Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
  Welcome to Commons   Community Portal   Help Desk
Upload help		   Village Pump
copyright • proposals		   Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections		  
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
This project page in other languages:

Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | Boarisch | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | kа | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文（简体）‎ | 中文（繁體）‎ | Zazaki | +/−
Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives
 


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Please help by translating these messages into other languages.
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]





Error: Invalid time[edit]

Why is there no maintenance category for such errors? See File:Adam Dutckiewicz-masfield.jpg for an example. --Leyo 23:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why there is no maintenance category for this, but it was fixed by this edit. Lupo 09:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, this google search yields 2330 pages with that problem. Lupo 09:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Strange: [1]. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 09:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That is odd and there seem to be many causes:
--Jarekt (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
We should really rewrite User:Torben/Info to use standard templates and merge User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass with Template:Flickrreview. --Jarekt (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
In contrast to the other user template, User:Torben/Info is not used so many times. Hence, replacing them with {{Information}} might be an alternative.
@Lupo: Thanks, but I was aware of the cause and the solution. I think that creating a maintenance category is essential. --Leyo 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Any other opinions or suggestions? --Leyo 19:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

→ Thread copied to User talk:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass --Leyo 01:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

January 23[edit]

User page image of me?[edit]

Is it allowed here to upload a small thumbnail size image of me which is "all rights reserved" solely for the purposes of usage in user-spaces (pages, galleries and templates) under Category:User page images per Commons:SCOPE#File_in_use_on_Commons_only?

I'm much concerned about uploading a freely licensed self portrait of me per How are publicity, privacy, and personality rights affected when I apply a CC license?. Uploading a highly down-sampled version is also not very helpful per Can I apply a CC license to low-resolution copies of a licensed work and reserve more rights in high-resolution copies?

To be frank; I don't want to see those "pricasso things" being rubbed on my face. :( Jee 07:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons gives some protection under Photographs of identifiable people, in that derived works hosted here should not unnecessarily demean, ridicule or invade the personal life of the subject. However the boundaries of "respect" or even "harassment" are up for debate depending on the case and derived works are allowed both here and off-wiki. Were someone to create a derived work of your self portrait off-wiki that you find objectionable, not only does Wikimedia Commons have no policy or authority to do anything about it, but you are likely to find there are few legal tools available to you to ensure an objectionable derived work gets taken down.
Should the person creating derived works be a Wikimedia project contributor and appears to be intentionally using derived works as a weapon intended to harass our contributors, then we can take action by banning their accounts, however we still have no authority to do more than this and based on similar cases over the last few years it is unlikely that demonstrated behaviour of this type would even result in a global ban.
If you don't want "pricasso things" rubbed on your face, then do not release your images, anywhere, as copyright licences are a poor means of protection against harassment. --Fæ (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I can take some risks (as they are published in my Flickr and Facebook profiles); but unfortunately (or fortunately to warn against any potential abuse) CC clearly stated in their FAQ and in the new 4.0 release that self portraits are prone to abuse as we can't assert our right of privacy and even our moral rights to some extend. :(
My question is why we need a free license for user page images as the are only intended to use in "my user page"; not anywhere else? Jee 07:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
If somebody shops a dick to your nose that is clear vandalism in my book and reason for speedy deletion. And now I welcome Fae to explain to all of us why this makes me a bad bueaurocrat. :-/ --Dschwen (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have just noticed this mention of me, I have no idea what this means. It might be a joke of some sort. --Fæ (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen: Is it allowed to upload/use an "all rights reserved" picture for my user page? Or I've to satisfy with the strictest license available at Commons:Copyright_tags#Other_free_tags? I see your user page picture is also a victim of COM:DR. Jee 15:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Ha, yes, but it was not a bad faith DR, as the image was actually not embedded on my userpage at the time. In any case an All rights reserved image won't survive on commons. And I don't really see the need for such an exception. It's not like a potential vandal would respect such a license restriction anyways. And who knows, maybe you picture could be useful for somebody with "good intentions", like somebody making a "diversity in wikipedia" collage, or to illustrate some wikipedia article :-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm; then I must make a try. :)
But I'm disappointed to see people adding "useless" and all possible categories to such images too. See the images coming left and right of your images in a category. :( Jee 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the category system is another topic on its own, but what do you mean by left and right of your images? --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I enabled some funny gadgets to speed up my works here; they show images in all relevant categories and galleries whenever I open an image. :(
Hope the amendment in Personality rights will solve some concerns on reuse. Jee 16:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Single user login[edit]

