Shortcut: COM:VP

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

Hello, I am part of a group of 6 students of a French engineering school. We are creating an application for Smartphones which proposes touristic routes illustrated with Wikipedia articles. We have just finished programming and we are actually testing it. So, we need some testers who want to help us by testing and creating routes. If you are interested, please contact us : marianne.hurault@gmail.com

Thank you,

Marianne

Hello ,

I have a little technical question for people who know about how Commons servers work, I also posted it on the French Bistro. When I need to do long and complex search requests, for example a keyword including or exluding several categories using "incategory", I would like to know what is the limit length of a URL we can use on Commons. I tried for my searches, it seems to be between 6500 and 9000 characters, but not sure because after 9000 I get an "Error 414", and with about 6500 sometimes the result page goes blank (then maybe the server seems not to like that ). Sure it's already a lot of characters! Then if someone know exactly "how many" I can put on a search URL without getting errors or bugs, and without being considered as "harassing" servers... Because I didn't find how to do in other ways with tools like Catscan, because they don't include keywords. But if you have a tool or a tip to do otherwise it would be great too! And so sorry if I could do some mistakes in English . Thank you very much for your help! Jeriby (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

length limits on Urls can be worked around via post requests, but that's very difficult to do from a user perspective. (at least for the 414. The blank page indicates something wrong on php side which shouldn't happen). Bawolff (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer! Then the blank page should not happen? Where can I report this error? Maybe it depends on what I put in the search request, anyway if my user experience can be useful to resolve some bugs, I would be very glad to help php programmers with it^^ . Thank you again anyway. Jeriby (talk) 07:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks like a search thing I'd report it here. If it turns out to be caused by something else whoever works on it will move it around. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few categories like Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project needing categories in grid C0135 that are empty, and appear to have been nominated as speedy deletions by a template, but aren't actually listed in the contents of Category:Other speedy deletions. How does that happen? --ghouston (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Has something changed recently? I'm sure I've seen them in the speedy deletion category before... Not that deletion of empty maintenance categories is time-critical. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a mass null-edit and Category:Other_speedy_deletions is now populated. The further speedy deletion tags by transcluding User:Avicennasis/emptycat will be hopefully observed by my bot. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago somebody has uploaded File:1995_Gaestel.JPG which was backed up by me on my computer. Now the file can be useful on one of my projects, but it seems to have been deleted. Unfortunately the information about the licencing wasn't recorded by me, and it'd be great if some admin can let me know the licence, the publication date, and the author, so that it'd be possible to correctly attribute the work. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.188.125.241 (talk • contribs)

• Author/uploader was User:Eurobas, uploaded 25 June 2009 with the remark "Peinture de Gaestel en 1995", licensing was GFDL cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0. User:Aavindraa cropped it 22 November 2010, removing the large border. It was deleted as being out of scope, no known problem with the license. It's a great image, too bad it was deemed out of scope, but I guess it's reasonable to say we're not a repository of user-created art, even good user-created art. - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. This is exactly the information that was needed.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 06:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two issues with Category:Spirit of the Wild opening, Birmingham - 22 September 2005, which I have just created and to which I have uploaded a number of my photographs.

Firstly, all the files are mis-named ("Spetember", not "September"); my apologies. Could an admin batch rename them, please?

Secondly, as the photos were taken at the launch of a photography exhibition, I have been careful to only include parts of the exhibits, or distant views. Please can someone check that the images are OK, from a copyright PoV? Andy Mabbett (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding copyright, I'd say that File:Spirit of the Wild opening, Birmingham - 22 Spetember 2005 - Andy Mabbett - 02.JPG and File:Spirit of the Wild opening, Birmingham - 22 Spetember 2005 - Andy Mabbett - 01.JPG are a bit iffy, but the rest should be fine. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done the first request. --McZusatz (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've finished building the search index for commons and enabled CirrusSearch as a BetaFeature. You can find it under the Beta tab as "New Search". Please give it a try. A couple of points of interest:

• We implemented a feature that lets you weight matches more highly if they have certain templates. You can configure the cirrussearch-boost-templates message with defaults that will be used for all searches that use Cirrus but don't specify it with boost-templates:"". Have a look at the documentation at mw:Search/CirrusSearchFeatures#boost-templates:.22.22 and let me know if this is useful.
• Cirrus will queue an index update for a page when you edit it, or edit a template it uses, or edit a template used in a template that uses it, etc. The direct edits should hit the index in under a minute. The template edits get in a different queue which has grown pretty long since we enabled Cirrus on commons. I'm not sure how long they'll take to hit the index at this point but I'm actively working on the problem.

