Shortcut: COM:VP

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive RfC: Should Commons ban AI-generated images? (3 January 2025) Costumed character files (14 October 2024) Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Definition of country (19 June 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Was the closure of the deletion discussion concerning the current lede image for Philippe Pétain proper under Commons policy? (22 September 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

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

--Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• What’s the advantage of the new buttons, besides being incredibly ugly? Is this, along with breaking user-created code, only meant to discourage and alianate long term “power users”, or is there some actual good in it? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuvalkin: clearly a lot easier for someone whose motor skills aren't that great. These were pretty tiny, from that point of view. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Jmabel, such people (or indeed everybody) are expected/advised to turn on their systems’ and/or browsers’ ability to “attract” the mouse pointer (see example about MS Windows’ snap-to function); of course, for that to work it needs the buttons on a web page to be HTML compliant — are these?

Having big buttons, on the other hand, takes up valuable screen real estate, and that affects negatively people who cannot afford 4096 px high screens.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't that an issue for the user/browser to deal with instead of the website? And why make it the default, when it decreases usability for people who don't have motor skill problems? A bunch of websites have decided to force these giant buttons on everyone the last couple years, along with other kinds of forced whitespace, on the theory that it makes it "easier" (or the even less-meaningful "less cluttered") for phone users. It makes things annoying for normal desktop/laptop users-- if I wanted giant buttons I'd increase the font size. I've seen those buttons somewhere else already and sighed-- I think maybe on English Wikipedia-- and thought maybe a browser update had switched to that annoying style. (I tried to look for discussion at the obvious place [[1]] but it uses the "modern" discussion mode that I guess nobody likes, because there's only one comment despite this being implemented in other places.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closeapple, it’s called Flow and <sarcasm>it’s a great thing only silly people like desktop users dislike.</sarcasm> -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While contributing in Meta earlier today I noticed that the new buttons, already active there, have a very dim, barely perceptible way to reflect focus, much harder to notice than unstyled HTML buttons in your typical broswer. What’s the deal, then? It cannot be a matter of accessibility, unless all that was tested was accessibility for fat-fingered users of tiny screens. Is this, once again, sheer imcompetence, or something designed to alienate users of 100-button keyboards who actually navigate webpage controls with the TAB key? @Whatamidoing (WMF): , are you guys going to improve the visibility of focus state variation of these buttons, or not? And if not, why so? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of File:BigButtonFocus.png

focus on the textbox: blue blur all around OK	focus on the checkbox: black dotted orle OK
focus on the publish button: only slightly darker border  B8D892  vs.  ADCB89   Not OK	focus on the preview button: only slightly darker border  C9C9C9  vs.  AAAAAA   Not OK

• Tuválkin, the state variation is clear to me, even without my glasses on. What's your browser/OS? Would you please upload a screenshot of what you're seeing? If anyone else is interested in looking at this, just click on https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Sandbox&action=edit and tab through the buttons. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m viewing this with the Monobook skin in Firefox ESR 52.2.1 run on Windows XP SP3:

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please compare. This is a net loss in productivity, a step backwards. Don’t be surprised if people are unhappy. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this. I hadn't realized that you were using MonoBook, and this problem only exists in the MonoBook skin. The patch has already been written, and phab:T94301 is expected to be deployed next week. BTW, there is no color change on the button. The green gradient remains the same. The only difference is that (currently) a barely visible line forms around the edge of the button – maybe one pixel wide. That's impossible. Next week, it should be a noticeably thicker line. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the colors I refer to above are the 1px border, not the filling of the button. Glad that at least this one issue will be fixed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• «Next week» is today @Whatamidoing (WMF): When will the change be enforced? I just checked in wp.pt and this accessibility blunder is still in place. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Next week" on the deployment schedule means no sooner than 19:00–21:00 UTC tomorrow (for Commons; 24 hours later for most Wikipedias – and all of these times are subject to delay if there's an unexpected problem). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Today is the 14th and both in the English and Portuguese Wikipedias (the ones I checked; most likely it is identical everywhere) the solution found to this matter is now in place, which is also what we should expect when this “improvement” is inflicted onto Commons as well. As the screenshots above show, there was two ways of showing form element focus in Monobook skin as per the new UI: A blue blurry haze around the element (textbox) or a dotted black orle around the element (checkbox). Guess which was chosen to mark focus on buttons? (Hint: it was a choice that furthers the dumbing-down trend that the WMF is lemmingly following for a long time.) Well, at least is visible… — except probably for color blind people, but who cares, am I right? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Whatamidoing (WMF): At mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons, it says that this will happen around August 20. Which date is correct? Guanaco (talk) 10:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

20 August 2017 is the correct date. I have corrected the note above. I postponed this change for Commons because this community depends upon so many older scripts. Commons contributors who are going to the Hackathon associated with Wikimania next month should feel free to find the Editing team there if they need help testing and fixing any scripts.

Thank you for the ping over this. I'm sorry about the confusion; sending this message to Commons with the non-Commons date in it was entirely my fault. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The change in button color is necessary in order for the WMF to justify the highly-paid designers and developers they have on staff. Expect more unnecessary changes to coincide with employee quarterly reviews.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  22:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This change will happen in a few minutes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we correct the problems with category redirects so that the software treats them link redirects not separate pages. Meaning when you land on them, you do directly onto the target without having to click on the target. This causes several problems.

1. When a reader lands on then through searching or from other websites (like Wikipedia) they have to click through them.
2. When adding a category (through HotCat) the category redirect comes up as well as the actual title. If you try to add Category:Great Maplestead you also see the redirect Category:Great Maplestead, Essex which may make people think there is multiple. This also applies when searching, the redirect is presented as if it is a separate category.
3. When reverting a move were the redirect even has no edit history, it doesn't allow it, which then requires admin assistance. This isn't the case with galleries or other pages.