Since yesterday, automatical SUL doesn't work for me and I have to login on some WMF projects (esp. the Russian wp) separately. No browser settings were changed. Was there any issue? --A.Savin 10:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. There's nothing in wikitech:Server_Admin_Log. The only recent thing that has happened to the servers is non-wikipedia projects had their version of mediawiki updated (on the 28th), but I wouldn't expect that to cause any problems on russian wikipedia, as that is not one of the wikis that was updated. Automatic SUL does appear to work fine for me on ru.wp. Bawolff (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it fails for me, too. When I log in at the English Wikipedia, it works and logs me in also at the other wikipedias and at the Commons, or at wikinews. But logging in at the Commons does not log me in at the wikipedias. Lupo 17:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
As for me, it works for Wikidata, Wiktionary, and Wikivoyage; but fails for Russian and English WP. Haven't check for other projects, but by yesterday I definitely didn't need to login anywhere else than on Commons. --A.Savin 19:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems to work now. --A.Savin 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Weird. For login issues, Chris Steipp (csteipp) and Brad Jorsch (anomie) are good developer contacts. Please let me know if this happens again after removing cookies and/or with another browser. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, seems to work again. Without clearing anything or switching browsers. Lupo 06:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

1900s History of California[edit]

Please meet the original native Wiki.
Wiki, was a native American priest of the Hopi tribe. Photo by George Wharton James, 1898.

California Historical Society Collection, 1860-1960: 3579 photographs.

I have uploaded over 3,000 photographs this week (and am planning to upload a few thousand more) to the above category from the University of Southern California's digital library. These were taken on plate glass around a century ago. This include streets, buildings, transport, everyday life and a significant collection of photographs of the lives of native Americans.

Interestingly this includes the Hopi priest Wiki, on the right, who is not mentioned at the moment anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Anyone up for getting this on en.wp in a Did You Know, or perhaps considering the archive quality scan (4,050 × 5,320), this might be a candidate featured picture on Commons?

Call to Action: If you know California (I'm a Londoner, so fairly clueless), please do help with better categorization, identification, location, improving information on the photographers and ensuring that this valuable collection is well used across the different language Wikipedias. Comparing photographs of streets and buildings from 100 years ago to their modern equivalents would give excellent context to the image pages. --Fæ (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats; and he looks very cool. Jee 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I’m faily clueless about California, too, but this is fun! -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a case for our Restaurators pardon Restorationists. --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice to have a photo of Wiki, our great-grand-father ... hehe --JotaCartas (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sue Gardner, part of the Wiki family in California.
Perhaps someone could create a family tree from Wiki, 19th century Hopi priest in California through to Sue Gardner, 21st century "Mother Teresa of the internet"[2] and California based CEO for Wikimedia? Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg --Fæ (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Automobile Club of Southern California collection, 1892-1963: 87 photographs/scans

1915 Long Beach to Santa Ana road map.

Transport enthusiasts may enjoy reusing this part of the archive, a collection of high quality scans of (pre-1923) pocket road maps and photographs of vehicles in California. --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Historic postcards in the USC digital library: 180

I have started the batch upload of several hundred eclectic early postcards from the same archives. This includes a wide variety of California historic scenes as well as various oddities from elsewhere. As an example, Fraser's Million Dollar Pier (Ocean Park), an immensely popular attraction, was opened in 1911 but burned down only a year later. There is no article on Wikipedia about it. Sad face.svg --Fæ (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,
Do you think you could upload these: Old US postcards? Yann (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The Flickrstream is too problematic as though most of the cards appear to be pre-1920, not all are, and a sample check shows me they are all rights reserved with no provenance or dates. The USC library postcards have excellent provenance and are all dated, consequently I can screen out those that can be seen to be published after 1923 and just stick to those that are unlikely to ever be challenged on copyright. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Personality rights and Consent?[edit]

Opinions on Template_talk:Personality_rights#Template_as_is_is_alienating_for_image_use and Template_talk:Consent#Full_consent.3F are highly appreciated. Jee 13:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

February 01[edit]

Correct name for a category[edit]

This category (Empoli's Countryside) has a bad English name: the 's after a city name and the capitalized countryside are not very good, as far as the language rules are concerned. What do you suggest as a better name for the category? Countryside of Empoli? I noticed also there are not many "countrysides of.." on Commons. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

February 02[edit]

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for DanielTom[edit]

The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon. Request at meta subsequently withdrawn. ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, per m:Global bans, a general requirement of a global bans request for comment is notify all projects where the user subject to the ban has editied. DanielTom is either an active editor or a past editor of this wiki and therefore I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Merging two separate uploads in one versioned[edit]

I suppose File:Schongauer, Martin - St Antonius - hi res.jpg should've been uploaded as a new version of File:Schongauer St. Antonius.jpeg. Is there any way to merge them somehow automatically? --Numerosity (talk) 10:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Per COM:OVERWRITE, no the other version was rightfully uploaded under a different name.
(to answer your question: yes, it is possible to merge them − see Commons:HMS#History_merging.)
Cheers, Jean-Fred (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
But it already was once upgraded to a new version. This appears to be against the rules? --Numerosity (talk) 20:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