Thanks. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

!!! Thank you. --SJ+ 10:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like ignoring edits to markup templates like {{Information}} would be useful then. Thery're highly used but changing them does not really change the content of the pages using them. -- Rillke^(q?) 10:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That got me excited for a while but it is a heavier technical lift then you think when you first hear it. The problem is that we deduplicate the jobs that trigger search updates (called linksUpdate) pretty aggressively and we don't have a way of storing information from the duplicate copy. So if a template changes that shouldn't cause a search update then one changes that should we stand a good chance of never hearing about it. A shame. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here I should let you know that we're currently indexing the contents of all the file types we can crack open and easily suck text out of. [example]. It'll take a few days to finish the process so please be patient. NEverett (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twice in the last 2 days I've had automated tools completely fail to upload files. First, DerivativeFX claimed to have uploaded the file, but instead redirected me to a completely blank edit form. Now the Move-to-commons assistant claimed to upload a file, but in fact did not. Regular upload (haven't been using UW) and flickr transfers have been fine. I can file individual bug reports, but these two failures of heavily used tools are somewhat odd and, I felt, worth reporting. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problems yesterday with For the Common Good. But even uploading manually didn't work well - these files are not displayed properly, while they seem to be fine when downloaded locally: File:Лотоцький О. Сторінки минулого. Частина 2.djvu, File:Лотоцький О. Сторінки минулого. Частина 3.djvu, File:Лотоцький О. Сторінки минулого. Частина 4.djvu. Is there a way to fix them? --DixonD (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with the DJVU files is a rendering issue on Commons separate from the uploading; you may want to make a separate section here for them. I tried reuploading one and it gave the same issue. Thanks for confirming the upload-tool issues. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to open the djvu file locally, I got EvinceDocument:ERROR:/build/buildd-evince_2.30.3-2-i386-XSLfOu/evince-2.30.3/./libdocument/ev-document-misc.c:58:ev_document_misc_get_thumbnail_frame: assertion failed: (width_r >= 0 && height_r >= 0) Aborted, which suggests that it has a page with either negative width or height (or something really funky is going on). [This is just for rendering problems, upload problems are probably unrelated]. Bawolff (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All

I just discovered the NASA art program. There is a small collection of images available on Flickr Commons here, they have a confusing copyright notice. Any help would be appreciated, there are quite a few famous artists who have taken part. If the NASA art program images were in the public domain then this would the a great resource.

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-USGov-NASA}} applies. As NASA points out, this does not eliminate personal rights for portraits of identifiable people and for those we can use {{Personality rights}} in addition to the PD license. --Fæ (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fae

Thanks very much for the quick response (and the answer I wanted to hear). I'll try to sort this out over the next few days.

Cheers

Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've been looking for an image by Theodore Hancock to add to the article I wrote on him. Please let me know if you find one. Andy Mabbett (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, hold on. User:Mrjohncummings and Fæ, these are not necessarily {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. This only covers works by government employees in their normal course of duty. This for example is by "Jack Perlmutter", and this states he was commissioned by NASA to paint various space missions. And then we have the likes of this by Andy Warhol. And this by Annie Leibovitz. And this by Chakaia Booker. Please do not upload this stream to Commons, as without tangible evidence that NASA actually holds copyright, they are copyvios. -- Russavia 22:32, 2 January 2014‎ (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these. Luckily they are easily distinguished as they all say "All rights reserved" in the description, which seems correct. Anyone uploading from this stream should filter these out. --Fæ (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to Flickr Commons NASA has certified these have "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS". Could this be a work-for-hire situation with NASA as the copyright-holder (and hence obliged to release into public domain). -- Colin (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Fæ (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Boulevard Saint-Michel, Etterbeek and put it under Category:Boulevard Saint-Michel. This last category has no upperlevel category. Is there general category for all Saint-michel street names? There is one for "Place de la Republique". Furthermore Saint-michel is used to lots of churches, institutions, etc, but I category for the saint itself. Maybe a category for things named after the saint? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category:Disambiguation. Other stuff tends to break the topical categorization. --  Docu  at 12:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have the upper-level category "Category:Eponyms" with the subcategory "Category:Things named after people". I think a new subcategory tree starting with "Category:Things named after Christian saints" would fit nicely under "Eponyms" and "Category:Christian saints". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for a saint Michael, but the archangel Michael is not classified as a saint. Confusing as in the Roman Catholic church one talks of "Saint Michael".Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Category:Things named after angels" then, although I think it is probably all right to put Michael the Archangel under the "Christian saints" category. The English Wikipedia article "Michael (archangel)" states that "Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans refer to him as 'Saint Michael the Archangel' and also as 'Saint Michael'". — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured sounds seems not to have got going (last edited in Nov 2012, marked as "forthcoming"; only five flies categorised as such. Would anyone be interested in helping me to kick start it? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi;

for some reason, Category:Days by day is listing dates out of order. it shows a quantity of dates "correctly ordered", then (on the 2nd page, partway through) it jumps back "in time" & shows another batch of "correctly ordered" dated, that SHOULD have been integrated with the first lot of dates.

im not sure how big the problem is (only checked the first few pages), but there are a lot of older dates that USED TO be on the first page, & are now "missing".

