Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
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.

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 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.
  2. Have you read our 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


Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

August 24[edit]

Category:History of the European Union by year[edit]

Hi folks, this is Europe writing. We have this strange category Category:History of the European Union by year that includes images from far before the EC was founded. IMHO we should restrict the use of this category and its subcategories to a defined starting point (foundation of the EC, eventually one of its predecessors) and also restrict the images per country only after a country joined the EC (and needless to say: only till a country left the EC). other opinions? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Herzi Pinki, it should also be changed to other categories like this: Category:1942 in Yugoslavia, Category:1532 in the United States, Category:1908 in Austria (=> Category:1908 in Austria-Hungary), ... --GT1976 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but leave {{category redirect}} behind, because many people accidentally place files there, so without the redirect it will be a constant battle against well intending contributors. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
sorry, Gone_Postal, I'm missing an idea where to redirect. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree basically with what User:Martin H. already said in 2010: The whole category and all its subcategories don't make sense as they are now, since the overwhelming majority of the media in there are not about the history of the European Union. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I read that discussion that was closed due to missing engagement (with the decision to delete those categories and keep them because of harmlessness), I agree that something has to be done also for the time a state is in the EC and the EC is in modus operandi. Two different points, while my primary pledge was to delete by-year categories for years there wasn't such a thing as EC, maybe we should reopen the CfD for the later years. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's two different points. However, a decision about the overall category might make a discussion about the pre-EU years obsolete, if for example it's decided to delete these categories alltogether. Anyway, I'm fine with either way of continuing. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree to do what Herzi Pinki proposed, regardless of there will be later - or not - decisions to other points, because of its not clear, if or when that will be. Many greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Flickr images where the Wikimedia user is the Flickr user?[edit]

Occasionally, a Commons or Wikipedia user uploads an image here and they give a flickr URL for it. They clearly state here that they are one in the same with the flickr user, their username matches the flickr user name, etc, and they have completely convinced us that they are the same person. But whereas they picked a free license here, they uploaded it to flickr as "all rights reserved". Is there an SOP for how to handle such images? Do we simply not put a {{flickrreview}} template on it at all? --B (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Depending on the admin such files are either ignored or deleted as COM:NETCOPYVIO while waiting for OTRS. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
if they uploaded with a free license here, why review at all? just to drive up deletion totals? need to document why you might think the uploader is not the photographer - for that is your only deletion rationale, not some vindictive off wiki reason. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we certainly shouldn't be deleting images where we are completely convinced in some fashion that the flickr user = the Wikipedian (OTRS, long-time established user, self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian, etc). It would be nice if there was something that we could use to indicate "yes, this flickr page doesn't match what is here, but we know because xyz that this uploader is the flickr user and so we don't care". --B (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
well, it is not that we don't care, it is we have a nuanced view of the messy reality of licenses on the web. you could put on a maintenance category "different license elsewhere on web," but i'm sure some would view that as a "license review" prod, just like contradictory exif. expecting one consistent license on each image is unrealistic. forcing uploaders to change licenses elsewhere, by deletion here is a vindictive way to "promote free culture", bound to be counter-productive. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@B: In case of "self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian" or OTRS, {{licensereview}} should work. But this supposed Flickr issue isn't a Flickr issue. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue winged leafbird.jpg. Trusted user with thousands of photos, upload tagged with PD-self in 2006 (when that was common and acceptable), yet we are looking at a DR. Because.. I don't have a fucking clue. We're looking at a DR. That's a fact. As I said, it depends on the admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
i have a clue: some here want to destroy what they cannot create; they do not play well with others, and are enabled; because no one wants to invest the emotional labor, to get a professional standard of practice; hence the perpetual clown car. we do not have a license quality improvement process, because some are incapable of collaboration. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If someone just tags it as {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}, then there is no claim of authorship at all. We don't know if they are saying "I made this and proclaim it to be {PD, GFDL}", "I found this on some website which proclaims it to be {PD, GFDL}", or "everything on the internet is public domain, right?" But PD-self is an affirmative claim of authorship. Obviously that claim can be challenged if it seems unlikely (no EXIF data, lots of copyvios, professional-quality image and no other uploads, found elsewhere on the internet prior to it being uploaded here), but it is a claim of authorship that should be sufficient barring evidence to the contrary. So I don't understand this DR at all. --B (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on how I handle similar issues for Geograph images, I'd make the source {{own}}, remove any licence review template, and add a link to indicate that the same image is also available on Flickr. For Geograph we have {{also geograph}} for that last part: I don't know if an equivalent exists for Flickr. --bjh21 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Logo with wrong licence[edit]


