Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Water pump in the village of Jestřebice, Czech Republic. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) 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

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

Oldies

swiftday updates

Section break

Fun update: I programmed into the font the ability to insert old style figures into your documents even if the app you’re working in doesn’t support opentype, a possible fix for bugs like [1] on the font side. It’s on github now. Encapsulate figures you want to display that way with <onum></onum> tags, and the font will switch number styles without touching the underlying text data. To prevent unexpected behavior it also encourages you to type the closing </onum> tag. I suppose this could be extended to small capitals and superscripts—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong: @Rillke: FYI, with the appropriate install and a bit of CSS, it's perfectly possible to read Wikipedia with this right now (... and it looks quite nice). See this screenshot. Just add body { font-family: "SWIFTDAY3"; } to your common.css after installing. Personally, I detest the 'typography refresh' fonts... doing this doesn't keep the 'fallback' for things like Hangul or Korean text from working, though it ofc has no effect on the rendering of math. Now you need to make a sans display font for it so section headers aren't still ugly. :P Revent (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am indeed using it here at Commons since March, 16 for content texts but keeping navigational elements in sans-serif - it works very well for that and when I switch to another project I am usually missing it. Time to add it to my global CSS comes soon. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Aww thank you sm for saying that! @Revent & @Rillke! && @Revent wow your wikipedia text is quite small, and I am surprised at how well my font is holding up at that size! I just need someone to see how it looks on mac/windows bc I am designing on Linux rn too… BTW if ur using the font locally, make sure you are updating from the Github repository every now and then bc I am improving the font almost daily :) . && also I really should think up a real name for the font before everyone starts calling it “SWIFTDAY3” lol—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I'm using Windows XP (SP3) and I can't use any Swiftday fonts downloaded from github... Windows Font installation says your (Swiftday3) otf files are damaged. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.)

@Kelvinsong: I'll give it a try on the iMac tomorrow, and give you another screenie of how it looks there. Revent (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another update—I added small capitals to the regular style of the font. Those without opentype apps can access them with “<sc></sc>” they’re on github now!—♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Windows 7 screen shot

@Kelvinsong: : I realized that I should download the zip instead of "downloading" each file individually from your GitHub folder (never heard of this site) which doesn't work. But now I look at Swiftday3 in Windows Notepad and Wordpad, the same evenodd fill glitch (the previously reported capital A) pops up below 74 px font size. Regular: 4, 6, 8, 9, e, g, x, z (< all lower case); italic: 4, 6, 8, 9, A, H (<all capitals), f, t, x (< all lower case). All these glyphs appear normal at 75 px and onwards. When I make a sample SVG and load it in Firefox, the threshold of the evenodd fill glitch appears below 100 px. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 10:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That’s cos of overlapping contours in multistroke letters like X. released fonts should not have these overlaps but I keep them there because they are required for editing. Not sure how to fix that rn bc fontforge doesn’t have a good way to fuse strokes before export to otf—♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Sameboat - 同舟 I relegated the overlaps to background layers please download and test again :) —♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Regular "8" is still glitchy. Also all English glyphs clump together weirdly... -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Sameboat - 同舟 Strange. Looks like Windows is misinterpreting kerning pairs or something. U tried it with ur system language set to English? It is a latin font after all && maybe ur computer is trying to typset vertically or something—♥ Kelvinsong talk 20:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

&& also I fixed the 8—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such issue with other English fonts like Arial and Times. And the options below is "western characters" which is the usual value for Latin glyphs. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 I think I fixed it try again w the newest commit <3 —♥ Kelvinsong talk 14:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Thanks. It works, but the line-height bugs me which is much smaller with other (English) fonts. In my Win7 screenshot, there is no empty line between the alphabets and numbers. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 The big line spacing is because of a large square root glyph (like √ but BIGGER) that lives in the font; it’s compensated for in the linux & mac font by the HHEAD field which cancels out the giant radical but I forgot to do the same for the windows font. I fixed it but for some reason Github is down rn :// —♥ Kelvinsong talk 18:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okayy it’s up now—♥ Kelvinsong talk 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Kelvinsong: Looks good now :) -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 22:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Yay! font’s getting closer to release now :) —♥ Kelvinsong talk 02:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kelvinsong I applaud your work, but viewing the PDF above I'm having some disappointment on Windows 8.1 (either browser pdf viewer or standalone) because in many places where two lines cross, there's a white spot as if they cancel out. For example, of the three 4's, only the top one has a black crossover point - the lower two have a white rectangle at the crossover. Other examples are the u with a line through the middle, the yen sign (only the top crossbar of the two), the estzet, some of the A variants, the oe ligature, etc. ... there are a lot of them; this isn't an exhaustive list. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Wnt—oh, this was fixed a little while ago, I just forgot to rerender the pdf. Try again—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Kelvinsong Now it looks OK up to ɕ, but from there on it still has the same problems. There's a tiny glitch in ɘ , maybe in ə it's hard for me to say, definitely in ɚ ɟ ɣ ɤ ... etc. Wnt (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol that pdf is always a bit behind the actual font. Uploaded a rerendered version—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Section break 2

@User:Kelvinsong: I love old-style figures and want to use it in any given chance (visible if you have installed Swiftday or Adobe Garamond Pro:  which are the equivalences of figures of Georgia: 0123456789). My issue is assigning them to Japanese kana is uninviting for open usage because other participants without the said font(s) will only see tofu. I would rather have a variant of Swiftday so the old-style figures use the usual figure code points. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 03:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: After little online search, I found that the onum can be called out in this manner in Wiki and SVG: <span style="font-family:Swiftday3,Adobe Garamond Pro,serif;font-variant:small-caps">0123456789</span>(0123456789). Sadly, "font-variant" attribute seemingly isn't supported by librsvg. So even if Wikimedia has Swiftday3 installed on the server, the old-style figures aren't gonna be used for rendering SVG into PNG without typing the corresponding Japanese kana. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 It’s not assigned to Japanese kana; they live in the Private use area, the same place Adobe puts their old style numerals and small caps and swashes, etc. If those code points display Japanese kana then a font you have installed is invading that bloc with kana that shouldn’t be there. && yes u can invoke old style numerals with font-feature-settings or font-variant, or a million other hacks but those rarely work consistently which is why I included in the font portable compositors that let you type “<onum>123</onum>” and “<sc>abc</sc>” to get old style numerals and small caps.

