of the exceptions to "US and the country of origin" rule that we usually follow. We also do not delete anymore images which are clearly in PD in the country of origin but are somehow copyrighted in the US because of URAA laws. --Jarekt (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just removed in bulk using Cat-a-lot several hundred images (maybe 400) from Category:The Biological bulletin thinking I was removing duplicate files from Category:Marine biology as I had placed it in the main Category. How do I get those files back without doing it manually one by one . WayneRay (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Problem solved, no need to reply, thanks. WayneRay (talk) 12:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Gotta love it when changes just appear without any advance warning, like the new notice when you click the "Upload a new version of this file". New today, as far as I am aware, is a stern warning that appears below the before discussed useless warning about providing a license,
"File:xxx already exists.
Before overwriting a file, make sure you are familiar with Commons:Overwriting existing files."

Two things, I do not mind it being there, but could it be in the same font as the above license warning, without that danger triangle, without being in a box, and even better, replace the license warning? Whatever happened to the concept of notifying everyone of impending changes? Do you have to notify everyone of every little change? It would be nice.

The license warning is "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." And it simply does not apply, because you can never change a license or even provide license information when you are over writing a file. Delphi234 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think my first observation is "File:xxx exists"? Did you think I was missing that information? I clicked a link that ONLY exists because a file exists, so of course "File:xxx" exists. I think what the notice should be saying is, "Caution, most files need to remain as is without being over written. Please make sure you are familiar with Commons:Overwriting existing files." Delphi234 (talk) 03:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki:uploadtext unfortunately does not know what you have clicked "re-upload". You may have bookmarked an upload link or another wiki sent you there. All it knows that you followed a link that suggests you want to upload to the name which is pre-filled in the text-box. It is therefore necessary to somehow communicate that the file exists at the specified location.

I should really see that I get gerrit:195230 fixed and merged. -- Rillke^(q?) 04:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is a user interface issue. WMF has rammed through tons of lousy user interfaces, and all I am really saying is that if enough people are notified of proposed changes someone will be more likely to point out flaws or glitches. Maybe with a new Executive Director there will be more responsibility. Right now the UI for Wikidata is almost useless, and that is just brushed aside as unimportant. For now I just think the warning is much sterner than it needs to be. Delphi234 (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The message was added by Commons Community. This doesn't mean that I would appreciate if the UI was developed in a way that this wouldn't be necessary or properly solvable at our side. Steinsplitter, maybe you could adjust a few things in the meanwhile? -- Rillke^(q?) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I reverted my change. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

But why...? I think there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the message; I appreciated that someone thought about it. What about: Before overwriting [[:{{FULLPAGENAME:File:$1}}|a file]], make sure you are familiar with [[Commons:Overwriting existing files|our policy on overwriting existing files]]. -- Rillke^(q?) 16:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just found there was already notice about overriding. It was just technically not working. -- Rillke^(q?) 17:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What you have now is excellent. "Please mind our guidelines on overwriting existing files. You agree to publish your upload under the same license as stated on the file description page." Thanks for the prompt response! It would not hurt to make it red though. Delphi234 (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Delphi234: Please request changes at MediaWiki talk:uploadtext. Personally, I believe the more red and stuff we add, the less our visitors will recognize. Banner and boilerplate blindness. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's fine. Delphi234 (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The current iteration of File:Ambox notice.png is very low resolution. This image is used over a large number of Wikis and pages, and as such "Cannot be overwritten" by ordinary users. Instead of replacing each and ever use of the image on other Wikis (hundreds of thousands as far as I'm aware) — I suggest we up the resolution by using a higher resolution png version of the image File:Information icon4.svg. With the advent of modern cell-phone screens and computers with higher resolutions I believe it is important that Wikimedia projects have quality rendered icons. For an example of different uses see the galleries below:

