Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives

 

Start a new discussion

Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

NC-ND is allowed?[edit]

Or ... what's going on? Can anyone explain? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging Ritchyblack. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 02:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Free Art License is conformant. He's welcome to offer any other license in addition. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
whenever you (Personal attack removed) want to stop the hybrid license nonsense, go for it. using the SA or NC ND to force email for reuse terms is particularly clever. or maybe an FAQ for the periodically incredulous. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
wow, kids is a personal attack? hillarious. stop the madness. or get laughed at. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be wording to state that the end user can re-use the image under either license? I don't delve into the dual licensing stuff much, but it seems like the use of such a template couldn't force an end user to re-use under both licenses? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Deletion If these media are actually licensed with NC-ND, then they must be removed from here. The uploader can relicense them to make them more free but we cannot host them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not true as I understand it. So long as the end user has the option of a free license to use, any number of other licenses (free or otherwise) can be included with the image. That's my whole question here: that template, and any others like it, need to make it clear that the end user can choose which license to use, and that they don't have to abide by both (or more) licenses. Look at some of the templates in Category:Multi-license license tags, for example, which do it correctly. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I would agree with you if there was more evidence this is confusing. I didn't think there was, but it is concerning that one of the most prolific Wikipedia editors of all time is confused by it. That said, even templates like {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}} don't make this point explicitly. If we must mandate clarification, I'd start with templates like that first. Storkk (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we come up with standard text that says something like "You can choose one or both of the following licenses: "? Also, can an admin unprotect this? Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 18:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
This should be a variant on {{FAL or cc-by-nc-nd}}, for just the specific BY-NC-ND version. Reventtalk 17:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
don't know why you would want to undo the protection by banned users. how about a survey of protection and unprotecting as appropriate? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I'd just like to make it clear that you can choose one of the licenses. That's not clear at all right now. Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 01:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
hey, it is perfectly clear to me. it's the license purists who wonder at this hybrid nonsense. see also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Fir0002/credits why you won't go to CC for the future, and mark historical i don't know. and why an historical hybrid license is protected, i don't know. it is all very confusing and tl;dr. maybe an admin will wander in and fix the old license of someone who hasn't uploaded in 2 years. maybe a few more FAQ's are in order. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 01:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I'm glad that it's clear to you. It isn't to me and I suspect others, hence my request to unprotect the page so I can address it. Thanks! Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It was also apparently unclear to Koavf just above. Would you describe him as a license purist or a clueless noob? Storkk (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
i will let you sort yourselves into which category you belong. all those people who voted keep hybrid licenses can fix their FUBAR. or the people venting unproductively on VP. clearly you cannot harangue the uploader since they are long gone. and i don't want to hear it. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 00:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Before even considering messing with users' custom license templates, please consider gauging support for a change in templates like {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}}. I think the unprotection you requested is premature. Storkk (talk) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: I would simply like the opportunity to add "Choose one of the following:" to the confusing license header. I'll be happy to start a discussion on other related templates when I have time, but this should be an incredibly uncontroversial action to prevent confusion. We're here to facilitate re-use, not confuse people. :-) Ed [talk] [en:majestic titan] 09:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
While you and Justin have indeed professed to being confused by this custom user license template, you have not demonstrated that we have enough of a problem, in my opinion, to unilaterally override the licensing choices of a user who could reply (if they were still here) that they were simply following well-established practices as indicated by templates such as {{Dual-gfdl-cc-by-sa-any}}. So no, I will not be unprotecting that template until there has been strong community consensus demonstrated that some kind of {{Dual license}} boilerplate is required for all dual licenses. I would certainly support adding clarifying wording to, e.g. Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses except that it is already in the second bullet point. Storkk (talk) 10:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Are we misunderstanding each other? In what way is clarifying that you can choose one of the templates "unilaterally overrid[ing] the licensing choices of a user"? I'm legitimately surprised that you are actively advocating to confuse users when there's an unequivocally easy solution. You'll note, I'm sure, that those dual-license templates don't actually link to Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia/licenses, so I don't see how that solves the issue. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: the choice of how to format and present the licensing was his. If you override it without his input and without a clear consensus to do so, I would call that "unilateral". I am struggling to understand why you think the previously mentioned Template-namespace templates are not confusing while these are, or why you are otherwise refusing to start there. Storkk (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: These templates are meant to facilitate reuse, not confuse readers. Of course the other templates are confusing as well, but there's no clear place to start a discussion. It would seem like this issue applies to far more than just one template, so would this page not be suitable? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@The ed17: Sure, this page is fine. Storkk (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this license has been incorrectly added to a lot of files. For example, this diff shows the file was available under the FAL license for months and it was only after becoming promoted to valued image that the restrictive template was added. That is not OK. Jane023 (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Which more restrictive template was added? The file is still available under the Free Art License. If a re-user does not wish to abide by the terms of the FAL, they can choose CC-BY-NC-ND instead. Like any other dual license template, you are not required to simultaneously abide by both licenses stated. Storkk (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The second license has been added to the first. Not OK. In thhe case of a book cover made after a PD image, there may also be two licenses; one for the text and one for the image. DO you call that a dual license that can be "chosen" as you put it? I think not. Jane023 (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
A situation where there are two copyright interests (and so you can think of the restrictions being "additive" in some sense), is not particularly relevant. Here, the second license is an additional option, and it cannot restrict further than either individually, as is made clear in the second bullet point at Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia/licenses. You are, however, the third person to profess confusion at dual licensing in this section, so perhaps one of you who are confused should start an RFC? I cannot, since I do not understand your confusion and thus cannot present the reasons for your confusion cogently, nor am I in a good position to suggest the best way to resolve the situation or advocate on its behalf. Storkk (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
hey User:Jane023 welcome to the hybrid theocracy. as long as it is "libre" ideology, NC ND is ok. the idea that an uploader can go restrict their license from libre to NC ND is wrong for flickr, but ok for commons. lol [1] all those german photogs gotta make a living, i'm just so glad they left behind their work, like toolserver. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 19:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Scripted & automated tasks on human accounts[edit]

Thrice now my requests for higher access for my bot has been declined. We as a community should reach a decision on the matter because this is ridiculous.

Protected pages, bulk update of OTRS requests, bulk admin actions are all in the domain of bots. Not humans. There is a very disturbing trend of "just use your human account with higher access for bot tasks" as well as a number of bulk scripts that are regularly used by human accounts. Unauthorized use of bots like this should be discouraged (or even blocked/banned) not encouraged/required.

If we will not allow bots to freely update pages, I feel we should retire the bot flag.

  • I WILL NOT use scripted/automated bulk tasks under my human account.
  • I WILL NOT edit protected pages leftover from a routine bot task.
  • I WILL NOT manually process bulk OTRS permission requests where the ticket applies to multiple files already uploaded to commons.
  • I want to get stuff done without wasting my time on routine trivial tasks a bot can handle.

