Commons:Village pump

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

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives
 


Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
Please help by translating these messages into other languages.
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.
Archive  • Discussion • Edit • Page history • Watch
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]





Freedom of Panorama in France: clarification needed[edit]

[Please feel free to redirect me to are more appropriate venue if there is one]

I have a lot of pictures from Paris and Strasbourg, and I am uncertain about what I can and cannot upload.

I understand that pictures of recent buildings, whose designs are still in copyright, are affected by the lack of "freedom of panorama" there. But what about, for example, cars, buses, trams and trains whose designs are in copyright? Public artworks? Market stalls? Shops, banks, and post offices? Post boxes? I do not wish to spend time uploading pictures, only for them then to be deleted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The rationale of De minimis applies to most general photographs in public spaces where odd creative works are somewhere in shot. Due to no FoP exemption, a specific shot focusing on a statue or other public work of art must take into account the copyright of that work (at least when in France). A shop or market stall would normally fall under de minimis so long at no specific creative work such as a poster advert or a stuffed toy on a stall, is the main focus of the shot. Mass produced utilitarian objects such as trams or post boxes are normally accepted as being free to take photographs of, however this may not be true if they are decorated in unusually fancy paintwork.
Yes, photography of public spaces in France is a complicated matter. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Note that some utilitarian objects are copyrighted. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Le Corbusier: Getty Images France was fined for distributing pictures of two chairs. I don't how to determine whether any given utilitarian object is copyrightable in France or not. A post office is part of a building, so you need to be careful not to violate the copyright of the building. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit]

Can we just have the {{trademarked}} template show up by adding a parameter |trademarked=yes to PD-textlogo so that we don't have to remember to add trademarked after this tag all the time? It's currently protected from editing, by the way. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

My personal solution; never ever use one of the frustrating "upload"-wizards. They lure on page x of a monster-form, where your only choice after hours of research to answer stupid "wizard"-questions is back, and at that point the complete form input is lost. OTOH {{information}} in an ordinary upload is just brilliant; for your purposes just add a line |other_fields={{trademarked}}|other_fields_1={{validSVG}} or similar, ready. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That reminds me about the numerous complaints against Microsoft's "setup wizards". TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually please do not use other_fields for this purpose. That field should rarely be used for individual files and only works when combined with {{Information field}}. --Jarekt (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I don’t understand why use other_fields as a “hanger” for additional templates such as {{trademarked}} or {{validSVG}}, inside template {{information}}, instead of just adding them next to it in the "Summary" textarea of Special:Upload. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The upload wizard can make a batch upload easier. However, I just fill in everything with blah blah, upload as CC-by, then delete the whole information template after. Because it is absolutely useless for anything that's not dead simple.
It also has some annoying checks. For instance, for restorations, uploading as both a PNG and JPEG is normal. The UploadWizard - and only the UploadWizard - lets you upload files over 100 megabytes, which PNGs can often go over. But if you uploaded the JPEG first, then it throws up an idiotic message about a file with too similar of a filename already existing, and makes you choose a new name. It's annoying, stupid, and could be fixed by just adding an "Ignore any warnings and continue" button. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Automating Flickr-change-of-license[edit]

I noticed that File:Young Yellow-bellied Marmot suckling.jpg had its license on Flickr changed; the author on Flickr says that all his images on Flickr are all rights reserved or CC-BY-NC. Since he is a really awesome photographer, we have several hundred photos from Alan Vernon on Flickr here. Is there any way to have a bot check them and add {{Flickr-change-of-license}} to them?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: I searched the latest dump for all occurrences of the phrase "Alan Vernon", and am currently adding all files that included it into Category:Images by Alan Vernon. After this is done, I will add {{Flickr-change-of-license}} below {{cc-by-2.0}} like you did here. I'll let you know as soon as this is finished; I apologize in advance for any and all false positives (if they occur). odder (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: The bot has finished its task, and I manually removed some false positives. All pictures in Category:Images by Alan Vernon are now tagged with {{Flickr-change-of-license}}. odder (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 20[edit]

Do we need a warning tag for North Korea-related images?[edit]

Like Template:Nazi symbol, I think we probably need a warning tag for North Korea-related images, at least during North Korean regime exists. South Korean government has aggresively blocked North Korean Websites and pro-North Korea websites, and punished Violators of South Korean National Security Act (국가보안법, in Korean). --Puramyun31 (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We should not take sides in any external dispute, merely be concerned that images are properly hosted here, i.e with proper licensing and copyright. So the short answer is "no". Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I know nothing about South Korean law, but what Puramyun31 proposes appears to be parallel to a number of already-existing templates which inform re-users of possible restrictions on their ability to re-use images for certain purposes (even though such restrictions do not prevent Commons from hosting such images) -- {{Insignia}}, personality rights, trademarked, Nazi symbol, etc. AnonMoos (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Following AnonMoos, I think you should feel free to create such a template and place it appropriately on the images to which it would relate. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems to be similar to {{Nazi symbol}}, so as long as we have a {{Nazi symbol}} tag, having one for North Korean propaganda material seems OK. How does South Korea define North Korean propaganda material? From what I have understood, you can't send things by mail from North Korea to South Korea if the postal stamp shows a picture of Kim Il-sung or certain other people or objects. Should we also create a tag for South Korean propaganda material, since North Korean reusers might end up in trouble if they wish to use it? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Anything about North Korea can be illegal in South Korea if it is used for praising or sympathizing North Korean regime by any person but not limited to propaganda material made by the regime itself. Of course, Anything about South Korea can be illegal in North Korea as well in the same way. --Puramyun31 (talk) 14:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Change of file - photo of Hanne Sørvaag[edit]

