Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

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

A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

February 12

Calling for translations

Calling translators!!! Wiki Loves Africa is days away ... We really need your help to translate the Wiki Loves Africa contest pages on Commons. We are especially hoping that the page will be translated into French, Arabic and Portuguese, but would also Wiki LOVE it if anyone wanted to concentrate on Africa's languages too. Thank you in anticipation. Islahaddow (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Islahaddow: Page Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021 includes File:Medicinal Herbs.jpg, which shows bagged dried herbs with paper labels handwritten in devanagari letters. So much for cultural sensitivity, when a script used by over a billion people (to make a long story short) gets slated onto the wrong continent altogether. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Islahaddow and Anthere: Six out of 20 images in this promo gallery were not taken in Africa. See the discussion page thereon. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Tuválkin, thank you for your concerns. Part of the reason we have Wiki Loves Africa is because there are not enough images representing Africa on Commons. The images used on the Commons page are not 'stock images' they are taken from the Commons repository; the images are also not meant to be from Africa, they are meant to show examples of the kinds of images and themes we are looking for in the contest and were chosen for their reflection of the theme (regardless of where their origin was). They are merely meant as suggestions. Your point has been made; perhaps you could suggest replacements instead of just criticising what is existing. (this response was also posted on the talk page) Islahaddow (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Islahaddow: I’m well aware these images come all from Commons (they couldn’t be displayed here if they weren’t). I agree that there is not enough images representing Africa on Commons, both in absolute terms and relative to how other parts of the world are represented. However, there are surely enough images representing Africa on Commons to be able to put up a more topical 20-photo gallery to promote this campaign. And, no — I don’t think I’ll be suggesting any replacements. You do you work, I’ll do mine. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February 15

Discrepancy in ID of two paintings

See these paintings:

File:MarriageCath.jpg

File:Pierre Subleyras - The Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine of Ricci.jpg

They are the same painting, but the first says it's Saint Catherine of Siena, and the second says it's Caterina de' Ricci. Does anyone have an idea of how to tell which it is? I know that Catherine of Siena is one of the best-known people who are portrayed in mystic marriage paintings, but could it be Caterina de' Ricci anyway? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I think it's pretty likely to be Saint Catherine of Siena. The source of the second image is a dead link, but you can see part of the post at this archive link (scroll down a bit). The post is about St. Catherine de Ricci, but they have the image linked to http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/17125-the-marriage-of-st-catherine-pierre-subleyras.html, which titles it merely "The Marriage of St Catherine". Probably the second identification is just a matter of forgetting about the other Saint Catherines. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: Maybe, but en:Catherine of Ricci says that Catherine of Ricci "was mystically married and united with adult Jesus," and these paintings show Jesus as an adult. The mystic marriage paintings of Catherine of Siena that I've seen show Jesus as a baby. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I did some more digging, and I can't find a good answer to the question. A bunch of places just say "The Marriage of St Catherine". If you're really committed: Subleyras's Grove Art Online page has three citations that might plausibly have the full name:

• ‘Vita di Pietro Subleyras’, Memorie per le Belle Arti, 2 (Feb 1786), pp. 25–36
• P. Pasqualoni: ‘Vita del pittore Pietro Subleyras’, Giornale delle Belle Arti, 3 (May-June 1786), pp. 156–7, 162–4, 170–72 [written in 1764] (see this link 1786 n. 20-22 for an online copy)
• Subleyras, 1699–1749 (exh. cat. by O. Michel and P. Rosenberg, Paris, Mus. Luxembourg; It. trans., rev., Rome, Acad. France; 1987)

I skimmed through the second source, and didn't see any explicit references to the painting (though I might have just missed it). The final one has your best shot at having an authoritative answer, but it might be difficult to track down a copy. I might come back to this if I come up with any other ideas about how to figure out the answer, but no guarantees.. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: Thanks. I don't think I'll pursue it further now, but I appreciate your responses. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to reinstate the Image: namespace?

