Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Beer parlour)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


Wikidata behavior to Commons[edit]

Can it be that Wikidata has Commons again pretty circumcised? There are no such Interwiki links on Categories, this is a bit annoying. That means we need to add every Cat manually to Wikidata as page⁇ PS: As we can see here Wikidata made RfC over Commons without notice the Commons community. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I see I've lost this thread: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2014/12#Questionable policy on Wikidata regarding Commons categories
I would give a very rare example where it is useful to connect to the same namespace. In the EnWP there is no direct Cat for photo[graphics image]s (as well as most basic categories and for sure of all other), there is only a Cat for the topic of articles. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  12:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get what your problem is, and the mostly Cyril user talk page on wikidata can't help me. Please state something in the direction of on [[page]] the old behaviour was "something", and the new behaviour "something else" is worse. There was a recently closed RFC about wikidata here, is that related to your observations? –Be..anyone (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Perhelion, if you want Commons-category to Wikipedia article-interwiki than use the ond fasion approach of adding [[en:you link here]] to the category. --Jarekt (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone, Jarekt: My problem is the same as INeverCry has described in the "old" (linked) thread. And the outcome was “not to add Commons-categories to Wikidata” to get Interwiki-links⁉ That is another problem for us (and Wikidata), for a common (Commons) user it is intuitively to do so (and not not to do so). I also was not aware of this. It is even more annoying as this is Bot-work and they have ceased their work. "but for the time being we have to live with it" My problem here was that I'm very wondering about this Wikidata problem here. User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?)  22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
You should add commons categories to wikidata's wikipedia-article pages but as a property "Commons Category" not as an interwiki link. Wikidata is a work in progress and their main concern is working with wikipedias - other projects are of a second importance. But I think once they will overcome some technical issues they are working on for a while we will be able to use wikidata, but in the mean time if you want cross-namespace interwikis you have to do it the old fashioned way. --Jarekt (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

File metadata cleanup drive: We now have number for commons[edit]


As many of you are aware, we're currently in the process of collectively adding machine-readable metadata to many files and templates that don't have them, both on Commons and on all other Wikimedia wikis with local uploads. This makes it much easier to see and re-use multimedia files consistently with best practices for attribution across a variety of channels (offline, PDF exports, mobile platforms, MediaViewer, WikiWand, etc.)

In October, I created a dashboard to track how many files were missing the machine-readable markers on each wiki. Unfortunately, due to the size of Commons, I needed to find another way to count them there.

Yesterday, I finished to implement the script for Commons, and started to run it. As of today, we have accurate numbers for the quantity of files missing machine-readable metadata on Commons: ~533,000, out of ~24 million [1]. It may seem like a lot, but I personally think it's a great testament to the dedication of the Commons community.

Now that we have numbers, we can work on going through those files and fixing them. Many of them are missing the {{information}} template, but many of those are also part of a batch: either they were uploaded by the same user, or they were mass-uploaded by a bot. In either case, this makes it easier to parse the information and add the {{information}} template automatically with a bot, thus avoiding painful manual work.

I invite you to take a look at the list of files and see if you can find such groups and patterns. Once you identify a pattern, you're encouraged to add a section to the Bot Requests page, so that a bot owner can fix them.

I believe we can make a lot of progress rapidly if we dive into the list of files and fix all the groups we can find. The list and statistics will be updated daily so it'll be easy to see our progress.

Let me know if you'd like to help but are unsure how! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Note that there is also Category:Media missing infobox template which contains files without any {{information}} (or equivalent) template. I believe that the bot hasn't finished filling that category up yet, but there should be plenty of files to work from already. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • That's only about 2% of files. That's good news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Template:Copyrighted free use doesn't seem to be recognized as a license. Do the machine readable tags have to be added? Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Circa 700 files are using Template:Audio upload which is some form of an infobox, this one either would need some machine readability or the instances should be moved to another templated (or simply used next to another template). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Basvb: I've added the markers to {{Copyrighted free use}}, so that's a few dozen thousands more files with a machine-readable license. Thank you! As for {{Audio upload}}, I was waiting for the patch on phab:T75332 to be deployed, but it's already here and I didn't realize it :) I've added the new classes and the information is now machine-readable. Let me know if you find others! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The process of converting classic talk pages to Flow[edit]