You LET bots upload files but you do NOT let bots update OTRS tickets in bulk.

-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are good and well defined reasons included in the bot request for the sysop rights to be applied, then it would be accepted. As far as I could work out, the reasons given appeared fairly ad hoc, rather than for well defined tasks that required the rights. I suggest rethinking your approach to the job you want to do, so that the request reads as specific and limited. --Fæ (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What you are asking is impossible. The very nature of bot use involves large number of files which means broad definitions which is turned down for being ad-hoc. If I identify a very limited scope then I am told to make the edits manually since it isn't that many files.
First I requested the global ability to edit protected pages (primarily to deal with protected double redirects on over 700 wikis), this was declined on the grounds of "no problems". Then I requested an admin flag here on commons to deal with protected pages on commons (for a number of tasks) which I withdrew when people opposed on the basis of "unnecessary" and "no higher access to bots".
Lastly, I merely requested OTRS permission which adds no special privileges. All the bot would gain would be to tag OTRS tickets. I am told to do them by hand or modify the commons abuse filter. This has a very specific and limited use. If we do not wan't bots to deal with routine tasks, what is the point of the bot flag.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 15:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, thank you for telling us what you are going not to do, but as in your previous requests I'm still missing a strong argument why we have to join the ultimate workflow of yours against all commons sense. Especially OTRS ticket additions should be noticed by the uploader on his watchlist, so using a bot flag here is a no-go for me. --Krd 18:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Krd: I am asking you to handle the manual labor for me since you decided this is not something the bot should do. It is a task my bot can perform within seconds which you do not allow. Your opinion is the law here. At the very least JUSTIFY your position. Give a strong reason why bots are not allowed in editing protected pages or bulk update OTRS tags. This is a routine non-controversial task. We never required strong arguments for bot tasks before. Why are you demanding it?
For example, please explain to me why the uploader needs OTRS tagging in their watchlist? Why would they not need to see re-categorization and other routine tasks? Why explicitly OTRS? If the files aren't tagged with the permissions license, they will be deleted as the permission known to the OTRS ticket isn't communicated to the file description page.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The bot in question is user:タチコマ robot. The declined request for bot admin rights is at Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ robot. とある白い猫 I appreciate your interest in doing tasks with a bot. I hope that you understand that there has to be some regulation. Right now, I do not see either on the bot's page or in the request a description of what the bot will do. Can you point to at least 1-3 sentences of description of why you want the bot to have admin rights? Do you think this is too much to ask? It seems reasonable to me to request an explanation before rights are given. Is there a misunderstanding here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Bluerasberry: My bot has two roles. First is double redirects. The other is find and replace tasks. It has been processing these for years. The bot processes hundreds of thousands of pages for routine tasks per year. The bot cannot edit protected pages or update OTRS template in bulk. I don't want to go through hundreds of thousands of pages manually to identify the 2-3 protected pages and then perform a routine edit. Likewise I do not want to make 40 individual edits on OTRS tagging. The problem here is that I am unwilling to engage in manual labor that the bot can handle trivially. This is the purpose of bots. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify the lists on my plate are User:タチコマ robot/list(Ticket:2016112810007364 - 40 files) and User:タチコマ robot/list2(ticket:2016112110010603 - 35 files). -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 I still am not sure I understand. I see at Special:Contributions/タチコマ_robot the bot is already doing all sorts of tasks, and this use has been approved for a long time. If I understand correctly, that bot is not allowed to do those same tasks on protected pages, even though the task it does has nothing to do with the cause for page protection. Can you give an example of what you want the bot to do with OTRS templates? Is it already doing OTRS template work, or is this a new task and something that is restricted to admin bots? I regret asking you to do a manual example, but if need be, can you do one OTRS replacement to demonstrate what it is that you want the bot to do? I am not aware of what might be restricted to admins for OTRS templates. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Certainly, the bot is incapable of editing protected pages. Just like how ordinary users cannot edit protected pages. Pages are protected for all sorts of reasons but mainly for abuse (such as repetitive vandalism) or the risk of abuse (such as files used on main pages that are temporarily protected). If these pages happen to be in a group of files that are being updated, the bot will simply skip the protected pages. As per the Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ robot decision, the bot will not edit protected pages. I have reviewed the ticket:2016112110010603 which grants us the ability to freely license the 35 files mentioned in the OTRS ticket. In this case, the bot would replace the {{OTRS pending}} template with {{PermissionOTRS}}. Only users with a global "OTRS Member" permission can modify this tag. "OTRS Member" permission does not offer any special access beyond that. The idea here is for the bot to perform a thankless repetitive task so that I do not have to. While the bot preforms those, I can focus on other tickets instead. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 02:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 Okay, that checks out. You as a human will manually read OTRS tickets, and once you have made a human decision, then you will use the bot to automatically update the templates on a set of files. The problem you have had is that only accounts with the "OTRS Member" userright can edit these files, so since your bot has neither that or admin rights, then your bot has been unable to do this tedious task.
You have a record as an experienced and trusted user and have admin status on Commons. Your bot is approved to run, and you are a person who has had advanced rights, and you have described an appropriate bot function which requires advanced rights.
I looked again at Commons:Administrators/Requests/タチコマ_robot. If I understand correctly, Krd opposed the granting of rights because it is "not shown why manual bulk tasks cannot be done with the main account". I see a collection of tedious tasks waiting for this bot, including User:タチコマ robot/OTRS/2016112810007364, and as I understand changing the templates in this list is a noncontroversial thing to do and I also feel that it would be tedious to update these 40 files by hand. This seems like bot work to me, and the bot cannot do this or similar updates for sets of files without advanced rights.
Krd, it sounds like you had a concern about limits on the bot. Would you approve this bot to update OTRS templates on Commons as described here? What about this task makes you hesitate to support the granting of rights? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: That pretty much sums up what I hope to achieve. The two different OTRS tickets I have at the moment have 40+35=75 files total for the time being. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
とある白い猫 I might be offline for a few days but unless someone raises an objection, I advocate for your bot to get the userright. I read the previous opposition and I think the problem was that people wanted a clearer statement of what tasks the bot would do. If you were imagining that the bot would do anything controversial then speak up, but otherwise, this all seems routine and acceptable. You have my support. If I lose this thread ping me again. Sorry for the bureaucracy but you know how it goes here, and I will continue to advance the approval process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Not much happened sadly. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 16:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
So could I please have any response here? Aside from Krd whom rejected the notion of giving OTRS access to the bot. I do not understand the reason of this push back. I have bulk tickets to close positively. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 12:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This has sat without further response for six days. I have nothing to add, but I'm writing here so it doesn't get archived without being dealt with. - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am unclear what action you are expecting for this thread to close. There are 40 files mentioned, and as far as I am aware, any account can change OTRS templates without anything blowing up as there is no such thing as special "OTRS Member" user rights for editing, apart from avoiding warning flags in the page history. I suggest it is done as housekeeping by an account with a bot flag, and if someone complains that the edits are tagged as non-OTRS member adding OTRS templates, they can be pointed to the discussions. This use of the Village Pump was not great, this case has been discussed in multiple venues when it would have been better to keep discussion in one. Reopening the case until you get the decision you want is not a good way to build understanding, or address the original requests for a clear explanation. I stopped actively following or contributing to this thread for those reasons. --Fæ (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification of the Precautionary Principle for 100+ years old photographs[edit]