A long time ago, there were two namespaces for content, or at least synonyms for them: both File: and Image:. These were merged, years back, on the grounds that it was a tautology: everything here was an image, everything was a file. We now have a single namespace, File: (if Image: still works as a synonym, any distinction is pretty well-hidden).

However in recent times, we have acquired a vast number of scanned book PDFs. To the point where these are dominating many aspects. In particular, searching for text content on image description pages is now impossible: the results are swamped by the books (as having more text, they tend to monopolise the searches). We have largely lost our text search over images, and that's an important feature.

Should the way to recover this be to reinstate the old distinction, at the namespace level? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T269929

As the uploader of these recently, agree that there needs a better way to search without being buried under a bookcase of documents each time, unless that's what you want.

Open minded on solutions, one was suggested on the Technical VP, see link to the right, but nothing decided to date. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

as a short term fix a gadget could be made, that adds "-mimetype:pdf" to searches, when switched on. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Check out Special:MediaSearch, it searches images by default. There are two searches on commons, the old one and the new one, MediaSearch. MediaWiki documention mentions that the image namespace existed prior to the file namespace and moved over to it, the image namespace is an redirect nowadays.--Snaevar (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

A quick and simple solution, albeit crude, is to add "-pdf" to the query, e.g. "George Washington" -pdf. This seems to exclude .pdf files from results, but may hide image files with "pdf" in the descriptive text. Search refinements are definitely in order, without the assumption that media seekers are as skilled in coding or querying as the demigods who design the user interface. --Animalparty (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I admit I don't know what I am talking about, but can I still ask a question? If so, I wonder why pdf documents are loaded to Commons in the first place. Why not to Wikisource? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

That is because the documents are free enough for commons to keep them. The main purpose of wikisource is not to keep the documents, it is to convert them into an computer readable text. See also Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats.--Snaevar (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Andy Dingley: When I saw this heading, my immediate reaction was to say no, period, and be done with that. Since you and other serious users seem to be considering this seriously, though, I have to ask: What about audio files? (Yes, I know that TimesTex and Data are separate namespaces, but there’s reasons for that.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

February 16

Is COM:VPP still necessary?

...considering that the village pump and COM:RFC (which is so underused) already exist? It seems to me that the proposals subpage is just being (ab)used to make users vote on everything, which is not healthy for a wiki that operates on consensus-driven system. Instead of creating a proper request for comments page where users can thoroughly discuss something, users are tempted to skip that, use COM:VPP and immediately start polling. Surely, this is not what the community had in mind when the proposals subpage was created, no?

I'm thinking of two possible options I prefer for the future of COM:VPP. The first one is to just discontinue it and archive all its discussions. All proposals must either go to the talk page of the subject (with a notification of COM:VP if necessary), go to COM:VP if it affects sitewide, but not too major (could be useful to solicit some quick comments before starting a formal RfC), or to a formal RfC if it also affects sitewide and the changes are very major, like in a fundamental level.

We can also keep the proposals subpage, but I'd prefer not to continue the status quo. Instead it could be used as a "testing the waters" place for new ideas and proposals. Polling can be used, but they shouldn't be binding, and instead be seen as a quick way to see the opinions of users. Even then, polling should not be used when not necessary, as it divides users into camps rather than unite them under consensus.

Other suggestions are welcome. In fact, I encourage you to do look for other ways to improve COM:VPP. This is the beauty of not polling and instead using the tried and tested process of consensus seeking. :) pandakekok9 09:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Introducing a form of double jeopardy for every change would be counter productive, i.e. building a bureaucracy that requires the community to have a specific big discussion, then having a vote. Most volunteers are not terribly interested in any votes, not wanting to get involved in any "controversy". It's also not possible to seriously improve the project if every step needs a super majority consensus and to get there takes an unpaid volunteer huge amount of work, rather than running a simple proposal up the flag pole and seeing how many folx fancy it. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think using a consensus-driven system rather than polling is building a bureaucracy. Quite the opposite, I believe. It's all about common sense. If the community feels that all questions have been answered and a poll is needed, then they can start the poll themselves. There's no need for a supermajority consensus either, that's just unrealistic in most cases.

