Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives

 

Start a new discussion

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

Preparing for 3D models on Commons[edit]

Hello Commons,

In 2015 one of the most popular ideas for the Community Wishlist Survey was about enabling the sharing of 3D models on Commons. There's technical work underway to make this happen with the STL file format.

The Multimedia team would like to get your input on two specific questions.

How might the Commons community respond to concerns over the uploading of 3D files?

Specifically around how this new file format might involve new issues (such as patent, copyright, and uploading of weapon designs) that weren't as relevant before for 2D files. For instance, if someone uploaded the 3D model of a potentially patented work how would the community respond? What can the community do in advance to discuss and prepare for the possibility of these things happening?

As examples, here are a few areas that might require community discussion and guidance: What happens when users upload 3D files for objects that are patented? Although Commons policies are now generally only concerned with copyright restrictions, patents on 3D objects could introduce risks and restrictions for other users who want to print these files and even for the online hosting of the files. Conversely, if a user is uploading a 3D file that they may later want to patent, should they be warned that such disclosures might make it more difficult for them acquire such a patent in the future? Should there be guidance on how users who print 3D objects should properly provide creative commons attribution for the copyrighted elements of the design? Should there be specific restrictions or notices with respect to the uploading of files that can be used as weapons, especially those that may be restricted (e.g. gun or knife designs)?

Where would it be best to make contributors aware of the policy around items of this nature?

We've been doing some research, and have a few ideas. For example, the community may wish to ensure there's a reminder of policy during the upload process and again on the file page itself. Where else might the community want to look to be prepared before the feature is enabled? Should guidance linked from the Editors' index, such as the Commons:Licensing, the Commons:How_to_detect_copyright_violations, and the Commons: non-copyright restrictions be updated as well?

If you have a some time to think about this and provide feedback it would be greatly appreciated. If you aware of other Commons contributors that might have some thoughts, please include them in this conversation as well. Thank you and the team appreciates your time. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I want to thank everyone responsible for making this happen: 3D models is one of the big lacunas here on Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
On the issue of copyright, 3D designs, and 3D printing, one of the more useful guides may be "3 Steps for Licensing Your 3D Printed Stuff" from Michael Weinberg of Public Knowledge. The guide's focus is on US copyright law and the circumstances under which a 3D object (such as a decorative sculpture) or a 3D design can be licensed on copyright grounds (such as by applying a Creative Commons license to a digital 3D model file.) Among other things, the guide talks about the aspect of US copyright wherein not all 3D objects are copyrightable, i.e. if a 3D object is of a functional nature and is not meant to be artistic. (The Commons guideline on derivative works has a section about this subject.) At the same time, a digital 3D design for a functional object may be copyrightable even when the object itself is not. The guide also touches on patenting 3D objects, but recommends consulting with a lawyer due to the complexity involved. --Gazebo (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think guidance from foundation legal team might be useful in regards to patented objects. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Not formal legal advice, but my impression is that patents are primarly concerned with usability, not appearance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Per the recent opinion regarding Mavrix vs livejournal, I'm actually of the opinion that wmf legal should not answer a request regarding patented objects. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think you have to actually make a product, or carry out a patented process, to violate a patent. Providing a blueprint for it doesn't seem like enough. w:Patent infringement. --ghouston (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we should touch patents at all. Patents are a hairy mess, and while many copyright violations can be easily found and removed by volunteers, patent violations are not nearly as obvious or easy to figure out.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: Thank you all for the feedback so far. If you're curious as to how this might look and work on Commons, the Beta cluster now has this featured enabled for testing. (Example 1 | 3D view) (Example 2 | 3D view) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, This is great news. Thanks for the good work. Lionel Allorge (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF): One design piece of feedback: in the 3d View, its not clear that I have the opportunity to manipulate the image. A small hint to "Click and drag, to see the image", or a little logo that does that (as happens with Facebook 360 photo), would help a lot with engaging it. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T164511
Good idea @Astinson (WMF): I created a task for the suggestion. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks really great, a quick question about the model viewer, it doesn't seem possible to rotate the model in a way that keeps the model upright, is this possible or am I missing something? My expectation when holding down the mouse on the model and moving left to right is that the model would rotate like a globe does. This makes it a bit frustrating trying to see the back of the model.
Thanks
--John Cummings (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
At [1], mouse-down and dragging side to side rotated like a globe for me, and I could go all the way around to see the back. It seems like dragging from window left-edge to window right-edge is 360° and the rotation can continue by multiple drags. However, I do see a bug with up/down rotation: no matter how many or how far a drag, I could never go beyond 90° from the original orientation. And once I rotated vertically, the horizontal dragging was not intuitive: the "drag left/right" rotation axis seems pinned to the object's original orientation even if those axes have been rotated vertically, not the current view. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T164368
@CKoerner (WMF): Having problems uploading two files as a test from Smithsonian 3D - a largish 49.2 Mbyte STL file, and a 12.9 Mbyte STL file. Both resulted in "Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file." Any help or hints? -- Fuzheado (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I had similar issues. This is tracked at phab:T164368. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Template Regions of France[edit]

Hello,

The template Regions of France (Template:Regions of France is locked for editing, but the listing of French regions it provides is obsolete. In January 2015, a reform brought together several regions, as listed on Template:Regions of France/sandbox. Therefore numerous categories use the sandbox version instead of the main one. Would it be possible to replace the Regions of France template with the sandbox version? Subsequently, will it possible somehow automatize the substitution, within the various categories that make use of it, of the reference to the sandbox version, to the updated main version ?

Thanks. --LeZibou (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The Sandbox one doesn't seem correctly alphabetized (e.g. look at the placement of Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine). Are you sure it's ready for prime time? - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    The Sandbos version is properly ordered with the new name, but it will detect categoies that have not been renamed like Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine changed to Grand Est. It performs all the necessary tests to link to the correct one and make migrations of contents by creating the necessary redirects of page/gallery names, or {{Category redirect}} if needed (when both are present it will link first to the new name. Really look at the doc page displayed on the Sandbox, this proves that the order is correct. When the regions got their definitive names, I made all the necessary edits in it, so there's no error. I have fully tested it and it is already used in many pages where the migration to new regions has already occured (such as Category:Regions of France and most important subcategories, including all the subcategoies for individual regions that properly display the list) !!! verdy_p (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: I don't see that one there at all. It's now called Grand Est: is that the spot where you saw it? The template doesn't appear to have been edited recently, so I wonder how you saw that. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Open it up in the editor. But maybe what I'm seeing doesn't show when it's actually used. Anyway, someone else is welcome to take it public, but not me if I don't fully understand what is going on. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah. It's listed next to its new name. When the regions were redefined, the ones that changed were given preliminary names. Regions formed by combining some of the previous regions had names which consisted of the combined names of the regions they replaced. (The one you mentioned was formed by combining Alsace, Champagne-Ardenne, and Lorraine.) They had until a certain date to decide whether to keep those names or pick new ones. In this case, Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine chose the name "Grand Est". Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine is there because there are still categories that use the name. (Those should all be renamed.) It's where it is in the template so that it's next to its new name. The old name shows up only when there's no category for the new name, as on Category:World War I memorials in Alsace-Champagne-Ardenne-Lorraine. I think it should stay as it is until all the categories are renamed. Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @LeZibou: Please discuss this at Template talk:Regions of France.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G., Auntof6: Actually, I did not discuss it on the template talk page, and went directly to the Village Pump, because the code transfer was asked for on the dedicated page in October 2016, and no one replied/nothing happened. @Verdy p: then wrote "I really ask updating the Template:Regions of France code with the code now in Template:Regions of France/sandbox (fully tested and already effective, it is testing names and will display the official names, and will link preferably to pages with the official names but will still find pages that were still not renamed with the official names)". What should we do then? Thanks for your time! --LeZibou (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @LeZibou, Auntof6: Symbol support vote.svg Support and good luck. We have automated tools that can help replace transclusion of the sandbox version with that of the live version when you are ready for cleanup.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @Jeff G.: Hello, I guess we all agree here that the template is ready for cleanup. I guess this will involve a two-step process: within the template page, merge the /sandbox onto the main version ; then, for pages that refer to the /sandbox version, switch them to the main one. Thanks. --LeZibou (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
      • So do we have an Administrator willing to copy Template:Regions of France/sandbox to Template:Regions of France with the appropriate cat changes?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
        @Jeff G.: I'm willing to make the change, but I'd first like to have verification that it has been checked that all the relevant categories have been renamed (as per Auntof6's comment above). I think the best way to handle it would be to simply histmerge the sandbox on top of the existing template. - Reventtalk 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
        @Revent: Verdy_p verified that it is ready enough in the last edit to the sandbox's talk page seven months ago, no one has even commented since (except LeZibou bringing the matter here). In case something were to go horribly wrong, a simple copy/paste with attribution would be the safest (most easily reversible) way to implement, rather than having to undo a histmerge. You could histmerge later. @Auntof6: If I understand correctly, implementing this change will help identify the categories that still need to be renamed.   — Jeff G. ツ 07:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

