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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04.
Please note:
If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
I think about anything like it before I found the template {{On Wikidata}}. It can become a very usefull tool as long as the main creators of Wikidata don't notice that there exists also the project Wikimedia Commons. I think, this template can help to
attribute the corresponding Wikidata items to Commons categories. A typical Commons category should link not only one but two Wikidata "items" to its item: article item and corresponding category "item" which should be mutually tied by d:Property:P301 (this systematic solution remains lost), "plural categories" possibly also a third "item" linked by d:Property:P360 (a list)
check the consistency of interwikis (find potential interwiki conflicts here)
update local interwiki links from Wikidata
replace interwiki links as soon as there will exist some parser function implementing something like Copypaste.py (proposal) (until Commons will be fully-fledged integrated to Wikidata)
export existing connections between Commons categories and items from Commons to Wikidata d:Property:P373 and compare the links with the inverse ones
I believe, all these steps would by very simple for bots and scripts if there would be any concern.
I wonder and disagree that the phase I of Wikidata was started before any fundamental idea about connection between Wikidata and Commons was achieved and that the Wikidata Team seems to be a bit uninterested or even obtuse in this point. Also the relation between articles, categories and items seems to be hardly misunderstand by Wikidata Team. That's why Commons needs to look for such patchs instead of well-considered definitive solutions. --ŠJů (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, I had a conversation with Denny (who has spearheaded WikiData) about Commons and the interwiki data when he was in Seattle a couple of months ago. I think the problem is largely that no one at WikiData has any significant experience with Commons, but also that, unlike the Wikipedias, there might be more than one Commons page associated with a certain term. My suggestion to him was that Commons category space (e.g. Category:Michelangelo Buonarroti), Commons "galleries" (e.g. Michelangelo Buonarroti), and possibly also Commons creator space (e.g. Creator:Michelangelo Buonarroti) each be treated on the same level as articles in a particular language Wikipedia. He seemed open to the idea. I think if someone wanted to flesh out that proposal and get consensus from Commons participants that that is what we want, it could move forward. I've been too busy to push that sort of initiative, but I'd encourage someone else to feel free to run with it. - 00:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"...no one at WikiData has any significant experience with Commons..."
There are several highly active Wikidata editors with significant experience on Commons I can think of off the top of my head: Multichill (WD, C), Legoktm (WD, C), Zolo (WD, C), Avenue (WD, C), myself (WD, C). There are almost certainly a significant number more. Emw (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Then I'm even more surprised this hasn't moved forward. Denny conveyed to me that they didn't understand enough about how Commons worked to be sure how to work it into their approach. - Jmabel ! talk07:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Uhm, just to explain: I meant that among the Wikidata development team there are no really active Common contributors. We just had a discussion on Wikimania on that topic again, and also we have a few thoughts already, see here: [8] and especially here: [9]. Feedback is really needed so that we can go forward! --Denny (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think, Wikidata need not somebody who like to take photographs and upload images (and ignores the system) but somebody who is experienced in organization of Commons, its categorization etc. (or somebody who is not so exprerienced but a bit perceptive and intelligent). From the named people, Multichill seems to be such someone IMO. --ŠJů (talk) 00:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The linked proposal is only about media meta data. This is sci-fi for us, not a problem of today. We need urgently to solve a simple interconnection of Commons items and corresponding Wikipedia items which was disrupted by phase I of Wikidata instead facilitated and improved. --ŠJů (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am both active on Commons and Wikidata, I can help in that too. I would really like it if interwikilinks would be inserted by the software on Commons categories directly instead of manually. Romaine (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The email contains some basic ideas which were supposed to be considered before phase I of WD.
However, I have one essential objection. Categories are related to their item as much closely as articles. It was not a good idea to have a separate WD Q-code for the article of certain item and a different one for categories of identic item. As Wikidata is organized by items, not by Wikipedia pages, one item should link both articles just as categories of the item. A frequent mistake is that Commons galleries are equivalents of Wikipedia articles. They are not. It is wellknown that Commons categories are connected to Wikipedia articles just as to Wikipedia categories. Articles and categories are unique for any item within any project. Commons galleries are rather analogy of images or other media files: we can have whichever number of images, sounds, videos or galleries of certain item, but only unique category (and only unique article within one Wikipedia project).
The fact that complementary properties on Wikidata (symmetric just as inverse) don't really and automatically work as complementary is a basic and fatal defect of Wikidata. --ŠJů (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
August 09
Madagascar railway station
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have uploaded 20 pictures to "Fianarantsoa railway station". There is an old Micheline railcar.
Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments8 people in discussion
I think https should be enabled by default at Wikimedia Commons. Therefore all http requests should be answered with https.
With https enabled it will be more difficult for ISPs and other men in the middle to alter, censor or log the content sent from the foundation's servers to the end user. Doing so would break the SSL certificate which provides the authentication of the Wikimedia Commons web site and web server.
File:KS8-001.jpgFig. 1: All http traffic gets logged and evaluated for "suspicious" content
Furthermore the users of Wikimedia Commons will not be tracked anymore by intelligence organizations. (Assuming they do not have direct access to the servers of the Wikimedia Foundation.) As seen in Fig. 1, the NSA uses the http traffic generated by Wiki(p/m)edia to identify possible targets based on their Wiki(p/m)edia search history and page visits.
The required SSL certificates are already present and therefore no further expenses would be generated by this change. Considering, that Gmail uses https-only since 2010, it is the right way for Wikimedia Commons to follow.
Discussion
Support in general. There is only one contra I can think of: Some bots may fail to handle https and consequently break. A possible solution would be to decide on the Agent-header whether to deliver https or not. --McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment: I'm not sure. When I tried using HTTPS with Mozilla Firefox in the past, I encountered two issues. First, I kept getting warning messages when new webpages were loaded, which was very annoying. Secondly, I kept getting logged out and had to log in repeatedly. Perhaps these issues have now been sorted out by Wikimedia or Mozilla, but if they are still around this would put me off from using HTTPS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you log in while using https you are not logged in when using http later. And for the warning messages: Did you encounter them on other websites or on wikimedia websites as well? The warning messages could be about "mixed content" or wrong certificates, but I can not remember running into those warning messages on wikimedia websites. --McZusatz (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Tried using HTTPS again and am happy to report that I didn't encounter any of the problems I described above. It's possible that I received warning messages in the past because I was accidentally switching between HTTP and HTTPS when I typed URLs into the bar at the top of the browser. In fact, the UploadWizard works much faster for me on HTTPS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Too many things would break in unexpected ways (e.g. Greasemonkey, Imacro scripts ... would introduce massive rework or abandonment of this sort of long term non-standard tool goodness), for me at least this would be a huge hassle. --Fæ (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The point and purpose of https on WMF sites is to hide traffic from some "third parties". Obviously, there are third parties from which https and more sophisticated forms of encryption won't hide a single thing. NSA, CIA, any hacker actually, and anyone who has a habit of making good friends with competent people for example ;) . The reason such an simple measure is being taken is because of the SIZE of the hole that http is making for specific people, namely, sockpuppets and sockfarms using W:The Onion Router (TOR). Currently there are zillions of socks on en.wikipedia used to control that site by using a secret ballot to elect an arbcom which then dictates everything to the users of the site in decisions that nobody is ever happy with. Seriously, show me a popular decision, and another person will show you 10 that make no sense, like banning Richard, the man who made 5 million contributions to the site, for using cut-n-paste once. He copied text he prepared in his text editor into the edit window and they banned him for it. Meh, whatever, the number of new editors to that site has fallen so much that there aren't enough new socks to fill the gaps.
The introduction of secret ballots on commons would be a reason why sockfarms need https here, and visa-versa. Http is never any security threat because your ISP is not spying on you in particular and the NSA just doesn't give a shit about anything you're doing because https or not it can still track and see everything you're doing. Https is for socks using TOR. TOR sends a sockpuppets data through a peer to peer network to hide it's source, when it exits that network, using http, it can be seen by the last hop in the peer to peer network as it goes from their machine to the wikipedia servers. Any kid with two pieces of software (or three if you count a text editor) can harvest usernames and passwords of sockpuppets using TOR. So anyone on wikipedia can see anyone using TOR and analyse their behavior from the comfort of their own home computer. TOR brings every sockpuppets' traffic to your own computer for analysis.