I mainly contribute on the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål language version of Wikipedia and we have an article about the local musician Hanne Sørvaag, with some photo of her.

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanne_S%C3%B8rvaag

In the infobox there was a photo of the artist, taken and uploaded by the contributor Jarle Vines (jarvin):

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hanne_S%C3%B8rvaag.JPG

A couple of days ago there was a change in credit for the picture in the article, from Jarle Vines to Ole Martin Halvorsen. I registered the change and checked with the photo here on Commons and as I saw that the photo was taken by Jarle Vines I gave a warning to the contributor that had changed the credit:

https://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hanne_S%C3%B8rvaag&diff=12979048&oldid=12979031

However, it seems that a new picture had been uploded over the old one, using the same name, so at the time the contributor I warned did the change, he was stating the correct while I was wrong. At the time I checked it the picture had however been reverted to the old one. If I had looked more down on the page I would have seen it, but I had no idea that such a replacement was possible or even allowed, so that was not on my mind.

My question is: How could this happen and was it some technical slip, or is it possible to overwrite a photo with a new one, using the same name, and then uploading something totally different?

If it was some technical mishap I do hope it will be quickly fixed. If that is not the case and this is possible I believe it open up for some very unpleasant surprises, to say the least.

I notice that it seems all traces of the change on the file - Hanne Sørvaag.JPG - has now for some reason been removed, so it seems that it has only been one file there from creation, which is not the case.

Any comments and clarification about this is highly appreciated. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleaned-up by Russavia. --Denniss (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
So, Denniss, is this resolved? - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
That traces of the photo that was uploaded over the original is removed seems to me the easiest part of this. That it could happen at all is what bothers me. As a contributor to Wikipedia I could find some photo on Commons and insert it in the article I work on, just to find that someone had uploaded a different photo with the same name, that may at the best render it useless for the article and possibly also degrading it. If someone could give me some answer to this problem I would be happy about that. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It's like Wikipedia; it's a wiki open for editing. Sometimes people can upload a better version of a file over a new one. Commons at least has more rules about changing stuff then Wikipedia is; we will rollback situations where a completely new photo is uploaded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
To Prosfilaes: I guess I am stupid, but I do not get what you write. Here was user A that uploaded a file, and then it was overwritten by user B with a totally different file, and you say that is allowed and within the rules? And as the file was credited with the name of the user A in one article it means that the credit was not correct when user B had done the overwriting upload, which lead to that another user changed the credit, while still another user rolled back the picture from the one from user B to user A, which then made me give a warning to the user that had changed the credit.
Again, I guess I am stupid, but I really can not understand that this can be allowed or that it is anything like Wikipedia. If I write something on Wikipedia then I get the credit for it, its in the logs and stays there, even if rolled back. But if this way of doing things (one user overwriting a file with a completely different one) is allowed here I seriously have to think about how I use files from Wikimedia Commons. Ulflarsen (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not permitted to upload a file with a completely different file. It's just not technically stopped, because it is permitted to make improvements to the existing file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing in the software that would prohibit users from completely overwriting any of our files. That's the same with any Wikipedia, whether there is local upload enabled or not, MediaWiki permits users to contribute to and overwrite the filename however they want to. However, Wikimedia Commons policies only permit certain circumstances where a file may be changed. For example, if it's small changes to an existing image, like rotating the image, a bit of coloration or shading to give it contrast, it may be permissible as an "official" version of the image meant to overwrite the preexisting version. But if it's something completely wrong, like overwriting the image of a person with the image of a map, it has to be uploaded by Commons policies under a different filename. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm amused because less than a week ago about 3 weeks ago we had a different user complain that the link to upload and overwrite a file should be featured more prominently. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, the "edit" button is always prominently displayed above any Wikipedia page. Should a complementary "upload" button be displayed above an image then? Perhaps it should be placed between "edit" and "history"? ...Has a bugzilla ticket been filed for this change, or should I start writing one up? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would hope not. It's totally reasonable to encourage whomever to readily make edits to try to improve image descriptions, but improving particular images (as against simply providing a different image which should be uploaded under a different name) is not at all a widespread skill. - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I do understand that anyone can take any file I have uploaded here and change it, add or delete parts of it, and then upload it again, that is what I accept when I add content here. But if the same person change my original file, and then upload it under the same name, then he/she has deleted my original file and I can not see how that can be acceptable.