I have been chasing up on some deletions of old photographs where there has been confusion on the use of the terms "anonymous", "unknown" and "publication" in various national copyright acts, some of which have no clear statements about works with unknown artists (or orphan works). It is a truism that almost any old photograph with an unknown photographer can be put up for deletion, and using the weak arguments that we have not "proven" a specific date of publication or we cannot "prove" that the photographer is unknown (which puts aside that we have been unable to "know" the photographer and instead demands proof of a negative) can easily result in losing what is almost certain to be public domain material. The consequence of these types of weak deletion arguments is that we invest significant volunteer time in debating obscure copyright law over the meanings of these words, rather than focusing on whether reasonable effort has already been made to determine copyright, which is all that is ever legally required to host images on Commons.

I propose the following clarification to Commons:Precautionary principle:

For photographs demonstrably 100 years old or more, where reasonable effort has been unable to determine the name of a photographer or a claim of copyright, the default presumption is that the level of doubt is not significant that reproductions and scans of photographs are in the public domain.

This clarification puts Commons and the Wikimedia Foundation as the project's host, at no legal risk, so long as whenever challenged with a reasonable assertion of copyright, photographs are reviewed in a timely manner, or taken-down as a precaution.

I am proposing this on the Village Pump rather than on the policy talk page, as the level of interaction there has been almost non-existent for past proposals. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