For sockfarms using the same password on every account along with the sockmaster account, it's pretty freaking obvious who is who, and who has a sockfarm to vote themselves into arbcom. For anyone not using TOR, their data is not sent to anyone else who is using the TOR software on their computer. It is sent directly through the ISP which you trust with everything else you do, so you just don't care because you just don't need to. The ISP doesn't care about what you're doing and so you don't care about them seeing what you do. That's why the WMF is spending up big to provide https for nobody who wants it. That's why there isn't a great push of users shouting 'we want https and we want it now' that's why nobody cares. Unless you're a sockmaster who wants to use a sockfarm. You're then worried because any kid with packet inspection software like wireshark and a text editor can see everything you're doing, log the lot, and prove what you've done.
Of course it's all pointless because even when you prove beyond all doubt that someone has abusively used sockpuppets to double-vote in elections, there are STILL people who SUPPORT that kind of behavior. example bottom of collapsed section at bottom of page. Present clear evidence that a cat could understand and you get people saying it's trolling and harassment to present that evidence. Yeah. Amazing.
So https causes more problems than it is worth for accessibility and a dozen other things, but for sockfarms and sockmasters and the WMF it's a pointless attempt to hide what they're up to. The tools other people have see straight through it all, but they worry about absolutely anyone at all seeing what they are doing. Kind of pointless because there are no secrets on the Internet. Tens of gazillions of people have jobs in intel and can see whatever takes their fancy. Plenty of people with half a brain can see whatever they want just the same.
For people not socking abusively, there is no problem with http, your info goes through your ISP to WMF and nobody has a chance to see it unless they are a person who can see it no matter what you do, TOR and HTTPS or not, like the NSA, their friends, and hackers.
For people using TOR and not being abusive there is no problem with http, because nobody can say you ARE doing anything wrong if you're not. They can't say 'hey, look, they triple vote in this election' and so on, because A) you're not and b) some people won't listen anyway and c) such evidence can't be presented on wiki/commons anyhow, because of privacy concerns.
New editors on en.wiki over time. Secret ballots and an Arbcom, not a good example to follow.
For the general public on commons, secret ballots and an arbcom is the only thing that can destroy the project fast and sure. So voting blocks that elect a dictatorship is the only hassle to worry about, not http. Anyhow, I just thought people may like to know what the big deal is with making the project so hard to access for so many people was all about. Robot spammers sign up lots of new accounts everyday, but the front door isn't locked for accessibility reasons. Oh, and if anyone has a legitimate human rights reason for needing better security when using the sites, you can contact me via email, so long as you pass my screening then I can help you to legitimately use commons/wikis with anonymity. Penyulap☏19:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If I were using TOR and you Darkweasel were also using TOR, I could read your password if it was sent by HTTP. If you had 1200 sockpuppets with the same password "FVI2346BN" then I'd know all your sockpuppets and could prove it. I just couldn't present the private data in a public place on wiki though, and even if I did some people would still argue it was all in order that you're voting for yourself for everything.
Meaningless because there are plenty of tools that make HTTPS meaningless and let people see what you're doing just the same, it's just that TOR, used by countless socially retarded idiots to double, triple and 500-vote for themselves, is such a big hole in their plan. Any idiot can log their actions. A cat could do it. Hence the quiet push to close a hole that nobody except sockpuppets use. It provides no benefits to anyone else, in fact it causes a lot of difficulties as outlined above. Penyulap☏20:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It shouldn't be up to any users except checkusers, stewards, developers and WMF staff to investigate sockpuppets, so if HTTPS prevents that, that's good. darkweasel9420:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
HTTPS doesn't stop anyone investigating sockpuppets. All it does is prevent every user in China from accessing the project. Penyulap☏21:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
No you could not. The password is encrypted, even when logging in to http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin. --McZusatz (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
it's stored as a hash in the database. Even without access to the available tools for decryption, people without friends can still work both ends of the 'tunnel' looking at the database at one end, or the operating system at the other. Even if you assumed the password hash was difficult for the average hacker, you can't possibly tell me that simple packet analysis of your own TOR node won't spew out a list of IP's using TOR to access wiki. No decryption required. It's the protocol, just read the wikipage on TOR.
Just with zero decryption, none at all, you can match up IP's with activity, what pages are looked at including watchlists and so on. That at least is information which is not available on-wiki. Do you want to deny that ? I'm not so comfortable talking about this publicly because it can be counter-productive to our pro-social efforts. I simply wanted people who I have seen asking in a number of places, 'why is there a big push towards https when it's clearly going to have so many adverse effects'. Even without the password, even without the loginpage, every page that travels back and forth from that particular IP will have the username written across the top of it, unencrypted. Where you log 300+ users at the same IP are you telling me they all have a single domestic service at a single domestic address that they all share ? I mean at ANU, sure some people believed the 'spouse after the fact' story, but please, "I rent out my basement to 300 total strangers" ? I don't think so. https is an attempt to close the largest of many many holes. Holes that only apply to sockpuppets on TOR. Holes that nobody else needs to worry about. Penyulap☏09:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, every exit node of the TOR network is blocked for editing wiki pages. Therefore using TOR to hide your sockpuppets will definitely not work. --McZusatz (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
August 11
Collages of Commons files without proper attribution
Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments7 people in discussion
Hi all,
what is the appropriate procedure for files like File:LVmontage.jpg, where files from Commons were assembled into a collage without referencing the source files and their authors? In this case I found one of the originals, but didn't have the time to find them all. I left a message on the user's talk page months ago without getting any reaction (left another message at their talk page at en: today). I'm not asking you to do their work and fix the description (though that would be nice), but for general advice on how to handle cases like that (which unfortunately are rather common). Nominating them for deletion right away seems to be a bit harsh, but we can't leave those files as they are forever if we are serious about free licenses. And if I leave them a friendly message before nominating the files to give them some time to react, I will usually forget about the issue rather quickly … Any suggestions? --El Grafo (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think what you've suggested – leaving the uploader a message and giving them some time within which to respond – is the best solution. Guess you'll have to think of a strategy for not forgetting these files. (Someone should design a tool ...) — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've made a few of those on request, and yes, that is hard to track through 'what links to this page' and usage (on your example image). The image can still be broken up and then image search engines can be queried for the components. The contributions of the user at around the time of upload can be checked for a worksite. I expect you've already checked categories for the originals, but with OVERCAT (that is, the use of overly-obscure categories) using an external search engine to search commons may also be the go, do you know how ?
I think it is not as much worry as a full-sized work with poor attribution because it does move towards each part of the image being a deminimus of the overall work. It's not great, but on a scale of problems it's small to almost arguably ok-ish.
I would say what you've done is enough, to leave a note asking and then pretty much don't worry too much. The searches I've outlined are good, but time consuming. So I'd say you've done what needs to be done and can do no more. Breaking up the image to component level for search engines seems the fastest way to solve the problem completely though. I had found some using component images, Liam was fastest I would say, so can you tell us how you did it Liam ? Penyulap☏10:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I knew what I was looking for so just used the category tree to find them, nothing more sophisticated than that. I enjoy a challenge from time to time! Liamdavies (talk) 12:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree that files like that are a rather small problem compared to e.g. serious copyright violationsEDIT: Well, strictly speaking these are also copyright violations, just as serious as all the other ones.. However, I tend to disagree with your opinion that in a collage of 6 images the single images could be called de minimis. The thing is, that the composer of the collage essentially claims to be the copyright holder of all the images incorporated in the collage – something we wouldn't tolerate at all in most other cases. Imo, we can't go out and promote the concept of free licensing (and sometimes even go to court to sue reusers who don't respect the license), and then on the other hand say it's OK if our own folks completely ignore the rules we fight for. Practice what you preach. I'm willing to invest a lot of good faith, "detective work" and patience into cases like this, but when everything else fails (not yet the case here of course) I won't hesitate to file a DR.