(BG: Flow). There are various ways to convert talk pages to Flow. Discussed at this page. I would like to know what we would like to have. Please join the discussion. Gryllida 23:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Opt-in, svp. No global changes. Defaults for new talk pages depending on the namespace might be a good idea. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Could we revert the decision? I.e. could we move back the page if we find that it doesn't work as expected? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I am against using FLOW in any capacity, to the point that I am likely to leave the project if it gets installed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
On mw: I'm forced to use it. It's not too bad, it always figured out what I want (using raw wiki-markup with various templates, interwikis, etc.) Linking to threads is slightly obscure, but counting colons in a long "classic" debate is worse. They frankly admit that FLOW will replace the "classic" talk page culture, because it's hostile to new users. Apparently an application of WP:BITE biting old users, but not too bad from my POV. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Opt-in at most. If somebody would like to see the discussions using Flow, he or she may turn that on. Otherwise, leave everything as it is. It works perfectly. YLSS (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
From my reading about Flow, it doesn't work that way. It's not a style that is applied to a discussion; a talk page is in Flow or it's not (although it seems there will be an option to edit in Wiki markup). I love the idea of bring able to follow a specific thread rather watching an entire page and trolling through the changes for posts I care about. - PKM (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a whole-page, affects-everyone choice. It can be applied to a single page, but it affects everyone who reads or posts to that page.
The WMF just converted to Flow this month, and it has gone pretty smoothly so far. User:Quiddity (WMF) ended up doing some manual cleanup on unsigned comments, which the archiving bot, following normal practice, treated like header content rather than comments. There were a couple of bug reports, including one that I reported about WikiLove not being available on user talk pages, but nothing that was completely broken. I haven't seen any complaints about the general concept of Flow there. has everything from complete newbies (people in administrative jobs that have to keep track of conference rooms and office policies) to power users like me to devs, so it's quite a mix of user types. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Could you please answer my question above? Could we revert the decision? I.e. could we move back the page if we find that it doesn't work as expected? Then could we use Flow for a single talk page? If both answer are YES, I would try to move my talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Yann,
I'm not involved in that product, so I may be wrong. I'll see if I can get you a more authoritative answer. However, from what I've overheard, yes, you can go from "Flow page" back to "old-style talk page" if you want. (The other way around is very difficult, thus the 'archive everything' approach at Yes, you can have Flow on a single page. Right now, I think that turning Flow pages on and/or off requires dev intervention, so it's not a change that can be made instantly (at this stage in development). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: Re: rollout - the team is still in the early stages of selective rollout, and is not currently offering an option to try it out on random locations. Flow is currently available at a few public wikis that have volunteered to test it out in specific locations, e.g. Catalan Wikipedia recently requested it at 3 pages, including their brand new ca:Viquipèdia:La taverna/Tecnicismes (Village Pump (Technical)), and the French Wikipedia has been trialling it at a secondary fr:Wikipédia:Forum des nouveaux/Flow (newcomers helpdesk) for a few months. Plus sandbox and feedback flow pages at each of those.
(The main global test page is mw:Talk:Sandbox, if anyone wishes to experiment and hasn't yet. Don't forget - most things can potentially be changed, based on (our) feedback and various types of testing - the end goal is something that is more efficient and powerful for oldtimers (combining the best bits of all prior experiments/extensions/gadgets/epiphanies), and less overwhelming for newcomers. The more constructive and actionable feedback the team gets - ("I like/dislike x because it helps/hinders me in task y.") - the better it will turn out for all of us, in the eventualism long-run. Over the coming months, I'll be back regularly to ask for wide input on more complex questions. For now, the global feedback page is mw:Talk:Flow.)
Re: reverting from Flow-to-wikitext, there's currently a simple script that will convert the text of a Flow discussion into a standard wikitext page (including appropriate indents and default user-signatures/timestamps), but it doesn't create any 'faked' edit-history for the new page - the history of the edits remains attached to the Flow Topics themselves. So there's room for improvement.
They're currently discussing and working on a few ways to change a page's contentmodel from plain-wiki to flow-board. One of those ways is probably going to be a special:page for admins to use to toggle pages individually. That's still quite a few months away though. So, [I'm sorry / don't worry] it's probably not coming to Commons any time soon (unless there's a broad group request to enable 1 or 2 pages for in-situ testing, ideally at pages that involve regular daily collaboration). Flow won't be ready for widespread rollout at the more complex wikis or namespaces, for a long time. The ideal situation, is that we all give enough regular testing and feedback as it changes, until it's in a state where the vast majority of editors are clamoring for it, at each wiki. Until then, slow and steady is the plan.
@PKM: Wikimarkup is the only option at the moment. They want to get that done right, first, and then add VE as an optional alternative later on. (It's not immediately obvious that everything is already/only wikimarkup, because the usual toolbar is missing, but when to add that in is being discussed at phab:T78346 currently. :-)
Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Quiddity (WMF): Thanks for your detailed answer. As the French WP enabled it for their local help desk, French speaking people may agree to enable it on the French language help desk on Commons. I asked the French VP (Bistro) here. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I would Wikimedia to adopt a proper discussion system. Now, Wikimedia has a long history of poorly developed pages.