To have any sensible discussion you also have to take account of geography. In Europe all postcards without an authors name on it are considered orphan works and we have a European law covering this: This is the Anonymous-EU license, used for an enormous amount of uploads. As this is mostly local content the US license is irrelevant. In the past some American Wikimedia busybodies have deleted some of this EU content based on US law concerns, without bothering to look at the usual practice. Its legal in Europe and there is no legal risk. Once a work can be attributed to an author it is no longer anonymous. Anyway there where no records kept by the postcard editors. They used the work of local photografers or send someone to the region to take pictures. (And then cleaned the old archives for space) An archive of for example Nels postcards would be of great value to historians but it does not exitst.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, with the modification that we should design and require a template that points out this fact, instead of just using some existing PD-old template. (Also, I think this should be a formal RFC.) --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though we should also have a solution for image from European National Archives from the range 70-100 years old that don't list an author for example. (Clearly PD-anon-EU of course but still, EU copyright law is confusing so I rather take away as much beans as possible :p) Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
100 is slightly arbitrary, however it is easy to remember. As per Srittau's suggestion if we have a general template explaining the no-copyright-known equivalent, this can say it applies to apparent 100+ year old photographs, but also encompasses a couple of other situations where any risk is well below our community understanding of "significant" doubt. Plus the template could provide a help link for anyone with copyright information to supply and does not want to spend time understanding how deletions work etc. --Fæ (talk) 14:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg strongly oppose adding to Commons:Precautionary principle. I have no strong opinion wrt adding it to the correct place which is Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. A "principle" is "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." Thus our guidelines and policies on what material we host are derived from that principle, and others such as The Definition of Free Cultural Works. Let's keep it simple: "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." That's all we need to say. The specifics of how to handle 100-year-old files goes in guidelines and policy pages that build on that principle. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Based on Carl's comments below, I change my vote to also oppose the text in any location. It's clearly one of those "for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" situations. Any guidance would need to be country-specific at the very least. -- Colin (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Please read m:Polls are evil for why discussion is far more important than jumping feet first into a poll. -- Colin (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Colin here. This might be a good policy, but not as an amendment to the precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 100 years is a conservative line. Fæ, you recently started a discussion to ask about drawing a line in time, and it came to agreement that 100 was a good place, right? Can you link to that older discussion? I am not sure that I understand Colin. It sounds like the objection is confusion about the word "principle", and if that is a loaded term which has more meaning than only the text in the body of the page, then the title of the page could be changed from "precautionary principle" to "precautionary policy" or any other neutral term. "Precautionary principle" is a cliche term with a history of use, and personally, I think that many users will recognize the meaning of that term and understand that it has a special meaning and is not really a principle at all. Still, Commons is a multilingual platform, and perhaps the title should use simple English without any cliche. In that case "principle" might not be the right term for the content of that policy. We do not even have a "principle" designation in Commons - it is not a term which applies to anything here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry there is no confusion in my mind or on Commons as to what "principle" means. I suggest you look at the place where I suggest this amendment might reside, and you will see that it obviously fits in another policy page which deals with specific examples that derive from our principle. The suggestion by Fae should have been done as a discussion rather than a poll, where the community together would come to a consensus as to how to clarify our position. Polls are evil. -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, that seems reasonable. I think this is where I am -
  1. Post the statement to Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain (or propose to do so). One place is as good as another, and this place seems like a repository for all the rules
  2. In Commons:Precautionary principle, change " The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file..." to "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file..." We have a system for determining "significant doubt", and it seems to all be at Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. By making this change, we preserve the text that is well supported but also make room in a more appropriate forum for more development. I think that typical readers of that policy will want to know how we determine significant doubt, so it seems fair to connect that phrase to an explanation.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I think this discussion should stick to adding a clause to the COM:L section where it fits. The precautionary principle applies to far more than whether an item is in the public domain so linking "significant doubt" to that section of COM:L is not appropriate. The point of a principle is that it is just a principle. How we determine "significant doubt" is not fully described in policy or guideline. The above proposal is an example of a presumably common issue for which some community consensus can be agreed. There are many other cases where "significant doubt" must be determined on a case by case basis and community consensus at DR. The link suggestion you propose, where "typical readers of that policy will want to know how we determine significant doubt" is unhelpful as we deliberately don't want to attempt to describe every determinate of "significant doubt". Trying to do that might lead to someone saying "This isn't one of the policy cases of significant doubt". -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Colin I agree that we "deliberately don't want to attempt to describe every determinate of 'significant doubt'", but right now, some determinants exist on another published page and other ones exist in the minds of Commons users. None of the policies and guidelines are perfect, so in cases where we have some published guidance, then I think we should link to it for the sake of helping people who do not already have the culture of the matter in their minds.
If we use an odd term, like "significant doubt", then I think it is fair to connect that term with the best information community has published on the topic. As I mentioned before, I am ready to acknowledge Wikimedia Commons Commons:Policies and guidelines because we gave those terms meanings here. I am not ready to hold another class of concepts, "principles", in a special higher regard because we have not come to any agreement that "if something is a principle, then we keep it simple, and do not link it to further explanation". I do not agree that "significant doubt" is a universally understood concept and I think that either it can be explained on that page, or that it is fine to link to an explanation elsewhere.
I would support the addition of whatever disclaimers are necessary to emphasize that your concerns are serious - "not fully described", "must be determined on a case by case basis", no one should use the stated rules as an authority over community consensus, and I would even agree to warnings like "this guidance is confusing and problematic", because even good text is so difficult to interpret. Still, we should present the best that we have. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, with respect, the Precautionary Principle has been around since 2008, added by MichaelMaggs, and the community has not felt the need to alter it much nor have any problem with trying to fit it into concepts from Wikipedia. To be honest, this proposal never should have suggested changing that page and in fact the proposed sentence should contain a link on "the level of doubt is not significant" to the PP. So this is becoming a distraction and I'd rather leave fussing about exactly what words to use to those who nominate, review and close our deletion reviews on a regular basis. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you cannot prove a negative, the wording has always bothered me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The global solution to a regional specific problem is just too glib- we have a vast archive of images that we want and have a duty display, and we are failing to understand that law in some countries is interpreted in a different way. I'm with Colin here.--ClemRutter (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 100 years is too small, a photographer who take a photo at 20 year old and died at 80 years old, the photos is then protected until 30 years more after the "100 years" has passed. + unknown is not the same as anonymous, an anonymous publication is made with evidences, without those evidences no one can say a publication was anonymous. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have suggested this in several places. However, I agree that PRP may not be the place for it and that this may not be the place for the final discussion on such an important topic. And we certainly need a new template, much as {{PD-Art}} codifies our use of the Bridgeman decision.
Christian, I agree that there is a reasonable chance that a hundred year old image is still under copyright. I have been using 120 years as the period beyond which we could assume, without a significant doubt, that the copyright had expired. And, of course, by stretching hard you could argue that almost any photograph might possibly still be under copyright (10 year old takes photo in 1845 and lives to be 111). However, I think that at 100 years we are so far back that the likelihood of a problem approaches zero -- it is certainly less than the likelihood of a problem with any image uploaded by an unknown person as "own work" when we assume good faith.
More broadly, we often deal in uncertainties here. We approve OTRS messages that purport to be from the copyright holder if they feel credible. We accept claims of "own work" all the time. I can't prove that most of the images I have uploaded are, in fact, "own work" and the same is true of almost all the "own work" images we accept. We accept them because it is policy to "assume good faith" and because we believe the risk is low. So we are frequently balancing the risk of a problem against the reward of keeping an image. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
And I suppose their is less of a problem now with the frequent use of take down notices. Most are accepted and the material deleted, problem solved and no risc as long as sufficient provenance research is done. It is fairly theoretical anyway. Once the author is dead, it is very unusual that the descendants know that this picture is taken by their father. Certainly if it is an ordinairy picture among the many.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support clarification but Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose adding it to Commons:Precautionary principle. --Jarekt (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the abuse of Precautionary makes this necessary. if certain people would refrain from abusing "source missing", this would not be necessary. shifting the burden upon long gone uploaders tends to undermine the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose adding this to COM:PRP, but Symbol support vote.svg Support documenting this in general. Any further clarification as to what the community considers to be 'significant doubt', so as to minimize the disparity between different closes based upon the opinion of 'who closes it', it is a good thing, but the PRP itself should remain as simple as possible. Reventtalk 08:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hrm. I think, in general, we often do assume that photos are published in the era they were taken, unless there is documentation or indication otherwise (photo came from a photographer's private archive, for example, or from heirs of the artist). I think the unpublished situation for photos is more of a theoretical doubt, not a significant doubt, in terms of COM:PRP, most of the time. Assuming anonymity is a lot harder though, for me. Orphan works suck, but that doesn't help someone if they use a work from here and it turns out the original publication was in fact attributed. You do need to have some evidence that a photo was published anonymously in many cases. Sometimes there is a name, so it's definitely not anonymous, and we just don't know life dates. And the 100-year limit on its face may not comply with U.S. law -- if truly unknown, then the U.S. term is the earlier of 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, so 120 would be a safer limit if we are going to assume anonymity. Yes, if we assume publication it would only be 95 years, but that's a double assumption then -- if we are going to have a fixed cutoff, we may want to be more on the conservative side there. 100 years is really not long enough to assume that a 70pma term has expired (might be better for 50pma countries). I think that is why we have never had an explicit cutoff -- a "sensible" line can change a lot based on the laws in the country of origin, and their specific terms. For the U.S., photos that old are usually published and therefore OK, so this is more a country of origin issue. It might be hard to make a generalized rule though that is good for all countries. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - 100 years as a general rule is way too short. Many countries have a PMA+70 rule, so that a picture easily still can be copyrighted if it's 100 years old. Also there are even countries with a longer copyright, e.g. PMA+100 in Mexico. Jcb (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Just as a side mention, I think 80pma is currently the longest actual effective terms (Spain for the most part and Colombia). There are some countries which are transitioning to longer terms by just putting a freeze on expirations until they get there (Mexico as mentioned, Cote D'Ivoire, Jamaica just recently), but their effective terms are lower since they are in transition. For example, Mexico was 30pma until 1982, and the increases to 50pma, 75pma, and 100pma were all non-retroactive I believe, meaning the actual cutoff line there is died before 1952 -- so basically 64pma this year, 65 pma next year, etc. It will be a while before those longer terms have actual meaning. (Mexico also had a registration requirement before the 1950s so even then a lot of works became PD anyways.) But 70pma is very common, and 100 years is a bit short for that, I agree. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not in PRP?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that several people agree with the proposal above, but said "not in the Commons:Precautionary principle". @Jarekt, Jmabel, Colin, ClemRutter: So where do you propose to add this?