PS svg text should always be rendered through an outlined “display” layer—unless they radically improve the renderer, I recommend text-to-paths with the text itself in an invisible text layer—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is similar mechanism of SVG which allows you to highlight-select the text-to-path object like actually selecting the raw text in PDF. But even so, I would normally not convert text to path in my SVG files due to file size it bloats. Not even the font style could justify this practice in my book. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sameboat - 同舟 You cannot highlight in SVG at all? && letting the text be as SVG text might work for very simple files but rendering problems increase with file complexity—displaying outlines is the only safe way—♥ Kelvinsong talk 00:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@User:Kelvinsong: I mean I don't know how exactly this can be done in SVG. A simple code example will be appreciated. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

File:West Antarctic ice sheet.svg has something like that—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that you set display:none for the raw text, but this way the hidden text cannot be selected nor searched manually without accessing the source code. I have a workaround that we use fill-opacity:0;stroke-opacity:0 to hide the text because that way the invisible raw text can still be clicked and selected manually. opacity:0 will make the highlight invisible as well, it is still searchable but reader might misunderstand that the raw text doesn't exist in the SVG just like display:none does. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Gotcha; I’ll do that in the future, but there’s no way I gonna go through fifty images and reorganize the text layers—♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Font stacks

As an overview, for which font stacks there are which open source alternatives I've created en:User:Kopiersperre/Metric aliases. Could you take a look on it?--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how I can help with that but lol “Wikiserif” 😂 . Also you mixed up Avant garde and cambria && Deja Vu is much more similar to Verdana than Open sans, Frutiger, or even Droid —♥ Kelvinsong talk 22:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Call for IPA testers

I just finished the IPA bloc in the regular, (which is probably going to be the last addition for the 1.0), it’d be great if people who use this stuff often would download and test it out! Also name suggestions would be great lol, and the fonts have finally been cleared of warnings and errors—♥ Kelvinsong talk 23:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC) @Sameboat - 同舟, Kaldari, Rillke, TheDJ, User:El Grafo, Quiddity, User:Vibhabamba, Wnt, Kopiersperre, Revent

Re: IPA - (Note: I'm barely familiar with IPA; this is just a glance check). The "Velar Nasal n" and "Retroflex Nasal n" are currently identical. https://i.imgur.com/Im3AVwu.png - The nasalized vowels appear to have a macron instead of a tilde. https://i.imgur.com/OAMAMNK.png BUT, that fixes itself if I zoom-in.

Re: Size/Serif - Is a Sans version planned? Or should I be adding something else to my user.css to compensate, when using a serif as a body font? Compare my default sans-serif (left), and Times (right) - http://i.imgur.com/rulfpn9.png

Hope that helps. :) Quiddity (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Quiddity Oh shit 🙊 lol fixed it now. But the nasalized vowels do have tildes, it’s just at small sizes the wiggles are so small that they all fit into one row of pixels making them look like macrons. Almost every font ik does that; the Neue Frutiger I read commons in flattens tildes to macrons as well. I did however add anchor points to all the vowels which should greatly improve accent alignment. Also I do want to make a sans font but I want to finish this one first

PS Please download the other styles of the font! All that faux italic and faux bold is gross loll —♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

March 16

Buddhist art from/of Tibet

Hi, I'd like some input about these categories, and their subcategories. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Buddhist art of Tibet contains Category:Thangka from Tibet, but there is also Category:Mandala thangka from Tibet‎. All these seem not very logical... Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In art categories of Italy we have this system, that for works of art that were created or found in Italy and are still located there we use "Category:Art in Italy"; for works of art that were created or found in Italy but now are preserved elsewhere we use "Category:Art from Italy" instead. The mother-cat is "Category:Art of Italy" that contains the two cats in / from, and then all other cats that have not a more accurate positioning (e.g. Coins, Artists, Italy in art, Music, Literature, etc.). I don't know if for Tibet there is a similar need to distinguish Tibetan art inside the country and Tibetan art located in other countries of the world (museums, collections, etc.). --DenghiùComm (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have more opinions here. Personally I think it doesn't matter much where is located the work of art. This is a secondary criteria, compared with content, style, age, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps for a little county / country like Tibet (or other little countries) it doesn't really make much sense. Perhaps the correct name for this category may by "of Tibet". But for countries that produced a lot of art (like China, Egypt, Greece, Italy, etc.) it is absolutely necessary this distinction. Why to say "from Egypt" when it is 'in Egypt? Or why to say "in Egypt" if it is in the United States or in France? To apply this scheme (in / from) shows also how some countries were looted of their works of art over the centuries. This is my opinion. --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, right. Tibet is not really a destination available to tourists right now, and there are very few museums there to display its art. So most of Tibetan art available on Commons (and elsewhere) is not currently in Tibet. This is very different than countries like Italy, Greece, or Egypt. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

First concrete bridge and Budapest metro line 1

depicts a footbridge over an metro line. My guide told me this was the first bridge build with concrete in the world. This metroline construction was finished in 1896. Could a date be found for the bridge. On the en:Line 1 (Budapest Metro) I could not find any mention of the new aligment (straither line and underground) by the renovation in the 1970s?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I also uploaded an excursion with the old metro car: File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 01.JPG to File:Museum metro line 1 Budapest 04.JPG.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Smiley.toerist It appears as though the Alvord Lake Bridge predates it by a few years, and that does not include Roman viaducts and infrastructure in that equation, as they also were made from concrete. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 25

Category suggestions, please

How to categorise

Suggestions, please, on a set of categories for images like those shown here. Something like:

• Category:Objects with removed background (white)
• Category:Objects on with a neutral white background

and the same for black backgrounds, then a set of subcategoies, like, Coins on..., Buttons on..., etc.

I want to exclude images of objects on white tablecloths, etc. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

How about discs for the first? It already contains all kinds of coins among others, therefore it doesn't help for your second example, but maybe you could create a new sub-category of discsI missed your point background, sorry. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

What would be the benefit of these categories? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Classifying hot steel transport

I cant seem to find an adapted category for this kind of rail transport.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried a few categories, none particularly relevant. It is incomplete, but sooner or later it will be improved. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So create one. They're obscure (but notable) so we probably don't have one as yet. I think they're generally called "torpedo ladles". The ones shaped like buckets are generally different as they're "slag ladles" for waste.

BTW, it's unusual, but they have at times been used for long distances along main lines. [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Already here at Category:Torpedo wagons Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Cabaret vs. Vaudeville vs. Music hall

Hi, I am surprised that there is no en:Category:Music hall performers or en:Category:Vaudeville performers or en:Category:Cabaret performers here. But what is the right name for artist like Mistinguett? Thanks for your input. Yann (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Categories can be created here just like they are created on Wikipedia. If we are missing a useful categorization by profession, please feel free to add it. BD2412 T 19:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

But what is the right name? Yann (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

en-wiki already has her in en:Category:Cabaret singers, which seems to me to be on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The point here is that these artists are more than singers. Most of them are also dancers. So I think that the word "performers" includes both, but we don't have that category here. On the English WP, it seems that artists from UK are in the Music hall category, while artists from the US are in the Vaudeville one. Now where should put French artists? ;o) Regards, Yann (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Be en:WP:BOLD, just create a new category and link it into the tree. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Unifying emojis filenames

Hi! There are four different sets of emojis uploaded on Commons, each with its own naming scheme. I believe it would be good to rename them all so that the names are consistent across the different sets (and futures freely licensed sets that will appear one day!).

Here’s an instance of how the four styles of the smiling face emoji are named today:

U+263A

Emoji u263a.svg

Twemoji 263a.svg

Emojione 263A.svg

PEO-white smiling face.svg

And here are some proposed new names using the system Emoji <Name of the set> <uppercase Unicode number>.svg:

U+263A

Emoji Noto 263A.svg

Emoji Twitter 263A.svg

Emoji One 263A.svg

Emoji Phantom 263A.svg

More about this on Talk:Emoji.

How can this happen? Are there tools for massive renaming following some pattern, or should a bot be programmed for this? What’s your advice for situations like this?

(Beyond the archiving peace of mind reason for this, one of the practical use of uniform names for these is making templates displaying emojis in any style with a Unicode number variable.)

Thank you, ~ nicolas (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

April 01

Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0 designations

Since its first release on Flickr last month, this public domain 1900s photo of a Hualapai Indian school is the most popular image in the experimental mirror, having enjoyed 3,150 views by the public. This compares to a couple of hundred views in 15 months on Commons. At the current time, it is not reused on any other Wikimedia projects.

and its not an April Fools joke as it is from March 30th: http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/03/30/flickr-now-offers-public-domain-and-cc0-designations/ The SpaceX images for example have been released as Public Domain on Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/spacexphotos/ . Amada44  ^{talk to me} 10:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As part of my on-going Commons→Flickr mirroring experiment, I am in the process of swapping the previous best default of CC-BY over to Public Domain, using the Flickr API (70,000 images compared to SpaceX's 105). You can search any flickrstream for Public Domain images, though the Flickr website does not make this obvious. The Organizr feature has yet to make license a filtering criteria, so batch license changes to 3,000+ images are hard to sort out (Organizr appears to consistently fail) unless you can set up a special tool or programme to do it for you, or spend your time changing licenses manually in screen-sized batches.

If you want to search for PD images, try editing the URL for this search (the Flickr drop-down says "Any License" but ignore it as misleading):

• https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Wikimedia&sort=interestingness-desc&license=9,10

The new licenses are set up within Flickr as:

• license id="9" name="Public Domain Dedication (CC0)" url="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/"
• license id="10" name="Public Domain Mark" url="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"

The license id is what the Flickr API relies on. --Fæ (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Very nice. An additional trick is to use "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Wikimedia&license=4,5,7,8,9,10" to maximize the number of freely licensed or license free returns, where "4" is CC Attribution, "5" is CC Attribution ShareAlike, "7" is no known copyright restrictions, "8" is United States government work, and as above, "9" is CC0 and "10" is Public Domain. In Firefox, I have this set as a search shortcut in bookmarks using "https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=%s&license=4,5,7,8,9,10", so I can type "flickr search term" and get results. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, the license parameter fails to do anything when using the standard Android Browser. This is probably because Flickr is behaving differently depending on your browser header. So, the above links should work in theory, but in practice YMMV until Flickr integrate the new PD license into their website. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good point. Android browser does tend to display and function dramatically differently than the standard desktop fare, which is why I made sure to mention that I was using Firefox. Hopefully Android catches up soon. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the search link @Fæ + Huntster, I didn't know that, and some of my "noscript" emulations with Chrome kill most Flickr features—I have to edit URLs to get to the download links "sizes" stuff from a given picture, and I get no gallery previews at all. But the search link works and yields a gallery. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I now find myself questioning my sanity - I could have sworn Flickr already had a PD option? Anyway, whatever - this announcement means a lot of our documentation now needs updating - start at COM:EIC#Flickr and work your way from there. Our tools also need to be updated - it appears Flinfo allows you to upload these images, but they are subsequently failing the automated Flickrreview [3]. Also, Flickr2Commons doesn't recognise them for the purposes of batch uploading, but you can upload them singly, presumably because it utilises Flickrinfo (which of course will also fail Flickreview). I've left a note at Commons:WikiProject Flickr#Current issues. I'm wondering if a banner noting the change at the top of Commons:Flickr files might also be in order, for the time being? Ultra7 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Be bold and stick a notice on it. Until the tools or wizards are updated, it looks like a point of confusion for many uploaders who rely on them. --Fæ (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The PD issue might be more complicated than out of date software - the Flickreview failed because it interpreted the Public Domain Mark 1.0 license used by the Flickr author as Copyright-Only Dedication or Public Domain Certification. It's not clear to me if that's a software error, or if it is meant to work that way. Does Commons support Public Domain Mark 1.0 or not? I'm not seeing which particular PD tag (except perhaps a pro-forma Template:PD-because) that fits that license. I'm assuming there's no similar issue for CC, since we already have Template:Cc-zero. Ultra7 (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped a note for Zhuyifei1999, operator of the FlickrReiview bot. Ultra7 (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Good move, these sorts of template changes need careful thinking through to get right. --Fæ (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't code it to support "Public Domain Mark" before having an exact template or a set of templates that match "Public Domain Mark". As for CC0,  Doing… --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I've opened Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images to get further input on the PD issue. As well as posting it to centralized discussion, I'll drop pointers on the talk pages of Commons:WikiProject Public Domain, Commons:PD files and Commons:Flickr files. Ultra7 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ammanudi Telugu magazine regarding.

Ammanudi is a monthly magazine published from Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. The editor of the magazine has agreed to release the magazine under CC-BY-SA license and to host it on commons. A unicode version of the magazine will be available on Telugu Wikisource as well.

The magazine editor will provide me with the pdf version a little later to the print edition (a lapse of 1 month)

The meta data page of magazine (Page 3) will contain CC-BY-SA 4.0 license mentioned.

Now, I have few doubts about this. The editor has the copyright for all the contents - articles, poems, stories (authored by various writers). The agreeement remains with the editor for all the authors. Should these be also part of the OTRS permissions mail?

How should I have OTRS team approve of these magazines, should a permission letter be sent for every issue, or a single document would do?

Given the fact that the editor is not well versed with using computer, and is comfortable with paper work than email conversations, what could be done from my side to ensure flawlessness in the process. Also, the magazine carries some advertisements which may not be part of the CC-BY-SA license, should I remove such pages?

For archives of the same magazine, that do not carry the CC-BY-SA license implicitly, will it be best to host all magazines on another website with CC-BY-SA license?

Please help. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

You could ask the copyright owner to write a letter, which you can then scan and send to OTRS. This letter should be on official letterhead from the publisher.

This letter needs the text shown at COM:CONSENT, with the list of the magazine issues covered by the license. I hope this help. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Linking from categories to en:WP?

Should text and interwiki links be added to the text of a Commons category page so as to link to en:WP?

NB - I'm not discussing the sidebar here, but links that will appear in the page body. In addition to the sidebar link.

It's my practice to add these, manually edited, of something between a sentence and a paragraph in length. Potentially several links, the primary one bolded. I'm aware there's a {{Mainw}} template but I never use this as it's a bit simplistic.

In rare cases, when there's no primary topic WP article to link to and the WP category is more meaningful (typically for collections of "Foos of Bar"), then I might instead link to the relevant WP category.

Is this wrong? Why?

If these links already exist, should they be removed?

Your thoughts please Andy Dingley (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You already know my opinion so I'm not going to !comment here, but I would like to remind you that there is a huge difference between Commonscat–WPcat and Commonscat–article links, largely but not only caused by the (IMO strange) way Wikidata treats Commonscats.    FDMS  4    21:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about Wikidata. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right though, this is about your repeated removal of such a link [4] [5] [6] as a "Commons-wide standard". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FDMS4, these links are redundant.--Oursana (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you say why?

Also there are many things where "I wouldn't bother to do that myself", but it's still some distance before "These should be removed as harmful". I can understand FDMS4's view that in their opinion they're unnecessary, but to edit-war and remove them three times, when another editor thinks they are worth having? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the links added by Andy Dingley, they are at least harmless. -- Geagea (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Aha, so you're accusing me of editwarring. This is not justified at all, what actually happened is the following:

1. You revert me without an explanation ( [1] ).
2. After one valid revert by each party I invite you to discuss on the talkpage.
3. You are not interested in discussing the dispute on the talkpage.

   FDMS  4    16:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 02

The "g x" Automatically Transfers to "ĝ"

• File:FlyingCow Farm, Tonĝiao, Miaoli.jpg
  File:FlyingCow Farm, Tonĝiao, Miaoli.jpg
• 
  File:FlyingCow Farm, Tongxiao, Miaoli.jpg

(As soon as User:Taiwania Justo or any other afflicted with “EoMagicalConversion” edits this page, these two image calls will be pointing to the inexisting File:FlyingCow Farm, Tonĝiao, Miaoli.jpg, due to automatic replacement of "gx" to "ĝ".) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

For example, [[:File:FlyingCow Farm, Ton"g x"iao, Miaoli.jpg]] has a "g x" words but it always transfers to "ĝ" when finishing editing. Please check and fix this bug, thanks! This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 02:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an issue with your particular computer. Is your system configured to use an input method? - dcljr (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Taiwania Justo: Try this. Go to Special:Preferences, click on "More Language Settings" under "Internationalization", go to the "Input Settings" tab, and ensure that "Use native keyboard" is selected. Hopefully that will fix it. Revent (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Under Preferences/Gadgets/Language Support, there's an option called EoMagicalConversion. Is that on?--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The bug.

@Dcljr: , @Revent: and @Prosfilaes: : It's not work, and I give the screenshot on my computer. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 15:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks very much like the gadget EoMagicalConversion at work — it doesn’t affect people who have it turned off.

I should say that I have been using Esperanto on a computer since 1987 (including a whole lot of x-sistemo, because it was the least-bad approach for many years) and this blind, behind-the-scenes autoconversion (*) makes my skin crawl. That’s in fact one of the two reasons why I barely contribute to w:eo (where it is on by default, for everybody); and of course we turned it off for http://vikio.esperanto.pt/. (* It is so blind and behind-the-scenes that even passwords are autoconverted!) -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Font in VP header

Commons:Village pump/Header, which is displayed at the top of this page, has been using Template:Portal-head2 to format the words "Welcome to the Village pump". For some strange reason, that template uses the style "font-family:Gill Sans, Futura, sans-serif; … font-stretch:condensed;". Also for some reason unknown to me, the Windows 8 computer I have to use at work to browse the web chooses some kind of "fantasy" font to render this text, making it damn-near unreadable. Being of the opinion that there's really no good reason to use a particular sans-serif font in the first place, I decided to boldly change the template to use the more conservative style "font-family:sans-serif" (ignore the "background" part of my edit summary: I was mistaken about that). Another editor reverted my change, noting that "people" (presumably users on their own user pages) are using that template "who want its output to look exactly like that". A debatable claim, but whatever. I have created the similar but font-wise more "conservative" Template:Headline and changed the header to use it (old version, new version). I trust no one will have a mental breakdown if I make similar changes on the other "public" (i.e., non-user) pages that are currently using the other template? - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. An overeager admin deleted the wrong template… - dcljr (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dcljr, you said above that you created Template:Headline, then you complained that it was deleted, yet the deletion log says «2015-04-02T10:36:13 Taivo (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Headline (Unused template: author's request on creation day)». What’s going on? (Pinging User:Taivo.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh… I created Template:Portal-headline, named by analogy with Template:Portal-head2, which I was intending the new template to (partially) replace. Since we don't use portals here (the original template was apparetly copied from the German Wikipedia several years ago), I decided to move the template to Template:Headline, which left a redirect at Template:Portal-headline. So, not thinking that this would become a huge hassle, I tagged the Template:Portal-headline redirect with the {{Speedydelete}} template. Only I didn't remove the "#REDIRECT" directive, so when User:Taivo came along to speedy delete it, he accidentally deleted the redirect's target, Template:Headline, instead of the page that was actually tagged for deletion. Then he deleted the then-broken-redirect Template:Portal-headline as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect"! I have asked Taivo to undelete Template:Headline, but he apparently hasn't seen that request yet. (Yes, I know I can just recreate the template, but it's the principle of the thing: it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, since not only was "author's request on creation day" not true of that particular template, it wasn't even "Unused" at the time!) - dcljr (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And now User:Taivo has disappeared. Can another admin undelete Template:Headline so I don't have to spend the time re-creating it? - dcljr (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done INeverCry 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, let's try this again: I've replaced {{Portal-head2}} in the header of this page with {{Headline}} (old, new). Is anyone offended by this? Any compelling reason not to do the same with the other similar "public" (non-userspace) pages that use the other template? (Obviously, if folks at another page object, they can just revert my change.) My reasoning here is this: such "public" pages need to be usable to as many people as possible, and clearly specifying particular fonts only invites problems (despite the fallback mechanism for font selection, my experience described in my original post shows that significant problems can arise) for very little actual benefit (a slightly different looking font, when it works right). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer {{Portal-head2}} for two reasons:

1. "Welcome to the Village pump" is not a headline, but a greeting, and therefore should look differently.
2. So far, no one has reported any display issues on Commons or the German or English Wikipedia.

As I have now added an id to {{Portal-head2}}, you may add #portal-head2 {font-family:sans-serif !important;} to your common.css to alter the font family displayed to you.    FDMS  4    10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Point 1: It does look different. Normal headers are in serif font. Point 2: I just did. The rest of your comment: Fine, but very few users are going to know enough to take advantage of that fix (and it doesn't help logged-out users at all). - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot that I overwrote the Typographyrefresh. Could you upload a screenshot of what {{Portal-head2}} text looks like for you so we can understand what exactly the problem is?    FDMS  4    20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I knew that was coming. I can't figure out how to do that on this machine. There doesn't seem to be "screenshot" application, and I can't install anything on it. I was about point out that, to be fair, "damn-near unreadable" is a bit of an overstatement. (I just really don't like "cute" font selections on websites for no good reason, and that is coloring my commentary about this.) The text is readable to a native English speaker (/reader), but probably significantly less so to non-natives. I also haven't been able to figure out what font this browser is actually using, since the "sans-serif font" is set to Arial, and this ain't Arial I'm seeing. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am running 2 kind of "Screenshot-Scripts" on http://mol.wmflabs.org - one is "select an element by clicking it" and the second is "take a secreenshot of the whole screen and cut it to the browser window dimension" - both do uploading by their own - would they be helpful to Commons? -- Rillke^(q?) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Help checking categories by new user

I don't know if we have people who regularly check new categories that get created, but User:Reguyla recently created a lot of them without understanding how to fully categorize them and fit them into our category structure. He was looking at Special:WantedCategories to find categories to create. Some of the issues I saw are:

• Categories for people created with only the category "Men by name"
• Categories for military places created with only a category for a war
• Time/place categories created without using the standard templates used for them
• A few categories I'm not sure we want, such as "Men named John", "Men named James", etc.

I've checked a few, but I don't have time to check all of them, so any help with this would be appreciated. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I already responded to this user on my talk page but then she posted here as well so here goes. She's right I was trying to clean out the wanted categories list and I thanked her for pointing those out. As she noted and as I have stated to others I am still fairly new to Commons so I am still learning the naming schema for some of the things. She also pointed out some good problems above and I'm glad she was able to fix some of the templates that were incorrectly generating unneeded or unwanted categories so the problems won't continue. Some of what I was doing was just trying to get rid of the red links so she is right in some cases I didn't know what the lowest level category might be and in some cases further refinement is needed and in many cases additional categories will also be needed. I also submitted some for deletion and cleaned out some that were obviously wrong. I fully intend to continue refining the categories as I learn more. IMO though its better to have a category that's maybe not quite as specific as it could be to none at all that can be refined further by others who are more familiar with the topic. I'll go back and look at some of the ones I created and see if I notice anything that should be changed. As for the last point about Men named X, I did create a couple based on common names because I saw others were created for other names like Gabriel. If those are not wanted that's ok, but it seems like a lower level naming would be desired for some things rather than simply Category:Men by name and I did not think that would be a controversial thing since they already existed anyway. Additionally, the Category:Men by name category is a subcategory of People by name so I was reefing them to be more specific rather than less in those cases.Reguyla (talk) 13:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have uploaded a lot of images to Commons and added an awful large number of categories to images. Between us, I can confess that almost all of it is automated using my secret recipes . After several years of getting on with it, my conclusion is that it is just not worth the time to debate sophisticated category hierarchies, or whether a category should be "this of those" or "this in those" or any of the hundreds of variations possible. Though many users believe there are rules effectively in place for things like date, or place, really they may shift about in a year or two when some newbie wikilawyers want to spend their time arguing about it.

My recommendation is that as soon as a category becomes controversial, try not to touch it. Run in the opposite direction, work on other stuff for a month or a year, and consider taking a look again only when it becomes stable.

Commons is a big place. With 25,000,000 images, there is a lot of enjoyable stuff to get done without getting sucked down into the shifting sand of taxonomies. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, now I feel discouraged. I mainly work on categories. I really enjoy it and I thought I was doing something helpful. I guess my choices are to stop, or to continue with the knowledge that a fellow editor thinks I'm wasting my time. I'll probably do the latter, eventually, but feeling disheartened. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Not what I said. Spending time doing a thing is entirely different from spending time arguing about doing it. --Fæ (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Working on categorizing images, or creating new more-specific categories for crowded ones, or creating new subcategories the could be better cross-referenced after being split up (i.e. geographical subcats that could be in both a subject and a location high-level category)... all very worthwhile. I think Fae's point is that there are occasionally battles about such things, and when a conflict starts it's better to just back away from that specific issue, and work on other things for a while, until a consensus becomes established... editing is far more productive than arguing, especially since you often end up arguing with people that are only short-term editors. Not that 'short term' really applies to Reguyla, he's well known as a 'cross-project' editor, and only 'new' to Commons. He's pretty reasonable, tho, from my experience. Revent (talk) 01:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Revent, I wish more folks felt that way. Sorry I haven't been on here for a couple days to respond sooner but I have some pressing real life stuff going on I need to focus on at the moment. If anyone sees anything with my edits it looks like I am doing wrong by all means let me know and I will adjust fire to use a military term. As I mentioned above and on my talk page, Auntof6 identified some valid stuff I may need to look at but I also think there are a couple things that could use further clarification in general. For example the point she makes about the Category for people starting with John or James is a valid one. I created those because I saw a few other names already existed and I intended to use AWB to fill those in further. If these aren't needed or desired though I would be fine with eliminating them. I also asked a couple times about replacing the Category People by name with Men/Women by name to be more specific and only got a couple replies but the general sentiment from those that did respond seemed to be that the more specific categories are more desirable. If that is indeed the case, then there are a couple places in the documentation about categorization that refer to the People by name category that could use some rephrasing. As for some of the other comments she has about using more specific categories I think that will come with more experience and the only way to get more experience is to make more edits and inherently more mistakes to learn from so if anyone sees anything that I need to fix just let me know. Reguyla (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fæ: In this case you better adjust your categorization system. Several times I noticed your uploads were hardly traceable.

@Reguyla: IMHO the categorization system is nothing to start with as new user, because mistakes are causing much more troubles than working on files--Oursana (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its just me, but I think my attempts to try and cut down on the hundreds of thousands of uncategorized files so they are in at least some kind of related category might not be an improvement over just having them uncategorized. I'm not sure why, but I am getting that impression. It seems unless someone actually knows what every one of the hundreds of thousands of categories are and where exactly an image should go without error, then its better just to leave them alone rather than get them close to where they should be so it can be refined. IMHO though working with files is much, much harder and prone to error and controversy than categories so I probably won't be fiddling with that much either, if at all. I don't really have a problem with fixing mistakes but this discussion seems to be a lot more nitpicky than necessary. Especially since I see established users and admins doing the exact same things I am doing (which is where I learned it by the way, by looking at their edits) or uploading images with no categories at all. After my experiences with ENWP I have better things to do than to get drug into constant endless nitpicky discussions about edits that require nothing more than a note and are easily fixed based on nothing more than that I am not an established long term editor on the project. So I am going to focus on some other projects for a while like Wikia and Wikidata but drop me a note if you need me to fix anything I screwed up. I may pop in and do a few things here and there but I'm not interested in stirring the pot and after my experiences with ENWP I am more than aware that editors on these sites have no rights and are allowed to edit solely on the whims of the admins who have absolute authority and discretion so I have no interest in going down that road again. Cheers and good luck getting people to help. Reguyla (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, at least (and I think this opinion is shared by others) adding an uncategorized file to a 'vague' category, so that it can be seen and better categorized by other with better knowledge of the subject is far better than leaving it uncategorized, as long as not taken to extremes (don't dump hundreds of files into a high-level category, it creates drama). Uncategorized files are effectively 'lost' and rather useless for most purposes. There is a tendency among some people to attempt to force 'compliance' to naming rules that don't really exist... there is an old quote along the lines of 'perfect is the enemy of good', that fits well with the way that wiki's work. An incremental improvement is better than none at all, and can spur others to make further improvements. Revent (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

You do make a good point, and I do tend to be a bit of a perfectionist. What I was seeing was creating categories just for the sake of creating them, without giving it much thought. There's probably a happy medium in there somewhere. I do think some thought should be put into creating new categories, preferably with understanding of how the categories work here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Oursana: The categorization of Fae's uploads is often limited by the specificity of the metadata at the image sources. He's freely admitted in the past that all of his uploads could be easily improved by manual editing... as long as they are properly categorized by the image source, it makes fairly reasonable for other editors to trawl through the image source categories and fix things. It's a tradeoff... attempting to automate better categorization, because it would be different for every image source, would cause an unacceptably high error rate without the investment of a large amount of programming time that would be specific to each source.... he has his bot doing what bots do well, and leaving what humans do well for manual cleanup. Revent (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Example Arctic Thunder batch upload image with automated category detection.

My typical batch uploads are not blindly or fully automated, but are chosen by theme to help with categorization. For example the "Arctic Thunder" image on the right was uploaded this morning with the batch project category Images from DoD uploaded by Fæ (now at 108,000 photos) but then with both the location (Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, 774 photos) and event (United States Air Force Thunderbirds, 552 photos) worked out by automatically searching for key words in the metadata, note that just 25 photographs are in the intersection between these two categories. This was part of a batch chosen to illustrate children and the U.S. military and this image popped up as the file description on DVIDS explains that the event opens early with a special preview for children with special needs. The two main categories for this image may be minimal, but they are sufficient in my view, and the description text with location, dates and reference ID, is easily used to find the image using the standard search bar.

Parallel techniques have been used for "housekeeping" batch upload images where after they have been uploaded, it was realized that categorization could be better. For example the 290,000 images I batch uploaded to Files from the Historic American Buildings Survey had several housekeeping bot-sweeps based on my improving knowledge of how to use the National Register of Historic Places database, and I can imagine that Reguyla's interest in AWB to help with categorization might provide similar large scale improvements.

A note about size. I am convinced that most Commons volunteers have little in the way of a gut feeling about how big a project with 100,000 images is, especially as we frequently talk about millions of images on Commons. To keep this in context, if we paid someone to look at 100,000 images to, say, manually check categories, then at the punishing rate of one photo every 10 seconds working at 8 hours a day, it would take a working month to get through the batch. If in the next couple of years we are to grow Commons over the 100 million images level, yet (as our trends tell us is likely) only be able to grow our volunteer population by a small percentage at the same time, then our reliance and trust in bots to help us must continue and improve. --Fæ (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorization by camera

I propose to autocategorize all the photo with the camera model from the exif. Sorry for my english...--93.147.64.4 15:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I hope not. EXIF is mostly a service for spies and the egos of wannabe spies; properly, if Commons' scope does not include computer code then it shouldn't include EXIF. The thought of having automated scripts churning through files to burden them down with more characterizations that make it easier for anyone to mine camera serial numbers and out users and so forth... I mean, I know someone's going to do it but do we have to do it? Wnt (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

As someone who regularly categorises images by camera models, I'd like to point out that EXIF data regularly shows model names/numbers that don't match the category name for a particular model. A single camera body may have different model names based on where it was sold, so any such automatic categorisation would be very complicated and error prone. I don't see the benefit of this proposal. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a bot that can do it using a mapping table (which is only partial at present. The number of different camera models out there is quite large). It doesn't have proper authorisation to run however. --ghouston (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I recall similar discussions on the past and it seems like many users do not like categorization by camera (EXIF based or not), especially if there are already 50k images in the category. However adding images to camera categories with few images is much less controversial. --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Invisible Bird.svg

This picture was deleted as Vandalism. Although it was used to vandalize the Wikipedia page Invisible rail, it is not inherently vandalism. Now that April Fools' Day is over we would like to have this image, to live on in the collective Wikipedian memory. I'd like to be able to use it on Wikipedia:April_Fools/Invisible_Bird. The image can be found with DuckDuckGo image search. Please undelete the image, or re-upload it. Thank you --Naytz (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Please follow the process at Undeletion requests. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant now, though the damage to my perceptions of the sense of humor in the community, or lack thereof, is permanent. Resident Mario (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

April 03

OTRS has not yet been proceeded tag

Hi. We have {{No OTRS permission since}} for no permission at all, {{OTRS pending}} for uploaders in order to claim that they've sent a permission, and {{OTRS received}} for the case when the email indeed was created but there wasn't enough reliable data in order to close the ticket as success, and {{PermissionOTRS}} for successful permissions. Am I the only one who feels that we need a tag for the case when an agent sees a ticket about a file but is too lazy/has no time/whatever in order to proceed it and thus put either {{PermissionOTRS}} or {{OTRS received}} on filedesc? I think it's not uncommon situation and seeing not just claim from OP but confirmation from agent that there indeed exists ticket about file in question would be helpful in some ways. --Base (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Why not just {{OTRS received}} for that case? And maybe the possibility of adding a note to the template. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  Indeed it seems the template has the tag as one of it's parameters. Well I suppose there's no need in something else then. Thanks --Base (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually sometimes run into this problem when there is an image with no license, but with {{OTRS pending}} or with uploader claiming that the author sent something, so I look up the license in the ticket. If is is a clear-cut case in English or Polish I process it, but I leave more messy cases or other languages to more experienced users. But I usually would like to live a direct link to the ticket in the file. {{OTRS received}} is the only template to use in such a case but the message is all wrong, since it mostly say that there is a problem with the permission and we are waiting for more info, instead of nobody got to it yet. I think it would be beneficial to either

• Extend {{OTRS pending}} to allow additional ticket ID information
• Extend {{OTRS received}} to allow "not processed yet" wording
• Create a new template

Whatever we do we would have to coordinate with User:Rillke or other maintainers of MediaWiki talk:Gadget-PermissionOTRS.js to ensure that we do not break that Gadget. --Jarekt (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jarekt: {{OTRS received}} already says "An email has been received at OTRS concerning this file, and can be read here by users with an OTRS account. The email is in a queue awaiting processing." if its reason parameter is set to 1 or processing. A reason dropdown in said gadget would be great.    FDMS  4    13:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right, I have never noticed that. Thanks. --Jarekt (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 05

Something wrong in displaying particular categories on a single file page

Please see this page: File:AIGA10a_stairs_inv.png.

I am a user from China. Today I uploaded the SVG version of the inverted stairs icon (see File:10a_stairs_inv.svg), and changed the category of File:AIGA10a_stairs_inv.png as follows:

[[Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard]] [[Category:Facility symbols]] [[Category:AIGA symbol signs obsoleted by SVG replacement]] [[Category:Stair symbols]]

However, when I did such modification, a problem occurred: after the deletion of these two categories: [[Category:Inverted AIGA symbol signs]] and [[Category:PD ineligible]], the links to these two category pages still exist. I tried to purge the cache in my browser (Internet Explorer) and even changed to another browser (Firefox), the problem still occurs.

On the other hand, such problems did not occur when I modified the other categories.

So I am going to ask for help here, since such problems seem to be technical problems.

--Ytx21cn (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Those categories are inherited from Template:PD-AIGA; you can't just remove them, they will be repopulated by the template. ColonialGrid (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 06

Category for a particular type of sign

Do we have a category for signs or objects like this (freestanding, a bit like a sandwich board but with only a small sign at the top)? - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Or this other type of sign, which is also not exactly a sandwich board. - Jmabel ! talk 05:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I thought File:13-03-30-praha-by-RalfR-079.jpg would be called an "A-frame sign", but apparently that's something slightly different (Category:A-frame wet floor signs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like that notion of "A-frame signs" (which doesn't yet have a distinct category: we go directly to Category:A-frame wet floor signs) is absolutely the same as Category:Freestanding sandwich boards (which I separated out of Category:Sandwich boards). - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Error in {{PD-old-auto}}?

This image (and many more like it) is showing up in Category:PD Old auto: no death date, and yet the page includes "{{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}}". What’s wrong? -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Purge fixed it for me. After a lot of digging around I traced it to the resent changes to the Module:Fallback which are discussed below. --Jarekt (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Yay, thanks a lot! Unpurged transclusion cruff also explains why I could find in that mantainance cetegory only a couple dozen of the >110 filepages with the very same "{{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1935}}". -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Pages with incorrect template usage/Autotranslate

There are currently 159,782 images in this category, but I strongly doubt that there's anything wrong with the code directly contained on most of these image pages (rather, the problem is with some indirectly-transcluded template). AnonMoos (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is in Module:Fallback, i restored @Jarekt edits (which was reverted because of some other invoke issues a few days ago - which affecting only a few pages). Should be fixed now. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I am currently purging all pages in the cat, so that the change will be loaded from the module (this is faster, jobqueue is slower). :-) --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There are also 30k files in Category:PD Old auto: no death date, see message above. --Jarekt (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move of File:Pussy.jpg

I filed a move request for File:Pussy.jpg, requesting renaming to File:Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks.jpg on the grounds that the current file name is highly ambiguous; the proposed name describes the contents of the image. User:FDMS4 declined the move as "not covered by our rename guidelines as decided in Commons:Requests for comment/File renaming criterion 2". I am perplexed by this, as I thought that moving files with highly ambiguous names was precisely the determination of that discussion. As w:Pussy (disambiguation) demonstrates, this is a highly ambiguous term, for which the name of a particular horse is a comparatively obscure meaning. I don't see how this is different from any of a number of other move requests that I have made that have been fulfilled, such as the moves of File:Bass.png to File:Range of bass voice marked on keyboard.png, File:Green.JPG to File:Green BMW E30.jpg, and File:Sad.jpg to File:Man holding a hat behind his back at the Monumental Cemetery of Staglieno.jpg. BD2412 T 15:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The way I understand it, criterion #2's "ambiguous" means generic and unspecific, not "could have a different meaning".    FDMS  4    16:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The main goal of COM:FR is stability: While there is always possible to chose a better name, that guideline establishes a very greedy shortlist that can be used, upong stringent necessity, to circumvent the hard-and-fast rule, which is: do not rename files. (On the other hand, COM:File naming tries to guide prospective uploaders on selecting good filenames, before they are created.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, those renaming you list (File:Bass.png, File:Green.JPG, etc.) were against the previous text of COM:FR, and i.m.o. illustrate well how the current wording opened a can of worms… -- Tuválkin ✉ 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well the current wording offers "File:Smartphone.jpg" and "File:Louvre 12.jpg" as examples of files that should be renamed under the criteria. In the present case, the subject of the file is so obscure that any reader coming across it is likely to be completely befuddled as to why this file name is associated with a picture of a horse. BD2412 T 16:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, unless he/she is browsing special pages he will very likely find the image via Category:Thoroughbred and Category:Racehorses by John Ferneley, which make it clear that the image isn't about cats.    FDMS  4    16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The file description removes any possible confusion, as it makes it pretty clear it was the horse's name. Revent (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Then why move ambiguously named files at all? Why move "File:Smartphone.jpg" or "File:DSC 1342.jpg" to a different name, when the file description can always remove confusion? BD2412 T 17:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Something like "File:DSC 1342.jpg" is not descriptive of the subject matter at all... this filename is (somewhat amusingly, I admit) the actual name of the depicted object. Other uses of the term are slang, this is not. There is IMO no real reason to move it, I doubt anyone is going to have difficulty finding photos of genitals or cats simply because this is at this name, and a search for "Pussy" would still point at it through the redirect, which makes renaming it a bit pointless. Revent (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with BD2412 that the file should be renamed. I'm not sure why you're all pussy-footing around the issue but the word "pussy" is far more associated with cats and female genitalia than it is with a racehorse. Before the current image was uploaded, there was a succession of images of female genitalia, the last of which was the subject of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pussy.jpg. I note also that an extracted image has been named File:Pussy (horse) crop.jpg, which I think is a reasonable naming scheme. Green Giant (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, this matter is best discussed at Commons_talk:File_renaming after reviewing the archives thereof. No one is going to be happy with all the criteria and the wording thereof. Borderline cases always exist. But, I am dubious that further discussion of an already much-debated guideline will be fruitful. I agree with Tuvalkin view above and support User:FDMS4 decision in this instance. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly agree that the current wording of COM:FR supports this rename. If that's perceived as a "can of worms" then that's too bad: reopen the discussion on how it should be phrased. But if we're sticking to the letter of the law, the file should be renamed. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the file to File:Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks.jpg. The original name was legitimately ambiguous, which is directly covered by criterion 2 at Commons:File renaming. INeverCry 19:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that, although now I am legitimately confused as to how the process is supposed to work here. I close a lot of the requested move discussions on Wikipedia, and the process for debating a proposed move and determining the policy-based outcome seems to be more open and defined. BD2412 T 19:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I go by file renaming policy. The original name was clearly ambiguous, and so it fell under criterion 2. I don't see any legitimate argument to the contrary. I think people often create confusion and problems that're unnecessary and a waste of valuable time, as this has been. It almost amounts to a hobby or obsession with some people around here. INeverCry 19:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. So it's just like Wikipedia after all. BD2412 T 20:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong way to go. There is an ongoing discussion, with several people against the renaming. One filemover feeling he is right shouldn't rename against consensus. I'm filemover, too. If I feel that previous name is better (according to our policies and so) can I rename in the opposite direction at will?

I agree with INeverCry that having to take in account other people's opinion is sometimes annoying, but it's the price of working in a collaborative project instead of just publishing our private blogs.--Pere prlpz (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issue for the renaming by INC. The original name was clearly suboptimal and ambiguous. My 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

One should note that our Commons:File renaming is merely a guideline (which allows for the community to deviate and to interpret wisely where it makes sense), not policy (which also allow for the community to deviate and to interpret wisely where it makes sense) and not cast in stone (so the community can deviate and to choose wisely where it makes sense). We are not robots. There is no do not rename files policy, and some who claim such have no business claiming so. Especially not when their record of what constitutes a good filename would meet most people's definition of what constitutes a secure password. -- Colin (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

We have the issue on Wikipedia where sometimes an article is at a suboptimal name, but there is no consensus for the title to which the article should be moved. However, if someone does happen to come along and move it to a name that is better than its current location, we don't move it back there even if there is no agreement about what name is the best. One way to figure that out in this case is to look at the image and ask yourself, "if this was a brand new image to Commons, what would I name it?" If the answer is something different than the file name that it had originally, then don't move it back there. BD2412 T 22:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

And there are far, far more direct links to Wikipedia articles than there are hyperlinks (outside of WMF wikilinks) to Commons images. Somehow the world continues to revolve even when folk on wp change an article name. Of course we should be reluctant to rename, but a forum such as this, where cases can be reviewed/discussed and merits weight, is just fine and should not be shut off with unthink nonsense that we simply "do not rename files". -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What about "unthink nonsense" that arbitrary identifiers need to be more then that? By the way, you might want to look up what a secure password is and change yours, since you obviously have no idea what a secure password look like. "Pussy" and "DSC 1342" are horrible passwords, whereas "Pussy, winner of the 1834 Epsom Oaks" is a passably decent one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If they are "arbitrary identifiers" then change our filename rules to be a GUID and be done with it. Don't think many people would support that, for reasons that most of us are humans not robots As for the password issue, those aren't the examples I have in mind: "4volboj4krucoj". Anyone who actually reads our Commons:File naming guideline will realise that it permits a number of uncontroversial rename reasons, that it discourages a number of typically harmful rename reasons (such as only making a slight improvement), but it says nothing about those in-between other that to apply caution. Anyone interpreting that guideline as though it forbids any file rename beyond the core set of uncontroversial renames, or thinks it is a policy without exception, hasn't actually read it and their opinions therefore are pretty worthless. Let's be human about this rather than anal. -- Colin (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you goading me to react in an intemperate manner to your accumulated micro-insults above, Colin? Please either ignore me entirely or address my actual point on this thread — that COM:FR fundamentally values stability above all else. The matter of spaces and camel case in filenames is not being discussed here. (Also please take care when you reference to COM:File renaming and to COM:File naming, as they are quite different — the latter does not affect filename stability, and indeed seeks filename “perfection”, however defined.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to goad you at all. You should appreciate that if you give apparently authoritative statement like "COM:FR... establishes very greedy shortlist that can be used, upon stringent necessity, to circumvent the hard-and-fast rule, which is: do not rename files." then when it turns out that this statement is completely misleading and in fact an idiosyncratic view of how you think Commons works/should-work, those present may also question whether you have any authority on this matter. And on this issue of file naming and renaming, your practice has not been one from which anyone would wish to set as an example to follow. You are not the Commons authority on file renaming; far from it. (you are right, that I copy/pasted the wrong link). -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

When a discussion devolves into legal threats (whether explicit or implicit), it's time to close it. This is a closure by an involved party, but I'm sure anyone with sense will understand that this thread can only result in disruption. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)}}

Undone aggressive collapse when there is no legal threat here. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The closure was an attempt at pacification, not aggression. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

This particular rename is trivial, but (1) it is a clear misuse of rights for any trusted user to take pre-emptive action in the middle of a community discussion, this is not the first time that INeverCry has used their admin rights to act unilaterally and disrupt consensus building, (2) we are in danger of never being able to leave alone simple filenames for any image (this example had been stable for 3 years), because anyone in the future will come along and make it "just a bit" more specific. --Fæ (talk) 09:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. This name reminds me the drama created by Orrling to reserve some fancy names. Although I don't fully agree with all such actions, sometimes such bold actions (as Marcus Cyron did there) are time saving to prevent endless discussions which have little merits. Jee 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Bold action" easily becomes an excuse for suppression of legitimate concerns. I see a recent trend in preemptive closures by-passing discussion by the community, such as here or this ridiculous attack which effectively claimed ownership of a noticeboard. Commons should not be run by a closed clique of Super Friends, no matter how desirable that seems to a conservative minority. --Fæ (talk) 10:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

There are filenames that are "simple" and file names that are hopelessly ambiguous and likely to mislead the casual reader. I see no realistic chance that anyone will now have a need to make this filename "more specific" than the title to which it has been moved. BD2412 T 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Friendship is just a game of The Time. BTW, that DR is in my watch-list before I went to my vacation. I didn't see any game of friendship there. And your comment on the other thread you mentioned is quite nonsense. Michaeldsuarez already corrected it, so that I think you were trying to frighten me to refrain from handover evidences to higher authorities. It is is clear example how Super Friends play every trick to protect their closed cliques. (Sorry if this is going too off topic as usual.) Jee 12:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to be pals with a user who was banned from Wikipedia for working with others to use Encyclopaedia Dramatica to make disgusting homophobic attacks and cyberbully Wikimedians, I suggest you take your tangential arguments and false complaints to that website. That sort of malicious shit in order to "win the argument" is not welcome here. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What is "Encyclopaedia Dramatica"? I didn't such a name under wmf:Our projects. :( Jee 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ask your banned cyberbullying pal, he'll be only too happy to promote his attack website. --Fæ (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, how did this fairly simple request/question devolve into this? I think everybody should just chill. While I think that the new name is better, but renaming is not covered by our current guidelines, who the heck cares? Renaming or not renaming, both solution are acceptable. --Sebari (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jkadavoor: : I don't recall saying anything of the sort, particularly in regards to the discussion that you link to. I would also appreciate it if you didn't drag me into confrontations with Fæ. I have the Village pump and the noticeboards on my watchlist. If there's a discussion that I need or want to participate in, I could do it without anyone pinging my name. Also, I'm currently appealing a ban, and my participation here undermines my chances. I would rather focus my concentration on my work at Meta right now.

@Fæ: : It was never my intention to create a page that would appear homophobic. I really just wanted to criticize free licenses and the amount of information people on the Internet share, hence the original name of that article. I'm sorry that things went so wrong. Nevertheless, I've noticed that you've been attacking INeverCry at very opportunity due to his involvement with blocking Russavia's sock accounts. I know from experience that when INeverCry is pushed too hard, he goes into retreat mode. Now, you're the one pushing him too far, and I would appreciate it if you stop and use a gentler approach instead. You know how it feels to be pushed into retirement, and last year, I learned about that feeling as well. Let's not make this discussion more painful than it should be. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez, I tried to correct what I intended to say. If ping notification is a problem for you, just disable it in preferences. I didn't drag you here; it is (the ping) just something technically part of the software used here. Jee 14:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that changes things. I'm adding a comma between "it" and "so" for added clarity. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this discussion has devolved into sufficiently off-topic personality conflicts to merit closing for real at this point. I regret finding the original file in the first place. BD2412 T 17:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Michaeldsuarez

"I'm currently appealing a ban, and my participation here undermines my chances", no, maliciously disrupting our projects by inserting pornographic links in inappropriate ways just for the lolz, like this one just a few weeks ago, is what will keep you deservedly banned. Anyone that takes your recent on-wiki appeals for personal support for an un-ban because you are still active here is being badly misled and should pay more attention to the background of your long term advocacy for an attack website.

It remains a blot on the ethics of Wikimedia that malicious cyberbullying of Wikimedians off-wiki and promoting racist and homophobic material in order to upset our unpaid volunteers is not a rationale for a global and permanent ban or an office block, simply due to the demonstrable risks you deliberately create for our community and employees. --Fæ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I added a joke to a light-hearted contest. It didn't cause any disruption. No one sent me any complaints. It was also innocuous, not malicious. No one was hurt. and I didn't place anyone asides from myself at risk. Can we also please stay on topic? Or are you just here to take shots at INeverCry and me? Think about what you should be doing here. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Warning The pornographic cartoon that Michaeldsuarez is pushing as a "joke" is likely to be illegal to possess or promote in the UK under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, and in many other countries due to the child-like figures represented having sex. The website that he regularly advocates, features not only attacks against individuals already mentioned, but a significant amount of this sort of legally high risk pornographic material. I personally advise against following any links to Encyclopedia Dramatica for this reason. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no sitenotice for UK users containg an adaptation of your incredibly useful warning as it is indeed Commons that hosts "such material" and Wikipedias like the English one that include it.    FDMS  4    17:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

It has been proposed before, you could try again. I'd support a new template proposal. --Fæ (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

---

No legal threat here. If Michaeldsuarez wants to use Wikimedia projects to promote pornographic cartoons of children or abusive attack pages about Wikimedians, that's a matter for his judgement and for local administrators to review. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You're accusing me of illegal activities and are now suggesting that someone act upon your accusations. File:Futanari.png doesn't depict sexual intercourse or minors, and if the image is really so vile, why are you attacking me instead of ridding Commons of this allegedly illegal content? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Problems in new file version

Two days ago I loaded a new version in this file. However, there are pages that use the image and continue to exhibit the original version, like pt:Coronel Fabriciano#Religião and pt:Distrito-Sede (Coronel Fabriciano)#Cultura e lazer (pt.wiki). I updated and emptied the cache and also accessed the pages on other computers in different browsers, but the problem continues. What happens and how to fix? --HVL talk 22:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem may be on Commons, since this link also gives the old version: [7] --ghouston (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I remembered some steps at the bottom of phab:T43130#447471 which I tried to apply now (add random number to thumbnail URL and purge file page). Crossing fingers the cached thumbnail will update. If not (after bypassing your browser cache), please report the software bug to the 'Phabricator' bug tracker. Bonus points for mentioning the meta-ticket T43371 in the report's description. Thank you! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

April 07

SVG files from Bentley MicroStation v8i

Does anyone have experience of creating SVG files from CAD using Bentley MicroStation? I've just been upgraded to this version, and one of the advantages is that it will export directly to SVG. However a test file I uploaded to en-wiki, en:File:Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford.svg, gives the error "Expected <svg> tag, got svg in NS". I've simplified the <svg> tag in Notepad, without success. The file seems to open correctly in Inkscape. Any ideas what I might be doing wrong?   An optimist on the run! 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

im on a cell phone so cant really look at file, but probably missing the xmlns attribute on the svg tag. Bawolff (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)