& this is a fairly new development. i work on date-cats regularly; it wasn't doing this the last time i visited the parent category (before today), & the total number of date-cats hasn't increased by all that much since the last time i was there.

the incorrectly ordered date-cats that i checked all appear to be edited correctly, they all use the same template, etc. they don't SEEM to be any "different"; at least not in any way that i can see.

so i have no idea what is causing it.

my guesses are: a) media wiki and/or server problem, b) something changed somewhere in the template architecture/infrastructure c) some kind of problem on my end

can some other editors pls go look &

i. confirm that/if there is a problem.

ii. pls help to figure out the cause.

thank-you in advance,

Lx 121 (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Db refreshing lag (which I hate so much); needs mass null-edits. Details see database query result. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should be now fixed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am a bit early, but I have always been in advance of my time... ;o) Yann (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yann, and a very happy new year to you too! --SJ+ 04:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone ever thought of creating an image board on Commons? We can discuss the merits and educational values of each picture posted in a forum-like and more relaxing environment. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like 4chan? :-) --Dschwen (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, like 4chan I guess... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fine idea to me. We don't have wiki forums per se, but we certainly have threaded discussions very like them, on the newer wikis. And someone could set up a canonical (or anti-canonical) forum server, that the community could choose to link to from appropriate pages or sidebars. --SJ+ 04:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm losing my marbles, but I seem to recall that we used to have ways of doing things, like deletions and renames, that were based on collaboration and "many eyeballs". These seem to be a thing of the past. Twice today, I see snap decisions made by admins that IMHO should have had more time spent on them, more people look at them, but instead were done on the spot. In both cases, they've now caused more trouble than the initial situation. Fastily deletes an image, File:Jess Dixon in his flying automobile.jpg, as a "copyvio" (no more detail than that), when I'm pretty sure it had a valid licence on it last time I looked. He won't discuss it, so now it's off to Undelete and wasting yet more time for more people.

The category Category:Bentley 4½-litre 1930 is so obviously "wrong" that it's deleted on sight. Only to be replaced by Category:Bentley 4,5-litre 1930! Now the question of where we keep photos of the Bentley 4½ Litre (for that is its name) is a good one, but I've never seen this very famous model of car known by anything other than "4½" and never "4.5". What we certainly should not start doing is the truly bizarre idea of swapping the hateful half for using commas to represent decimal points. Maybe there's a category rename needed here. Maybe it's a category rename that abandons COMMONNAME, because Commons sure loves to do that one. But we are not going to start using commas for decimal points.

Once upon a time we did collaboration. Now we have admins. Admins so all-powerful and so importantly busy with Serious Bizniz that they are not to be challenged. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restored that image. A previous DR was kept. As for the category, I think that we shouldn't have characters like ½ in a category name, but a redirect is OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a strange decision not to call the vehicle by it's usual name and rather to make up a name for it as some don't like the original name in categories, even stranger not to discus it beforehand Oxyman (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy’s basic statement, and, being fairly new here in DRs and general categorization, it is a sweet-sour feeling that once things were better. Any input in a DR, be it either keep or delete, is often met with indifference or outright displeasure by admins. That’s mostly so about keep-votes (I catch myself dreading to express my opinion that this or that image may be interesting to keep, because I know there’s a bucketload of abuse coming), but also in delete-votes, even those which are closed in favour of deletion. Allow me a caricature:

• Nominator: Delete this because offscope — naked ladies are scary
• me: Naked ladies are in scope. On the other hand, this image is a copyvio because So-and-So.
• closing admin: Deteled per nom.
• me: (Whoa, am I invisible?)

Kinda sad. I wish I could remember about collaboration in DRs. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/06/Category:ISO 8601 that doesn't seem to be getting any results. Can a few more people join in please, and help us resolve the problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several months ago I notice that when I try to check for any mutations to my uploaded pages/files (wich I put on the follow list) my android mobile tels me that I have no pages in my follow list. On my laptop however I have 3886 files wich I follow. Why cant I see the same list on my mobile as I used to? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Watchlist? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: I have no idea why, but it seems that the Special:Watchlist in mobile version shows only galleries. Would it work for you if you try Special:EditWatchlist instead? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created Creator:Beatrix Potter. Is there a way to automate the inclusion of all the necessary interwiki links/ names, and authority control values, by pulling them from Wikidata? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not currently; needs bugzilla:47930 to be fixed. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is there any other method for automating the creation of such links? Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not. @Yann, Jarekt, Billinghurst, and Rillke: ^^ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One can probably write some codes to do that but it seems kind of pointless since all those codes will become obsolete once wikidata is fully operational. So for the time being we are in wait and see mode. --Jarekt (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and happy new year everybody.

Building peaceful, democratic and inclusive knowledge societies across the world is at the heart of UNESCO’s mandate. Universal access to information is one of the fundamental conditions to achieve global knowledge societies. This condition is not a reality in all regions of the world.

In order to help reduce the gap between industrialized countries and those in the emerging economy, UNESCO has decided to adopt an Open Access Policy for its publications by making use of a new dimension of knowledge sharing - Open Access.

Open Access means free access to scientific information and unrestricted use of electronic data for everyone. With Open Access, expensive prices and copyrights will no longer be obstacles to the dissemination of knowledge. Everyone is free to add information, modify contents, translate texts into other languages, and disseminate an entire electronic publication.

For UNESCO, adopting an Open Access Policy means to make thousands of its publications freely available to the public. Furthermore, Open Access is also a way to provide the public with an insight into the work of the Organization so that everyone is able to discover and share what UNESCO is doing. - See more at: http://en.unesco.org/open-access/#sthash.0xSeJOsv.dpuf

Next here.

Ready to upload it on Commons ?