April 29[edit]

Categories: In the Soviet Union[edit]

UAZ-452 in Barentsburg, Svalbard.jpg
I reversed the change as the picture is taken on a Russian base but not in Russian territory (Svalbard is Norwegian territory with a special status). The Soviet Union no longer exist. However I see a lot of pictures after 1991 in this category. Such pictures can only be put in the category Vehicles in the Soviet Union if the picture taken before 1992. After 1991 the pictures should be put in the relevant country categories. Maybe there can be a summary category: Vehicles in the ex Soviet Union, but I dont advise it.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

From my discussion page:

There is a major difference between ´in a country´ and ´of a country´. The first one is a pure geografic classification. All vehicles present in the country whatever their origin. The second one means original from that country, but it does not mean it has to be present in the country. The Sovjet Union is no longer, so al pictures taken after 1991 must be ´of the Sovjet Union´ meaning Sovjet origin. Only pictures taken before 1992 taken ´´´in´´´ the Sovjet Union can be classified as such. (Maybe with the exception of out of use vehicles in a museum) You should treat the Sovjet Union the same way as Austria-Hungary or any other ex country. It is preferable to use the Russian categories for most cases of geografic identifation, as their is no posible confusion wathever the date. If the vehicle is of Sovjet Union (built/origin) you can use the category of the Sovjet Union. These can then be photografed anywhere in the world. Aother example: File:Herzele t'Uilekot en buurtspoorwegstation-3.jpg I cant classify this under (Trams in Brussels) as this is in Herzele, but I did put it under (Old and heritage trams from Brussels). The use of the word ´from´ clearer in this case.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You really cant have recent images of vehicles in an non-existing country!Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I agree with you, Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union is for things built in the Soviet Union while it existed, while Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union would only be for pre-1992 photos. Compare to Category:Vehicles of the United States and Category:Vehicles in the United States. I will revert these changes by Verdy p.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

So you want to distinguish two categories, but even before I did this one was redirected to the other, and this was not valid with subcategories using "in" and that fall in the "in the Soviet Union". If you want a distinction, then the redirect must be dropped and the two categories cannot be merged as they were already before I made any change !! verdy_p (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The category description on Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union oddly states "This category is for pictures of vehicles built in the Sovjet Union, but being used after 1991." A vehicle built in the Soviet Union is "of the Soviet Union" regardless of when it was being used or photographed. Thus a photo of a VAZ-2101 in Moscow in 1972 should be categorized both in Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union (there is no automobiles sub-category?) and in Category:VAZ-2101 (a sub-category of Category:Vehicles of the Soviet Union). An image of the exact same car in Berlin, regardless of the year it was photographed, should still be in Category:VAZ-2101 but obviously not in Category:Vehicles in the Soviet Union. I'd suggest the category description should be changed. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Watchlist issues[edit]

Is anyone else experiencing difficulties with their watchlist? I've been having problems since yesterday. Mine works fine when the expanded watchlist option is unchecked, but it doesn't work at all when it's enabled. Most of the time, that manifests as a blank screen, but occasionally I get an error message like this (IP address obscured):
“Request from xxx.xx.xx.xx via cp2007 cp2007, Varnish XID 545037669
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Tue, 02 May 2017 13:50:19 GMT”
Any idea what might be happening? - Eureka Lott 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Might be https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T164059#3223806 ? --Malyacko (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep, that matches what I'm seeing. Thanks for the link! - Eureka Lott 13:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with editing templates[edit]

The templates in question are {{PD-China}} and {{PD-Taiwan}}. There is this information from en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Chinese_copyrights that is very relevant: "Both the Peoples' Republic of China and Taiwan are eligible for the restoration of copyrights [in the U.S.]: the dates of restoration are January 1, 1996 (PRC) and January 2002 (ROC) respectively." Could someone add this info to these templates? --Wcam (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have edited {{PD-Taiwan/en}} and {{PD-Taiwan/layout}} to include information about the possible restoration of US copyright and also the need to include a license tag indicating why a work is out of copyright in the US. Perhaps the wording and/or layout can be improved, but the {{PD-Taiwan}} template now at least covers these issues. --Gazebo (talk) 08:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I have also edited {{PD-China/en}} to include information about the possible restoration of US copyright. --Gazebo (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting documentation: Upload wizard[edit]

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T164263 refers.

As a keen Wikibunny with greyhair, I responded to your request for Upload Wizard feedback using the prominent tab on Upload Wizard . I went through the procedure of registering to become a phabricator contributor- the security is excellent, but a little heavy for a newbie. No matter, I came across a very unfamiliar form, and a very unfamiliar editor- and a warning message. At no point did the form autofill back to Commons or my most recent upload. The warning message- said to stick to one issue- but Commons had sent me there to give feedback... anyway my 'Task' was tri-aged as invalid and closed. The whole point of Upload Wizard is to make uploads easier for out new contributors and normally it suceeds- but the lack of a simple feedback system rather misses the point. Comments please. I have written some feedback which is waiting for a reader at T164263. Greetings to the efficient phabricator team.--ClemRutter (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: Thanks for your feedback. You have experienced a bunch of problems/opportunities. Each that you cannot solve yourself deserves its own task in phabricator (referencing T164263 for background), including sending feedback to phabricator in the first place. You can request rename of any file with {{rename}}, and you can edit the file description pages to be more correct using copy/paste and finer editing, but our system will not let you upload duplicates.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for the quick response. I train up a lot of newbies, so I am fairly familiar with the level of fear we generate, and here I am just looking at the issue of tying in the level of language used in UW and that used in the pages where we are directing our newbies. Sticking to that point, the UI is good but it would be easier to 'teach' if we had an 'Are you sure message Y/N? before you publish. Why? You say to your students' Don't worry, nothing is permanently saved until you press 'Publish' and even then you will get a last chance to change your mind. If you are still uncertain, call me over when you get to that point.
Looking at the wiki skill level of our target UW new users, it will be low. But their formal academic qualifications will be far higher than mine. If I am running a course or they will have discussed notability and copyright and will have written a one liner on their en:User page maybe using VE and sent me a message to my talkpage using wikicode. At this point we will try to upload first one image, and then five images. So my point is we need to adopt a appropriate register for the UI and our ways of soliciting feedback. I did put some further UW suggestions in phabricator that you have already found- and the ideas are still coming.. speak soon --ClemRutter (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


if you liked commonist, you should like Commons:VicuñaUploader. but yeah it's amazing that upload wizard works at all. you have a wizard team at WMF to send feedback to. and the java script tools are better. and tend to have one maintainer, until they stop (like commonist). Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It isn't about personal preference- when we train up newbies we need to understand the tool that they use- and UW is one click on the left. Vicuna is sitting on my desktop too but that is yet another and different adventure and there is some UI work to do there too.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
i train newbies not to use UW. feedback is painfully slow. better to use old uploader without all the mechanistic logic. and if they want to avoid the toxic culture here, flickr. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: This might help understand things: As far as I remember, that feedback link originally brought you to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback for general feedback. That page soon got swamped by semi-helpful comments and at some point was turned into a link to phabricator – which is used to track actual bugs rather than gather general feedback. If the link suggests to go to phabricator for general feedback, that is of course confusing and needs to be changed in some kind of way. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
yes, this is a report that the feedback channels are broken. you have to be an expert to know how to give constructive feedback in the proper channel, and the lag before a response is long. the toxic culture here is to delete all trial and error attempts, rather than collaborate with uploaders, and listen to feedback. we would need to train and establish a "uploader help crew", but no one is interested; we would rather link to a tl;dr page, or refer to others. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May 03[edit]