If it is not possible to do this then I would request that a (global) bot fixes links to redirects in the various projects. There is already some discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/11/Category:Cleveland, Ohio where R'n'B. gave some explanations. However surely they could still direct the reader directly to the target category or at least do this if the redirect is empty. I would also ask for Achim55's comments on this as they have helped with fixing links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good alternative global solution would be to make redirects "embeddable" (inside templates --XXN, 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)) and to make them work even if placed after other content (e.g. at the end of page). By this then will be possible to include a redirect syntax directly in the {{Category redirect}} and every redicted category will act also as a regular redirect. --XXN, 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But we have 298,085 redirects, even a bot fixing them like that would flood the recent changes unnecessarily, wouldn't a change in the software be better. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my message is a bit confusing, or we misunderstood each other. I agree that it's not necessarily to edit all pages transluding this template. With the solution proposed by me it's sufficient to do the needed changes in Mediawiki core, and to modify {{Category redirect}} to include either a redirect syntax or a new magic word, and after this a category redirect will act both as a standard redirect and category redirect. XXN, 22:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I was suggesting, maybe I should propose this on the talk page with the edit protect template. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a Phabricator task should be open first, to let devs make redirect syntax "embeddable"/"transcludable", as it currently does not support this. XXN, 12:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find mention of this at the VP archives, so posting this "news":

Unsplash, has changed their definition of "do whatever you like" with their "free" photos. In June 2017 their licence page changed from saying "All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero" (i.e. placing them in the public domain) to their own home-grown licence that forbids uploading to image-hosting sites like Commons on any scale: "This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service." Creative Commons commented on this change here. Some further discussion and links here. The restriction is expanded on here and here.

Aside from the threat that "copycat" sites pose to Unsplash's website intrinsic value, their other concern apparently is that they permit photographers to remove their images (and account) from Unsplash but if these are duplicated on other websites collections, it is hard/impossible for them to be removed everywhere. They do accept the licence is irrevocable but like to have the ability for the photo to be no longer publicly offered for free.

Wrt the previous mass upload by Fæ it was believed that licence review was not required, as the whole collection was CC0 (unlike e.g. Flickr which has a variety of licence/copyright options). However, we are now in the situation where it is no longer possible (easily) to determine which images were originally published with CC0 and which are published under the new non-free licence.

A further issue of concern for photographers donating their work to Unsplash is that their terms of use grant Unsplash a perpetual licence to use your work and to sub-licence it (under any licence, including for a fee) and, importantly, to authorise them to legally pursue those who break the terms of any sublicense. Further, each photographer does not appear to have any control over the licence terms offered by Unsplash, so their CC0 can be downgraded to "Unsplash licence" and could be further downgraded and restricted.

Template:Unsplash needs updating to using an Archive.org link to the licence pre 15 June 2017. The documentation for that template should also be updated to warn users about the new licence terms. Images uploaded to Unsplash after that date cannot be uploaded to Commons and must not be tagged with CC0. @Tuvalkin: , who also contributed to the earlier discussion on Unsplash. -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a first go at editing the {{Unsplash}} template and its documentation. My assumption is that the new Unpslash license does not qualify as a free content license. From what I understand, the CC0 is intended to be irrevocable, so images that were made available on Unsplash under the CC0 prior to the license change should still be usable under CC0. (On the other hand, images that have been made available on Unsplash under the new custom license and which were not made available under CC0 would not be acceptable on Commons.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gazebo. I think there is no problem with us and Unsplash agreeing that images hosted prior to June 2017 are CC0 and can be used on Commons. Other than upload date to Commons, we have no easy way to determine which images on Unsplash are free (AFAIK). I know CC asked Unsplash to clarify which images are CC0 and which have the new licence, but Unsplash did not consider this important or helpful to their users, who they believed would see little difference. Obviously there is a difference to us, as the new terms exclude collecting Unsplash images like we do, but I think there is also a difference for re-users, who no longer are able to simply state the image is CC0 but rather have to point to some ad-hoc licence page, the wording of which may change again in future.

I think the template documentation change is fine, but not the template itself. The template is for the benefit of re-users, who need assurance that this image is safe to use. So how about:

This image is from Unsplash. Images hosted on Unsplash prior to June 2017 were released under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.
See Unsplash's archived licensing page for more information.

-- Colin (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what the "license reviewer" considers if they see a new Unsplash image. Do they read the template documentation, or do they rely on the template text to guide them? If the latter, then perhaps a brief text saying "Images from Unsplash uploaded to Commons after June 2017 need careful license review. See template documentation for details". Or something like that? What I want is that the licence reviewer is clear about what caution they need, but also that the re-user doesn't have to guess and wonder in doubt, but is confident. Maybe the template needs parameter to indicate:

• Unassessed
• Uploaded prior to June 2017 so safely CC0
• Uploaded since June 2017 but confirmed to be CC0

Though I'm not sure how someone does the latter confirmation now. If there really is no easy way, then perhaps we just have to forbid new uploads from Unsplash? -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Colin, Gazebo, and Fæ: Well, aint this a bummer. Disappointing, although not surprising: Unsplash was already infamous for willingly witholding information about the location of their promoted images, and other relevant information about it. (This posed some interesting identification challenges, some of them still unsolved; everybody likes a riddle to puzzle out, but, unlike century-old images, these mysteries stem from their capricious whim.) That they are dickish about reuse is a likely segue.

I hate to be shown right about having been pessimistic, though, and this is one of these cases. When we started bringing stuff from Unsplash into Commons (2nd wave, in 2014), I defended that {{Unsplash}} should be only a statement of source and permission, and not transclude {{CC-zero}}, which I applied separately to file pages, fearing that something like this would happen.

But since CC-zero is not revokable, what to do now seems simple (already oulined above), and not even too taxing in terms of workload (it is a smallish collection, after all): Update the template (done?), secure archived source urls for all images (done?), and make sure no Unsplash image published after the change of their terms comes to, or stays in, Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuválkin, I have discovered that if you click on the (i) info button for the image's page on Unsplash, it shows the "Published On" date. So anything published before 15 June 2017 is CC0. This could be used for licence reviewers. Tools that scrape Unsplash could also figure this out. Currently we only have one permitted licence for Unsplash images so I'm ok if the template adds the CC0. What we want to prevent is someone uploading new material without checking the "published on Unsplashed date is before 15 June 2017" and making false claim it is CC0. The good news is that with this info, we could still upload many images to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 10:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I fully agree with the above. Looks like we’ll be able to make the best of a bad situation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I made some changes to {{Unsplash/en}} in line with the discussion above, namely, mention of the 15 June 2017 and the need for careful license review. Does anyone have issues loading this archive link version of Unsplash.com? In 2 browsers for me, it turns out blank. seb26 (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks seb26. I made a couple of tweaks. Images uploaded after 15th June (and for years to come) will need reviewed and could still be valid provided the publication date is earlier. There are a lot of images on the site with CC0 that are not on Commons, partly because many lack enough information to be useful. Yes I get the same issue as you. I don't know if there are problems with Archive.org. The text appears briefly and then vanishes. If you look at the page source, the text is there. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seb26, the last that works is https://web.archive.org/web/20170403233634/https://unsplash.com/license — the next ones show a fully blank screen, lacking (visually) even the WayBack Machine’s interface. I suspect that this is one of those tricks shady web outfits used to play with in the late 1990s (woo, <div> is haxor!!), and it’s all there, if you check the HTML source. The change in wording ocurred between these two:

• 2017.05.30,05:34:37:

All photos published on Unsplash are licensed under Creative Commons Zero which means you can copy, modify, distribute and use the photos for free, including commercial purposes, without asking permission from or providing attribution to the photographer or Unsplash.

• 2017.06.08,09:08:49:

All photos published on Unsplash can be used for free. You can use them for commercial and noncommercial purposes. You do not need to ask permission from or provide credit to the photographer or Unsplash, although it is appreciated when possible.

More precisely, Unsplash grants you a nonexclusive copyright license to download, copy, modify, distribute, perform, and use photos from Unsplash for free, including for commercial purposes, without permission from or attributing the photographer or Unsplash. This license does not include the right to compile photos from Unsplash to replicate a similar or competing service.

So, May 29^th, 2017 is the latest we can state Unsplash was relicensing as CC-zero. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuválkin, thanks for looking into this. But... great, even worse. Colin, would you also agree on this as a date? seb26 (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I know: Even worse, two weeks “worser”… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly yes. The announcement was dated 15th June so I assumed that was when they did it. Further, a noticeboard message on the 23th commented "Last week, we put together the new Unsplash License" which would also match the 15th. But archive.org shows the new licence on the 8th. So I guess someone slipped it out early without posting any news. I will send them an email to ask the exact date when they changed the licence. For now, perhaps "June 2017" is accurate enough. -- Colin (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I added to one Unsplash photo this experimental feature: {{Unsplash|uploaded=2016-08-04}}; it can be picked up but the template as transcluded. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuválkin, I think the parameter name should be "published=2016-08-04" as it is the publication date on Unsplash that matters, not the uploaded date on Commons (which here is 2017-07-29, after the licence change). I know both sites have users "upload" to them, but the terminology on the Unsplash page is "PUBLISHED ON". -- Colin (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, also as the intended date was of publishing/upload to Unspash, not to Commons: Change  done. I cannot go around to implement its transclusion in {{Unsplash}} yet, but who ever does it, pls don’t forget to synch all language versions and, maybe, add an warning display if the date in the parameter |published is >2017-05-29 (or whatever exact date it ends up being). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ, Tuvalkin, Seb26, and Gazebo: I got an email back from Unsplash. The licence changed on 5th June 2017. So we should ensure any template parameters, documentation, and any bot transfer scripts take note of that date (i.e., must be 4th June or earlier) wrt "Published On Unsplashed". Later files should be deleted unless the photographer wishes to declare CC0 themsleves in some manner or through OTRS, or offer another free licence option. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have changed the {{Unsplash}} template and its documentation to indicate the license change date of June 5th, 2017. --Gazebo (talk) 07:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Recently, I made some slight edits to the {{Unsplash}} template and documentation in order to make the information consistent with regard to the cutoff date of June 5th, 2017. (In particular, it would seem that if the license changed to non-free on June 5th, 2017, then files published on Unsplash after June 4th (not June 5th) would be non-free.) --Gazebo (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it’s good to have an exact date to work on. (They are not going to deny later it’s this date, are they? No need to print out that e-mail with all headers and snail mail it to WMF legal or something?) Any idea how many files will be impacted? I haven’t come across any such recent upload, even given the huge increase of Unsplash material uploaded to Commons these past few weeks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tuválkin, I have no reason to assume the date was not given to me in good faith. In the end, the difference in licence is small to the point where the only legal challenge one might face is if one created a large online database of Unsplash images that had the new licence. So getting the date wrong by a few days here or there isn't going to create that problem for anyone. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As I am advocating for quite some time now, this proves once more that we need a license review for every image uploaded from an external site. In cases of mass uploads, this can easily be done automatically, so there is no reason not to do it. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures are from a series of Gestapo mug shots after their arrest [2]. Can anyone confirm if the PD-EU-no license is correct for Nazi mug shots, or are they even PD? Picture is dated 1942. Thanks. -- GreenC (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no known author, then an anonymous tag is usually appropriate. I'm pretty sure Gestapo mugshots were never published with author's name attached.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right wouldn't expect an author name for a mug shot, but question is if a Gestapo mugshot is copyright. -- GreenC (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The license tag says "The copyright of this image has expired in the European Union because it was published more than 70 years ago without a public claim of authorship (anonymous or pseudonymous), and no subsequent claim of authorship was made in the 70 years following its first publication." Why doesn't that cover it?--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from copyright in the European Union, is there the possibility of the image being copyrighted in the US? --Gazebo (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This happened to me 3 or 4 times in the past couple days: When calling http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Watchlist?days=5&hidemyself=1&hideWikibase=1&namespace=&action=submit, I get the following:

Database error

A database query error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software.