February 03[edit]

Public domain templates[edit]

Hey there again, Commons community. I'd like to ask a request of a Commons administrator, though regular Commons folks are also welcome to help: Can a willing administrator please query the wiki database if possible for all public domain templates currently in use? I'd like to ask this in order to do a side-by-side comparison with the public domain templates also in use on the English Wikisource, see the discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Importing more Public Domain templates from Commons. The resulting query can be listed either at Commons:Database reports or in one of my subpages [[User:TeleComNasSprVen/Public domain templates]] for example. I have this page watched, so you do not need to notify me. Thanks! TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sputnik sound file[edit]

There is apparently some disagreement over whether our Media of the Day, File:Possible PDM signal labeled as Sputnik by NASA.ogg is really a recording of Sputnik's signal or not. Interested/knowledgeable parties, please see File talk:Possible PDM signal labeled as Sputnik by NASA.ogg#Sputnik or not and comment there, if desired. - dcljr (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsplash[edit]

Hi everyone, I want to share with you this website: http://unsplash.com/ which has very nice CC0 images. --Viscontino (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice pictures, I test uploaded this one. A few comments and issues, though:
  • They call these «hi-resolution photos»: While maybe some or all were indeed photographed in the smallish displayed resolutions (1024×683 px for this one), that seems unlikely. If so, that limits useability and maybe yet another instance of this.
  • This website is an urlmasked Tumblr feed with all its annoying quirks, including infinite loading. I.a., the only way to find the permanent link to an individual photo page (as simply clicking it will feed your browser the JPEG file, just like the link/button labelled "download") is through the monthly thumbnail sets page (which in turn is infinite loading).
  • This website is terribly scarce on details, and the photos seem to lack EXIF data. Typically all we know about each photo is the author’s name, and a link to the/an author’s website. There’s indication that some of those individual photo page include comments and other 3rd party data («notes», in Tumbler parlance), but they seem to be disabled in each individual photo page. All this will needlessly hinder categorization and again reduce the useability of these photos.
I’m not sure if the best way to go about these is to pick them wholesale as they are; an arrangement with the Unspalsh curators that includes some additional information about each photo would be preferable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
These aren’t many, 10 new pics in 10 days means one upload a day; 2 uploads daily would eat up the backlog. Most these images are a net gain, even if identification is an issue. I’m going to go ahead with it; later on authors could provide addition info on each shot. See Category:Images from Unsplash. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures not uploading - technical problem?[edit]

I can get neither the Commons Wizard nor the old form to work. In the Wizard, the image fails to complete uploading, thus I can never get past that stage. Sometimes, I can't even get to the Wizard and receive a "bad gateway" message. With the old form I get the error message:

Could not create directory "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/0/02".

Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. Seems to be working now, possibly because I didn't try to change the actual file name to a new destination file name? I changed the name on my computer instead, Voceditenore (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

How should new users find pictures in cats?[edit]

I'm sorry if I'm asking for a discussion that's been had a thousand times, but I can't find it. I'm working with a local tourist office to make them use and link to our Wikivoyage guide, and in explaining the benefits of free licenses etc. I also pointed them to Commons, as a database they could use. However, when I checked back in, they were quite disappointed as Commons "only had a handful of pictures" for their city. This wasn't the case, there's a great lot of images hidden in the categories and subcategories, but there's no clear link on the city page or explanation that more pictures can be found by clicking the category under the page content. I imagine there's a reason for this, but I'm not getting it. Can someone explain or point me to an explanation? Thanks. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The answer is probably an unfortunate confession that the design of Wikimedia Commons manages to suck and blow at the same time. There are pages with name of cities that are always going to be ghastly as we have no systematic maintenance of them. Even though some enthusiastic volunteers do a good job on the topic pages, generally we might actually be better off without the majority of them as they get automatically returned in a search, rather than the category where people can find useful lists of all the uploaded photographs. It remains an annoyance or even worse a confusion, for most surfers and casual users. --Fæ (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I see. That seems a really big miss. But then why don't the pages have a simple "see this category for more images on this subject", or a template or something? JuliasTravels (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@JuliasTravels:, I'm currently working on improving FastCCI to both simplify the userinterface, and make the more advanced functions available. The gadget will support category tree flattening (i.e. showing all pictures in and below a category). Currently only FPs, QIs, and VIs can be listed. In the current dev version these three buttons are combined into one single button that will list all images that got one of these "badges". This seems like a good start to me to make our quality content accessible to users. --Dschwen (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@Dschwen:, tree flattening would be highly useful for many users (and certainly for me! :-)). So would the single button, but I don't quite see how that would fix this specific problem. For many topics there are no or only a few files labelled as quality ones. It wouldn't bring that tourist office any nearer to finding the other 240 images about their city, unless there's another button saying "click here to see everything else we have on this topic. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
There won't be a button for that (in the interest of avoiding interface clutter), but a menu item in a dropdown menu with advanced options. --Dschwen (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
"Eureka!" it seems to me that this very old problem is now solved with the button "Good pictures" and the dropdown menu.
Now, it's only lacking simple/clear/concise instructions explaining to beginners "What are categories and what they are not". Most beginners use categories as they use "tags" in "Flickr" and other images websites. Maybe a new item in How to use Commons linking to the page Commons: Categories, with a simple explanation on top. Perhaps a native English speaker administrator can do so. --JotaCartas (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Photos in Facebook pages[edit]

