Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village Pump)
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


Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


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)
Is it a good idea to create a (small) project on commons for the information adding/cleanup drive? I've been adding loads of information templates but run into samples/batches which could use some input from other users. For example I ran into 1600 files which use User:221.20/BusInfo and don't know what to do with those. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
Thanks, I'll undo the redirect and go with Torre dei Ventii for Rome. - PKM (talk) 02:57, 20 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]

Images from Mars Express' HRSC now available under a Creative Commons licence[edit]

Just a heads up. Images from the High Resolution Stereo Camera (HRSC) on board ESA's Mars Express should now be compatible with Wikimedia Commons (released under CC BY-SA IGO 3.0, like Rosettta NavCam images). Details here. Njardarlogar (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice, my first test: File:Flying_over_Becquerel_crater.ogv. Always looking for FFmpeg nerds to learn new OGV or WebM transcoding tricks. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I created Category:Photos taken by Mars Express. Please add images to this category. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone Just wondering about the ESA logo intro and the background music in videos, have you read anything specifically about that? Wouldn't the logo be copyrighted, or how is it? --Njardarlogar (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's their license, the video includes credits for the music, and the credit line links to their blog entry.<shrug />Be..anyone (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I do see that they've licensed it that way, my question boils down to whether they knew exactly what they were doing or forgot about a couple of details. ;-) --Njardarlogar (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It's their first joint CC BY-SA IGO video, so maybe they don't know that exactly, because they only talk about their images.Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svgBe..anyone (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Outstanding. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Very nice to see ESA continuing to expand its library of freely licensed images. Huntster (t @ c) 13:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dating Egyptian postcards[edit]

Bedouin in the desert postcard.jpg

I uploaded several postcards. I suspect they from before WW I. This looks like a very old rifle with hammer. File:The piramids inondation postcard.jpg Wich flood? File:The Nile postcard Cairo.jpg Wich bridge in Cairo? Wich Pyramids are in the first two postcards?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wild guess, the yearly flood of the nile, and maybe this view (4th photo; credits: Google, w:en:AfC,, query "pyramids nile"). –Be..anyone (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

December 22[edit]

Easiest way to get quality images from PDF files?[edit]

I obtained File:PunjabmapJDCunninghamHistoryoftheSikhs.png from PDF p. 35/203 of - I thought the resolution at 100% would be sufficient, but after I uploaded the file I zoomed in more and found that the resolution is of a much higher quality than I thought.

I could stitch together pieces of the map in paint via Print screen but that seems like a hassle. What is the best way to get the quality image of this PD map? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Try the pdfimages command-line program in the xpdf package. It doesn't always give convenient results, but it's the way to go beyond screen-dumping to access the original images emebedded within the PDF file... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, I like the program Nitro PDF. It has a function to pull all images out of a PDF file at full resolution, and you can choose the output format (jpg, png, etc). Good if you're like me and have no ability to use command line stuff. Ping me if you need help using it. Huntster (t @ c) 14:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
It would help to know what operating system you use. In Linux, the most common PDF reader, Evince, simply lets you right-click on an image and save it. In this case, it produced a 3240×2272 pixel 5.6 MB PNG which could be optimised down to 5.5 MB. There is also an abundance of command-line tools for extracting images from PDF documents, perhaps most notably the aforementioned pdfimages.
Gimp can also open pages from a PDF as an image at the resolution you specify. This is not quite the same as extracting the images. It provides no guidance on the ideal resolution for a given image, and it essentially renders the whole page before converting everything to an image. In other words, it's quite similar to the screenshot approach. LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
True, but if you can match the resolution of the embedded image, you won’t lose a significant amount of detail—colour fidelity might be more of a problem. Some PDF readers can tell you the resolution; for documents created using typical “print quality“ settings, 300 ppi is probably the best guess. (Caveat: where the originals are between 300 & 450 ppi they’re often not downsampled to the 300 target, and moreover black-and-white “linework” images, one bit deep, are often kept at 1200 ppi or more.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Everyone, thank you so much for the feedback! I have Windows 8, but I plan to get Linux soon. Anyhow... @Huntster: I tried using Nitro Reader but the PDF file is asking for a password (I need a password to have it converted) and I don't have the password WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That’s because the PDF has been specially protected by the creators, to prevent modification or extraction of content. However, not all PDF editors honour such restrictions. I was able to extract the page with Inkscape, saving it as an unprotected file, which was accessible to my usual workflow: open in Acrobat, pass image to Photoshop (I imagine Nitro PDF and the GIMP would make a similar pair but open-source) … in this case then cropping and converting to grey, then saving as a PNG (6 Mpx in 3 MB). I wonder if a better version could be found, though, considering the scan is a little crooked, has pronounced JPEG artifacts, and of course has lost its colouring (see legend, bottom left). If not, though, WhisperToMe, I’d be happy to upload the file I extracted, which is at least an improvement on the present version in terms of clarity.
For general advice, I’d stress the importance of using a tool that can extract the actual image data from the PDF, to minimize loss of quality & detail. Then save it in an un- or losslessly compressed format (i.e. not JPEG) before doing any further work on it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: Thank you so much! Is there a similar/better quality in these versions of the book on the Internet Archive? and (1918 revised edition) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, not AFAICT. The first is a full-colour scan, but seems to lack maps. The second includes a high-resolution linework version of the map (evidently a redrawing), but IMO it’s visually inferior to the one from the Lal thesis, particularly when viewed at less than full resolution, and it’s missing a narrow vertical strip in the middle (presumably from the binding).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: Ok. Is it alright if you upload what you have? (The redrawing may be nice too anyway even though it has a defect) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: Found the new version. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone should feel free to start a page Commons:PDF by summarizing the above. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • OK, since no one else did it, I'll start one. Others should feel free to improve it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