To be clear, I think the above discussion should stick to whether we agree or not with the principle, and then discuss here where do we add this agreement if it reaches a consensus. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I also think that COM:L is a better place (maybe with a reference in PRP), but in the end I don't think that it matter much. What matters is the rule. Details can follow later (per Yann). --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much with Sebari on this (and I do think this probably deserves an RFC). I can go either way on the proposal, but I don't want to see Commons:Precautionary principle start to get cluttered up with a bunch of specific rules. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Clindberg: As the person here I respect most on copyright matters, do you have any comment on this? - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pre 1923[edit]

We are in year 2016 as of this post. 100 years prior would be 1916. We treat content before 1923 as in the PD under {{PD-old-auto-1923}}. This is a matter to consider based on the laws and regulations when we reach 2023. Like many I expect a massive change in copyright law by 2019 based on the age old pattern. If such a massive change does not happen, that alone is a massive change. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I completely wrong? Is this not valid? -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 18:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No, we don't treat content before 1923 as PD. Content published before 1923 is PD in the US, which is not sufficient for Common's purposes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
there is no talk currently in US congress to extend the mickey mouse terms, so get ready for massive change there. however, there will be no massive change to the toxic culture at commons where admins will fight for their right to delete 100 year old items. they are right and everyone else is wrong. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 16:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Category[edit]

For reference, I created Category:Deletion requests of old files with unidentified authors, where we can collect these kinds of DRs. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Moving forward on the commonscat linking to commons gallery thing[edit]

Pinging:

Please see here. Could someone please give this a go and give some feedback here? Many thanks.

Convenience links:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • We discussed linking galleries to categories. Are you now proposing (per the title of this section) to link categories to galleries? - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The suggestion is to put something like 
    ( function ( mw, $ ) {
	'use strict';

	var
		a = $( '#mw-normal-catlinks > ul > li > a' ).clone(), // main a only, not the added cruft
		see = $( '<div style="border: 1px solid #aaa; padding: 5px;">' +
			'For more images, you may want to see:<ul></ul>and subcategories.</div>' );

	if (( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 0 ) && $( '.gallery' ).length && a.length ) {
		$( 'ul', see ).append( a );
		a.wrap( '<li></li>' ); // wrap after append, because the elements need parents
		$( '#mw-content-text' ).prepend( see );
	}
}( mediaWiki, jQuery ));
    in MediaWiki:Common.js. --Unready (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I had problem with twinkle but can you repairs? Murbaut (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • To be clear over what this is about: Wikipedia Commons category links often end up at Commons galleries that contain only a few images. In those cases the link should go to the main category. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not certain that's clearer. The suggestion from Commons redux was to put something like
    System-search.svgSee also: For more images you may want to see Category:Vending machines and its subcategories..
    at the top of the mainspace pages with galleries. (In this example, on Vending machine in mainspace.) Content generated dynamically by templates is infeasible, because a template, including invoked Lua modules, cannot know the categories of a page. The options are:
    1. Users double-enter the categories, once at the top of the page in a template and later to actually categorize the page. Double-entry seems problematic to me because of the extra maintenance.
    2. A bot double-enters the categories, running periodically to clean up any mismatches. This option is still extra maintenance, except it relies on a bot.
    3. Generate the list dynamically after the parser has rendered the page and the categories are known. That's what the JavaScript above does, styling aside.
    If the intention is something else, then the requirement needs to be stated clearly: what link on what page pointing where. --Unready (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you and huge kudos to Unready for continuing this here. I am so, so out of my depth with code and all that sort of thing, that I would be much more comfortable letting others iron out details here while I watch. I hope that is okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not really championing the effort, just explaining my suggestion. --Unready (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record: Unready has kindly created code and is explaining it. Anna is totally and hugely 100% championing this idea. Whether or not someone can champion their own idea is another matter. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why can't we force the category view in the first place? Most galleries are rubbish anyway. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 13:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Because some aren't rubbish. I gave examples in the original discussion of several that I'd worked long and hard on. I don't have the list handy, but here are two: Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest, Seattle and the Orient. These are not "rubbish". Certainly the former is something where we very much ought to have a lot more pages like it. For example, I'd really like one place to go to see visual examples of the various species in a genus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • My personal summary of the previous discussion: If you want to eliminate galleries in the mainspace, what do you want the purpose of the mainspace to be? --Unready (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi, I agree with Hedwig: when search for "Foo", we should get "Category:Foo", not the gallery "Foo". Some galleries are useful and nice (see John Ruskin and Mohandas K. Gandhi), but there are a tiny minority. Regards, Yann (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
    Isn't that just a matter of setting the "Advanced" search options to "Category" instead of "(Gallery)"? --Unready (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"Champion" as a management term means more than simply being in favor of something. Here is the process I suggested elsewhere previously, slightly paraphrased.
  1. Be sure that the code does what people want. People can put it in their personal js temporarily to test. If people don't want it, want something different, or have alternate solutions, we need to know.
  2. Ask for comments on a more concrete proposal as an RfC on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. The proposal should probably put any styling in Common.css. If the proposal is accepted, the admins implement it.
We're at step #1, so does it meet requirements? Are there different requirements? Are there even any requirements? --Unready (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Wait a sec. Is this code thingy for individuals to put in their individual pages to set their preferences for where commonscat goes? Does this have anything to do with changing where links end up, i.e. at gallery or main cat?
I thought this was about some sort of bot that could go around and add a box to the top of all galleries that says "This is only a gallery. For a complete list of all images in this category, please click here."
Or maybe a bot can figure out if a gallery contains a scarce few images or hasn't been modified in ages, and at the same time, the cat has tons of images, then the Wikipedia commonscat link could automatically be changed to go to the cat rather than the gallery? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
The code would go in MediaWiki:Common.js, but people can and should test it in their personal js. There is no bot. As I say above, a bot is not the way to go. --Unready (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I have no idea what MediaWiki:Common.js compared to personal js. I'm staying out of this. My brain is way, way too tiny in this regard. Don't try to explain it to me. That would be like trying to explain physics to a hamster. You boffins sort it out. :) Sorry to butt in. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this going to stall out again? Does anyone care? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: can we have a proposal on Commons:Village pump/Proposals per Unready's suggestion above? This is a UI change and someone may not like it. Btw: since this isn't a crucial UI feature for logged-in users, I believe this should be implemented as a gadget instead for ease of disabling. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
At this point, based on a lack of responses, I'd have to say not a single person has tried it to see if it's what anyone wants to do. Given some of the discussion above, I'm not even certain there's agreement on what the requirements are. --Unready (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I posted here: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Box in galleries indicating main category

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 03[edit]

Roman numbers or Roman numerals[edit]

I recently added a few more under Category:Roman numerals andsuddenly noticed this:

I have been using "number" and "numeral" indistinctly. This should be harmonized: Which is the right one?, or, if both are good, which is the better? -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 20:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Numerals" refers to the symbolic form, so it would be "Roman numerals". Both "1000" and "one thousand" are the same "number" but "1000" and "M" are not the same "numerals". -- Colin (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! (And this will cause an unglorious spike in my editcount: A good example of how number of edits is not a useful metric for valuable activity, as I could have done it right at first in a single edit.) -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin ✇ 21:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

December 07[edit]