One of my friend agrees to upload his photos in commons under CC licenses. I hope my other friends also will accept the same. But I want to identify these type of facebook pages with some tags like creative commons. Is there any tags in facebook which offers page photos under CC licenses? If not means may we create any tags in facebook?

If any tag created for CC photos means we no need to ask that FB user and we can directly upload into commons after validating the photos in reversible search engines.

What about other opinions and suggestions?--தென்காசி சுப்பிரமணியன் (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not supporting any machine readable CC license tags. So our bots can't review it (the license added by authors in the description) properly; I afraid. Facebook is not just a web-album for "own works" like Flickr; so more copyvios too. Jee 13:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Problem with Muslera4678[edit]

This user is importing a great number of high-quality, low-resolution pictures [3], certainly taken from the web. Best regards. Peter17 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done. Nuked all but two initial samples (those are tagged as speedies). User warned, and I'll monitor. Эlcobbola talk 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Over -100 pictures...![edit]

Hi! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Qualitätsbilder tells me there are over -100 pictures of a certain quality here. I'm sure that's right, but I guess a positive number would be more exact...? --Eike 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Habe es versucht zu korrigieren, und den exakten Quellcode für die Seitenzählformel der englischen Urseite zu übernehnen; dort stimmt es nämlich Commons:Quality images (Over 61,700 images....). Allerdings muss hier wohl noch was länderspezifisches rein. Dschwen sollte sich hier auskennen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, none of the translations work for me. The original English (and the German translated version) uses <tvar|qinumber>{{formatnum:{{#expr:floor( ( {{formatnum:{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Quality images}}|R}} - 100 ) / 100 ) * 100 }} }}</> which, after removing the tvar wrapper, here parses to 61,800. The Special:Translate function shows $qinumber on the English left hand side. The French translation shows $qinumber on the right side, but it too does not calculate correctly. -84user (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Tracked in Bugzilla (?)
Bug 60604
Ja, das ist ein Fehler in der Translate extension. User:Odder hat dazu schon einen bugzilla bug geoeffnet. --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually that's a bug in a parser function (see bug #60604 for details), and it already has a patch awaiting review, so it should be fixed quite soon (I hope). odder (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

February 04[edit]

A friendly reminder as we approach the Olympics in Sochi[edit]

To anyone taking photos at the Games, please remember that there is no panorama freedom in Russia, which means that you cannot upload images of the exterior of any Olympic venues in Sochi to Commons because they are non-free in their source country (they can be uploaded locally to English Wikipedia, because as far as I know, they apply U.S. FOP rules for all images, regardless of country). ViperSnake151 (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Valued images/Recently promoted is a mess[edit]

Hello,

There are several issues there, and nobody seems to care. See Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list. If this page is not maintained, it should be closed altogether. Anyone still alive here? Yann (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on indefinitely blocked IP editors[edit]

I want to bring to the community's attention about a proposal that I'm planning to stage for discussion on indefinitely blocked IP editors, since I have searched for and found no thread on this topic that I know of in the relevant Commons discussion archives. I'm not sure of the exact venue for proposing new stuff, and I thought about RFC subpaging it, but Commons:Requests for comment's guideline says: "However, before doing so, it is recommended that all but the most experienced users seek a second opinion on whether an RFC is appropriate for the topic." So I guess I have to ask here, would it be appropriate to create an RFC on this topic, or mayhaps we can hold the discussion on this page right now? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? We don't seem to have a lot of those (list) or do you want more to get blocked? Multichill (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Ps. Can anyone please fix that link? Using brackets in MediaWiki urls was a bad idea.
Done --Fæ (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, a bit more detail on what exactly you want to discuss about them would be helpful. --Dschwen (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Those seem to be mostly pen proxies anyways. What's to discuss about those? --Dschwen (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to have many on it because you're looking at the wrong list. The right list is here and if it is anything like en.wiki, it goes on forever. Penyulap ☏ 14:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

TeleComNasSprVen was specifically raising the issues of IP blocks. So why was Multichill's list of blocked IPs not the correct one? --Dschwen (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)yes, I read it too fast. there has been talk about 'editors' blocked on en.wiki before, thought it was more of that. Penyulap ☏ 14:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I was being intentionally vague so as to have people commenting concerned more with discussing what the appropriate venue is for this type of discussion rather than discussing the actual merits of the RFC, but as people have pointed out that this is just a small matter that probably does not need an RFC, I'll just host the discussion here then.