--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. On pages 2-3 of UNESCO Open Access Policy for publications, it says:

• Any publication created by a staff member for whom the Publications Board has given its approval on or after 31st July 2013 shall be published under CC BY SA license. As a reminder, according to UNESCO’s Rules and Regulations, all intellectual property rights concerning any work produced by a member of the Secretariat as part of his/her official duties, shall be vested in the Organization.
• Any person external to UNESCO who co-authors a publication with a member of the Secretariat shall assign copyright to UNESCO. UNESCO authors are responsible for informing co-authors of the Open Access Policy and for obtaining the rights of the external co-authors. A permission form is provided by ERI/DPI for this purpose. Therefore, all co-authored content shall be published under CC BY SA license.
• For any publication produced in whole by a member of the Secretariat and published by an external publisher, UNESCO should retain the copyright of the publication. ERI/DPI shall negotiate an agreement with the publisher and determine the CC license under which the publication will be released. If permitted by the publisher, CC BY SA will be used.
• Resources published by external publishers that have received funding in whole or in part from UNESCO shall be made available under one of the CC IGO licenses, with an embargo period acceptable if required by the publisher that should not exceed 12 months. In this context, external publishing partners will be strongly encouraged to apply the most liberal license possible.

Seems that a new specific license template should be created, eventually. While there’s already a lot of uploading work to be done, some issues need to be clarified. I wonder especially at the retroactivity of this licensing. -- Tuválkin ✉ 04:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to write a small HTA with JScript but cannot get even over the first step: to login. The test script is as simple as (the password replaced by *):

function wcLogin() {
  var xhr= new XMLHttpRequest();
  xhr.open('POST', 'https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php', false);
  xhr.setRequestHeader('User-Agent', 'NeoLexx HTA beta');
  xhr.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
  xhr.send('lgname=Neolexx&lgpassword=********');
  window.alert(xhr.responseText);
}

By calling wcLogin I am just getting back the default API help page, no errors reported. By looking at the response headers I also see MediaWiki-API-Error: help which is completely meaningless to me. I carefully read API:Login help but it didn't provide any clue. Any suggestions? --NeoLexx (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Log-in is a 2-step procedure. The first time you post the credentials, you get a token back that you then have to re-post together with the credentials for the login to be complete. The reason why you get the help page is that you forgot action=login. I'll provide you with a working example in 10 minutes. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

function wcLogin() {
  var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest(),
      xhr2 = new XMLHttpRequest(),
      userName = 'Neolexx',
      passphrase = '********',
      enc = encodeURIComponent,
      sReq = 'action=login&lgname=' + enc(userName) + '&lgpassword=' +  enc(passphrase) + '&format=json';
      
  xhr.open('POST', 'https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php', false);
  xhr2.open('POST', 'https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php', false);
  xhr.setRequestHeader('User-Agent', 'NeoLexx HTA beta');
  xhr2.setRequestHeader('User-Agent', 'NeoLexx HTA beta');
  xhr.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
  xhr2.setRequestHeader('Content-Type', 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded');
  
  xhr.send(sReq);
  
  var r = JSON.parse(xhr.responseText);
  if (r.login && r.login.result === 'NeedToken') {
    xhr2.send(sReq + '&lgtoken=' + enc(r.login.token));
    alert(xhr2.responseText)
  } else {
    alert('You did not handle this case.');
  }
}

wcLogin()

That should work, although not nice because XHRs should be sent async and because you're repeating a lot of stuff. My suggestion is you're making a dedicated function for communicating with the MW-API. If you have stuff like promises available from a library, make use of them! Please credit me in your application. -- Rillke^(q?) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> The reason why you get the help page is that you forgot action=login OMG ... Great thank you! --NeoLexx (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had a simple interface to instantly show all Featured pictures, Quality images, or Valued images in and below the current category? Expanding on my work on category intersection I posted about above here is a first sneak preview at the fastcci gadget (Fast Commons Category Inspection) and its first functionality that does just that.

Click here to activate the gadget.

• 
  The user interface, shown on every category page
• 
  A galley of all FPs in Category:Railway bridges
• 
  A category trail is shown above the image when navigating from a fastcci search result, explaining why the image was included in the results