I think that Flow-style pages could be added to Wikimedia websites, but as long as people are still allowed to discuss in regular pages as well. --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 12[edit]

Translation to Russian[edit]

Can somebody can translate the template {{License enforcement request}} to Russian. -- Geagea (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't log in[edit]

I can't log in to the Commons since two days. The error message is as follows:

Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.
If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below.
Request: POST, from via cp1066 cp1066 ([]:3128), Varnish XID 4096443035
Forwarded for: XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX,,,
Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Fri, 12 Dec 2014 21:27:55 GMT

Fizped (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Forwarded to T78450. -- Rillke(q?) 02:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been unable for more than week to log in. Probably this does not depend on computer (I tried in public library and at home). Probably this does not depend on browser (I tried in Internet Explorer 11.0 and Firefox 34.0.5). Probably this is not Commons problem (happens in other projects also). After 33 seconds I get error message "Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes." But when entering wrong password, I get correct error message after less than 10 seconds. I have no unified account, because some Taivos in other projects – that's not me. But I registered a new account (this happened to be unified) and then I am able to log in normally. But, of course, this new account has no administrator buttons. I can still normally log into sites, not related with Wikipedia. 15:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC) (User:Taivo)
The Taivo SUL is not created yet, you can use Special:MergeAccount to create the SUL for your account. (but you need to be logged in as Taivo. I added your comment to T78450) --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Taivo: You seem to have been able to make contributions at English Wikipedia on 13 December. Are you able to log in there? If so, log in, then go to w:Special:MergeAccount to activate SUL. Does this fix the problem? --Stefan4 (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Taivo in English Wikipedia – that's not me. Language links in my user page show, which projects I edit. 15:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) (User:Taivo)
If you are able to log in as Taivo somewhere, then log in there and go to Special:MergeAccount on that project. You could also try registering a "User:Taivo" account on a project where none exists and then go to Special:MergeAccount on that project. If you manage to go to Special:MergeAccount, it will also help people figuring out on which projects you are editing as Special:CentralAuth/Taivo then lists your accounts in one list and the accounts of the other Taivo users in another list. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Stefan. Now I have unified all my accounts and I could log in. Taivo (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

Category Slideshow[edit]

What is it decides the order in which Category Slideshow displays images? Checking one of my own categories I was startled at the apparent confusion. Can I control the order of display? Apologies if I am asking in the wrong place. Eddaido (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologize; it is a known issue. C.f. MediaWiki_talk:GallerySlideshow.js#Order_of_presentation_does_not_work_with_Safari and sorry that I am out of resources for maintaining this script properly. -- Rillke(q?) 15:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No great disaster. Many thanks for your reply. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Introducing the Flags module[edit]