• [WY9ASQpAADkAADtp0HoAAACQ] 2017-08-12 17:53:09: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"

It always works right at the 2nd, immediate try. I can add that my watchlist has 20933 items (sorry!). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• phab:T168096 may be related. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 18:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hardly: That’s about rare combos, and my watchlist has hundreds of hits every day. It’s surely due to something new in the engine, as I have been using the same exact url above with no problem for the past many months and only in the past week I have been getting, very often, this error message. (Just now, once again.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I have experienced the same error, also about 4 times yesterday; watchlist with 36588 items. My internet connection was quite slow yesterday, I think it might be related to that.--Zaccarias (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been seeing this for about a week or so as well. I'm also seeing an increase in "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than X seconds may not be shown in this list" messages, as well as very long watchlist load times. 61k entries in the watchlist, showing three days, max 1000 entries. Internet connection speed unlikely to be a factor. I have a fast connection without issues on other sites or other Commons pages. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see this message regularly, for much longer than the last month. It's erratic but the frequency of it appearing may be related to whether asking for a mobile version. I probably have one of the largest watchlists, though I have a tool that trims it down now and again, currently it's hovering at 440,000+ so I doubt it's related to watch-list size. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also see it regularly. I just trimmed my watchlist from ~40k to <10k, hoping that it will load faster. Hopefully it will take case of the error as well. --Jarekt (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the size of the watchlist the cause of the problem indeed? --Stunteltje (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No: As reported, people with watchlists containing modest 20 thousand items started suffering from this issue at the same time as others with twice as many items, and before that nobody had experienced this. I tought it could be due to category load, and unwatched to big cats (Unsplash): My watchlist report got much smaller, but I still managed to call it only after a couple F5s. It’s the new normal: These days it’s database error every first time the watchlist is called, and that’s not good. Fix this, WMF, that’s what you’re here for. Work, and let us work! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to report this same issue too. I have a watchlist with c. 90,000 pages, 1000 edits shown. The problem was not there yesterday, but today, I can't access the watchlist. --Eleassar ^(t/p) 14:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably caused by the size of your watchlist, or, more precisely, it is probably caused by some bugs that aren't handling large watchlists properly. They're being fixed, but I'm hearing that it's likely to be another couple of weeks before all's well again (last I heard/YMMV/disclaimers apply/not my project). Some of the bugs are related to ORES, so I'm guessing that there's a chance that turning off the Beta Feature for "New filters for edit review" might help, if you happen to have that enabled. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Commons,

The decoding and encoding technology for the popular MP3 audio format is now patent-free worldwide. Wikimedia Foundation legal has given the OK to move forward with the use of MP3 files on our projects from a legal perspective (phab:T120288#3316046). This means Commons could allow for the uploading and sharing of media in this format. That has the potential benefit of many free files being contributed to the project that exist in this format. However, as you can imagine, there are many workflow and technical considerations. There are also concerns regarding the uploading of content that is not under an appropriate license and the detection of such ill-suited files. The Multimedia team at the foundation wants to learn more from the Commons community. There is no currently planned work for the team related to MP3 support (Most of our attention is on support for structured data on Commons). Nonetheless, we want to take this time to work with the community in understanding how things might move forward.

I'd like to start, or continue for some, a conversation about how we might approach this opportunity. These are just ideas for discussion. First, a suggested course of action.

What if we approached MP3 uploads in phases?

• Phase 0 - Uploading MP3s is a constrained user right defined in the permission system. It would be up to Commons folk to help determine the requirements for what this user right looks like. Uploads are only allowed by folks in this group. The community would need to figure out a way to track these uploads for accountability.
• Phase 1 - A tool is developed that perhaps an expanded group of contributors could use to patrol MP3 uploads. This sounds something that might be accomplished via a Project Grant. It is also possible that the foundation could make plans to work on such a tool sometime in the future, but priorities, budgets, and annual goals need to be considered. User:Dispenser has mentioned to me a few services that may make this possible and can discuss a tool he has created: T132650#3273150 T120288#3461531.
• Phase 2 - An inline tool for detecting non-free licensed files in the upload process that all uploads use.

More information:

• Phabricator task
• Prior discussion
• Prior discussion #2
• 2016 Community Wishlist

Second, a few questions to consider:

• Is enabling MP3 uploads something the Commons community wants?
• How would enabling the upload of MP3 files function? What documentation, interface prompts, and tools are needed?
  • For example, do we need to modify the language on upload tools to reference MP3 related policies or technical limitations?
• Where do you see problems with this proposal?
• What concerns do you have with enabling MP3 uploads that are not addressed?

Third, a sincere thank you for reading all of this and and taking the time to provide your considerations on the topic. I look forward to the ensuing discussion.

Yours, CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, At least for now, this should restrain to trusted users, to be defined by the community. Please do not repeat the issues we have had with cross-wiki uploads, and WP0. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No on phase 0, treating some uploaders as second class citizens. Experiments on tooling should be done on test wiki.

  Do I want MP3 uploads on the Commons? Eh... Obviously OGG Vorbis / Opus is more preferred for higher quality and smaller file sizes, yet Commons accepts PDFs and other formats when no better format exists. If an Vorbis / Opus version is available, I think we should prefer those regardless of the expired MP3 patent. At the same time, I'm a bit reluctant of this: Both OGG Vorbis and Opus are supported in less browsers than MP3, according to caniuse.com.

  How easily can people contribute improvements to something like the MP3 format, versus OGG Vorbis or Opus? At least the latter is not terribly difficult, due to being a free, portable format from the beginning. I also imagine conversion between OGG contained formats is a little bit easier due to shared metadata structure, correct?

  Would MP3 really be beneficial to the Commons in long term? In my opinion no, at least I'm dubious. Vorbis and Opus support is good, also in hardware. Actually, I think the question is do we want to support every free format out there...

  I don't personally see how uploading MP3s would be or need to be any different than any other audio format, from the uploader's perspective. Personally, I'd spend the time on educating uploaders to use free formats from the beginning instead of introducing previously-nonfree MP3 support. Arguable if that makes a bigger change or not... 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 22:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear my intent with a phased approach wasn't to create a caste system on Commons around MP3 uploads. :) I want to proceed with care and consideration. I don't want to suddenly inadvertently overburden Commons with this potential change. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the technical part can surely be tested on a testwiki, there's much more to copyright patrolling than just that. We have to develop new processes for handling audio files and test them in a real-life environment. With images, you can often spot a copyvio from a quick glance at the thumbnail – this won't work for audio files. Not allowing mp3 has in the past mostly prevented people uploading their favourite songs, but with mp3 that would probably change drastically. And yes, in the end uploading an mp3 file should work in the same way as other files and allowed for anyone, but we might want to start slowly. Remember what happened when mobile uploads were enabled? Remember the flood of copyvios from Wikipedia Zero? --El Grafo (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Another big consideration didn't cross my mind earlier: WebM (a common free container supported on Commons) only supports Vorbis and Opus for audio. Unless the container specification is changed to support MP3 (ditto for OGG), muxing derivative works could be more difficult. I don't want to re-encode a lossful format (MP3) to another lossful format (OGG Vorbis) to mux a video in WebM (or MKV) container. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 23:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  If the original (or available copy) is MP3, then you reencoding it to Vorbis is likely to turn out better for you then having someone else reencode without familiarity with the compromises you need.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 is important because any reencoding is lossy, and the best available format for a huge chunk of recordings is MP3. I'm not a huge fan of OGG Vorbis; we should be uploading in FLAC or WAV formats if possible. OGG Vorbis is higher quality at the same bitrates (or the same quality at lower bitrates) but 320kbs MP3s are hard to tell from uncompressed CD audio, even under the best circumstances, and I think we're at a point that few care about the size difference (and we can automatically downscale if necessary.) I recognize and have no solution to the possible wave of copyrighted recordings (with the additional problem that all audio works are covered by copyright in the US until 2067.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just enable it - if people don't like lossy formats then put up a notice that lossless is preferred, but sometimes the lossy thing is all you have. We accept JPEGs rather than requiring PNGs and making JPEG uploads a special privilege - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Just enable it, no phases needed. Great that we can finally have mp3s. --SJ+