Thanks, CFCF (talk) 13:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Something in between would be much better. You have to realize the information content - the letter i, and not distract from that by providing excruciating details about the letter i. What sizes is it being used as? Delphi234 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Mostly between 20–80px, so I guess we could maybe just use the 80px png thumb. So essentially this file : [3] — which is 25kb — does that seem viable? CFCF (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noting here that if the local copy is changed, one may want to request an update to en:File:Ambox notice.png and en:File:Imbox notice.png to the higher resolution versions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Did you mean this? I would prefer a softening of the edge of the letter, so it is not completely sharp, which tends to be distracting. Delphi234 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I mean the 240px version, which is what the MediaWiki software uses to render a 80px thumbnail. CFCF (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

On wikimedia-l, the 2014 RfC at Commons:Requests for comment/Media Viewer software feature is being used to ask the WMF to turn off the Media Viewer on Commons for logged out users: see [8] and the ensuing thread. Is this 2014 RfC still representative of community consensus, or does this need reconsidering? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

And someone let the same mindset see as with the hostility against the community in the superprotect disaster: Fuck the community, ignore the rules, act just with might. But perhaps it was just sarcasm. --Sänger (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

As an anonymous visitor, it was sometimes useful and sometimes nasty, depending what I wanted to do. As a logged-in user, it was almost always nasty. The discussion starts here. -- Rillke^(q?) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Please shut it off for everyone. I am often logged out and always find it annoying and frustrating. This is just a long ago made decision that simply needs to be implemented. Delphi234 (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I like Media Viewer on wikipedia but it makes no sense on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Incentive to register then, so someone can use media viewer. But I think even on the wikis the choice was to not have it be the default. Delphi234 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I feel the Media Viewer creates more problems than it solves -- primarily, in that it presents millions of pages with no hint whatsoever that the viewer is invited to "edit" or improve the pages. It also fails to convey important information in various specific cases; it was built on the assumption that there is more structure and consistency in Commons images than there actually is.

I think a new RFC would be needed before this could be considered significant consensus. However, I am not sure there is a pressing need to start a new RFC right now, relative to other concerns. I would rather see some clarity on the WMF's intentions relating to Superprotect, and some discussion about how software development will be approached going forward; the reasons to disable MediaViewer for anonymous Commons users is less pressing than those related issues, in my view. -Pete F (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that superprotect is gone and the person who thought it up as well. Delphi234 (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Media Viewer is making Wikimedia Commons itself unusable. Please turn this stuff off for logged-out users. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Superprotect is gone, mw:WMF product development process. --Malyacko (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is still representative. No, it does not need reconsidering. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  WTF? This is still enabled by default for logged out users? It's probably a nice thing on most of the sister projects, but it doesn't make any sense on Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that Media Viewer makes no sense on commons. It is confusing as hell for readers, that there is both a Wikipedia-MediaViewer AND a Commons-MediaViewer, and they both look the same and appear to be the same. Please disable MediaViewer for IPs too. --Atlasowa (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In Special:Diff/153291382, FDMS4 changed the text of the English version of {{No permission since}} to state that notification no longer is mandatory; deletion is already possible seven days after tagging, and you no longer need to wait until seven days after notification before the file can be deleted. Was there a discussion which resulted in this change? Also, why was it only implemented in the English version of the template? Different language versions of the template now provide different information:

• Swedish, Italian, Japanese, German, Norwegian and French: You need to wait at least seven days from tagging or notification, whichever is later.
• English, Dutch and Danish: You need to wait at least seven days from tagging, but the date of notification does not matter.
• Spanish: The file can be deleted seven days after the date indicated in the template, without any information on how the date in the template is chosen.

