Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage:WTS archive/Travellers' pub

< Wikivoyage:WTS archive

This is a Wikivoyage:WTS archive, and should not be edited. For discussions after 11 November 2012, see Wikivoyage:WTS archive/Pub (temporary refuge)

The Travellers' pub - your watering hole on Wikivoyage

The Travellers' pub is where Wikivoyagers of all languages get to together to talk about Wikivoyage, and where you can ask for help if you're confused, lost, afraid, tired or annoyed by Wikivoyage. Please check the FAQ and Help page before asking a question, though, since that may save your time and others'.

If you are having a problem that you think has to do with the Mediawiki software, please post that on the technical requests page instead.

Please add new questions at the bottom of the page and sign your post by appending four tildes (~~~~) to it, but otherwise plunge forward! en:Project:Travellers' pub

gen:Project:Lounge


Lack of really interesting info on WT

edit

To the site founders and owners : I wrote that :

Lack of interesting info on the 18th arrt Paris page, especially on restaurants, and generally on 80% of this site

My point is that only some 20% of the pages can compete with a basic paper travel guide. And I'm being optimistic.

Sorry to say it, guys, but this is *partly* a MFA site. Which means, of course, as I said, that there are good, useful pages (such as the one on hospitality exchange). But overall the service to the community is dubious to me.

In case you care about the future of this web site.

Emmanuel B. 7/15/2012

Icons for Train Lines

edit

In the routebox template page there are two examples of Icons for Japanese train lines, ( and ) and several more can be found on the pages for other Japanese cities. I want to add one to a page that doesn't have one yet, but I can't find the one I need. Is there centralized repository or some sort of search I can do to locate all of the existing ones? (WT-shared) Chazchaz101 19:09, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

There is, please see en:Project:Route icons. -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 19:12, 20 March 2012 (EDT)
I think we should also organize our icons by category on Shared itself. I'll try to work on that now—we'll see if the site speed allows this endeavor! --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 19:25, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

German Wikivoyage

edit

I just want to inform you that there are no active admins on the German version of Wikitravel anymore. I left the project 9 months ago and the last remaining admin left two months ago. I don't want to go into too much detail, but the lack of support by both Shared and IB was a major factor in our decisions to abandon the project. As you can imagine, Wikitravel de: is in a pretty poor state now after two months without any admin activity (and only sporadic admin edits in the months prior) and, in my opinion, IB should consider closing it down for good, if they cannot find any new admins. --(WT-shared) Albion 17:12, 27 March 2012 (EDT)

Hi Albion. I'm Paul, the Community Manager for Wikitravel from IB. As this is the first I've heard from the German site in the year that I've been here, I'd love to chat with you and any other current/former admins of that site about what it is you need and are not getting from IB. You can feel free to contact me on my Talk page, here, or at paul.obrien at internetbrands.com. Thank you, --(WT-shared) IBobi 14:41, 28 March 2012 (EDT)
Hi Paul, it seems you started your job here shortly before I left the project last year, so I must have missed that. I'm glad to read that there now is somebody to contact at IB, because that always was a major issue during my time as an admin. Whenever we had a problem (not matter if technical or otherwise) at Wikitravel de:, no one really seemed to care, neither at Shared nor at IB. It often took months to fix even the tiniest problems, if they got fixed at all. I hope it works better now. What killed Wikitravel de: in the end was http://www.wikivoyage.org/ a similar project started by former Wikitravel admins who were unhappy about the sale of the website to IB. Unfortunately Wikivoyage has become far more popular with German Users than Wikitravel ever was and therefore it has been like fighting windmills to keep the German Wikitravel alive over the past few years.
Anyway, I left Wikitravel last July for the reasons mentioned above and have dedicated my spare time to other projects since then. I have no desire to resume my "job" as an admin. After my departure, the last remaining admin on de: was Geisterfahrer, but he left the project earlier this year. So, as much as I appreciate your offer, I will not get involved in Wikitravel again. I'm afraid you will have to find some other users (although there are very few active ones left) at Wikitravel de: to fill the admin positions, if IB wants to keep the German version alive. --(WT-shared) Albion 12:36, 29 March 2012 (EDT)
Thank you, Albion. I'd like to ask if you might help in the search for new admins for the German site. We are currently getting over 750,000 unique visitors per month to wikitravel.org/de/ (compared to around 750 visitors/month for wikivoyage -- both German and Italian combined), so any contributions here would be invaluable to our German-speaking visitors. Can you help?--(WT-shared) IBobi 18:53, 3 April 2012 (EDT)

Hi Paul, I have my doubts about those numbers, but that doesn't really matter. I've noticed that you have already contacted some admins and users on WT/de. The only other "old" user I can think of, who still contributes to WT/de on a regular basis, is Volksparker. I think he would be well suited to be an admin. I've left him a message on his discussion page and told him to contact you, if he is interested.

Looking through the recent changes there seem to be four other active users (who are not spammers) at the moment: Knut, Basta, Atze and Knautschke. They are all doing a good job, but seem to be relatively new to Wikitravel. I don't really know and therefore can't vouch for any of them, but of course you can contact them, if you like. Hope that helps. --(WT-shared) Albion 13:02, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

That's very helpful and much appreciated Albion -- thank you.
As to the traffic figures, I know ours are accurate, because I retrieved them from Google Analytics myself. Last month we got 750,000 unique visitors to wikitravel.org/de/ alone, and well over a million page views. Wikitravel has just huge readership. That's a tiny fraction of what we see at the site as a whole.
I'd love to see some other numbers for WV -- all I am able to view is the number provided by 3rd party traffic sites like compete.com, which lists less than 1000 visits per month for WV.--(WT-shared) IBobi 15:07, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
I can't provide any data regarding WV other than their own statistics, so I will try to trust you numbers. Anyway, the important thing with websites like these should be the quality of the site (i.e. number of useful edits), not the quantity of visitors (although of course I can understand that the numbers of visitors is important for IB as a business because of AdSense).
I have now changed the box, that appears on top of each WT/de page, to inform all visitors that we are looking for new admins and that anyone interested shall add their name on WT/de's administrator nominations page. Maybe this helps finding some new admins. I will supervise the election process, in case we find any nominees, but this will definitely be my last and final act for WT. --(WT-shared) Albion 08:39, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
Thank you, Albion. That is extremely generous and gracious of you to do that.--(WT-shared) IBobi 15:40, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
Those numbers are interesting. I have no reason to doubt them. They show between 100,000 and 300,000 total visits per month, over the entire site (German and Italian). If you take away the Italian (since for the moment we are only taking about German WT versus German WV), and then account for a much lower number of UNIQUE visitors (those numbers are TOTAL visits, remember), it's clear how much smaller WV/de's readership is than WT/de's. Which makes it all the more sensible for German speakers to write and edit at WT instead of WV. We just need to show some WT/de readers that this is the place to be.--(WT-shared) IBobi 19:04, 6 April 2012 (EDT)
One user asked this question in WT/de's Travellers' Pub, so I thought I'd forward it to you: would it be possible to automatically protect all WT/de articles in a way, that only registered users can edit them? Of course, I know we could do that by protecting each article individually, but with 5278+ articles, that would take a lot of time. This measure could stop the recurring IP vandalism and would give new admins more time to focus on repairing the damage that has been done over the past few months. --(WT-shared) Albion 11:08, 7 April 2012 (EDT)
That's a great question, and in fact an excellent suggestion; we were just discussing what to do about spam until we have an active admin crew on /de/ again, so this is very timely. What are your thoughts? I believe this is technically feasible.--(WT-shared) IBobi 13:51, 9 April 2012 (EDT)
In my opinion, it is the only viable option right now. Spam and vandalism are major problems at WT/de and blocking IP-edits would help a lot (as an interim measure, of course). Regarding the admin search: so far we have to candidates. Knut (fomerly know as Volksparker) is an experienced editor on WT/de, but he is not 100% sure, if he really wants to take on that job, yet. The other one is user Tomitsch. Although I'm sure he means well, he is new to WT and does not seem to have much experience with Wikis of any kind. --(WT-shared) Albion 17:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

It's been three weeks now since we started the search for new admins on WT/de, but so far this has produced no results. As already mentioned above, there were two nominations, but neither received the required number of positive votes by current admins. Therefore, in accordance with our rules, neither candidate will be made an admin. As I had already anounced before, overseeing the admin election was my final contribution to Wikitravel. As there have been no new nominations since 12 April, and I do not expect that to change any time soon, my work here is done and I will now retire from Wikitravel for good. Good luck for the future. --(WT-shared) Albion 15:12, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

Mediawiki upgrade will start 06-June-2012

edit

Site will be READ-ONLY for up to 2 days while the upgrade is occurring.

If there are edits you'd like to make, please do so asap.

When the new site comes online, it will be on new hardware as well. Bug reporting is available here:

http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tech:Upgrade_to_MediaWiki_1.17#1.17_UPGRADE_BUG_REPORTS

If for any reason you need to contact me, I can be reached on my Talk page or my email address paul.obrien at internetbrands.com. Thanks!--(WT-shared) IBobi 14:10, 4 June 2012 (EDT)

Delayed until Wednesday 06-June-2012--(WT-shared) IBobi 19:10, 4 June 2012 (EDT)
Upgrade complete. Please report issues at http://shared.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Tech:Upgrade_to_MediaWiki_1.17#1.17_UPGRADE_BUG_REPORTS--(WT-shared) IBobi 19:04, 7 June 2012 (EDT)
Please see the notice of completion posted at the Travelers' pub here: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Travellers%27_pub#Upgrade_to_1.17_complete --(WT-shared) IBobi 21:37, 8 June 2012 (EDT)
Since Shared is the joint area for all language versions, why post it there instead of here... and a link from each Pub to Shared? (WT-shared) Riggwelter 09:20, 9 June 2012 (EDT)
Bugs from the upgrade now have their own ticket, see WtTech:Bugs from the MediaWiki 1.17 upgrade. The upgrade feature request has therefor been closed. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 23:23, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Closure of the open bugs category?

edit

We have a number of open bug reports, assumably related to the old MediaWiki version. How about closing them all (many of them are really old anyway) and starting all over now that we have a new software version? The feature requests are a different issue though and I do not know what the new s/w version actually supports in that category. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 17:23, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

They should only be closed if the bug is confirmed to be fixed. (WT-shared) LtPowers 07:24, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
Since most of the bugs are O L D and seem to lack any update as to whether they still exist or not, it is not much point in keeping them open now that the software has been updated. But OK, it might be an idea to contact the person who reported the bug and ask them if it stil exists. If so, it stays open. If not, or if no answer is given in a reasonable amount of time, they can be closed. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 15:07, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I have started to go through the open bug tickets, making sure they are signed and timestamped. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 16:25, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I closed the few you edited that were indeed fixed. Looks like the diacritics issue has been solved for images, which is very good.
Might it be worthwhile to start categorizing the open bugs? There are a ton of OpenID login tickets, which are probably all more or less about the same problem (I don't use OpenID, so I don't really know what's going on). It might simplify things to create a simple "OpenID Bugs" page with links to the various individual bugs. That way we could take them off the main "open bugs category" to keep things a bit cleaner. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 22:52, 20 June 2012 (EDT)
I will continue to check the open tickets and make sure they are signed and timestamped. During that job, I try to match thedifferent tickets to see if there are any crossreferences. My next idea was to create a sub page and stick all remaining open tickets in a table with the bug headline and report date, thus making it easier to follow up. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 09:11, 21 June 2012 (EDT)
There's an old proposal I made for duplicate and misreported bugs at Category talk:Tech requests, which never received comments. It's not always easy to decide what to do with bug reports where the best response is "it seems to work now", particularly when the reporter has not given enough information to easily re-check their specific error -- but (admittedly without rechecking) I don't think we have too many of those. -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 14:56, 23 June 2012 (EDT)
All open tickets are now timestamped. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 14:44, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

Blacklist not working on ar:

edit

Since the upgrade the spam blacklist on Arabic Wikivoyage doesn't seem to be working - spammers are creating multiple copies of the same spam content each day with patterns that should be blocked. is set to "Local spam blacklist" - is there anything else that needs to be done to make this work? -- (WT-shared) Ryan 16:21, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

It appears functional—I was unable to add patterns to my test page. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 18:29, 19 June 2012 (EDT)
Thanks for testing. I may have gotten mixed up with the patterns being reversed on the edit page due to the left-to-right language - I've updated the blacklist and will see if the spam (finally) comes to an end. -- (WT-shared) Ryan 18:51, 19 June 2012 (EDT)

Recent changes

edit

Hm, all of a sudden, the diff links (cur/prev) on the far left of each line on recent changes are gone. Has it been done intentionally, or is it just me who suffers from a temporary memory loss? It is really important that one can access the latest change to check if it is vandalism or a serious contribution. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 10:32, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

Reported this. I'll let you know when I hear something back -- thanks.--(WT-shared) IBobi 13:45, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Great! (WT-shared) Riggwelter 16:05, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Do you see them now? I see a slightly different format that what we used to see... those dropdown arrows are new...--(WT-shared) IBobi 17:40, 3 July 2012 (EDT)
Works fine - thanks! :-) (WT-shared) Riggwelter 13:44, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Today's performance

edit

As announced last week, today we are implementing a new cacheing system. It is expected to result in an overall increase in performance, as well as resolve the login issues and most other reported bugs from the recent upgrade to 1.17. You may have seen intermittent errors today, and initially some performance slow-down as the cache builds back up with every page load. Not to worry -- this will be alleviated with time, and overall there will be a bump in read/edit speed.

If you discover longterm problems (i.e. beyond today) or bugs resulting from this change, please report them as usual. We do not anticipate any issues. Thank you!--(WT-shared) IBobi 18:47, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

1.17 upgrade bugs addressed

edit

We believe we have addressed and fixed all bugs reported since the 1.17 upgrade. Please review any you have reported and if they are still occurring, report them on the upgrade page (and unmark them as "resolved" or "fixed") and we'll readress them.--(WT-shared) IBobi 19:42, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

Please thank your team for their work - while things have likely been frustrating on both sides lately, the effort shown is still appreciated. -- (WT-shared) Ryan 20:08, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
That's great to hear Ryan, thanks. I will let them know.--(WT-shared) IBobi 20:14, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Bugs from the upgrade now have their own ticket, see WtTech:Bugs from the MediaWiki 1.17 upgrade. The upgrade feature request has therefor been closed. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 23:24, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

Bugs, feature requests, and the future of Wikivoyage

edit

We're rapidly closing in on a completed and bug-free MW 1.17. We began this unprecedented update in November, when 1.17 was the most current version of Mediawiki. Clearly at some point in the near future we will upgrade to 1.19, or 1.20 when it is fully released and stable. But this is not where we stop.

There are a number of open bug reports Category:Open bug reports and open feature requests Category:Open feature requests -- some of which are collected on the very useful Roadmap -- that are no longer relevant in the post-1.17 world. The first task will be for the community members who requested those features and fixes to sift through them (we'll be doing the same) and remove anything that is now just clutter, so that we can address any that are still relevant and desired by the community. Many requests will be *much* easier to address now -- or only now possible -- since the upgrade.

Next, we will ask for recommendations (and votes) on new feature requests, and begin to prioritize them among the existing requests, and send them off to the development team to hammer them out.

Please help us in this next step toward making Wikivoyage better. --(WT-shared) IBobi 20:46, 10 July 2012 (EDT)

You often note that the upgrade to MediaWiki 1.17 is "unprecedented". What do you mean by that? (WT-shared) LtPowers 21:48, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
Is that spin-speak for "extraordinarily long overdue"? (WT-shared) texugo 22:46, 10 July 2012 (EDT)
It's to highlight the huge undertaking of upgrading the software on a Wiki this size, and yes, it includes the big jump from 1.11 to 1.17. This is by far the biggest technical achievement ever accomplished on Wikivoyage, largely due to the increase in size of the database and user base of WT since the last upgrade.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 13:22, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
So, unprecedented but for the WMF upgrades that happen, well, regularly? on wikis much bigger?
There are a few wikis that are bigger than WT. Not many! Fortunately, now we're over the big gap and can upgrade more or less at will, much more easily.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 00:56, 12 July 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure how to add to the Open feature requests page, but I've proposed changes to the WT warningbox that I think may need a little work on the IT side if consensus is to add this. Similar to the "What links here", the page would need a bot to list all the warningboxes on WT and their date added/updated and proposed "review date", with all columns able to be sorted alphabetically or by date up/down. Basically an auto-generated version of tables found on Wikipedia like this one. (WT-shared) AHeneen 02:43, 11 July 2012 (EDT)
Recently, I went through all the current bugs in the open bugs category and made sure they were stamped with the date and time when they were first reported, in order to make it easier to evaluate them. Personally, I'd suggest we close all bugs prior to the upgrade and, if they still occur, reopen them. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 11:48, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
That's pretty much what tech is recommending as well; there are so many changes it'll be more work to run through each of them than it would be to just wait & see if they pop up now. Many things were resolved with that update, and feature requests are possible now that were not before. We'd love to have a fresh start with bugs & feature requests so we can prioritize according to what the community wants most. Obviously at the moment that means fixing the 1.17 security hole & deletion errors, which we should be able to do Monday at the latest. But new features available should be added (such as email notifications which I suggested).--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 15:00, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Bugs from the upgrade now have their own ticket, see WtTech:Bugs from the MediaWiki 1.17 upgrade. The upgrade feature request has therefor been closed. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 23:25, 20 July 2012 (EDT)

I have now gone through all the open bugs again, and there are still quite a few tickets that need to be checked by IB; among the most important ones are tickets related to non-ASCII characters, diacritics or "local" letters, such as Å, Ä and Ö, and tickets related to the caching thingy you implemented on July 9. Also, following that, the top bugs list needs to be revised. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 00:43, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

I strongly disagree with just closing bugs because they're old -- as of yesterday, there were only about fifty bugs remaining, some of which were obvious duplicates (and could of course be merged), but by no means all. The CADT Model is a lousy way to run things, especially when there is so little effort involved in verifying most of them. -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 13:45, 21 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, a bug that is not checked, not verified, and not bumped for 6 years is no longer a problem in my book. I am fully aware that people have different opinions on this, but as long as we - all Wikivoyagers - do not help IB to check if the bug still exists, well... attention has to be given from both sides. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 12:32, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
For myself, I'd much rather follow Riggwelter's model and get a fresh take. A bug that old can always be reported again; it's just very likely that with no evidence of it, given all the changes made to the site (all new software and hardware) that it no longer affects the site. Riggwelter, your diligence on this is greatly appreciated. I think it will allow us a truer window on what needs to be done to the site.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 13:10, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
We have bugs that have not been bumped for years because IB never responded to them, and there's little point continuing to shout into the wind. In this most recent case, I reopened about six bugs that Riggwelter had summarily closed after personally verifying each one of them was still relevant, which in most cases took no more than a few seconds. These are not situations where there is "no evidence of it". -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 15:57, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
It is quite right that we have bugs that have not been bumped for years, but in my opinion, a bug that the reporting part does not keep bumping, is not a bug that can be considered very important (compare to an IT support department in any major company...). Of course, the same goes for any bug that isn't attended/replied to by IB, which is something we Wikivoyagers expect. There has been a significantly increased interest by IB in bug handling (many thanks to IBobi) and I think that is worth all praise. We expect them to keep up that interest. Now, that was slightly off-topic... but fact remains: if the reporting part does not show any interest in the ticket, the fixing part will not do it either. Wiki is about cooperation, and Dguillaime reopening the tickets after checking them is an excellent example of exactly that: checking and rebumping. The best thing is of course if the ticket gets a timestamp in the ticket itself, so it is apparent that it has been bumped. A number of tickets on a list (or in a category) is not very helpful. (WT-shared) Riggwelter 16:23, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

I have found the Roadmap to be a very useful place for bugs to be reported and prioritized; if all bugs that are checked could be linked there, that would help tremendously in determining which should be addressed and in what order. I see that many already are there.

A combination of Roadmap for feature requests and Top Bugs for bugs would be ideal, as it would allow us to check two locations that are fully community-vetted and know exactly what to work on next. I want to keep our new dev resources constantly busy.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 21:02, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Wikimedia Foundation considering Travel Guide project

edit

Today I heard that Wikimedia Foundation is considering a Travel Guide project (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide ).

Is there a better place on Wikivoyage to discuss this? --(WT-shared) DavidCary 22:00, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

See en:Project:Travellers' pub#Moving to Wikimedia. Representatives from Internet Brands have made it clear that they do not want Wikivoyage.org used for discussing the fork proposal, so it has generally not been publicized here. -- (WT-shared) Ryan 23:48, 21 July 2012 (EDT)

Wikitravel has some alarming problems aka. WTF!?

edit

First I noted that WT seems damn slow this morning (European time). As I tried to login on en I found myself logged in as someone named Prabjot that Dguillaime recently has blocked as a spambot. Logged out again to write about it on English's Travellers pub - and found out that I could not edit anything nor as anonymous nor as Ypsilon as my IP seems to be blocked. To "complain about the IP block" I'm supposed to email Dguillame if I've specified an email address in my preferences - well, I have, but I cannot do that. I cannot do anything. I can just say WHAT THE F**K!? How is this possible? Has someone else experienced something similar? I have to write it over here as I cannot do anything over there and hope someone sees it. (WT-shared) Ypsilonatshared 01:04, 24 July 2012 (EDT)

Best guess is that a spambot is exploiting a security hole in 1.17.0 - see the last part of Talk:Roadmap#MW upgrades for a discussion and some pointers. IB was supposedly going to implement a patch to the latest 1.17 bugfix release, but at the moment that doesn't seem to have happened. Clearing your browser cookies may fix the login issues, but won't address the spambot session hijacking. -- (WT-shared) Ryan 01:15, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Now I see, this looks a bit similar to what [has experienced]. When I saw that I was logged in as someone else I logged out and logged in again. Now I was logged in on my own name but got one of those warning boxes. My IP address has apparently been blocked on en for 24h, because I was logged in as that spambot. :|| I think I'll follow the situation as an anonymous spectator until IB has sorted out those security issues. (WT-shared) Ypsilonatshared 07:44, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Ugh. Yes, it looks like you're inadvertently hitting the same severe security flaw that was seen on AHeenan's account, but this is the first time (that I know of) where blocking the fake account hurt the real user, rather than fake/fake. I will stop blocking spammers for the time being until IB gets their act together. Meanwhile, I've just cleared out the last six autoblocked IPs that were supposedly from the Prabjot account, so I hope I unblocked you as one of them! -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 12:20, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
The MW 1.17.2 patch was deployed early this morning Pacific time. Please let me know as soon as possible if it has not addressed the spambot issue and the deletion problem.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 13:12, 24 July 2012 (EDT)
Well, now I am at least not logged in as someone else, and my IP isn't blocked. However, most pages load as blank screens the first time and I have to reload them up to 2-3 times until I get the page. (WT-shared) Ypsilonatshared 07:17, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
Ypsilon: The caching issue is an unsolved technical issue IB claims to work on since 2009... See Top_bugs for technical issues that are ignored for years. (WT-shared) Jc8136 09:44, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

The cacheing issue he's referring to is likely just the slowness of the entire site's cache reloading since the upgrade yesterday; any legacy cacheing issues were likely resolved with the MW upgrade last month, along with many other longstanding bugs and some feature requests. We're in the process of defining which pre-upgrade bugs, if any, are still relevant. Cacheing should not be one of them.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 14:15, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Yes. It's just the last few days that I've had to reload virtually every single new page (had the same problem when I tried to log in here on shared a minute ago). (WT-shared) Ypsilonatshared 02:09, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
I don't think I have experienced the old caching issue where you see an outdated version of a page or file, but as it has been a long-standing and somewhat irregularly occurring problem, I would like to see us let some significant time go by before closing the bug report.
As for site slowness, it remains a disaster (I've also been getting 503 errors, possibly for this reason). I still can't perform my basic admin function of patrolling, because opening multiple diffs at a time in tabs just gives me dozens of either eternally loading pages or 503 errors. The session failures are even more of a problem right now, though. --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 14:18, 26 July 2012 (EDT)
And there we go. I added the rdf tag for breadcrumbs to en:Monegros today, but they did not show up until I purged the cache and reloaded the page. It's a pain to have to click history, purge, then click the filename (since rdf breaks until I use the clean url), then reload. Given that it can take minutes to perform each and any of these steps, this is... a pain and a waste of a productive Wikivoyager's time. But, as everyone knows, it's worse when a new contributor tries to edit, and the edit does not show! --(WT-shared) Peter Talk 19:21, 26 July 2012 (EDT)

IBobi, reports are that the spambot/account-hijacking problem persists. -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 02:50, 30 July 2012 (EDT)

It appears that the 1.17.5 patch did not have the intended effect of stopping spambots from spawning new accounts. We will continue to investigate a solution.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 18:57, 30 July 2012 (EDT)
Cache was fully cleared yesterday to propagate the effect of the new patch (1.17.5). Please report if you observe spambot spooling issue or deletion problems persist.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 18:11, 31 July 2012 (EDT)
One particularly worrisome effect seen today is that a great many contributions came in from what were clearly different editors, but the same IP address: Special:Contributions/10.17.32.138 and en:Special:Contributions/10.17.32.138. What makes this worrisome is that the entire 10.x.x.x block is a private IP range: it cannot be routed across the wider Internet, and so those contributions are all appearing to come from within IB's own internal network! Perhaps something very badly wrong with a caching server? -- (WT-shared) D. Guillaime 01:36, 4 August 2012 (EDT)
D. Guillaume, you should not be seeing that IP issue any longer; it was not related to cacheing, but is now fixed, thank you for reporting.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 16:11, 6 August 2012 (EDT)

Email notifications

edit

Today, email notifications have been enabled. The feature defaults to "off" so you will not receive any until you switch it on and confirm your email in your User Profile.--(WT-shared) IBobi talk email 13:43, 27 July 2012 (EDT)

Removing the password

edit

After all WT logos have been removed, I think we are ready for opening the wiki for public access. What do you think, can we remove the password? -- Hansm (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2012 (CEST)

Add Wikivoyage to the InterWiki map at Meta?

edit

Would it be a good idea to add the various language versions of Wikivoyage to the InterWiki map charts at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map ? --W. Franke-mailtalk 00:05, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

Whoops! I now see there is already a proposal to add them on that article's discussion page. --W. Franke-mailtalk 00:13, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

Namespace error

edit

On Wikitravel, the project namespace was called "Wikitravel Shared", but the word "Shared" was dropped after migration so that it became just "Wikivoyage". I fixed the namespace issue in the "Please add new questions at the bottom" link at the top of this page, but there might be similar namespace errors elsewhere on the project. A user accidentally created the page Wikivoyage Shared:Travellers' pub because of the incorrect link. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2012 (CEST)

We're kind of confused on this point. We moved half of our policy pages to the main namespace (since it wasn't being used otherwise) and left the other half at Project_Shared. IMO, we should move the rest to the main namespace, so we don't ever have to type that mouthful. --Peter Talk 00:58, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
I agree, the project namespace is unecessary. –sumone10154(talk) 02:16, 4 October 2012 (CEST)
I have moved all pages from the Project namespace to the main namespace except for Wikivoyage:Map Sources and Wikivoyage:Local spam blacklist as these are pages are used by the system. –sumone10154(talk) 00:58, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Get together

edit

I've just checked some double redirects and found some get-together sites. Maybe we should delete all these Get-together pages. They are part of the history and not really needed. Especially the talk page does not make sense (because the WT is replaced by WV now). What do you think? If people want to meet again we can create new sites with the same names. But we will get rid of the WT-links in the footer. -- DerFussi (talk) 12:30, 4 October 2012 (CEST)

Pub

edit

Same with the pub. Maybe we should consider to delete the pub article and it's archives. They all contain source links to WT although there should be new discussions. New home, new discussions, new pub. I can imagine, many discussion pages can be deleted as well. -- DerFussi (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2012 (CEST)

I disagree, the archives may contain important discussions about site policies, history of Wikitravel, etc. That's why we've always kept them. –sumone10154(talk) 21:04, 5 October 2012 (CEST)
sumone10154 is absolutely right - except that "may" is an understatement! --92.26.120.237 02:01, 8 October 2012 (CEST) Whoops ! Forgot to log-in, that was me. --W. Franke-mailtalk 02:04, 8 October 2012 (CEST)

Possible bug

edit

Has anyone come across anything like this? The preview (and associated thumbnail on :en) are rotated clockwise, even though the image file itself is right-side up. I couldn't find a mention of this in the bug reports, but I wanted to check with you guys before I went and reported something everyone already knew about. PerryPlanet (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2012 (CEST)

See Commons:COM:ROTATEFIX. This probably also affects other images. I fixed this one. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (CEST)
Another thing: does Wikivoyage support wikipedia:mw:InstantCommons? This image can't be taken to Commons (see Commons:COM:FOP#United States), but in other cases it may be easier to simply copy the image to Commons (with file history & old file versions!) and request rotation there using Commons:Template:Rotate. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2012 (CEST)

Bug Image upload prefixed by file: instead of fichier:

edit

I've uploaded the French map of Belgium Belgium regions (fr).png which is prefixed by "File:" automatically. However, on the Belgique page, the image is not displayed since "Fichier:Belgium regions (fr).png" is expected instead of "File:Belgium regions (fr).png". Any idea? Fogg (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2012 (CEST)

Very strange, especially considering that the English map works fine (see fr:Fichier:Belgium regions.svg). I inserted that map instead since I think that an English map is better than no map at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2012 (CEST)
The difference I can see is that the SVG File:Belgium regions.svg and English File:Begium.png maps were originally imported from WikiTravel and the (cache?) pages on :fr fr:Fichier:Belgium_regions.svg and fr:Fichier:Begium.png already existed whereas File:Belgium regions (fr).png is a new map directly uploaded on wts:Wikivoyage. There must be a setup or alias File/Fichier to define somewhere. Do other languages have a similar problem? I really need this to continue my translation work. Thanks for your help. Fogg (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
Note: I took this up at tech:Wikitravel Migration bugs. Apparently, this was also a problem on English Wikivoyage in the beginning. Maybe it wasn't fixed on other language versions at that time? --Stefan2 (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2012 (CEST)
Newly uploaded images on WTS don't work correctly on EN and NL language versions as well. --Globe-trotter (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2012 (CEST)
Seems fixed now, thanks a lot! Fogg (talk) 01:32, 17 October 2012 (CEST)

Bug reporting error

edit

I tried to report a bug using the form here, and all I got is this message: "Permission error You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reason: The action you have requested is limited to users in the group Users. You can view and copy the source of this page: <an empty gray rectangle>"

It is critical that users can report bugs. This should work for anyone, and not require any special permission. Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:06, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

Its working for me. Try again. --Saqib (talk) 08:14, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
Tried again, failed again. Same for Feature requests. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
So in this case, it would be better to report the issue there rather than here. --Saqib (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
OK, moved to wts :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

Bug report: Search does not autocomplete Sri Lanka

edit

The search box in the right-high corner usually autocompletes, for instance if I type "toky" it will show "Tokyo". But if I type "sri l" it does not show anything, even though "Sri Lanka" should show up.

However, if you type "kuala l", autocomplete works and shows "Kuala Lumbur". ("Lumbur" instead of "Lumpur" is another bug, by the way).

Thanks! Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

No bug: The search is case-sensitive excluding the first character. If you enter only "sri", "sri L", or "kuala" then you will find all entries. "Kuala Lumbur" is only a redirect for those who cannot write "Kuala Lumpur" correctly. --Unger (talk) 08:34, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
Sounds like a bug to me. On Wikipedia, if you type "x win" it will show "X Window". At least it could be considered an enhancement. Nicolas1981 (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2012 (CEST)
Case insensitive search is not a core feature of MediaWiki software. It needs a special extension, Extension:TitleKey, and changes to the data base. We should do it at the migration to WMF. --Unger (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2012 (CEST)

Project close

edit

It would appear that the WMF does not want to import wts or Shared, so this section will be coming to a close. Discussion of what needs to happen is taking place here. I am still not exactly sure what the next steps are, but my guess is that we'll need to start tagging images here for transfer (or not for transfer) or deletion. Here are my suggested tags:

  1. Template:Move — files to be moved to Commons
  2. Template:NowCommons — files that exist on Commons and should be deleted
  3. Template:Replace — files that are superior here, and should be uploaded to Commons as a new revision of their old file
  4. Template:KeepLocal — files that we want to continue using, but cannot be uploaded to Commons (non-free content)
  5. Template:Ignore — files we don't intend to move, for one reason or another

Does that look right? Please keep this thread devoted only to procedural stuff—start a new thread for questions about why and such. --Peter Talk 21:48, 28 October 2012 (CET)

Just to add that Commons files are already visible directly in English and Russian language versions (did not check the others), so the files can be replaced already now. And new files can be uploaded directly to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 28 October 2012 (CET)
This seems like a good use for categories, or at least templates that include categories.
Is there a way we can automatically sort on, or otherwise procedurally use, files that have already been identified as Commons duplicates? Many do, e.g. File:Kinkaku-ji winter.jpg has an internally generated "File Usage" section showing that it is also commons:File:Kinkaku-Snow-8.jpg, even with the different filename. I'm guessing this is generated based off of the URL in its description? This could save significant time.
It would be nice (tm) if images that are not in use in any language version could be auto-identified as likely candidates for a Template:Ignore, but as I understand it that's non-trivial to do across the interwiki links.
Since Commons images are directly visible already, could admin-class users simply start deleting any files that are on Commons and have the same filename? -- Dguillaume (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Just to put the workload in perspective, the statistics show we have some 34,143 files uploaded - hence the desire for automation as possible! -- Dguillaume (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2012 (CET)
For the sake of reusing WP's handy autosubstitution code in templates with minimal changes otherwise, I've ported over a couple of their templates (Template:Imbox and Template:File other) for use with this endeavor. Template:NowCommons is up as a simplified version of theirs, with simpler categories. -- Dguillaume (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2012 (CET)
This question was discussed on Commons, and I am going to contact the user who is performing similar tasks on English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 29 October 2012 (CET)

For the images that should be moved, whatever template is currently in use (usually Template:Imagecredit) will have to be converted to Template:Information. That would be another good thing to try and automate! --Peter Talk 01:23, 29 October 2012 (CET)

It looks like automatically converting the templates themselves shouldn't be a difficulty, but some of the content might be - we could automatically remove all of the leading ":commons:" interwiki tags from links, for example, but then they'd be broken here on WTS. Would this complicate the migration? Is it better to simply leave those alone for now? -- Dguillaume (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Why do you need an "Ignore" template? If the image is useless, shouldn't it just be deleted? Also keep in mind that unused files may be useful on Commons, although I guess it's lower priority to copy those over. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Deleting would be more time-consuming. --Peter Talk 04:23, 29 October 2012 (CET)
  • Thanks for creating the templates.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 29 October 2012 (CET)

All image categories will require... manual work! For example, all disambiguations on Commons are done via comma, not parentheses. Also, categories are more specific, e.g., "Buildings in Chicago" instead of a simple "Chicago". I'd like to preserve our map category hierarchy, even if we lose the breadcrumb functionality, but we will have to add aditional categories for "Wikivoyage maps of Chicago", for example, to do this. --Peter Talk 14:15, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Yes, indeed, maps are kind of worrisome and we need to think how we want to categorize them on Commons. For photographs, typically Commons have a good category structure, though there are of course exceptions. Also we need to check inclusions here, and it would be good to understand which versions still do not accept Commons files (only the German one?)--Ymblanter (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (CET)
The :de and :it versions don't use images from wts (they use Shared), so that shouldn't be a worry. --Peter Talk 23:07, 29 October 2012 (CET)

Those templates look good to me, other than "Ignore" (like Stefan2 said). Can we make a rule that if an image isn't tagged that it doesn't get moved over? (just hoping we can save some time if we don't have to tag every image) -Shaund (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2012 (CET)

Also, I've uploaded a number of images from Commons to WTS over the years. Is it OK if I go ahead and delete them from WTS without the Vfd procedure? -Shaund (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2012 (CET)

Sure, as long as the filename is the same (so the thumbs won't break). My thinking was that tagging with NowCommons might be faster than deleting, as we could just not move them later, and thus achieving the same goal. My thinking in using the ignore tag is just so that we don't duplicate each others' work—an ignore tag is kind of like marking as patrolled. --Peter Talk 06:29, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Is there some place where I can see where an image is used? If a file gets a different name on Commons, this needs to be reflected on all Wikivoyage language versions. It's possible to check the file information page on all Wikivoyage language versions, but it takes some time. Also, how are changed names handled on projects which are protected by password or not yet imported? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2012 (CET)
The image page of every image shows the usage, the same was as on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2012 (CET)
No, it does not. Shared has no feedback to individual language versions. It only shows similar files on Commons. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Ok, now I realized that all files I came across yestarday (I tagged several dozens) were only showing usage on WTS, not on individual projects. But can not this be done by a bot somehow? It looks like a double work for us.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (CET)
I hope that this can be solved by changing some settings in the database. However, only Hans and Roland can do this, and they are likely too busy with the migration process. I suggest that we wait for their opinion before starting any large-scale activity. They may also have good ideas about bots, tags and massive text replacements. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Maybe Template:NowCommons template could have an extra flag name updated=yes? If the target name is different, and if the flag isn't set, then the files should be placed in a maintenance category since someone will have to go through all Wikivoyage language versions to update this. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Yes, that's going to be a very tedious work=((
To the best of my knowledge, we have no languages protected by password (en, fr, ru, nl and sv are all open, and we had only five languages imported). Those languages that have not been imported will require a lot of preparatory work anyway, so I won't worry about them now. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2012 (CET)

Maps

edit

Should our maps be tagged with the Move template? I assume yes, so they're available to all language versions, but I just want to make sure. Thanks. -Shaund (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2012 (CET)

I'm hopeful that we can avoid doing the actual tagging, as we'll want to move everything tagged with {{map}} (that work is already done), except those already on Commons. Any time we can save... It took nearly an hour to tag all Chicago images. --Peter Talk 04:17, 31 October 2012 (CET)
What about deprecated maps (where the district or region boundaries have changed)? Do we need to carry those over to the new site? I guess we could take the Map tag off of those if we don't want them brought over. -Shaund (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2012 (CET)
Sometimes they're still in use on talk pages, but I don't know. Is there a reason why it would be better to not bring them over? Will we have an automated transfer mechanism? Or will the actual transfer of images take a huge amount of time and effort? --Peter Talk 04:29, 31 October 2012 (CET)
I don't have any particular reasons, just like to do a little housecleaning sometimes and try to get rid of stuff that's not being used. No worries, I can leave the maps be, it's actually less work that way. -Shaund (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2012 (CET)
I've added a "commons" parameter to Template:Map. If the map is available on Commons, enter the file name as commons=xxx. If the parameter is set, the Map template will transclude {{NowCommons|xxx}}. If not set, the Map template will transclude {{move}}. This means that almost all maps currently are tagged for a move to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2012 (CET)
I think it might be easier to just move all the maps. If they are duplicates, we can delete them later from Commons, when we're double checking that categories were done correctly. --Peter Talk 19:38, 31 October 2012 (CET)
I'm not sure if our maps are useful for Commons, they are specifically made to fit our travel guides and might not add much to a general image repository. --Globe-trotter (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2012 (CET)
I suppose that maps which are in use should go to Commons. On the other hand, it's probably better to ignore unused maps. Should the "commons" tag to the map template be reverted? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2012 (CET)
@Globe-trotter: Yes, but we want to have these maps (together with their svg sources) available for all language versions. Therefore, we better move the maps to a place where they can be easily accessed.
@Stefan2: Should we really care about unused maps? Let's move everything. That's the easiest. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2012 (CET)
Files that are not in use on our site will generally have value to Commons as they are (presumably) free image content, and Commons' goal is pretty straightforwardly to house all free image content that meets their criteria for inclusion. Even if we're not using some images, others might want to (like images for destinations where we don't have space for more images). --Peter Talk 19:38, 31 October 2012 (CET)
  • A question to Yaroslav and other Commons experts: is it possible to create "Wikivoyage maps" under the existing Wikivoyage category? And is it possible to copy the Template:Map there (of course, under a different name)? Does it require any discussion at Commons? --Atsirlin (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    I am not sure creating the dedicated Wikivoyage category is possible, but I also do not understand why it is needed, there are plenty of maps there already, and our maps should be in-scope.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    And templates stored on Commons are only seen on Commons, not on other projects.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    The reason is that we would like to have a simple mechanism for selecting our maps among the huge amount of other maps stored on Commons. For example, it would make sense to put back the logo as soon as we have the new one. Another example: When I draw a new map, I use to check other WV maps to comply with our colors and notation, but there is no mechanism to go through the maps other than using the categories. Checking individual articles does not work because most of them do not have maps yet. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    We could create a category smth like "Maps of sights of ...", I guess this must be acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    My impression was that the task force liked the idea of trying to preserve our WV map hierarchy. Creating a Wikivoyage maps category should be exceedingly simple—just a matter of adding a category to Template:Map (I've now done this). Maybe there would be a way to use our |Location parameter in the map template to generate category wikilinks to Category:Wikivoyage maps of X to keep the hierarchy intact. This is rather important for our project. It should also save time sorting, since our map files have been much more carefully curated, and I doubt there would be more than one or two copyvios lurking about. --Peter Talk 19:14, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    Well, I think Yaroslav's point is that the name "Wikivoyage maps of" sounds like Commons is making special preferences for one project. So we should find a different name. How about "Travel maps of"? As soon as we agree on this name, the rest is pretty easy indeed, provided that the template is allowed. --Atsirlin (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    The files should certainly be in the normal Commons "Maps of X" categories too, of course. --Peter Talk 19:36, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    Travel Maps is fine with me. Wikivoyage maps would require a discussion on Commons if we want to avoid speedy deletions.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    Let's stick to the "Travel maps" then. Could you create such a category? --Atsirlin (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    Now I did. Check this category and see how it is categorized. I will now write more about file transfer below.Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    Perfect! Thanks! --Atsirlin (talk) 08:12, 2 November 2012 (CET)
  • For the record, I don't think there would be any problem with "Category:Wikivoyage maps of <place>" as a separate hierarchy. In fact, I think that might be better than using "travel maps" because some people will wonder why the separate hierarchy is needed/wanted. By specifying that they're made for Wikivoyage -- or, alternatively, formatted in the Wikivoyage style -- we head off any such questions. LtPowers (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Images without credits/licensing

edit

What do we do with images like this one that don't have credits or licensing information. Is this a "KeepLocal"? -Shaund (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2012 (CET)

For the license, they're treated as CC BY-SA 3.0 - the stated default for all uploads since the Great Relicensing, and earlier uploads made while CC BY-SA 1.0 was still the default were covered by that same relicensing. The lack of any other useful information is a problem, which applies to many images.... -- Dguillaume (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2012 (CET)
The problem is that it doesn't say who the photographer is. See Commons:Template:No source since. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2012 (CET)
What should we do then? Delete the photos/place ignore tags? Or KeepLocal? There are a lot of these older photos, where uploaders assumed it was obvious that the photos were their own work. --Peter Talk 18:17, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Files on fully protected pages

edit

The following files are used on fully protected pages and have a different name on Commons. Would someone able to replace the file names with the Commons file names?

Stefan2 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (CET)

Done.--Globe-trotter (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Moved list to en:User:Stefan2/file links to update and extended it. Stefan2 (talk) 11:49, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Images on specific language versions

edit

Should we also be tagging images on the specific language versions for transfer to Commons? Or are they not eligible because they're not on WTS/Shared? -Shaund (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Ideally, the files would be moved over to Commons and deleted from the specific language versions. However, files on Wts and Shared are much more urgent. Since the shared projects will be closed down, the migration from these projects needs to be done quickly, but the files on the specific language versions can be migrated at any time.
If a file can't be moved to Commons (for example because it is a photo of a recent French building), then you may choose not to use the image at all, or move it over to local language versions. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Tag, you're it

edit

We should try to coordinate our checking process somewhat to avoid duplicating work? I've been going through specific categories, and finished all Chicago and D.C. images. Maybe we could list ones that are done here? I'll start that, but if this is wrongheaded, let me know. --Peter Talk 01:40, 2 November 2012 (CET)

I've made Template:Done to tag categories you have completed.--Globe-trotter (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2012 (CET)
This list is a mess, could we sort it by geographic area? –sumone10154(talk) 04:45, 5 November 2012 (CET)

(Note that there could be some categories tagged by the template "done" but not in this list; check before starting doing a cat!)

Europe

edit
Central Europe
edit
Eastern Europe - completed
edit
Mediterranean Europe
edit
Northern Europe - done
edit

All categories complete. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2012 (CET)

Western Europe - done
edit

Asia

edit
Middle East - done
edit

All categories complete. --Globe-trotter (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (CET)

South Asia - done
edit

All categories complete. --Globe-trotter (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (CET)

East Asia
edit
Southeast Asia
edit
Central Asia - done
edit

All categories complete. --Globe-trotter (talk) 20:19, 9 November 2012 (CET)

Africa

edit
North Africa
edit
Southern Africa
edit

North America - done

edit

All categories complete. --Peter Talk 18:10, 8 November 2012 (CET)

South America - done

edit

All categories complete. --Peter Talk 04:48, 8 November 2012 (CET)

Oceania

edit

Orphan and loose categories and other non-trivial atuff

edit

Image rendering different on Commons

edit

I've been double checking NowCommons tagged images to double check that they shouldn't get a Replace tag instead, and noticed that the same images look sharpened on Commons. I don't like that. Why would this be? --Peter Talk 23:07, 29 October 2012 (CET)

  • I noticed this earlier as well. I do not know. Btw I am a filemover on Commons so that I can move bad name files there, it is easier than to trabsfer identical files from wts first.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2012 (CET)
    I didn't know there was such a thing! Is there somewhere I should request such moves? In any rate, I reverted my change . --Peter Talk 23:18, 29 October 2012 (CET)
Re moving files: Check https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming. Re sharpening: Sometime in April 2007 or so, the WMF techs changed the image sharpening options for imagemagick (that produces the thumbnails that are displayed) because of complaints about too blurry thumbnails: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007/04#Super-sharp_thumbnails. --Rosenzweig (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Peter, in the specific case of File:Akhaltsikhe Castle.jpg, the image on Commons matches the one on Flickr, while the one here has had is color adjusted slightly. That could result in a different thumbnail appearance. LtPowers (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2012 (CET)
Oh yeah, I think I upped the contrast very slightly on that one to make it a little less hazy. --Peter Talk 03:23, 31 October 2012 (CET)

How do we do with these files? I also noticed File:01165Krakow.JPG / Commons:File:01165Kraków.JPG which has been modified a little on Wikivoyage. Do you think that the file still should be replaced with the Commons version, or should both versions be kept? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2012 (CET)

If you think the modification is an unambiguous improvement, then upload the modification over the Commons version. If you think there might be some controversy, then upload it as a new file, pointing to the original and explaining the change made. LtPowers (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Filesize issue

edit

Different topic from the above. Did I miss something? I can't upload File:New Mexico pueblos map.svg, which at 12.1MB is big, but not as big as our largest SVG files. Is there a 12MB limit on new uploads? --Peter Talk 04:32, 1 November 2012 (CET)

  • For Commons, I believe it is 15M. I do not see why we should upload files to shared given they cease to be available soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    • Can't uploads to this project simply be disabled? If people continue to upload files here, this will just cause more migration work for other people. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2012 (CET)
      I think they will be disabled next week anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    That's a shame, since the trend is for SVG maps to get bigger and bigger. At least, there's only one SVG on wts that I can think of that is bigger than 15MB (one of mine), but it's a shame to have no place to upload it. --Peter Talk 19:28, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    The size limit is only for certain extentions, svg can be exempt. Just try to upload and see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Migration update

edit

From Erik Moeller here. It means that the shared repositories will only exist for a short while, and every project individually will have to adopt the fair use provisions and the files which are not appropriate for Commons will be stored in every project locally.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2012 (CET)

I'm a bit troubled by that message. He says that the projects will be available in read-only mode. It would be much better if the shared projects were to be kept in writable mode so that Template:NowCommons can be added whenever a file has been copied to Commons. Also, will Wikivoyage language versions be able to use Wts & Shared files in the beginning, or will basically all images break immediately upon migration? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2012 (CET)
My understanding is that the images will still be visible some time after migration. Concerning the template adding, it would be convenient but not crucial - we can just organize a task force and check category by category.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Have all images been added to categories? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Yes, Shared is quite messy. We do have files without categories, and we also have weirdly categorized files. Therefore, it is important to keep at least administrator access and simply remove those files that have been transferred. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2012 (CET)
I could request an access to help deleting files - is there any page to request it? Not sure I am eligible though.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Leave a message to Peter, Powers or Ryan. They can decide. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Peter reads this board, so I guess he will notice. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Oh, now I realized we can not delete anything - at least not before we are sure the file is not used on any project, and we still have no mechanisms to figure out whether the file is used. We can only delete those with the same name on Commons--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Is there a need to delete anything, though? Can't we just not move such files? That should save time (deletion is fairly tedious). --Peter Talk 18:57, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Mechanism for figuring out whether a file is used on any project: I wrote a simple script for exactly that purpose. It checks if a file in Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons is used on any page on wts, en, fr, nl, ru or sv. If a file is in use on any of those projects, the script tells my web browser to open the file information page on that project so that I can see where the image is used and update links. Other projects either don't support Commons files (de, it) or are protected by passwords (e.g. fi, ja), so they are currently ignored by the script. It would be more practical (and faster) if I could just tell the script to update all file names automatically if I've confirmed that the files are identical - do I need to request bot approval for that somewhere? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Re: Stefan's initial point, wouldn't it make (a ton) more sense to just make wts password protected until we sort things out? I assume that the WMF worry is about hosting a less-well curated image repository public, in terms of potential copyvios. But keeping it behind a password would actually be safer on those grounds than a read-only site. --Peter Talk 19:17, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Maybe. However, some of the tools used for moving files to Commons might not support HTTP passwords. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Re: Ymblanter's initial point (every project individually will have to adopt the fair use provisions), where/how do we go about this? As a travel guide, we'll have a pretty big need for images of public art and architecture that would not be free enough for Commons. Our draft policy, which really could be used on any of our language versions, is here . --Peter Talk 19:22, 1 November 2012 (CET)

I think the idea is that these images, which cannoit be uploaded to Commons for a variety of reasons, can not be shared between the projects anymore, but should be uploaded individually to en.wv, de.wv, ru.wv and so on. The fair use provisions on WMF projects typically require that fair use files are used, but here I am not sure, we can see how big the problem is. May be we do not need unused non-free files at all.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2012 (CET)
There is also another thing: United States law provides freedom of panorama for any building, so photos of buildings are strictly speaking not unfree in the United States, although they might be unfree in the source country (and thus unacceptable on Commons). See Wikipedia:Template:FoP-USonly. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Main namespace pages

edit

We'll need to import Shared policy pages and their talk pages to both Meta and individual language projects. I'll work on exporting all relevant pages today, and will note here which ones I've done. --Peter Talk 15:11, 1 November 2012 (CET)

I've now done this for the pages I deemed relevant (and excluding those that are basically copies of projectspace pages on :en). All historical revisions will be preserved as well:
Breaucrats
Copyleft
Talk:Copyleft
Deletion policy
Talk:Deletion policy
FAQ
Get-together
Talk:Get-together
Goals and non-goals
Talk:Goals and non-goals
How to add an image
How to re-use Wikivoyage guides
How to re-use Wikipedia content
How to start a new language version
Talk:How to start a new language version
Image policy
Talk:Image policy
Language version policy
Talk:Language version policy
License upgrade
Talk:License upgrade
Public domain by country
Main Page
Talk:Main Page
News archives
Talk:News archives
No real world threats
Talk:No real world threats
Page history help
Privacy policy
Privacy rights
Talk:Privacy rights
Public domain by country
Roadmap
Talk:Roadmap
Talk:Internet Brands
Talk:Internet Brands/Archive 1
Tags
Talk:Tags
Top bugs
Talk:Top bugs
Travellers' pub
Talk:Travellers' pub
Travellers' pub/Pub cellar Dec 18, 2006
Travellers' pub/Pub cellar January 2, 2007
Travellers' pub/Pub cellar July 26, 2007
Travellers' pub/Pub cellar November 28, 2007
Travellers' pub/Pub cellar December 24, 2007
Travellers' pub/Archive 2008
Travellers' pub/Archive 2009
Travellers' pub/Archive 2010
Travellers' pub/Archive 2011
Wikivoyage talk:Ways to help Wikivoyage 
Autoconfirmed users
Changes made between now and the project close should be downloaded later. For this pub page in particular.
Someone might want to audit the template space to find any templates to be saved for later too. --Peter Talk 22:29, 1 November 2012 (CET)
I have now also exported all open feature requests, since we'll still want those fulfilled at some point! --Peter Talk 22:36, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Wikitours

edit

On the French and Spanish Wikivoyage, there are several pages called Wikitours. They are basically a personal journal of a user's travels, which is one of our non-goals. Should they all be deleted? or moved to the author's userspace? This was brought up a few years ago, and the consensus was to remove them, but nothing seemed to happen out of the discussion. –sumone10154(talk) 20:07, 1 November 2012 (CET)

Has any user updated them recently? If not, I'd say they can be removed per an earlier consensus. JamesA (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Moving files to Commons and deletion of files

edit

Hi!

I understand that a huge amount of work needs to be done in a very short time. So I skipped bot aproval and normal good standards.

My bot is now tagging files that is also on Commons. It may tag files allready tagged with a KeepLocal template or a Ignore template etc. But once all files are tagged it is easy to remove if it is a problem.

I strongly suggest that all files are deleted if they have been copied to Commons or if they are no longer needed. It only takes 3 seconds to delete a file. Tagging it with an ignore template takes just as long. And if file is not deleted other users may come along and check it again.

If a file is on Commons under another name it would be good if User:Stefan2 could use his script to fix usage. If it is not possible then adding a redirect on Commons may be a solution. --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2012 (CET)

  • I am now deleting files which are available on Commons under the same name. Please keep tagging.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2012 (CET)
  • How do you categorize the transferred files, especially maps? Please note that there is a discussion on map categories above.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2012 (CET)
    • Note that MGA73bot currently appears to be tagging files which have been copied from Commons to Wikivoyage, so nothing is moved there. It's just a task of adding NowCommons tags to images. See Special:Contributions/MGA73bot. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (CET)
      • The bot only tags the files. It does not check if the categories on Commons are Correct. We need humans to do that. --MGA73 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2012 (CET)
        Ok, I am checking files on Commons anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Cool. Anyway File:287px-Argentina colour regionscópia nomes.psd killed my bot! Hope there is not to many "files" like that... --MGA73 (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2012 (CET)
The reason I've recommended that we do not delete files tagged NowCommons or Ignore is that it could effectively double the workload. While yes, tagging nearly takes the same amount of time as deleting, doing both means 6 seconds (ideally) rather than 3 seconds spent editing. Given the number of files we're talking about, that's actually significant. --Peter Talk 23:38, 1 November 2012 (CET)
I've got deletion semi-automated as well now, though I'm only running it at off hours to avoid completely cluttering up RecentChanges. It takes very little time to scan over the files targetted for deletion before launching that mechanism, and it'll help us eventually when we have to start sorting through the remaining uncategorized files. I don't know of a way to easily search for files not in a specific category, the better as to locate files that do not have one of the five migration templates assigned yet, and so trimming down the number of files overall may help. -- Dguillaume (talk) 20:46, 3 November 2012 (CET)
  • I moved one map on Commons, it is now located here. I just did it by hand, since I guess tools like Commonshelper would not work for Wikivoyage (I did not try though). It would be much easier to import the file rather than to move it, since now I lost the history of different versions, but I am not sure whether the import option will be available (and with whom we need to talk about it). In any case, I will now concentrate on deletions here, but at some point we will really have to start moving files.Ymblanter (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Yes copying files should be done soon. But I think tagging files with NowCommons should be done first. After that I can move files from Flickr easier.
Some files are copied from Commons in lower resolution. I can see that Stefan2 are tagging those. But if many files are sourced to Commons we could add "NowCommons" to them all or a "PerhapsNowCommons" and if file on Commons is the same (or better resolution) the admin could just hit delete and if not remove the template. Could that be a help?
And if the file I mentioned above is not needed then feel free to delete it. --MGA73 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2012 (CET)
I asked the Ogre --MGA73 (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2012 (CET)
FYI: I'm using a semi-automated script for finding the ones which have been moved in a lower resolution. I'm searching for file information pages containing the word "commons" but not the word "nowcommons" (both case insensitive). If a file matches these criteria, the file information page is opened in my web browser. It gets a lot of wrong images (e.g. images mentioning Creative Commons), but it also gets most/all images which have been moved in lower resolution. When I'm done, I'm planning to replace the word "commons" with "wikipedia" since I suspect that many images are sourced to Wikipedia instead of Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Sounds good. I was just thinking that you seem to be the fastes "replace image" user around so if you orphaned files with a different name on Commons then other users could perhaps hunt the files allready on Commons in a larger version. But doing it the way you say I think you should be able to finish the job in good time. Yay! :-)
Anyway I was thinking of moving a lot of Flickr files. We can always fix the problem with "[[wts:User" on Commons. And if we avoid to rename the files during transfer to Commons it should be easy to delete files locally. IF someone wants to rename they should do it on Commons AND leave a redirect so nothing will be broken.
Oh by the way. Why not delete files like File:Seal.jpg? It seems to be a photo of a photo (a copyvio) and it should be easy to replace. Anyone know why to keep files like that?--MGA73 (talk) 11:32, 2 November 2012 (CET)

The file transfer utility by Magog the Ogre is really great! But let me ask several naive questions from a newbie:

  • Is it supposed to work automatically on all files marked with {{Move}}? Or we are supposed to transfer files manually, one-by-one, and carefully check the license templates as well as categories?
  • Do I need any special rights to use this utility?
  • Should we actually start? I am going through problematic files anyway, so I could immediate move appropriate images to Commons (unless we plan to transfer files automatically).

Thanks! --Atsirlin (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2012 (CET)

In order to transfer files, you need two things:
  1. An account at Wikimedia Commons. Create one if you don't already have this.
  2. A TUSC account. See: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/tusc.php Project = "wikimedia", Language = "commons".
Also, the tool only uploads files (and an original upload log if you mark the checkbox at the bottom of the page). Information such as licence and photographer needs to be carried over separately. Also it doesn't handle categories. There is http://toolserver.org/~magog/fileinfo.php which provides some help but it currently doesn't support Wikivoyage and it doesn't work very well if the templates don't have the same names as on Commons. Maybe we could ask the ogre to switch on fileinfo.php too: I've sometimes found that it's necessary to add an "original upload log" to Commons because the file was uploaded here before it was uploaded to Commons, and fileinfo.php gives you an original upload log. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2012 (CET)
If the users that adds "move" has checked the file carefully then we could have a bot move all the files. The bot should be able to add the correct information and license (perhaps only after an extra bot run ot two on Commons). Once the lates photo and the information is transfered users could move older versions also (if they are needed). It should make it easier for users because they only have to care about description and licenses if something is clearly wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2012 (CET)
All files should be checked manually, even if we move them by bot. (At lest for having appropriate categories, and often some other info). In principle, on thr Commons Task Force there were several dozens interested users, and here I only see five or six, so may be after we start moving the files by bot we can ask them to look at files in the dedicated category. May be this can be organized as a drive, with the list of files which were checked, and barnstars in the end, though I am personally not a big fan of barnstars.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:46, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Would be nice if more users would help check and fix files. --MGA73 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2012 (CET)
  • Are moving Flickr files now. Please let me know if anything goes wrong. --MGA73 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2012 (CET)
How should we follow it? Do you add all files to some dedicated category on Commons? --Atsirlin (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Check Commons:Category:Files moved from wts.wikivoyage to Commons requiring review. Many files are awaiting licence review by Commons:User:FlickreviewR. I suggest that you don't change files at all before that bot has reviewed files from Flickr. One problem I see is that files on Commons have localisable descriptions: {{en|1=...}}{{fr|1=...}}. MGA73's bot thinks that Wikivoyage hosts descriptions in a language with language code "wts". This needs to be corrected, usually to "en". --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2012 (CET)
And most (if not all) of these files need to be categorized, so that major human intervention is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Yes and yes. By the way my bot changes language from "wts" to "en" shortly after upload. I suggest to wait untill my bot has changed from "wts" to "en". --MGA73 (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2012 (CET)
I posted here a call for action to work on these files. If somebody (Stefan? MGA73?) can clearly explain there what is needed for help with the move of other (non-flickr) files, I think this could be very useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2012 (CET)
In the newest portion the summary field is screwed up (need to look at the original version). In any case, you work is much appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2012 (CET)
  • One question. When I see a file moved to Commons (automatically) and reviewed by the FlickrBot there, can I delete it from Shared? Or will the bot do it? --Atsirlin (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)
    In principle, if the file has been moved under the same name, it can be deleted here. One problem is that files are not categorized on Commons, and in a few cases (for instance, if they lack the description) the category we have the file in may be the only means to help categorizing the Commons files. In this case, it would be good to categorize a file on Commons prior to deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 4 November 2012 (CET)
  • Perhaps someone could delete the files in Category:Votes for deletion or remove the Deletion tag? --MGA73 (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2012 (CET)
    I will have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Done! Many thanks to Yaroslav who cleaned most part of it. --Atsirlin (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I think that was with significant help from your side.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Requesting bot permission

edit

I'd like to run a bot which replaces Wts file names with Commons file names if the names differ. The bot would edit wts, en, fr, nl, ru and sv (all confirmed to support Commons files). The bot will ask me for confirmation before changing each file so that I can check that there is no error. Are there any objections? Where can I request permission? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:48, 1 November 2012 (CET)

  • Ask Peter at his talk page, it could be the fastest way.Ymblanter (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2012 (CET)
Do you mean it would change the thumbnail markup? If so, that would be great. --Peter Talk 23:30, 1 November 2012 (CET)
If "File:Abc.jpg" has {{NowCommons|Xyz.jpg}}, then the bot will replace Abc.jpg with Xyz.jpg on the 6 mentioned projects, if I confirm that the change is correct. Speeds up file replacements a lot. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2012 (CET)
By way of imaginary authority and abuse of perceived power, I bestow upon this idea bot approval. --Peter Talk 01:37, 2 November 2012 (CET)
I did some testing. It seems to work now. See en:Special:Contributions/Stefan2bot. Will update more file names tomorrow. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Some updates:

  1. Something went wrong here. I see why it went wrong and will fix this before running the bot again. I've checked all other edits by the bot and can't find any other errors apart from a few test edits in the beginning which were immediately reverted.
  2. There was a complaint at Swedish Wikivoyage, so the bot won't run there until that matter has been sorted out.
  3. There are now well over 2000 files in Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons, so it will take some time before all file names have been replaced.
  4. Some language versions are protected by password. Should files on those projects also be updated? Also: I don't have the password. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2012 (CET)
According to the policies of Swedish Wikivoyage, you need to wait for seven days, which most likely means that their files get broken during the migration.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2012 (CET)
So what about asking them if they want the files replaced or have them broken? --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2012 (CET)
I just want to point out that it is not only the policy of Wikivoyage in Swedish, but also on Wikivoyage in English and in French. It is impossible for us (or, for that matter, any of the smaller language versions) to keep track of what happens and where. If we had been aware of the file transfer issue, or had had the file transfer discussion pointed out to us, we would of course have reacted earlier. Having pointed that out, exceptions can of course be made. Stefan2:s bot has now been approved. Riggwelter (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (CET)
Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Shared

edit

Apart from the images on Commons, we also need to take care of the images on shared:. The Commons-related templates need to be created there too, and we need to start tagging files. In particular, it would be very useful to have MGA73bot running there. Since Italian and German Wikivoyage currently don't support Commons, it would not be possible to change file names, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:21, 2 November 2012 (CET)

We'd need to prepare for massive file duplication between wts and Shared too. --Peter Talk 01:39, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Yes. I could maybe check whether File:X.jpg on Shared is identical to File:X.jpg on Wts, and copy over the NowCommons template from here if it is the same file. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2012 (CET)
Possibly when Wikivoyage is officially migrated to the WMF next week, new extensions such as InstantCommons will be installed and we can update filenames there. For now, templates are a good idea. Has anyone from the Wikivoyage eV heard about this? JamesA (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Filename conflicts

edit

How do we handle filename conflicts? Check File:Largo de Sao Goncalo.jpg. It says that this is available on Commons as Commons:File:Amarante.jpg, but the thumbnail in the NowCommons template shows a very different image. This is indeed available as Commons:File:Amarante.jpg, but there is a local file called File:Amarante.jpg which is different. As long as the local file File:Amarante.jpg is there, it's not possible to replace file names for File:Largo de Sao Goncalo.jpg. The local File:Amarante.jpg is unused on wts, en, fr, nl, ru and sv. I don't know if it's used on any of the projects which are protected by password. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2012 (CET)

  • Tag unused files or make a list, I will delete them.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2012 (CET)

Images from tourism sites

edit

I'm not sure what to do with this image. It is licenced under CC-BY-SA but says it's source is Tourism Yorkton. I checked their website and didn't see the photo there and haven't found any copyrighted versions of the image otherwise. Should we accept it as OK and move it over to Commons (I'm just suspicious when I see images with the source is a tourism site)? -Shaund (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2012 (CET)

What needs to be done?

edit

It is probably written somewhere but just be sure:

Do we have a list of all the sites somewhere that has files that needs to be moved? And what time limit there is?

I know there is wts and shared but are there files other places? --MGA73 (talk) 08:53, 3 November 2012 (CET)

  • The move is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday. The links will become red after the transfer. Concerning the files, certainly there must be files on the projects, but these will move together with the projects, and they are not shared, so it is a local business of each project to make sure the files comply with EDP. I would not worry about them at this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 3 November 2012 (CET)
I'd say care only about files on Wts and Shared. I assume that these are the only files which will become red on projects and that all other files will continue to work. Also, create NowCommons templates on Shared and run MGA73bot there too (unless it's already running there). Once I get an OK, I can start running my file renaming bot on German and Italian Wikivoyage within minutes, assuming that files have been tagged on Shared. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2012 (CET)
Stefan (DerFussi) mentioned that everything has been tagged on Shared, more details on the Common Task force talk).--Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2012 (CET)
Files on Shared use a Commons template but it doesn't seem to indicate the file name on Commons. A tag which includes the Commons file name is needed, so I assume that all files have to be tagged again. MGA73bot needed there. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (CET)
  • Okay I'll have a look at shared... It seems they have a different structure there so I think it is not as easy as on en.wts for example. See my tagging there. But does it mean there is no reason to tag on en.wts and the other languages? --MGA73 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2012 (CET)
By the way the script I use is originally designed to move files uploaded as own work. So if there is a usere here with many good uploads (own work) it should be possible to move a lot of files easy. --MGA73 (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2012 (CET)
  • Unger seems to be a good candidate. Thank you Stefan2. The description page will probably look like hell on Commons. But my bot should be able to fix it after upload. Just make sure not to delete the local file untill description has been fixed on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2012 (CET)
      • Should be fixed on Commons... Happy hunting :-) --MGA73 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2012 (CET)
    • It's not urgent to tag individual language versions. Files on the individual language versions will as far as I've understood continue to work after the migration whereas files on the shared projects have to be transferred to Commons before Tuseday or there will be lots of red links everywhere. I'd say skip files on language projects for the moment. Projects under www.wikivoyage.org have a different structure (e.g. different locations of index.php and api.php), so you may need to create a new wikivoyage2_family.py file for those projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2012 (CET)
  • Is it no longer possible to create accounts on shared? --MGA73 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2012 (CET)
    • Try general:Special:UserLogin (global login for Shared+de+it+some other projects). Worked for me earlier today when I made a bot account for German and Italian Wikivoyage. No editing yet, though: I'll skip those projects for the moment since Commons files don't work yet and concentrate on the other projects. I'm hoping to reach the end of Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons before Tuesday. Also, for all accounts you create, consider going to the local Special:AccountTransfer page at each project so that you won't lose control of the accounts when the projects are migrated to the WMF. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2012 (CET)
      • Thank you. That worked. I'm not yet sure if I need a family two file or not. What template does the files on shared have? --MGA73 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2012 (CET)
        • Do you have a family file for shared I can copy? --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2012 (CET)
          • No, I've not tried editing anything there yet, so I haven't made any family file. I guess that the various templates here should be added there, but ask User:DerFussi first. He mentioned some templates in the discussion on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2012 (CET)

The image upload feature on sv:

edit

When we are fully migrated to WMF, and all the images have been transferred (Thanks everyone!), we would like to turn off the image upload feature on Wikivoyage in sv: and then delete whatever we have uploaded locally. The reason for this is that we prefer to have all the files on the shared repository, rather than having to deal with multiple uploads on different versions of Wikivoyage. To whom do we turn to discuss this implementation? The question is not urgent, the migration is much more important right now, so see this as a first inquiry. Riggwelter (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2012 (CET)

I think that the upload feature will be disabled automatically. However, you should keep in mind that Commons does not allow images of copyrighted work, so it won't be possible to store all files there. Please, take a look at the en policy and consider preparing a similar one (at least the "Exemption doctrine policy" part) for sv: --Atsirlin (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Flag of Austria

edit

I noticed that User:MGA73bot has tagged File:Flag of Austria.svg as being available on Commons under the name File:Flag of the Duchy of Burgundy.svg. While I see that the files are identical and that not a single byte differs, it does look a bit strange to refer to an Austrian flag as a flag of the Duchy of Burgundy. Is it still OK to replace the flag? I'm skipping the file now since the file name suggests that some more discussion might be needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, but "Flag of Austria.svg" on Commons is yet another flag of Austria, albeit with a different size. I think it's not a problem, we can simply delete File:Flag of Austria.svg on Shared. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2012 (CET)
It is better to use File:Flag of Austria.svg, even though it may have different size. It makes no sense to transfer the thumbnail-size flags to Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2012 (CET)
No file – no problem. By the way, it has not been used in any of the available wikis. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Slow

edit

Is it just me or has wts become pretty slow? Perhaps because of high volume editing by bots? In any rate, it's making it hard to participate in the migration work. --Peter Talk 19:09, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, it is slower than en and other languages. But we have to live with that... --Atsirlin (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2012 (CET)

Files to tag

edit

Changing file names takes a lot of time, so I've not had the time to add {{NowCommons}} tags. Instead, I got the idea of having bot-generated lists of files. I generated a short list at User:Stefan2/files to tag. All are files on Wts which mention "Commons" or "Wikipedia" without mentioning "NowCommons". Most of those files are files which have been copied in thumbnail format, so they were not spotted by User:MGA73bot. Currently there's just a short list, but it will be updated when the bot has found 300 files. Please help with tagging those files. If files need to be moved to Commons from Wikipedia first, then please list the files at User:Stefan2. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2012 (CET)

  • Can those files be deleted? I mean, have you already changed names in all projects (including the Swedish)?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2012 (CET)
    • No. You should add NowCommons tags to those files whenever appropriate. That's a list of files which are likely to be on Commons but not yet tagged with NowCommons. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2012 (CET)
    (ec) Oh, I see, You do not yet know the name of the target. Well, of there are couple of dozens of them, I will tag them. If there are hundreds or thousands, this probably needs to be automated.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (CET)
    These are the ones which can't be automated: many are thumbnails of Commons files, and some are modifications based on Commons files. Thumbnails can be tagged but, say, maps sourced to Commons files shouldn't be tagged. Also, there's no need to modify the list, as the bot will remove files automatically if tagged as NowCommons. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2012 (CET)

List updated, now with 100 files. Will set it to 300 files to run once an hour. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (CET)

It would be easier if you produced a complete list, to share work by dividing it in batches. --Nemo bis (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (CET)
The problem is that the server has been extremely slow during most of the evening, so I've given up with that list. I'll try to get an update later if the server becomes less busy. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2012 (CET)

I've listed the files in use on the wikivoyage subdomains at User:Nemo_bis/Wanted_files. Those are probably the only files you actually need to check (unless it and de use this wiki as repository as well; they don't have Special:WantedFiles, a query by the sysadmin might help). I don't know how many have already been checked (are there categories for them?), further queries/filtering may be needed. I suggest to make a page with clear instructions and batches of 100 files to claim, and to direct there all users who signed up on commons:Commons:Wikitravel Shared transfer task force etc. --Nemo bis (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Thank you. (Note to any users: if this server is slow, use the copy on Commons instead.) Is it also possible to generate a list of files that are not used on any subdomain, so that they can be automatically tagged as low priority for the move? I suspect a great many of them will have no useful licensing information, and be candidates for {{Ignore}} and eventual deletion. I've added Template:Unused for such files.
There are a somewhat limited set of categories active at the moment, Category:Files to be moved to Commons from {{Move}} and Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons from {{NowCommons}} are the interesting top-level ones. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (CET)
A bot could read that list and then go through all files and tag with {{low priority}} (or whatever you'd like to call the template) it the file is not in that list. The server is currently very slow, so I get some time between each file rename approval and could maybe try to use that time to look into it. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:25, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I'm currently putting unused images in Category:Unused images. Some may be in scope for Commons, but they are of low priority since they don't affect how the website works. Concentrate on other files instead: unused files can be copied to Commons much later (if the files are useful). Unused means not used on en/fr/sv/ru/nl/wts; they may be in use on projects protected by password. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2012 (CET)
And now updated to {{unused}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Server very slow

edit

Quoting some output from my script:

Sleeping for 60.9 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:26:54
Updating page Addis Ababa via API
Sleeping for 88.2 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:27:57
Updating page Berlin via API
Sleeping for 113.7 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:29:31
Updating page Damascus via API
Sleeping for 116.0 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:31:29
Updating page Hong Kong via API
Sleeping for 113.8 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:33:31
Updating page Karachi via API
Sleeping for 117.2 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:35:28
Updating page Lisbon via API
Sleeping for 113.9 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:37:31
Updating page Oslo via API
Sleeping for 111.0 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:39:34
Updating page Riga via API
Sleeping for 117.1 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:41:28
Updating page Rome via API
Sleeping for 115.5 seconds, 2012-11-03 21:43:30
Updating page Tel Aviv via API

Normally, the bot would make one edit every 10th second if the same file is used on multiple pages, but now it's like 2 minutes. Is someone doing something which uses up lots of resources? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2012 (CET)

categories

edit
  1. I have cleaned up the category structure a bit to make transfer easier. All non-empty categories are now under Category:Index. We will also need to go through Special:UncategorizedFiles. 203.217.76.167 04:23, 4 November 2012 (CET)
  2. Also it would make our lives a LOT easier if the "global file usage" section was shown on file pages!! then we could skip unused files. 203.217.76.167 04:24, 4 November 2012 (CET)
  3. Thirdly I found Special:WantedCategories, there is a lot of stuff in these redlinked categories! Another WTS gnome (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Instead of categorizing files here I suggest that you help categorize the files when they are copied to Commons. If categories are added to the license templates then only files without a license template will remain in Special:UncategorizedFiles. --MGA73 (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I'm totally aware that categorising here is useless. I'm just sorting out the cat tree since it is what people are using to go through and tag files.
You may also be interested in Files used on WV.EN, a list of WTS files used on English Wikivoyage. Another WTS gnome (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Moving files

edit

We have been discussed this a bit, but I think we need a dedicated section and a clear roadmap. We have a lot of files in Category:Files to be moved to Commons, which are in part maps (the map template adds a file into this category automatically) , and in part manually added files which are still getting as we go through categories and tag files.

  • Can the files from this category be moved (imported?) to Commons by bot? Does it make sense?
  • If yes, should we start moving them, or do we still need to check smth?
  • Should we move maps into a separate category on Commons since they require special attention from WV users (unlike images)?
  • Should we in the bot transfer process, if technically possible, include the info on which categories the image/map belonged to on WV, since often this is the only info helping to identify the image more precisely.
  • Any other issues?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, we should start the transfer ASAP (preferably, today). But I see the following issues:

  • License information should link back to wts.wikivoyage-old.org, not wikivoyage.org
  • Transferred files should be tagged as "moved", but they can't be deleted from wts because we still need their license information
  • The Commons template "requires review" has to say explicitly that these files should be given the benefit of the doubt and exempt from immediate deletion until their status at wts is changed from Moved to KeepLocal or Ignore.
  • Maps are a different story...

--Atsirlin (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2012 (CET)

It's not a big problem if pages link to wikivoyage.org instead of wikivoyage-old.org. A bot can update all links later. I'd concentrate on more important matters. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:52, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Sorry, I do not quite get the last point. I guess files which are currently marked by {{move}} should be moved, and this is not going to change (unless we find some judgment errors, but this can be done on Commons anyway). Or do you propose to move all the files now, also untagged?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I mean that we need an extra flag for those files that have been moved. And this flag has to be changed if the file is not accepted by Commons. Of course, we only move those files that are tagged with Move. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I agree that we should mark here the files which have been transferred (especially if they were transferred under a different name). However, in my opinion, it is unreasonable to wait until the files have been reviewed on Commons. This can take years, also issues can arise after the review (for instance, FoP is the recurrent one), and Commons have standards pretty similar to ours, so I would just call it a day after the file has been transferred and links changed. May be we should set a noticeboard where Commons users could report issues, but I do not expect too many of them. I expect that the transferred files get reviewed slowly but steadily.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Anything tagged "move" has survived our quick battlefield review, and can and should be moved now. All such images should probably get a category:from Wikivoyage WTS tag, to identify what will then need to be fixed up in terms of templates and categories afterwards. It's important to get them on Commons to avoid the dreaded mass red-links problem being discussed on the listserv and on Meta. --Peter Talk 17:47, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Unfortunately, "move" has often been added carelessly. Check this for example: "move" was added although it was clearly sourced to Commons. It should be "NowCommons" instead! I've seen lots of similar cases. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Maps

edit

Maps are simple in terms of the copyright, but they generally require the full file history that provides correct attribution to everyone who worked on the map (e.g., updated it, translated into different languages, etc.)

  • Is it possible to organize an automatic transfer of full file histories? (only for maps!)
  • Maps should be put into the "Travel maps" category on Commons. That's enough.

--Atsirlin (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Upload old versions of the map: http://toolserver.org/~magog/oldver.php (don't use the upload history checkbox at the bottom on the second page as nothing will happen if you do)
Get a list of map contributors: http://toolserver.org/~magog/fileinfo.php (copy/paste to the file information page on Commons) --Stefan2 (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (CET)
And we have to do it manually, do we? (sorry if it is a stupid question, but I can't automate anything, even a simple file deletion. Therefore, I fully rely on your help!) --Atsirlin (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2012 (CET)
You can do it manually using those tools. User:MGA73 has a bot which can automate some thing (I think), but I don't know exactly what it can automate. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Files by User:(WT-shared) Shoestring possible mass upload

edit

Moving files is not a problem. I cam move all the files in a day or so. But if I do that it would be a very big task to clean up and many bad files will be moved.

As you know there is a lot of files that should not be moved. For example it would be unsafe to move:

  • Derivative works of posters, statues and perhaps also buildings. Either we need FOP or the creator has to be dead long ago or in some cases we need other things to host the file on Commons.
  • Files without a source. For example files uploaded without a statement like "Taken by me" or "Own work" or a link.
  • Files with a link that does not work today or a incomplete source/link like "Flickr" or "Wikipedia".
  • Files uploaded from websites where there is not a proof that the file is released under a specific license.
  • Files From flickr where the license is not free (today). How do we know the file was ever free?
  • Files without a license.
  • Etc.

So there are may things to check and it is easier for me to move files if they are similar i a way. For example files from Flickr or files by the same uploader.

It seems that there is a lot of files here from user Shoestring that should be "easy" to move. But before the files are moved I would like to have the files in the same category and to add "self" to the license template and perhaps also do do a few other cleanups.

When that is done the plan is to scan for files that may be derivative works (like photos of a copyrighted statue or poster etc.). Those files should be tagged with ignore if they do not allready have that template.

After fixing and checking the bot should be able to move all the files to Commons in one mass upload. It is not needed for me to have a "move" template on all the files I "just" need to know that 99 % (?) of the files have been checked or scanned for bad files.

So what do you think? Should we give it a try? --MGA73 (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Yes, try moving all Shoestring files. However, beware of NowCommons tags: I've found a few files with that tag when checking files to be renamed. Also consider taking a look at files by Special:Listfiles/(WT-shared) 木更津乃風. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2012 (CET)
If there is a NowCommons tag the bot will not move them to Commons again. So we only risk that my bot changes the local page a bit. --MGA73 (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Okay everyone. Files are now put in Category:Files uploaded by Shoestring. Everyone are most welcome to have a look and delete NowCommons files, check and tag files that should not be moved etc. --MGA73 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2012 (CET)

I'm checking the category now and deleting files which are not own work or which are on Commons or shouldn't be moved to Commons for any other reason. Can you create a category for Kisarazu no Kaze in the meantime and skip the files I listed below? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I found this file, which should not be transferred because of FoP issues, and marked it as KeepLocal. Is this sufficient?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2012 (CET)
And is there any way you could retain categorues as comments? In some cases I found out that I can not determine where the picture was taken without categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I also remove the category "Files uploaded by Shoestring" if the file isn't OK. There are a few files where I need help determining if the files are OK or not:
Continuing the check now... --Stefan2 (talk) 14:52, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I marked the AlAhmadiyyaa school as KeepLocal; for countries which are not listed on Commons we can not do anything; the last one should be DM.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2012 (CET)
OK. Some more:
I started checking from the end instead since you seem to be going from the beginning. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I checked the above list and left those which are in my opinion likely to survive a deletion request on Commons. I also checked the first 200 in the category.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I've created a Category:FOP with images where I'd want some opinion. However, it includes many of the above, so it may be a repetition. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Originally the plan was not to remove the category for files with a NowCommons etc. but it is probably easier if it is removed. That way we avoid that more users check the same file. I used my bot to remove the category wherever possible. So you should reload the category.
Normally categories are removed during transfer. But I can perhaps add categories as a text like "Was in cat xxx". --MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Oh.. Moved this ^ a bit (did not notice the new heading). To begin with I use my bot to fix what can be fixed. --MGA73 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (CET)
If we are not sure I suggest to remove from the mass transfer and move it later. --MGA73 (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2012 (CET)
File:Bazilika Cafe & Restaurant 2, Budapest, Hungary.JPG have two duplicates. Perhaps we could delete 2 of the files and only keep one? Is any of them used? --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Just add {{NowCommons}} to the two most recent ones. Then my bot will ask if I want to replace any copies of those with the last one. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I've done that. Just use "NowCommons" as a duplicate template too. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2012 (CET)

All files checked, but rather quickly, and there are images from all over the world, and I may have got the country wrong in a few cases. Please decide about everything in Category:FOP, and delete the images from the FOP category when you're done. After that, I suggest that you copy everything over to Commons. If there are mistakes, I assume that there will be a DR on Commons eventually. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2012 (CET)

I removed the Indonesian file from the cat. As far as I am concerned, we can start moving.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I added "Replace" on a few duplicates. We should perhaps change that to NowCommons. And scan the category for other dupes.
I think I will skip all in FOP and save those for later. I think it is best to move all easy files and keep the harder ones for later. That way we will have as few red links as possible when project is "closed".
To be sure. Are all files in Category:Files uploaded by Shoestring checked (scanned)? I'm willing to risk a few mistakes (deletion requests on Commons).
Anyone else wants to check more? --MGA73 (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Yes, my understanding is that everything was scanned, and that we are ready for move. Let us also wait here for Stefan, he has done most of the work.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I checked everything, but very quickly, so there may be mistakes, e.g. mixup of countries. If they're in the FOP categories, the images might not be allowed on Commons, otherwise I didn't see any immediate reason to skip the files. I'd say import everything that's not in a FOP category. Feel free to scan for other dupes first. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Okay. Sounds good... Will start the transfer soon. I removed all the files with possible FOP issues... We may have complaints that we move files now so I think we should avoid files that could be discussed. THANK YOU FOR HELPING OUT! --MGA73 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Yay!. You can all see the files in Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Shoestring :-) --MGA73 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Gorgeous! I have more candidates with "trusted" copyright (not all images checked for FoP, though): Digr, Riggwelter. Or is it time to start the transfer of fully tagged categories? --Atsirlin (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Kisarazu no Kaze

edit

I quickly checked Kisarazu no Kaze's files (mostly only by examining the thumbnail + upload summary). Bad (FOP, DW):

Some files have been overwritten by different photos, e.g. File:JR TachikawaSta SouthGate.JPG. Maybe skip files if there is more than one in the history? Also skip files like File:Stop hand yellow.png which have "NowCommons". --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Re Kisarazu: It is not easy to skip files when adding the category but it can easily be removed in second bot run. Will create it now. --MGA73 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Suggestion: Create a category for every user and put all categories in some Category:Files per user. After that, people can inspect the categories one by one. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Yeah but I was thinking that it would be nice to see how this works before too many cateories are created. --MGA73 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2012 (CET)

See Category:Files uploaded by Kentagon. I will remove the NowCommons etc. files in a moment. --MGA73 (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Can you get a subcategory for files with multiple revisions? In some cases, the current revision is a thumbnail of the first revision. See File:KowloonWalledCity HongKong.JPG, for example. In other cases, one file has been overwritten with a different file. We'd want both on Commons under different names, although the old revisions are less important. In other cases, the old revisions should just be carried over using OgreBot for documentation. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2012 (CET)
For you Category:Files uploaded by Kentagon with more files in history --MGA73 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Thanks! I'll take a look at those once you've transferred the first ones. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Are Wikitravel screenshots (e.g. File:Wikitravel Jp Set UserInformation.png) really useful? I removed a few images over FOP concerns. Decide about the Wikitravel screenshots, and then copy the rest. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Rarely. Since those were usually made to illustrate some temporary technical problem, there's no long-term value in them. I've been tagging any that I see as Ignore. -- D. Guillaume (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2012 (CET)
OK. I deleted those from the Kisarazu no Kaze category. The rest can be copied to Commons in my opinion. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Do we have a way to auto-delete all the Shoestring and Kisarazu no Kaze images that were transferred? That would make the tagging process for Japan (which has a huge number of files in the category) far easier. --Peter Talk 16:26, 9 November 2012 (CET)

It is possible to use bot tools to automatically delete files, if someone would dare to test. Please don't delete files if there are multiple versions in the history: my plan is to transfer those other versions to Commons first. I started with Kisarazu no Kaze's maps (see e.g. Commons:File:Kamakura AreaMap JP.png), but it took too long time, so only a few of them were transferred. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (CET)
Sure you can both delete and undelete files with a bot... All you need is a sysop account. But it would perhaps be good if someone checked before deleting.
And you do not need to transfer all files in history if you ask me. Only if they are important. So if uploader finds a mistake and upload a new version 1 minute after upload I would not upload the old one. --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2012 (CET)
Perhaps a safer method would be to erase all categories from the transferred files, and then tag them with a category:uploaded by_User_X tag. That way we wouldn't have to wade through them when tagging geographically (since they've already been moved). --Peter Talk 19:51, 9 November 2012 (CET)

Where do I report likely copyvios?

edit

I'm thinking of things like File:Forest.jpg that has a watermark inconsistent with the uploader's nic.Geni (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2012 (CET)

  • Tineye does not find anything, but I am not sure the picture would survive a FfD on Commons, so I would not transfer it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 4 November 2012 (CET)
    • I'd use {{Ignore|Reason}} for now. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2012 (CET)

flickr issues

edit

Running across quite a few images which were taken from flickr where the account or image has gone or the license doesn't match that of the image. I'm not sure these would be very acceptable to commons.Geni (talk) 17:55, 4 November 2012 (CET)

  • No, and they are also not acceptable here. List the files, I will delete them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2012 (CET)
    • Files are OK on Commons if they have passed a Commons licence review. There is also a local licence review here. Would Commons accept Flickr images which are currently unavailable if they have been reviewed on Wikivoyage? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2012 (CET)
      I opened the topic on Village Pump/Copyright, and there was no consensus. I guess only a handful of these images exist, and we can see what can be done manually. I erased several flickr images today, and they clearly had licence problems.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2012 (CET)
Well as a commons admin I wouldn't be very happy.Geni (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I moved a lot of Flickr files but I checked if the license was ok before I moved (with exception of a few mistakes). My plan was when all files with a free license are moved it would be easier to check the rest.
A local flickr review could be ok if we are sure the users that made the review know and understand which licenses are acceptable and know NC and ND are not ok. Also they need to be known to make a good work and not just copy pasting without checking. --MGA73 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2012 (CET)
I deleted this file. I see no evidence that the flickr licence has ever been checked by anybody, and as it is NC it is not appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2012 (CET)
You do realise that there's nothing stopping a Flickr user from changing a license on something already uploaded on that site, so it can be CC-BY today and copyright or NC/ND tomorrow? K7L (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2012 (CET)
That is why files from Flickr are reviewed on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2012 (CET)

Duplicates on Wikipedia

edit

What should we do if an image on wts is not on Commons yet, but is tagged to be transferred there from Wikipedia? (such as wikipedia:File:Lantau MTR Map.JPG) –sumone10154(talk) 02:57, 5 November 2012 (CET)

It must be transferred from Wikipedia to Commons. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2012 (CET)
List it at User:Stefan2. Files from Wikipedia can be moved using Commonshelper. Get a TUSC account here (username = Commons username, password = anything). Fill in the username & TUSC password & remember to use the "Directly upload file" checkbox. After copying it from Wikipedia to Commons, tag as NowCommons on both Wikipedia and Wikivoyage. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Just give me a list of files that are on Wikipedia instead of Commons, then I will transfer them to Commons. Romaine (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2012 (CET)
They are here (updating as new images get found).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Moving images in category:Files to be moved to Commons

edit

What is stopping us from moving all these images category:Files to be moved to Commons by bot? They have all been checked by hand (except for maps - I don't know why they were added all at once) so surely they can be moved and then given a final review once on Commons. Another WTS gnome (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2012 (CET)

The files have often been badly checked. For example, people have added {{Move}} without checking if it says that the file originally comes from Wikipedia or Commons. Those files should have {{NowCommons}} instead of {{Move}}. Also, people haven't checked very carefully for freedom of panorama issues. Take File:Andong Manhole.JPG, for example. This image can't be moved unless the one who designed the manhole died before 1962, and it also depends on when the manhole design was first used. Or File:Altaiborder.jpg, when was this made? That image can only be uploaded to Commons if the designer died before 1942 (requires installation of the monument before 1978, and can't be uploaded at all if the designer participated in WWII). --Stefan2 (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Well, I don't think that should stop us uploading to Commons. The files have all been tagged manually and the effort would be wasted if they had to be inspected once again. The process of review on Commons (categories, fixing description, removing bot tag, etc.) will have to take care of those damned FOP issues. Another WTS gnome (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2012 (CET)
The most important thing seems to me that all files are at Commons if they want to be used later on. I guess many files are ok, and afterwards we can check and delete them too. I think it is more important to make sure that all files are transferred because there is little time left. Greetings - Romaine (talk) 04:44, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Can we just have some clarity. I'm happy to spend the day checking and tagging with move, but if it is for nothing, then I'll do something more constructive. --Inas (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Same here. Since MGA73 has been running the transfer bot we really need his decision. Another WTS gnome (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Agreed. Its unrealistic to expect everything to be 100% perfectly tagged, with thousands of images. And I also wouldn't be too happy if the hours I spent tagging were wasted for nothing. –sumone10154(talk) 05:32, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Agree with the above. I spent a good deal of time tagging images this weekend, expecting a transfer to happen soon (and I'm not meaning to complain because I know the tagging needs to happen). But if we wait for nearly perfect tags, it will be a long time before this gets off the ground. -Shaund (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Well, I think that the review on Commons is just another filter for the files that have not been tagged properly. We can't make things perfect without going through each category at least twice (by two different people), and we don't want to do this because a Commons review is necessary anyway. Regarding File:Altaiborder.jpg, this is a dubious case that I marked for move, since the picture is rare and the copyright problem is obscure (I don't think that anyone can figure out the designer, not to mention his years of life and participation in WWII). In fact, Commons has thousands of Russian pictures that are subject to FoP, so I won't care about adding 2-3 more questionable images of distant and less known places that can't be found in any other image repository. --Atsirlin (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2012 (CET)
May be we should temporary not move the files which are markes as move but contain Commons or Wikipedia as the source, but I do not see any other reason to not move the tagged files. Moved maps should have the category Travel maps, otherwise we will never find them again.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. At this point its no worse than any other image stream.Geni (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Hello everyone. I'll be away for the next 9 hours or something like that so nothing will happen untill then. Well that is not true. A HUGE amount of work is done by several users :-)

The thing is that who ever moves the files to Commons will get spanked if bad files are moved. I can live with that as long as it is only a few files.

I think that the main problem is to get a good and clear description page on Commons otherwise we may end up with files without a clear source or a wrong author. Example: User A uploads the file to wikitravel and User B imports or uploads the file til wikivoyage and User C (me?) copy the file to Commons. If it is not done correct then User B will likely be mentioned as the author. If there is no good source files may get deleted on Commons or we risk attributing the wrong user as author.

As you can see above in #Files by User:(WT-shared) Shoestring possible mass upload then doing a few edits before the file is moved can make the result much better. I doubt that all users did like Shoestring and added "me", "own work" or "Shoestring" as author. So I think we get the best result by sorting the files in categories "Uploaded by user x" and work on the categories one by one. I would like to start with users with many uploads and if possible own work. So if you know any users like that please list the name below. And if you know users who uploaded files from other users without a good source you could also let me know so that we could wait with these files or give them an extra check.

It would also be nice if you could delete as many files as possible to reduce the number of files in the categories. --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2012 (CET)

I've found plenty of own-work files with missing source/credit but are clearly own work (based on uploader username, etc.), so in those cases (especially if license tag is missing or a basic CC license) it is safe to transfer with a source of "own work (assumed)" or some similar.
Unfortunately a lot of the work I have been tagging is "piecemeal" stuff from one uploader, then another, etc. Your suggestion isn't going to help move those files, and they are no less of a priority. Another WTS gnome (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Yes I know. But given the time limit and the amount of work to be done I think it is best to focus on files where I can move 400 files in an hour instead of 50 files. I'm not saying we should not move the other files. Just that we should take them last.
Ofcourse if we have highly used files or "main page files" it would be wise to move them first. Anyone have a list of the 100 most used files? --MGA73 (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2012 (CET)

There are a few cases where I don't think that files with Template:Move should be automatically copied to Commons:

  • If the file also has "NowCommons", "KeepLocal" or "Ignore". I know that the templates shouldn't be combined, but this has probably happened by mistake somewhere. I understand that everyone tags files like crazy because we're in a hurry, and there's probably not been enough time for very careful checks.
  • If the file looks like a Mediawiki thumbnail (e.g. File:800px-Example.jpg), or if they have a double extension (e.g. File:Example.svg.png). These are usually downscaled copies of Commons or Wikipedia files and should get NowCommons or whatever.
  • If the words "Wikipedia" or "Commons" (case-insensitive) appear anywhere on the file information page. These files have usually been copied from Wikipedia or Commons and should get NowCommons instead. There will be a few errors (e.g. files mentioning "Creative Commons"), but it's safer to skip all of them.

In other cases, I don't know. Maybe there are not that many errors; I haven't checked the category too carefully.

I think that files in Category:Files uploaded by Kentagon can be copied to Commons without further checks. When that has been done, I'll go through the files in Category:Files uploaded by Kentagon with more files in history and copy over the old file versions if appropriate.

I'll be busy during the day and will try to spend as much time as possible on updating file links to point at Commons, so I might not have much time for other tasks.

Can someone with sysop permissions take a look at the section #Files on fully protected pages above? These files need to be updated to their Commons names, but the pages using them are fully protected, so my bot can't fix this. I'll list more files on protected pages whenever I find them. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2012 (CET)

I added Kentagon to the list below. I will also take a look at the files on protected pages. Thanks for your hard work! --Atsirlin (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Categories for priority transfer

edit

According to MGA73's suggestion above, let's list single users who uploaded substantial number of images that are safe in terms of the copyright and can be transfered tonight. We should go through them quickly and mark obvious FoP cases, though. We should also add image credits where necessary.

Please, add new names and note whether the files have been checked. --Atsirlin (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Transfer file histories: Ask MGA73 to create a category like Category:Files uploaded by Kentagon with more files in history and then copy over the history using oldver.php. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2012 (CET)

I was planning to move all files with a working link and a free license on Flickr in Category:Files from Flickr - mtc candidates shortly to get those reviewed (again) on Commons by the Flickrreview bot. Feel free to scan the category for files with possible FOP issues. If you find files without a license review and the license is not free on Flickr or the link is not working you should also remove those. --MGA73 (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2012 (CET)

Is anybody checking it? If not, I can start (from the beginning), though I am in the office and I am not sure how long will it take.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Not yet, but I can go for it in about 3 hours. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2012 (CET)
OK, I will slowly start backwards--Ymblanter (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Checked U-Z, will not continue till tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2012 (CET)
I've checked 0-9 and A. That's really tough because many images changed their copyright status or have been removed from Flickr altogether. This category won't be my first priority... --Atsirlin (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Wait, isn't this work that flickrreviewbot can do for us? --Peter Talk 23:01, 5 November 2012 (CET)
The bot can check if there is a working link and a valid license. But if we just transfer all files then the bad ones will be deleted on Commons but the NowCommons tag will not be removed here. --MGA73 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Yes, but it will reject half of them. I tried to salvage some, but that's a very boring job. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2012 (CET)
I moved all the freely licensed files I could find except for the ones that may have a FOP issue ---> Commons:Category:Files from Flickr uploaded by Wikivoyage users. --MGA73 (talk) 08:22, 9 November 2012 (CET)

Cleaning the categories

edit

I am about to start massive removal of empty categories. If you see any problems (for example, the site becomes too slow), please, post a message on my talk page (wts, en, ru). I will be notified by e-mail and stop the process immediately. --Atsirlin (talk) 09:39, 5 November 2012 (CET)

What is the advantage of deleting empty categories? It seems like a lot of extra work if we're not going to be using this site anymore. And they're all marked empty, so we don't have to go through them when tagging images. --Peter Talk 18:56, 5 November 2012 (CET)
I can think of an advantage. If you want to check all files in Category:Whatever you may have to click down through 8 levels of categories just to find out that the one on the bottom is empty. When all empty categories are deleted you know there is something down there. --MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2012 (CET)
Well, thanks to the support from Another WTS gnome, that was very little effort: just run the script 7 or 8 times. Now all empty categories are gone and, I agree, finding the remaining files is a lot easier.

Presently, we have:

That's all, but still a lot of work...-( --Atsirlin (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2012 (CET)

I see 3726 uncategorised files, including a few duplicates. Lots to do! --Avenue (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2012 (CET)

Turning on a beta version

edit

There is a discussion ongoing here regarding if we should turn on a beta version run by the WMF on Tuesday this week. We can provide a prominent link on the main pages of the new site directing people who wish to see the old copy with images to the old copy. The beta site will help editors than address what needs to be fixed still both with respect to images and with respect to user names. Jmh649 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2012 (CET)

I've copied a key email from Erik here. Most important to note is that the language versions will go into read-only mode shortly, so we will have to switch our efforts at renaming thumbnails to wmc filenames from these servers to the new ones. --Peter Talk 03:27, 6 November 2012 (CET)
To speed up things, I gave my bot pre-approval to change a lot of file links so that it could run for the whole night. It stopped with the last edit on English Wikivoyage at 07:58, 6 November 2012 (default server time zone) without finishing with all pre-approved English files. This is when English Wikivoyage entered into read-only mode, so the rest of the pre-approved files were skipped. It continued updating the pre-approved files on Wts, finishing the task at 08:40, 6 November 2012 server time with all pre-approved files updated.
It is not currently possible to edit any pages, so I can't update more file links for the moment. The URLs seem to point to German Wikivoyage where the database is locked, and I don't know if American Wikivoyage has been set up yet. I will resume the task of updating file links as soon as technically possible. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:28, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Thanks for your effort! I am now tagging all flag files because they are frequently used and require massive replacement. Can you imagine what other files should be tagged and replaced in first place? --Atsirlin (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Route signs. I gave my bot pre-approval for United States Interstate route shields, so most of them were updated during the night (changing File:I-nnn.png → File:I-nnn.svg), but the bot didn't finish before the server went into read-only mode, so there are a few signs left. I think that all Interstate signs have been tagged, but there are presumably lots of road signs from other parts of the world, such as European E-roads. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Thanks to the strong support from Globe-trotter, flags and road signs should be done. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2012 (CET)
By "road signs should be done", are those just the US capital-I Interstate roads? I recall that there were a pile of ' US Highways' (the original 1926 series of two-lane roads, which includes the infamous en:Route 66 "get your kicks!") which still needed to be tagged "nowCommons" to rename from "US-66.png" or "US 66.png" to "US 66.svg". 66 might be the only already done. I've tagged various bits of the en:Trans-Canada Highway, but there are a few provincial or state roads which are likely half-done and US highways likely all need "nowCommons" and "US ##.svg"; I haven't had time to get to them. K7L (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Projects up?

edit

I just managed to make an edit in Russian Wikivoyage, so I assume the projects are (temporarily) up, and the buts can run again. It is just empyrical, I have no idea why and when they get down again.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2012 (CET)

I think they are still up, or not down yet. But we better don't touch anything because new edits can be lost. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Indeed, in the meanwhile Erik confirmed on the mailing list that they are up again because the domain name transfer has been completed, but the names are still pointing out to the old sites. At some point later today they will switch.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2012 (CET)
I assume it's fine to keep working on wts.wikivoyage-old.org, though, right? --Peter Talk 19:26, 6 November 2012 (CET)
That's what I am doing, but so far wts.wikivoyage.org simply mirrors wts.wikivoyage-old.org (or the other way around). --Atsirlin (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Wts is not going to be migrated, so that it is fine to work here all the time--Ymblanter (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2012 (CET)
Without any indication to the contrary, I would assume that any work made to language versions will be lost as I assume that the database dump already has been made. My bot currently updates file links on this project (Wts), but I'm currently not attempting to edit any pages on the language versions, although the Russian version doesn't seem to be read-only. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:57, 6 November 2012 (CET)

Files on fully protected pages

edit

FYI: I've created a page, User:Stefan2/editprotected, where I list file links on this project which need to be updated by an administrator. It would be nice if some admin could help. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2012 (CET)

Stating commons accounts

edit

I have asked the owner of the transfer bot to use a mapping list for our active main contributors who have a commons account as well (there is no time for mass emails and special pages). Maybe its possible, that your commons user account is stated in the description page as the author. I have created a list for him on my user page. You should link our corresponding accounts as a kind of cross-identifying. Dont want to get him in trouble. What do you think? You can communicate with him via his talk page as well. Because I am quit busy and not often online. -- DerFussi (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2012 (CET)

MediaWiki:Edittools

edit

I have added the tagging templates to the edit tools to make tagging easier. –sumone10154(talk) 22:33, 7 November 2012 (CET)

mediawiki:sitenotice

edit

Does a site notice inviting users to flag their accounts on this wiki for user list transfer to WMF make any sense, given that this wiki is not moving to Wikimedia and those projects which are moving are now read-only? K7L (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2012 (CET)

Agreed. I have modified it to advertise for help with the cleanup. –sumone10154(talk) 22:50, 7 November 2012 (CET)

files naming commons: as original source

edit

Is a 'bot able to flag {{nowCommons}} onto images that list a wp.commons URL as the original source image, or is this something that will be (or should be) done manually? I'd expect it'd be a huge number of images, and relatively easy to spot these via search. K7L (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2012 (CET)

A bot has already tagged most images that are identical on Commons, but a few need to be manually tagged (images that have been resized, or png versions of svg files). We shouldn't automatically tag all images with a Commons url, as some images may be very different (such as maps based on a source file). –sumone10154(talk) 22:58, 7 November 2012 (CET)
Yes, most maps list one or more Commons files as source, but those sources are usually very different (heavily modified or so). I have made a few bot runs listing pages mentioning "Wikipedia" or "Commons" (which may indicate that the image comes from there) and added NowCommons to many of those files. Currently, I've gone through about half of the files that way. Too bad that Javascript doesn't seem to work: I created a script, User:Stefan2/common.js, to make it easier to find the source on Commons if it only says "Source: Wikimedia Commons" without any link, but the script appears to be ignored by the software. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2012 (CET)
As far as I can tell, there is a setting in MediaWiki's 'LocalSettings.php' which has to be specifically enabled before you can use special:mypage/common.css or .js - Wikipedia has this enabled, Wikivoyage does not. I'd tried creating a user-specific CSS file on en.wikivoyage to display interwiki links differently from internal links and that didn't work for this reason (although a Firefox script debugging extension which allows scripts and stylesheets to be inserted at the local browser instead of on the site may work). K7L (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2012 (CET)
Just for your information: Since it hasn't been possible to edit pages on any language versions since Tuesday, I have had some time for other tasks. I have checked all files mentioning "Wikipedia" or "Commons" anywhere on the file information page without mentioning "NowCommons", and tagged lots of those with Template:NowCommons or listed them at User:Stefan2 (if they need to be transferred to Commons from Wikipedia). I would guess that this means that most files from Wikipedia and Commons have been tagged by now, and that any files which haven't been tagged are files which fail to specify the source. User:MGA73 in turn told me that many of the files in the list at User:Stefan2 have been transferred from English Wikipedia to Commons by him, although he didn't have time to indicate this in the list before going to bed.
Another task I've been doing is updating file names to match Commons. Since it's not possible to edit language versions, I have concentrated on files on this project (wts.wikivoyage.org). I managed to update all file names on this project two days ago, apart from a few images with potential freedom of panorama issues and a few images on fully protected pages (see list at User:Stefan2/editprotected). Since then, people have tagged a lot of other files as "NowCommons". During today and yesterday, it has sometimes been difficult to reach the Mediawiki API on this server, so files which have been tagged recently have not always had their links updated. That is, if the file was tagged before Thursday, then all links on wts.wikivoyage.org have been updated, and if the file was tagged on Thursday or later, then it is possible that the links haven't been updated yet. I'm going away during the weekend, so I will probably have few opportunities to assist with any migration work between Friday afternoon and Sunday afternoon. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2012 (CET)

Crazy tag

edit

Can sombody explain to me how the move tag find it's way into the image? I've just tagged as to be ignored but ther is still the sign to move. -- DerFussi (talk) 09:39, 9 November 2012 (CET)

The "move" in included in Template:Map. --MGA73 (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2012 (CET)
But why? Any need to do that? Its just used to tag it as a map. I am just about to tag my images here that are available on shared: as well to avoid to transfer them twice. On shared: they are meanwhile updated (the maps) and have more comprehensive descriptions and coordinates. -- DerFussi (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2012 (CET)
I think we should just agree that any tag on a map superceeds the move tag which is included into the template.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2012 (CET)
Yep, if a image in the "move" category is in another category like "keeplocal" or "ignore", it should not actually be moved. Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2012 (CET)
Also, when searching for images listing "Wikipedia" or "Commons" as source, I've found lots of images which have been tagged with Template:Move. I suspect that I may sometimes have forgot to remove the Move template, so there may also be some Move/NowCommons overlap. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2012 (CET)
We are using the {{map}} tag to mark files to automatically have Category:Wikivoyage_maps added on Commons after import. DerFussi—is there a mechanism for your maps on Shared? If not, please be sure to monitor all maps from Shared to make sure they also have this category! --Peter Talk 16:04, 9 November 2012 (CET)

Projects are up

edit

I guess the first priority now should be changing the links in the projects to the files on Commons?--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2012 (CET)

Sure! We have lots of flags, route signs and other stuff that requires massive replacement. --Atsirlin (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2012 (CET)
Yes. As I mentioned before, I'm away during the weekend, and currently only have access to the Internet using my mobile phone (which is insufficient for running bots), but I should be able to start my bot again within 18 hours. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (CET)

World66

edit

I have been tagging World66 files with {{move}}. But is it safe to transfer them? They are licensed freely on World66, but I worry that they may be copyvios from other sources on the Internet. World66's dodgy-looking site doesn't make me really confident. Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2012 (CET)

If you are in doubt, it may be better to tag with Template:Ignore for now. It's important to fix as many file links as possible, so it seems better to start with the easy images.
It is possible to perform a reverse image search using Google in order to check if the image appeared elsewhere first, but if the images have been around for a few years, then they may have been copies lots of times from Wikitravel and World66, so it may be harder to determine a source. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:13, 11 November 2012 (CET)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:WTS_archive/Travellers%27_pub&oldid=4924258"