In the case above user B uploded a better photo that "pushed away" the not so good photo by user A, still the original was gone, until some admin put it back. What if user B had uploaded some obscene photo that had degraded the various articles that used the original photo, still no problem with that? To repeat myself, I have of course no problem with user A uploading a new version of his own previously uploaded photo, or user B uploading a modified version of the previous photo, but under a different name, so the original is not "pushed away" (I use that expression as it seems more correct than delete). Ulflarsen (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not “pushed away”. All older versions are, in usual situations, visible in the file history section, and any user can revert to a previous instance of an image (or any file, really). In the case at hand, for copyright reasons (I think?) the intermediate file was expunged, but that is not the usual case. I advise you to click where it says "random file" and browse through typical file histories, in order to familiarize yourself with the process. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
There are also revert buttons next to the image that allow any user to revert to a previous version of an image, especially one that has been vandalized or overwritten, just like the common practice on Wikipedia of being able to undo any edit, vandalism or otherwise. You don't even have to download the file onto your local disk drive, you can take advantage of the MediaWiki software and revert directly. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I see an edit war there and it seems the picture you are talking about which was previously overwritten above your work. (?) Our policy is COM:OVERWRITE and our admin will interfere if noted a violation; but it is better you keep all of your files in your watch list and report it when a violation found (repeated revert war). (A file from a different copyright holder should not be uploaded over (unless the existing file is in PD) as it will infringe the license terms, mainly attribution requirement.) Jee 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Replacement uploads are allowed because there are many circumstances on Commons when a replacement makes sense, even for normal editors who are not administrators: see Commons:Overwriting existing files. Examples of routine replacements that happen often on Commons:
  • File:2014 Senate election map.svg (a user-created map) shows the incumbent senators in the November 2014 United Senate elections. Until November 2014, it will be changed each time a Senate seat become vacant or is filled by a temporary senator. (After November 2014, it won't be changed again unless someone notices a previous error.)
  • File:Cain mcc.jpg (a photo) was uploaded in 2011, but a higher-resolution source was found by a different user in 2014.
  • File:Watara supervision.jpg (an photo) had copyrighted material and would have been deleted entirely from Commons if it were not replaced. (This is an ugly compromise, but it sometimes happens.)
  • File:Illinois - outline map.svg (a user-created map) had missing borders added between counties and also received a slightly thicker border.
However, it is against Commons rules to replace a valid file with an entirely different work or with a version that removes other important things from the file. Replacements like that should have different filenames. An example:
  • File:Sid Caesar.jpg was cropped, but we don't know if the other person in the photo is famous, or someone may want the full photograph, so the original was restored.
If someone overwrites a version that would still remain useful, you are allowed to revert it: There is a "Revert" link next to each version of the file, which will restore the file to the version you clicked. In the reversion edit summary, I usually add a suggestion that the replacement can be uploaded under a new name, so that the user understands that the option is available. Also, if a user uploads an obscene or disruptive file over yours, treat it the same way as a disruptive edit on Wikipedia. (Revert it; say something nice if it is a good faith upload; or report it to administrators if it is hostile or persistent vandalism.) I hope this helps. --Closeapple (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong title and description in photo of Crete[edit]

About File:Isola di Chrissi - golfo di Mirabello.jpg: as far as my liitle knowledge about Crete goes, the description and the coordinates may be absolutely right, but in that case, the island is not Chrissi nor the sea is the Gulf of Mirabello. Chrissi is in the South coast of Crete, off Ierapetra, while the Gulf of Mirabello is on the North coast.

As the photo is used in several articles, all related with the South coast, it would be good that this situation is clarified. Thank's. --Stegop (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You'd probably be better off talking to Wikipedia for WikiProject Crete or somesuch group. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestion! I'll try to do that. --Stegop (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I've already renamed and replaced the picture. I'm convinced that the English and German descriptions are correct. It's not Chrysi, but the Gulf of Mirabella seen from Gournia. On Panoramio, you can find some more pictures of the location: [1], [2], [3]. --Sitacuisses (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --Stegop (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

February 21[edit]

A photo with CC and Copyright at the same time[edit]

Streisand Estate.jpg

I noticed that the photo Streisand Estate.jpg is uploaded to commons under a CC-BY-SA-3.0-license, but that the file description states: Copyright (C) 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, www.californiacoastline.org. I looked at the website and it says that the photo is copyrighted. There is a OTRS verification on the photo, so I guess the photo is no longer copyrighted.

  • If it is copyrighted, it means that all rights belongs to Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman and that no one can do any edits or remixes without permission from them.
  • If it is under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, anyone can share, remix and even sell the photo.

These are two very different licenses, and a photo can't have both. I put a {{Wrong license}}-template on the filepage with an explanation, but the template was removed by Denniss without any explanation. I put it back with the explanation "My edit was removed without explanation", but it was removed again by Hym411 with explanation "Valid OTRS, CC tag exist". When I removed the section saying the photo is copyrighted, I got a message saying I am vandalizing.