This is preliminary work (so paging is not implemented yet and it lacks a few error checks), but it serves as a proof of concept. The backend server is running in a brand new labs project (and could be scaled by adding more instances). Response times on typical categories are in the sub-second range. Longer running queries stream status updates (via WebSockets, if available) and a progress indicator will be added to the frontend code. --Dschwen (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Jee 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great development and hopefully the start of a shift away from deep categories towards keywords and better results lists. Are the images forced into square thumbnails? Could you do something like the packed-mode gallery so the aspect ratio is respected -- for many uses, the shape of the image is vital and a square crop may lose important info. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used the square crop because a) I had the routine ready, b) I like it (500px does it, too), c) I don't like the packed-mode gallery at all (very uneven distribution of screen space per image). If I have to change it then I'd probably emulate the original category gallery for consistency. --Dschwen (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just tried to use it in FF26 (seriously Mozilla, TWENTY-SIX?), the links all appear at the top of the page (below title but above any category text) and they don't actually appear to be links (clicking does nothing, but mouseover does show underline). Same issue in MSIE9. Nice idea certainly, I look forward to a release version. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only tested in chrome so far (but I would have expected better compatibility as I'm using JQuery for most of the stuff) --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'uh, mattbuck take a look at my user stylesheet :-). You'll need to copy my styles for it to look ok. --Dschwen (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried that now, and it shows up more like yours, but it's still not clickable. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, clicking gives a security error. I'll look into it (probably I am using a non ssl websocket). --Dschwen (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Works for me now in FF26. --Dschwen (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for QIs certainly. I'll take your word for the others. Thanks! -mattbuck (Talk) 18:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of whether we should develop a quality metric other than FP/QI/VI. A sort of "good image" that would be below QI level and without the "taken by a Commoner" restriction. There would need to be a pretty lightweight mechanism for awarding it and perhaps some uploaders could be trusted to tag their own uploads and other images. A size (dimensions) filter and date filter like Google Images has could also be useful, along with a filesize filter. -- Colin (talk) 16:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For good images I think a one-click like or 0-5 stars solution would be best. That is easy to implement, but hard to implement tamper proof. --Dschwen (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to be doing this, it needs to be at a scale far exceeding that of QIC, so it needs to be very, very simple. How about: Anyone with x QIs (10? 25? etc.) may label any image (including their own works, works by other Commoners, and works by non-Commoners) as a "good image." The minimum QI bar is mainly just to make sure they know what quality is necessary for a QI. IMO the criteria one should use is the following: either 1) it would meet QI criteria if the Commoner criterion were dropped; or 2) it is of acceptable quality and one of the best in the category (in the vein of VIC). Moreover, all FPs, QIs, and VIs are automatically considered "good images." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am focusing on simplicity for this feature. I imagine this could be enabled for IP users who are not "power users" but just want to discover the best images that we have on a particular subject. For that matter the current interface is still too complicated. I'm thinking of a single button that lists FPs then QIs and then VIs and the current menu as popup on hover (or click). --Dschwen (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The gadget is now displaying a category trail above an image when navigating from a fastcci search result, explaining why the image was included in the results. Our category system is a bit.. odd. In the example above the Half Dome is showing up in a list of FPs in the Category Idaho (however the Half Dome is located in California). --Dschwen (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A file on commons might require many types of licenses, for example for the original work in the US and in the country of origin and for the digitization effort (like taking a photograph). As a result over the years the community developed many (often duplicating) ways of combining those templates into cohesive single block. A while ago I was cleaning up some of the more exotic and rarely used templates and merging them with more established templates, and was adding a way for some of the outer templates to pass required parameters to the inner templates. In the process I developed a cheatsheet of best practices, as observed in the wild and today moved it to Commons:Multi-license copyright tags. Please review, improve and expand. --Jarekt (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Nominate for deletion link in toolbox is enabled by default in Commons interface. I think this feature should appear by default after log in. --89.72.28.182 21:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More that occasionally, a non-logged-in user makes a nomination for deletion that is upheld. We do get a higher percentage of really silly nominations for deletion from people who are not logged in, but I don't think that is particular to nomination for deletion: they make more bad edits. Why exactly would you single this out as a tool to take away from non-logged in users? (Tone is hard to get across in print sometimes, my question is not rhetorical; you've stated an opinion, but you haven't given any rationale for this suggested policy change. Hard to imagine this going anywhere without the latter.) - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth further discussion after SUL finalisation occurs, but today, IP editors here can be experienced and trusted users on other projects who don't have an account here (due to not owning the SUL account attached to their username at their home project) and not necessarily inexperienced editors who don't really understand the rules and policies here. Nick (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are a few very experienced users (only a few, but they exist) who have chosen not to create accounts, although this is rarer on Commons than on Wikipedia, since it deprives them of upload privileges. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I forgot to write coordinates (select from map) when I was uploading photos with UploadWizard (at Describe stage). How can I do it now with each file? Xaris333 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manually insert the template {{Location}} (for coordinates in degrees, minutes and seconds) or {{Location dec}} (for coordinates in decimals) below the {{Information}} template. For an example, click on the "Edit" link for "File:Pulau Ubin, Singapore - 20070211-02.jpg". — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may use this tool which creates the template and you just have to copy and paste. -- Rillke^(q?) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thx both of you. Can I ask one more thing: I put the coordinates of the place that is been showed in the photo or the coordinates of the camera location? Xaris333 (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camera location is preferred. --Dschwen (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be very thorough there is {{Location}} and {{Location dec}} for camera location and {{Object location}} and {{Object location dec}} for location of what is depicted. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is File:I like this image because it's showing peace to the world by being happy and show a smile to show peace to the world!☆☆☆☆ 2014-01-03 22-29.jpg eligible for renaming? I'm not entirely up to date with the file renaming policies but I don't think this title is completely appropriate. I'm not sure what the new name to call it is, so I'm bringing it here for some suggestions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this is even eligible for deletion. --Dschwen (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This image illustrates hand gestures. This image illustrates smiling. This image illustrates large (and IMO lovely) everted lips. Near as I can tell it is not like any other images we offer. I added some categories I think are appropriate. I suggest COM:SCOPE includes documenting everyday items and everyday events.