Here is the full proposal then, cross-posted on the English Wikipedia's main discussion board as well as on other wikis, and adapted suitably toward each one:

Hi, this RFC is meant to facilitate discussion as part of an ongoing cross-wiki trend of various discussions and discussion boards I've noticed recently opened concerning the issue of indefinitely blocked IP addresses. Specifically the purpose of RFC is twofold, namely:

  1. The unblocking of currently indefinitely blocked IP addresses at Special:BlockList.
  2. Amending Commons:Blocking policy to discourage future indefinite blocks, with proposed language changes like adding "Administrators are strongly discouraged/prohibited/advised against indefinitely blocking IP addresses.

As I have explained elsewhere on other wikis, my reasons for doing so are thus:

  1. IP addresses should never be indefinitely blocked as they can change hands pretty quickly.
  2. In the event that any single IP address does need an indefinite block, such as for open proxies, the Meta Stewards have already implemented an indefinite global bock for it.
Please add your comments to the discussion below. Thanks!

I probably wasn't very clear when I made this thread on the English Wikipedia that, as a reminder, this is actually two different requests in one proposal: the first calls for a review of and eventual removal of current indefinitely blocked IP editors (whose list is very small as pointed out by MultiChill) while the second calls for prohibiting administrators from administering future indefinite blocks against IP editors. The reason it is separated like this, is that I can imagine the case that someone supports reporting future indefinite blocks only to the Meta Stewards, but to leave the current indefinite blocks in place on Commons as it is perceived as a "problem looking for a solution" (a very annoying and oft-quoted adage that tries to stifle the freeform nature of wikis from undergoing any sort of change, one that I have thankfully had only rare occasions to invoke myself, but I digress). TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Presentations about Commons[edit]

I volunteered to make a presentation to a Photography club about Wikipedia, especially Commons. I am hoping there is a repository of similar presentations somewhere, or someone reading this has made such a presentation, and can share it with me.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC) On a similar subject, what do users like as a repository for images. Flickr is the one I use, and seems Commons friendly, with the ability to specify machine readable licenses, but as part of my talk, I want to briefly discuss the options and mention which one is best liked by Wikipedia/Commons editors.--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The Wikimania presentation slides categories are a good place to start looking. Cheers --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Not much there unfortunately. A few slides with intro and then mostly about copyright in those two: File:A_common_answer_to_Commons_problem.pdf, File:Freedom_of_panorama_and_Wikimedia_Commons.pdf. --Dschwen (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There will be a big presentation about Commons at the upcoming Wikimania in London though :-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Category:Wikimedia presentations. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Right, and Category:Wikimedia Commons slides in particular. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
File:EForum2011 public speaking presentation.pdf by Anthere & File:Présentation Wikimedia Commons.pdf by Letartean are fairly good in my opinion. I also remember seeing an awesome one by Rama a few years ago − I should ask him to upload it here. Otherwise, see meta:Presentations for more presentations. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Locally officially bilingual toponyms and Category names[edit]

What’s the policy? I stumbled on this, which led me to this, where is says in not so many words that the Castillian (=Spanish) name of this city is inherently better than its Catalan (=Valencian) one in an English language (or maybe in any foreign language) context (as it says also «People of»).

I’m worried this is being done in multiple akin categories (like in all those about such toponyms in officially bilingual Catalan and Basque locations administered by Spain) in ways that will eternize edit wars and confuse unfamiliarized users (the example at hand presents scarce difficulties, but who’d guess that, e.g., Pamplona = Iruñea?).