• enable upload go for mp4 next. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • MP4/H.264 is still patented and don't have the importance that MP3 have. - Yuhong (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • MPEG-2 (the DVD standard) becomes patent-free in Feburary. See T166024 Dispenser (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Beware the minefield. The vast majority of MP3 files on the Internet today appear to be copyvios of the big music recording industry companies' work. The trade association for these former record companies, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has a team of lawyers with a long and well-publicized record of suing alleged infringers successfully (whether or not infringement was proven or wilful). Although it would be great if we could easily host free MP3 files, we do not have sufficient volunteers to patrol the predicted flood of them, and the WMF probably does not have enough lawyers to defend against RIAA, Safe Harbor or not.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's what "Phase 0" is about: Restrict uploading to (for example) autopatrolled users in the beginning until we can figure out effective ways for copyright patrolling. As far as I understand, the idea is to use external databases in a similar way we use Google Images and Tineye for pictures now; possibly in a more automated fashion. Once that works we can open the upload process to a wider audience. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree: Just enable it, MP3 is the JPEG of audio ;-) - of course there are lots of MP3 copyvios, but that's not really different from the lots of JPEG image copyvios. It's a format we should support, now that it's patent-free. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the proposed phased approach to enabling MP3 uploading is well considered. It incorporates the desirable goal of enabling MP3 uploads for all users while at the same time giving Commons the time to learn how to deal with what I would anticipate to eventually be a large number of MP3 copyright violations. —RP88 (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This proposal suggests that lessons have been learned, which is something that I really think we should appreciate. Per RP88, I'd be very much in favour of proceeding with a phased approach as suggested by CKoerner.    FDMS  4    14:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We've waited so long to mp3 to become free, there's really no need to rush it now. Let's take some time to do it thoroughly. To answer some of the questions above:

• Yes, I think it's clear that mp3 is something we should support.
• Given that we already support other audio formats, the required changes to policies, help pages etc. should be minimal. But this might be a good time to review what we have and think about what could be improved. When it comes to recordings of music, Copyright can get pretty complex due to different people being involved (composers, lyrics writers, performers, recording/mixing/producing). I.e. compositions by Mozart are certainly old enough to be in the public domain, but modern recordings (just like sheet music) are still subject to copyright. Commons:Audio already has some info on this, but I'm not sure how we handle this in practice. At the very least we should have some more guidance for this.
  • Commons:Essential_information may need an update.
  • Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter lacks a section on music.
  • {{Author}} needs some additional parameters for composers etc.
  • we'd probably want to either adjust {{Artwork}} to be useful for recordings of music or create an analogous template for music. UploadWizard finally needs to be adjusted to support this kind of thing → phab:T51443
  • COM:Structured data mostly has focused on images so far, we might want to remind them that there are other kinds of media as well
• For catching the most clueless of copyright violators, it might be worth a try to check en:ID3 tags and other meta data on upload and compare them to song data bases.

And yes, I very much appreciate that the people at the WMF side of things start to ask for and listen to our opinions on this kind of subject matter. There have been tensions in the past that could have been avoided by this, and I see this as an important step towards re-building lost trust. Now it's time for us to do our part: Please, people, use the opportunity and share your thoughts! --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to {{Artwork}}, we've already built {{Musical work}}. A good overview of the existing file metadata inbox templates is at Commons:Infobox templates. With regards to indicating the licensing status of the multiple copyrights that might be relevant to a derivative work like a music recording, it appears {{Copyright information}} would be appropriate (although it may need a field added for "performance"). —RP88 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't do it. It will be a fiasco like mobile uploads.--ISIL-KP (talk) 10:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no recent image of skyscrapers and skyline of Indonesia. I have uploaded a few recently,but it is persistently being tagged for deletion. Please let us discuss about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M R Karim Reza (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume this would be because there is no freedom of panorama in Indonesia. Any photograph of a recent building there would need the permission of the copyright holder, typically the architect. - Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• And I see you have already been told that. So there really isn't anything to discuss. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This also was not the first time you were told: two mass XfD's already. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• As instructed by User:Jeff G. at COM:UNDEL, please have the architect(s) verify permission via Commons:OTRS for Indonesian works of art under copyright. Otherwise Commons can't host them. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 15:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is an interest in using photos of copyrighted Indonesian architecture on the English Wikipedia, then one option would be to upload such photos locally to the English Wikipedia and to tag then with {{FoP-USonly|Indonesia}}. (Unlike Commons, the English Wikipedia operates under US law only and the US has FOP for architecture.) --Gazebo (talk) 08:27, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks everybody except HyperGaruda ----Reza

Unless this guy: Ellin Beltz has proof of the same, kindly request him to not take down the images I upload??