On a technical note, I've started my own little ToDo list in order to keep track of my actions. But since I guess that there might be some people who atually enjoy this kind of detective work (meaning finding the originals and fixing the description), I wonder if it might be a good idea to create a WikiProject to join the forces or at least create something like Category:Collages of Commons files lacking proper attribution? --El Grafo (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would just put them in DR until they learn. This will give them a talk page notice as well as 7 days for them or others to fix. We shouldn't waste too much time trying to explain attribution to them. Just use 'no sources or authors' as the DR rationale.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict)The problem with that approach is imho, that files like that very often come from Wikipedia authors who don't really care about Commons and don't monitor their watchlists and talk pages here – and I can't really blame them for that since all they want to do is write their articles and enhance them with a picture or two. Then "suddenly" the files are gone "without any warning" and they start ranting about it at their local village pump. I guess that scenarios like this are one of the main reasons many of the people at en:wp (and possibly elsewhere) are so utterly pissed about Commons. Cases where there's nothing wrong with the file itself, but it is being deleted anyways because of things the common wp-user might call bureaucracy. That's why I've decided for myself to give it a try and walk the extra mile in cases like this – at least for a while, just to see whether it pays or not. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 11:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see your point. Many here won't agree with it though. If you want an image for en:wp then the rules here aren't that difficult to follow. You need to source other material for articles and the same goes for images. When the images disappear from their articles then they can come over here and have it explained. If they don't want to follow a few simple rules that are far easier than the en:wp ones then there is no reason they should whine that commons is cruel and unusual punishment to them. I have helped many editors from the other projects with their images here. Montages as well. This should not be an expected action though. If they are deleted then no one loses an eye if they are fixed and undeleted. We have so many copyvio images here that taking the time with every montage created is not normally worth the effort. Look at File:Steven Zhang barnstar tattoo.jpg where the subject claims to be the author. He would probably whine a lot if we asked him how a remote or timer was used on his cell phone. It should actually require OTRS but I don't care enough to DR it. It was probably taken by someone else at en:wp that doesn't even realize they are the copyright holder.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, usually I don't feel bad just hitting the "nominate for deletion" button, but as I wrote below, collages have some pitfalls which makes uploading them a bit more tricky. And of course you've always gotta ask yourself whether it's worth it to invest your time and energy into a case like that …
All in all I think we could drastically reduce the whining and ranting (and also save many files from deletion) if there was an easy way to automatically leave a note on the talk pages of the articles a file is being used in, once a DR is filed. There was once a bot doing this, but it has stopped working for reasons I don't remember … --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict) If there are any collages where there is significant doubt as to whether components may require attribution, then they should go to Deletion requests for a documented review so that re-users and the Commons community can point to evidence that reasonable efforts were made to determine copyright status. Even if the original works are available on a free re-use licence, if they have an attribution component then the moral rights, if seen to have not been honoured, can result in claims against the re-user or the Commons uploader for damages. Making derived works available without making the attribution clear is a failure against the licensing policy and may be a reason to delete under the precautionary principle. --Fæ (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
ACK. However, the problems and pitfalls of creating collages from freely licensed files (e.g. compatibility of licenses or finding out that there's a tool called derivativeFX) are more complicated than the usual "don't steal images from the web" (which should be common sense anyway). That's why I usually try to explain the issues to the uploaders before filing a DR – provided that I know a language they understand. --El Grafo (talk) 11:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the misrepresentation here is deliberate - the problem is just that derivativeFX can be flaky, and the easiest thing to get a file uploaded that you know can be uploaded is to use the "own work" category to upload it. Just prod the uploader to fix his attributions (or do it yourself) and be done with it. It makes no sense to delete a usable file which we know Commons can legally host. Wnt (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, then maybe someone capable of it should write an extention to the mighty upload wizard that allows things like this. And usually we don't know whether Commons can legally host a file like that, because we don't know where the source files come from. We can only assume that they come from Commons, but we never can be sure unless the uploader does his/her job or someone else finds them all. --El Grafo (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't source any of the images to commons. The user seems like a 12 edit hit and run just to get a montage into the en:wp article. Does his look like copyvio to anyone or did he take all the pictures?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The first few seem to be at least partial copyvios, but Gliwic.jpg is probably OK, so there might be some more files that could be saved. —El Grafo (talk) 12:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
a standard solution
An easy way to satisfy those who don't want to do the right thing and make a category for the easy and enjoyable foxhunt we had here to find the images, would be to simply reduce the resolution of the collage before launching a DR. The collage is basically for the article, every one I can recall seeing was made from free images on commons, so reducing the image, then making a DR would see it kept as de minimus and the article not have a hole in it. If people can't be bothered doing so little to help the project then they shouldn't be burdening the rest of us with DR's, they should just put it in the new category Category:Collages of Commons files lacking proper attribution suggested by El Grafo as a starting point to deal with the image. A bot can look at all images in that category from time to time and reduce them if they are too big. Sure there are people who will complain about 'oh the derivative, won't someone think of the children' but just put the next one you find and can't attribute through DR at 150 pixels per component and see what happens. That'll fix that problem.
So as a standard, Cat to El Grafo's fox-hunting category first, write a request at botwork noticeboard, and it's done.
Also, I'd like to take this opportunity to once again badmouth derivative FX which is impossible to use because of it's absurdly ambiguous labels. I hate that peice of $%*(&^#. Thank you very much. Penyulap☏19:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
PD-AR-Photo / Argentina
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Village pump!
I have some difficulties to understand the year "1987", cited (regarding copyright rules for Argentina) in Commons:International copyright quick reference guide = this line: Argentina Photo 1945 1987 {{PD-AR-Photo}}{{PD-1996}} Argentina has 25 pd for photos, had 50 pma on 1996 URAA date
1987 + 25 = 2012, okay... but what about images like File:276950gente2.jpg (magazine cover from 1982)? At URAA date 01.01.1996 the file was still copyrighted in its source country (Argentina) = {{Not-PD-US-URAA|Argentina|{{ISOdate|1996-01-01}}}}? Or not? I confess, I am quite confused, considering 1996 - 25 {{PD-AR-Photo}} = 1971 vs 1987 = IMHO any file licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}} taken/published prior to 1971 is still copyrighted in US. Summarizing: Could somebody give me a competent rule of thumb, how to deal with uploads of historic Argentine images? Gunnex (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
From what I read at Section 514 Restored works, (h)(6)(B), "The term restored work means an original work of authorship that is not in the public domain in its source country through expiration of term of protection", but all photos published before 1971 were in the public domain at Argentina at the date indicated by the URAA, so these photos are not copyrighted in the US. Best regards, Alpertron (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC). PS: Regarding that Gente magazine photo, it is not free in the US because it was not public domain in Argentina on January 1st, 1996.Reply
August 15
Getty Museum PD files
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
These should be on Commons. Or perhaps just indexed here?