I know well that the issue is thorny, but I am sure that the only solution is a blind blanket applying of a single simple rule for toponyms which lack an established assimilated English form — either the national language or the local language should be used. So, what is the reccomended policy? -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

"People from" vs "People of"[edit]

The newly created Category:People of California, and many other People of categories, does not sound grammatically correct. I am from California, I am not of California. Why the change to Category:People of California from Category:People from California? --Mjrmtg (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Category scheme People#People_by_country / People by occupation by country and Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/07/Category:People by country. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
So Category:People from California by occupation is now under Category:People of California. I read through the discussion and don't see why the change in prepositions from 'from' to 'of'. Seems like a whole lot of work someone is going through. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
"People from" denotes people who were born or grew up in a place. "People of" denotes people who live in or for whatever reason are particularly associated with a place. (For example, artist Andy Warhol could be described as "from" Pittsburgh, and "of" New York City. Important distinctions - while there can often be overlap, the two should not be confused or conflated. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I like this logic but I'm noticing a lot of redirects are being setup on People from" categories. --Mjrmtg (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
On a side note, and regardless of these two, I have seen a third concept mixed up and some times recategorized and/or redirected: "People in …". Things like "Tourists in …" or "Visitors in …" are most emphatically not a subset of "People from …" or "People of …" that same place. This third concept needs also to be separated. -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have to say I agree with this change; it is a long overdue implementation of COM:PEOPLECAT. The categories previously used "of" and "from" on an arbitrary basis. The change provides consistency which makes it easier for categorization. "People of" is the broader term, is grammatically correct, and includes the narrower "People from". Kudos to the folks who have been doing this work. I also agree with Tuválkin - a tourist in Paris is not necessarily of Paris, and therefore we need to be careful with those categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't buy it. I will always be "from" California. I will never say I am "of" California. --Mjrmtg (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mjrmtg, we never say "of" in the singular in contexts like this, but this is in the plural. Similarly, we would never refer to "an animal of California" but we would refer to "the animals of California". - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Mjrmtg, it is fine to have your own personal preferences, and without a doubt you are entitled to "buy" or not "buy" whatever you want, but as Jmabel points out it works from an English language perspective, and in fact it conveys a more appropriate meaning given the nature of these categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Plurally my family is from California, a group of 10 people are from Colorado, 97 relatives (or unrelated people) are from Connecticut. Yes it is a personal preference to say the right thing. It is not correct to say you are of somewhere singularly or plurally. --Mjrmtg (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I have no strong objection and the cited link makes it clear that former residents are included. However, on its face I would have thought that people of was the narrower term. I also find it illogical that we make this change when it is acknowledged that the occupational categories need to stay from. Dankarl (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

comments wanted ?[edit]

mind numbing conversation seeks minds to numb @ Category talk:Islamophobia, how did I ever get sucked into that page, oh yeah, helping out. whatever, you can pretend the subject is a gameshow, I quote my take on this idea "I'd like to see a game where we vote off all but the strongest category one by one in a tribal council with games and a big prize at the end. I liked that guy with the beard who caught a lot of fish, what was his name I can't recall, but yeah lets do it!!!" yeah, I looked excited there, but then the boring takes over with the usual edit warring starting all over again Penyulap ☏ 19:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to get blocked for persistent edit-warring over unsourced points of view, please ask at Administrators' noticeboard. --Fæ (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you going to help there Fae ? I've been away for a while, how are your latest requests for adminship going, maybe you can take over on that controversial topic, after all, didn't someone say you're pathologically drawn to controversy and conflict. Let me check, was it in the first, second, or third failed request for adminship. hmm, oh here it is, wait, it says you're pathologically "drawn to creating controversy and conflict". My mistake. Penyulap ☏ 10:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you done turning this project into a hostile environment? This village pump is not intended to be used like 4chan, please dump somewhere else. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I see your efforts to crush the lighthearted environment of self-critique of wikipedia has backfired badly and publicly too. The last in you long line of attempts to delete my work out of process here turned a completely unknown work into a popular tool to criticize Wikipedia, the irony of crushing lighthearted criticism by having an artwork comparing wiki to an intolerant regime has not been lost on the public in your latest public disgrace of the project. It's on wikipediocracy it's on encyclopediadramatica, its on Jimbos talkpage. It has gone from internal jest to public disgrace with your personal attention.
If you now don't like the topic which you brought up, why tell me ? if you did not want to stray from my topic of Category talk:Islamophobia, then why did you change the subject yourself ? I'm here to help you Fae, but in order to do that, you have to know what it is that you want in the first place. Penyulap ☏ 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out how you are promoting images that were perfectly correctly deleted from Commons with a supporting record of community consensus, and at the same time running a hostile long term campaign making deliberately offensive personal attacks in an attempt to ridicule me, and other good faith contributors to this project, off-wiki does not make you a martyr.
Again, this village pump is not a replacement for 4chan. --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Penyulap -- I really haven't been too impressed by your contributions to the debate on this matter in 2013 or 2014. It sounds theoretically nice to bring in the "hierarchy of disagreement", but it can't do much to change the fact that the faith of User:Liftarn and myself in each other's good faith was rather thoroughly destroyed back in 2006. Otherwise, your contributions to the discussion are not distinguished by clarity of argument or helping other people to arrive at a constructive or useful resolution of the dispute... AnonMoos (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 05[edit]