Photo challenge: March Results[edit]

Numbers: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Nautical chart and ruler.jpg Memorial stone blocks, 228 Memorial Park, Chiayi City (Taiwan).jpg All-weather running track.jpg
Title Nautical chart (Egean sea) and ruler 228 Memorial stone blocks, 228 Memorial Park, Taiwan. Lane number on a running track
Author Gozitano Mk2010 Mk2010
Score 22 18 16
Street photography: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Inhabitants of the blue city 3.jpg Prag04 lady at the timetable 22.jpg Kuhherde auf der Straße.jpg
Title Inhabitants of the blue city, Chefchaouen, Morocco A lady is checking the timetable in Prague Herd of cows on the street near Mellau, Austria
Author Black Sickle Ermell CatalpaSpirit
Score 26 11 11

Congratulations to Gozitano, Mk2010, Black Sickle, Ermell and CatalpaSpirit. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Aren't there copyright issues with that nautical chart? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting has begun in 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections[edit]

Wikimedia-logo black.svg
This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Voting has begun for eligible voters in the 2017 elections for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees is the ultimate governing authority of the Wikimedia Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization registered in the United States. The Wikimedia Foundation manages many diverse projects such as Wikipedia and Commons.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 1 to 23:59 UTC May 14. Click here to vote. More information on the candidates and the elections can be found on the 2017 Board of Trustees election page on Meta-Wiki.

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
Katie Chan, Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee
Joe Sutherland, Community Advocate, Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery • Translate • Get help
19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 04[edit]

European Space Agency release all high res Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery under CC-BY-SA[edit]

Hi all

The European Space Agency have just released the Copernicus Sentinel Satellite imagery under CC-BY-SA. There are going to be many new images added over time.

I'm doing a little bit of work with them at the moment to help measure their reach on Wikimedia projects and currently they don't have an easy way of uploading the images, they have to do them by hand. Is there some automated way of importing them into Commons? Perhaps categorised under a subcategory of Category:Content_created_by_the_European_Space_Agency called Category:Copernicus Sentinel Satellite Imagery?

You can also let people know about the images by sharing their tweet about it.

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

you could do a upload request at Commons:Batch uploading or use com:pattypan, with the tracking category of your choice. in order to increase reach or use, you may need an editathon, or online contest. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#Content from ESA under Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo. -- Geagea (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
As I've been pinged on Twitter, I'll take a second look and give some feedback though I'm still on a break from Commons. John, you are highly experienced at running projects and upload projects here. The ESA may be open to funding projects, not only to release images to Commons, but to maintain the metadata, even leveraging Wikidata's potential to host metadata about the locations and objects being imaged, and to gain benefit from usage and categorization across projects. As an unrecognized volunteer, what I have time and interest to do for free will be much more limited and what I learn will remain unpublished as there is no incentive for me to turn the experience into a research paper. --Fæ (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Started looking, though there are only 228 results in the search given, which seems small, though it's easy to extend an upload script to any image with the right CC licenses. You can choose to page through the results, so even without any API-like arrangements, scraping is easy, though there is a small bug in the search that changes "+" to " " when you move to paged results, giving 875 images due to the weaker matches. Anyway, I have something started and will set up a page for it when the metadata mapping is sorted out, so any detailed discussion or suggestions can be captured for future work.

Some presumptions at the moment are that

  1. there's one image per post
  2. where there is no explicit copyright statement we can't upload it, e.g. Surfing the seas, Sentinel-2B
  3. we want to upload the highest resolution image, and lossless TIFF rather than jpeg
  4. the Id numbers on each image catalogue page are unique, e.g. Id 373976 for Botswana

--Fæ (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Fæ, thanks very much for looking at this, to answer things in order
Mass uploads: agreed I have experience in uploading content but we are still in the situation where there are very few people able to mass upload content from a website to Commons. I'm sorry to keep asking you for things like this, I do it for two reasons:
  1. You are very good at it
  2. The tools require a lot of specialist knowledge to use, I have tried several times to learn to use pywikibot as many others have and most of us have failed miserably
I want to be more independent with uploading and I don't want to have to ask you to do it, but I currently can't find another option.....Hopefully GLAMpipe will fix this in the future but for now I'm not sure what else to do. Do you think that there is a muggle friendly tool for the website scraping you are doing that could be combined with Pattypan to allow us to mass upload content? My goal with ESA is to make it so they can keep Commons updated with new images they release.
This upload: Yes I think your assumptions are correct, however it is possible that some of the CC licensed images have been uploaded previously by hand. I will ask about the non explicitly licensed images and get back to you.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

→ Further info about the upload will be at User:Fæ/Project_list/ESA. --Fæ (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

if it is only a few hundred, you might consider using commons:pattypan especially if you have a set of images on a hard drive. we should work to make this standard GLAM practice, and save the GWtool for thousand + . Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
See the upload page above, now running. It's slow, it would be a lot faster after Phab:T164643 goes through. --Fæ (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
i was thinking as a part of GLAM practice to try pattypan first, before pinging Fae about a mass upload of ten images. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded a few. @Fæ: Do you intend to upload a JPEG for each TIFF file? If not, I could help. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't. Having alternative variations using the same identity means that the batch uploads will just skip these images, to avoid any possible duplicates. It also slows down this small upload as I have to manually handle any duplicate error warnings and the scripts waits until I notice it asking for help; the type of thing that is worked through in the pre-upload tests for large uploads. I am not convinced we need jpegs when the ESA has lossless gif, png or tiff versions available. Thumbnail rendering for tiffs has supposedly improved, though I have not seen this tested. If jpegs are desirable for every tiff where the ESA has both available, it's easy enough for me to tack this onto the upload script.
All 200+ images should finish uploading today in a day or two; some TIFFs are pretty large and the client-side transfers rely on my humble home broadband. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Fæ: Aren't you glad you're not on dialup? :)   — Jeff G. ツ 13:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much Fæ, this is great, I set up a tracking category on BaGLAMa 2 a few months ago to help see where the images are used. So if they upload more images under and open license in future is it simple to rerun the upload to catch them?