Any files which are absolutely freely licensed, or in the public domain as we take the term to mean, could definitely, and should be, be uploaded here to Commons. russavia (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
But: Every single such file should not be uploaded to Commons. There needs to be a minimum of usefullness and quality to them. To upload files to Commons only because we can, doesn't make any sense. Don't get me wrong, we shouldn't be snobbish and turn down anything we don't think is absolutely top class and will fit perfectly into a Wikipedia article. Far from it. Files obviously don't need to be unique or of great quality to possibly be useful for someone somewhere. But if we upload every single available file here, it will only turn Commons into a huge rubbish dump. Blue Elf (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Help for another artwork crop
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped.JPG is a cropped version of the copyrighted sketch present at en.wiki here: [10]; the crop appears to try to limit the included work to just the letters of "WHAAM" and the color code marks within them, however, I do have concern that the lines from the flame/explosion behind the text, which got included in the crop, are not ineligible for copyright unlike just the text parts. As this is part of an effort to get the article on en.wiki featured and available to use on the Main Page there (where non-free may not be used), I ask for opinions whether the crop is ineligible for copyright (and thus free) or should be considered non-free. --Masem (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
You need to do some research of what the buildings are actually called and what the names mean in context. Town hall could be the headquarters for an Incorporated Town (if NJ has such), or of a township, or be effectively a municipal auditorium. Or images could be miscategorized. Dankarl (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The categories are being used for headquarters of municipal corporations (city, borough, town, and/or township) and not for auditoriums. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you want to combine, I'd suggest Municipal administration buildings. Alternatively you could add a category for borough halls and go by what they are called. Dankarl (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
This issue comes up all the time. People want to consolidate, and then others object because a town ≠ city, and the discussion inevitably devolves into a detailed discussion of the particularities of municipal governance in that one jurisidiction. What makes the issue more complicated is that a city/town hall in New Jersey can mean something something completely different than a city/town hall in the U.K. or a city/town hall in New South Wales, and while in some jurisdictions the terms town hall and city hall are largely interchangeable, in other jurisdictions they are very different. In Ontario where I live, there is no real legal distinction between a town and a city (it's really up to the municipality what it wants to call itself), but there are strict thresholds in other places. To make it more complicated, some towns and cities don't actually call their main municipal administration building a city or town hall. Ultimately, the article at en.wp was moved to en:Seat of local government for this very reason ("Municipal administration building" was rejected because many cities have more than one municipal administration building - for example, the water department could have its own administrative building). We may have to move in that direction on the Commons, at least for the parent category for each jurisdiction (while permitting subcats that reflect the nomenclature used in each jurisdiction). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The imprecision of "Municipal administration building" could be useful for a category tho - we would not have to anticipate all the possible varieties until they showed up in sufficient number to warrant a subcategory. In cases like this I favor having the lowest-level category reflect local usage. Dankarl (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
But a municipal administration building is generally not the same as a town hall. Many cities have loads of them - I live in Toronto, and it has dozens of administrative buildings. We already have Municipal buildings and Municipal offices categories for such buildings, although both could use a bit of thought. We will need a category for the more specific subgroup of town/city halls, and I do think there needs to a consistent name across the board for such "headquarters". But I agree that once one gets to the lowest-level category for the jurisdiction, the subcats could reflect local usage (town halls, village halls, guildhalls, county halls, halls of learned citizens, etc. - okay that last one is made up). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
In the New Jersey case, it jumps from government buildings to city halls without intervening layers. Also, on further reflection those town halls that are associated with townships aren't exactly municipal; townships don't have the same structure, powers or function as a town or city, at least in a lot to the US. Dankarl (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Townships are very different creatures, but they are still considered municipalities. And there's the rub - depending on the jurisdiction and the township itself, some townships have town halls, others have township halls, and others have no seat of local government. Thus my comments above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
18 millionth file
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I am totally not neutral about this photo (taken by a friend with support from my chapter ;-), but that’s often been the idea of the milestone: finding a picture in the timeframe which is nice enough to make some PR about it − and I think this picture makes a really good job at that. Thanks for your effort in finding the milestone 99of9! Jean-Fred (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
And I guess the uploader scaled this down to the default resolution of 1.024 × 768 using their own server running gd-jpeg v1.0. -- Rillke(q?)17:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Looking through page history, reason was imho authorship not clear [see metadata] and not in use. I've had to convert quite a few of User:Roland zh's copyvio tags to DRs because of the dubious copyvio reasoning. --O (谈 • висчвын) 18:21, 16 August 2013 (GMT)
Comment I spoke with the uploader about this yesterday on my talk, and I restored a similar image. He had cropped or otherwise altered them removing EXIF and my guess is that Roland saw these web-res images in comparison to the high-res ones the author has uploaded with FinePix HS30EXR EXIF and found the smaller ones suspicious. In the end though, this is my mistake for not looking more closely at these cases. My apologies to Prakash.saivasan for the confusion. INeverCry19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thaks for being very helpful and prompt in discussing my issue. I really appreciate it. Sorry for the confusion, I will make sure not to upload low-res [non-exif] pictures and cause any such confusion in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakash.saivasan (talk • contribs) 22:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would be inclined to undelete all of the deleted images, and if anyone has concerns with them take them to DR. I was going to discuss this with INC today, but he has commented above already. INC would you have any objections to the images being undeleted? russavia (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've undeleted all of them. Some seem questionable, and so I coverted them to DR. The few Taj Mahal pics that look like a series with the 2 I mention above look ok, so I restored them without converting to DR. INeverCry04:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Being flooded with copyvios and LQ-images all day, this is not a surprise. But if you are only active at QI, FPC and busy with coding bots, scripts etc., you'll hardly notice that; I agree that they shouldn't have been speedy-deleted. But just calculate how much time one of our admin/reviewer has, if you assume they want to check each new file. Impossible with current upload rates. I think this process must be re-organized so the work is easier to spread (once Krinkle offered a service for upload-patrolling but this was slow and finally removed). -- Rillke(q?)09:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Agravisit4.jpg has 29 hits on Tineye. Some crawled 2010. Just one example, it is not the only image with hits. That's how files get deleted. Not judging either way, just explaining from my POV. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)11:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
August 16
Cannot find a category
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I added a few categories to this image but it’s still missing what is probably the most important categorization. Which categories are suitable to cover car( part)s used as advertisement?, or shop window signs using actual objects? (This is a clothings store, though, not an auto dealer; ISTR it was once a book store, under the same Opel…) This maybe strange but it is hardely unique. Any help? -- Tuválkin✉14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
(Yes, this image was originally lumped in Category:Lisbon — I “dissiminated” it.) Best I got was Category:Road vehicles in art — a clearly underpopulated category. Most of the categories of this photo will be moved soon to a new Category:Rua do Loreto, 41 (Lisbon): This location is close to popular tourist traps and the storefront with a popping jalopy is a great photo op; I suspect a fair amount of snaps of this subject are lurking among those 18 million items — mostly (?) undercategorized. -- Tuválkin✉03:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've moved it to the userspace. They have no contributions under that username on any project, so I wouldn't be opposed to having the userpages deleted as "promo". russavia (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Advertising
Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Definitly keep (at least the few I browsed), regardless of the uploader’s apparent intention of using Commons as his ad image hosting facility. Wont it be a great lesson to the uploader if his competitors start using his images to create their own ads? That’s the beauty of PDfree licensing… Next time he’ll go for CC-NC instead, but these pics, ineresting as they are, belong to the whole wide world now. (Need categories, though.) -- Tuválkin✉19:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
They are not PD, they are cc-by-sa. I also disagree strongly that we should teach people "lessons" not to license their works freely. But still these seem mostly in scope, and this is the wrong place for DRs anyway. darkweasel9419:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Disagree away, but we teach “lessons” to uploaders all the time, and this is one of the most benign. Check Commons:Deletion requests to see how we (i.e. a few of us) throw away valuable and useful contributions under the excuse that «Commons aint fb» (I mean actual valuable and useful contributions, a couple every day, not the slush flood of blurry selfies and assorted bizarre items…) -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I see, that in relation of licences the photos are correct, but I don't the sense of such series on commons - but this is my oppinion, so I asked the other people too.--K@rl (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this series is very redundant — it could be culled to less than half the number of images and still offer the same value. -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
(obvious) keep also; with all due respect to the original questioner, the motives of the uploader are IRRELEVANT. what matters for the project is "are these files USEFUL?" i couldn't care any less, if the uploader had put "i am uploading these images to promote my business, contact me here: XXXX" right into the file description. at worst, that might call for some editing of the page...
people chose to upload @ commons for a wide variety of reasons. as long as the files are useful to the project, legal, & properly licensed IT DOESN'T MATTER (what their reasons are). Lx 121 (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Lack of description was not the reason for the DR. Anyway, just take a look at these images: Dude installs heating pipes on the floor. We have date and place, too, and all the tech info necessary in the spammers’/uploaders’ website. What description is necessary? Unlike most touch-and-gone uploaders, this one is easily reachable — local wikipdians could probably even call him up and get a discount on plumbing odd jobs! ;-) -- Tuválkin✉10:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Having technical problems uploading largish files
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The past day or two, I've been having problems uploading files whose sizes are larger than a few hundred kb. First I tried to upload a version of File:Voderberg-1.png with increased PNG compression (433kb), and just now I tried to upload a version of File:C elegans male.svg with adjusted margins (772kb), but in each case I got a generic "server down" error screen -- but of course, the servers are not down for anything other than uploading these largish files... AnonMoos (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes. If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
Request: POST http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload, from XX.XX.XX.XX via cp1053 frontend ([XX.XX.XX.XX]:80), Varnish XID 957272416
Forwarded for: XX.XX.XX.XX
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 17 Aug 2013 01:51:09 GMT
Is there any workaround or further info available? I've uploaded plenty of larger files in the past, and it's annoying not to be able to do so now... AnonMoos (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
In trying to give a good category for File:Fort Dauphin rocks 08.jpg wave, I see that there is no good category. There is the general category Waves, but nothing for breaking waves, etc. Am I looking in the wrong place? Is there a general category for rocky coasts? (pictures Fort Dauphin rocks 01-13) There are tidal pools, but this doesnt really apply here as there there is little tidal action but a big ocean waves. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hello commons. There are a number of votes and discussions you may be unaware of with possible profound implications. My better judgement suggests these should be on the site notice.