French Revolution Digital Archive[edit]

Hi there. Not sure this has been noted before, but 14,000 images of the French Revolution were released online. Might be useful. ~★ pikolas [[mia diskuto]] 04:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on Jimmy's talk page[edit]

There is a discussion about Commons at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Section_break. I see not much meaning in WMF's attempt to stay away from responsibilities; still blaming Commons. I tried to defend; but can't participate further, as I will be away for 3 days. Jee 08:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If anyone wishes to propose a change, the starting point is to discuss it on Commons, not Jimmy Wales' soapbox. --Fæ (talk) 09:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, Jee. However, as per Fae, these kind of "discussions" on Jimbos talkpage are rarely constructive. Besides of the fact that usually they are one-sided and totally overblown (especially with the current case), they are mostly restricted to an :en-inside-only perspective. Thereby it's no longer surprising, that many of the participants seem not even be aware of or really understand the Aims of Commons, but consider Commons simply an addendum (not to say slave) to :en-Wikipedia. --Túrelio (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
You are discussed on Wikipedia, because that is the place to discuss Wikipedia licencing - what an earth has that got to do with you? Besides which, discussion here would be futile as you are incapable of even managing one rogue Admin - assuming that is that he rogue by your standards, even that's uncertain. It seems to me that you all have a very inflated view of your own importance here - that's easily cured. Giano (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of inflated views of one’s own importance, Giano, please say "English Wikipedia" when that’s what you mean. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I find it very interesting, that not once has anyone here gone to the Admin concerned on his page and said "What the hell did you think you were doing?" The leadership here is either a disgrace or such Admin concerns are common place - I suspect it's a combination of both. However, the problems I have encountered here have highlighted the monopoly and stranglehold you seem to want to exert on Wikipedia, and that you have an unhealthy and worrying obsession with retaining image numbers even when you are alerted to copyright problems. That is a disaster waiting to happen; I couldn't care less if you sink, but I'll be damned if I let you take Wikipedia with you. Giano (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you feel the need to move from a legitimate complaint to a diatribe against Commons in general. I make a lot of contributions to this project and I'm not an admin. Your assertions that everyone but you is involved in a conspiracy to bring down Wikimedia does not help your case, nor do statements/threats like this encourage others to assist you. If you wish to propose any useful changes to the way Commons policies work, then I suggest you step back from alienating everyone. I note that even Jimmy Wales, who has hardly been shy of publicly condemning Commons in the past, does not support your current viewpoint. --Fæ (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Obviously this place is incapable or unwilling to address its faults or problems. I shall watch the unhindered career of the lying JcB and his ruling peers with interest and leave you all to wallow here. Farewell. Giano (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
JcB has been publicly admonished by many here on Commons for the way he bit the newbie. That's how we deal with misbehaviour, as you are experiencing now. Your childish petulant display, because you are not getting your way, speaks much about your charcater not Commons'. 131.137.245.208 15:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

February 06[edit]

The images taken by employees of the ICRC of captives held at Guantanamo[edit]

An image of Omar Khadr widely used before the copyright status was made clear.
Before the IP rights of images of Omar Khadr was clarified an image of him, as a child -- 'like this one -- was widely used.

In 2009 employees of the International Committee of the Red Cross -- the people authorized to check for compliance with the Geneva Conventions were allowed to take portraits of the captives held in indefinite extrajudicial detention, and to provide them to the captives' family.

Some of the captive's familiies subsequently made some of the photos available to the press. I uploaded several of these image. I can't now remember whether I uploaded them as "fair use" on en.wiki, or whether I uploaded them here. I do remember that some contributors voiced the opinion that an {{OTRS}} ticket was necessary.

I figured the intellectual property rights to these images either belonged to the ICRC, or, possibly, the ICRC signed over all rights to the families.

I tried contacting the ICRC, and did not receive a reply. Well, apparently, someone else did succeed, as there is a an OTRS ticket on File:Mohammedou Ould Salahi.jpg.

First, can someone who has access to ticket #2011031110011057 share some details from that ticket. Specifically, is there any reason why this ticket shouldn't apply to all the other images the ICRC took of Guantanamo captives?