I can show the pictures which I had uploaded more than an year ago with all necessary information's provided and registered as own work. Own_work_LR.png

Please re-instate the images uploaded for Wikipage "Luke Rockhold". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7leumas (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As previously both stated by User:Sanandros at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rockhold.jpg and User:Storkk at COM:UNDEL, please forward the affirmation of the copyright holder their agreement to the license via Commons:OTRS. This can also be done via email at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Be aware that persistent violators of copyright may be blocked from contributing to Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 16:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@7leumas: Hi,

Any content previously published elsewhere needs a formal written permission from the copyright owner. Please do not reupload delete files. BTW Ellin Beltz is a woman. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yea but this case could be more complicated as it claims that is comes from en wp. So can somebody check that file also on en?--Sanandros (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lr2.jpg, for example, has a watermark on the photo saying "©Zuffa LLC via Getty Images". Are you saying that is yourself? - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that (for File:Wanda stadium.jpg) you are also "FCC" credited at https://en.atleticodemadrid.com/galerias/the-evolution-of-the-construction-of-the-new-stadium-of-atletico-madrid? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania is a crazy place where one can meet and exchange ideas with people from many backgrounds, projects and locations. This year quite a few were related to different aspects of Commons:

• As User:MB-one already reported we had Commons categorizer meetup 2017 (slides/Etherpad) and Commons photographer's meetup where we discussed among other things Commons-specific Conference
• There was a lot of talk about future of Structured Data on Commons, a project planning to add infrastructure for storing much of information about our files in Wikidata-like pages hosted on Commons in the next 3 years. The team charged with the task includes Sandra Fauconnier User:SandraF (WMF), Amanda Bittaker User:Abittaker (WMF) and Alex Stinson User:Astinson (WMF) among others. If you would like to participate in design stage see File:Structured Data on Commons - What changes are coming? - presentation at Wikimania 2017.pdf and read slide 26 for some info on how to get involved.
• I gave a talk about current efforts to use more of Wikidata on Commons and on importing much of the data currently stored in {{Creator}}, {{Institution}}, {{Book}}, {{Artwork}}, and other templates to Wikidata. See my slides at File:Using Wikidata on Commons - August 2017.pdf.
• User:Multichill presented slides on his WikiProject sum of all paintings which already has large impact on Commons painting collection and the quality of associated meta data. See his annotated slides at File:Sum of all paintings is just the start Wikimania 2017 notes.pdf
• There were many presentations related to photography, audio files and Content of Commons in general

• 
  by User:Luisalvaz
• 
  by User:Satdeep Gill
• 
  by User:Psubhashish

I am sure other attendees from Commons had different interests and experiences and that I omitted some important topic related to Commons covered at the conference, so let me ping few of other attendees that could add their impressions: @Yann, Susannaanas, Beria, Benoit Rochon, Jean-Frédéric, Kaldari, Léna, Lokal Profil, Missvain, PierreSelim, Sphilbrick, Yarl, and Jameslwoodward: --Jarekt (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.Is it possible to get rid of borders, watermarks and brackets quickly?Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these are easy, some are not. File:((( ارتفاعات روستای برایمه مهاباد))) - panoramio.jpg would easily be done with the CropTool. On the other hand, there is no easy fix for File:((( باغ ارم شیراز))) - panoramio.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jmabel: The normal way (CropTool) needs a long time. Is there a faster way?And can the brackets be removed in titles Without working manually? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I've got nothing. Can someone else help this person? Maybe a bot-owner on the naming side? - Jmabel ! talk 14:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

      Getting rid of surplus brackets is underway, will take a while. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually create lists of new files in Category:ice hockey using PetScan, but since beginning of June I always get the following error message: Database query failed. Problem with commonswiki? This is my petscan configuration Any conclusion, how I can avoid the error? Any other tool to get new uploads per category? --Xgeorg (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should file a bug report with the tool's developer. Ruslik (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg (File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg) :: the new copyright cut-off date stated in the message "Russia changed it's law in 2008 to 70 pma, Voroncov died after 1945. 1945+70= 2015. This Photo isn't PD in the RF. sугсго 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)" has now passed, in the year before last. Please undelete this image. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Children_in_the_Holocaust_concentration_camp_liberated_by_Red_Army.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Someone knows why this maps (and the Date/Time) does not appear? Thanks!--Ghybu (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean by "does not appear"? Ruslik (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0: We don't see the file.--Ghybu (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: I use Mozilla Firefox (55.0.2). I tried with Google Chrome and IE: it works.--Ghybu (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfectly normal to me, and your last comment "it works" hardly clarifies. Could you describe exactly what you are doing when things go wrong, and what exactly doesn't work? It might be simpler to follow if you don't shorthand by putting texts as part of the links: for example, I have no idea what you meant to do by indicating [[:File:Nile-ku.svg#File history|Date/Time]]. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: This is what I see with Firefox: [6]. With Google Chrome or IE the look is normal--Ghybu (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I'm using Firefox, and it looks perfectly normal to me. Maybe some sort of caching issue? Have you tried going to the page an hitting CTRL-F5? - Jmabel ! talk 04:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A caching issue is also my guess (Firefox user as well): Try purging, see for that after my signature. — Speravir – 22:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please purge your browser’s cache or enable JavaScript in your Browser's settings. (You only need to do it once.)

This is the first thing I did was before coming here. If I am the only here to not see the image :) so the problem is solved... Thanks! (Note: I also think it's probably a caching problem. Because, I have downloaded the same file on ku.wikipedia and the file appears normally for me too.)--Ghybu (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Following the previous conversation regarding 3D files on Commons, the legal team at the Wikimedia Foundation has recently shared some points addressing 3D files from a legal perspective. Particularly concerns around patented objects and objects that are weapons. I encourage Commonists interested in discussing the details of this feature to participate in a discussion in preparation for the feature. On the technical side, work is progressing. We want to make sure all aspects of this feature are considered before it is enabled. Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for writing some of this on-wiki. The section on what the WMF will delete from Commons is troublingly non-specific, it looks any any 3D model file that contains a "pointy edge" could be considered a weapon; let's hope the policy can be shaped up when there are case studies to test policy against. --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm OK with the idea that we don't want to be a place where terrorists and others can bypass arms control legislation by 3D printing weapons. Though as Fæ says implementing this in a clear and sensible manner is not going to be easy. Lots of supposedly non military technology can make improvised weapons.... However one area where I'd like this to be broadened is torture technology, I can see the argument that picture of thumb screws would have an educational purpose, but I'd rather we didn't enable Daesh or someone to make them. WereSpielChequers (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Therefore, the Foundation’s recommended approach is to have users agree to a disclaimer that they do not hold any patent rights in a potentially-patentable object upon upload of the 3D file.