Polling is a quick and convenient way on getting the opinions from other people. But that's just that. It doesn't always document consensus. If the issue is simple and only has a few options to pursue (like two), then I guess you could start polling right away. If the issue is a bit complex, then discussion before polling will always be necessary, if you want the best solution. pandakekok9 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of discussions in the VPP aren't reduced to simple voting/polling and discussions almost always take place and people can change their stance (and "votes") if they are convinced by good arguments. The only time I've seen people vote without much discussion if it's a common sense proposal which only needs "the formality of consensus". I don't think that centralising everything to the regular village pump or decentralizing things only to relevant talk pages would work in either way. If policy is only discussed on the talk pages of affected places then it's likely that many people with good insights will not ever see those discussions if they don't watch those pages. Centralisation would only add more "clutter" to the current Village Pump. Could you give some examples of some changes that were "voted on" that shouldn't have been "referrenda" and had negative consequences for Wikimedia Commons?

I have the opposite perspective, Wikimedia Commons need more specific community pages, not less. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you give some examples of some changes that were "voted on" that shouldn't have been "referrenda" and had negative consequences for Wikimedia Commons? Sure, here you go:

• Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/08#No longer allow GFDL for some new uploads - The GFDL problem was very complex and sensitive at the time, and a poll shouldn't have started immediately. I support disallowing the GFDL for future uploads of course, I proposed it back then, which failed because I didn't do it properly. Even Colin, who started the original proposal, wished that there was a thorough discussion first before the poll started. I feel that consensus for this one wasn't properly achieved, I mean look at the number of people who participated on the 2018 VPP. It's less than the original RfC!
• Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/08#Strategy Working Group recommendation to change licensing rules - This shouldn't have been voted on at all. It's obvious that Commons will never accept non-free content, even in the theoretical case that there's overwhelming consensus favoring non-free content. That's just not what Commons is. All this section did was exploit everyone's anger and waste everyone's time. It's also weird that the proposer opposed their own proposal.
• Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/03#Wikimedia Commons text contributions to remain CC-BY-SA by policy - Not very-well thought out; shouldn't have started a poll immediately.
• Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/01#Drop security support for IE6 and IE7 - You can't just vote to force sysadmins to drop support for something. While I agree that supporting such ancient browsers is ridiculous, this isn't the proper place to discuss that. Phabricator exists for a reason.

pandakekok9 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the Phabricator remark, it has no easy system for voting, and the vast majority of Wikimedia Commons contributors have and probably would never log in to that system even if asked. It may be highly useful to assess the community concern or support for a change, even if the change itself will require further Phabricator discussion to assess implementation or even whether it's realistic.

A task of Phabricator is no evidence of a consensus for Wikimedia Commons, and the communities are very different, with different community policies. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

i like a centralised page for discussions. even if discussions were held on separate pages, a central page to catalog them is still needed, innit?--RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Urkyear is not working correctly

The newly created Category:2021 in Urk does not appear in Category:Urk by year and Category:2021 in Flevoland. What is going wrong?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: I will be moving the Urk images from (year in Noordoostpolder) to (year in Urk) categories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Looks like it’s now fixed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Urk by year is still empty (should contain 2021 in Urk) and Category:2021 in Flevoland does not show 2021 in Urk, only 2021 in Noordoostpolder.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Probably some background process that didnt run correctly. I have added the desired category manualy outside the template. Then removed the manual added category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Conditions in templates

I would like to add a condition to the Template:Urkyear. Before 1986 the commune belonged to the province Overijssel insead of the province Lelyland wich was created in 1986. Could something like: If year < 1986 then (Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in Overijssel|Urk) else (Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in Flevoland|Urk). If not posible I could create a seperate template Urkyearbefore1986. An example where it can be used is in Category:1985 in Urk. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Done here. Is this right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 17

Proposal to improve the illustration of the template {{Focus stacked image}}

▶ Quick vote here. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

February 18

Where can I find a PD license tag for a work made by a machine?