As for a replacement name, how about File:A happy young woman smiles, and flashes a peace sign.jpg? Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know she is "happy"? --Dschwen (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her hand looks bigger than her face. Just a snap shot with a wide focal length almost touching the camera on her hand. Delete. Jee 04:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think about something like User:Sreejithk2000/JustReplace.js gadget, however it didn't work for me. This gadget needs rewrite to submit image on User:CommonsDelinker/commands/filemovers. Can someone do this update (or create a new script)? Thanks in advance! --Rezonansowy (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded an image at the same time the database went down yesterday. The image appears in Commons, but it only has a link that says "create." The image is here, and the file name is Pryor House.JPG. Do I need to upload this again, or is this version salvageable? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Just click "Create" and add the usual {{Information}}. - Jmabel ! talk 05:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the above because of this image.. The CC3 license releases the image, the metadata despite saying in French, prohibits reproduction of the pic. This obviously goes against the CC3. What do you do? CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If "Baptiste ROUSSEL" is the same as "User:Lunon92" then there's no real problem as far as Commons is concerned, but you might want to call the inconsistency to his attention. If they're not the same, then there's definitely a big problem... AnonMoos (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same person, AnonMoos, I suspect. See here - Lunon92's former user page, which shows his name as Léo Duval, which is how I saw him somewhere else. Baptiste ROUSSEL and this guy most likely aren't the same. It seems Lunon92 has a lot of localised upload to fr.wikipedia, maybe they should be checked. I smell a gigantic rat. CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metadata can be changed like normal data (Just unfortunately not online), so once its determined which is correct, the incorrect info should be changed. Bawolff (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reproduction interdite" in "Copyright holder" field makes not much sense; but images in Category:Wikimania 2013 by Beria need immediate attention. Jee 05:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the color of this old picture using Photoshop. Initially the image was "pink", now you can distinguish some color. Because there are a lot of "pink" pictures like this, do you think it can be possible in future to add some function to commons to correct pictures' colors, similar to "request orientation"? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s.: I reverted my correction because it is written in the page: "Please do not overwrite this file", however my question is still valid. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be cool. I am quite sure it is already possible to do this 100% client side with modern browsers (so no tool or bot would be required, just a pile of JS-code). -- Rillke^(q?) 22:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case , do you know where I can propose this function? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've geocoded some aerial photos, e.g. File:Thyssen Krupp Quartier Luftaufnahme Nordost 2014.jpg using the Location template and the direction field: {{Location dec|51.458686|6.985478|heading:NE}}

Camera location	51° 27′ 31.27″ N, 6° 59′ 07.72″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

Direction is north-east and the arrow goes to north-west. Has anyone an idea what's the problem here or who can fix it? Thanks, --Tuxyso (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, the "arrow" is actually the azimuth. That is: if you stand somewhere on the Northern hemisphere and look towards northeast, your compass will show 45° anticlockwise because its direction is of course the north. --12:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

If your interpretation is correct, the arrow is not really useful and hardly understandable. I am not interested in Azimuth but in the direction of view or in the heading. Azimuth might be useful for astronomy but imho it is very irritating to use heading in the Location template and get azimuth on the image description. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arrow (marked "N") is pointing towards "North", that is a traditional symbol used on the maps that usually requires the least explanation. The input to the {{Location}} template is heading aka azimuth, or clockwise angle from the North to the direction your camera is pointing (assumed to be the same as up direction of the up pointing vector located in the center of the image). If your heading is 45 deg (heading:NE) than north is . There are not standards for displaying the heading direction. We could have used , but it is not as clear for about the same size image. --Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, I also know north arrows from maps. But in the case here there is great confusion with the arrow: The heading / direction of camera view is a quasi standard, everyone knows it. For the average user it is not obvious why with heading NE the arrow points to NO. Although it is semantically wrong from the viewpoint of a geographer I would strongly suggest to change the semantic of the arrow to the wide-spread heading. The compass rose shown here is imho no alternative. What do you think about different direction symbols like the ones [shown here]?. One symbol with appropriate text for every direction, N, NE, NW, ... Or a simplified compass rose with large letters? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the symbols shown at shutterstock, however they are copyrighted and would probably have to be recreated (with enough changes as not to run into copyright discussions) for 32 named directions, and added to {{Compass rose file}} template. If the result is as clear as current File:North Pointer.svg I would support it, despite the fact that I like the elegance of the current solution which uses a single file rotated with the help of {{RotateStyle}}. --Jarekt (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you (and others) think about a simplified compass rose? It looks like the current arrow but with a circle around it and four markers which symbolize an abstract compass. . With such a symbol we can use heading instead of azimuth. Our SVG experts can surely do much better, just a first draft. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image shows an arrow with label "N", what would usually indicate that arrow is pointing "North" which should not point in the same direction as "heading" but in "360-heading". If you want to point towards "heading" than you need to label your arrow accordingly. By the way, as far as I can tell heading means the same as azimuth, since both are clockwise angles from the North to the direction your camera is pointing. --Jarekt (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First: My arrow was just an illustration how a rotated compass rose arrow could look like. The original svg has to start at 0° / 360° degree.
Second: There is a language misunderstanding: The key problem of the current Location implementation is that the direction of the arrow does not point to the heading which is according to en:Course (navigation) "[...] The units are degrees from north in a clockwise direction. East is 90, south is 180 and west is 270 degrees". With this defintion in mind the current Location implementation does not show heading but the direction to north and this is per defintion Azimuth. My first draft was wrong: We need only a rotation of the arrow, the compass rose remains in its position. Heading north-east should look like . Better? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be splitting hairs, but we still have language misunderstanding: my read is that both heading and azimuth are exactly the same, and I agree with you that in the current implementation of the location template we do not show heading but the direction north which is calculated as 360-heading. I think we agree on the current implementation and on definition of heading, but not on definition of azimuth. However it is rather unimportant since we never use the term azimuth in relation to the {{Location}} template. Your File:Simple-compass-rose-symbol-draft.jpg #3 is much better, I would prefer different style arrow since I usually associate this style with North. I also find current design too close to Cross-hair target sight , but that probably can not be helped. Any other opinions? --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that indicating the direction on a compass with a fixed north is a bit more intuitive. If you want a rotating north I suggest giving the compass perspective (so it looks like a handheld compass parallel to the floor), i.e. a compass held while facing in the direction of the photo. --Dschwen (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might work but I am afraid that the perspective might get lost in the images of the size we are currently using (~20-30 pixels on a side). --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a more minimalistic solution e.g. for north-east: (30 Pixel). --Tuxyso (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support, it's intuitive and correct. --A.Savin 21:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, both types are intuitive and both can have their supporters and opponents. I was a bit surprised at first but it is not difficult to adapt to it. I personally lack direct displaying of the original (not recalculated) heading value from the template: the heading can be expressed by letters as well as by azimuth number in the template. --ŠJů (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current implementation is contra-intuitive and I still strongly suggest to change it. The current arrow has some logic, but only for those who know that the file is directed to north in relation to the direction of view. At the moment I see NO argument against my new suggestion with . It is semantically correct (from the viewpoint of a geographer or compass expert) and it is intuitively understandable. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso, while I generally agree with your opinion that the current solution is not good, the "minimalistic" arrow you proposed here might be not as intuitive as you think. Does the arrow indicate "north" (there's a "N" right next to it, and the arrow looks like north-arrows usually look like) or does it indicate the viewing direction, while the "N" indicates "north"? The second option is true, of course, but it's not completely obvious. I think you previous proposal () was easier to understand. --El Grafo (talk) 09:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might be, but my SVG skills are too limited. Probably some one who is better in creating symbols can develop an alternative. The problem of is that the arrow and its direction (most important information) is not clear enough. I still prefer . --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong forum to post this in, but I have no idea where I am supposed to go for this and if it turns out that someone finds a better home for this thread, it'd be much appreciated.