I have created Module:Flag to make categorization of flags by aspect ratio automatic. User:Ricordisamoa/sandbox/1 contains some testcases. Are there any features you'd want or any suggestions you'd make? --Ricordisamoa 10:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Inquiry on needed evidence for IDF's permission to use photos of three victims on poster[edit]

At User_talk:Russavia#IDF_file_of_three_teens_of_2014_kidnapping_and_murder_of_Israeli_teenagers I have started a discussion on an image of three boys who were the victims of the en:2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers. I would like to upload the photo but I would like to know what the IDF needs to provide in order for this photo to be used in the Wikimedia Commons (proof that the IDF has the proper license to use this photo)

Note: If this image is uploaded please ensure that there are descriptions in both Hebrew and Arabic (Russian may be good too) WhisperToMe (talk)

These don't look like official Israeli military photos -- none of the three is in uniform (and two were below the ordinary age of military service)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
They are not photographed by IDF. Many sites using that photos as "images provided by the Israeli Defense Forces". So what we can assume is IDF collected those photos from the victim's family or school for their search purposes. Little chances that they got permission from original photographers; family members or school authorities may not copyright holders. Wikipedia may use those pictures as fair use rational. (There is one more picture deleted from Commons; I don't know whether it is the same photos.) Jee 04:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I'm doubing this is {{PD-USGov-Military-Marines}}, but I can be wrong. Can someone check and tell me? Thanks. --Ganímedes (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, that logo does indeed appear in the archived copy of the source page at, contemporaneous with the upload to Commons. A smaller version of what appears to be the identical logo currently appears on the current 1st Battalion, 11th Marines home page. So it is probably licensed correctly. I added a link to the archived copy to the source field of file's summary. —RP88 (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


I was looking at the file "File:SouthRiverNJ1936.jpg", and it is low quality. There is a higher quality photo here. I know there's a certain way to formatting Library of Congress photos. Perhaps someone there could help. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Chrome uploads fail after about 5% of the 105MB TIFF, and Firefox also fails (much later). For Chrome I'm not surprised, it could never really download big files, so why should big uploads work. For Firefox I'd guess that this is a problem on the side of commons. The LoC also has a smaller TIFF, but the purpose of this exercise would be to get the real thing, not some minor version. But the 86KB thumbnail here has now a link to the real TIFF. Disgusted: Be..anyone (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded it - File:SouthRiverNJ1936.tiff. However, MediaWiki has a bug where it doesn't work for tiffs with a 16-bit bitdepth per channel, so the thumbnail doesn't show up properly. Bawolff (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I tagged the variants with {{largeTIFF}} + {{compressed version|...}}. Is there a simple tutorial somewhere how uploads of huge files might work? Ideally explaining why it doesn't work with esoteric tools such as Special:Upload, Chrome, Firefox (10 ESR for W2K vintage 2013 running on Windows 7), and mobile wannabe-broadband (as defined by o2-DE). –Be..anyone (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
You folks are amazing. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: Files over 100mb need to be uploaded with chunked uploaded. The only official way is via Special:UploadWizard, after enabling chunked uploading in preferences (The Chunked uploads for files over 5 MB in Upload Wizard in the chunked upload section, under experimental options). However, I personally use User:Rillke's User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, which I find works really great. Commons:Chunked uploads has some information. Bawolff (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Tnx for info, I saw the JS page (wikilinked in your upload edit history, IIRC), but there was no obvious this works. Apart from "whatever Rillke did should be better than some upload wizard".Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svgBe..anyone (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
There's some docs at User_talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js, but basically, add the importScript statement to your special:Mypage/common.js, and then go to the file page for the file you want to upload (even if the file page doesn't exists), then in the sidebar, under tools, there is an "upload (chunked)" you can click on. It works very well if you want to upload things without the hand holding of the upload wizard. Bawolff (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Addendum, if you're an admin, and if the url is on the upload by url whitelist (, and are on it, but I'm not sure if this image is accessible from those domains), then you can directly upload by url from Special:Upload for large files (up to 1000MB). Bawolff (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Addendum II: You can request license reviewer status and then make the Wikimedia Servers fetch from one of the domains listed on Commons:Upload tools/wgCopyUploadsDomains. -- Rillke(q?) 12:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
That was actually the first time since I have an account here (2011) that I couldn't upload what I wanted for technical reasons. Adding about ten times, where I could have overruled a license review bot is still less than a dozen in three years, not enough for a flag permitting read access on deleted files, if I understood this right correctly. Besides Special:UploadWizard would have told me immediately that 105MB is not less than 100, only Special:Upload ends up nowhere in this case. Your script apparently works for me—I aborted it, because it was the TIFF already uploaded by Bawolff. However, some procedure for users without this right to trigger uploads by URL (not counting whining in the VP as "procedure") would be nice, my failed attempts with this TIFF ate about 280MB of my 5GB/month, about 1€. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