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear community, we are probably better prepared for VisualEditor than any Wikipedia: We were using TemplateBox for years for documenting our templates.
Extension:TemplateData expects a very similar structure - or did Krinkle, the developer of TemplateData, actually look at the Commons-implementation, whose foundation was formed, back in 2009, by Slomox? Something an investigative reporter may uncover ;-) - compared to our TemplateBox. Therefore, it was obvious continuing using TemplateBox for template documentation and extending the box so that nearly all features of TemplateData are supported.
A Lua module is now converting the parameter and template-description to JSON which in turn is passed to TemplateData and I tried to summarize the most important points at Commons:TemplateData. Proofreading, improving and copyediting is welcome.
Another advantage using Lua is that passing all the parameters to the layout-template can be avoided. Therefore, you can document as many parameters as the database and the Lua quotas allow.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
An uploader uploaded this black and white 1981 image and 1-2 other images from this flickr account with 95 images. My question is are these images own work or flickrwashes? I ordered a new review on this image but I'm not sure if its own work. Can anyone tell? The metadata has the flickr account owner's name. That's all I know. Kind Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure seems legitimate. Searched for a few of them on the net and came up empty (other than ones copied from the Flickr source). All pretty hi-res scans. Does feel like a photographer scanning some of their old photographs. There's even an example of one of them scanned twice.[11][12] There seem to be lots of photos of those people on the net in general but the Flickr ones seem unique -- can't find alternate sources anywhere. To be a flickrwash, we'd have to identify a source where they were copied from. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The simple answer is that there are two definitions of "anonymous" in the European w:Copyright Duration Directive. If the initial copyright holder is a legal person (only possible in some countries such as the UK), then the work is anonymous if the author (the employee who created the work) isn't named in the copies which are made available to the public. On the other hand, if the initial copyright holder is a natural person, then the author is able to repair any mistakes caused by omitted claims of authorship by revealing that he is the author before the anonymous copyright term has expired, thereby changing the copyright term to life+70 years. I have always thought that {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} were meant to account for this difference, although the templates may be a bit messy. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Marking deformed images
Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
While trying to reduce the number of images here I come across this image. Categozing (minimally) was easy, but I wanted to flag this image for being squeezed/deformed (anamorphic rescaling with vertical hypertrophy), which is fixable with a relatively easy image editing operation — but couldn’t find any suitable template in Category:Image cleanup templates. Any suggestions? -- Tuválkin✉12:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
270 × 350 pixels and no exif? I would just DR it as possible copyvio. Don't waste time trying to fix it unless it passes. A true creator should have uploaded larger with exif.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think it may be actual {{Own work}} and shot with a very basic and old camera, maybe a 2G phone. (I run it through TinEye and GoogleImages first, too!) However the question is not about this one image, it is about how to mark and how to treat photos with wrong aspect ratio which are otherwise worth the trouble. -- Tuválkin✉15:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I did that, but I’ll try to fix it myself. I’ll think of a dedicated template and IFC-subcategory, since there is none. -- Tuválkin✉18:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Found these two, the same original shot, aparently, but two images: Normal and stretched proportions. These maybe out of scope or unusable by their contents (unidentified location, unnotable people, trivial subject and composition) but as a pair they are a geniune example case of anamorphic rescaling, found “in the wild”. -- Tuválkin✉15:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
General reminder: Spanish descriptions needed for files and categories related to the United States
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
As a general reminder, for Commons users who add or edit files or categories related to the United States: Spanish is the second most commonly spoken language there, so it may help to add Spanish translations for US-related material. This is especially the case with major cities, the federal government, state governments, Puerto Rico, bordering states (TX, AZ, NM, and CA), and Florida. If you do not know Spanish or are not sure how to translate a particular description you may list the file or category at Template:Requested_translations#English_to_SpanishWhisperToMe (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Out of the 18 million images on Commons, I'd bet at least a million of them are related to the United States. There's a certain group of people who can and are interested in translating stuff to Spanish; I'm not sure how this helps them on their nigh-Sisyphean task.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
August 19
Cosplay images
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I started this proposal at en:wp that seems to need more input. Since we may be better at image use and scope than en:wp then others may wish to pop over and shoot at it. Other languages may wish to try similar on their projects.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Upload GPX files to Commons?
Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion
Hello,
At Wikivoyage we have started using GPX files to show itineraries on maps. For instance, imagine the Transsiberian article showing the actual itinerary of the Transsiberian in a zoomable map.
While we have the tech working, we are looking for a place to upload GPX files. Right now we uploading them in article space, for instance http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Winnipeg/Gpx which is very bad practice, confusing bots and humans alike ("Random page" can land you there).
Also, we would like to share these GPX files between different languages.
It has become clear that uploading GPX files to Commons would be the best things to do.
What do you think about it? Is Commons ready to accept such content?
Thanks. In case they are accepted for upload, which looks fine for me, it might be wise to semi-protect them per default, as the code looks to be sensitive even to minor changes, which also would not be easy to detect on Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I don’t think GPX support has been discussed before − there was no mention of it at COM:UNSUPPORTED (I just added it). I created bugzilla:53023 to get input from the devs of what might be the technical hurdles here − bugzilla:26059 which tracks support for the similar KML/KMZ hints at lots of possible issues.
In the Dutch wikipedia I use a lot of google map routes to show ex-vinicinal lines. For example:
Sterrebeek Vossem
This is none other than a GPX file overlay on a standard google map. The problem is that this is personal data and I cannot make it public domain and let the wiki community own and update the files. Is there a way to extract the underlying GPX file and place it in the commons? The copyrigth of the GPX file is not Google. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Usually files hosted at Commons can be viewed on Commons and many free and open formats are not supported because there are no online viewers for them. How can GPX files be viewed? Probably OpenStreetMap has some way, since they allow upload of GPX files. KML files are similar and are also unsupported except for overlays like File:Erfurt-1650-Merian.jpg/overlay.kml overlay of File:Erfurt-1650-Merian.jpg file. --Jarekt (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Just to add that in my opinion these files should be hosted in Commons and their use outside wikivoyage encouraged — this seems to be a great addition. Just a couple of issues:
Are these datasets copyrighteable? Is there a mechanism to detect wheather a given dataset was originally plotted by a user or is being copied from some other source, possibly copyrighted?
There should be a separate category tree for this kind of data. I’m not sure if we have, or will ever have, this kind of data in formats other than GPX, but all formats for this type of data should be bundled — just like we separate media by type (video, audio, photos) and not by filetype. Of course each file should be also categorized to show up with other media pertaining to the area they pertain to.
Viewing/previewing/visualizing/thumbnailing is important. Given these are XML files, maybe a bit of XSL magic could make them visible through libsvg?
Given that OpenStreetMap considers their data copyrightable as well (which also consists of nothing but lists of coordinates and associated tags), I think that they are probably copyrightable. darkweasel9412:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Confusion Canoes and Pirogues
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
As I understand it there is no difference between the English Cano and the french Pirogue. The Canoes categories are fully developed, while "Piroques" is only a subcategory of "Canoes". I propose to move all "Pirogues" images to "Canoes" categories and create a link from Piroques.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The term "piroque" as you write it returns only one hit on Commons. Assuming you mean "pirogue", not all w:pirogues are canoes. The term has various local meanings, referring to a variety of small craft mostly in historically French-speaking areas and probably should be applied only when the vessel is so designated locally. If the category gets too big it could logically be divided by location. Dankarl (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is only a small difference between canoes and pirogues. Piroques are mostly traditional canoes made of local materials (wood), while canoes can also be made of modern fiberglas. In most third world countries there is in practice no difference. People in these countries who able to afford fiberglass dont buy canoes, but bigger boats. I'm not in favour of localism, whereby the category name depends on the local language/history. See Cosmonauts and Astronauts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I would maintain it is only a pirogue for Commons if it is actually called a pirogue in English. Those pirogues which are dugout canoes could be in Category:Monoxylon. But there is a type of US boat which is called a pirogue which is not what people usually think of as a canoe (wider, flat bottom, may have a transom), it needs a category. Thus you will have a category, perhaps called Cajun Pirogues. The widespread use of the term pirogue for other indigenous watercraft will then lead to confusion that highrt level categpories could resolve. Dankarl (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Duplicate images
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
How can these two images be reported as duplicates?