  — Wikilegal/3D files and 3D printing

I see there's a footnote, but the widely used {{GPLv3}} license provides a patent grant and is already "ideal" for copyleft computer software and 3D-printer plans. More lax, permissive licenses with patent grants exist, such as {{Apache-2.0}}.

Patents unconsidered, in addition to the GPLv3+ the Free Software Foundation also makes a suggestion other free licenses (Creative Commons) already in use at Commons are also fine for 3D-printer plans of practical use. In addition, 3D-printer plans for decorative objects are artistic works and don't typically concern with patents so CC BY(-SA) 3.0+ should be fine for them. Indeed, Commons should make a distinction between 3D-printer plans for artistic and practical uses during the upload process (UploadWizard).

I don't favor more different patent grants as suggested by Wikilegal (which may not interoperate with other free works or software), but instead opt for well understood existing copyright licenses with patent grants. Dual-licensing under CC BY(-SA) 3.0/4.0 and GPLv3+ (at your choice) could be an option, much like how existing CC BY-SA 3.0 / GFDL (unversioned, no invariants) works on Wikimedia projects.

Because the uploader could be forfeiting substantial rights in the 3D object, it would be advisable to have a specific warning, triggered upon uploading the 3D file, alerting users that any patent rights they have in the object will be waived.

— Wikilegal/3D files and 3D printing

The cause of the previous quote is the most terrifying proposal to me in my opinion, and may be a big barrier for contribution wrt. {{GPLv3}} and others. (Think like Ogg Vorbis/Opus or VP8 video codec patents, with free patent grants.) At the same time, I feel like software patents should die.

I skimmed over some of the Wikilegal perspective (TL;DR), but overall it seems decent excluding issues pointed here wrt. patent interests in copyleft & pointy edge weapons. 2001:2003:54FA:D2:0:0:0:1 12:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the contents of Category:Stained glass windows of the Washington National Cathedral, and while most of the contents appear to be uploaded as ostensibly PD, I am certain that the cathedral retains copyright to the window images. Can someone offer corroboration before I nominate everything in the category? Mangoe (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the modern stained glass windows are likely to be protected by copyright. However, many of the stained glass windows in the Washington National Cathedral are likely in the public domain due to age or failure to renew copyright (i.e. {{PD-1923}}, {{PD-US-unpublished}}, {{PD-US-not renewed}}, etc.). I don't think a blanket nomination of the category is appropriate. You might consider starting by nominating for deletion photos of any original stained glass work taken from the interior of the Washington National Cathedral where the stained glass was created on or after March 1, 1989. The only way we could keep those photos would be if the creator of the stained glass has licensed their work under a free license. —RP88 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we get to assume that copyright has not been renewed, and while I don't have a date here I'm pretty sure that the oldest windows pictured are too young to be PD by virtue of age; OTOH everything shown is (I believe) 1985 or earlier (possibly some of the nave clerestory windows are younger, but I don't see any of those pictured here). Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:2017 Charlottesville ramming (car involved).jpg Can someone add categories for this file, to identify the make of the car, and it's ID plate? ^[1]

• Category:Grey coupes
• Category:Muscle cars
• Category:Dodge Challenger

There should be a category tree for cars by number of doors, but I can't find it. It would be normal to do so, since it's basic car identification (ie. 2-door vs 4-door) This is a 2-door

• The plate number is OHIO GVF 1111

There should be a category tree for sorting cars by their registration number, since other objects can be sorted by registration or serial number.

1. ↑ http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/08/car_that_drove_into_crowd_at_u.html

-- 67.70.35.17 06:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the bay between Furufjörður and Reykjarfjörður? (see location File:Reykjafjarðarlaug (700589586).jpg) There was confusion with two fjords wich are called Reykjarfjörður I hopefully resolved. The boat was ankered in this bay, but we crossed over on foot to the Reykjafjarðarlaug valley up to to the Drangajokull glacier. So I have pictures of both fjords/valleys.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: The coordinates currently given at File:Reykjafjarðarlaug (700589586).jpg point actually to Reykjarfjörður. However, according to the ja.is map, the narrow fjord between Furufjörður and Reykjarfjörður is called Þaralátursfjörður if that's what you're looking for :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Now I can upload the pictures with the correct name. The Category:Reykjarfjörður pictures are already uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new Category:Þaralátursfjörður. There some strange standing wave effects: Any idea what is seen in File:Þaralátursfjörður 2017 05.jpg and File:Þaralátursfjörður 2017 08.jpg? It is not a surface effect, but must be underwater. There was praticaly no wind at that moment and the small wind waves moved through the area without any effect. (smaller windwaves tend to brake by bigger waves. I suspect it has nothing to do with surface waves. There is a time lapse of around 9 minutes between the to images and the bands dont seem to move.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, due to my mistake in a recent patch (https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/371737 aiming to correct the sort order of languages in the dropdown shown when entering file description) recent UploadWizard uploads used {{83|…}} and similar broken templates (with different numbers) instead of {{en|…}} etc. (with different language codes) in the description pages. This should no longer occur for new uploads (fixed with https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/372417), but the descriptions of a number of files are currently broken due to this.

I will be finding and fixing the affected descriptions; you do not need to do anything, this is just a notification. See phab:T173522 for details. Matma Rex (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of JPEG 2000 on WIKIMEDIA? I have come across image files using jp2 format. I do not have software to convert them into PNG format. It seems a shame to convert JP2 files into JPG format just to upload them. It makes sense to me to upload them as JP2 and if anyone wanted to use them, they could download them and use as they wish.User-duck (talk) 05:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User-duck: See phab:T13871 and phab:T18803. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And phab:T20803. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: When I searched on jp2 I found NOTHING. That is why I asked the question. The fact that JPEG 2000 files are not supported should be mentioned. I found the mention that BMP files are not supported.User-duck (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, JPEG 2000 is listed at Commons:File_types#Unsupported_file_types. --El Grafo (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I searched for "jp2".
Still cannot edit file without removing RTL. I guess a work-around is better than nothing.User-duck (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JFYI: I’ve just added JP2 (and more) to Commons:File types. — Speravir – 20:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot edit this Village pump page at the bottom. The problem starts just after 13:45, 15 August 2017. My debugging skills tell me that it has something to do with the RTL text used in a signature.User-duck (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User-duck: How about now? I have not experienced this problem. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: I removed the lines with RTL text to add this comment.User-duck (talk) 08:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and File:Patrijs in de Westfjorden 2.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: German-language Wikipedia has a very nice page where people identify species: de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Biologie/Bestimmung - I suppose you could also ask in English there :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: See Category:Unidentified birds and its sub-categories. Andy Mabbett (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Solved is /Lagopus muta islandorum in summer plumage.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks! I work with the Wikimedia Foundation's communications team. We've embarked on a bit of an experiment this week: we put together a blog post and infographic to encourage photographers of the upcoming solar eclipse to upload them to Commons.