Image rotation[edit]

Is it normal that the previews of File:Bus (3363713821).jpg are all in "normal" way while the original picture is "Rotated 90° CCW", as said in the Exif data? I made a rotation request, but it didn't change anything... What could be done to remedy the situation?
BarnCas (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

First, use the thumbnail to determine the rotation degree. Secondly, c.f. to COM:Rotation. And the third point: Since the original photo has metadata about its orientation attached, most Linux and Mac software will display it properly orientated. Only some Windows software struggles with that. If you feel, it should be physically rotated and the orientation bit set to default (so Windows software will display the full resolution version correctly), request a rotation by . But we generally discourage doing so in favour of adding pressure to phab:T33366. -- Rillke(q?) 08:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I don't ask it for myself, as I have the necessary addons in my browser, and if I need to download this picture, my (Gnu-Linux) softwares will indeed automatically rotate it. I just found really weird to have first this CCW oriented original image when looking at it in the browser (same thing in Dillo, Midori, Firefox and Pale Moon...).
As I already asked for a (90°) rotation that didn't apparently work, I really wonder if a 0° one will change anything.
BarnCas (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@BarnCas: The 90° rotation request you placed onto the file description page had been reverted, this is why it didn't work. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Rillke: I didn't place the request anywhere: there was no {{int:filedesc}} at that time, I just clicked on the link for the request, so I didn't choose the location of the request template, if it does indeed matter lol. And Finavon, who reverted the rotation, has most probably tools in his/her browser that don't "allow" to see the problem with the original picture (as it also occurs on my computer with a particular profile of Firefox, due to any addon?).
Ok, I don't see the point to go further, if nobody else seems to be concerned by people who don't have our tools to see that picture correctly. After all, I just wanted to give this file the appropriate category, and that's what I did Clin. Thanks for your help.
BarnCas (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
(Edit: Finavon made a request for a 0° rotation. Wait and see... -- BarnCas (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC))

Bug report - #ifexist updates[edit]

Hello (technical discussion ahead, sorry for that).

I just created the Template:ACCcategorsation which works as a "subroutine" to Template:ACClicense ‎ - it takes two parameters (for instance, "seal" and "豕") and tests for the existence of a subcategory using {{#ifexist: category:ACC containing {{{1|}}}-{{{2|}}} | , that is to say with my example:

This is meant to allow the Template:ACClicense ‎ (ACC = Ancient Chineese Character) to categorise a chineese character according to its various components, inside the Category:Ancient Chinese characters by components subcategories, without knowing in advance whether subcategories exist for such or such style (seal / bigseal / bronze / oracle / ...) and such and such character component. And, of course, subcategories may be opened when the parent category becomes too crowded

My problem is, to work corectly, that #ifexist: should be evaluated in three different cases :

  • Obviously it is (correctly) evaluated when a new file is uploaded and described through the ACClicense template.
  • It is also (correctly) evaluated when the ACClicense is modified, apparently causing all files usig that model to be (slowly) re-evaluated. This was the problem described in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/06#Bug report - category modification and Bugzilla Bug 50135, and it seems to have been correctly solved.
  • But when a previously non-existent sub-category is created, causing some #ifexist: tests to change result, the corresponding file indexations are not ubdated and the new category remains empty. The only way to force a re-examination of their case seems to be to make some apparent modification to the ACClicense template and force a reevaluation on all the files using that template (3000+ files so far).