Thanks again

--John Cummings (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As per twitter I can do a rerun when the phab ticket goes through. The categorization side will be explained on the project page when that happens. --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, May I suggest to link the TIFF and JPEG versions of the same image when they exist? Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 05[edit]

Category[edit]

RESOLVED:

I had hoped consensus would go towards one or the other by today however that wasn't to be and I had no idea how long it would take so I've moved all images to Category:2017 Westminster attack. (All images have "27 March 2017" on the end so if anyone does want to create a subcat I'd have no objections), Thanks to all who have commented, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
Basically I have 40 images related to the 2017 London Westminster Terror Attack so the question I have is Should I create a seperate category for them all or should I simply move them all to Category:2017 Westminster attack?,
If the former then the category would be within the "2017 Westminster attack" category and again if the former then I wouldn't really know what to call the category either as it's a mixture of images (poems, flowers, policemen etc etc),
Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would a category for London be within a category for Westminster? Isn't Westminster part of London, and therefore within London? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Auntof6 - Fixed, Apologies it should've said Westminster not London –Davey2010Talk 01:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

They should certainly be in Category:2017 Westminster attack or an appropriate subcat, but if the latter it should be based on some commonality other than the fact that you were the photographer. If you like, you can keep Category:Davey2010/London2 as well but it should be marked with {{User category}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Impromptu memorials like this have been categorized as Category:Street memorials to the November 2015 Paris attacks and as Category:Monuments and memorials to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Either a new category or all the individual images could go in Category:Temporary monuments and memorials in London. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel - "They should certainly be in Category:2017 Westminster attack or an appropriate subcat," - This is what I was asking, Also I wasn't the photographer I just uploaded them from Flickr but images over 10 have been put in subcategories before and so I didn't want to move them all to one category if a subcat is prefferred, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The strategy discussion. The Cycle 2 was postponed[edit]

An update to that message: the Cycle 2 was postponed, that's why I haven't sent you any announcement today. It will start on May, 11. And another news: Josve05a (WMF) will be in charge of coordination on Commons during the Cycle 2, so if you have any questions, ping him on the first place. You can also ping me. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

How Taking Photos Can Improve Your Mental Health[edit]

Many of you might enjoy this Huffington Post piece Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinterest copyright status[edit]

Is anybody familiar with Pinterest? Specifically, what licensing do they use, and is it compatible with our aims?

This image, uploaded by Armanjarrettp (talk · contribs), is sourced to this page on Pinterest, but it's difficult finding out the specifics of that image because the link goes to some sort of gallery page, and when I locate the relevant image and click on it, I'm asked to log in in order to see more. Other aspects of the image are doubtful - it shows a date of 6 May 2017, which is today, yet the locomotive is known to have been cut up for scrap in 1966 - over fifty years ago (see English Wikipedia article). --Redrose64 (talk; at English Wikipedia) 22:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, This is a clear copyright violation, so deleted. Everything on Pinterest is under a copyright unless it is a copy of a free image from elsewhere. This is not a good source for us anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

May 06[edit]

Moving a subcategory on a page[edit]

In the category World War I by medium, "Videos of World War I" is listed at the "top" of the category. I accidentally created a new category (Video footage of WWI) because this category was not under "V" for video. When I tried to start a discussion to request moving it under "V," I got an error message. Could "Videos of World War I" please be moved from the top of the page to under "V" for Video? --Catfishmo (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this was done by User:Jeff G. You might like to look at what he did so you know how to do it yourself if you find another case like this. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Catfishmo, Auntof6: I'm glad it worked out, and I'm sorry I had to run before explaining fully. What I did was test a theory that the space between the vertical bar and the capital V in the "Videos of" sort key looked strange and might be causing this behavior. The fact of the matter is that, per en:WP:SORTKEY consideration 2 and m:Help:Category#Sort_order, space and asterisk are special, in that sort keys which start with those two characters get sorted first, in that order, before both numbers and letters. This happens because those two characters (along with 14 others) precede numbers and letters in ASCII character code order. The "| Videos of" syntax was added without sufficient explanation to Category:Videos of World War I in this edit by Queeg, whose entire editing career here was in mid-2011, so I doubt we'll get an explanation from that editor now.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you!! That makes sense. I'm really new at this editing thing and all these special coding characters can be really confusing!--Catfishmo (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Catfishmo: You're welcome!!   — Jeff G. ツ 09:46, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic"[edit]

This is an effort to get more consensus on a matter where Grabado (talk · contribs) and I are disagreeing. He started unilaterally moving various categories from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic"; right now he's suspended that activity at my request pending broader consensus. I'm bringing this here rather than CFD, because things can languish on CFD for a long time, and because so many categories are ultimately involved (probably hundreds).

If I understand correctly, his case for the change is that "Roman Catholic" is too narrow, in that it excludes Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Greek Catholics and some Uniates. (Conversely, Old Roman Catholics are self-defined Roman Catholics, but are not in full communion with Rome.) My case against just "Catholic" is that it also can include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East,re Anglicans, Uniates that are not in full communion with Rome, and certain independent Catholic churches. (At least that's my understanding. I'm not a scholar of this area, and I'm ready to stand corrected by someone with citable sources.)

Overwhelmingly, possibly even completely, the images in these categories have indeed been of Roman Catholic churches, clergy, etc. I think that distinction should continue to be in category names. We already have (for example) a Category:Greek Catholicism under Category:Catholicism.

I'm not totally wedded to a particular solution to the, so to speak, hierarchy, but if hundreds of categories in this area should be renamed against the consensus we reached when this matter was last discussed several years ago, it shouldn't be because one user unilaterally started moving categories, it should be because we develop a new consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "Roman Catholic" as it is more descriptive and less ambiguous Oxyman (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I haven't explained my view very well (English is not my mother language), but I'm afraid that is not exactly the problem I tried to point it out. This message in Category:Catholic Church was the problem:
Commons-emblem-notice.svg This category is for both Eastern Catholic Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.
The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are exactly the same thing (as you can read in en:Catholic Church). Instead, Category:Roman Catholic Church was used as if it were the Western part of the Church, in opposition of Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. Even despite the Eastern Catholic Churches are 23 churches part of the (Roman) Catholic Church! I'll try to explain it better tomorrow if necessary. --Grabado (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Grabado: I would think from the above you could have a cat for Catholic Churches (with no files permitted), and under that Roman Catholic Churches, Old Roman Catholic Churches, Independent Catholic Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Then under Eastern Catholic Churches, you could have Greek Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Russian Orthodox Churches, Church of the East, Uniates, other region & language specific churches, etc. Then under Roman Catholic Churches, you could have Roman Catholic Churches by country, then down to (in the US for example) state, city, diocese, parish, however that particular denomination subdivides. And then, there are the Cathedrals.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I believe you are more or less describing the status quo ante. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What Grabado is saying is consistent with en:Wikipedia. Category:Catholic Church is another name for Category:Roman Catholic Church, so the latter should be redirected to the former, and it can have Category:Eastern Catholic Churches as a subcategory. --ghouston (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Thank you, Ghouston. That's exactly what I was trying to say. As I promised, I'll try to explain it better:

Facts

1. The church leaded by the pope is called "Catholic Church", but also "Roman Catholic Church".

2. The Catholic Church is composed by 24 autonomous particular churches.

3. One of them is the Latin Church (Western Church). The other 23 churches are the Eastern churches.

The problem

4. In Commons, Category:Catholic Church has been used as the root category while Category:Roman Catholic Church and Category:Eastern Catholic Churches have been used as subcategories at the same level. This pattern has been reproduced all over the category tree.

Examples:

5. Category:Roman Catholic Church has been used as if it were the Latin Church (Western Church) and opposed to the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches.

6. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Western part but the whole Catholic Church.

Why

7. Because "Roman Catholic Church" is not an unambiguous way to call the Catholic Church.

Why is ambiguous

8. "Roman" was added in a Protestant context to emphasize the link between the Roman pontiff and his Church.

9. But "Roman" has another meaning in a Catholic context. The Roman Rite is the main liturgical rite used in the Latin Church (do you remember? The Western part of the Church) but not in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In that sense, the Eastern Churches wouldn't be part of this "Roman Church". In fact, this is the main difference between West and East.

10. Because the Latin Church is by far the largest (Roman) Catholic Church, people tend to think both churches are the same.

11. Anyway, for these or any other reason, "Roman Catholic Church" is erroneously used to name the Latin Church instead of the whole Catholic Church. You can see this edit. You can see wikidata:Talk:Q9592 (the section titles are very descriptive). This is a common erroneous belief that gives headaches not only in Commons, but also in enwiki (they have finally decided to rename the category to "Catholic Church" after years of discussions).

To sum up (two things to do)

12. We could talk about if we should use "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". That would be another discussion derived from this one.