Second, if the ticket does apply to those other images, is that sufficient to get the other images restored? Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The ticket 2011031110011057 relates to one image and cannot act as a more general release. The description at File:Mohammedou Ould Salahi.jpg is "The ICRC took this photo at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. They gave it to Salahi's brother, who passed it on to Salahi's lawyer." and the email correspondence does little more than support this statement. Though the correspondence does include a statement from the mentioned legal firm, it does not include a verifiable copyright release from the ICRC or the individual photographer who was working for the ICRC at the time, leaving it at risk of potential future deletion if challenged on Commons. I would not presume that photographs taken by members of ICRC in the course of their work would be automatically public domain. I believe that the most credible release for these photographs needs to come directly from the ICRC or their legal representative as neither the subject in the photograph (the captives), their families or their lawyers have a direct claim to the IP for photographs taken by ICRC employees. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks.
In my opinion this is an instance where the common sense interpretation is directly at odds with a strict interpretation of copyright law.
The International Committee of the Red Cross has a well-known history of well over one hundred years of devotion to the interests of prisoners. Is there anyone who really believes the ICRC is going to reverse their entire history, and suddenly try to use their ownership of a not particular valuable image to make a profit -- thus completely undermining their credibility?
I am going to repeat the story of the wikipedia's use of images of Omar Khadr. For years there were two image various newspapers used, and that en.wiki used. Eventually, his eldest sister Zaynab Khadr weighed in. Initially she sounded very impatient with us that there was any question over re-using images of her brother.
A lot of people had argued that the press had to be using images we had permission to use. Some people argued that the images were PD because they were taken in Afghanistan, which had no copyright protection.
It turned out that, just prior to an event where the press would be present, because her brother's case was going to be discussed, they raided the family photo album. They handed out photos to reporters, without placing any conditions on how those images should be re-used. They didn't ask the names of the reporters they gave the images to.
I think her frustration with our insistence that she submit an explicit license before the images could be re-used are typical of how ordinary people react. I think ordinary people would regard handing out images to photographers without taking names or stating explicit terms for re-use as a tacit release of the image into the public domain.
Luckily for us, by this time, she had a good friend who was an experienced WMF contributor, so we do have an OTRS from the Khadr family.
Realistically, the priorities of families that released any photos of a Guantanamo captive is going to be the same as that of the Khadr family. Any question of intellectual property rights would be completely secondary to the idea that releasing the image as widely as possible might help get their relative released more early. Realistically, they are going to resent any effort on the part of commons contributors to be sticklers for protecting IP rights they are not aware of and not interested in.
With regard to the idea that it was the ICRC who retained the IP rights to the photo, oI agree that one might speculate that it might make sense for the ICRC to transfer all the IP rights to the family, when they transferred the image. However, I suggest our experience shows the general knowledge of IP rights is so sparse that it is not likely the ICRC ever considered this question. Why there are many individuals whose job is to manage libraries of photos who are completely innocent of any knowledge of IP rights.
(I wrote to the photo editor of a major newspaper, about the IP history of what looked like an official DoD picture. She informed me her newspaper didn't keep a record of the attribution of the images it had used. However, when it published images without an explicit credit, I could assume it was either taken by a photographer working for the paper -- or the image was in the public domain.)
Finally, one of the complaints of both the early images that were widely re-used was that they were misleading, as he must have been older when he was involved in the firefight that preceded his capture. In fact, his sister said the older of the two images had been taken about two months prior to his capture. It was an image submitted to the Canadian government with a request to renew his passport. Geo Swan (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree getting the i's dotted and t's crossed for copyright can be a drag. There is some room for common-sense in how we choose to interpret what counts as reasonable efforts to verify copyright. When acting as an OTRS volunteer, our responsibility is to support the rights of copyright holders and provide reasonable assurance that re-users are unlikely to have any issue with using images/media in compliance with our stated licence. Hopefully if volunteers continue to write to the ICRC or can track down who the original photographer was, we can get a more credible release as I have no doubt that copyright concerns are an unexpected consequence of the somewhat ambiguous release/provenance of the images.
In an attempt to tidy this up, I have sent off my own request as below. --Fæ (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Request: Copyright release of photographs taken at Guantanamo
6 February 2014, 12:20

To: ICRC photolibrary

Dear Sir,

I am a long term volunteer with Wikimedia Commons, the public repository of media that supports Wikipedia and similar projects with over 20 million educational and historic images.

We currently host some photographs taken by ICRC employees of captives at Guantanamo that were later released by the families of the captives. There is no verifiable public release on record by the ICRC of these images, an example is linked below where we are hosting the file based on a statement from a lawyer representing the family but not the ICRC.[1]

As our mission is to preserve images like this for the public benefit in the long term, and your website states that the default for images your provide is for non-commercial use unless explicit permission is granted [2], could you please provide a confirmation as to whether images specifically taken as part of your access to captives at Guantanamo can be considered officially released as public domain for the public benefit, or whether the ICRC wishes to retain the commercial rights to any publication or re-use of the photographs?

Links:

  1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohammedou_Ould_Salahi.jpg
  2. http://www.icrc.org/eng/home/copyright/index.jsp

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide.

[Fæ]

Probably too late if you've already sent this, but in the future you should give them the option of a CC license, not just a release into the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=115768986"