looking for a license tag for CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO[edit]

Hi all

I'm looking for the correct copyright tag for the CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO license, which is a variation of the normal BY-SA license created for intergovernmental organisations, the details are here, I cant find it in the list of license tags. I'm working with UNESCO to upload their content to Commons and this is the license they use, help would be appreciated in how to proceed.


Mrjohncummings (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's called exactly what you'd expect: {{cc-by-sa-3.0-igo}}. darkweasel94 16:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually not as expected, I also often stumble over the "missing" upper case. Just in case I created {{CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO}} as redirect, the server can handle a few bytes more, bots can get rid of redirects when required. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I've added it to the licenses tags page but haven't added it to this page, I don't want to mess the table up. Thanks again Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

December 24[edit]

Background colors[edit]

At and under our Category:Images by color of background, some items are said to be on a given background, while others with a given background. With one exception, this seems to be random — e.g.:

Regardless of the best word, the main problem here is inconsistency, and the same approach for identical situations should always be followed. I call for general renaming in order to achieve such sought consistency, and I favour "on" against "with" for its clearer meaning — and also for this exception. Opinions? -- Tuválkin 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The affected categories would be:

-- Tuválkin 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

on and with background[edit]

In some cases, the background is part of a design, which is in toto the subject of the category, namely images themselves: Those should not be changed from "with", of course. A special case would be paintings (o.s.l.t.) hanging on walls, where two backgrounds can be considered: The background the painting is on and the background the painting depicts (“with”):

WLANL - Pachango - Een op zijn rug liggende krab, Vincent van Gogh (1889).jpg
Here we have:
  • Crab on green background
  • Painting with green background
  • Painting on white(ish) background
-- Tuválkin 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd hate on if with already exists, or vice versa, but both variants are okay. I don't know how I'd pick what, it could depend on the size of the object or the relevance of the background. DEnglish en-3 alert, Be..anyone (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Both seem correct depending on context. For example, that cat has a black background (the photo is of a cat with a black background), whereas the spider is actually on a white background (it is physically on a white card); the cat is on a ledge, not a black anything, it is in front of a black background. So, if I had to pick one, I would pick with, as it indicates a connection or accompaniment, whereas on (generally) suggests a physical connection. I don't see why both can't stay side by side with Template:See also indicating that there is more related media in another category, or another term such as against a be used. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

December 25[edit]

Christmas crossword[edit]

EFF Crossword Puzzle 2014: The Year in Copyright News

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published this (copyright related) crossword which you can play online at It makes a nice break from feeding yourself with Christmas treats. Happy holidays everyone. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svg