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Lately I was working on unification of text of various PD-old, PD-1996 and PD-1923 templates. As many of you know, {{PD-old}} is being slowly depreciated and replaced by templates which are more specific to why the image is PD in country of the origin and USA. So we have {{PD-old-auto|deathyear=yyyy}}, {{PD-old-100}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=yyyy}}, {{PD-old-100-1923}}, {{PD-old-70-1923}}, {{PD-old-90-1923}}, etc. See here for more complete list. One problem with this explosion of number of templates was that originally each template used its own {{Autotranslate}} subtemplate structure for internationalization (i18n) of the message. That created a maintenance nightmare where dozen of almost identical texts were being translated to various languages at the same time as english version was changing. User:Rd232 began consolidation various translations; however he retired (?) before completion.
I created two templates: {{PD-1923-text}} and {{PD-old-text}} used to translate the basic messages used by most PD-old and PD-1923 templates. I hope to eventually replace that part of the templates text in all PD-old and PD-1923 templates. I am also planning on moving the content of those templates to translatewiki. I need help adding translations and verifying current translations of the templates. --Jarekt (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your work Jarekt.
What about keeping them here under the Translate extension framework, instead of moving to TranslateWiki?
I do not know how Translate extension framework works with templates, but translatewiki seems to be the golden standard at the moment, used by most licenses, and infobox fields. If translate extension framework will replace it or take over some of it's tasks it is fine with me. All I was trying to say is that I do not see {{PD-old-text}} and {{PD-1923-text}} as a final destination but rather a step in a process. --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I tried to find out how one can create these wm-messages at translatewiki or elsewhere but was unable to find a documentation. All I know is that the messages from translatewiki are compiled into a php using an unknown script that makes use of an unknown pattern to decide which messages to include and builds mw:Extension:WikimediaMessages, finally available at git. -- Rillke(q?)14:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Since today the logon to commons requires that third party cookies (wikivoyage, wikiversity, ...) are allowed. Because I do not want to allow this generally it's neccessary for me, to reactivate the allowence each time I want to logon to wikimedia. Even if this might be acceptable for the majority, I think that this behaviour is no good idea.
Hm? I have told my browser to block all third-party cookies, and I don't have any problems. I have also blocked https://login.wikimedia.org/ from setting any cookies at all, but I'm not sure if this affects anything here. What browser are you using and what happens when you try to log in? --Stefan4 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am using Iceweasel (Debian Firefox 17). I simply again get the message you need to logon to upload ... (or something similiar) and sometimes the hint that cookies must be allowed. --DenkmalKöln (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago29 comments12 people in discussion
Hi all.
We've been experimenting with changing the output of the <gallery> tag. We added a new parameter to the gallery tag - mode. This allows triggering a number of experimental modes for the gallery tag. The values of the mode tag can be traditional, nolines, packed, packed-hover, and packed-overlay. This mode parameter is available on all non-wikipedia wikis at the moment (Wikipedia will have it available on thursday) I would really like commons folks to play with it, and see what you think. If people really like it, we could make one of the new modes the default for the gallery tag. Personally I think the "packed" mode would be good for commons. Changing the auto-generated "galleries" on category pages and on special:newfiles is also an option if people like the new version (I think packed-hover would work well for categories). See mw:Help:Images#Rendering_a_gallery_of_images for full details about the options available for the gallery tag. Example gallery:
Thanks for posting and for the wonderful work. In the packed example on mww, are the underendered "pipe trick" links filed as a bug already? Can't check now. --Nemo21:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've got a question regarding the size of images. I quickly tested both, the widths as well as the heights gallery options with mode="packed", and both didn't work as I'm used to. The gallery images somehow changed their size, but neither did widths limit their widths to the given value nor did heights limit their heights. This even applied to a gallery containing only a single image (where widths/heights don't need to be adjusted to match the other images and the width of the page). Is this a design limitation somehow or an issue that will be fixed eventually? --Patrick87 (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
It tries to adjust the size in order to make all rows full the screen (So no ragged edges on right). heights parameter is basically ignored. Widths parameter is used as an initial size. If there's extra room on the end of a row, the width of each image is used as the initial size, and then the widths are increased until the row fills the browser width (or until you hit 1.5 times the specified size, which is taken as the maximum). Bawolff (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, I see. Although I think you meant widths is ignored while heights is used as an initial value and is increased up to 1.5*heights to fill rows?
I'd propose one enhancement to the current algo: The last line currently has almost always a height of 1.5*heights (because it doesn't fill the row). If the algorithm detects it can't fill the row with 1.5*heights it should fall back to e.g. the mean height of the previous lines or (in case of only a single line) 1.0*heights. If there is only one line, the specification of heights should be obeyed, if there are multiple lines, the last line should not look larger than the other lines needlessly (as the current algo tends to). --Patrick87 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I did some experiments over here - http://tools.wmflabs.org/bawolff/gallery/index.php?title=Featured_pictures/Non-photographic_media . I switched it so that it will try to fit the last row first (with up to 1.5 times the size). If its impossible to fit it with 1.5 times the size, it will then multiply the size by the largest multiplier so far (So if a previous row had been multiplied by 1.5, it would use that. If the biggest multiplier is 1.3, then that's what will be used for the last row. If there is only one row, it will first see if it can fit it with 1.5 times the size, failing that it will display the images at 1.0 times the size). Do you (and everyone else here) think that behaviour is better? (I think its better). Bawolff (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Great, thank you for the tests! Yes, it looks much better, line heights are much more even with your changes. Three questions, though:
Why did you decide to fall back to the maximum multiplier that occured before when the last row can't be filled, instead of a mean value? This would make heights even more similar. The maximum previous multiplier is often quite high (e.g close to 1.5), whereas the mean multiplier is often substantially lower.
Did you think about lines in between that can't be filled? They set the maximum multiplier to 1.5*heights, therefore the last line will be 1.5*heights, too. Even if all other lines are lower and only one single line can't fill a row.
Do you think the same algo as for the last line could also be useful for lines in between that can't fill a row? I'm not sure personally, since it will make the gallery look more "ragged", but it will also make heights more even and might still look better then.
I updated the test wiki to use average instead of maximun (please test and tell me what you think), I agree that looks better. I don't think the algorithm for the last row should be use for the others (I think the ugliness of more ragged edges are more than the ugliness of larger images). Most of the time, the non-last line won't be too bad for having to resize to make the line fit. Bawolff (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Wow, thank you for the blazingly fast update . I think it looks great in most cases now. I'm looking forward to see this online on other Wikis and to hear what other people say. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Cool. Thanks for your feedback. 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
If some new mode is made default, is there a way to force, in one’s preferences, the grownup’sold and boring mode as one’s default? -- Tuválkin✉08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Probably not (Although maybe a gadget could be created). Preferences have a tendency to increase complexity just because the number of options explode, so we try to avoid creating new ones unless there is a really good reason why some people would want to view something differently. Additionally we also try to avoid introducing new preferences that split the parser cache (cause different html to be rendered) because it reduces cache efficiency. Bawolff (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've the same problem when I'm logged with this account, but not with my second account. There is probably a problem with a gadget or a personnal script. Pyb (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the old css (prior to the change being introduced) is still cached possibly. Does doing a hard refresh fix the issue? (This sort of thing should automatically happen, but sometimes doesn't seem to) Bawolff (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
In my opinion, this is totally not neat nor wowworthy. It is going to break really ugly when instead of carefully picked examples and preset galleries (for which we had already presentation tools other than <gallery />…) it starts to be used for categories. Any image much higher than wide or much wider than high, any icon of a non-visual media file, any thing that doesn’t match the narrow-minded preconceptions behind this “innovation” — will break the whole look stacked/packed look. Leave this kind of trendy eye-candy for Microsoft, lets forcus on work here. And what works, for an all-emcompassing presentation of visual elements of unpredictable aspect ratios is… yes: have each of them padded to square cells, which is what we have. Stop this nonsense and do some real work instead — there’s a lot waiting to be done. (I mean this for categories, only — for the rest, especially wikipedia articles, these new changes wont make it worse: Even with better looks, galleries is still lazy article editing.) -- Tuválkin✉23:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well at some point, there's a limit to how well we can display something with extreme aspect ratios. Very wide and short images do end up taking up a lot more room, which can look less than ideal if they are also low resolution. However, I don't think the results are particularly horrid with such images. (obviously that's a matter of opinion, and I have quite a bit of bias). Example gallery with image choices that look less "good": Bawolff (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
To avoid confusion, hopefully... this has no relevance to how we use the terminology 'block evasion' on Commons, as the WMF has no plans to prosecute block evaders. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Very stupid court ruling. If my computer's IP address is blocked, then I could just go to my mobile phone which has another IP. I could also try rebooting my phone which would probably give me a new IP address. People change IP addresses all of the time, both intentionally and unintentionally. Is it suddenly a crime to borrow a friend's computer? --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Commons:List of users by number of edits/uploads
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
For Sailko, the diligent photographer of Italian heritage and nature
Would it be possible to have a list like this for Commoneers too? It would be useful to have one for the number of edits and one for the number of uploads... I've always wondered... Thanks!! --Sailko (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The guidelines for Bureaucrats with regard to inactivity has yet to adopt a process in line with that in place more generally for Administrators. I have made a proposal at Commons talk:Bureaucrats#Proposal to manage inactive Bureaucrats for recognizing that any 'crat inactive for 3 months may be subject to having the flag removed if they do not respond for 30 days to a notice (for Admins the period is 6 months).