I can't find it here . Any help is appreciated! Victorgrigas (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: It's covered by {{Pd-ineligible}}. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

I was fixing a sentence with the wrong grammar, but I didn't see any additional comments due to an edit conflict. Sorry.

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted

The part where the problem occurred is as above.

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the page history and there were no edits between your creation of that section and your finishing editing that section. So whatever you did, it did not remove other editor's comments. In other words: no harm done. The request was closed because it looks like those image which could be undeleted had already been undeleted before. --rimshot^talk 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Community board seats - office hours with board members on Saturday

In January, the Wikimedia Foundation Board decided to change its structure. Thus, 6(!) of the now 16 seats on the board will be newly selected by the community this year. The Board is looking for a selection process ensuring more diversity and expertise within the board. The Board would like to gather extensive feedback from the community on this. To this end, there is a Call for Feedback, which is running from 1 February until 14 March. Here you can find detailed information.

In the course of this, many online conversations are held to discuss ideas and opinions on selection processes. A facilitation team collects the feedback, finally delivering a report for the board. Here you can find an overview of previous conversations and talks.

This Saturday, office hours will take place in the presence of board members, at 6 am, 10 am, 4 pm, and 9 pm (UTC). This shall enable everyone to take part and to address questions to board members. Here you can find all the information about it. I would like to invite you to these conversations and would be happy to meet you there. DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

February 19

Updating Videos

Hi! I would like to update few videos I produced and already published on commons with better resolution and choice of compression-container...however files are bigger than allowed so I am curious how to do it? I tried using VideoCut tool but also got warnings and it failed :-( This is a major bottleneck I never expected to come to. Zblace (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maximum file size is 2^32 Bytes (4GiB). MediaWiki stores the filesize in 3 database tables as 32-bit unsigned integer. Therefore larger files would break the website. In princible you could use the AV1-codec in webm containers, but the transcoding of a 4GiB video may take a year, and the wm media handler will not be able to transcode the uploaded file to its maximum resolution download versions as this would be VP9 and therefore larger than 4GiB. You can either split the video in multiple files or reduce the bandwidth until the video fits in 4GiB. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zblace: For overwriting filesizes between 100MiB and 4GiB, I recommend you use User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (doc at User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for tips and insights. Is it possible to upload different video container file if I want to switch between original Ogg-Theora to WebM? I failed to do that via 'update' interface.Zblace (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE it seems it is not an option (at least for me)...and will re-upload via https://Video2Commons.toolforge.org/ -- Zblace (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandal hidden Vandal

This image File:Lord Stanley and daughter.jpg has been vandalised. Cats for Astra Zeneca and Detroit have been added, which have nothing to do with it. The actions have been hidden. Why cant I see the change and how to unhide it? Broichmore (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The change was in the page history. Maybe there was a page refresh issue? --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Both of those categories were added in this edit by Multichill's BotMultichill 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) "using data from CommonSense", although the one for Detroit was changed later from Category:People from Detroit, Michigan to Category:People of Detroit.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There are additions and subtractions (Spanish Civil War?) I just don't see. I've checked this with Chrome and Edge. Is it possible that I have unwittingly got some filter on? Things are very odd from 20 Nov 2019 up to and including 20 March 2020 in particular. There are still oddities there. Government of England, Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange? For a photo of people waiting for a tube train? Broichmore (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: What I see in that time period is that Gbarta removed 6 cats in these 6 edits over the course of 4 minutes on 20 March 2020.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The bot BotMultichill changes in 2008 make sense to it all now. I must admit that the topicality of the Astra Zeneca cat, threw me as well. I never dreamt I had to go further back than last year. Thanks... Broichmore (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing redirects ?