I find these differences confusing and I do not see any discussion which lead to these differences in the templates. I discovered this because of a related discussion on English Wikipedia: w:WT:CSD#Why does F11 require notification? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@FDMS4: - Jmabel ! talk 00:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• FDMS4 last edited anything 20 August 2015, so is unlikely to weigh in. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it is a simple case of trying to simplify the language of the template and loosing important details. I think we should restore the "notification" section. --Jarekt (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agree that it should be restored. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done See Special:Diff/190390473--Jarekt (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Note that the text also disappeared from {{No source since}} and {{No license since}} around the same time. The no source template also lacks wikicode to post on the uploader's talk page, making notification difficult for those who do not use automated tools. As in the no permission case, the text was only removed from the English version but is present in other versions such as the Swedish version. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it also should be restored. Please do it or file {{Edit request}}, with specific changes. --Jarekt (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Where do I make deletion requests? Luke (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Typically you start this process from the page of the relevant file. Do you have "Nominate for deletion" among your tools when you are looking at a file page? (Typically near the bottom of the left nav, but it would depend on what skin you are using.) If so, click that on the relevant page, and the rest should be obvious. Otherwise, come back here & someone can walk you through a more tedious older way of doing this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
• →Help:Nominate for deletion illustrates what Jmabel explained. But please only use it from the page or content you would like to start a deletion request about. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you all. Luke (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

After the description screen has been filled in, I click on Next and then I am returned to the description screen with all the fields still filled-in and no error messages and no NEXT button. There is nothing that can be done to progress the wizard to the final step. I repeated the wizard from the start and exactly the same thing happened. Help! Kerry Raymond (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have successfully uploaded a number of photos earlier in the day. There was nothing particularly different about the failed one that I can see (a relatively small JPG) sourced from an out-of-copyright old newspaper (the sort of item I often upload). Kerry Raymond (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What is the intended file name? Delphi234 (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The file name is Remember Belgium.jpg - no weird characters. 05:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A file with that name was uploaded in 2009.   Are you getting the error "A file with this name exists already. If you want to replace it, go to the page for File:Remember_Belgium.jpg and replace it there." Delphi234 (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Other images are now uploading OK so maybe it was a temporary glitch or maybe it's just that file.Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I tried to load the Remember Belgium.jpg file again. Exactly the same behaviour as before AND absolutely no error message of any kind. But at least it seems we have pinned down the bug to the case where the file name is already in use. I tried to rename the file in the Description screen which causes the "barber poll" effect on that text box as I type in other titles but doesn't cause a NEXT button to appear to progress things. Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like an operating system specific glitch in the warning generator. Try renaming the file on your computer to something else, like <>Remember Belgium 2.jpg<> (note:your operating system might hide the .jpg part) and try uploading it like that. Normally when the same filename error occurs you can just provide a different filename and upload Remember Belgium.jpg from your computer to Remember Belgium 2.jpg. If it is operator system specific, you will need to let someone know. If it is just not noticing the warning that is there and does allow uploading as Remember Belgium 2.jpg from Remember Belgium.jpg on your computer, then it is just a user interface issue. Are we making the warning obvious enough? Delphi234 (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the bug report, I'll look into it. Filed as phab:T130242. Matma Rex (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kerry Raymond: I can't reproduce this issue locally either. Can you send me a copy of this file too? You can email it to matma.rex@gmail.com or upload it at https://www.dropbox.com/request/HHhmjsHAoveZjEtHzQV9. By the way, what is the browser and operating system you're using (I think it's something specific to the file and not browser/OS, but it never hurts to know)? Matma Rex (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

That tool has been created by people working for WMDE (a Wikimedia chapter); it is open source. Using it, I remembered derivativeFX and how I sometimes miss it. Perhaps someone wants to fork it or finds it otherwise useful. The workflow and questions are well-thought, at least for Creative Commons (CC) licensed files it works. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Translation: "License Note Generator". Delphi234 (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Rillke, click on that page on “Über das Tool“ and you can see that (in the moment?) only CC licenses are supported (we don’t care about the subtlety with CC0 here). This tool should be linked prominently. Regarding forking: Shouldn’t it be enough to get it multi-lingual (perhaps also with an at least english domain name)? --Speravir (Talk) 00:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey folks! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals from March 14th to April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

• Submit a grant request or draft your proposal in IdeaLab
• Get help with your proposal in an upcoming Hangout session
• Learn from examples of completed Individual Engagement Grants

Also accepting candidates to join the IEG Committee through March 25th.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 23:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've been experiencing this problem for several days. When using Commons:Upload, multiple areas for adding categories appear, and the first category you add will not show up when the upload is complete (that's why the completely nonsense category is shown on the right). MB298 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