It seems most of the contributions from this user are taken from other websites, a quick check on the Google Images tab will do, but I need someone's help in checking all their contributions to see if they meet the threshold of originality and can be tagged with pd-ineligible or copyvio as appropriate, since their upload history composes primarily of logos. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done deleted all thanks for bringing it to our attention, very clearly these were all copyright violations Gnangarra 13:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just saw that this page claims copyrights on the image I've captured and freely uploaded Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg. You can't claim copyrights on something that is in the public domain, right? Alex‘s SeeSide 14:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your question if very confusing. You say at File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg it is your photo, and you licensed it under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported, so unless you are lying there, how would it be in the public domain?
• Assuming what you are accurate at File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg, the use at http://german.alibaba.com/product-gs/chinese-pure-natural-organic-peppermint-oil-mentha-arvensis-oil-natural-mint-oil-cas-8006-90-4-617524885.html is a violation of your copyright. You should probably consider serving them notice, or having your lawyer do so. However, since they are based in Hong Kong, this may be a bit tricky, because Hong Kong is not the best on enforcing copyright law. In any case, you should add the {{Published}} template to File talk:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg with an indication that the reuse was illegal. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sure that, by "public domain", Alex means simply "free" (as in acceptable in Commons). -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe, but if he's going to involve lawyers, or even send a message to the company that posted it, he'd better not use that term, since he would have no standing to demand someone stop doing anything (including a false claim of copyright) with a public domain image. - Jmabel ! talk 17:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your fierce demand for clarity, not being the most mellow type myself, but, on a different topic, isn’t a false claim of copyright akin to some one sticking a "no trespassing" sign on public land? While it infringes the rights of no legitimate landowner, it does restrict the rights of everybody, right? -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, the copyright vilator is Jiangxi Global Natural Spice Co., Ltd. You can make a complaint at http://legal.alibaba.com/index.htm so that alibaba will probably take action per http://www.alibaba.com/help/safety_security/policies_rules/IPR/002.html But use correct words (© Aleksa Lukic; CC BY 3.0) as Jmabel suggested. Jee 17:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen quite a number of logos of sports teams on Wikipedia (e.g. the Saracens F.C. article, or Category:English rugby union logos. But the Upload Wizard refuses to accept "Non-free use rationale logo" as a valid tag when I try to upload a sport's team's logo. Are Wikipedians allowed to upload sports logos to illustrate an infobox? If so, what is the procedure, please? Or am I doing something wrong during the upload process, e.g. using the wrong tag? Thank you. DocDee 12:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept fair-use content. You can upload it to local projects like en.wikipedia directly. See w:Wikipedia:Non-free content and w:Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. INeverCry 00:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information INeverCry, you have been a great help - much appreciated.DocDee 7:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