Regardless the file renaming rationale applied (wrong too, IMO): Are these moves deleting redirects [1], [2] [3] properly justified with Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects. This was the answer given by the filemover. Regardless these ones are apparently not files "with an obvious error in the file name", is "a-file-uploaded-more-than-two-years-ago" a recently uploaded file?

I mean, I thought suppressing redirects was meant for very specific cases, and the rule was to keep them. If these file moves are not correct, it may have occurred a lot of incorrect moves, since the user acknowledges "I'm one of the most active filemovers". (c.c. User:Richardkiwi). Strakhov (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A while ago I asked a moderator about complaints of users that I did leave a redirect. I said 'two years or something like that' sounds good to me and the administrator agreed. Also I don't rename files with crit. 4 a lot. I see a lot filemovers do what they think is best. Do they get a message too? I wonder ... - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Strakhov and Richardkiwi: See also Commons talk:File renaming#What is appropriate suppression of redirects?.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jeff G. - A lot of file movers don't follow the rules (not 100%). I see people don't leaving redirect with files 10-15 years old. I will stop taking 2018 as 'recently' and follow the strict rules. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Richardkiwi: The policy does not only say "recently uploaded files" but "with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect" too. Titling a photograph of some city with the name of the city and a numerical identifier from Flickr is not an obvious error. In fact, the default filename when uploading a file from Flickr may be, indeed, a reasonable redirect. Take that into account, please, when attending file name requests. Strakhov (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richardkiwi: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Those deletions are clearly not in line with the policy. People who don't agree with the policy should try to get it changed, but until they have to stick to it. File movers should be made aware (warned) if they break this policy. If they persist after that, their file mover right should be removed. Multichill (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"Recently uploaded" to me implies something uploaded in the last day or two, where it's unlikely that somebody, somewhere, will have made a link to the old name. Two years ago is not "recently uploaded". What is the harm in leaving a redirect anyway? --ghouston (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

+1 to Multichill, Ghouston. Don't remove these. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Videos

Hello! Could someone help me upload a video? I have downloaded it as a mp4, but the Upload Wizard doesn't accept mp4s. DestinationFearFan (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Help:Converting_video. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikitext parser on Commons

Hi all, in quite a few user scripts people manipulate the wikitext on string level by using some more or less advanced find and replace mechanisms. When the wikitext has some specialities, like comments, unusual line breaks, multiple paramters etc. this can either lead to errors or failing replacements. To do such manipulations on a safer way a wikiparser would be helpful. I already found Alternative parsers on mediawiki.org but did not see any that is already hosted on Commons side, so that everyone can use it. But maybe there is another way, that i don't know, to do things like parser.getTemplate("Artwork").addParameter("wikidata", "Q27964733"). Can anyone give me a hint? Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

February 20

Deletion requests completed, but the file has not been deleted.

In November 2020, I requested the deletion of two files. The Missvain closed the topic, but one of the files was not deleted.

I question why the file was not deleted: would it be a mistake by the editor (which is understandable) or was there another reason? I noticed that the editor is two weeks without editing, so I open the topic so that a third party can solve the case. Greetings! Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism on Wikimedia Commons through Wikidata

While browsing I came across this situation:

• 
  A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
• 
  A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
• 
  A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.

Now, for me this wasn't as much an issue. While Wikidata is nearly unworkable while using the Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile operating system recent improvements to the "Mobile view" GUI allowed me to undo this vandalism. Unfortunately, not everyone will be able to do this.