13. Independently of the above, Category:Roman Catholic Church shouldn't be used as if it were the Latin Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. The main category should be Category:Catholic Church (syn. Category:Roman Catholic Church). Subcategories Category:Eastern Catholic Churches and Category:Latin Catholic Church (syn. Category:Western Catholic Church) should be under it. Jee 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I dispute your theory of "Latin Church" as reflecting the most common naming practice in English. Every church building under the Pope in Rome that I've ever seen has had either "Roman Catholic" or it's abbreviation "R. C." in its title or subtitle, whereas I'd never seen "Latin Church" before this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with this and would Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if we end up having categories like "Latin Catholic churches in X" or "Latin Rite churches in X", especially when the individual institutions (ie schools and churches) describe themselves as "Roman Catholic".
To add, how else are we to distinguish the Greek Catholic Category:Church of the Pokrov in Bielanka‎ from Category:Holy Trinity church in Gdynia‎ (which uses the Roman rite) if we DON'T use "Roman Catholic"? Both are Catholic churches, so Category:Catholic churches in Poland would contain both.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Right, and we could have Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite as a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic churches. I Symbol support vote.svg Support reverting Grabado. On a point of syntax, you do too, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, but I haven't said that the "Latin Church" is the most common naming practice in English. Actually, what I've said (in number 10) is that many people confuse it with the Roman Catholic Church (it's what's happening in Commons).
You haven't seen "Latin Church" before because you probably don't live in Middle East. So for you every church of latin rite is simply a "Roman Catholic church". You don't need to distinguish it from an Eastern Catholic church if there isn't any in your area (because you live in the Western world). Not the case of the en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the en:Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad, the en:Latin Catholic Diocese of Acre or the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Nicosia.
But you may know the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. This is the first cannon: "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."
@Nilfanion: I haven't proposed a solution... yet (number 12). In first place I just want you to understand the problem. What I'm saying is that using "Roman Catholic" in opposition to the Eastern Catholic Churches is absolutely wrong and against the facts (number 13). Every Eastern Catholic Church is a (Roman) Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I was replying to you at 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC), not to Jkadavoor, and I don't appreciate your adding of a colon to indicate otherwise. However, I appreciate your point regarding "Latin" naming in the Middle East and possibly other areas. As a compromise, we could have parallel Roman Catholic, Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox intersection subtrees based on the names or translations actually in use (perhaps combining the two Eastern ones if nothing on the Eastern side of the schism is actually named Eastern Catholic).   — Jeff G. ツ 16:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
See our's. It is also a Roman Catholic Church under Pope though an Eastern Church. So I don't think considering Eastern Churches outside R. C. is good. Jee 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I'm sorry, perhaps I was misinformed in school. What I learned was that there was a schism in which the Eastern Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics, did not recognize the Pope at the Holy See in Rome as their leader, and most organized into _______ Orthodox. How was that wrong?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are some eastern churches not under Pope. That may made you confused. Jee 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It's not that you were misinformed in school, it's just that you misunderstand what exactly is being discussed. Here's the 10-cent version. In the early days of Christianity a large number of churches were founded in various cities (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc). Over time, differences in belief arose between these churches, which were all independent... this resulted in a whole series of ecumenical councils (like the one in Nicea that resulted in the Nicene Creed). Some of these particular churches, at various points in time, disagreed with the results of these councils (and with the increasing dominance of the Pope) and split off to form their own new communions... the Oriental Orthodox about 451, and the Eastern Orthodox in about 1050 being the notable ones. Those communions are, however, still composed of 'particular churches' (though they use the term 'autocephalous') that are generally about the same age as the Latin Church.
The "Eastern Catholic" churches are not the result of a split with the Latin Church, it's in fact the opposite.... they are the 'particular churches' that never did split off and so are still in communion with the Latin Church under the ultimate leadership of the Pope.
As a general rule, for what it is worth, most Protestant churches (and most history classes, even at the undergraduate level, in the west) do a very poor job of explaining all this, if they even try. - Reventtalk 08:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, that's the way I'm used to in eswiki. I've tried to fix it. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
As Jkadavoor has just said, the Eastern Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic Churches just the same as the Latin Church. But at this moment Commons says that the Category:Catholic Church is divided into the Category:Roman Catholic Church and the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. And that is simply not true. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are Eastern Catholic churches in the West (mostly Greek), but they are clearly much less abundant than those of the Western church. Could you demonstrate how the Eastern churches are "Roman Catholic"? The Latin church uses the Roman rite and is governed by the pope, is it those things that make it Roman, and are those true for the Eastern churches?
There are a few things I see here:
  1. Should "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" be treated as distinct concepts?
  2. Should the Latin Church be treated as distinct from the Catholic Church?
  3. If not, how do we distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest?
IMO all these questions need an answer before any change is made. If there's a problem with the current set-up, a partial fix will make matters worse, we need a complete fix. If we try a partial fix and merge the (current) Roman Catholic with the main Catholic tree, then it will be a major nuisance to split the Eastern churches back out again - the distinction will be lost and they will be buried among the majority of Latin churches. We should look for a "correct" way of marking the Latin church, which both preserves the distinction and is actually natural. Category:Latin Catholic Church or Category:Western Catholic Church aren't acceptable (no-one calls it that, so they aren't recognisable). Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite would work for church buildings, but is clunky and doesn't work for other Catholic concepts (like schools, bishops or dioceses)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Church and Rite are different as mentioned in English Wikipedia. According to en:Latin liturgical rites, the Latin Church uses different rites though Roman Rite is prominent. The problem here is Roman Catholic Latin Church is commonly called as Roman Catholic Church where no other R. C. churches exist. Jee 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Eastern Catholic churches exist in Western countries, especially in the large cities, but they are much less common. For example w:Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Family in Exile is in London, and is not a Latin church. An additional complication some churches support both Latin and Eastern Catholic services (for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 @Nilfanion: The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church. If you want to call "Roman Catholic Church" to the Catholic Church, then it seems obvious that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church. The point is that, as stated in en:Catholic Church, the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same thing. So, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" should not be treated as distinct concepts. --Grabado (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that might be true. But we want to be able to treat the individual Eastern Catholic Churches as distinct entities (in sub-cats). If we merge our current "Roman Catholic Church" category with the overarching "Catholic Church", we will be unable to distinguish between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church. That's not acceptable, and we need to be able to keep that distinction. That means we need a GOOD name for what is currently in Category:Roman Catholic Church. The problem here is a rename is needed, of the non-Eastern Catholic Church, not a merger of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand. All the files now under Category:Roman Catholic Church need to moved to a new category (Latin, Western, or any other preferred name). After that Category:Roman Catholic Church can be redirected to Category:Catholic Church. A simple rename is not good as it will confuse people later. Jee 03:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is all quite confusing. I tend to think it generally best to follow "professional best practice" rather than come up with our own rules. Failing that, if Wikipedia have debated this for years and come to some consensus, then it may be reasonable to follow their practice rather than debate it again. However there are some important differences between us and Wikipedia. They can rename an article and that is pretty fixed, and they have relatively few articles to worry about vs images. If there is doubt about what the article scope is, that can be highlighted on a banner at the top, or on the talk page. Our categories do not have that luxury. For people uploading content, the upload wizard helps them pick existing categories but will not offer advice on which one to choose. So if "most people are confused about this" then most people will continue to put content in the wrong categories. Similarly, for users searching for content and expecting the categories to help them, they will continue to look in the "wrong place". If they have no idea what the "Latin church" is but (think they) know what a "Roman Catholic church" is then the category system might not help them. Particularly if, as some point out, the institutions themselves use the "Roman Catholic" part in their names. So perhaps, rather than getting the categories perfect it might be best to accept uploaders and users will continue to come here with incorrect assumptions, and we should ensure they mostly pick the category that is helpful to both. The point of the category system is to help people find content, not to be an authority on the naming of divisions in the church. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: I agree with you. I don't think something like Category:Latin Catholic churches in France is a good idea (even more when in places where Eastern Catholic churches are uncommon). My proposal would be:
Where should we put Latin Catholic churches? All churches that are not Eastern Catholic would be in Category:Catholic churches in France. With my proposal, both Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are under a common category (Category:Catholic churches in France) but we can also distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest, as Nilfanion asked.
With my proposal it's not an issue whether people confuse the Latin Church with the whole Catholic Church or not, because there's not an special category for Latin churches. All latin churches would be directly under "Catholic Church".
Moreover, it works fine no matter if we finally choose the term "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". --Grabado (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Your current proposal moves the Latin church from the same level as the Eastern churches to the higher level above them. While the names may be wrong, by correcting the names you are introducing another problem, which is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole. Therefore I oppose it.
Ultimately you need the Latin church to be at the same level as the Eastern churches, as a sub-cat of the overarching church. To be explicit having All Catholic above Latin and Greek is better than having All Catholic (including Latin) above Greek. Find a solution that makes "All Catholic" = "Latin" + "Eastern", with useful names for "All Catholic" and "Latin". Your proposed change just compounds "All Catholic" with "Latin", making it even harder to draw the distinction between the two.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Maybe I haven't explained it well. Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Latin Church, but the whole Catholic Church. Having All Catholic above Greek means that all of them are Roman Catholic but only a part of them are Greek Catholic, which is absolutely true. We are not saying that all Catholics are Latin. We are just saying that all are Catholic. All the churches that are under Roman Catholic but not under Greek Catholic are Latin churches. We solve the problem and we are close to the fact that the largest church is the Latin Church (and therefore that in most places all the catholic churches are Latin churches). --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I know the names are wrong, but your proposal introduces a whole lot of NEW problems by throwing away the distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. To give a couple explicit examples of the problems your proposal will introduce:
  1. Category:Church of Saint Anthony, Korets‎. With the current set-up, its obvious that it is part of the Latin church. With your proposal, that information is lost; and it will no longer be clear if its fully categorised or not.
  2. Category:Holy Trinity Church, Zhovkva. Its currently not marked as a Catholic (judging from the WP article its Ukrainian not Latin). With the current situation, if I put it in Category:Catholic churches in Ukraine, that is correct but incomplete. It will stick out as misplaced, allowing someone who knows better to properly place it as a Ukrainian church. With your proposal, it will just be buried in among the Latin churches, and it might not get correctly placed as a Ukrainian church at all.
In both cases, there needs to be a category for the Latin church at the same level as the Eastern churches.
Instead of trying to merge the category for the Latin church with the category for the entire Catholic church, give a good new name for the Latin church.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion:. At this moment there's no distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. Four days ago Wikipedia thought that our main category for this topic was Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. What we have in Commons are two categories for the same thing. People just use one category or the other depending on what name they are used to, not if the church is Latin or not. --Grabado (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, if that's the case categories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine will have a high error rate. Tell me, how many are Latin church? (I don't know). And seriously, please give a GOOD name for the Latin church instead of just repeating over and over that Roman Catholic = Catholic. My current thinking is that "Roman Catholic" will end up being a dab, between "Catholic Church" and wherever we put the Latin.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine doesn't have any error rate because all of the churches there are Roman Catholic Churches. The error appears just if we say that Roman Catholic churches are Latin Churches (as we are actually doing now). --Grabado (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point there. The current category set-up for Ukraine treats Roman Catholic as different to Eastern Catholic - and treats "Roman Catholic" as a synoynym for Latin. My question is, how many churches in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine are not Latin churches? If they are ALL Latin, we want to preserve that grouping, and move them to a good new name.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it. Of course we cannot know how many churches are not Latin churches because we can't know if users knew that only in Commons Roman Catholic Church doesn't mean Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Its easy enough to answer my question - it just takes some time. Just look at each church that is actually listed there: Is Annunciation Church a Latin church? How about Church of St. Barbara? And so on. If all the churches listed in that category are Latin churches, then that category is a badly named category for the Latin church, not a badly named category for the entire Catholic church. And if so, merging it to the entire Catholic church is a bad thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And are we going to check all the churches from all the countries? --Grabado (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