What browser are you using? For me there are no multiple areas. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've seen this happen today too, but I can't reproduce again. Matma Rex (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Zhuyifei1999: I'm using Safari. MB298 (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can't reproduce on Safari 7.0.6 (quite old though) with my test account :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am trying to upload a 24M TIFF file. Normally it takes a number of minutes to upload. Today it uploaded in seconds. Strange. However, I proceed with adding the Source, etc, and then when I have finished the Title/Description etc, I click on Next and get

Unknown warning: "emptyfile, stashfailed".

The file looks fine on my computer (opens in photo tools and looks like I expect it to look). I have repeated the upload a few times and the error persists (as does the unusually fast upload). What is the problem here? I have tried changing the file name but the problem persists. Kerry Raymond (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ditto. --21lima (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are you using Upload Wizard? I see a new deployment happened today, so likely a software change. "stashfailed" is very likely related to chunked uploading --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. --21lima (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I selected "Back to the old form" and was able to upload. --21lima (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Rillke and Matma Rex: maybe you guys can find out why this is happening? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I thought this is some javascript error, but it is not. Reported on phab:T130204 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Upload Wizard is out of my support. It's been in the state of brokenness since it was introduced. 40 hours of volunteer time spend is enough. Please report any issue to Phabricator. -- Rillke^(q?) 13:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'll look into it. The issue reported by Zhuyifei1999 seems to be yet another thing, so I filed another one. Thanks for the detailed bug report. Matma Rex (talk) 18:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

phab:T130204 (thumbnails of large files and SVGs not working in UploadWizard) should be resolved now. Matma Rex (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kerry Raymond: I tried to reproduce your issue a few times and I'm not getting this error. Perhaps there's something weird about the specific file you're trying to upload – can you send it to me? You can email it to me at matma.rex@gmail.com or upload it through https://www.dropbox.com/request/Py854hq6b3Kp1jkHpEsI (you can use 'example' for firstname/lastname and 'example@example.com' for email). Matma Rex (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have the same problem as Kerry (but not the fast uploading!). I had it Wednesday and Thursday and I have just tried again and I am still getting it. Everything works fine until the last stage after putting in the description and category, and when I try to complete the upload I get a message "Unknown warning: "emptyfile, stashfailed"." I am trying to upload 6 pdfs. As it seems to be related to the recent software update, could this be reversed to go back to the version which works? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dudley Miles: If this happens consistently for specific file(s), please send them to me and I'll try to find out why. Right now I don't even know what is broken and would need to be reverted. There don't seem to have been any changes to MediaWiki itself that last week that look relevant, perhaps something on the backend was upgraded recently, but this doesn't seem to be the case either. I doubt that we can get any fixes/reverts deployed today, anyway (no one likes when you break things on a Friday). Matma Rex (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks Matma Rex. I have emailed them to you - please advise any problems with the email. I can also email you a screen print of the failure message if that would help. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Dudley Miles: Please do, a screenshot is always helpful. I've received your email. Matma Rex (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Matma Rex: Same issue with me (and with Uoaei1 and Malopez 21). It is really painful because the problem appears at the very last step of the upload process (during publishment) and my batch of files take a while to upload. I tried to upload a batch of 26 and 16 failed. Among them were 10 panoramas of ~ 25 MB and none made it, but there are also smaller files of ~ 10 MB that got the same issue. --Poco² 18:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Have the same problem when the files are larger than 10 MB. Smaller ones cause no problem. --ManfredK (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This should be resolved now, there was a bug in the upload backend that caused "async" uploads not to work, and UploadWizard uses this option for files bigger than 10 MB (see phab:T130238#2137290 for details). I've just disabled this for now (UploadWizard will use non-async upload for all files for now) until I can get a proper patch deployed after the weekend. Uploads of big files might be less reliable until then. Matma Rex (talk) 07:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Kerry Raymond, 21lima, and Dudley Miles: @Poco a poco, Uoaei1, Malopez 21, and ManfredK: Pinging you in case you're not watching this thread. You should be able to upload the files now. (Please say if it's not working!) Thanks for reporting this problem – wasn't UploadWizard's fault this time :) Matma Rex (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Great. I have just uploaded 18 files. Thanks for your help. Matma Rex. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is working again for me now, I just uploaded bigger files, no issue. Thank you! Poco² 12:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. I would like to update you with regards to this campaign (direct link) for one of our contributors, photographers, and administrators, User:Rehman. Since the campaign's launch about a month ago, we managed to raise $222; $1,378 short of the goal. At the current average of $27, the goal can be achieved if we're able to reach out to another 50 contributors. But our small contact circles are pretty much exhausted. Hence I think it is important, for the sake of the campaign's success, to ask for your support by sharing it with your contacts (on social media, mailing lists, talkpages, wherever). Thank you, Azeez^talk 15:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