We're planning to publicize that blog post on our social media channels on Monday, and the only specific outreach we have planned is to people who post high-quality photos on those platforms. We're deliberately limiting our push so we don't flood Commons with poor-quality photos, and/or make life difficult for anyone here.

Please feel free to use the infographic to reach out to photographers, and let me know if you have any comments or concerns with anything. I'd love to work with you all on improvements as needed. This is definitely an experiment, and your feedback will help us figure out if we'll want to repeat it for other (perhaps more global) events. Thank you! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing, Ed! What about adding a remark at the bottom like "PS: if you have other images with educational value you'd like to share with us - we welcome those too!"? Effeietsanders (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Effeietsanders, that's a great idea! I've just added a note to the bottom of the blog post. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 05:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Ed Erhart (WMF): Out of curiosity, have you considered using an upload campaign (both as a « customised landing page » and as an upload helper) for this? Jean-Fred (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: That would be a no, as I genuinely didn't know that existed. :-) That's something we'll keep in mind for the future. Thank you for the pointer. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ed Erhart (WMF): Glad I could be of help. I went ahead and made a simple Campaign:SolarEclipse2017 − only pre-fills the main category. Turns out one can even replace the Licensing tutorial at the beginning − how fancy is that ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean-Frédéric: I'm sorry, I'm only just seeing this! I'm going to have to play around with that tool and see how we can best employ it. For example, a general infographic, useful for different sorts of self-taken photos, tailored for that 'learn' step would be awesome. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded three photos with AC Power Plug Travel Adapter Converters and I can't find a more specific category for them than Category:Power adapters. Can someone please help me to find or to create a proper category for them?. Thanks. Fructibus (talk) 02:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mains adaptors looks like a better match. --ghouston (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody,

The last three months Infobliss has been working on a tool which eases uploading of images from GLAMs to Commons. The tool is aimed at collections where importing everything at once to Commons is not feasible (due to scope, copyright or data quality issues). The tool currently supports uploads from the Amsterdam Museum and the Nationaal Archief (of the Netherlands). We welcome you to test out the tool glam2commons at toollabs and give feedback on what you think about it, what can be improved and which collections you would be interested in seeing supported. Some more information about the tool can be found at Glam2Commons. Infobliss is especially interested to know whether the instructions on how to use the tool are clear; How you feel about the loading times when uploading multiple (more than 3) images; What you think about the general look and feel of the app; And any suggestions on the resulting image descriptions. Your feedback is probably best suited on Commons talk:Glam2Commons, we thank you in advance for your interest.

Greetings, Basvb (talk) 14:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Wiki Loves Monuments UK is looking for some volunteers to help with reviewing this year’s entries and identifying a long list of images that are worthy to be submitted to the three judges who will pick the final winners. You don't need to be a top photographer to volunteer for this, but you should have a good understanding of what makes an exceptional photograph and be able to distinguish good from mediocre images. You'd need to be able to commit to something like four or five hours work, mostly during October but perhaps during September as well.

If you are able to help, please leave a note on my talk page, or alternatively contact me using the "email this user" feature. More details can be found here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got mail. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

I am new to Wiki Commons and have seen that 'Commons is not a place to advertise'. However, I would like to be able to give a link to my commercial webpage inside my pics' description. I have seen some authors do it. For instance, the author below adds a link to his/her commercial site into the 'author' section of the pic description: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spb_06-2017_img50_Eliseevsky_Shop.jpg I assume this is a common practice and does not violate the rules, but want to be on the safe side before I do the same. Thank you for your replies.

Best, Stephan — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.182.9.34 (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say that is riding the edge. I personally have a similar policy, but I state it on my user page, not on every individual photo, and I don't link an external site, I tell people to contact me if they need a different license. - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, anybody know why File:Google Photos icon.svg is celebrating tomorrow's solar eclipse? Until recently it resembles a colorful pinwheel. Now it is completely black. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 04:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The actual image is displayed correctly, so it seems to be a problem with generation of thumbnails. --jdx ^Re: 05:44, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been introduced with the latest update of rsvg (the SVG renderer Commons uses to generate the preview PNGs). The Commons SVG Checker, which still uses an older version of rsvg, says the file is fine and displays it correctly. If someone would like to file a bug report at phabricator, you might want to mention that this is not the infamous flowed text turns into a black rectangle bug. But if it's an rsvg issue, it probably needs to be resolved upstream by the rsvg developers. --El Grafo (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I recently made an appeal on a deletion request from a mobile device. There was no clear place or method to comment other than a 'Discuss' button. It turned out that my appeal may have been overlooked because the discussion page is not the usual way to discuss a deletion request. For what it is worth, it is not really clear how and where to reply to these sorts of comments even on a laptop.

How can we improve the Wikimedia software, as deployed on Wikimedia Commons, so the user experience in discussion threads is more clear? Particularly, how can we improve the 'reply to' functionality in threaded discussions such as deletion requests?

Brylie Christopher Oxley 23:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to have a movie night outside on a 15 x 13 screen for just friends. Invited friends only. On our own property. Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.76.96.66 (talk) 02:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with Wikimedia Commons.
• Commons is not in a position to dispense legal advice.
• You don't say what country, so not even a lawyer could give you a solid answer on the legalities.
• Speaking entirely from a practical point of view, as an individual who is not lawyer, and speaking for myself rather than for Commons or the WMF: do you really care whether this is technically copyright violation? It's not as if George Lucas is likely to sue you over this. - Jmabel ! talk 03:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]