Is the photo copyrighted or not? -abbedabbdisk 12:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically all photo which is not in PD is copyrighted, so yes, this photo has copyright. But, with OTRS tag and CC tag, he granted a permission with CC BY SA 3.0. So, no need to remove © tag. That notice is probably attribution, so no furthur action is required, I think. —레비Revi 13:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The photo is multi-licensed; all rights reserved at that source, but CC BY-SA 3.0 here. Don't be confused by "Copyright (C) YYYY"; it can be used with any license. Jee 13:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I have been taught that Creative Commons is not Copyright, and copyrighted material is not allowed on Commons. Is that wrong? -abbedabbdisk 13:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
See http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-community/2014-January/008706.html and http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Marking_your_work_with_a_CC_license Jee 13:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Jkadavoor! I've been living a lie. -abbedabbdisk 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Using a Creative Commons licence is a way of exercising copyright. The concept that conflicts with free licence is "all rights reserved". Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Creative Commons is a method of taking a copyrighted work, and allowing its use, while maintaining certain fundamental rights. A CC-by license maintains the right to be attributed as the author of your work - which is one of the rights given by copyright - while giving others permission to use your copyrighted work freely, and without possibility of this permission being retracted. Licenses (including CC) are a way that copyright holders give some of their rights to others, they do not undo copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Basically, the default state of a copyrighted work is that you cannot use it without asking permission. A CC license is basically an announcement that there's no need to ask permission - it's been granted already, with certain limitations Attribution, share-alike, and - although not allowed on commons - Non-commercial-use-only are examples of the possible limitations people wanting to use CC can choose from. However, a CC-license is only possible if the person granting it has a copyright on the work already, since otherwise, they have no rights under copyright law that the CC-license can reserve for them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
w:All rights reserved is simply an old way to claim copyright. It was once required in the US and certain other countries under a copyright treaty signed between them, and while all signers have become Berne Convention signers, some people still use it as part of a copyright notice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What is happen with Cat-a-lot?[edit]

Hi at all. Every now and then Cat-a-lot does not work. The moment I give the order to move the files to the correct subcategory that appears on the right, he declares that it is not possible because "the following pages were skipped, because the old category could not be found". This is absurd. Cat-a-lot does not execute the movements because it denies the existence of the category of departure, where the files are located, and from which instead should leave. Why? Usually Cat-a-lot work for me, but then suddenly no longer works, then it works again after an hour, or maybe the next day. It's very boring. Because if I change my pc it is the same thing. What's going on? What crashes? It is just my problem, or Cat-a-lot is malfunctioning for all? Thanks for the answers, tips, solutions. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming you are trying to move from an existing category, I think this happens because the file has already been moved to another category and no longer is a member of the source category; if you are trying to move a file to more than one category, you should copy to the first, then move to the second. If you refresh the category view between Catalot runs, those images which have been moved no longer appear. I haven't had any problems with this, and hope that helps. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I know exactly how it works Cat-a-lot. If the files are moved, it is obvious that it do not accept again a move request, even if the pictures still appear. The fact is that the files are really in the category, and when Cat-a-lot goes crazy I can only move them individually using HotCat. It's a big waste of time. This evening it happens that Cat-a-lot works for copying; when I request to move 5 files (tree of this statue and two of this other statue) the tool moved me only the files of Apollo, not that of Artemis; for these last two files I must use HotCat. It's very strange! A mystery! --DenghiùComm (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe there was something odd about the syntax? I would suggest that the category might have been added by a template, but if that were the case I shouldn't think HotCat could do anything about it either ... —SamB (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe I have answered the question here... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If there are invisible characters put in the category name by FrescoBot, then I cannot do anything. But I look to the chronology of these files of Artemis, and I see that FrescoBot doesn't touch them. So the mystery still stay there. If it is a problem of cache (did I understand correctly TeleComNasSprVen?), I will try next time to clean it when Cat-a-lot will be crazy again, in the hope that after it will works correctly. Thank you very much at all for your answer! Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, FrescoBot is trying to remove the characters in order for Cat-a-lot to work. I contacted BasilicoFresco, the maintainer of FrescoBot, on the English Wikipedia and he's assured me he will restart the bot's jobs. Maybe later the bot will get around to removing the characters from the files. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I think what you have suggested doing, cleaning cache, definitely helps in this case. But I think Commons needs a more efficient way to solve this problem than relying on the bot, when the bot owner goes on WikiBreak. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

YES ! SO IT WORKS !!! Thank you so much TeleComNasSprVen ! When Cat-a-lot became crazy and doesn't ricognize the files, it's necessary to clean the cache. After it works. Fine! Wonderful! Thank you very much again ! Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Amendment to the Terms of Use[edit]