I got some nice stuff on my plate when I took my first ever look at the Flickr review backlog. I think that this edit was right, but I felt somewhat unsure afterwards. So: OK or not OK? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've checked the Flickr uploader and I am not seeing any evidence of Flickrwashing. The provenance of the photography seems plausible to me.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Wikimedia Technical Operations department is planning an important test of the new "full" data center in Texas. The test will result in about 30 minutes of downtime for all the wikis, including Commons, on two days. This work was originally scheduled for this coming week, but has been postponed until the week of 18 April 2016. The official schedule is kept on Wikitech; more information is at m:Tech/Server switch 2016. More announcements and notifications for editors are planned.

If you experienced problems with the five-minute read-only test on Tuesday, 15 March around 07:05 UTC, or if you have suggestions for places to announce this, then please contact me directly at w:en:User talk:Whatamidoing (WMF). Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi I was fiddling around with the book template here: Category:Women Painters of the World and couldn't get the wikidata item for the book to show up, though I now see a reasonator link. Never worked on a book before like this, though I have created several book categories that match up to Wikidata book items. Is there a book namespace? Thx in advance. --Jane023 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

YOu can look here for some template help Category:Navigational templates I have templates for books by year and pdf files by year and book covers by year that User:Butko created for me. Hope this helps. Also Books to be categorized by year incorporates both books by country and booke by year so for exampls 1876 books should be added in the catalog bar at the bottom as 1876 books from Germany (for example) it will then automatically show up in 1876 books and Books from Germany by year. I will adjust your 1905 one to show. WayneRay (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Interesting, thanks! Looking at, for example, the template Template:BookNaviBar it seems that this is something that might correspond with Wikisource, whereas I was looking more for something like Template:Book that would behave regarding Wikidata in the same way as the Template:Creator does. When you open a creator template you see this: "Creator page template, created by filling parameters of {{Creator}}, is intended for author/artist field of {{Information}}, {{Artwork}}, {{Art Photo}} and {{Book}} templates". The artwork template accepts the "|Wikidata=Q2300xxxx" form and I was hoping to see this in the information template (but that is reserved for the Commons Structured Data project) and book template. That's why I was asking. --Jane023 (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Found this and added the template as it was empty. Was it yours? Category:Woman of the Century WayneRay (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Was sorting some pics of Category:Carpathian Forest‎‎ and I found Category:Carpathian Mountains‎ and Category:Mountains of the Carpathians‎‎... I'm not sure but don't we have some "double" with these 2 cats ?