Need your help figuring out the source of an image in a collage
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
File:Polesok.pngsource for Joseph Rotblat (4th row, 4th column) is still missing
Dear all,
here's yet another collage with missing source information: File:Polesok.png.
I've managed to find all the images used in the collage but the one for Joseph Rotblat (4th row, 4th column). Is anyone able to find out where it came from? Was it maybe deleted? Also, several files are lacking source/author information themselves – for example: what do you think about File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg? --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the research El Grafo. I assume Joseph Rotblat file was deleted. File:Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz.jpg file does not meet basic requirements of the license (proof of publication on Poland) and I tagged it for DR. We might have to replace the no-source images in the collage or delete the file. --Jarekt (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I guess you abandoned hope to obtain information from the uploader? On Commons, en.wp and pl.wp, I didn't find this file either. Yes, it could have been deleted in a speedy deletion. On external sites, it could of course have come originally from any of the many sites where this photo is found. One likely place where people would probably think of is the Nobel Prize web page. As it's a pre-2006 photo, they don't specify, and they may not know, who is the owner of the copyright, but they warn that those photos may be copyrighted by someone. Also, it's a crop from a larger photo. A more inclusive version is kept at the American Institute of Physics in their W.F. Meggers Gallery of Nobel Laureates collection, but, as their notice says, they don't know the copyright information ("we do not claim copyright as the person donating the photographs does not necessarily hold copyright to the photos they are donating"), although that doesn't stop them from offering copies for sale. There's a somewhat better copy offered on this British site, who claims copyright on its reproductions but doesn't seem to have information about the original. A Google image search returns about a hundred webpages with the cropped version used in the collage. Ididn't look at them. I'm guessing many of them may have simply copied it from the Nobel website and would not have more information. But you could look at them if you are really motivated. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the research! I don't know if I'll find the time to really dive into this, but now I'll at least have a good point to start from. And yes, I've abandoned all hope to get any reaction from the uploader. I've contacted them before here as well as at their talk page at en:. If anyone is interested in cleaning up after them: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Oliszydlowski might be able to provide you many happy hours ;-) Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
No, this is copyrighted material and certainly not suitable for Commons. The English language Wikipedia accepts unfree files under certain conditions, so it might be an option to upload it there locally. But please make sure that you have read and understood en:Wikipedia:Non-free content before. Do not, however, upload it to the German language Wikipedia: It will undoubtedly get deleted soon, since there's no such thing as Fair Use in German Law. Even a link to the file might be considered illegal there. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Two objections:
(1) German Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia of Germany, it is a Wikipedia written in German language. Not only German citizens speak German as first language. Millions of people from Austria and Switzerland and about 350 000 from South Tirol (*) do so too. (* 69% of the population in this autonomous province in northern Italy speak German as first language and it's an official language there)
Why should German law apply to the German-speaking people of Austria and Switzerland and South Tyrol (and elsewhere in the world, e.g. the U.S.)?
And why should Italian law apply to the Italian-speaking people of Switzerland (and elsewhere in the world)?
(2) Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is an American 501(c)(3) charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is organized under the laws of the state of Florida, where it was founded and initially based. And the vast majority of it's servers stand on U.S. soil (and no server on German soil) and the domain .org is operated by Public Interest Registry (U.S.) -> Why shouldn't U.S. law apply to *.wikipedia.org? --Bgm2011 (talk) 07:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure does U.S. law apply to all WMF projects. However, on top of that the individual projects have their own policies. Commons policy is that material has to be free/legal in the U.S. and in the country of origin. :de Wikipedia has the policy that all material needs to be free/legal in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, because it is targeted mainly to people in these countries. --Túrelio (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I guess my answer was a bit misleading. In the end it boils down to: en.wp has a special policy which allows fair use. de.wp does not have anything like this, just like Commons and many other projects. --El Grafo (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
So if it is o.k. according to U.S. copyright law, then the content is notillegal but - at most - against Wikimedia's policy.
But how does Wikimedia's policy apply to the Chinese Wikipedia? Does all the material has to free/legal in the People's Republic of China (mainland China) and/or in the Republic of China (Taiwan)?
US law always applies, but communities can decide to voluntarily also obey the laws of Germany, Austria, Italy, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, or anything else. It's not that hard really. darkweasel9415:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The idea is that it should be possible for anyone to use Wikipedia content. If German Wikipedia doesn't follow German law, then it is illegal to use German Wikipedia in Germany. That destroys a large portion of the purpose of German Wikipedia. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
You can't upload it to Commons (see COM:FU) no matter what the copyright policies in either of those Wikipedias are. You may be able to upload it to those Wikipedias individually - meta:Non-free content is a place to start finding out about their copyright policies. darkweasel9416:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
You can't upload it to Japanese Wikipedia. The only non-free files Japanese Wikipedia accepts are photos of artworks (such as statues) permanently installed in public places outdoors. See ja:Template:屋外美術 (non-free licence template) and ja:WP:FOP (exemption doctrine policy).
As I understand it, each language version of Wikipedia, and each of the other projects, decides internally about what kind of non-free content it wants to host, regardless of “local” laws (and b.t.w. note that some wikipedias dont have a specific home country — Latin and Esperanto are obvious examples). A few years ago, the Portuguese Wikipedia decided to start accepting (again) non-free content, with some restrictions, but that was a decision of the community, not a result of any change in the laws of Portugal or Brazil. So, this non-free image from One Piece is acceptable according to the Italian Wikipedia fair use rules, and might suit some other wikipedias, but yet others not, As for Commons, which is a repository of media items, not an illustrated analysis, it cannot host any non-free file for “fair use”. -- Tuválkin✉12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Copyright question
Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
So, I am in possession of probably over one hundred images that were given to me by Cape Cod National Seashore, and I plan on uploading some of the more useful images. Most of them were donated over the years by veterans, so would Template:PD-USGov-NPS be applicable here, or is there a better template for this? Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
PD government would only apply if they were taken as part of their employment by the Federal government, images taken in a personal capacity would not qualify. Physically owning a print would not make you the copyright owner, unless that was explicit on their donation, and if this wasn't documented, and essentially undocumentable if the original authors cannot be contacted, we would only have your word that the correct permissions have been given.--KTo288 (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
What I suspect is that many of them were taken in personal capacity as service members, then donated. Some of them don't actually have any author permissions, which could mean they are a part of the National Park Service (the two entities co-existed for at least twenty years), although I could also find out what the status is on these things. Still, others I could probably message on Facebook, while others are definitely NPS images. So, I guess in that sense, you guys will have to take me at my word, but should I use a generic public domain tag if I do confirm that someone donated the material and allowed it to be in the public domain? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If they are taken as part of official duties the PD-USGov-NPS tag seems correct. However, if donated the copyright would still sit with the photographer and OTRS is probably required. Liamdavies (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you are in contact with any of the authors, an email or message to Commons:OTRS is the correct way to go. A general PD license is fine if (and only if the authors are willing) but they could choose an appropriate CC license and that would be fine too.--KTo288 (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
HTTPS for users with an account
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Greetings. Starting on August 21 (tomorrow), all users with an account will be using HTTPS to access Wikimedia sites. HTTPS brings better security and improves your privacy. More information is available at m:HTTPS.