References[edit]

I tried to find references. I didn't find much; but it seems Britanica is matching with English Wikipedia that all churches under Pope are Roman Catholic. But I got a clue on how the confusion arise. Here and here we can see Eastern Orthodox Church is officially call itself "Catholic" due to some theological reasons. I don't know how to handle this. Jee 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

en.Wikipedia and Wikidata have a concept of "Catholic Church" [2] which is "Christian Church led by the Pope and consisting of a Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches". It doesn't seem out of place for Commons to have a matching category. Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't fit there regardless of what names it uses. --ghouston (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that is the truth (Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + Eastern Catholic Churches). If we can agree on this (I think we need to accept it), now the issue is whether people agree on the name Latin Church ([3]) for the Western Church. Jee 06:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

May 07[edit]

"Jewish community" vs. "Judaism"[edit]

While I'm busy opening tricky issues: my attention was called to this one by this change by Ruthven (talk · contribs), moving Category:J Street from Category:Jewish community of the United States to Category:Judaism in the United States. This was apparently because of the upshot of Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/03/Category:Jewish community of Thessaloniki, originally a discussion specific to Thessaloniki that was broadened to Greece, but not further, hence I never noticed it until they reached a resolution.

It may well be that Greek Jews are so uniformly religious that the distinction between Judaism (a religion) and the Jewish community (an ethnic group) is moot there. In the United States, that is not at all the case, and J Street is a perfect case in point. J Street is in no sense a religious organization. It describes itself as "the political home for pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans who want Israel to be secure, democratic and the national home of the Jewish people..." Note that last phrase: it is about a people, not about a religion. Speaking as a secular Jew (and a J Street member), I find the inclusion of J Street under "Judaism" rather than "Jewish community" wrong almost to the point of being (accidentally) offensive. It's sort of as if we defined the Sons of Italy or the Polish Falcons as a Catholic organizations. (The analogy isn't perfect, because those are fraternal rather than political; I can't think offhand of prominent non-religious political organizations from historically predominantly Catholic communities.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I agree with you, although I'm not a J Street member. Only two of the 12 photos are of a Rabbi. First, they came for the Thessalonians.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I applied the consensus reached there. The discussions to rename/delete categories are open to everyone, and this specific one has been open for several months (or years): it's a time long enough to participate and bring your opinions. You are free to open a new CfD, suggesting what seems to you a correct renaming; no problems at all. --Ruthven (msg) 17:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: What gives you the right to extrapolate from a discussion of one city to the entire world? Who notified the editors of Category:Jewish community of the United States to get their consensus? What do you have against Jewish communities or the Jewish People?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I just closed a CfD. If you're seeing in the name of a category, discussed and agreed on by @Kimdime, Themightyquill, Geagea:, an attack to a whole people, then I suppose that your vision of reality is quite funny. If yours is a tentative to insult me, please apologies because here personal attacks are not tolerated. --Ruthven (msg) 18:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: You didn't just close a CfD, you extrapolated, emptying Category:Jewish community of the United States and many other categories without consensus. Now, there are no categories of Jewish communities on Commons, where they existed yesterday. What reaction did you expect? What policies or procedures permit you to do that? I will apologize after you apologize for what I perceive to be an attack on an entire people.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you read the discussion page of the CfD? Have you noticed that Category:Jewish communities by country was in discussion since 2016? --Ruthven (msg) 18:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ruthven: Yes, but that was just about Greece, not the entire world. Do you typically extrapolate from CfDs without consensus on the extrapolation? There's a big difference between "This could affect one of your subcats" and "This could affect you and all your subcats". Technically, Category:Jewish communities by country wasn't in the discussion (it wasn't discussed), it was only notified of the discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Judaism is about jewish people. J Street is categorizw in he.wiki as a jewish organization of USA, a sub category of Judaism in USA. Jew is also for the etnic perpective and also for religion. Not real difference.-- Geagea (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is an enormous difference between a people and a religion, and while the words "Jew" and "Jewish" can refer to either, "Judaism" cannot. It is a refers specifically to a religion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Jmabel, Maybe if you read the article Who is a Jew? it will be more clear to you. When you say that someone is Jew you actually mean that he is ethnically and religiously jew. You can't say it about Christian person. You can not compare Christianity and Judaism.-- Geagea (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea: you are referring me to an article a large portion of which I wrote. Again, as I've explained several times here: the word "Jews" is inclusive of both ethnicity and religion. The word "Judaism" is not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
You are refering to the difference between a people and a religion which I'm saying there is no difference. Judaism as well refering to the religion and the people. At least that is the way in he.wiki. The category of Judaism should contain religion staff and the thing which identified as Jewish: people, organisation etc. -- Geagea (talk) 00:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Geagea: Why would you cite the Hebrew wikipedia for the meaning of an English word? (And, for that matter, where precisely in the Hebrew Wikipedia is this? Pretty vague citation.) en:Judaism is pretty much in line with my view here: note the hat text, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For consideration of ethnic, historic and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jews." The lede is a bit broader "...encompasses the religion, philosophy, culture and way of life of the Jewish people...", but it seems quite a stretch to include a largely secular organization such as J Street. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel:, Commons is multilingual project. Though we use English or latin for categorize it serves wikis in all languages. Also, the origin of the word Judaism/Jew is Hebrew not English. Yes, not all the wisdom is in he.wiki but regarding to Jews and Judaism they have some understanding, anyway we should at least respect also the way of he.wiki categorize, which, in my opinion, also simple and correct. Evryting connected to Jews should by in a father category Judaism. If there is disagreement to harmonize the catrgorys, we should respect that also and double categorys as needed. -- Geagea (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Geagea, you still have not cited any specific article in the Hebrew Wikipedia, so it's impossible to engage you on what the unnamed article may say about the matter. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about what should have been done, perhaps we could look for a solution. Jeff G., I can certainly appreciate your points, in that there are many people who consider themselves wholly secular/athiest Jews and who wouldn't appreciate any contemporary association with Judaism as a religion (even if there are religious Jews who don't accept the idea of a non-religious Jew at all). Anyway, moving forward - do you see Category:Judaism as a sub-category of Category:Jewish community? If not, what should the relationship be between them? Unfortunately, commons categorization allows little room for nuance. Moroever, should Category:Synagogues be a sub-category of Category:Judaism or Category:Jewish community or both? If both, we run the risk of a whole nearly-identical parallel category tree. How would you see things arranged? - Themightyquill (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