the are some category loops. i think they should be solved. --Akkakk (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dschwen: Any plans on this issue? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• You can always add them to the meta category Categories which are children or grand-children of themselves. I have been slowly populating it and keen volunteers seems to ensure it gets emptied every day. --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressing both above comments: I think that Categories that are children of itself are are completely uncontroversial cleanup task. Grandchildren of itself, is probably rather uncontroversial as well. But other larger loops may not be an issue that we need to remedy. I had a discussion about this and one point I heard was that entanglement increases discoverability. Also it was pointed out that being a subcategory does not have the strong semantic meaning of being a fully contained sub-subject. Loops like the hypothetical loop Politics -> Politics of Country X -> Educational policies of country X -> High school curriculum of country X -> Social sciences -> Politics exist, where every individual step makes perfect sense. A decision where to cut this chain just to avoid a loop does not seem straight forward to me.
• Loops seem to be just one symptom of the peculiarities of the commons category system. Look at this actual example of a (non circular) string of subcategories: Children → Adults with children → Parents → Mothers → Mothers in art → Virgin Mary → Mysteries of the rosary → Christian mission → Missionaries → Christian missionaries by denomination → Roman Catholic missionaries → Benedict of Nursia → Benedictines → Benedictine monasteries → Benedictine abbeys → Benedictine abbeys by country → Benedictine abbeys in the United Kingdom → Westminster Abbey → People buried in Westminster Abbey → Charles Darwin → HMS Beagle (ship, 1820) → Robert FitzRoy → Fitz Roy massif. It put a mountain in Argentina under the Supercategory Children, yet every individual step seems to make sense to me. It is only with powerful category inspection tools that we get a bigger picture of our category system, which we usually only see up close without much context.
• I think we need to build consensus first about what we want category relations to mean before we go out and try to fix the category graph. In the mean time - shameless plug - check out the fastcci gadget!. It will show you the category chains that led to the inclusion of an image in the intersection results. I find it quite interesting to guess and then read these. --Dschwen (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think some categories are going to be natural loops, in this I seeing event categories where a group of photographs taken for an event are in a subcategory but they also exist in the parent as the image is about the event. Also the category system we use has an inherent problem in that the further away from the parent a category becomes the less useful the content becomes. Definitely we need to explore how to make 14million media files more individually accessible but focusing solely on one part also has the potential to cause more harm than good. I also think it may be time to consider the primary categories also contain a quality portion(QI, VI & FP) as people searching there are more likely to be looking for generic use rather than specific, but in doing so it would be the creation of another loop. Gnangarra 00:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gnangarra, have you looked at the gadget I linked to above? It Does exactly that, showing FPs and QIs in and below a category. It is not perfect yet, but it is a start. --Dschwen (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forteen million, you say? It is close to 20 million, now, right? -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category structure use more categorizing criteria and reflect more types of relations between items/categories. Purely hyponymic or meronymic categorization should not create cycles but its combining with other types of relations can cause some quasi-loops. Such loops are generally not preffered and should be avoided if possible but in principle, they must not be erroneous. However, an analysis of such loops can help to discover typical problems which can be solved by improvement of categorization rules and customs. There exist some types of relations where the direction of the relation is not determined clearly (original building/repurposed building, animals/zoology, Benedict of Nursia/Benedictines etc.) and some areas of the category tree use one way, some another one. E.g. any person can be a parent category (as a owner or founder of any organization) and simultaneously a subcategory (as its member or manager). Both is quite correct. --ŠJů (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The exact eample of the latter is one of the (very few!) categories listed in : Category:Ove Arup‎ founder and manager of Category:Arup‎ -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting an "Unexpected non-MediaWiki exception encountered, of type 'Exception'" error message, every time I try to edit Commons:Voice intro project. Andy Mabbett (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely something triggered by the translate extension. A very conclusive error message btw :) I suggest you report this on bugzilla: including the steps to reproduce this error. -- Rillke^(q?) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thank you. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59740 Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem appears to be fixed by tech staff. —Mono 23:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Salisbury Cathedral St John the Evangelist2.jpg

This isn't St John the Evangelist. He is depicted as a young man with no beard, long hair and an eagle. This person is female with a wimple (worn by women) over her chin and a dove with a halo (representing the Holy Spirit) on her shoulder. I am trying to discover who she is. In the meantime, the file should be renamed as "Salisbury Cathedral female saint with a dove.jpg". Amandajm (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. Use {{Rename}} template for such proposals and file page for the discussion what is on the image. I copied your notice there now. --ŠJů (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Category: Salisbury Cathedral-Morning chapel should be renamed as "Salisbury Cathedral - Morning Chapel"

Note the addition of spaces i.e this is the Morning Chapel in Salisbury Cathedral, not the "Cathedral-Morning" chapel at Salisbury"

• Two categories should be merged. They contain similar content, and one is mis-named.

The category "Statues in Salisbury Cathedral‎" is misnamed. The statues are not in the cathedral. The statues shown are those of the West Front.

The other category is named "Sculptures of Salisbury Cathedral‎". It has only a few images, but includes an image of the West Front, probably with the intention of making the location of individual works possible.

• My recommendation to sort out above problem is that

1. a new category is formed named "Salisbury Cathedral - West Front". That an image of the West Front and all the individual images of sculpture from the west front (that is most of the present images) go in that category.
2. The category "Sculptures of Salisbury Cathedral" remains, and into it are placed all those images that are not west front statues, i.e. the bronze statue which is outside the cathedral, and any other significant works, including interior sculpture.

Amandajm (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{Move}} template for proposals for simple rename or merge of individual categories and use category talk pages for the discussion. Even though some proposals remain many month without any reaction, the proposal will be foundable for the users of the category as well as in the maintenance category of move requests. --ŠJů (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]