Is there a way of updating the template instantation specifically when non-existent files tested for in a #ifexist: test are created ?

Thanks in advance for your suggestions, Michelet-密是力 (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, when a category is created, it will re-parse all the relavent pages (updating the display), but it won't do links update (update the categories). What you can do, is any time you create one of these categories, go to the url豕 (replacing the Category:ACC_containing_bigseal-豕 at the end of the url with whatever category you just created). That should force all the things that are doing #ifexist: for that category to re-evaluate what categories they should be in. Bawolff (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It works ! sounds like black magik to me, but thanks a lot. Michelet-密是力 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Lack of one of most important and famous tenor in the list of opera singers![edit]

I visited several pages and in none I found the name and history of Francesco Tamagno, "Il tenore canone".

See, for instance, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

Service: Category:Francesco Tamagno. --Túrelio (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

guidance for Panoramics[edit]

Is there some consensus, are there some guideline of what photos to put into Panoramics of/in categories? Should Panoramic views of/in be treated differently?

According to en:Panoramic photography (similar en:Panorama), characteristic for a panoramic image is

  • elongated fields of view
  • wide aspect ratio
  • (and I want to add) the image containing a full and not a partial view.

What I do find is that standard photos or even telelense partial views make it into these categories. My opinion is that Views of or Cityscapes of or similar would be more appropriate. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 10:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Panorama or panoramic is also a synonyme for landscape or cityscape view. Even if we make any guidance, the ambiguity of the word will cause new categories out of the quidance. The words "view of" are also very ambiguous and unclear. In fact, every image is a "view of" something. The categories "views of" really mean "panoramic views of" or "global views of" or "distant views of". And there is also a problem with parent categories. We can have categories "Views of A village" and "Views of B village" or "View from C viewpoint" but the parent category cann't be named "Views of X district" or "Views of X region" because none of the included images is a global view of the district or region. We mean "Views of something particular in the X region". But not view of houses, nor views of sculptures - only landscape and cityscape images, ie. panoramics. Unfortunately, panoramic is also a term even for 360° image of room interior. For the photo-technological term, an appropriate Category:Panoramics by technology‎ subcategory should be used to avoid ambiguity. --ŠJů (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem with "full and not partial view" is that you might have a partial view because a truly "full view" isn't actually possible. For example, consider the Grand Canyon: a truly "full view" involves photographing all 450 km of rocks and dirt... times at least two, so that you get both sides. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Connection reset errors when uploading file[edit]

A woman preparing areca nut for chewing in Myanmar

Hi! I am trying to upload a 256 Mb WebM file, but I keep getting a "connection has been reset" error. I tried the upload several times with Firefox and with Chrome from two different locations (office and home), but keep encountering the error. What's wrong? Any suggestions? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You presumably do not use COM:Chunked uploads. As a power user, you might want to check out User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js instead of UploadWizard. It tends to be more reliable and does not conceal error messages. -- Rillke(q?) 16:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, no, I haven't tried that. This is the first time I've tried to upload such a large file. Thanks, I'll have a look. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, it's not working. I added the specified text to /common.js, bypassed the cache as instructed, and selected chunked uploads in "Preferences" but am still getting the standard Firefox "connection reset" error page. — Cheers, JackLee talk 16:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine, of course you'll have to follow User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js#How to use (meaning you navigate to File:MyDesiredFileName.webm, press upload file (chunked) from your tools box, sidebar) or Special:UploadWizard. Special:Upload can't handle this. -- Rillke(q?) 17:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I successfully uploaded the file using the UploadWizard. However, I didn't really understand the instructions at "User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js" (what is the "second option of the upload link of any file page"?) Maybe you'd like to update these instructions with what you mentioned above, and also specifically state that UploadWizard can be used. Anyway, thanks a lot! — Cheers, JackLee talk 21:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Great! Thanks, clarified instructions. -- Rillke(q?) 21:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge these items?[edit]

I believe pages Creator:Karl Sterio and Creator:Károly Sterio need to be merged. They are both associated to Wikidata item Károly Sterio. Laddo (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Templates and category layout[edit]