might want to start with a consensus about ethnic / religious categories. category moves without a consensus should be undone, and editor warned. all the drama about categories is wasted, wikidata is the answer. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I think a good model here would be to look at how we handle "Greeks" and "Greek Orthodoxy". The relation is pretty similar to "Jews" and "Judaism", but the vocabulary tends to be clearer there. Clearly, synagogues belong under Judaism -- they are analogous to Greek Orthodox churches -- but secular organizations do not. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Then the question is do we make the difference between an ethnic group and an ethnoreligious group? Greeks=Ethnic group / Jews=Ethnoreligious group. And there is a big difference because Greeks alone say nothing about a potential religion (they can be Muslim, Orthodox, Judaic...), however Jews clearly refear to a religion, here the Judaism, in background. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That said, as the word Ethnoreligious include also an ethnic point of view, I've nothing on the fact that the categories on " Jewish Communities" are included both in the religious category tree and in an ethnic/community (out of religion) category tree. But that a category on a Jewish community (in New York, or in Moscow) is somewhere under the Judaism category is fully appropriate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
i like the argument by analogy, and appeal to standard taxonomy. but you realize that the Greek Orthordox are not under 1RR on english. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no idea what you mean by "under 1RR" in this context. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
i mean that "Jewish" issues are so contentious on related projects, that there are discretionary sanctions, which indicates there may not be much reason in this area, but more ideology. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: Everything outside Greece should be restored to the status quo ante. Given the exposure here and at my RfA, the Greek CfD should be revisited (I would certainly oppose). Beyond that, I haven't examined the former categorization in depth, but to my mind, synagogues, temples, religious schools, and theological seminaries should be under Judaism because they deal with the practice (or the teaching or studying of the practice) of the religion with materials such as Torah, Talmud, or prayerbooks. If they also serve the Jewish community at large, they should also be under Jewish communities. YMHAs, YWHAs, and Jewish hospitals, community centers, nursing homes, funeral homes, and cemeteries should be under Jewish communities, but if they also provide for the practice (or the teaching or studying of the practice) of the religion with materials such as Torah, Talmud, or prayerbooks, they should also be under Judaism. Judaism itself should be under Abrahamic religions, which should be under monotheistic religions, which should be under religions, whereas Jewish communities should be under ethnic communities or peoples (don't let my English teachers see that).   — Jeff G. ツ 09:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff G.. Firstly, to be clear, status quo ante was that Category:Jewish community of the United States was a sub-category of Category:Judaism in the United States. From my understanding of your argument above (all religious Jews are part of the Jewish community, but not all members of the Jewish community are religious - correct me if I'm wrong), shouldn't Category:Judaism in the United States be the sub-category? - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: I have separated your reply by paragraph to reply inline. Putting the Jewish community on top makes some sense, as one could argue that practicing Jews are a subset of the Jewish community, or that there could be no formal practice with nine or fewer Jewish men who had been Bar Mitzvah in the same room, due to the need for a minyan. This would placate non-practicing Jews like me. The work to make it happen would be slightly more than the work to return to the status quo ante. This would be my first choice.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Second, you're saying that, for example, Category:Synagogues in New York should only be under Category:Judaism in New York but that categories for specific (but not all?) synagogues in New York that alo serve the Jewish community at large, they should be under Category:Jewish community of New York. Category:Jewish community centers in the United States should be under Category:Jewish community of the United States but categories for individual community centers (those attached to a synagogue, for instance) might appear directly under Category:Judaism in the United States. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This made some sense, in that Judaism has historically preceded Jewish communities (when the first Jewish person arrived in a locality), and the sense that Jewish communities can be considered the secular part of Jewish duality, but it would not placate non-practicing Jews like me. This would be my second choice.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
That seems reasonable, but it does create a situation where a) several categories might be both children and grandchildren of the same category (COM:OVERCAT) and where we end up with two largely parallel category trees (Category:Star of David in the United States is both, no? And Category:Jewish cemeteries in the United States?). That might be a problem we'll just have to overlook because the categorization system doesn't deal well with nuance. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
This would be my third choice. I was trying to avoid COM:OVERCAT with parallel trees, Perhaps we will have to live with a bit of OVERCAT for the sake of saving one tree. My fourth and far distant choice would be to do nothing.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Gold star vs. Golden stars[edit]

Can someone untangle this: In my eyes category Gold star (note the unusual singular) should be a cat redirect to Golden stars, but I am too unsure to do this myself in a right way. BTW there is already a redirect Gold stars. One of the mysteries: Gold star is a sub cat. of Star symbols, Golden stars not, and it seems, its supercats neither. — Speravir – 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I would redirect Golden stars to Gold star. Ruslik (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I actually thought exactly the other way. — Speravir – 18:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Most of these should be in a cat called "Gold stars". "Golden" means "made of gold", not "colored gold". If any of the images are for physical objects that are made of gold, then "golden stars" would fit for those, if we wanted such a category. Of course, it would be hard to tell from an image what the material is. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

May 08[edit]

Nudity[edit]

Wait...So a bunch of people just...upload pictures of their penises to Wikimedia Commons? xD They never say "This is my penis." though, they just say "own work". Are they not embarrassed at ALL? "Welp. Today I'm just gonna upload a picture of my penis on Wikimedia Commons for millions of people to see and possibly use on Wikipedia articles."? PseudoSkull (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

"Wow! MY PENIS got used on a WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE??? What an honor!" PseudoSkull (talk) 00:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@PseudoSkull: Yes, they do, unfortunately. See COM:PENIS. - Reventtalk 06:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Creative commons copyright okay for photo taken from book?[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indonesian_Marines.jpg