Thanks to who'll correct that. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 14:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• I think Category:Carpathian Mountains‎ is the better category name, and that Category:Mountains of the Carpathians‎‎ should become a cat redirect. Anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I support @Jmabel: fully. The Carpathian Mountains‎ are a well-established name for a mountain range in Central Europe. Martinvl (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Carpathian Mountains is a mountain range, while Mountains of the Carpathians‎‎ is for individual mountains (mainly collected in individual categories) of that range. Compare to Mountains of the Alps‎ and Alps. But there are not that many individual mountain categories in the carpathian mountains … Consider the mountain range as a region with all the geography, the settlements, the nature, the lakes, the mountain passes … and , well, the individual mountains. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot @Jmabel: , @Martinvl: , @Herzi Pinki: . --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 14:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Couldn't these 14 duplicate images be merged into three (1 gif, 1 png and 1 svg)? Or even less of them (ideally 1 svg, but I know it is too much controversial). --Dvorapa (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone. I was wondering something. Isn't there a risk of copyvio when we take pictures of films sets or film costumes, especially when they are shown in a museum, but also when people dress as a film character (cosplay) ? Of course, we have plenty of that kind of files in Category:Film sets and Category:Film costumes. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any helpful guidance in COM:CB? --Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Túrelio: Indeed it helps, thanks. And I guess we have many files for which we may launch DRs... :-( --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@TwoWings: -- Clothing as clothing is considered "utilitarian" or "functional" and so is uncopyrightable under United States law (which is why ready-to-wear clothing manufacturers can make knock offs of couture clothes), though art printed or painted on the clothing could be copyrightable. Ordinary household goods are much the same (see "Utility items" on the linked page). AnonMoos (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, the Picture of the Year 2015 is in preparation. Since it is the tenth POTY, we wonder whether there are ideas how to make it greater or what we could do differently this year. Please feel invited to list yourself, if your time permits, as a committee member or help to make the contest great by wiki-gnoming. -- Rillke^(q?) 11:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

In File talk a Norwegian comment was added. When I translate in English by Google translate I get: (This is not the last regular tour with such carriages , however rental driving after wagon type was taken out of regular service . A few of the 600 carts were used as charter wagons after they had stopped going that route wagons.) The Norwegian comment cannot transferred directly to the file page as the existing english text first has to translated to Norwegian. The english translation can be added to the english commentary (except for the last sentence wich has to be adjusted)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible to automatically make links to Wikipedia articles using Wikidata?

Let's say a template looked something like this: {{template|Q34|en}} and it created a link to the article about Sweden (Q34 in wikidata) on English Wikipedia. That would also make it possible to do {{template|Q34| {{int:lang}} }} (that automatically makes the last parameter the language the user is using on Commons (for you it's en)). -abbedabb^talk 14:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary access to Wikidata on Commons is not yet enabled. :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

fr: Bonjour.

Je n'ai pas lu tout ce qui se passe ici depuis quelques jours, mais je suppose que tout le monde est au courant qu'il ya une pétition et un mouvement "rebel" qui nous invite à relayer/signer la pétition contre cette loi qui interdit la liberté de panorama en France (et dans d'autres pays) et nous invite aussi à verser des photos, après avoir masqué les créations incriminées, sur Commons, à cet endroit.

La question qui me tracasse est : pouvons-nous reverser des photos qui ont été supprimées pour le motif "no FoP in France", en ayant masqué la partie non FoP ?

Cette question est aussi sur le Bistrot Commons.

Bonne fin de semaine. --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

en: Hi!

If you're not up to date... We have a petition to be relayed/signed (in French) here and a place in Commons to upload censured pictures to show how ridiculous it is to let this law rule our photographer's life...

The thing scratching my mind is : can we re-upload pics that have been deleted for "no FoP in France", after blacking the no-FoP creation?

Sorry for my bad English but I'm French  . --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 00:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, if the offending structure / artwork is not visible then they are fine. There's already a category: Category:Censored by lack of FOP. --ghouston (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Ghouston for the link. Of course the monument will be blacked out... --LW² \m/ ^{(Lie 2 me ...)} 03:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello.please add the method of work on these categories.I do not know only "Images requiring rotation" and "Images with borders".Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Can you make it more clearer? Thanks, ★ Poké⁹⁵ 07:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Pokéfan95: How can I work on these categories? --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:CropTool for removing borders. Rotation is entirely handled by a bot, so there is nothing you can do to help out. - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

The user are not asking how remove borders and rotate, the user is asking what should be done in the other categories. Is there some page that describes what needs to be done in each single category?

In some categories there is a description on the category page that tells something about it. /Hangsna (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply