Wikivoyage:WTS archive/Pub (temporary refuge)/archive

Tagging files on WTS

 * Europe
 * Category:France Done, but many images copied to Commons must be deleted. No FOP in France. Yann (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * I saw many deletion requests for WTS files on Commons with reason "no FOP in France", so this may have been done already. Another WTS gnome (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * All files on WTS: see Category:All files on WTS

How is this list compiled? I am in the middle of tagging Category:Portugal, it is not yet complete but not in the list--Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2012 (CET)
 * My mistake. Let me check it once again. --Atsirlin (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2012 (CET)
 * I see, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (CET)

Removing those entries that are completed. Thanks to Shaund, Globe-trotter, Sumone10154, JamesA, Ymblanter, and all others involved. Another WTS gnome (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2012 (CET)

Tagging files on en.wikivoyage-old.org
Full list is here. There is no obvious way of splitting it into small groups, so let's sort these files according to their upload date


 * 2012
 * 2011
 * 2010
 * 2009
 * 2008
 * 01/2008
 * 02/2008
 * 03/2008
 * 04/2008
 * 05/2008
 * 06/2008
 * 07/2008
 * 08/2008
 * 09/2008
 * 10/2008
 * 11/2008
 * 12/2008
 * 2007
 * 01/2007
 * 02/2007
 * 03/2007
 * 04/2007
 * 05/2007
 * 06/2007
 * 07/2007
 * 08/2007
 * 09/2007
 * 10/2007
 * 11/2007
 * 12/2007
 * 2006
 * 01/2006
 * 02/2006
 * 03/2006
 * 04/2006
 * 05/2006
 * 06/2006
 * 07/2006
 * 08/2006
 * 09/2006
 * 10/2006
 * 11/2006
 * 12/2006
 * 2005
 * 01/2005
 * 02/2005
 * 03/2005
 * 04/2005
 * 05/2005
 * 06/2005
 * 07/2005
 * 08/2005
 * 09/2005
 * 10/2005
 * 11/2005
 * 12/2005
 * 2004
 * 04/2004
 * 05/2004
 * 06/2004
 * 07/2004
 * 08/2004
 * 09/2004
 * 10/2004
 * 11/2004
 * 12/2004
 * Maybe it's better to split them up on uploader instead? MGA73 mostly seems to prefer to take files from one uploader at a time. Those local files also have the problem that Imagecredit needs to be converted to Information. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Maybe... I don't know these files well enough to decide. But it is worth trying.
 * The main problem is that most of these local files have no Imagecredit at all. Therefore, we have to add the Imagecredit or Information template to every image which is supposed to be moved. The good news, though, is that many of these files are obsolete or too old, and a better replacement can be found. I would try to leave only maps and good photos. The rest should be purged. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, if there's nothing on the file information pages, should the files just be deleted? See wikipedia:Template:Di-no source no license which is used if someone uploads a file to Wikipedia with a blank file information page. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well, it is a delicate issue. People claim that early uploads had no explicit license information because the information in the upload window contained something like "by uploading this file, you agree for its licensing under cc-by-sa-1.0". I think that many of the local files are fine in terms of the license, but nobody cared of writing the license information explicitly (after all, the content licensed under CC-BY-SA means that both text and images are distributed under this license). Let's see how many problematic files we have. I do not support any immediate deletions because we may have some rare things there. It will be a pity to lose them, especially when the images come from a well-known contributor whom we can (and should) trust. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * If the contributor is well-known, it is probably also possible to contact the contributor somehow and ask if the contributor took the images. If the contributor hasn't joined Wikivoyage, it may still be possible to contact him on Wikitravel or somewhere else. Also, if the contributor is well-known, he has probably uploaded lots of images. If the "metadata" section shows that all photos were taken using the same camera model, I think that it is often safe to assume that the uploader took the photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Sure. I hope we can do it this way. --Atsirlin (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2012 (CET)

I have cleared the old en pub for us to use it in coordinating the upcoming tagging effort there. --Peter Talk 02:51, 27 November 2012 (CET)

KeepLocal and Ignore
Presently, we have about 1500 files that were tagged with KeepLocal and Ignore tags. The use of these tags was not very systematic, so we have:


 * Files to be stored locally due to the Freedom of Panorama issues:
 * Make sure that they are labeled with KeepLocal. Leave them as they are


 * Files that changed their copyright status on Flickr. These files are still OK, but we can't upload them to Commons.
 * Could be stored locally, but better find a replacement and change the links in individual articles


 * Files with dubious license:
 * Find a replacement or check with the uploader


 * Unused files:
 * Check that they have the Ignore tag, and leave them rest in peace


 * "Unused files: Check that they have the Ignore tag, and leave them rest in peace" - Is it a right solution? Why ignore? Are they also not used in the so far not migrated languages?
 * IMO free available and useful files should be moved with low priority from WTS to Commons. Why not? -- Alan ffm (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * See also immediately below. If no one minds, I'll remove  from all files. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2012 (CET)

Votes for deletion
Is now at Votes for deletion


 * Question: Files with an "Ignore" should be deleted at some point (unless they are tagged incorrectly. Do we need to send them all to Vfd? Or is there a speedy deletion option? Like if uploader requests? If the file is broken? Etc.?
 * There is more than 1.000 files in Category:Files to be ignored so it would be nice if we could find an easy process. --MGA73 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think that some Wikivoyage e.V. people told that the servers would go down in a month (or something) after the move to the WMF servers, so I suggest that we spend as little time as possible on that for the moment as it is more time-efficient to fix easy files. I suggest that we simply ignore them right now (and don't care about VfD). If we have time for them when all other files have been handled, we could maybe request speedy deletion/discuss at VfD. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * I don't think that we need any VfD discussions. There are less than 15 people taking part in the image transfer, so we can easily reach consensus here without going through every image. But I agree with Stefan that we have more urgent things to do. Let's ignore the files that we are supposed to ignore. Once again, 95% of these 1000 files may be garbage, but 5% are important. They should be salvaged and transferred to Commons or stored locally. For example, we have maps sources (*.svg) lacking both categories and license, but as long as the derived PNG files are properly licensed, it is safe to apply the same license to the SVG file. --Atsirlin (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * Okay. Speaking of the 5 % that could perhaps be saved. I noticed that some files in Category:Files uploaded by NY066 is tagged with ignore with the reason "Unused". Perhaps not the best reason. --MGA73 (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2012 (CET)
 * Maybe I should just run a bot over all files to remove "ignore|unused"... Otherwise, we might miss lots of useful files. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * It should be safe to copy Category:Files uploaded by NY066 to Commons now. I removed all and added a few other "Ignore" tags. I also added a Commons-style  tag to one image. I hope that this will be preserved on Commons so that Commons:User:Rotatebot automatically rotates the image. Should I also run a bot to remove  from all images by other uploaders? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * Regarding "Unused" --> . Interessting point... I would say that we should remove all "Ignore|Unused".
 * Perhaps the best way to find out if a photo is usable or not is simply to copy all files to Commons and wait a few weeks to all databases are updated and see if they are still unused. --MGA73 (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * There's also a discussion at wikipedia:incubator:Incubator:Community Portal about the possibility of importing even more language versions, and even if a file isn't used on the current language versions, it might be used on one of the other language versions. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * Strong "no" for bulk deletions without any information, and discussion and without clear reason for deletion in each case (e g. "copy-vio")!
 * 1. "Unused" - are they also unused in all the so far not migratedWT-languages?
 * 2. Why delete and not move to Commons "unused" now but free available and useful files? IMO "unused" means only „move with low priority“ and in anycase delete the whole category!
 * 3. In a lot of (most?) cases the problem is unclear author, source, or license info, what can be improved by author, but needs a lot of time. -- Alan ffm (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * The problem is that someone wrote that the server would go down about a month after the projects were migrated to WMF. It's much better to first migrate as many as possible of the easy ones than to spend a lot of time on discussing images which are more likely to be problematic and end up with thousands of other images which couldn't be migrated because of lack of time. If we have some time over after handling the easy cases, we could try to save as many as possible of the difficult ones. Of course, all tags should preferably be removed. If there's no opposition before the morning, then I'll remove those. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * I've never heard that the guys from Wikivoyage e.V. have any problem with WTS. Most of them were against a fast migration without images. -> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Travel_Guide/Launch
 * And the time necessary for a complete and proper migration was estimated somewhere in the discussions for about one year.
 * And I think it was somewhere said, that the Wikivoyage-old repositories remain on-line for as long as necessary. -- Alan ffm (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * There doesn't seem to be any opposition, so is now being removed. Example --Stefan2 (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2012 (CET)

For your information, I created some statistics. These are the reasons used at least 10 times: The number at the end indicates the number of times a reason is used. Unfree CC licences and "all rights reserved" were mainly added by me when verifying Flickr files. Stefan2 (talk) 10:59, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Commons:Template:No permission since: 19
 * No copyright information: 16
 * copyvio: 27
 * no source: 11
 * provided from shared:: 12
 * Bad quality image, Commons has better images: 12
 * cc-by-nc: 24
 * cc-by-nd: 20
 * Unneeded: 19
 * no licence: 10
 * no source/author: 10
 * vfd: 25
 * no evidence that it is own work: 11
 * missing Flickr link: 12
 * Commons:COM:DW: 38
 * empty - no reason given: 68
 * no license info: 34
 * Will be imported from shared:: 31
 * No licensing information given or any information given at all: 16
 * It will be uploaded from shared: (User:DerFussi): 18
 * cc-by-nc-nd: 15
 * unused and no source info: 17
 * no location or license info: 11
 * not on Flickr: 38
 * cc-by-nc-sa: 45
 * No licensing information given: 31
 * Old screenshot, no more value: 11
 * all rights reserved: 47

Moving images to Commons
Sorry. But I can't post on the discussion page. Perhaps if someone create the page?

I'm currently moving files from Shared (http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Wikivoyage:Lounge#Category:Images_by_users_ready_to_copy_to_Commons_3F) because many of the old files on wts have been imported from Shared. I think the best would be to copy from the original source.

My hope is that if we can find users with hundreds of good uploads we can easily move a lot of files to Commons and reduce the numbers of red links.

Files end up in (these categories where everyone is welcome to help check and fix):
 * Commons:Category:Files_from_Wikivoyage_WTS
 * Commons:Category:Files from Wikivoyage Shared

I have not forgotten Travellers'_pub but I had problems converting templates when moving files to Commons. I gave up and now think the best solution is to convert the template before the file is moved. I made User:MGA73/Sandbox (if anyone is wondering what that was for) to help me doing that so unless someone have a better idea I will convert the templates here on wts. --MGA73 (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2012 (CET)


 * Hi! That's the right place for the discussions. The talk page is blocked. We can't use it-((
 * I also took the liberty of renaming the title of this section because we may have other discussions in the future. Thank you four your effort! --Atsirlin (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2012 (CET)


 * The source is Wikitravel Shared, not Wikivoyage Shared. It's not possible to copy images from Wikitravel Shared because the API has been disabled. It's usually better to copy files from here instead of Wikivoyage Shared if they exist on both projects as Wikivoyage Shared often has uploads by User:ImportBot which give wrong uploader, wrong date and wrong edit summary in the original upload log. If files were uploaded in 2007 or later, then the files usually only exists in one image repository (either here or at Wikivoyage Shared). --Stefan2 (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2012 (CET)


 * Hm... You are right...
 * I'm currently converting "Imagecredit" to "Information" here on wts. I'm also moving ~6.000 files from Shared. Bot moves 6-8 files a minute but sometimes the site is down for a short time and the bot stops. So it will take some time.
 * When the files are moved I'll tag files with "NowCommons" to avoid to move duplicates to Commons.
 * After that I will move move files from wts. So what is best: Move files by uploader or for example travel maps? --MGA73 (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * The only request from my side is that all maps end up in the Travel maps category. I have put some effort in garnering them all over WTS, and I don't want to do this again on Commons. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Changing WTS categories to Commons categories should be easy, in terms of maps. In nearly all cases, it's just a matter of adding "Travel" to the start of the category name and lower-casing "maps". So Category:Maps of Australia becomes Category:Travel maps of Australia. JamesA (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Okay I have now moved a lot of files from shared and is back on wts to move files. The maps is a challenge so I thought I would do Category:Files uploaded by Pbsouthwood first while I try to find a good way to move the maps. I have some ideas but they should be tested before I move 3.000 files :-D --MGA73 (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * I have also grouped Category:Files uploaded by Globe-trotter, not a lot of images, but they can be uploaded safely. We should also make a Category:Files uploaded by Jpatokal,as he has uploaded hundreds of files taken in destinations all over the world. His uploads may seem a bit sketchy, as licensing information is missing in many of them, but he is an admin on the English Wikivoyage, and is aware of his uploads being freely licensed. Maybe we should contact him and ask which license he'd prefer for those images missing license information? --Globe-trotter (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * I've also added my maps to that category, as I saw Pbsouthwood's category also has maps included. A lot more files now :-) --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2012 (CET)

Images with the same name on Commons
What are we to do when an image on WV has the same name as an existing one on commons but is a different image? As an example this image is used in the Kununurra article, yet the one on commons is something else entirely. Does it need to be tagged in some special way or manually uploaded to Commons with a new name? - Cardboardbird (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2012 (CET)
 * Such files need to be moved to Commons under a different name. However, it's better to ask User:MGA73 to do this using his bot. I've seen some other users moving files to Commons once in a while, but this has almost always been done incorrectly (for example, without an original upload log), taking a lot of time to clean up afterwards. If files are properly tagged with NowCommons here, then my bot will eventually find them and fix the links.
 * In this case, both files should presumably be deleted. File:Agriculture.jpg has an unfree licence on Flickr and there is no evidence that it was ever available under a free licence. It is claimed that Commons:File:Agriculture.jpg was taken by the uploader more than 60 years ago, but the uploader hasn't provided any evidence as to how the uploader was able to take photos of important people at that time. I'll nominate both for deletion right away. You could see if you can find some other image on Commons which serves the same purpose and insert that image in the article instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2012 (CET)


 * "I've seen some other users moving files to Commons once in a while, but this has almost always been done incorrectly (for example, without an original upload log), taking a lot of time to clean up afterwards." Well, now I feel really stupid. Can we put up a message on the front page saying something along the lines of "Hey everyone, don't upload anything to Wikimedia Commons just yet. Sit tight, and our bot will take care of it all soon." Hopefully fewer people will make the mistake I did. Also, I promise to clean up any messes I may have made. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * This is not a migration I'm proud of. Users on Commons have a lot of experience in copying files to Commons and we even managed to copy donations of more than 1 million files to Commons. We should have helped you all so much more.
 * I do not know why this did not go as good as we could have hoped. Personally I did not notice that Wikivoyage was going to join the wiki family untill about 1 week before "big bang".
 * If we could do this all over then I can think of a lot of things we should have done to make this easier for users on Wikivoyage.
 * For example my bot (and most other bots?) need a "family file" before it works. That should have been made months ago so we could convert the templates to Template:Information and we should have sorted the files in categories before users started working on the files.
 * We should have had a clear "to do list" and a clear plan to work from.
 * The result is that good files are tagged and "nothing happens". When someone decides to act there is complaints :-(
 * So I hope that you, PerryPlanet, will not give up on us. We can do better. --MGA73 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2012 (CET)

Categorising maps on Commons
We were discussing maps at one point or another in the old Pub, but I don't think there was any clear decision. Are all Wikivoyage-styled maps to be categorised in commons:Category:Travel maps? Have any Wikivoyage maps been moved to Commons by the bot already? I think we should go ahead and make Travel maps a Wikivoyage-only category, so that would mean removal of maps like. Then create subcategories for continents, subcontinents, countries, regions, cities and so on. The bot should be able to match our current categorisation system just by adding the word "travel" to the old category. I'll go ahead and create some categories manually later. Any other comments? JamesA (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Yes, that was the idea. The locator map of Canada should be removed indeed. But please, do not create too many categories. My idea was to follow our geographical hierarchy, yet keep the system as flat as possible. For example, I don't think that we have to follow the 7+/-2 rule. And if we have 3 maps of Estonia and 2 maps of Tallinn, they can be all stored in Travel maps of Estonia. We don't need another category for Travel maps of Tallinn.
 * I think that MGA73 is moving all new maps to the Travel maps category. --Atsirlin (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Okay, I've gone ahead and removed irrelevant images and recategorised them. I've also uploaded a few of my own maps, just so that they will be listed under My Uploads and I can keep track of them. I've created the correct categories for them, with some under their respective states/divisions (awaiting further maps to be imported) while others just at the country level. I've marked them NowCommons here. JamesA (talk) 11:04, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Thanks! I planned to do the same for my maps. Have you also removed the Map template that automatically generates the Move tag? I have been struggling hard to remove any double tagging and leave the Map template only for those maps that should be transferred. --Atsirlin (talk) 11:34, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think most of the maps are transferred under the same name, so that we can just delete them here.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * There actually is a way to force the Map template to tag NowCommons (I only worked it out a few days ago myself!). You just need to change it to  where xx is the name of the file on Commons. Check here to see an example. JamesA (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Good to know! --Atsirlin (talk) 12:56, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * About maps, note that it appears to be possible to transclude maps from Openstreetmap directly (see e.g. it:Stoccolma). Would it be better to replace many maps with Openstreetap transclusions? This would guarantee more up-to-date maps, but I'm not sure if it's possible to have Wikivoyage listings specifically indicated on the maps. Also, Openstreetmap doesn't work properly with the "download as PDF" option. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * No! Only those stupid maps that were obtained by a single use of the OSM Export button could be replaced. It will be good to have links to relevant OSM maps in other pages as well. We could even label our listings by providing their coordinates and adjusting the transclusion code so that additional symbols are shown. But we want people to have maps as robust printouts, and we want our maps to display only relevant information. OSM maps have too many objects. They are not adjusted to the traveler. We need good travel maps, just like ones that Lonely Planet and other printed travel guides publish. --Atsirlin (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, I see a problem with OSM. OSM lists all restaurants and hotels (well, all restaurants and hotels known to OSM contributors), but Wikivoyage tries to limit the information so that it is useful to travellers. The maps serve different purposes. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * I can move all files in Category:Maps and subcategories to Commons:Travel maps or Commons:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check or something like that but it is harder to get them into other sub categories.
 * How are the maps categoriezed? With " (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Maps are categorized with {{Map|...
 * Yes, I suggest that you move the maps to Commons:Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check. Then we arrange them in categories. What about file histories? Still no way to transfer them automatically? --Atsirlin (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * You mean older versions of files? Well ogrebot can move the files. I added a link to the NowCommons template.
 * But now we are talking about the maps. Why "Travel maps"? Why can't they just go in the excisting categories on Commons? --MGA73 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * Yes, I mean older versions of the files. Maps are developed by different people, and sometimes it is important to have previous versions as well.
 * Regarding your question: Wikivoyage maps are rather special. Most of them are drawn in their own style and show regions/city districts as well as listings (sights, hotels, restaurants) that have little meaning outside Wikivoyage. Additionally, we want to have all maps (including older versions) in one place, so that we can easily find them. The idea was to have the Travel maps category in addition to the existing categories. For example, map of China goes to "Maps of China" and "Travel maps of China". This should not make any difficultшуы for Commons, but this will be of great help for us. See also my reply to Stefan (why we can't always use OSM maps) in this section. --Atsirlin (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Transfer old versions: Get a TUSC account here if you don't already have it. Then click on the link at the bottom of the NowCommons template: "If you want to move old versions to Commons click this link." Fill in TUSC username & password and then OgreBot will upload the history to Commons. Once the history has been uploaded, you can delete the map from here. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2012 (CET)

I agree the maps should be added to their own category, which could be either "Travel maps" of "Wikivoyage maps". I think it's important we move these maps over fast. They have no attribution issues, and some new users are already replacing the red links with other maps from Commons. That would be hard to fix later on. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Agreed. Maps should be moved ASAP, and put them in Commons:Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check. Then users should recategorise and move the history over using TUSC at the same time. JamesA (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * I've uploaded some more of my maps to Commons and the TUSC tool works well in moving the history over. Unfortunately though, I can't delete the files like the tool tells me because I'm not an admin here. Any chance I could have temporary admin status so I can delete moved files and empty categories? Cheers, JamesA (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * I see that you have uploaded lots of maps to Commons without including an original upload log. Don't do that! Always include an original upload log when moving a file to Commons. It takes ages to clean up everyone's bad uploads, and since I have to spend lots of time on correcting bad uploads, this means that much fewer file names can be updated to match Commons file names. --Stefan2 (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Do you mean the checkbox at the bottom of the TUSC tool that says "Output upload history to file page? "? I've tried selecting that and get the error: "Printing upload history not currently enabled for project wikivoyage-old." For maps that had a history here I've used the TUSC tool so that Ogre Bot updates the history on Commons. For maps that only I uploaded here and had no history, I haven't ran the tool as there's no use for the history. What is selecting the checkbox meant to do? JamesA (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * That checkbox annoyingly doesn't work on Wikivoyage. You can generate the same information here, though. Just remember to type in the file name without namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:01, 15 November 2012 (CET)

Okay I'm moving the maps now. Some cleanup may be needed on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Okay I moved the first 100 maps to Commons:Category:Travel maps from Wikivoyage WTS to check. The "map template" was lost so I have to tweak things before I move more files. Any other problems noticed? --MGA73 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * Looks good. Thank you! One question, though. "All following user names refer to wts.oldwikivoyage". Is it intentional to write this non-existent sitename instead of wts.wikivoyage-old.org? Same for the user name: "(WT-shared) Pbsouthwood at old wikivoyage wts". It may not be clear that "old wikivoyage wts" is "wts.wikivoyage-old.org" --Atsirlin (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well I can't say it intentional to write it wrong. I focused on getting the direct link back to the original file to work. I knew from the beginning that we would have to do some cleanup after the transfer was done. As long as they are all written the same way it is wasy to fix once we find out how we would like to have it. But I can see if I can change it now before more files are moved. If not I can just fix all files later (as long as they have the "wikivoyage|wts" template so I can find the files). --MGA73 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * Clear. I have sorted about half of these files and will continue tomorrow. --Atsirlin (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * I have checked most of these maps. Ready for more-) --Atsirlin (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Good! I know how to spend the rest of the weekend=) --Atsirlin (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Hehe :-D
 * Well there is one thing that may be a problem. The maps do not use the regular "Move", "Ignore" and "KeepLocal" so 1) how do we tag files like File:Afrika_Karte.jpg and 2) the bot may not skip the files with a Ignor/KeepLocal if it is "build in" into the Map template. --MGA73 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2012 (CET)
 * I did my best to remove any conflicting tags. Well, apparently I was not careful enough... Anyway, this case is simple because the map is authored by Peter. So I added the license tag. He can confirm it later, if necessary. Let's do it on case-by-case basis. --Atsirlin (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2012 (CET)

What should happen to files allready moved to Commons?
It is a shame we can't edit on talk pages and ask users directly. So I can think of no other place to ask than here.

Why edit files allready moved to Commons like ?

Should these files not just be deleted? --MGA73 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, none of us has control over the editing functions.
 * It is no problem to remove those files that have been transferred. But I think that Stefan had some concerns regarding the file histories, and he even wanted to transfer them manually. Stefan, what is the current situation? Should we still keep everything, or can we start deletions? --Atsirlin (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well if Stefan gets the sysop flag he can view deleted files and history. Perhaps that was a solution? --MGA73 (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Sounds good, but I am not a bureaucrat so I can't give the sysop flag (neither can I decide on that). --Atsirlin (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2012 (CET)


 * The idea was that if there are old versions, then it's often a good idea to copy those to Commons. But there's a simple OgreBot link in the NowCommons template (see the text "If you want to move old versions to Commons click this link."). If the other versions are related and might be useful (for archival or whatever), then click on the link and ask OgreBot to upload the other versions to Commons. If the other versions are unrelated but freely licensed, then you can ask me to upload those under a different name. If all old versions have been transferred, or if all old versions are useless (e.g. a thumbnail of the original image), I'd just say delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Moved your reply down. I hope you do not mind.
 * We have thousands of these files, and of course we don't want to delete them manually. Dguillaime had some automatic tool, and I can probably adjust one that I previously used for categories. The question is whether we have to check every file once again. Is it possible to sort files according to the number of older versions, i.e., to separate files with only one version and delete them right away? Then check the remaining files manually. --Atsirlin (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think it is a good idea to check before deleting. I know it is a pain in the .... to do so but once the file is deleted it is hard to find any mistakes. Perhaps Magog the Ogre can make his tool http://toolserver.org/~magog/commons_images.htm available for wts? --MGA73 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, the Ogre's tool would be of great help. But how do we check that the image was accepted by Commons (passed the license review)? Does the green tick imply this? --Atsirlin (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * There is no formal license review on Commons. Whoever removes the yellow "BotMoveToCommons template" should check if the information was transferred correctly and if there is a problem with the license or the file. If another user comes by later and think that the file may be a derivative work and it is not covered by freedom of panorama or de minimis they will nominate the file for deletion and if it ends up getting deleted it could perhaps be moved to xx.wikivoyage as fair use. That could happen tomorrow or in ten years. --MGA73 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2012 (CET)
 * You may also wish to bug Commons:User:Dcoetzee about Commons:User:Commons fair use upload bot which may upload fair use files to local projects. That may be a good idea if you wish to easily copy FOP violations to Wikivoyage when they are deleted on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2012 (CET)

OK, let's come back to this question. Magog the Ogre has adjusted his tool. Now it is working for WTS and producing a list of some 12000 files. Am I right that we can delete these files from WTS as soon as: If yes, we should probably invite all admins to take part in this tempting procedure of wrecking our old file storage-) --Atsirlin (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * they have been reviewed (no yellow box) and categorized on Commons
 * all meaningful file histories have been transferred


 * Yes as long a files are checked before they are deleted it is good. Some files was moved from shared and some from en-wiki etc. In some cases the description on WTS is much better than on the original source. In these cases it would be really nice if the good description was copied to Commons before the file is deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2012 (CET)

Empty categories
Atsirlin, could you please do another purge of empty categories? There are at least 1800 at the moment. Thanks so much for your work. Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * I know, but I am not doing it the in the first turn. These empty categories appeared after MGA73 replaced Imagecredit with Information. However, the respective images have not been transferred. I don't want to cut their way back on WTS, because it may be still necessary for those images that are not accepted by Commons. --Atsirlin (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * But what's the use of keeping these empty categories? I think it's still better to delete them, so it's easier to finish what's left. Then afterwards we can tackle the uncategorized files.--Globe-trotter (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Sorry about that. I did not notice that categories was removed when I changed the tempate to "Information". The categories could be usefull if someone try to categorize the file on Commons if the location is xxx and there are 3 xxx's in the world. Then it could be usefull to go back to Wikivoyage and look in file history and see where the category is categorized. More difficult now I know :-( --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Is there a way to run the bot again and get the categories back? The categories were created from the previous "location=" part of the template, that information still is available at the end of the Description part. Else we'd have to wade through many uncategorized files that we have checked before when they were categorized.--Globe-trotter (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * I think it may be possible to do it without getting too many mistakes. But perhaps we should not worry so much about the uncategorized images here. I think it would be better to work on the files on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * No, the problem is that we still have tons of uncategorized files that were not tagged. Now their number increased because you took lost of previously categorized files out of their categories. One possible workaround is to delete all files with the same name on Commons, but we should really check them beforehand. And I still waiting for Ogre's reply regarding his tool for "image comparison"... --Atsirlin (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * The question is why we want to work on uncategorized files. If they have a source and a license and are not copyvios I can move them to Commons anyway. The bot does not need the "move template". Adding a Ignore or a KeepLocal on bad files is however a big help.
 * So depending on why you want to work on the uncategorized files there are other ways to find them. I could add them all to a category and remove files with a specific template. Or I could send all files without a "{{" to a specific category.
 * Anyway files with a NowCommons, Ignore or KeepLocal end up in a category so if files like File:AtlantaMaryMacsPlate.jpg is moved to Commons it is removed from the list. It is not needed to delete it to remove it from the list. --MGA73 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Ultimately, we want to check and tag all files. Uncategorized does not mean unused. For example, I have found at least 15 map sources that had no categories at all. But you are right. Moved files get the NowCommons tag, which automatically puts them into a category. They should not add to the list here.
 * But do you really want to transfer all files at once, including files without any tags? That's OK with me, but I think that last week you have been more cautious=) We are likely to have many unlicensed or wrongly licensed files in this Uncategorized folder. --Atsirlin (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2012 (CET)

(Outdent) At the moment there is 9.500+ files in Commons:Category:Files from Wikivoyage Shared and I think I moved most of them. I usually do this:
 * 1) Find a user with many uploads and put them in a category. I do that for these reasons:
 * 2) So I can add the files to a user category on Commons to help the uploader and so it is easier to fix attribution if someone wants the link to point to their Commons user page.
 * 3) It is easier to fix license (see below) when all the files are from the same uploader.
 * 4) By scanning the uploads of a user you can easier spot if the user knows about derivative works and freedom of panorama or not.
 * 5) Scan the category for files with possible FOP issues etc.
 * 6) Prepare the file for upload:
 * 7) change to "Information template" (if anyone else that that is used)
 * 8) change the license from "whatever" to "self|whatever" if the text on the photo claims own work or uploader is mentioned as author
 * 9) Start the bot
 * 10) Then the bot looks for skip templates: NowCommons, Ignore or KeepLocal. If they are there the bot does not move the file.
 * 11) Then the bot looks for a good license: "PD-self" or a "self|whatever". If not license is there or the license is different (for example "PD-USGov" or just "cc-by-3.0" the bot skips the file.
 * 12) Then the bot checks if there is a file with the same name on Commons. If there is then there is two options 1) it asks me or 2) it skips the file if I told it to work without asking me
 * 13) If the file is transferred it adds a NowCommons (on wts - it does not work on shared - have to add it in a second bot run)

The reason I speeded up the process is that there are many red links and users started uploading without a original upload log. So I think it is better to risk a few more files with FOP issues than to have to fix hundreds of files without a original upload log.

I know there are special wishes with the maps so they are not possible to move user by user. And often maps are based on other maps so there may be more than one author. So instead I can just move them to Commons and put them in a special category.

Once all "the easy" files are moved we should check the rest one by one. If it is not own work there is another script that may work here also. It does not care about licenses so we have to be carefull with that one. --MGA73 (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2012 (CET)


 * Thanks for the explanations! Please, do whatever you deem necessary. Then we see which images are left and decide on how to proceed. --Atsirlin (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (CET)

Automatic tagging on language versions
I noticed that MGA73 tagged all files on English Wikivoyage with NowCommons if the file exists on Commons, so I updated those file links. Could the bot also run on other language versions? Note that there doesn't seem to be any NowCommons template, so we might have to call it or  on those projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * I tried to get the nowCommons template on the Dutch Wikivoyage, but I can't get it to look properly. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * You did it at wikivoyage.org, but the files are at wikivoyage-old.org. Anyway, the layout is not very important, as long as the categories (same name/different name) are correct. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:05, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * That project is locked, so I cannot add more templates. --Globe-trotter (talk) 03:14, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * It's only the template namespace which is locked. That's why I wrote that we may have to call the template or  on some projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * Russian Wikivoyage got rid of the local files, so you don't have to worry about it. --Atsirlin (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * Could someone make a list of all the Wikivoyage projects there is and add the number of files they have? --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'm guessing you mean wv-old? Here:
 * en: 7,502 files
 * fr: 1,931 files - Files on Commons can be found in this category.
 * de: 0 files
 * it: 0 files
 * ru: 438 files (according to Atsirlin above, these files can be ignored)
 * sv: 459 files - Files on Commons can be found in this category and all others should be in Uncategorized files.
 * nl: 291 files - Files on Commons can be found in this category.
 * shared: 29,738 files
 * wts: 29,199 files (see also User:Avenue)
 * Another WTS gnome (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2012 (CET)


 * Thank you. Yes I meant old but if free files are on "new" they could ofcourse also be moved. We also have wts and shared ;-) --MGA73 (talk) 10:31, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * Added. Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * Thank you. I changed to links so it is easier to visit the page. --MGA73 (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2012 (CET)
 * I ran the bot on nl and sv and the bot is currently running at en (again) and fr. Only en has the NowCommons template. The other ones may be a problem. The easiest would be if an admin could check the files and delete them if it looks ok. That way we won't have to worry about the files anymore. --MGA73 (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * What do you mean? I don't want to delete anything because these wikivoyage-old wikis are supposed to be a clean version of the site for those readers who do not want to see articles with red links. If you go to the new Wikivoyage (wikivoyage.org), you will see a site notice with a link to "Read this page on the old site". This link will point to wikivoyage-old.org, and we should not delete any local files there until this link is removed. It is inconvenient, I know, but what can we do? --Atsirlin (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Oh I see. Was the files also copied to the new ones or are they only on the old ones? If they are both places then it would be twice the work to tag and check both places? --MGA73 (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * No, the files are only on the old wikis. --Atsirlin (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Okay. I just wondere because of this history on nl and this history on nl-old. --MGA73 (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well, the problem is that local files were imported in a very strange way. We don't see them, but they still count in Special:Statistics. Moreover, pages in the File: namespace still exist. I don't understand what to do with this, but as long as real images are only seen on wikivoyage-old, we should not worry about any tags on the new wikis. --Atsirlin (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2012 (CET)

Maps on Commons
Since MAG73 started to transfer maps, let me put some thoughts regarding their new arrangement on Commons:


 * We want to have all maps in the "Travel maps" category in addition to the regular "Maps of" categories
 * The subdivision of "Travel maps" should be reasonably flat, i.e., continents, countries + big regions or big cities when they are necessary. We don't have to reproduce our full geographical hierarchy because 50-80 images are still easy to scroll through.
 * Before categorizing the maps, please, check three things:
 * file history; if one of the previous versions is worth keeping, transfer it manually
 * usage on different language versions (this way, we can find some lost files)
 * SVG source (many of the source files were not categorized properly; they are still sitting somewhere among uncategorized WTS images)
 * Add links to the SVG source and other languages


 * Thanks for uploading the maps to Commons! I noticed that in the author section, the link tries to go back to WTS (but it's broken). For maps that I created, can I replace that link with one to my Commons user page and add a note that the original upload was done at WT using my WT id? Or is that considered bad? -Shaund (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * My plan was to fix bad links on all files once all or most of the files have been moved to Commons. But I think that changing to the page on Commons would be ok if the user name is the same or very alike. --MGA73 (talk) 09:13, 18 November 2012 (CET)

Additional comment: here is an example of a reasonable description format and inter-map links. Note that I manually upload older versions unless there is only one author and only minor changes in the map. --Atsirlin (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * To begin with I add the same categories on Commons as the files had here. So they will end up in "Travel maps of South Africa" and Travel maps of London" etc. I know we do not want the same level of categories on Commons as here but if there is a lot of maps in "Travel maps of City" it is easy to change the category to "Travel maps of Country" with Cat-a-lot, HotCat or a bot. --MGA73 (talk) 13:24, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * Thanks! It is very helpful. --Atsirlin (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2012 (CET)

MGA73, what happened to this file? There is a completely different file with the same name on Commons. Have you just skipped ours? --Atsirlin (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * If a file excists on Commons with the same name then the bot skips the file. The only way to copy the file to Commons is to pick another name. Unless ofcourse it is the same file in another version. Then you could upload the local version with magog's tool (if the local version is better).
 * The only way to find out is to check the files manually. That is why I skipped the files like that because it take long time to check etc. I'm currently working on shared (http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Images_by_Gobbler) where a user uploaded 3.000+ files. I hoped it would be possible to do a mass tranfer there.
 * Once all the mass transfers are done then it is time to transfer smaller parts and single images.
 * We could make a priority list/category for the most used or most important files. --MGA73 (talk) 21:36, 18 November 2012 (CET)
 * OK, I will upload this file manually. --Atsirlin (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2012 (CET)

Files with "no location or license info"
I found File:AQABZRG.JPG, which was marked by PerryPlanet as Ignore, with the reason "no location or license info". Is this really what we want to be doing? I thought we assumed that such uploads were own work, licensed with our default CC-by-sa license. Just like text contributions. Is this incorrect? LtPowers (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * Right down at the bottom of the page, it says: "Text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0, images are available under various licenses, see each image for details." And I dunno about you, but when I uploaded files here, the warnings to be sure to include a license made it sound like your image was going to be deleted if you didn't specify a license. So I never assumed images were going to be treated like text contributions. PerryPlanet (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2012 (CET)


 * On Wikipedia and Commons files are deleted if uploader does not add a license or a statement like "Own work" or "Taken by me" or User name as source.
 * On some Wikipedias "PD-self" and "Cc-by-sa-3.0-self" is added when you choose own work and in some cases this is taken for own work. --MGA73 (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (CET)
 * Certainly there is no point moving to Commons if there is no location info. The photos are next to useless without such details. Another WTS gnome (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2012 (CET)
 * True, but a lot of times the location can be determined with a Google Image search or looking to see where the image is used in Wikivoyage (or Wikitravel). As for the license, at one point Jani was quite adamant that we consider any image uploaded without a license to be licensed with our default, as text is.  LtPowers (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2012 (CET)
 * Okay, going back to Wikitravel Shared, I see there was indeed a discussion about this, and the policy was indeed that images without license identified were assumed to be under the standard license. So, it looks like I added those ignore tags incorrectly.
 * Still, I feel uncomfortable moving these images to Wikimedia. The copyright info at the bottom of our pages seems to be in contradiction to this policy, and these images would have been deleted if they had been uploaded to Commons. If we're gonna be a Wikimedia project, where they have such clear guidelines with their images, this feels like pretty shaky ground to stand on with these images. PerryPlanet (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (CET)
 * This could be a sticking point. Should we cast about for more opinions?  Like on wikivoyage-l?  LtPowers (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2012 (CET)
 * A photo of an unidentified mosque is out of scope as far as I am concerned, but the mosque can probably be identified by looking at the user's contributions to Wikivoyage from the time when the image was uploaded. If you write some text to a page, the text is automatically licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0. Uploads have been disabled on this project, but the upload form at Wikitravel Shared says that unlicensed images automatically are treated as cc-by-sa.3.0: "Please select a compatible license from the pulldown menu below. Otherwise all uploads are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0". If this text always has been there, I'm fine with assuming cc-by-sa-3.0 if no licence is specified. Assuming "own work" might be a bit more difficult, though. This might require some more effort (e.g. by asking contributors or checking whether camera EXIF is consistent). The upload form at Wikitravel Shared states that you have to specify by whom the image was taken, indicating that there is no rule to automatically assume "own work". --Stefan2 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2012 (CET)
 * FWIW, I wrote the footer message about images being available under various licenses years after the vast majority of the images being discussed were uploaded (back when we didn't even have templates for license info, with all uploads assumed to be CC-by-SA-1.0, as that was the agreement in the upload form... which later got upgraded to CC-by-SA-3.0 as part of our general, site-wide license upgrade). The footer message is just to help re-users, and is not part of the upload form. --Peter Talk 16:49, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * I only noticed License_upgrade today and there seems to be a statement from a number of users that they agree to Cc...3.0. Files from the users on that list should be safe. --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Good catch. We can then add cc-by-sa-3.0 to all of Jpatokal's files. Also many of Canshun's files are unlicensed. --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also note that users see MediaWiki:Uploadtext when uploading a file at Special:Upload. It currently says this: "Please select a compatible license from the pulldown menu below. Otherwise all uploads are automatically licensed under CC-by-SA 3.0"
 * If MediaWiki:Uploadtext contained a similar statement when the file was uploaded, then the file is automatically available under cc-by-sa 3.0. Thus, we only need to verify that the uploader is the copyright holder and that the statement appeared at MediaWiki:Uploadtext when the file was uploaded.
 * Looking at the history of the page, I find the following information:
 * If the file was uploaded 2010-01-04 13:55:44 (GMT) or later and the uploader is the copyright holder, then the file is available under cc-by-sa-3.0 unless there is an explicit licence statement.
 * If the file was uploaded between 2007-03-20 20:31:14 (GMT) and 2010-01-04 13:55:44 (GMT) and the uploader is the copyright holder, then the file is available under cc-by-sa-1.0 unless there is an explicit licence statement.
 * Exception: If the file was uploaded between 2007-07-30 06:29:37 (GMT) and 2008-07-05 23:43:35 (GMT), it is required that the uploader isn't only the copyright holder but also the photographer. In all practical cases, the photographer is the copyright holder, so this difference is probably irrelevant.
 * If the file was uploaded before 2007-03-20 20:31:14 (GMT), then we need an explicit licence statement, unless the user has signed at License upgrade.
 * If the file was uploaded at any time and the uploader is listed at License upgrade, then the file is licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0, regardless of when it was uploaded. This means that some files are licensed as both cc-by-sa-1.0 and as cc-by-sa-3.0. I'm not sure if it is important to keep that information somewhere. It could maybe be useful if someone wants to combine multiple images in a collage. Commons:COM:Collages tells that cc-by-sa-1.0 images can't be combined with cc-by-sa-3.0 images in the same collage, although the accuracy of that page sometimes has been disputed in deletion requests.
 * Different rules may apply to files uploaded to language versions of Wikivoyage.
 * It would be nice if we could keep the pages License upgrade and MediaWiki:Uploadtext somewhere for reference. Can the pages be imported to some other project? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * I plan to back up all relevant project and project talk pages on :en once special:import is enabled for XML. --Peter Talk 18:47, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Note that wikipedia:m:User:Nemo bis imported a few relevant pages from gen: to wikipedia:m:Special:PrefixIndex/Wikivoyage. It would maybe also be an option to have those pages on Meta. Anyway, they need to be kept somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * Also, regarding "If the file was uploaded at any time and the uploader is listed at License upgrade, then the file is licensed as cc-by-sa-3.0, regardless of when it was uploaded"—that's only true if the file was created by the uploader. --Peter Talk 18:50, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, of course. And if the uploader isn't the photographer, then any licence claim may be wrong. I was thinking of doing something like this:
 * Use a bot to search for files without licence templates and put about 100 or so in a category. It should be a reasonably small number so that the next step doesn't take too much time.
 * Check the category manually for errors and remove those from the category.
 * Use a bot to add cc-by-sa-1.0 and/or cc-by-sa-3.0 to the remaining files based on the information above.
 * Add an extra template which says that the licence was added based on the information above and that the licence only is valid if the image was taken by the uploader.
 * Repeat with other sets of 100 images until all files have a licence.
 * Any thoughts? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * I suggest that we work on Category:Files by user for a few days. If we remove files with "NowCommons", "Ignore" and "KeepLocal" from the categories we should end up with the files without a license. Active users could add a license themselves. --MGA73 (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Another point of contention: "If the file was uploaded between 2007-03-20 20:31:14 (GMT) and 2010-01-04 13:55:44 (GMT) and the uploader is the copyright holder, then the file is available under cc-by-sa-1.0 unless there is an explicit licence statement." The point of the upgrade was to upgrade the whole site's license. As with Commons (I think) and Wikipedia, unless an uploader actually opposed the upgrade, their files that were automatically assigned CC-by-SA-1.0 when uploaded should now be CC-by-SA-3.0. Or would Commons not be OK with that process? --Peter Talk 00:30, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * If something was once available under cc-by-sa-1.0, then it is still available under cc-by-sa-1.0. It may also be available under cc-by-sa-3.0, and then everyone using the file gets to choose which version number to use.
 * Unlike later versions, cc-by-sa-1.0 doesn't contain a clause which allows you to upgrade the licence version number, so I believe that you need active approval to make something available under cc-by-sa-3.0. If a contributor says no, or doesn't answer at all, I would assume that the content isn't available under cc-by-sa-3.0. There could be some clause in a terms of service or a similar document which allows you to upgrade the licence version number without asking for approval. Maybe it is easier to understand with a few examples:
 * File uploaded without licence before 20 March 2007: The file is available under cc-by-sa-3.0 if the user signed the licence upgrade page. If the user didn't sign, then the image is unlicensed.
 * File uploaded without licence in 2008: If the uploader signed the licence upgrade page, then the file is available under both cc-by-sa-1.0 and cc-by-sa-3.0 (so if I want to use it, I'm free to choose whichever version number I want). If the user didn't sign the licence upgrade page, then the file is only available under cc-by-sa-1.0.
 * Also note that there are licence upgrade agreements at several language versions (e.g. en:Wikivoyage:License upgrade). It appears to be enough to show that the uploader signed the licence upgrade agreement on at least one of those pages, at any language version. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * But according to this logic, we could not have upgraded our site license at all re: text contributions. Also, didn't Commons change everyone's images from GDFL to GDFL/CC-by-SA-3.0 using the same sort of mechanism, regardless of active consent? --Peter Talk 02:19, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * Wikipedia and Commons had a statement which said that works may be used under "GFDL 1.2 or any later version". Wikimedia managed to get GNU to make GFDL 1.3, which contained a statement saying that works under GFDL 1.3 may be upgraded to cc-by-sa-3.0 under limited circumstances. Wikimedia then first upgraded its projects to GFDL 1.3 and then from GFDL 1.3 to cc-by-sa-3.0. I don't know how Wikitravel did this. Maybe there was a similar statement ("cc-by-sa 1.0 or any later version") somewhere, or something else which allowed an upgrade unilaterally. I really hope that there was no error anywhere in the process. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * What we did is say (paraphrased) "We're going to upgrade the site license to 3.0. Anyone who objects can have their contributions removed."  We got the vast majority of significant contributors to agree explicitly, and only had one contributor refuse.  For everyone else, we punted.  In order to permit the site to move forward, we felt we had no choice but to treat non-respondents as if they agreed to the upgrade, with the caveat that we would promise to remove their contributions if they came by and objected at a later date.  We knew this might be questioned at some point, but we were confident that the upgrade was well within the spirit of the CC license, if not the letter.  The overwhelming acceptance among those who did respond (the one objector had no actual objection to the upgrade; he just wanted to withdraw his contributions from Wikitravel, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so) was also seen as a proxy vote representative of the entire site's contributors.  LtPowers (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2012 (CET)

No author info
A related point: what to do with images likely authored by the uploader, but without an explicit statement to this end? Scharla seems a trusty enough uploader, with a bunch of pics that do have an explicit statement of authorship, as well as some images uploaded from other sources properly (e.g., commmons). But a bunch of others just don't have enough info. They don't exist in higher res anywhere else on the web. All the same, I feel weird tagging them. What to do/how will Commons feel about these images? --Peter Talk 01:22, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * The uploader claims own work for a few images. If you check the EXIF section, all of those images were taken using a "PENTAX Optio S55" from "PENTAX Corporation". I would say that it is presumably safe to assume own work for all images taken using that camera model. However, I would feel more comfortable if we could get confirmation from the uploader. There is a template, Commons:Template:No source since, which is normally used if the photographer isn't indicated. The uploader is then given a week to say "I took the image". If this doesn't happen, then the image is deleted.
 * Also, a related issue: File:IMGP0674.JPG needs to be rotated. This is because of a Mediawiki software change. When you take a photo with a digital camera, the camera records the physical orientation of the camera. Some computer programs support this and other programs do not. Unfortunately, some programs are very buggy and store wrong orientation information if you try to edit a file. For that reason, once you upgrade to Mediawiki 1.18 (or higher) from something lower than 1.18, you will usually find that a lot of images have a wrong orientation, and a lot of images will have to be rotated. It seems that Wikivoyage made this version number upgrade when moving from El Segundo, California, to Germany. The easiest way to solve this is to wait until the images have been uploaded to Commons and then add . If you do this, then the image will be rotated by x degrees clockwise by a bot. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * For a category where none of the photos have authorship statements and for which the uploader won't be contactable (Category:Files uploaded by NAINTOURS), what should we do to kick it off the list? Tagging everything individually (with ignore) or deleting them would take a long time manually. --Peter Talk 03:13, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * The images in Category:Files uploaded by NAINTOURS look suspicious to me:
 * Most files have no EXIF, and the ones with EXIF show that a lot of different camera models have been used.
 * Varying resolution.
 * Some images have watermarks identifying the author, e.g. File:NA'IN CARPET 1.jpg and File:HAMAMTOP.JPG. Unfortunately, these credits do not seem to match. Some files also have watermarks in Arabic, but I can't read the text. Example: File:Desert2.JPG.
 * These issues make me suspicious: the files may be copyright violations. One file has a PD-self claim, but I don't know if we should trust it. I suggest that I tag all of them with some "ignore" tag, which should go fast if I can use a bot script which adds the same reason to all files. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2012 (CET)

It seems that some or all of these images have been uploaded to Commons now. Should we create a deletion request for Commons:Special:ListFiles/NAINTOUR? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2012 (CET)
 * See Village_pump/Copyright. Another WTS gnome (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2012 (CET)

User:(WT-shared) Paula
I'm a bit concerned about Special:Contributions/(WT-shared)_Paula. Most of her uploads are credited to the Korean Tourism Association, but it almost seems as if she has a connection with them. She even got explicit permission for one of the images (check out the contributions she made to a VfD discussion for details). They're certainly not the usual snapshots that we could safely assume as the uploaders own work. Should we just ignore them? LtPowers (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2012 (CET)

(WT-shared) Brentnahmias78
All of Brentnahmias78's uploads come from the same Flickr account. They are also all members of a set within that account named "Brent's Project Pics". The similarity of the set name and the WT account name cause me to think that these may be legitimate uploads. (That is, the Flickr account owner also uploaded small versions of the images here, under free licenses.) Thoughts? LtPowers (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2012 (CET)

Maps with the name taken
Some maps were not uploaded because that file name was taken. How do I go about adding them? I could manually upload some maps, but I don't know how to add the original upload log.--Globe-trotter (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * If you need them to be on Commons ASAP just post a link here. If they can wait I will go through the map category later and rename the maps during upload. Perhaps I should put all maps that do NOT have a "NowCommons" in a special category so that it is easier to check the maps if they are needed, have a valid source/license, is not on Commons in a almost identical version etc. --MGA73 (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * Should end up in Category:Maps - MTC --MGA73 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * Thanks! Most of these maps should be fine, but we will have to take care of the filenames and license information. --Atsirlin (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * MGA, could you upload File:Czech-regions.png, File:Israel map.png, and File:Netherlands-regions.png? The Netherlands map does not need a name change, the others do. (the Czech map is very important, as there is a regions discussion taking place based on a wrong regions map!). --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (CET)


 * Sure. Done! --MGA73 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2012 (CET)

I have gone through the maps and corrected file names/licenses. MGA73, could you transfer all of them once again and see which maps remain? I know two problems: Please, do it as early as possible, because the complete transfer of maps will facilitate their categorization on Commons. Thank you! --Atsirlin (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * 20 maps of Paris that should be uploaded manually (I will transfer them at some point)
 * svgz files that are rejected, either by your script or by Commons. Do you know the reason?
 * Could you give an example of an SVG file which is rejected? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * See here --Atsirlin (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Ah, SVGZ, not SVG. I think that Commons rejects all gzip files because of some potential security bug, but I don't remember the exact details. The files probably have to be downloaded, gunzipped and uploaded manually, which takes a bit more time. Do you need this particular map? It seems to be unused. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * It is the source of the PNG map, which is in use. Well, in fact, we have 20 PNG maps of Paris and 20 SVGZ sources, and all of them are in use=) --Atsirlin (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * There doesn't seem to be a category for SVGZ files. Do you know if there's a way to search for files by MIME type? If not, I might have to scan through all files to get those with names ending with .svgz, and that could take some time. The file you listed above has been uploaded to Commons:File:Paris 10th arrondissement map with listings.svg. I see that the file information page needs some cleanup: the tool I used as a help to generate the file information page has a few bugs. Also, the map still has a Wikitravel logo. I had to uncompress the file before uploading it, but it is otherwise unchanged. Commons doesn't generate a completely accurate thumbnail for the file, but I suppose that the intention just was to preserve the SVG code for reference. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Thank you! Yes, some maps still have the WT logo. I put them in a list for future cleanup.
 * Does it mean that I should do the same manual conversion for the remaining svgz files? --Atsirlin (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think that the same manual conversion is necessary, yes. I fixed one more image, but it takes time to fix them all. Remember that http://toolserver.org/~magog/fileinfo.php can give you an original upload log. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2012 (CET)

svgz:

--MGA73 (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * File:Asilah map with listings.svgz
 * File:Berlin Mitte map with listings.svgz
 * File:Chefchaouen map with listings.svgz
 * File:Copenhagen Østerbro map with listings.svgz
 * File:Fez overview map with listings.svgz
 * File:Ifrane map with listings.svgz
 * File:Larache map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 10th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 11th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 11th map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 12th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 13th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 14th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 15th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 16th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 17th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 18th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 19th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 20th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 8th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * File:Paris 9th arrondissement map with listings.svgz
 * Should we copy the files to Commons as .svg? Then we have the original code and the original upload log. Then "all that is needed" is to change the file? Well actually I do not know if the file will upload if I just rename it. --MGA73 (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, please, try it. --Atsirlin (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Sadly it does not work. It says mime-mismatch. Well would have been to easy :-) --MGA73 (talk) 12:28, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, you have to download the file, gunzip it and then upload it. The original SVG code is preserved, but the file is no longer compressed. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Think they are all moved now. --MGA73 (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2012 (CET)

"There are no pages that link to this file." -- WRONG! Search en.wikivoyage.org and other language versions to find out
Here on wts.wikivoyage-old.org we have files that say "There are no pages that link to this file." but some, maybe most, of those files are indeed linked to and wanted--red link shows on a travel article page--at http://en.wikivoyage.org.

Example:
 * Here on wts.wikivoyage-old.org File:Arovundi_Beach.jpg under _File usage_ says, "There are no pages that link to this file."
 * Yet http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Arovudi has a red link (first one at right of that page) to that file and cearly wants it.

I copy from wts.wikivoyage-old.org/Special:UncategorizedFiles an image filename (without the "File:" or "Image:" part because those are often different on the other language verisons which I will be checking also) into the search box at en.wikivoyage.org to see if the file is needed. If it is, I try to tag it. If it is not, I change the "en." part of the URL in my browser's lacation field to "de." and seach again (hit return), and I iterate through all our Wikivoyage language versions, "en.", "de." "it.", "sv.", "ru.", "nl.", "fr" and only if the images is truly not needed by any of them I tag it. And thus only if it is needed do I start to examine its copyright situation.

To limit my search I put it within quote marks, with normal sapaces and then I search again with _ as sapaces, eg "Arovundi Beach.jpg" and then I search again as "Arovundi_Beach.jpg". Without quote marks the seach can renturn too much. Actually, I think normal space and hyphen and underscore are all treated as the same this even within quote marks by the current Wikivoyage search box. And the search box is buggy--sometimes it churns away and then reports no results but when I try the exact same seach again it returns results. Weird. Unreliable. I tried seaching for "Bo_Kaap.jpg" (with quote marks) several times and sometimes got three images in the results and sometimes got none. Same experience with "Bo Kaap.jpg" (with quote marks).

Is that a reasonable process to follow? --Rogerhc (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I suggest that you simply don't check whether a file is used or not. It's easer to move all files to Commons than to check whether some are unused or not. File usage on Wts only shows whether a file is used on this project and not whether it is used on other projects. If MGA73's bot copies a file to Commons under a different file name, then my bot takes care of file renaming on any projects using the file. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2012 (CET)


 * If it's really important to know if a file is in use, go to wmc:Special:GlobalUsage and put in the file name (without the "File:" namespace identifier). For example: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AGlobalUsage&limit=50&target=Cafe-Yaxha.jpg  LtPowers (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2012 (CET)

Uncategorized files
How will we sort the uncategorized files? I suppose by upload? I have started by tagging all uploads of User (WT-shared) Sanyambahga. It would be better if we had a category "untagged files" instead of uncategorized files.--Globe-trotter (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I would make such a category. However, see the links at the top of this page. As files are tagged, they disappear from the special page. Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2012 (CET)

Adding text on files is easy but skipping files with a specific template or text string is harder. But a simple work around is this:
 * 1) Add Category:All files on WTS to all files
 * 2) Change the category to
 * Category:All files on WTS - NowCommons if the file has a NowCommons template
 * Category:All files on WTS - Ignore if the file has an Ignore template
 * Category:All files on WTS - KeepLocal if the file has a KeepLocal template
 * Category:All files on WTS - Move if the file has a Move template
 * 1) After that all the remaining files in the category should be files untagged

It would be possible to sort the files further. --MGA73 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * For example if the file page contain the word "Flickr" then we could move to a category called ..... - Flickr.
 * Perhaps we could try to find files that does not have license.
 * Other ideas?

Sounds like a good idea. We would then see specifically how much files we have left to tag. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (CET)

Unless MGA73 already has started with this task, I could write a bot which does exactly this, and also updates categories once in a while. I reached the end of Category:Files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons on both this project and on Shared earlier today, so my bot only needs to check recently tagged files once in a while, meaning that I now have more time for other tasks. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2012 (CET)

I've written a script which adds all images to the following categories: Before I run the script, are there any other categories that we would want? --Stefan2 (talk) 01:18, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Category:All files on WTS if the file doesn't belong to any of the categories below
 * Category:All files on WTS - NowCommons if the file has a NowCommons template and the target exists on Commons
 * Category:All files on WTS - NowCommons - Non-existing target if the file has a NowCommons template and the target doesn't exist on Commons
 * Category:All files on WTS - Ignore if the file has an Ignore template
 * Category:All files on WTS - KeepLocal if the file has a KeepLocal template
 * Category:All files on WTS - Move if the file has a Move template
 * Also don't forget the (few) images tagged with . Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * I have not started yet. I was waiting for comments before I would run a big task like this. It will probably slow up the system. Feel free to start whenever you are ready. --MGA73 (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * This can be made more efficient. I'll tell the bot to only add Category:All files on WTS (if the file doesn't have NowCommons, KeepLocal, Move or Ignore) and Category:All files on WTS - NowCommons - Non-existing target (if the file has an incorrect NowCommons tag). There is no need for the other categories since the templates already put those files in categories. Also, the bot should only run when User:MGA73bot isn't running, to avoid slowing down the "move to Commons" process. I'll add an extra check for this: if User:MGA73bot has edited a page recently, then the category bot will stop temporarily. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * My problem is programming skills so I prefer to stick to standard scripts whenever possible. Unless you have allready made this extra check you do not need to. I'll just let my bot rest untill you have tagged all files on WTS. I'f I'm really bored I can always do some manuel checking or work on shared :-D
 * Once we know the number of files perhaps we should make a bot count how many uploads users have in the "untagged" and the "move" category. To make sure attribution is correct I prefer to move the files uploader by uploader. So if we could make a top 10 of users we can move the files faster. --MGA73 (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * I have a script which is almost done: it adds Category:All files on WTS or Category:All files on WTS - NowCommons - Non-existing target whenever needed. It also checks when User:MGA73bot last edited a page. The program only needs a small modification to determine what to do when it's found out when your bot last edited a page. I would suggest that you run your bot as much as possible so that we get more files over to Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2012 (CET)

Checked users
I want a place to list all the users that have been fully checked (these mostly had uncategorized files first). These I have checked now, please add more to the list when you're done. --Globe-trotter (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * Could MGA73 copy all files uploaded by User:(WT-shared) Flip666, with the exception of File:Thailand Central location map.png and files tagged with NowCommons/Ignore/KeepLocal? There might be a better image on Commons which can be used instead of that map. Also, could you run wikipedia:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MGA73bot 3 on Shared after that? It seems that many of the user's files have been copied to Shared after they were uploaded here, and it would be useful to have those dupes tagged. Also, is there some convenient script which can be used for creating a category with all images by a user? It makes it easier to find other files to copy. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, I tagged two of the user's images with the Commons template Commons:Template:Userpage image. Will that template survive on Commons, or does it have to be readded once the file has been copied? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Should be in Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Flip666 now. And it looks like the userpageimage template survived. I think it should be added in the information template if there is one. --MGA73 (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'll let my bot work on Shared tonight. You could work on WTS :-D --MGA73 (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Note for myself: Copy Suhobei's files tonight. --MGA73 (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * I have checked all files of (WT-shared) Suhobei. --Globe-trotter (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Cool. Now in Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Suhobei. --MGA73 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2012 (CET)

How do you create categories like this one? Do you have a script that I could get a copy of? It would be convenient to be able to make user categories myself when I find some good files, and then remove individual files as needed. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2012 (CET)


 * No script. I copy the uploadlog and add files to a .txt list and add the category to all the files on the list. But since it is not just a handfull of users I was thinking that it would perhaps be nice to have a bot tag all files with "Category:Files uploaded by " and then wanted categories will tell us which categories we end up with. --MGA73 (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * I see. Yes, a script which creates user categories for every user would be a good idea. Shall I add user categories for all files? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Would be nice. For all files that is "untagged" or in "move". --MGA73 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * One question. Some files (e.g. File:Map-Africa-Regions.svg) have versions by several different users: User:(WT-shared) NJR ZA, User:(WT-shared) Peterfitzgerald, User:(WT-shared) Cacahuate et cetera. Do we want such images to be categorised under all different users or only under the first or last uploader? --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * I decided to list categories for all users. Example
 * User categories are created automatically as needed. Category:All files on WTS needs to be created. It will contain all files without KeepLocal, Ignore, Move or NowCommons. Also, the bot automatically stops for 15 minutes if it finds that User:MGA73bot has edited a page within the past 5 minutes. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Very good :-) My bot is currently running on shared. --MGA73 (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * For your information, the bot has now tagged all files. I have found some user categories which look interesting, so I'll check that the files are OK and then ask you to import the files. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * That sounds good. I have been looking from time to time in hope that we would not have 5.000 categories with 1-2 uploads but at least some categories with hundreds of uploads.
 * We have two files that have killed my bot more than once. One File:BSBatTwilight.jpg is now on Commons (without an original upload log - perhaps you can fix?) and Image:Heppenheim pano marktplatz ds 09 2007.jpg have we talked about before. I asked the uploader for the original version. If it is no longer available we should copy the low resolution and fix original upload log after manual upload. --MGA73 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * Question: I copied files from Category:Files uploaded by Onyo to Commons. A few files was not copied because there was no license or it was a derivative work. What should we do with the categories your bot added? Should we remove the categories on files with a NowCommons and/or Ignore? --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * Can you import files by Kōtarō? I've added Template:KeepLocal to a few FOP problems (and nominated several images for deletion on Commons in the process). A few images have no licence, but the upload form stated that any unlicensed images automatically are licensed as CC-BY-SA-3.0, so I guess that those are fine. They are all clearly sourced to the uploader. You can remove categories if you want. I can always re-add the categories if we need them again. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Kotaro. If uploader was active it would be best to ask for a license. --MGA73 (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * Category:Files uploaded by Aiko99ann should be ready to be imported. I had to search for lots of sculptors and architects (like this) and I hope I didn't miss anything. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Aiko99ann. --MGA73 (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, Category:Files uploaded by Snave can be imported too. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Snave. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, Category:Files uploaded by 黒ユリ can be imported. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user 黒ユリ. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, Category:Files uploaded by Tanuki can be imported. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Tanuki. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Also, make a decision about File:KoinoboriTatebayashi2.jpg and then please import Category:Files uploaded by Taketarou. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think it is ok. See Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Taketarou. --MGA73 (talk) 10:13, 25 November 2012 (CET)

I started checking Category:Files uploaded by Luchi. Files all seems to be PD-self. But I noticed that 2 different persons are listed as author. Both can't be the same person (the uploader). --MGA73 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2012 (CET)

I also had a look at Category:Files uploaded by Naplee12. There is FOP in China but you have to mention the author. And there is FOP in Taiwan but only for buildings. I think it is sometimes hard to tell where the location is and how old the building etc. is. So I think it would be nice if someone could have a second look. --MGA73 (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'll check Naplee12's files. I've thought about about the attribution requirement and remembered an old discussion, so I asked about it at Commons:Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well if it is a statue or a "complex" building we should add a KeepLocal. If it is just a "simple" building I think it would be ok. --MGA73 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * I've taken a look at the category. Please make a decision about the following three images and then copy the rest to Commons:
 * File:Shenyang Kaufhaus.jpg. In China, but neither the title nor the architect's name are listed. Is this image a problem? The title would presumably be the name of this specific shopping mall. Since it isn't even known which shopping mall it is, there's not much I can do to try to identify the architect.
 * File:Shenyang Expo.jpg has one or two artworks without title or name of artist(s), but maybe they can be regarded as de minimis? The purpose of the image could arguably be to show the place as a whole and not to show individual artworks.
 * File:Gensan Airport.jpg shows a building of unknown age, and there is no freedom of panorama in the Philippines. However, you see very little of the airport and the parts you see might not be eligible for copyright. Also, note that the copyright term for an artistic work is life+50 years whereas the copyright term for applied art only is 25 years since creation. I'm not sure if the shorter term applies to buildings or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * I marked the two first as ignore and will move the rest. I doubt the two files are ok and unless they are needed on an article somewhere I do not think there is any reason to copy them to Commons and try to keep them. --MGA73 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think with the Chinese FoP files, unless this is obvious copyvio, we should just transfer them to Commons and solve the attribution problems over there. This is a complex problems which should be solved structurally. For instance, I uploaded on Commons several hundred files of Beijing subway stations, and of course I have no idea who the architects are, but I defeinitely do not want them to be deleted and hope that at some point a Chinese speaker would find the list of architects. We can not solve this problem here and now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * It would be nice to arrange some "identify the architect" project on Commons. There are presumably lots of buildings over there without attribution, and buildings also have the problem that they are usually not signed, so you may need to search through paper archives in order to find the architect, which is not a trivial process, in particular not if you are in China as a tourist without speaking the Chinese language. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * Just a note. Bot is tagging files with NowCommons on shared at the moment. Have not transfered files from there for some time. Thought I would start with the ones on WTS. But if someone finds a big bunch of files to move there just let me know. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2012 (CET)
 * Well bot is now busy doing other stuff... Will resume later. --MGA73 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2012 (CET)

Empty categories
I still think it would be fine to delete all empty categories... if they become populated again, they will show up in Special:WantedCategories and I will create them (putting them in Category:Categories looking for a home). Do you think you could do it, Atsirlin? Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I don't see why it is so important now, when most countries are tagged. But if you ask, I could remove the categories as soon as I find a more stable internet connection. Today it was really awful, so I could not afford any extra load of the channel. --Atsirlin (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * Thanks for your hard work! Another WTS gnome (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2012 (CET)

Flickr files
What is the status of Category:Files from Flickr - mtc candidates? It seems that lots of files have been moved to Commons and since removed from that category, but there are still a few hundred Flickr images on this project. I just discovered a couple of other freely licensed Flickr images which I added to the category. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:13, 21 November 2012 (CET)


 * Most of the files in there had no link, had an unfree license or looked like a derivative work. So I skipped those and started working on easier files. Some of the files in there was perhaps not moved because a file excisted on Commons with the same name. Some of the files was reviewed by local users. I do not know if a descision has been made on Commons if a reviewed file from Wikivoyage is accepted on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I see. I've started checking all of the files now, but there are some left to check. I created Category:Files from Flickr - local licencereview for files where the licence can't be verified on Flickr but where there may be a reason to keep the file, usually because there is a licencereview on Wts. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I changed the template to Template:Information because it will give a much better result. I think we should remove the category if the file has a NowCommons, Ignore or KeepLocal. That way only files that is ok and unchecked files will remain in the category. --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * I've finished checking files in Category:Files from Flickr - mtc candidates. It should be safe to move all files in the category unless tagged with NowCommons, Ignore or KeepLocal, but I might of course have missed some images. It is faster to just add Ignore or KeepLocal than removing Move or categories. I assume that categories can be removed automatically by a bot. In fact, you seem to have done that. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yeah actually it is a very easy proces. Put a few hundred files in a category. Scan for bad files. Move the rest. --MGA73 (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * I started to move files but I think a few in Category:Files from Flickr - mtc candidates may still have issues with DW/FOP. --MGA73 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Argh! I might have missed some files, then, although I know that I did sort out several images for FOP reasons. I think I did at least find all files with bad licences on Flickr. Also, I've prepared a similar category on Shared with Flickr images from that project. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yeah but I realised that there was no rule saying that I could not remove them myself so I did and the bot it moving the rest now :-) Files on shared will be moved later. --MGA73 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Hm.. One will not upload and two other ones may be a problem (Iran and a poster?) --MGA73 (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2012 (CET)

WT-shared user Alpbachtal
This user's files (Special:ListFiles/(WT-shared) Alpbachtal) mostly seem to lack a source. Do you think we could contact this user to confirm/deny "own work" status? Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Let's just assume copyvio. Several of them are available elsewhere on the Internet and there are multiple camera models involved.
 * File:Münster1.jpeg = http://www.alpbachtal.at/orte/muenster/muenster_20mit_20regenbogen.jpeg (later date, but much higher resolution)
 * File:Rofanturm.jpeg = http://www.hotel-alphof.at/images/impressionen-alpbachtal/31.jpg (earlier date)
 * File:Winterbilder Kundl 2004 004.jpeg = http://www.alpbachtal.at/orte/kundl/winterbilder_20kundl_202004_20004.jpeg (later date, much higher resolution)
 * It's likely that the other images also are available somewhere on the Internet, but I only searched for these three random images. To find the date, make an HTTP GET request. This will usually reveal the date on which the image was uploaded to the webserver. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * Should we assume bad faith and tag all as ignore|suspected copyvio? Another WTS gnome (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'd say so, yes, but please also link to this discussion in the Ignore tag. All images were at least a few months old when uploaded and there were lots of cameras involved. If you upload your own images, there would typically be at least some images which were uploaded on the day of photography. Also, many images are in thumbnail format, which also suggests copyvio. Also see copyright notice in EXIF for File:Nagelschmiedhäuser Rattenberg.jpeg: the image is sourced to a company. File:E-biken Alpbach.jpeg is sourced to an individual in the EXIF, but it doesn't help me, except that this page used the same image (but in smaller resolution) at an earlier date. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Hmm, the domain name of that URL looks a bit suspicious too. Maybe they do hold the copyright on the images... but that doesn't help us. I'll tag them. Another WTS gnome (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2012 (CET)

WP map on Commons
This file was transferred from here to Wikimedia Commons. However, it should be copied from Wikipedia to Commons. How to deal with this file?--Globe-trotter (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2012 (CET)
 * I've changed this file manually (see file information page on Commons), but try to avoid problems like this in the future. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2012 (CET)

Image:A residential view of Kabul in 2005.jpg
See. The image was deleted at VfD, but kept on German Wikivoyage (see, in use in the German Kabul article). Unfortunately, we only have a thumbnail on Shared; access to the full-size image requires sysop status on the Internet Brands website. Considering that many people have been desysopped there by User:(WT-shared) IBobi, I'm not sure if anyone is still able to view deleted content there. Should we try to restore the image or replace the image on German Wikivoyage? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2012 (CET)


 * It's not allowed, it's cc-by-nc. --Globe-trotter (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2012 (CET)
 * Ah, that simplifies everything. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (CET)


 * Yeah but the text says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document according to the terms in Creative Commons License, Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0." so uploader may have a permission. Flickr user seems to be active. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 23 November 2012 (CET)


 * Okay I asked the user on Flickr if the license could perhaps be changed to a free one. --MGA73 (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2012 (CET)


 * Sadly the reply was that the permission was "Non Commercial and NoDerivs". --MGA73 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2012 (CET)

Recognising some filename patterns
When looking at "move" tags, I found that people have added move tags in some questionable cases. In some cases, the filename tells something about an image's source. Two examples: Of course, you could always contact Facebook or Flickr users to obtain permission for an image. For this process, there are some instructions at wikipedia:WP:CONSENT and commons:COM:OTRS. Both pages say essentially the same thing. In this particular case, the Flickr image was probably uploaded by the photographer: the Wikivoyage user name is included in the Flickr URL and tells that the user likes to travel, which may make the user interested in Wikivoyage. Also, both the Flickr user and the Wikivoyage user claim to be called James Willamor (as shown by looking at other files on Commons). I'm not sure if this would be enough evidence for people at Commons, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2012 (CET)
 * File:2846782584 068336365a o.jpg (syntax: long decimal number, long hexadecimal number, one single letter). The single letter at the end is sometimes missing. This is a Flickr file name. It tells that the file comes from Flickr, and it is necessary to check the licence status on Flickr. Use Flickr's API explorer to find Flickr's page about the image. In the field "photo_id", type in the decimal number (in this case 2846782584) and click on "Call Method". You now see lots of XML code. At the end, you see this line:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/bz3rk/2846782584/ . That is, you should check http://www.flickr.com/photos/bz3rk/2846782584/ for information about the image. In this case, it says that the image is available under the licence cc-by-nc-sa, which is not accepted by Commons, so it should say "Ignore" instead of "Move" unless you can prove that the Flickr user has given permission.
 * File:30814 1240154538948 1681856377 447942 2630028 n.jpg (syntax: three or five long decimal numbers followed by a single letter). This is a Facebook filename. The third number from the left is the Facebook user's account number. This is true for both names with three long numbers and files with five long numbers. You can identify the user by going to  http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=account_number . In this case, you need to go to http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1681856377 to find the user, or at least you could find users this way in the past. The link doesn't seem to work for me. In most cases, it is not possible to verify that a Facebook user has licensed an image under a free licence, so most images probably need "Ignore" tags.


 * Files from Flickr can also be identiied by clicking on http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php and adding 2846782584 and clicking "Get Info". --MGA73 (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2012 (CET)

Free Art License
File:Joburg-clockwise.jpg is licensed under the Free Art License. It looks like it is compatible with CC-BY-SA, although I'm not sure if CC-BY-SA recognizes it. What do we do with licensing in this case and can it be transferred to Commons? -Shaund (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2012 (CET)
 * Free Art Licence is a free licence. On Commons, files under this licence use Commons:Template:FAL. I don't know if there's a licence on Wikivoyage for this, but you could maybe test to use here anyway. I've tested a few Commons-style licences and MGA73's bot has normally preserved these when transferring the files to Commons, meaning that the end result looks correct. I don't know how compatible FAL is with CC-BY-SA. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2012 (CET)

Updated task list
Having returned from vacation, I'm having trouble figuring out how to help, despite being very familiar with what was going on before Nov 10! Could someone write an updated tasklist for humans? --Peter Talk 17:09, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * Also, it's my understanding that humans should not be working on the file transfer itself, right? I could work on transferring images that are high priority for :en reasons, like being included in a star article, a featured article, or an article with very high traffic, but I'd probably make a mess of things ;) --Peter Talk 17:11, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * Peter, I see the following tasks:
 * Tag images on en.wikivoyage-old. Not more than 100-200 images have been tagged so far
 * Sort KeepLocal and Ignore images and upload the images locally (as soon as the appropriate structure on :en is established and discussed: we obviously need categories, non-free content template, etc)
 * Check and delete those images that have been transferred (I tried to explain the procedure here)
 * The number of uncategorized files here on WTS is still very-very large
 * --Atsirlin (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * And yes, humans should not work on image transfer unless you upload older versions of a file that has been transferred by the bot. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * I assume that we should wait on transferring the KeepLocal images to local versions, and let a bot do that, so we don't mess up the upload history? Also, checking & deleting shouldn't be as big a priority as tagging, right? Since the first and most important task is to get everything transferred so we can leave Beta? That would mean that the human effort primarily should be focused on tagging both on en-old and here with the uncategorized files? --Peter Talk 18:45, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Not quite. KeepLocal and Ignore mark images that are either unused, inappropriately licensed, or rejected because of the FoP issues. Ideally, these images should be checked one-by-one and replaced by images from Commons (wherever possible). Then the rest should be uploaded by bot. In my opinion, the deletion is as important as tagging uncategorized files. Uncategorized files contain a lot of garbage, so you don't gain much by working with them. The deletion is the final check of good and important images. Some of them have been replaced by wrong images from Commons. This wrong replacement skews our articles.
 * The bottom line is that everything is important=) Do whatever you like! --Atsirlin (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * What is the best way for us to coordinate our work tagging the uncategorized files? That seems like the easiest task to get more people working on. Ideally I'd like MGA73bot to tag files on en.wikivoyage-old.org with before we seriously get underway with tagging on that version, since it will save the humans a lot of work.  --Peter Talk 04:02, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * Click on "next 200" a couple of times so that you get to a random page with 200 files. Tag all files on that page and consider removing the category when tagging the file so that others won't see the file in the category. Repeat with another set of 200 files. My bot can update the categories once in a while if people don't remove the category, but if you remove the category yourself, it goes faster. The bot is currently working on a category update so that categories are removed from files which have been tagged since the previous run, and I guess that the bot should update categories like this frequently to reflect recent changes. "Files by user" is removed if the file has "Ignore", "KeepLocal" or "NowCommons". "All files on WTS" is also removed if the file has "Move". In the meantime, the same categories are being added to files on English Wikivoyage-old. Once the categorisation of English Wikivoyage-old has ended, I suggest that you tag files by going through one user at a time. I guess that I should let the bot run more or less constantly so that we always have updated categories. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * Just double checking, the category you recommend we remove when tagging is Category:All files on WTS, right? --Peter Talk 22:42, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * Minor note: It should not be necessary to remove Category:All files on WTS any more. My bot has been made more efficient: the category will normally be removed automatically within 15 minutes after adding a tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2012 (CET)

Some notes:
 * English Wikivoyage-old has templates for KeepLocal, Ignore and NowCommons, but not for Move. I created one now, but since you can't edit the template namespace, I had to call it "Wikivoyage:Move" instead of "Template:Move". Thus, on English Wikivoyage-old, you have to use instead of  . See . The other tempates work in the same way as on Wts.
 * Other language versions do not seem to have any of the four Commons-related templates. I assume that we have to create all four of them in the project namespace on those projects.

A questions: A few days ago, I sorted all files into categories: untagged files, files with wrong NowCommons tags and category sorting by uploader (see Category:Files by user). A file is assumed to have a wrong NowCommons tag if there is no file on Commons, but there could also be cases where the NowCommons tag points at a completely different image. If the image is completely different, the NowCommons tag is also wrong, but it is harder to find those cases. Shall I add the same categories to files on the language versions? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, please! --Atsirlin (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2012 (CET)

I tagged the files on en.wikivoyage and the other xx-versions some days ago but as long as files are copied to Commons there is a chance that other files on xx.wikivoyage can be tagged with NowCommons. One of the problems I noticed is that many of the files had no license. If Stefan could tag all the files then active users could check their own files. --MGA73 (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2012 (CET)

Updated
It took me more than a day to get a grip on what needs to be done by hand... But I have now updated the [en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Cleanup Cleanup page on Wikivoyage]. Please take a look at it and make sure the advice is right. I've pared things down as much as possible to make it less intimidating to read. I also haven't yet put up instructions for tagging/reviewing :en, as I'm not sure we're ready enough in terms of knowing how to coordinate the effort there. --Peter Talk 00:02, 28 November 2012 (CET)

Timeline
Inspired by a query from the NYTimes, there's a question on :en about when we expect to leave Beta. My impression is that the automated image transfer process (just the moving of files already tagged "move") is fairly rapid: 6–8 minutes per image = ~week? --Peter Talk


 * I think that I have written it in my e-mail from yesterday. The complete transfer to Commons and/or the local upload will take months. The question is when we believe that we have enough pictures, and basically agree to skip the rest. --Atsirlin (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * A week is way too fast, and impossible. We still even have to tag many uncategorized images, let alone transfer them and sort them out on Commons. We need more people tagging images.--Globe-trotter (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2012 (CET)


 * Sorry. I have been sick and therefore not been moving that many pictures. It is very easy to transfer files to Commons. I could just start my bot and some hours later they will all be transferred. The tricky part is to avoid copyvios.
 * I suggest that we take a look at Category:Files by user and find the categories with the most images. Just pick a category and tag the BAD files. When they are tagged the bot can move the rest of the files. It is only needed to change the GOOD files if the description is wrong. If the file is unused and the filename is bad then it could be a good idea to rename before the file is moved. --MGA73 (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * I'm still a little confused. Are we doing a second review of everything marked move? --Peter Talk 19:07, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * No. Just scan the category for files that may look bad and make sure they are tagged with Ignore or KeepLocal. If everything looks fine just leave a note here that the category is ready to move.
 * The problem is that not all users that have tagged the file with a move may be aware of Commons:COM:FOP. --MGA73 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * But which categories? --Peter Talk 20:34, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * I prefer to work user by user so I would suggest to pick a category from Category:Files by user and to get a lot of files moved fast one with many uploads. But as long as the files are checked and information on the file page is good any category would do. So if you are a sucker for Argentina and are sure that all files in Category:Argentina are ok to move we could move those files. But if we do that I can't add files to a user category on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Once we have a category double-checked, where should we note it? I just double checked everything in Category:Files uploaded by Peterfitzgerald, and that should be good to go.


 * On a second note, performing a second review here is very time-intensive, and will slow down the urgent process of Wikivoyage leaving Beta. Why don't we move the images tagged move, and then review them on Commons? --Peter Talk 22:23, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * A second review does not have to take long time. For example a file like File:Ada Estuary Beach Camp oceanside.JPG can't possibly have FOP issues so if FOP is the only thing we check for in round two you do not need to click on the image.
 * Ofcourse if you want to find files like File:Dudinka port.jpg where the author seems to be "Dr. Andreas Hugentobler" then you need to check all files. I try to avoid to move files like that by searching for "Own work" or " " on the file page when I change the license to "{{self| ...".
 * What I do not know is how many of the files that are tagged with "move" have FOP issues, have no license, have no source/author or have a source/author that is not the uploader. If it was less than 100 or something like that I would be happy to move the 7.000+ files with a "move". But if it is 500 should we still move them all?
 * I hope that by scanning the uploads of the biggest contributors then we can move perhaps 5.000-6.000 files in a few days so that the number of files to work on can be reduced a lot. --MGA73 (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * And bot is now copying files to Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Peterfitzgerald and a little earlier today I copied to Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Naplee12 and Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Davidx (and Commons:Category:Files by Wikivoyage user Disonyxiated from en-wikivoyage to see if it worked). --MGA73 (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * I have created Pub (temporary refuge)/Files by user reviewed to list categories there. --Peter Talk 03:44, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * Sounds very good. Thank you. I'll have a look tonight.
 * Also most of the files in Category:Files uploaded by Peterfitzgerald was copied to Commons but 77 was not for some reason. I have to check them manually later to see why. Could be files from Flickr or files where there is no statement like "Own work" or "Peter Fitzgerald" or the author is someone else. You are ofcourse most welcome to do a quick scan to see if you can fix "the problem". --MGA73 (talk) 09:38, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * I've re-checked, and I think I've fixed what hung up your bot. There are a couple by "friend" for which I will do an OTRS on Commons, but otherwise everything should be good. I have a bunch of {{replace}} tagged images--how/when will we take care of those? --Peter Talk 21:29, 5 December 2012 (CET)

Files originally uploaded elsewhere
I just noticed File:Singapore CNY Tinsel.jpg. It is sourced to en.wikivoyage. The best would be to undelete the original file and copy from there. Does anyone have an idea how many files we may have like that? --MGA73 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Lots, and the ones on wts may be updated. --Peter Talk 20:35, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Updated? Like an improved version? --MGA73 (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Exactly. Although the number of those is probably small (most would have been maps, but those are already migrated). If I had to guess (blindly), we would have about 500-1,000 images moved here from original uploads on language versions. --Peter Talk 21:30, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * If they were imported the original upload history would be okay but simple copy paste is not so good. --MGA73 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2012 (CET)
 * Problem: Most of the files were moved to WTS while the project was still hosted by Internet Brands. I believe that undeletion would require adminship on Internet Brands' website, since I don't think that deleted pages were exported. Since many users have been desysopped there, this might be a problem. Also, Wikitravel doesn't support the Mediawiki API, which I presume is used by MGA73bot's script. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Having the original upload log would of course be ideal, but it's not always available (say, from Flickr), but we still go ahead and copypaste information from sites that don't have wiki upload logs. --Peter Talk 22:25, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * Yes it is true that we do not have an original upload log for files from Flickr etc. But we do have a license review instead. So if the the file is still available on Flickr with a free license we can easily get a license review. For files copied from a place no longer online it is not possible to make a license review.
 * Yes API may be a problem. So far I have tested the bot on en-wikivoyage, WTS and shared. --MGA73 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2012 (CET)


 * We've got a problem—deleted image revisions (and even the deletion logs) were not transferred to Wikivoyage with the rest of the Wikitravel data. File:Split Point lighthouse.jpg is an instructive case. I moved it from a different filename: Image:Cape Otway lighthouse.jpg, which comes up as a nonexistent page with no deletion records. But it's there on wikitravel.org . We'd need an admin there to review files such as these and add, I think. If this is deemed necessary, we should start making a list of these files and then ask one of the many admins active here that haven't been de-sysopped there.  --Peter Talk 01:33, 30 November 2012 (CET)


 * I'm still an admin on WT. This particular image gives me pause, however, as I found a higher-res version at http://www.maklinchi.info/photos/au03.jpg ... though I see now that the domain name matches the uploader's user name.  Maybe it's kosher, then.  LtPowers (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (CET)

Just to clarify...
I've been going through some ignore-tagged files, and befor I go to far in, I wanted to check a few things:


 * Images with absolutely nothing on the file page (0 bytes): should they just be deleted?
 * Images with a statement like "Credit: XYZ" where uploader's user name is really similar: change tag to move?
 * Images with "credit: own work" yet no license tag: change tag to move (since CC-BY-SA is assumed)?
 * Images with vague ignore reasons like File:11072009_cityhall.jpg: what to do?
 * Images with a license but "no source" like File:11072009_swans.jpg: delete them?

Sorry for all the questions, but do people agree with my assumptions? Another WTS gnome (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * If an image lacks enough information, I think that it would be better to try to contact the user first. The user may have to be contacted at IB's website if there is no indication that the user is active here. If the user hasn't edited at either website for years, then it might not be possible to get an answer from the uploader.
 * If an image was taken by the uploader but no licence was specified, then it seems that the image indeed usually is licensed (subject to exceptions as mentioned earlier on the page). However, maybe we also want to indicate this by adding an extra tag which says that the licence was added because of the statement at MediaWiki:Uploadtext or because of a signature at the licence migration age. I suggest that we don't ignore the files, but maybe we shouldn't add a licence tag before we've decided how or if we should indicate why the file is licensed.
 * I would be careful with vague reasons like "not used". There appear to be talks about importing more language versions (see wikipedia:incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import) and the files might be used there. Also, for that reason, I don't think that files should be deleted if they are available on Commons under a different file name. The files are needed in order to figure out if a link needs to be updated on those projects or not. --Stefan2 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * Thanks for your answers. I am only deleting the most obvious cases at the moment. Also, should Flickr files under NC or ND licenses be tagged ignore or keepLocal? Surely we can still use them on our local wikis, since after all they are not under "all rights reserved"-style copyright. Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * Definitely ignore. We cannot use NC/ND images on Wikivoyage. --Peter Talk 02:21, 28 November 2012 (CET)

I think we need to reach a decision on files with no license tag. The majority of ignored files are there because they either lack a source or a license, or both. We really need to know whether Commons will accept these "assumed CC-BY-SA files". Most users have departed WT/WV and any attempt to contact them would be pointless (especially since WT has disabled e-mail), so for those users we need some sort of blanket guideline.

The same goes for files with no source/credit of "own work". What can we do with them? I feel as if there is "no hope" for such files. Another WTS gnome (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * Files without explicit license tags are definitely CC-by-SA (either 1.0 or 3.0 depending on the time of upload and the outcome of a discussion above) per the contract on the upload form, in the same way that text on this site is licensed CC-by-SA on the contract on the edit form. I've been adding them where appropriate. No source is trickier, and I'm still not sure what to do when I'm basically sure it was the uploader (e.g., all of their files were shot with the same camera). --Peter Talk 03:41, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * I thought we assumed own work, just like with text. LtPowers (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2012 (CET)


 * Category:Files uploaded by Johntdavis is instructive--these are obviously all shot by the same guy, probably on the same day. If I get a go ahead from at least someone else, I'll start adding self tags to these. Until then, I'm getting bogged down with a lot of open Firefox tabs.  --Peter Talk 04:16, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'd be inclined to tag them Ignore. I agree they were probably taken by the same camera, but there's no information about the image -- no source, author, license or info about where it is, other than the title which implies it's somewhere in Maine. -Shaund (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2012 (CET)

I'm going through Category:Files uploaded by PerryPlanet and want to check a few things: Thanks -Shaund (talk) 06:50, 29 November 2012 (CET)
 * Is the license on files like File:Cablecar sanfrancisco.jpg OK? It looks like it is OK to me, but would like to hear others' thoughts.
 * The artwork in File:Downtown Albuquerque.jpg looks pretty incidental, so is it OK under de minimus?
 * Are photos of American museum displays OK? My initial thought is it would be like artwork and not covered by FoP, but would like to hear others' thoughts. (File:Newyork americanmuseumnaturalhistory.jpg, File:Newyork metropolitanmuseumart.jpg)


 * Files from other websites are ok if it is possible to verify the license. We should just make sure to add when we copy the files to Commons.
 * So to make it easy we could perhaps list the sources below so we can search for other files like that:
 * http://www.flickr.com --> Category:Files from Flickr to check
 * http://www.pdphoto.org --> Category:Files from pdphoto to check
 * http://www.everystockphoto.com --> Category:Files from everystockphoto to check
 * http://www.Panoramio.com --> Category:Files from panoramio to check
 * Ofcourse we also have to check for FOP and if it is likely that the user on Flickr/pdphoto/... is the copyright holder. --MGA73 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2012 (CET)
 * File:Cablecar sanfrancisco.jpg: There's a more specific licence on Commons: Commons:Template:PD-PDphoto.org.
 * File:Downtown Albuquerque.jpg: I agree that it is de minimis.
 * Dinosaurs: See Commons:Template:PD-monkey (and besides the dinosaur body was created millions of years ago, so anything copyrightable is in the public domain because of age).
 * File:Newyork metropolitanmuseumart.jpg: In USA, the statues are in the public domain if they were installed before 1923. In the rest of the world, the statues are in the public domain if the sculptor died at least 99 years ago (and most countries have shorter terms). The statues are presumably ancient, so there's no reason to assume that they are still copyrighted. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2012 (CET)
 * Please also create a Panoramio category. I found a couple of images from that website around here somewhere. Remember that there is a specific review template for those files. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2012 (CET)
 * I'll add that one too. --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2012 (CET)

Found another one: --MGA73 (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * http://www.world66.com --> Category:Files from world66 to check
 * Also, there are some files from Picasa. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * I moved a bunch of files from world66 to Commons. Commons has many more active users than here so they can help out a bit.
 * The files from Picasa should end up in Category:Files from Picasa to check --MGA73 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * Can you also make a list of files from piqs.de? There seem to be lots of them on Shared. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2012 (CET)

A little venting
OK, whose brilliant idea was it to disable editing on user talk pages? What on earth purpose is that serving? Also, disabling uploads really interferes with some good work we could be doing (like uploading a superior version of an image prior to the transfer to WMC). --Peter Talk 02:24, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * I believe the original thought was to only leave File: unlocked, so everything else was locked. A few other namespaces were added as people thought of them, but no one considered User talk:.  As for file uploads, i think it's best, lest new uploads come in while we're processing all the existing ones.  LtPowers (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2012 (CET)
 * I think that all users here are active on either English Wikivoyage or Commons. If you need to contact a user, I suggest that you use the user's talk page on one of those projects. For example, MGA73 and I have sometimes discussed a few things with each other on our Commons talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2012 (CET)

Attribution question
I have some images that the bot didn't transfer, seemingly because they are uploaded by me, but credited to someone else, without a source link. These are generally friends' images, for which I have verbal permission. See File:Voskresensky Sobor.jpg and File:The Crab and the cod.jpg for examples (the crab & cod photographer didn't want his name printed). How does Commons handle these? On Wikitravel, my track record of trustworthiness was evidence enough.

This will be important for me next week too, because the two friends who came with me on a polar bear photo-safari had better cameras, and I'll have amazing stuff to upload either under their names or without a name (I think one of them also doesn't want his name published). --Peter Talk 01:40, 30 November 2012 (CET)


 * Commons would like to have written permission (via COM:OTRS) for anything that isn't "own work". (That said, I've uploaded an image in the same situation as yours, and am waiting to see if any problems come of it.)  LtPowers (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2012 (CET)


 * We'd lose the Russian image linked above and another one, though, since I'm erm, not dating her anymore ;) --Peter Talk 02:23, 30 November 2012 (CET)

The next steps
Hi

Many users have been checking and tagging and checking again and probably wondering if it will ever end. We have 2.300 categories of users to check. That is waaaaaaayyyyyy to many. So I made this list to cheer everyone up:

[Tables moved to Pub (temporary refuge)/number of files and Pub (temporary refuge)/number of files 2 because of too many "PAGESINCATEGORY" calls.]

Discussion
Personally I suggest this procedure:


 * 1) Check the biggest categories and skip the categories with 1, 2, 5, ... files in them.
 * 2) Do a quick scan of the files allready tagged with a "move" Category:Files to be moved to Commons (perhaps one day for everyone to check and tag obvious bad files).
 * 3) Move them all (files need a valid license before I can move them so if they do not have a license we need to add one or tag as skip).
 * 4) Find out how many files are left (untagged) and if they are mostly good or many bad files are among them.

--MGA73 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2012 (CET)


 * Some user categories are listed at Pub (temporary refuge)/Files by user reviewed as fully checked. Will you copy those files first? My bot will then remove the files from those user categories automatically, speeding up an extra review. Also, I haven't bothered tagging with "Move" when checking user categories: I've just added "KeepLocal" or "Ignore" and then listed the category name at the "reviewed" page when the category looks OK. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2012 (CET)
 * Sure I will move these categories. But I'm currently moving some files from en.wikivoyage.old. And you do not need to add "move". --MGA73 (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2012 (CET)
 * By the way. It is so nice that your bot is now "stalking" the recent changes and remove the categories. Much easier to check now. --MGA73 (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * I tried to improve the bot a bit. Instead of searching through all files (which may take 30 hours), it searches through all files changed during the past 20 minutes, and checks if any files need to have their categories updated. This check is done every 15th minute. However, I have only enabled this feature on WTS. If you also need it on other projects, please tell. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * We only need to do it where we are working. Any chance to sort the files on Shared? --MGA73 (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * I could try. But there are two issues with Shared:
 * Shared uses a very old version of Mediawiki. I've sometimes had problems with that. I hope that this script works there.
 * I don't seem to have a bot flag on Shared, so this would spam Special:Recentchanges. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * The bot flag does not seem to be a problem. I also do not have a bot flag and noone seems to care about that (there are no other users that edit there at the moment).
 * The old version of Mediawiki is a pain in the xxx so when I try to tag files with NowCommons the bot often breaks down. It would be helpfull if we could put all files not on Commons in a category. --MGA73 (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2012 (CET)
 * I am currently trying to add untagged files to http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:All_files_on_Shared. If it works then I suggest that we only work on files in that category and in http://wikivoyage-old.org/shared/Category:Files_to_be_moved_to_Commons. In case a few files was "forgotten" then it is just too bad. We can always do an extra search when all other files are dealt with. --MGA73 (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2012 (CET)
 * The files on Shared seem to have been tagged with "Move" by a bot with little care, so I would be very careful with those move tags and not trust them entirely. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2012 (CET)

The total number of files to fix should be equal to the number of files in Category:All files on WTS plus the number of files in Category:Files to be moved to Commons. However, the exact number might be a bit smaller as there might be some tagging overlap: a file with "Move" might also have "NowCommons", "KeepLocal" or "Ignore". I don't know if anyone has been removing "Move" when adding one of the other tags. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * I have been doing it from time to time but I thought your bot did the same. I'll check. --MGA73 (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * I guess I should tell the bot to remove if there is a different tag which tells that a file shouldn't be moved. I'll fix that now. Fixed: Move will be removed automatically if there is a conflicting tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * Removed from about 125 files. I also updated the tabel above to use PAGESINCATEGORY so now we can see where the progress is. Perhaps someone could delete the empty categories. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * There are too many PAGESINCATEGORY statements on this page: the table doesn't work. I tried splitting it by using transclusion, but this doesn't seem to work either. Empty categories can be seen at Special:UnusedCategories. If a category suddenly becomes needed again (e.g. because of deletion on Commons), the category will be automatically recreated. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * Yeah. But if we delete the categories (remove the lines) when they are empty the number of PAGESINCATEGORY will drop. So it is only a temporary problem. --MGA73 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * But splitting will also work :-D --MGA73 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2012 (CET)

Files needing source, licence or permission
As you know, there are a lot of files where we don't know the photographer, don't have a licence or need evidence of permission from the photographer. At some point, we need to do something with these files. Therefore, I suggest the following: Are there any other opinions or things which need to be done? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2012 (CET)
 * As soon as possible, I run a script which searches for "ignore" and "keeplocal" reasons. If the reason mentions any of "source", "licence", "license" or "permission", then the file is automatically added to a "Category:Files uploaded by user Xyz needing attention". Can you think of any other words which I should also search for?
 * Once the categories are there, we need to start contacting the users. Maybe it is better to first check all other files by the same uploader in case some other files also have problems, so that we can ask about all of them at the same time. Users may have to be contacted at the Internet Brands website as many are not active here. Since Internet Brands is a bit unhappy about advertisements for competing wiki projects, we need to be careful not to write anything which may make Internet Brands censor the question. For example, links need to go to Internet Brands' own Shared project, not to this one, and we can probably not use the word "Wikivoyage" anywhere in the questions.
 * If the uploader provides the necessary information, save the confirmation using Webcitation so that we still have this information even if Internet Brands decides to remove the confirmation at a later point. Update with the new information and keep the confirmation statement somewhere.
 * In many cases, the uploader is no longer active on any travel wiki, so it is probably often impossible to get any confirmation at all. In that case, we will probably have to delete many of the files, but see the text in one of the other sections above: lack of licence can sometimes be repaired.
 * If the file is unused, it might not be worth the trouble to ask for a confirmation of the information, but it is not trivial to confirm that a file really is unused. wmc:Special:GlobalUsage shows if the file is unused on the current 7 language versions, but according to wmc:incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import, there are plans to import further language versions which might use some of the files. File usage on these projects is not currently shown on any Wikimedia project. You could check whether the files are used on the Internet Brands website, or you could assume that all files are used, depending on what you find easier.


 * I think of the versions not yet launched, the ones with heaviest use of files from wts that are not used in other languages, in this order, are: :ja, :pt, and to a much lesser extent :es. The others are probably not much of an issue, using files also in use on :en. --Peter Talk 23:45, 1 December 2012 (CET)


 * I should add that the files I'm referring to were overwhelmingly contributed by 5-10 power users, though, so our files by user initiative will probably net almost all of them. --Peter Talk 23:47, 1 December 2012 (CET)

Files to replace
There are only 35 files tagged as replace: Would these best be done manually? --Peter Talk 22:39, 2 December 2012 (CET)
 * Category:Files to replace with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
 * Category:Files to replace with a different name on Wikimedia Commons
 * I believe that the idea is that they should be uploaded on top of the files on Commons, although there might be cases where we want the images under separate file names instead. If you need to upload a file on top of a Commons file, you may use http://toolserver.org/~magog/oldver.php for this. If the files should be listed under separate names, I guess that you should ask User:MGA73bot for help. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2012 (CET)

Admin access for several trusted users from other projects
Currently we have a very daunting task in front of us: deleting at least 15,000 images which have been moved to Commons.

However, we have a very workable solution to this problem: there are several users here who are intimately familiar with the process of moving images to Commons via other projects. In particular, there is:
 * Me, a.k.a. en:w:User:Magog the Ogre, with ~50,000 NowCommons deletions on English Wikipedia (I am easily the most prolific admin in that area). I also run a bot which updates twice weekly which greatly speeds up the process (located here: ).
 * User:MGA73, a.k.a en:w:User:MGA73, who runs a bot that has already transferred thousands of images from here to Commons, and who is also prolific on English Wikipedia.
 * I would also commend User:Stefan2 a.k.a. en:w:User:Stefan2. I don't know if he would want such access, but he is easily qualified; I've had extensive dealings with him, and he's one of only two non-admins who I've given full access to my tools on English Wikipedia.
 * There may be others on here who are qualified, but I don't know them, so I haven't listed them.

What would the community think of granting some or any of us admin access? I would be able to delete images much more quickly than most admins here, simply because of my experience. All of us have proven we wouldn't be intentionally mischievous with the tools, and the amount of unintentional problems we could introduce is minimal because the wiki is closing soon. If people are squeamish, we could agree not to engage in any admin activities other than deleting NowCommons files. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2012 (CET)


 * I've sysopped the three of you. If anyone objects, I'll undo and we'll discuss, but this seems reasonable to me. The project here is essentially closed--we're just clearing the place out.


 * We should definitely talk before any large-scale deletions of anything other than NowCommons files. --Peter Talk 02:40, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * Oh, well that was nice! Thank you. I'll inform MGA and Stefan as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2012 (CET)


 * Thank you :-) --MGA73 (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * I tested and it works... Please also note that the admin bit is not just used to delete things it is also handy when you want to check a file on Commons and the local file has been deleted on WTS. --MGA73 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2012 (CET)

Thank you. Just some comments:
 * Most namespaces are protected from editing. For example, you can't edit any templates. Also, you can't contact users on their talk pages. Most users on WTS have the same user name on English Wikivoyage, are active there and can be contacted there.
 * It is not trivial to find out if a file on this project is used or not. File links have usually been updated on the current projects, but there are talks about importing more projects (see en:incubator:Incubator:Wikivoyage import and discussions on mailing lists), and these projects may use a file. Usage on the projects which haven't been imported yet isn't shown at wmc:Special:GlobalUsage. Also, the "old" projects (e.g. http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/) are meant to be static copies of the projects with working file links which people can use for reading the articles. It may be a bad idea to delete files which are available on Commons under a different name until the full file usage is known to us. There should be no issues with deleting files which are available on Commons under the same name.
 * Some users have copied files manually without an original upload log. To get a quick solution to this, I created wmc:Commons:Bots/Requests/Stefan2bot which will hopefully result in me being able to add original upload logs quickly.
 * NowCommons is also used in a few cases even if the images aren't 100% identical. For example, File:Aa-flag.png is listed as being on Commons as wmc:File:Flag of Aruba.svg. This special tagging is mainly the case with flags. The old flag images are useless if unused and I suppose that there is little time for taking them down in deletion discussions.
 * Although deletion is useful as a final confirmation step, it is more urgent to copy missing files to Commons so that red links go away. Therefore, people are way behind with file deletions. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2012 (CET)

2old images
There are 361 uploads by 2old, most of which I've already pretty meticulously tagged when checking Category:Ohio, Category:Florida, and Category:Mexico, and really don't need to be gone through again. Is there a way around this? Maybe to move any files of his that are in Category:Florida or Category:Ohio? --Peter Talk 07:28, 3 December 2012 (CET)


 * Actually, come to think of it, why don't we just move everything tagged for move from those categories, since I'm pretty confident they were tagged well. It was huge work... --Peter Talk 07:30, 3 December 2012 (CET)


 * Not sure I understand what is meant here. Are you saying that all the files in Category:Files uploaded by 2old have been checked for FOP etc. and is ready to move? Or only the files of Florida and Ohio but NOT Mexico?
 * If most are ok we could also just move them all to Commons and do the checking there if you prefer that. --MGA73 (talk) 09:25, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * I only tagged the 2old photos for those three categories. I think it would be OK to move all the Mexico images too. There probably are a few mistakes that I'd catch on a second run through, but not many, and it would take a long time... --Peter Talk 18:53, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * Well, I checked all images. Many do not have a Move tag, but this doesn't seem to be needed if we know that the whole category is OK anyway. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * I did a quick check and added a few keeplocal tags. Please make a decision about the following images:
 * File:Cleveland - University Circle.jpg: date of fountain unknown.
 * File:Franklin Roosevelt Mem copy.jpg: date of sculpture unknown.
 * File:Jakarta Skyline West Brightened.jpg: modification of wmc:File:Jakarta Skyline West.JPG. Do we need both?
 * I assume that 2old = Mike Sharp. If not, then most files need "Ignore".
 * Apart from that, I suggest that you copy everything to Commons. If I missed something, then it will be sorted out there. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * I suggest that we copy the fountain and the sculpture to Commons and take the discussion there. We have some good "detectives" there to help us. Noone comes around here and read this so the chance of someone helps us here is almost 0.
 * No I do not think that we need both Jakata files but unless it is easy to find out which one is used it is easier to copy both. We can always delete (and undelete) later on Commons. But in a month or so when WTS is closed down it is very hard to undelete files here if we need them later. That makes me think... See below. --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * If you find a dupe, tag it with "NowCommons|name of other file". Then I'll find the file eventually and make sure that file links are updated. I also thought of changing all redirects in the File namespace into empty file information pages with "NowCommons" tags so that any file links are updated. Of course, I can't do anything with projects which haven't been imported yet. I hope that the remaining projects will be imported soon so that I can start looking at file names on those projects. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2012 (CET)

Files with FOP issues and other bad files
The comment above made me think of something.

I have been thinking about files with FOP issues. If we copy them to Commons and delete them there we can undelete in 2, 5 og 25 years. If we don't they are lost forever - unless ofcourse they are copied to a local wikivoyage project instead.

So I was thinking that perhaps we should create a new template on Commons ("WTS FOP warning") and copy all files to Commons even if we think or know there is a FOP issue. Then admins on Commons can delete the files and add a "Undelete in xxxx" if there is a chance the file may be usefull later.

Before we do so we should ofcourse make a notice and make sure we do not upset everyone there. But if we tell them the problem: --MGA73 (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2012 (CET)
 * 1) We have a lot of files to check and and only a few active users.
 * 2) We may not know the age etc. of the statue etc so we need a wider audience.
 * 3) WTS is closing down and will be gone forever soon so we loose the chance to undelete/check later.
 * 4) It is hard to find out if a file is in use so what may seem "unused" now may in fact be in use.
 * Also, same problem with files missing source, licence or permission. That's why I suggested making a list of those above: we need to ask the uploaders as soon as possible so that we get a chance of obtaining the missing information in time. On Commons it's always possible to undelete later if information has been provided, but here it is more difficult. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2012 (CET)


 * At http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force#Time_for_a_new_solution.3F there were no big "No no!" to the suggestion to mass transfer files. There was a new argument supporting it: Users remove red links.
 * So I will speed up the transfers. It will result in some untagged FOP files are moved. I will not copy files with a "Ignore" or "KeepLocal" yet. We should wait with these and add a suitable template on Commons. --MGA73 (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2012 (CET)

Files on projects protected by password
Some of the language versions are protected by password. It seems that some of them contain files. For example, I saw a file which had been copied from Japanese Wikivoyage somewhere. Does anyone know the username & password for accessing those projects? It may be useful to transfer the files from those projects too, in particular if Wikimedia is planning to import those projects later. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2012 (CET)

Update?
After dropping out for several days, I somehow do not understand what is going on. I thought that all categorized files were tagged, but I see people still tagging smth. Is this some preparatory work for bots, or is this smth I should also participate? Otherwise, I can delete files, but given there are 10K in the category of files on Commons with the same name, it does seem to make much sense (I can do at best 20 per day on working days). Anything else to help the transfer?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (CET)


 * Right now most of the human work is reviewing the categories of files by uploader for uploaders that have the most files. above has links to two tables of such categories. If you only have time for 20 a day, try to finish one of these categories of about 20 files, and then list the completed category here.  --Peter Talk 01:18, 5 December 2012 (CET)
 * Also, when reviewing a user, note that you only need to add KeepLocal or Ignore - you don't need to add Move. If you have checked all contributions by a single user, just list the user at Pub (temporary refuge)/Files by user reviewed and then it will count as a "Move" for all files by that user. User categories are updated automatically by bot so that they don't contain any files with NowCommons, KeepLocal or Ignore. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2012 (CET)
 * Thanks, started doing this. In the checking mode, I have time for considerable more than 20 per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2012 (CET)

Some changes to tagging
At English Wikivoyage (en:Wikivoyage talk:Cleanup), there was a suggestion to put notices on article talk pages if a file has been tagged with "ignore" so that people can work on replacing that image. This may affect how things work here: I suggest the following remedies: What do you think? Would it be too complex? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:41, 7 December 2012 (CET)
 * Sometimes, "ignore" tags have been used even if the images may be usable, for example because the file should be migrated from a different project instead to get a correct original upload log on Commons. If a file with "ignore" is going to be available on Commons anyway, people should not be notified about the image on article talk pages.
 * Sometimes, "ignore" and "keepLocal" may have been mixed up.
 * There might be some overlaps of "keepLocal", "ignore" and "nowCommons". This shouldn't happen, but it has probably happened somewhere.
 * Someone generates a list of all "ignore" and "keepLocal" reasons. I've already written a script which generates that list since I needed it for something else a few weeks ago.
 * We create a new template, for example "ignore-no notice", to be used in the cases where an image should be migrated from a different project. The template namespace is locked, but you can create templates in different namespaces. For example, the "Move" template wasn't created on English Wikivoyage before the template namespace was locked, so it currently resides in the Project namespace: http://en.wikivoyage-old.org/wiki/Wikivoyage:Move
 * We read all reasons and replace the templates if needed. Some ignores might become keeplocals (or vice versa), and some might become "ignore-no notice", or whatever we want to call it.
 * We check all files with multiple tags. I should be able to generate a list of those.
 * To begin with a list of ignore reasons would be helpful. It looks like you're the man!
 * How about MoveFromElsewhere? Another WTS gnome (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2012 (CET)
 * Yes, that looks good. I'll generate lists of reasons when I get home in the evening. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2012 (CET)
 * I am not sure I understand. How could we know if the image from here is in use on en.wv?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2012 (CET)
 * If you have a file (say File:Xyz.jpg), you can check usage by going to en:File:Xyz.jpg. I assume that the bot would check this automatically for all images with "ignore". --Stefan2 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2012 (CET)
 * Then I do not see any problems with the proposal.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (CET)