Does anyone recognize the artist's signature on File:Campos de concentracion4.jpg? It does not seem to be the same as the uploader's user name, but I can't figure of what it it actually is to see if the image is in the public domain or not. There are three other files in this upload: File:Campos de concentracion.jpg, File:Campos de concentracion 2.jpg, and File:Campos de concentracion 3.jpg Imedeiros (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Imedeiros: I can't read it, but if these are by es:Ignacio del Río then they should be deleted... see Category:Ignacio del Río. I don't, unfortunately, see examples of his work online to compare the signature. Reventtalk 06:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons' app for android[edit]

Hi everyone my name is Gustavo Woltmann, I am an assistant in a publishers office. Just thinking if there is an app made for Commons applicable for ios and android users? If there is, can you send me the name of the app so I can start downloading it? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustavowoltmann01 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

Please, see Commons:Mobile_app. Ruslik (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hoar frost on trees?[edit]

In my opinon most (if not all) of the images in this category (and its subcategories) are not hoar frost but rime (deposit of ice due to freezing fog) or even simply crystallized snow; usually hoar frost do not form ice deposits on trees and vertical objects but only on horizontal surfaces such as ground, roofs and so on. Hoar frost is possible on vertical objects only when they are made of metal or other materials that lose quickly their superficial temperature; a rarer kind of hoar frost (advection hoar frost) may however form ice deposits on trees but the amount of frost is generally tiny.--Carnby (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

This probably needs to be addressed at COM:CFD. lNeverCry 02:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I nominated that category for discussion.--Carnby (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

French book on horses with Commons pictures[edit]

Hi, A book about horses with many pictures from Commons is going to be published in France in January 2017. For details, see Commons:Bistro#Remerciements aux photographes de chevaux qui ont mis leurs travaux sur Commons. Yann (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

discussion of possibly problematic categories[edit]

It's been suggested that this discussion maybe should have been here instead, so providing a pointer for the broader community: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Massive creation of questionable categories. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

New NASA animated gifs[edit]

I hear they're awesome! Can we mass upload them? Is someone already working on this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

When the file will be reviewed?[edit]

Hi, I am new user. I had upload file on 24 November but it did not have any review. I am worried about i did something wrong since the others pass the review instantly. When the file will be reviewed?Cpcam065099 (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cpcam065099, thank you for asking here. I'm not an admin, but checked your claim and can confirm that http://silvermango22.tistory.com/2 currently correctly states http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed (.ko) as licence. I added {{LicenseReview}} to help admins finding it while knowing admins are few and busy here. :) --.js (((☎))) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ping|Cpcam065099|.js|p=]] – as side remark: For license reviewing it does not necessarily need an admin, cf. Commons:License review. — Speravir – 18:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Oops, wrong bracket pair, hence with right pairs: @Cpcam065099, .js. — Speravir – 18:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Completed by INeverCry Dec 10 - --WPPilot (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Strange error message[edit]

New file mover here. The dialogue box that pops up when I batch rename files says:

Some edits exceeded your rate limit of $1 edits per $2 seconds. Please let this tab open until this dialog disappeared or you got a positive response from the tool you are using. It will take approx. NaN seconds to complete this task.

Are $1, $2 and NaN supposed to be given values, and were they generated properly before? Thanks, Jc86035 (talk) Use {{ping|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This may answer your question: $wg Rate Limits--P.g.champion (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mannequin challenge[edit]

Mannequin challenge by the students at the University of Jordan

Mannequin challenge by the students at the University of Jordan was produced in collaboration between Wikimedia Levant and University of Jordan engineering students. It toke the students two weeks to put the scenario and train. Video recording was done using a mobile camera (low budget). Total students worked on the project:125. Free music and audio produced by Zwirek for this project. --Tarawneh (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

December 12[edit]

Drones[edit]

Drones: We are running a program for Drones, next month and perhaps it would be nice to have something that promotes the contest.. If we have something to direct people too I would be willing to post in the DJI groups to get the ball rolling. Any ideas? --WPPilot (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-50[edit]

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

Recent changes

  • Users who have Yahoo email addresses could not use Special:EmailUser to send emails. This has now been fixed. Emails will now come from a @wikimedia.org address. Users who get an email from you will still reply to your email address and be able to see it. [2]
  • You can now see how many categories and pages there are in the categories in Special:TrackingCategories. This is to help you find pages that could need attention. [3]
  • Markup colours for reviewed and pending revisions in the page history and recent changes and logs now match Wikimedia standard colours. The "You have a new message on your talk page" notification will have a slightly different colour. [4]

Problems

  • Because of work on cross-wiki watchlists global renaming is not working. The plan is to turn it on again on 16 December. Global renaming was turned off for a while in late November and early December as well. [5]

Changes this week

  • Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 December. It will be on all wikis from 15 December (calendar).

Meetings

  • Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on December 13 at 20:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

19:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I messed up a category[edit]

I changed the name of a category, and then tried to change it back, but it messed up. It was "Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service", and I tried to change it back to "Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service". Sorry about that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You can just move the media back to the original category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I tried but go an error. I don't want to mess it up more. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite understand what you intend to do, so it's hard to do it on your behalf. Do you simply want to move Category:Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service back to Category:Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service, or is there something else you have in mind? - Jmabel ! talk 06:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more specific. What I want to do is go back in time and not do what I did yesterday after I uploaded this excellent photo of a Toronto police van which is used to transport prisoners. I uploaded the photo, and then started to add categories. There was already a category called "Automobiles of the Toronto Police Service", but the photo I uploaded is more of a large van, not really an "automobile", so I changed the name of the category to "Vehicles of the Toronto Police Service", which I thought would be more inclusive. After doing that, I noticed that the category was in fact only filled with automobiles... plus my lonely photo of a large van. So I tried to undo what I had done, but it didn't work. I can't recall exactly how it didn't work, I can only tell you that moving photos to a newly-created category is easier than moving them back to a category they had been in. Plus, there seemed to be a parent/child conflict with the category. I've never moved a category (and certainly won't be doing it again!) but now I need to un-do what I did. The good news is, I added the photo I uploaded to the category "Prison vans". Thanks again for your help and sorry for making a mess. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll sort it out, and we probably should have both categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Vans are included in automobiles in Commons. But in British English, I don't think a van is a car, and I thought a car was the same as an automobile. But who knows, language is murky. --ghouston (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplicates[edit]

Few time ago I've queried DB and found that [at that moment] on Commons were 3350 files with at least one duplicate (having identical SHA1 hashes) for each, and a total of ~4400 duplicates which should be deleted. This project definitely needs a tool for assisted dealing with duplicated files (deletion and pages merging if needed). --XXN, 23:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you create a list of them? Ruslik (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is list, but it is incomplete - the longest rows were truncated by the system, and query took 43 minutes to execute:(
On Special:ListDuplicatedFiles you can see a 'live' version (cached) of the duplicates list. --XXN, 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Some strange entries we can see here. For example File:Abhandlung von den Zähnen (Pfaff) 219.jpg has 612 duplicates. 612, Caaarl! Similar situation is with next ~10 entries in Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. WTH is this? --XXN, 12:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
@XXN: Some (unusual) duplicates are intentional. The file with 612 duplicates resulted from the replacement of 'large' images of completely blank pages, in books, with 1x1 pixel placeholders. Reventtalk 05:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

Category:Gamma Ray and Category:Gamma Ray (band)[edit]

Hi! There are duplicate categories Category:Gamma Ray and Category:Gamma Ray (band), both with images about the musical group. I can move the files to appropriate category, but which should it be? There’s also a gallery page Gamma Ray. –Kooma (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I merged the Wikidata items: Q9458203. –Kooma (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Portable Antiquities Scheme (UK) has open-licensed images[edit]

Is anyone doing systematic uploads of open-licensed images from finds.org.uk, such as that on [6]? FYI, @Baomi, Magnus Manske, Fæ:, who have each uploaded some in the past. Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll add it to my planned upload projects. I recall doing some past uploads, but I think the site has been revamped since the last time I looked at it and I agree that a systematic upload makes sense. You can nudge me about it at User talk:Fæ#Portable antiquities --Fæ (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

New way to edit wikitext[edit]

Summary: There's a new opt-in Beta Feature of a wikitext mode for the visual editor. Please go try it out.


We in the Wikimedia Foundation's Editing department are responsible for making editing better for all our editors, new and experienced alike. We've been slowly improving the visual editor based on feedback, user tests, and feature requests. However, that doesn't work for all our user needs: whether you need to edit a wikitext talk page, create a template, or fix some broken reference syntax, sometimes you need to use wikitext, and many experienced editors prefer it.

Consequently, we've planned a "wikitext mode" for the visual editor for a long time. It provides as much of the visual editor's features as possible, for those times that you need or want wikitext. It has the same user interface as the visual editor, including the same toolbar across the top with the same buttons. It provides access to the citoid service for formatting citations, integrated search options for inserting images, and the ability to add new templates in a simple dialog. Like in the visual editor, if you paste in formatted text copied from another page, then formatting (such as bolding) will automatically be converted into wikitext.

All wikis now have access to this mode as a Beta Feature. When enabled, it replaces your existing wikitext editor everywhere. If you don't like it, you can reverse this at any time by turning off the Beta Feature in your preferences. We don't want to surprise anyone, so it's strictly an opt-in-only Beta Feature. It won't switch on automatically for anyone, even if you have previously checked the box to "Automatically enable all new beta features".

The new wikitext edit mode is based on the visual editor, so it requires JavaScript (as does the current wikitext editor). It doesn't work with gadgets that have only been designed for the older one (and vice versa), so some users will miss gadgets they find important. We're happy to work with gadget authors to help them update their code to work with both editors. We're not planning to get rid of the current main wikitext editor on desktop in the foreseeable future. We're also not going to remove the existing ability to edit plain wikitext without JavaScript. Finally, though it should go without saying, if you prefer to continue using the current wikitext editor, then you may so do.

This is an early version, and we'd love to know what you think so we can make it better. Please leave feedback about the new mode on the feedback page. You may write comments in any language. Thank you.

James Forrester (Product Manager, Editing department, Wikimedia Foundation) --19:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The image map is frozen[edit]

The tool "Commons on OSM" linked from the {{location}} template have again not updated data. Last displayed photos are ca from 16 November 2016, the newer photos are not visible in the map. Such failures are not rare.

Is there any way how to make this tool more reliable? Could someone create an explanation page which should be linked from the template? The linked Commons:Geocoding page says nothing factual about these failures and delays. --ŠJů (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

SD template not visible in the redirect page[edit]

I just added a {{SD}} template to one of the wrong redirect to my own upload [7]. Template is not visible in the redirect page and actual content page instead of redirect page is indexed in the Category:Other speedy deletions. I remember I have done this in past, this new behavior is weird.--Praveen:talk 02:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Praveenp: Just insert the template before #REDIRECT keyword: Special:Diff/226302196. --jdx Re: 06:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thumb up icon.svg--Praveen:talk 09:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons app (Android) update - v1.41[edit]

Hi all,

We're excited to announce that we've rolled out several updates and bugfixes for the Commons Android app over the past couple of months. Some of the major ones include:

  • Automatic addition of geocoding template if uploaded image is geotagged
  • Category suggestions based on the title entered for the image
  • New, more detailed tutorial to educate new contributors on what types of images should or should not be uploaded (special thanks to Pine for sharing his Commons educational script which was used as the basis for this)
  • Check for whether or not the file already exists on Commons, to prevent upload of duplicates. Currently it is only a 'soft' check, so users are notified but still have the option of choosing to continue with the upload, but after this feature has been live for some time without any bugs, we may consider implementing a 'hard' check that completely prevents duplicate uploads. Even the 'soft' check should prevent unintentional duplicate uploads, though.
  • The kind folks at translatewiki.net are helping us set up a translation project for our app, so hopefully localization should improve in the near future.

Thank you all for your support and encouragement thus far! Feedback, bug reports, and suggestions are always welcome on our GitHub page. :)

Misaochan (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments winners announced[edit]

Winning picture of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

Hi all,

it's great to be able to finally announce the winning images of Wiki Loves Monuments 2016! You can find the winning images on Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 winners, and the full jury report is available here.

Best regards,

Effeietsanders (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
(international WLM jury coordinator, on behalf of the international team)

Non-consensual nudes?[edit]

Category:Upskirt has a new sub-category Category:Upskirt (on purpose). This implies that images that are not "on purpose" are unintentional (read non-consensual) nudes or otherwise invasions of personal privacy and personal space. Meaning actual, rather than pretend or performative, voyeurism. If we believe an image is actually victimizing the subject, we cannot host it. If we do not, then it must be consensual, or "on purpose". Any upskirt photo that does not belong in Category:Upskirt (on purpose) should be deleted.

Considering how few of these images have any educational or other identifiable benefit, any questionable cases might as well go. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

At a cursory glance I don't see many problematic images. I think the "on purpose" is meaning it's upskirt on purpose, rather than being merely an angle which happened to catch up a skirt. I'm not sure there's much of a distinction myself, and I'd support the deletion of the on purpose category as a meaningless differentiation. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Yes, I agree with Dennis here. In addition, I see a lot of junk in this category and the parent one. A massive cleaning is needed. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I loaded this file recently. Here is another view of the same building. When I took my original photograph, I included the river, the river bank and a snmall group of people on the river bank. When examining the image before submission, I noticed that one of the people was a woman who was in the process of undresing, so I cropped that bit out of the image. I think that this is a good example of unintentional [semi-]nude - she was wearing knickers. I think it appropriate that the privacy of the woman in question be respected and as such I see no reason for a Category:Upskirt (unintentional). In light of this, the scope Category:Upskirt (on purpose) serves no purpose. Martinvl (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
An alternative reading is that the (on purpose) category is for those cases where the subject (how come we have none of men in kilts?) is visibly trying provide a view under the skirt, as opposed to those where the subject is trying to prevent it, or is unaware. Presumably in all these the subject is a model who is aware of the photographer's intentions and consents to be photographed. If that's the case, maybe only a more clear title is needed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If we keep a category for 'posed' upskirt photographs, we should probably include the actual word 'posed' in the category name to be unambiguous. Reventtalk 05:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why Category:Can-can dancers and its subcategories included there? Jee 11:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Because the French cancan danse derivative from the Can-can danse is a daring and erotic dance where women shows deliberately what's under dress and petticoats. So yes it can be relevant to include this in Category:Upskirt (on purpose) as it is indeed in purpose. And this is even the purpose of this dance. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Christian, it is about "Can-can dancers"; not "Can-can dance". That's why it included Category:Jane Avril and Category:Grave of Avril (Père-Lachaise, division 19). The pictures in those categories (grave of Avril, paintings by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec) has nothing to do with "upskirt". Jee 02:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Peruvian gate[edit]

Entrance of Casa Ricketts, in Arequipa, Peru.jpg
looks at first glance very similar to the gate in Category:Casa del Moral, buts its not. Is this another building/gate in Arequipa?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: See http://www.alamy.com/image-details-popup.asp?imageid={4C477C37-440A-439B-86BB-90871567EF0A} and https://lori.ru/21198019. From the bit of lettering in the latter, it appears to be a bank. Reventtalk 05:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Here we are on Google Street View. It's "Casa Ricketts", at 108 San Francisco in Arequipa. Reventtalk 05:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Just renamed it, FYI. Reventtalk 05:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I also renamed the linked picture of the courtyard. I did some further work: set the correct timing of my pictures (time schift of 5 hours) and added two categories: Category:Plaza San Francisco (Arequipa) and Category:Lagunillas Santa Lucia Puno. The fligth was from Arequipas to Cusco via Puno. I cant localize this lake: File:Arequipa Cusco fligth 09.jpg It should be between Puno and Cusco and there are several candidates. If some of the other pictures taken from the airplane could be localized it would be appreciated. For example: File:Arequipa Cusco fligth 04.jpg (This should fairly close to Cusco, from the time). Wich volcano File:On route to Colca Valley 10.jpg is this? (I suspect El Misti, but I am not certain)Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Newbie question[edit]

I uploaded this File:Spilosoma extrema.png. It is still under copyright and should be deleted. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech (talk • contribs) 06:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) ThorbyTech (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out. I added a tag to the image requesting speedy deletion.ThorbyTech (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

This looks OK to me. Yann (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Yann: the source is a German book and appears to be from 1943... I don't know where the 1910 date comes from. Is there evidence that the author died before 1945? @ThorbyTech: you seemed to be pretty sure it's still under copyright. It would be helpful to know why. Storkk (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
If I am reading it correctly, and I may not be, the slide photographer appears to be Franz Daniel who died in 1985. Storkk (talk) 10:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I took the picture from http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/15739#/summary. Volume 33, 1943, which states "Copyright & Usage:
License Type: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/

Rights: http://biodiversitylibrary.org/permissions Copyright Status: In copyright. Digitized with the permission of the rights holder." ThorbyTech (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC) @Yann, Storkk: — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThorbyTech (talk • contribs) 18:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The Commons does not allow licences with only non-commercial use. Its anyway a small fuzy image of not much use.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Watchlist issue[edit]

Hi, Recently the MediaWiki software was changed so that clicking on "Mark all pages visited" for my watchlist required confirmation. I am quite surprised that 1. this change was introduced without community approval; 2. it requires a confirmation (I don't see the need for that); 3. there is no way to deactivate confirmation. Opinions? Yann (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Such changes have no need for community approval. I don't see a need for deactivating. The page does not get reloaded anymore so all in all things are way faster now than before. --Malyacko (talk) 10:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Malyacko: could you clarify which changes do and don't need community approval? I'm mildly surprised that an interface change like this wouldn't need community approval, but more surprised at the categorical statement that they simply don't. I also do not think it is "way faster". The javascript/css/whatever animation and "opaquing" of the screen while the message box comes up and especially the hang while it goes away after clicking cancel seem to take a significant amount of time. Storkk (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Storkk: Currently I am only aware of meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes requiring community consensus when it comes to site configuration options to change, and mw:Technical Collaboration Guideline being drafted about development of new and larger software functionality. If you are aware of any other "community approval" guidelines / recommendations / rules, could you point me to them please so I could understand what such expectations are based on? Thanks! --Malyacko (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I find it annoying too. Moreover, when you have only one "unvisited" page on your watchlist and it has been edited by a bot, you cannot mark it as visited, i.e. the button is inactive. Seems like a bug. --jdx Re: 10:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The most annoying thing since visual editor. If there is a way to deactivate this bullshit, please go ahead. --Krd 11:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I opened a bug report. See phab:T153438. Yann (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all four above: Both its design and its interface workflow were badly planned and implemented. Not surprising, but annoying. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
+1 --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Grandfathered old files[edit]

Recently we have had a discussion at Commons talk:Grandfathered old files about the cut-off date. At this moment there seems to be a consensus that the date in the guideline should change, but not yet a consensus about which new date would be suitable. There are two good candidates at the moment, one with 5 votes and one with 3 votes. This difference and this number of votes is very small to build a consensus on. I would like to invite you to read Commons talk:Grandfathered old files and to vote, so that a change of the page could be based on the input of more different users. Jcb (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Images by Urbain J. Kinet[edit]

I've just uploaded 434 images by Urbain J. Kinet, circa 1980 and recently made available with no known copyright restrictions by the Department of Geography at UC Berkeley. They cover a variety of countries and subjects.

Please help to add categories, and make use of them on our sister projects. Andy Mabbett (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

When sports teams move[edit]

When sports teams move from one city to another, we seem to be inconsistent about how we handle this in terms of categories. For example, Category:Seattle SuperSonics continues to exist as a subcat of Category:Oklahoma City Thunder, which is as I think it should be. However, there is no Category:Cincinnati Royals as a subcat of Category:Sacramento Kings; instead, everything about the Royals years seems to be lumped into the latter category (although I see that a level down Category:Sacramento Kings players has a subcat Category:Cincinnati Royals players, and there may be other such). I would think we should have a separate Category:Cincinnati Royals. Does anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=226520471"