Hello all,

Please join a discussion about a proposed amendment to the Wikimedia Terms of Use regarding undisclosed paid editing and we encourage you to voice your thoughts there. Please translate this statement if you can, and we welcome you to translate the proposed amendment and introduction. Please see the discussion on Meta Wiki for more information. Thank you! Slaporte (WMF) 22:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

February 22[edit]

Should these categories be deleted?[edit]

All the following categories have misspelling errors of "Colombia": Adolescent girls in Columbia‎ (empty); Huts in Columbia‎ (empty); Massacres in Columbia‎ (empty); People of Columbia‎ (empty); People of Columbia by occupation‎ (empty); Sports in Columbia‎ (empty); Sportspeople from Columbia‎ (empty); Volleyball in Columbia‎ (empty); Women of Columbia‎ (empty); Young women in Columbia‎ (empty). They are already redirected to the correct ones. Should be deleted? --JotaCartas (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If they are redirected and empty, then why do anything with them? It will direct users who type in the wrong spelling to the correct category. — Huntster (t @ c) 10:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Rename a category suggest discouraging the use of category redirects, but in this case this is not a typo and "Colombia" is just as much a valid word as "Columbia" is; that is, they are synonyms. Therefore, these should remain as redirects. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Remember: use rename only for different name of the same subject, or for the translation of the category name in another language, not for bad names or mistakes! Bad names or mistakes have only to be deleted! This is the rule. --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC),
See above: but in this case this is not a typo and "Colombia" is just as much a valid word as "Columbia" is; that is, they are synonyms --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
When they are synonims, then is important to uniform the language and to decide which word must be used. It's important that there is coherence and consistency in the categories. Recently it was made order e.g. in all cats about "jewelry" and "jewellery". --DenghiùComm (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
TeleComNasSprVen, I think you're misreading Commons:Rename a category. It only encourages deleting the old category when it is a typo or the user is correcting their own mistake. It specifically encourages using {{category redirect}} for synonyms, translations, plausible search terms, etc. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
@Huntster: How is that a misreading? "this is not a typo...they are synonyms...[t]herefore, these should remain as redirects" Synonyms are redirected through {{category redirect}} while typos are deleted through {{badname}}. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
TeleComNasSprVen: Sorry, I was referring to the "suggest discouraging the use of category redirects" part. I see nothing on that page that indicates such. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, It looks to me that the + opinions is: categories should stay. Thank you --JotaCartas (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Posture of WMF Board of Trustees about deletions by the URAA[edit]

WMF BoT reply regarding to Wikimedia Israel and Wikimedia Spain letters about URAA

Original link: m:Talk:Wikimedia Israel/Letter to the BoT regarding URAA#Response from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees (permalink)

Response from Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees[edit]

Thank you for efforts in improving and expanding Wikimedia Commons. The URAA is a frustrating issue for the community. We agree that we should oppose, when possible, laws that interfere with our mission to distribute the same free knowledge to everyone in all countries.
URAA opposition
The WMF does not support the URAA. We have sought to overturn the pertinent provision of the URAA when it was challenged before the US Supreme Court. We filed an amicus brief, along with the EFF and many other organizations, recommending such an overturn. But, unfortunately, the decision in that case was unfavorable. The community is free to explore organizing a protest, as it did with SOPA/PIPA, and there may be ways that we could make the negative impact of URAA more visible to readers. However, the law seems unlikely to change in the near future.
Deletion of content
The WMF does not plan to remove any content unless it has actual knowledge of infringement or receives a valid DMCA takedown notice. To date, no such notice has been received under the URAA. We are not recommending that community members undertake mass deletion of existing content on URAA grounds, without such actual knowledge of infringement or takedown notices.
Hosting servers in other countries
There are advantages in locating our servers in the United States, including protection of freedom of expression. There are also unfortunate constraints such as the URAA. Last year, the WMF legal team published a detailed analysis of the implications of the law, with guidance for editors. The team has also done considerable research about the possibility of moving our current servers or establishing additional servers in other jurisdictions to support hosting this sort of content. Unfortunately, they have not found a tenable option for a number of reasons. We have confidence in their research and advice.
As a follow-up to this note, the legal team has volunteered to publish a short statement within about a week explaining some of the challenges in the establishment of servers outside of the U.S. and some alternative considerations.

Jan-Bart de Vreede
Chair Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees
13:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

--

Regards, --Alan (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Alan: does that mean we can restore some of the highly historic images that were deleted even after very strong opposition such as this? The community made it very clear that they wanted to keep the picture, unfortunately it was deleted anyway. --CyberXRef☎ 00:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@CyberXRef: See Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Massive_restoration_of_deleted_images_by_the_URAA. Cheers, Alan (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! --CyberXRef☎ 00:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually have another question regarding the use of {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}; people have been tagging many of the PD-Israel photos with that tag all over the place (File:IDF Paratroopers 1956.jpg, File:Israel 2nd government.jpg, File:The first meeting of the Israeli 3rd government.jpg, File:The fourth Israeli government.jpg, et al..). Are these photos tagged correctly? Do we still not accept such photos (even when we have no reason to believe they are not in PD?). --CyberXRef☎ 01:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Resurrecting an older version[edit]

Our file File:Soho - map 1.png was replaced in January 2013 by a much larger version. The new version is extremely different to the previous version, which is actually much more convenient in size for use on a Wiki. In cases such as this, is there a convenient way of splitting off the previous version under a different filename? --Ross Burgess (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Nothing automated that I'm aware of, but it would be easy enough to download the new version, re-upload it under a different name, then revert this one to the old image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The {{Split}} template can be used to request this... AnonMoos (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

February 23[edit]

Valenciennes City and region[edit]

The public transport network extends far beyond city limits and only be described as a regional transport network. (see transville network). There are mass uploads of tram and tramworks images, that will have to be classified per commune. Nearly all images have geolocation information and the borders are visible on the openstreet maps, so classification by commune is easy and has been partialy done in (streets of ..) and (Trams of Valenciennes (xxx)) categories. That is why I asked for a rename of Category:Trams in Valenciennes. As the city of Valenciennes is really dominant city in the region a "Trams in Lille, Roubaix and Tourcoing" solution is not really posible. The buses of Transville are also regional.

This monday (24 febr) the second line wil be running. Transville has decided to rename tramlines A and B into T1 and T2. Temporarely only one branche of the T2 wil be open and the T2 line will have the same southeast terminus as T1. Updating and drawing new maps would be appreciated.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


Gulf Oil[edit]

I noticed a particular series of key rings are mentioned in this article. Can I upload a picture of such a key ring? It dates from the 1960s. I get the message on copyrighted CD-covers, but this was a promotional item for a discontinued product. -- User:Btns (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Partial answer: being a promotional for a discontinued product would have nothing to do with copyright status. Assuming this is U.S., copyright status of something from the 1960s, it would remain copyrighted if it ever had been, unless rights were explicitly released. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Btns -- Photographs of purely utilitarian objects do not create copyright problems (at least under United States law), so a photograph of a generic keyring would not be a problem, but if the interest of the object is in some copyrightable decorative design, then it's not necessarily purely utilitarian anymore... AnonMoos (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Localisation of sitenotice message[edit]

I've placed a request for localisation of a sitenotice message about POTY 2013 Round 2 to czech language. Please, have a look and put the translation in the message, thanks.

Sincerely, Polda18 Polda18 (talk) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Series of copyvios[edit]

Dear all,
Can an admin stop Tunis tunis (talk · contribs)? He uploaded a lot of pictures and all those I looked at until now are copyvios taken on the web. I strongly suspect all of his uploads to be the same. Moumou82 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong title[edit]

I have a simple question: my picture named "File:Trafalgar Square in 1974.jpg" is really: "File:Piccadilly Circus in 1974.jpg".How do I go about renaming it? Thanks in advance K.Oppolzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Oppolzer (talk • contribs)

  • Done. For the future, you can just use the {{rename}} template for uncontroversial name changes. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new problems[edit]

  • HotCat doesn't seen to be working in the MonoBook skin.
  • I can't dismiss the PotY announcement at the top of the page. Pushing the button does nothing.
  • Also, why were the tabs removed from Preferences in favor of one very long page?

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Umm... Never mind, I purged and rebooted and things seem to be working. Sorry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • If the tabs at Special:Preferences did not show as tabs, some MediaWiki developer or server outage was responsible for that because no scripts by Commons (site) are loaded at this page. -- Rillke(q?) 08:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

February 24[edit]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - DMCA takedown for File:AircraftBK.png[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here. 

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#DMCA takedown for File:AircraftBK.png. Thank you! Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Flipping images[edit]

Car №16, not №∂꜓…

I come across File:Cable cars (1).jpg, which is horizontally flipped. While overwriting it with a corrected version is probably uncontroversial, I take the opportunity to ask whether is there streamlined process to mark and correct such images. (Although a rare situation in digital photography, this is all too common when dealing with positive film prints.) I’d expect this to be a possible lossless JPG transformation, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A related discussion at FPC Talk too. :) Jee 08:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Fixed it with lossless program... AnonMoos (talk) 13:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

CC-IGO licenses[edit]

Hello all. There now exist CC-IGO BY 3.0 and CC-IGO BY/SA 3.0 licenses. How would an intergovernmental organization upload to commons a media file under this license. Is it possible? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that whoever wants to upload something with that license could mention it clearly on the description page and create a Wikimedia Commons template for it, just like there are templates for CC licenses such as Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-nz, etc., on the same model. It's probably not likely that Commons would be the first place where an intergovernmental organization would directly upload its material itself, although it's welcome to do so if it wants to. It's probably more likely that a non-IGO user will upload to Commons a copy of the material from the organization's website or even that a non-IGO user will upload its own work under that license just for the sake of using it. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess someone wants to create some templates for that. {{Cc-by-3.0-igo}} [4], {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}} [5]. -- Rillke(q?) 08:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
gerrit:115597 -- Rillke(q?) 11:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 25[edit]

502 errors[edit]

An error saying "502 Bad Gateway" has begun to appear sometimes when I try to view or edit pages. Rybec (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting! According to the #wikimedia-operations IRC channel, there have been various intermittent 5xx errors with the Varnish servers, and this is being investigated. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
For the records: Error graphs can be found here. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I also had this problem in es: and I was wandering me if was my PC. --Ganímedes (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Authorschip after death[edit]

I do have a problem with authors producing work after their death. example: File:Baedeker Pisa.jpg. Is there someway to make a clear distinction between personal and company work? (PD 70 years after publication in Europe). I have added the mapmaker.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If K.B. had nothing to do with the creation of an older version of this work, he should not be stated as an author. The description page should state clearly who the creators are and what country's law is invoked. 70 years after publication can apply when the identity of the creators is unknown. If the identity of the creators is known, in many countries the copyright is 70 years after death, irrespective of who owns the copyright. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It always comes back to this legal idea that there is always a single person or group of individual persons atributable for copyright. This is nonsense with dictonaries, maps, travelguides, etc, wich are created in a group proces. Take the case of mapmaking. There is a whole proces of gathering the geografic information, precise location, streetnames etc. In the end there is nothing creative in processing the information into a map. If another group of people uses the same processes en procedures the result wil be the same, except for human errors. What is creative is the proces itself, the symbols used, colours, layout etc. That is what is instanly recognisable in a Michelin map, not subject the area. In other collective works such as newspapers, there is no clarity what part a journalist has written and the later changes by the editor and other staff. Unless it is specificaly signed by an author, it is collective work. Wikipedia foundation lawyers should provide clarity and guidance in this.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

February 26[edit]

Flickr review help[edit]

I cropped this image from a free-licensed image on Flickr, licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0, but the bot didn't recognize the cropped version.

Could another flickr-reviewer help out and review this image please?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

GFDL-1.2 + CC BY-NC-ND[edit]

I recently came across the following picture File:Dominostein edelherb.jpg which is licensed under GFDL-1.2 as well as CC BY-NC-ND. Is this acceptable? considering GFDL licensed photos can be used commercially. --CyberXRef☎ 06:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is acceptable. See Commons:Multi-licensing. MKFI (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Overwritten image[edit]

File:Russian Empire-1898-Bill-1-Obverse.jpg represents the obverse of a banknote of a ruble (1898), but was overwritten with an image of the back (not the same). Is there any way to separate the images and keep the history or should I download it and upload it again? I propose to call File:Russian Empire-1898-Bill-1-Back.jpg. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems there are already 2 files containing this image, see Category:1 ruble. --Túrelio (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right, thank you very much. Now I have another question, if the Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR but not of the Russian Empire, what license corresponds to these files? {{PD-old-100}}? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 08:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-RusEmpire}} MKFI (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Why? --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 09:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-old-100}} would apply if the author died more than 100 years ago. The file does not name the author, so we don't know if this is the case. In my opinion PD-RusEmpire would seem the likeliest choice. If bank notes did not receive copyright protection (as {{PD-RU-exempt}}) then PD-ineligible could be used. You can ask more help from Commons:Village pump/Copyright. MKFI (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
{{PD-RU-exempt}} may not be acceptable for the works of the Russian Empire are not governed by the laws of the Russian Federation. In this case it is not known the author of the work, I think it is an anonymous work. I ask where you said, thank you very much. --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 20:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Mobile usability (or lack thereof)[edit]

I visit it from a phone which is not an Android and is not an iPhone. (It is a Firefox OS phone). The homepage has no upload link.

The sidebar does link to my uploads, but when I try to upload an image there, enter a description, and press the big fat green tick, it spins for a very little time (1 second) and it returns to the uploads screen, with no actual upload or error message. (I later realized that the file is corrupt on the filesystem itself, but an error message would have been nice.)

—Gryllida 10:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you refer to the MobileFrontend at https://commons.m.wikimedia.org ? That page has an "Uploads" link in the dropdown. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
when i tested mobile frontend uploader with a non-allowed file format (making an invalid file from my phone seemed difficult. Maybe ill test from desktop later) it just went back a page with no warning, no explanation, which doesnt seem right. I suppose bugs should be filed. Imho the mobile web upload is probably not a very good choice for uploading media to commons as it doesn't let you specify license, or author which is pretty key functionality. Bawolff (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Language templates[edit]