Category:Tonga, by way of example, has the template info overlaying the list of category content. It looks like some sort of template coding issue. Alan Liefting (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Swapped, the sisters first, please check if it works for you (for me it's only minimally better and wasn't broken.) –Be..anyone (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That fixed it. The "P" heading is no longer amongst the template text. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a whacky template, but I added {{clr}} to separate it from the listings. Delphi234 (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
There are a lot of categories that need the same treatment. Alan Liefting (talk) 04:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 17[edit]

Where to upload handout files for an event?[edit]

Dear Wikipedians, I am developing handouts for use at an upcoming event (Draft event page at this link),_MD/Wiki_Loves_Small_Museums We will be circulating the information in advance, to people at various sites, so I would like to upload the handouts so that people can get them from the Wiki project page. Is it appropriate to do this as a normal commons file upload? Is there a better place to upload event-related materials? Are there categories I should use to identify these? Many thanks, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: the root category for stuff like this is Category:Wikimedia meetups. It's probably best to create your own subcategory for the event (e.g. Category:Wiki Loves Small Museums 2015), so that you have a place for pictures of the meeting etc. Put that category at the right subcategory of Category:Wikimedia meetups in the United States and Category:Wikimedia meetups in 2015 and you should be good. By the way, you project page says the meeting is/was in 2014, you might want to change that ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Nearly forgot: Yes, handouts for Wikimedia-related meetups should be fine. But if you use other people's work in you handout, remember to make sure everything is under a free license and the original authors are appropriately credited. --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I managed to get it done correctly! I appreciate your helpful replies. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ListUsers special page not working for OTRS-members group?[edit] returns "No user found." Is something wrong? -- 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

First, can you tell us from where you did follow this link so we can fix it? Secondly, the local OTRS identification group has been emptied after the global group on Meta has been established. -- Rillke(q?) 17:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's linked from Category:Commons OTRS volunteers. There should also be a way to let users who are directly looking up the special page know, though. -- 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have fixed the link at the category page. Thanks for notifying us. Jcb (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way: I filed phabricator:T78814 (the group is empty, therefore uncontroversial maintenance). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's also linked on Special:ListGroupRights. Apparently T78814 is already fixed (code reviewed, but not yet deployed.) –Be..anyone (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not already fixed. See the link to Gerrit, where it says "Status: Review in Progress" and not yet "Merged". --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) under CC-BY-SA![edit]

For Your interesting: This collection is under CCBYSA! -----> --Pallerti (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Fortepan is an online photo archives. All of the images are licensed under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0 and can be freely used. If you wish to publish any of them, please give the credit in the following format: FOTO:FORTEPAN / name of donor.

--Pallerti (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Looks like a case for batch uploading… -- Tuválkin 23:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

December 18[edit]

New and disease mongering (perhaps also transphobic) categorizations?[edit]

The totally new user Apsesrival (registered today at 03:50am) has IMO primarily intended fairly obvious disease mongering categorizations, without the slightest prior discussion. In the new Category:Pseudo-gender (with its new sub-Category:Pseudo-gender symbols) for example, "Pseudo-" means false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not. Or how about the new Category:Sexual disorders, now with the sub-Category:LGBT in it! Are Apsesrival's categorizations also tinged with Transphobia? What now?
--ParaDox (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, explain your objections directly to him on his talk page, he might see the point that categorization should be based on facts or general consensus and category names should not be judgmental. If he agrees, revert the changes and all is fine. If he doesn´t react, revert the changes and all is fine. If he doesn´t agree and has no good reason (like an ICD-10 code), revert the changes. If he re-reverts you, see him blocked for ew. But avoid accusing him of things like disease mongering or transphobia, as this will rather lead to an unnecessary conflict instead of leading to a swift solution. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your very good advice. I've already informed Apsesrival on his/her talk page (at 10:33 UTC) of my objections/questions on this "Commons:Village pump page". English is foreign and very hard work for me, so I'm reluctant to get involved in an English discussion. How long should one wait for Apsesrival to respond to this here? --ParaDox (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Me myself, I´d wait at least 24 hours for a response if there´s no need to rush thing. But as the categorizations in this specific case could be seen as pejorative and not based on good faith, I´d fully understand if you acted earlier or even at once (I´m assuming that "pseudo-gender" is not a scientifically used term and that LGBT is not seen as a sexual disorder by current medical standards, which I don´t know for sure). --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
That user seems experienced (knows wiki syntax). You may revert on sight or report to COM:AN/B. Jee 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, being LGBT was never a real disease, anywhere. One can be kind and presume ignorance, however these categories are blatantly offensive for LGBT contributors such as myself, and should be promptly deleted. -- (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone, it's all been reverted in the meantime. --ParaDox (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Just over seven hours, not bad, but maybe a sanitary blocking of this account should be done, just in case its work is resumed in a less blatant manner? -- Tuválkin 18:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