Found this recently. Not sure if it's fine to flag it. Uploader has similar uploads done. Ominae (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ominae: Absent further information, this looks like a copyright violation.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ominae: 'own work' is patently false. The image appears to be from this book (published in 1995). If so, it might be {{PD-IDGov}}, but we would need a reliable indication that the book was published without a copyright notice. A DR would be reasonable.... HathiTrust thinks the book is under copyright, and they are pretty careful. - Reventtalk 06:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

FB effectivity group[edit]

Hi, for those, who are on Facebook, I have founded Effectivity (Wikimedia) group, to share ideas, how to ease contributing to Wikimedia projects via technical tools and methodological ways.--Juandev (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View[edit]

From May 9, the Two Column Edit Conflict View will be available as a beta feature on all wikis. The Two Column Edit Conflict View is a new interface for the edit conflict resolution page. It highlights differences between the editor's and the conflicting changes to make it easy to copy and paste pieces of the text and resolve the conflict. The feature fulfils a request for a more user-friendly edit conflict resolution from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Everyone is invited to test the feature and we hope that it will serve you well!
Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

May 09[edit]

Tech News: 2017-19[edit]

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

Problems

  • Some users have a problem with the watchlist. Some changes in categories make the watchlist a blank page. The developers are working on this. Until this is fixed you can try some things that have helped other editors if you have this problem. You can turn on Hide categorization of pages in your watchlist preferences. You can turn off Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent in your watchlist preferences. You can remove problematic categories from Special:EditWatchlist/raw. [4]
  • There was a problem with the visual editor for several days. You could not save edits that triggered a CAPTCHA. This would for example be when a new user added external links in references. This was fixed on 2 May. [5]

Changes this week

  • When you edit you can switch between the visual editor and the wikitext editor. This works if the wiki you edit has the visual editor. The menu will now say Visual editing and Source editing instead of Switch to visual editing and Switch to code editing. This is because it was confusing when the menu said you could switch to the editor you were already using. [6]
  • Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 May. It will be on all wikis from 11 May (calendar).

Meetings

  • Octicons-sync.svg You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 9 May at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You will be able to get a notification when a page you created is connected to a Wikidata item. This will come to Wikivoyage on 9 May. If there are no problems it will come to most Wikipedias on 30 May. It will come to other projects and English, French and German Wikipedia later in the summer. It will be opt-in for existing users and opt-out for new users. [7][8]
  • Octicons-tools.svg Markup that looks like code for language variants might need to be fixed. If -{ is used in transclusions or web addresses it has to be escaped appropriately. You can use -<nowiki/>{ for transclusions and %2D{ in web addresses. A transclusion could for example be when you use -{ in a template: {{1x| sad :-{ face }}. This is because of some code fixes to the preprocessor and affects all wikis. [9][10]

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

02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2016 Results[edit]

The 2016 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Wikimedians,

The 2016 Picture of the Year competition (2016) has ended and we are pleased to announce the results:

In both rounds, people voted for their favorite media files.

  • In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images.
  • In the second round, people voted for the 58 finalists (the R1 top 30 overall and top 2 in each category).

In the second round – the “three votes” was used – eligible users could vote for up to 3 finalists – each of these 3 votes counted equal.

There were 4765 people who voted in total (R1 and R2).

  • In the first round, 2553 people voted for all 1475 candidates.
  • In the second round, 3625 people voted for all 58 finalists.

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful media files and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 615 people voted for the winner, File:Jubilee and Munin, Ravens, Tower of London 2016-04-30.jpg.
  2. In second place, 443 people voted for File:Khaoyai 06.jpg.
  3. In third place, 352 people voted for File:Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) in the drift ice region north of Svalbard.jpg.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all voters for participating. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee 15:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

New filters for Recent Changes - Feedback and research[edit]

Hello Commonists!

The new filters for Edit review are available as a Beta feature on your wiki since a couple of weeks. 230 users are trying this feature so far, thank you! If you have tried the filters, we are looking for your feedback, even if it is just to say you are satisfied. :)

We are working on adding new filters, like Namespace filters, which may help you to work. We are also working on having those filters used on other pages where you monitor changes (whatchlist for instance). To give you a powerful tool, we need your help: we are looking for people who would accept to have an interview with a Wikipedia Foundation's research designer. This interview is one hour long, conducted in English through Google Hangouts. It will require you to share your screen to show how you use the interface. The interview will not be shared unless if you agree to. We want to have diversity of points of views during those interviews.

If you are interested, please send me an email.

Cheers, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Screenshots from programs filmed with remote controlled camera / robots?[edit]

DR2 Deadline is AFAIK filmed with a remote controlled camera / robot. I do not think there is a photographer as such. I have seen a few uploads of screenshots and made a question on one discussion page, see File talk:Mette Bock i Deadline, DR2.png. I have asked a Danish rights organization and DR (the company broadcasting the tv-program) about the issue, but so far received no feedback. The user @Liberalisten1995: uploading File:Mette Bock i Deadline, DR2.png has also uploaded File:Vanopslagh.png. Both of these could be questionable. I am wondering whether there is any experience with such kind of screenshots among commoners? I know of one case with discussion of security cameras [11]. — Fnielsen (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I suppose you mean closed-circuit television. Images and videos taken by these are usually accepted. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the program in question, but a remote controlled camera is no different from a locally controlled camera; both have people behind them. I could imagine a computer program filming a talk show or something, but I can't imagine why a professional show would do so to save on one employee. Even then, I would be surprised if a court ruled that an organization that put together a show would lose copyright by giving up one creative choice out of many to a computer program.
Images from security cameras are different; their positioning is fundamentally uncreative and the events recorded real life, not staged by the camera owners. If you filmed a movie using a security camera with permission of the owner, I think it would be ruled copyrighted by the creators.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Help with Facebook sharing link on Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Results[edit]

The Commons:Picture of the Year/2016/Results had a Facebook sharing link but it is picking up the text from #8 rather than #1. User:Steinsplitter has removed the link for now. Does anyone here know how to customise the link or supply the "og:description" metadata so that the correct text is used. Here are the debug results that shows Facebook's scraper is choosing the wrong text for the image. Can anyone help? -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

GLAMTOOLS email list[edit]

GLAM-WIKI.png
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools

The email list we created a couple of years ago, after launching the GLAM wiki toolset has recently had very few users asking questions about tools. On behalf of the list admins, I invite feedback on whether the list should be promoted as a useful but more general discussion about Wikimedia Commons batch upload tools, techniques and issues. For example it could be the recommended email list for all tools listed at Commons:Upload tools and for GLAM related tools such as those listed at outreach:GLAM/Resources/Tools. Alternatively, if the feeling is we have enough lists that do this job, this may be the right time to close the list down. Though it costs nothing to run the email list, there is a small volunteer cost in admin time to keep an eye on the moderation queue, mostly to deny spammers. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  • As a Commons-l user, I would be fine with such discussions happening in Commons-l, potentially by enabling "topics" so that people can follow only what they want (but there isn't much traffic anyway). Nemo 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

WT-shared image attribution[edit]

I noticed a photo that attributed "uploader", with the "original upload log" pointing to user "(WT-shared)_Jake73" at wts.wikivoyage-old.org. It is no surprise that that server name does not work any more, but where does one find the user page to attribute? I substituted en.wikivoyage.org, as it seemed to be the same user, but even then the user page on wt-shared may have been more informative (in this case the version on WT was not).

So, what page should we link for images from WT? In this case, where no link was provided at WT, an attribution without link could suffice, but giving attribution in plain text is even harder, unless "Jake73" is enough. In any case "uploader" is not proper attribution when the upload at commons was by a bot.

I suppose most images from WT-shared have the same problem. The WT-shared user pages should be resurrected (or are they still around somewhere?) unless we want to link directly to WT, and "uploader" and similar attribution should be made to point to the original uploader.

--LPfi (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

May 11[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=243588902"