My problem with vandalism on another Wikimedia website affecting Wikimedia Commons is the possibility of a user that is indefinitely blocked on Wikidata seeing vandalism in a Wikidata infobox and then not being able to do something about it. How are they going to report such vandalism? On Wikimedia Commons it can't be changed, perhaps we should tweak the Wikidata infobox to give priority to local information, for example if a vandal on Wikidata changes the title into non-sense a person on Wikimedia Commons that is banned from Wikidata can then tweak the infobox to "{{Wikidata Infobox|title=Category:CORRECT TITLE}}" so Wikimedia Commons won't be affected by Wikidata vandalism. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes on Wikidata can have global cross-wiki impact, none of which will be transparent to local vandal monitoring. It is dangerous, and it is well known.

We tend to avoid talking about it much, firstly because there are a huge number of people in 'functionary' positions who don't want to talk down the use of Wikidata, and secondly because it may encourage long term abusers to have significant public impact, such as through porn-outing of celebrities.

With regard to the specific question, nobody should ever be punished or worried about locally removing templates or the references to wikidata Q codes within a template, if the information is vandalism, harmful or deliberately misleading. Commons volunteers should not be "required" to go fix the problem on Wikidata when it can be switched off here as a first step.

--Fæ (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not just Wikidata, this goes all sides. Let's say an English-language Wikipedia user or English-language Wikisource user sees an obvious copyright © violation being used on “their” project, but they are forever banned from editing Wikimedia Commons. Now all they can do is locally remove them, but any user on that website that doesn't really understand Wikimedia Commons can reinstate the image with a rationale that if the image shouldn't be on Wikimedia Commons that “Wikimedia Commons should decide it”. I’m sure that a user like Alexis Jazz sees Wikimedia Commons copyright © violations on the Enwiki they can't tag the files locally. Perhaps some system should be in place for users that are otherwise in good standing to have access to certain tools or as partial blocks are a thing maybe we can unblock eternally blocked users that have never abused the “Commons:Deletion requests/” and “File:” systems. My problem with cross-wiki issues spilling over is that users excluded from one Wikimedia project are then less capable of addressing them on “their own project”. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ehhh, proof of concept, apparently. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

DEUTSCH / German : quelle:dna? low-res enough?

Hi! I posted and would love to keep in fair-use photo of unfortunatly dead singer (of my favorite song) and found one in German website that is marked with QUELLE:DPA licence...not sure what that is but I cropped it lower res to hopefully be less problematic. Would this do? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diane-charlemagne-ist-tot-_(cropped).jpg --Zblace (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair-use material is not allowed on Commons. You need to check whether the Wikipedia, where you want to use such an image, has an exception policy, such as :en.

DPA (not dna) is a large commercial news agency of Germany, de:Deutsche Presse-Agentur. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for input. Will do that! Zblace (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

File:United States (orthographic projection).svg

I never really noticed it before, but Puerto Rico isn't depicted here as a part of the United States of America 🇺🇸. Now I know that it ain't a state as it's an unincorporated territory of the USA, but that still makes it a part of the country. This opposed to let's say countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand which are all Kingdoms with territories in a personal union with them (such as Greenland, Curaçao, and Niue). According to this map Puerto Rico is a separate country, now I am not sure if an unincorporated territory of the United States is legally considered to be a separate country.

I wanted to open a discussion about this as it's a highly visible file and all information I can find about the territories of the United States is that they are essentially just a part of the country but with less rights and privileges than the states (similar to the territories of Australia and Canada) rather than separate sovereign states. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto for Guam, the Marianas, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. If someone decides to address this, it's not just Puerto Rico.
• FWIW, though I'm all for statehood or independence for Puerto Rico, it's not as simple as "less rights and privileges." Certainly different rights and privileges, but (for example) some real advantages for businesses in terms of federal taxes. No, I wouldn't give up my right to vote for the presidency or have representation in Congress, but it is actually kind of complicated, there are reasons why statehood referenda have failed in the past. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Regardless if the full US constitution applies or not, from what I could find about unincorporated territories of the United States they are still legally part of the USA in every aspect other than some laws applying to them and others don't. While the term "unincorporated territory" was created to essentially register annexed Spanish India (Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Etc.) differently from territories annexed from places with the same culture as America (France and Mexico) which were "incorporated territories", they are only legally different based on internal US laws and for the sake of sovereign states are as much part of the US as New Jersey or Boston. Also, the map doesn't exclusively list US states as Washington (the District of Columbia) isn't excluded from the map. This isn't about statehood but the sovereign territory of the United States government. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some examples for reference:

• 
  This map of France includes French Guyana, which yes, is an overseas department without a special status.
• 
  The English-language Wikipedia article puts this map in its article about the Netherlands (the "Land" of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands), unlike France, the Dutch treat the BES islands in the same way as the USA treat its insular territories with them being legally distinct, but they are not excluded from the map.

In the end it's not about Puerto Rico being a state or not, it's about it actually being a part of the United States of America while still being excluded from the map 🗺 that is used on almost every article or page related to the country. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing is stopping anyone from making another U.S. map, but this is a discussion that should be taking place on Wikipedia(s). Different maps have different purposes, and whichever map is used in a given article should be determined by consensus on the Talk page of that article. File:US insular areas.svg is a toggle map in the United States infobox, and the legend specifies the different legal statuses. Pan-France would look more like File:France-Constituent-Lands.png or File:France in the World (+Antarctica claims).svg. Commons can host a variety of maps, but Commons isn't really the place to start open-ended geo-political discussions. --Animalparty (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Commons should not be picking at this particular nit. If Wikis want a more complete map they can make/use a different file.  Mysterymanblue  04:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the orthographic map used on almost every Wikimedia wiki that discusses the United States of America uses this orthographic map which clearly includes the island of Puerto Rico but leaves it gray. This is simply an inaccurate map, I'm not asking to include Guam or any other territories in other hemispheres to that map. As the file is hosted on Wikimedia Commons I fail to see why a discussion about it shouldn't happen here, furthermore, I am not asking for a new file to be created, only for the current one to be updated. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

February 21

Systematic disregard by administrators of rule violations (is Wikimedia not a multilingual project anymore?)

Dear colleagues, I would like to ask you about an appropriate way to solve the problem I'm facing here. Recently User:Ymblanter called one of Belarusian word a «slur» and removed this word from filename and file description. This administrator has no knowledge of Belarusian, but he believes that Russian speakers can decide which Belarusian word to use or not in Belarusian filenames and file descriptions. You can see my arguments here against this totally sick opinion (that looks like an open manifestation of en:Chauvinism), as well as repeated insults from the mentioned user of Belarusian language, Belarusian linguists and especially Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia. As an administrator of this local community I cannot ignore such statements, and also cannot ignore attempts to restrict usage of normal (presented in dictionaries, books, articles) Belarusian words here just because some Russians believe that Belarusians shouldn't use these words (that is actually part of en:Russification). Unfortunately, this situation has formally ignored by other administrators instead of immediate reverting edits by User:Ymblanter that were obviously against Commons:File naming and Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. I've already had the experience of disregarding by administrators of the mentioned rule violations when my requests on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard were just archived without any response. That's why I need to think forward about other possible ways of making things normal here. As I see now, these ways are as follows:

1. Starting Commons:RFC (but it is usually concerns changing the policies and guidelines and I'm totally OK with the current ones, all I need is to get others follow them)
2. Starting Commons:Administrators/De-adminship for User:Ymblanter (but because of systematic disregard by administrators of rule violations I'm not sure about mentioned there "consensus for removal" and even if reach the goal, it won't prevent me from facing the similar challenges in the future)
3. Applying for Commons:Administrators/Requests (it allows me to continue normal work in the project without fighting for what should be an actual default state, but an applicant should have administrative technical edits)