If HTTPS causes problems for you, tell us on bugzilla, on IRC (in the #wikimedia-operations channel) or on meta. If you can't use the other methods, you can also send an e-mail to https@wikimedia.org.
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Multimedia project slides
Greetings!
If you are interested in the Wikimedia Foundation's new multimedia initiative, we would like to invite you to join our IRC discussion tomorrow, Thursday, August 22 at 18:00 UTC (11:00am PDT), on this 'office hours' channel: #wikimedia-office.
During this one-hour chat, we will talk about our plans for multimedia in the coming year, as discussed in our last IRC chat and in this Wikimania 2013 roundtable, held in Hong Kong earlier this month.
We would also like to discuss this proposed Media Viewer, which we are starting to develop -- as well as get your feedback on the new image gallery tags we just released this week.
Last but not least, if you would like to keep up with our development work, you are welcome to subscribe to this Multimedia mailing list, which we started earlier this month.
For more information about our new multimedia initiative, visit this project hub.
If you really wanted to get feedback you'd put up a wiki discussion page here or on enwp, not hide it off on the IRC channels or the Mediawiki wiki which noone visits.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk20:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
In regards to gallery, you can give feedback in the VP thread above. For the media viewer, I'll let fabrice answer that one, but I imagine we would create a wiki page discussion when we are closer to having a final product to show off. If you can't (or don't want) to visit the irc chat, feel free to send us feedback where ever is most convenient to you. We all have talk pages, etc. As long as we know where the feedback is, we will read it. Bawolff (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Update: Many thanks to all the folks who joined today's IRC chat about multimedia -- especially Ainali, JeanFred, multichill, quiddity, rillke, Steinsplitter and zhuyifei1999_!
We will add more notes from this discussion later today, and will also start an onwiki discussion this week on Commons, as suggested by Kelvinsong. In the meantime, we invite you to add your comments in the discussion pages for these documents, so we can hear from you. Thanks again for taking the time to help plan our next steps for multimedia! More to come ... Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
I couldn't access the IRC, but I read the log, and I just have to say one thing was pretty concerning to me:
But we are hoping that a simple feedback tool could help more people surface content on Wikipedia as well, through the new Media Viewer (e.g a 'thanks' tool could help).
…that data could also be used to surface content that was found useful by others.
I really dislike the idea of adding cheap like buttons to our pictures. I'm especially bothered by the fact that pictures are going to be ranked based on how many likes they get. I foresee that a lot of contributors (including myself probably) will be shifting our efforts to fish for likes instead of actually contributing useful/valuable content. Commons/Wikipedia is not and should not be Instagram. (What's next? Followers?) The average person looks for glowing stuff and bright colors—To be more specific: flowers, shiny nails, food, sunsets, humorous meta-posts (almost always copyvios, BTW), and attractive selfies. Not accuracy, technical quality, good design, or educational value. At least restrict the like buttons to registered users who know what to look for in a file.—Love, Kelvinsongtalk23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Any sort of rating system is still a bit away, and a "stage 2" project so to speak. You're right that its an area we would have to tread carefully in to get good results and not just be a useless popularity content. I put some of my initial thoughts on the matter at the page mw:Multimedia/File_feedback a while back, but its all very initial. There will be more discussion along with more hard thinking about what to do (and what not to do) later on, after the first round of stuff gets done. Bawolff (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
What's that with the new translation system??
Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Please help: I've no idea about the essense of that changeover, but why do I get the same English text now by clicking at the page of COM:SCOPE on the Russian link, although there is apparently a Russian version? Same applies for other project pages! New and/or unskilled users hardly will find the right version themselves by browsing the revision history, so wtf please?? --A.Savin18:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it is not me who should give the effort, but the one who marked for translation. As long as it is not the case, Commons:Project scope/ru should be reverted to the version readable for most Russian users. --A.Savin19:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
The second page requires JavaScript enabled. It shows a list of translation units. When clicking a unit, one can paste the translation into the textarea that appears and click "save translation" to save and go to the next unit. Full help. -- Rillke(q?)19:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
HTTPS for logged-in users on Wednesday August 28th
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sumana, could the opt-out of https be added to user preferences in advance of rolling it out? This would seem like an easy fix for bot operators. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Need help with commonshelper2
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm trying to import some images from the Afrikaans Wikipedia (such as this one), but CommonsHelper 1 or 2 don't seem to support this wiki. Commonshelper2 has a method to configure the tool to work with every wiki, so I tried to create a configuration page here but it still doesn't work. Can someone help me with this?--Underlying lk (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
August 22
Flickr license vs US Military license
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a photo on flickr I would like to upload (http://www.flickr.com/photos/68069549@N05/8641884955/) but the license is all rights reserved even though it was taken by a US Military employee. Can I upload it manually and then change the license to PD-USGov-Military-Navy or not?
Somewhat strange, but eventually due to the fact that this Flickr-account seems to be a personal one. However, as official material from U.S. federal institutions is PD by U.S. law, we ignore such restrictions, provided there is enough evidence or no reasonable doubt that it is an official work. For the image in question, IMO there is no doubt about that, due to the statement "U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Julianne Metzger/Released." --Túrelio (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Skyscraper vs. High-rise
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Support in general. There is only one contra I can think of: Some bots may fail to handle https and consequently break. A possible solution would be to decide on the Agent-header whether to deliver https or not. --McZusatz (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The Golden Shield Project (China) prevents the Chinese from accessing https://upload.wikimedia.org, which would cause inconvenience when loading images. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not sure. When I tried using HTTPS with Mozilla Firefox in the past, I encountered two issues. First, I kept getting warning messages when new webpages were loaded, which was very annoying. Secondly, I kept getting logged out and had to log in repeatedly. Perhaps these issues have now been sorted out by Wikimedia or Mozilla, but if they are still around this would put me off from using HTTPS. — SMUconlaw (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done Thanks alot guys&gals, I'll add the appropriate links right away … --El Grafo (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
this montage to replace
actually OK.
.jpg)
keep (at least the few I browsed), regardless of the uploader’s apparent intention of using Commons as his ad image hosting facility. Wont it be a great lesson to the uploader if his competitors start using his images to create their own ads? That’s the beauty of 
Sterrebeek Vossem
This is none other than a GPX file overlay on a standard google map. The problem is that this is personal data and I cannot make it public domain and let the wiki community own and update the files. Is there a way to extract the underlying GPX file and place it in the commons? The copyrigth of the GPX file is not Google. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Baldwin Spencer Building.JPG – Special:FileDuplicateSearch/Baldwin Spencer Building.JPG
File:New Wing Extension.jpg – Special:FileDuplicateSearch/New Wing Extension.jpg
Astronotus ocellatus (Oscar)
Salmo salar (Salmon Larva)
Epinephelus lanceolatus (Giant grouper)
Pterois volitans (Red Lionfish)
Macropodus opercularis (Paradise fish)
Canthigaster valentini (Valentinni's sharpnose puffer)
Dactylopterus volitans (Flying gurnard)
Semicossyphus pulcher (California Sheephead)
Pseudorasbora parva (Topmouth gudgeon)
Pterois antennata (Antennata Lionfish)
Synchiropus splendidus (Mandarin fish)
Psetta maxima (Turbot)
Arothron hispidus (Puffer fish)
Bothus mancus (Peacock Flounder)
Arothron hispidus (Puffer fish), Labroides phthirophagus
Bryaninops yongei (Wirecoral goby)
. I think it looks great in most cases now. I'm looking forward to see this online on other Wikis and to hear what other people say. --Patrick87 (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Bytum.png){kind=link}
![[2]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Zan.png){kind=link}
![[3] at [4]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Malborke.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.pomorskie.eu/res/wizytowka/galerie/gminy/Malbork_miasto/malbork._ratusz_staromiejski..jpg){kind=link}
![[5] from [6]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=%C5%9Awino.png){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.komputerswiat.pl/media/592444/latarnia_swinoujscie_Biker.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Sosen.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