I recently had the problem, that multiple translations of file descriptions on a gallery page quickly look absurd when using template:en, template:de, a.s.o. When I searched for a solution in the help pages, the thing proposed on Commons:Language templates is the one I used and that creates that problem, since having the multiple language versions each in a separate template can't produce an element around all of them with the class="multilingual" that would be necessary in order for the language select gadget to work. I soon found the template:mld that solves this and is used on several featured images. Now I guess our help pages need some improvement here - and maybe constructions using template:en, template:de, a.s.o should be updated to use template:mld, template:LangSelect or similar. Do people agree here? or why not?--Scanmap (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The language select also works if multiple of these language templates ({{en}}, {{de}}) are listed consecutively. Just if some invalid HTML is produced, it may behave weird. {{LangSwitch}} has the disadvantage that the text in languages other than English (which is the content language of Commons) is usually not indexed. If a gallery should be translated, I think the best way doing so now is using the translate extension. -- Rillke(q?) 16:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I usually try to stay away from template:mld. I do not understand what it does or tries to do, but I notices that when used with images it was hiding descriptions in some languages. The issue was that it was hiding some of the English (my default) descriptions as well. --Jarekt (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Mld has nearly the same output compared to using single language templates ({{en}}, {{de}}), except that it has a wrapper <div class="multilingual" consequently grouping the translations together. However, it should be updated to use Lua, iterating over all arguments instead of these if-constructions. -- Rillke(q?) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Mld template triggers some javascript which hides some parts of the description. I spend a lot of time at some point trying to figure out why some text I added would not show up in the file description. I think it is related to meta:Meta:Language select because I moticed that adding "ls_enable = false;" to User:Jarekt/common.js fixed the problems. --Jarekt (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
This is MediaWiki:Gadget-LanguageSelect.js, indeed. Language templates ({{en}}, {{de}}) are folded if there are 4 of them listed consecutively (langCountThreshold: 4), {{mld}}-folding happens immediately. If you want to disable this gadget, just do it in your preferences. Don't put anything into your common.js -- Rillke(q?) 17:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I never noticed it in preferences and was following instructions on meta. --Jarekt (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 27[edit]

Strange behaviour of information template (with creator template)[edit]

File:Otterswang Dorfbrunnen.jpg has the following authorship entry:

|Author      = 
*Sculpture: {{Creator:Toni Schneider-Manzell}}
*Photo: Andreas Praefcke

This used to work perfectly, as intended: a bulleted list of two entries, with the creator template. Now (don't know how long ago), the second entry appears not in the author field anymore, but _above_ the whole information template. Hence authorship information is not readily available anymore where it belongs. Without the list syntax or without the creator template, everything works fine. Whoever introduced that bug wherever, please fix it ASAP. Formatting author fields like this is not at all uncommon in the Commons. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

When you exchange both *-entries, thereby moving the creator-template-containing entry to the second position, both are correctly displayed. Of course, that doesn't solve the underlying problem. --Túrelio (talk) 08:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
@AndreasPraefcke: One cannot put templates like {{Creator:Toni Schneider-Manzell}} that contain line breaks in a mw-list (*#) – knowing that any line break will signal the end of the list, if not followed by a new list item – and expect anything good because this will create a parser output like:
...
<tr style="vertical-align: top">
<td id="fileinfotpl_aut" class="fileinfo-paramfield">Author</td>
<td>
<ul>
<li>Sculpture: <div class="vcard">
</li>
</ul>
<table class="toccolours collapsible" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="direction:ltr; text-align:left; border-collapse:collapse; background:#f0f0ff; border:1px solid #aaa;">
...
It's easily spotted that this is invalid HTML and HTMLTidy, which runs after the parser will do its best to transform it into valid HTML, moving stuff around.
There are 2 possible solutions:
  • Amending {{Creator}} not to output new lines, e.g. using comments to have some visual separation
  • Using HTML directly:
    <ul>
    <li>Sculpture: {{Creator:Toni Schneider-Manzell}}</li>
    <li>Photo: Andreas Praefcke</li>
    </ul>
Kind regards -- Rillke(q?) 09:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Be that as it may be, but it used to work, and now it doesn't. Plus, the Wiki Markup is perfectly all right and valid, only the parsing seems to make a mess out of it. "any line break will signal the end of the list, if not followed by a new list item" - well, then the new list item should begin a new list, but not appear at a random place. --AndreasPraefcke (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Mmhhh, the second part of the output seems to be even more interesting:
</table>
</div>
<ul>
<li> Photo: Andreas Praefcke</td>
</li>
</ul>
</tr>
Note the closing </td> tag just after Andreas Praefcke. This one will be certainly responsible for moving the second li out ouf the whole table. Anyone an idea why the parser does not close the second <li> before? (For reproducing, put the contents of this version into Special:ExpandTemplates and tick the checkbox for raw HTML output. -- Rillke(q?) 10:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Has the issue been fixed? "File:Otterswang Dorfbrunnen.jpg" looks fine to me (viewed using Mozilla Firefox 27.0.1). — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it hasn't: Special:Permalink/59863631 -- Rillke(q?) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
We had this issue for years. Not mixing bullets with creator templates usually fixes it (text like "Sculpture: {{Creator:Toni Schneider-Manzell}}Photo: Andreas Praefcke"). Template:Artwork/testcases (created 3 year ago) has a few more scenarios that really break the templates. I never figured out how to fix it. --Jarekt (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

February 28[edit]

Retrieved from "http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=117600447"