December 19[edit]

Advice on deletion[edit]

I took some photos at a public meeting a little while ago, and snapped some photos of my Member of Parliament and some of the officials who organized the meeting. Because it was a public meeting it didn't occur to me to clear with my neighbours when they were captured in these photos. Well, one of my neighbours was upset. Other neighbours are cross over what they perceive as a serious lapse in judgment on my part.

I uploaded cropped versions of those photos, and renamed the images.

I'd like to arrange for the uncropped earlier revisions to be deleted. I don't know whether I should have just requested a courtesy deletion of all these images, or whether I can request the earlier uncropped revisions to be deleted. If so, I'd like to get the redirects left behind deleted as well.

None of the images is in use.

Advice please.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 01:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You can request it directly without convoluted delete old+upload new procedure on COM:AN (there is an "other" button near the upper right of this page.) If you find a better place please post it here for info. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Be..anyone is correct. If you prefer more privacy and want to avoid public attention, just ask to a friendly admin through talk, mail or IRC. Jee 05:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
✓ Done. Did I catch them all? --Túrelio (talk) 09:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome[edit]

The category 'Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome' was redirected to category:Tower of the winds back in 2011, but that Tower of the winds is in Athens, not Rome. Can we undo this redirect please, so we can connect these to their proper Wikidata entries? - PKM (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you could start a CFD (category for discussion), or, because that's not controversial, remove the "#REDIRECT" blurb on Category:Torre dei Venti, Vatican City, Rome. If you want category:Tower of the winds for Rome and category:Tower of the Winds as is better start a CFD, because that's confusing (but possible, if others agree.) –Be..anyone (talk) 05:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Upload a new version of this file notice[edit]

How do we get a more meaningful notice than "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding." First you can not change the license when you over-write a file, and second, there is not even any place to provide a license. How about instead "Copyright violations will be deleted without notice. Thank you for your understanding." Delphi234 (talk) 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that MediaWiki:Uploadtext does not know it's a re-upload. I will see what I can do to hide it with JavaScript if no one else comes up with a better suggestion (or I am able to fiddle through the upload code server side and pass an additional parameter to the message in question. -- Rillke(q?) 19:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I know enough to ignore it now, but early on it gave me a great deal of confusion as to what to do. Delphi234 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


GLAMorous in the "Tools" section of the left sidebar is temporarily not working. The maintainer knows about the problem. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


Wassily Kandinsky Red Spot II 1921
Dear commons people. The work of one of the first modernist (abstract) painters, Kandinsky, has come in the public domain. At least I think this is the case, because he died more than 70 years ago, on 13 December 1944. Google doodled him this week. My question is, do the specialists on copyright agree on this? And the next question is, who will help me to upload his work (with some sort of bot??). He has been very influential. Thanks Elly (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Copyright terms run through the end of the calendar year in which they expire, so Kandinsky's French or German copyrights will expire on January 1, 2015 (U.S. copyright can be more complex). Commons has more than dozen of his paintings scheduled for evaluation and possible undeletion next month. —RP88 (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. So a lot will come back automatically next year (I hope the image I uploaded today will remain here for another 2 weeks, because I used it in Wikibooks.) Elly (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 20[edit]