So I ask experienced (in the local community questions) users to help me find an appropriate solutions to the problem. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat in response to this forum shopping that if this accident happened at the English Wikipedia, where I am reasonably active, Kazimier Lachnovič would likely have been indefititely blocked by now. More of my considerations are found at the venue of the original complaint.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is not a multilingual project, and Belarusian (both official and classical standards) is not allowed there, so the provided comparison is inappropriate and obviously absurd. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Kazimier Lachnovič: Why are you opening this discussion on the Village pump while Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ymblanter is still open? You don't seem even to have mentioned there that you are expanding the discussion to a separate page, let alone gotten any trace of consensus to do so.
• Everyone else: unless and until Kazimier Lachnovič gives a reasonable answer to that question, I suggest that this conversation continue where it started, not here.
• Also, Kazimier, if you believe w:en:Moskal is incorrect in describing маскал as slur in Belorusian, you might take that up at w:en:Talk:Moskal, preferably with citations. No, en-wiki is not a multilingual project in terms of writing, but it is in terms of citations. I realize it may be difficult to find and cite someone saying explicitly that it is not a slur, but at least you should be able to find examples of clearly non-polemical contexts in which it is used by, for example, a news reporter or an academic. - Jmabel ! talk 11:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• p.s. No idea what you mean by "archived without any response." That appears to be an open discussion at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, "archived without any response" means what it means (and here as well). How can I be sure that it will not happen this time? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: I've fixed the misleading statement in w:en:Moskal: the source was provided only for Russian "moskal" (not Belarusian "maskal"). For the record, I still believe that the internal language issues should be resolved within the respective local Wikipedia communities, but I really don't know how to make things right here. Moreover, for the matters of curiosity I've also checked Russian w:ru:Москаль, and the most interesting thing is that even in the Russian Wikipedia (which I could say is "usurped by a clique of ultra-nationalists" just like my opponent said about the Belarusian Wikipedia) there is no evidence that Belarusian "maskal" (by itself) is a "slur". So it looks like the situation becomes more and more absurd and I have no idea why I have to fight here with obvious absurd. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view: commons does not censor. the original filename should be restored, unless credible Belarusian or third-party (i.e. not from russian/belarus/poland/ukraine) sources confirming that the word маскаліза́цыя (not the word маскаль) is a slur are presented here. my 2 cents.--RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's right, from a linguistic point of view, "маскаль" and "маскалізацыя" are not the same word and can be used in completely different contexts. But I'm no longer sure that any reasonable clarification will somehow be accepted by local administrators. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

What about my example given in the original thread "Nigger (African American)"? Or, for example, "Faggot (gay)" - should we consider this not to be offensive unless a straight person confirms this is a slur?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This dictionary says (no. 176): the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if one uses slur.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a draft of Źmicier Saŭka author's dictionary (Belarusian: Гэта чарнавік аўтарскага слоўніку Зьмітра Саўкі). And Źmicier Saŭka never published this dictionary officially because he passed away in 2016. So this draft dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I just say that it's not even w:en:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. It's just a draft that was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

So he did not really know whether maskal is a slur or not, and was planning to check this before publication? And if it were published, maskal would become a slur, but now it is not? Seriously?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a typo in a category

Hi, I just noticed that Category:Struwelpeterbrunnen has a typo, should be spelled with -ww-: Struwwelpeterbrunnen. (See w:Struwwelpeter or this tourist info page.) Not sure how to fix this, though. --Jonas kork (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Jonas kork: The normal way to request an uncontroversial category move is User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, but I'll take care of this one. It will take a while to take effect, because I need to put it in a bot queue. - Jmabel ! talk 11:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Jonas kork and Jmabel: I moved the cat and files.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! --Jonas kork (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 11:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Query about "Category:PD-URAA tag needs updating"

I have included in licence details on some photos I have uploaded: {{PD-URAA |pdsource=yes}}. I have subsequently found that a category: "PD-URAA tag needs updating" has been applied. The Commons page: "Category:PD-URAA tag needs updating" gives no information about what upadting is needed or how the original application of PD-URAA was defective. Can anyone put me out of my ignorance? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)