About File:TM2_Canyon_-_Logo.png :

This logo had a wrong licence. This is not a Free Art License, but a "classic" video game logo. This logo has been released by Ubisoft at E3 2011 and it has been shown on a french video gamle website june 7, 2011 [1]. The file have been uploaded the same day here at Commons website.

I think the texture logo is above threshold of originality. And copyright olders are Nadeo/Ubisoft (game developper/game publisher).

Cab someone start a deletion request ? I'm sorry i have got no time at all to do this.

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pressing 'Nominate for deletion' link on the right when viewing the image actually takes less time than leaving a comment here explaining that you do not have time to do that. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think if you did it would have took even less time to write this. funny. I don't see any deletion button.
So now, do what you want with this thing. I did the job. I don't contribute anymore to Commons project, other than upload files i need. And if it's all you can do or answer, it's all good, keep this file, i don't care with this. --Archimëa (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this file. If you do not see a link "Nominate for deletion" then you can take the time to learn how to use your browser. Go to any page on Commons, press Ctrl+F (on most browsers) and type "Nominate for deletion", the browser will actually find it for you. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


I am requesting this to be moved to Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (internal) as this is for internal wikis. What if it's used on an external site without overwriting allowed? Then Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external) may be better, even if it's used as the background-image property in w:Cascading Style Sheets. Keep in mind, though, that the creators of sites that embed these images from the subdomain might have to be contacted so the creators of the sites know that every time they add a new image to the site, they might have to add the template to the associated page. 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Why not just create {{please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external)}} right now? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't want the page deleted and this IP address warned. 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support creation of such a template. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Bleach works/Bleacheries[edit]

Is there any intentional difference between Category:Bleach works and Category:Bleacheries? If so, what is it? - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ies, Marcbela, Verne Equinox:. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the description of File:Ogden Mill, Newhey - - 372272.jpg and the wiktionary entry for bleachworks, I'd say that bleachworks produce bleach, while bleacheries do the bleaching (of textile). On a second thought, scrap that. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. When I made Category:Bleacheries I probably didn't detected the already existing Category:Bleach works. Or maybe I got fooled by its somewhat misleading categories. As far as I see the content of both categories is same (with the exception of a quarry). I think they can be merged. -- Ies (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a strong sense of which would be the preferred term? I never heard "bleacheries" before. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Acc. to Wiktionary a bleachery (plural bleacheries) is a place or an establishment where bleaching is done. And here is a reference: en:Fall River Bleachery.

Apologies for the accidental revert. To complicate things a bit further, there is also Category:Bleachfields for the pre-chemical bleaching industry. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And is that definition of a bleachery in any way different from a bleach works? Because that is exactly how I would have defined that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems no difference between them. However, online and in my books I can't find any definition of "bleach work" and hardly any reference for it. "Bleachery" seems the commonly used term and "bleach work" just a locally preferred synonym for it. Anyhow, both categories contain images of establishments where bleaching is done and therefore should be merged. In my opinion the content of Category:Bleach works should be moved to Category:Bleacheries. Any reasoned objections? -- Ies (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
In expressions of the form a (commodity) works, “works” is invariably plural; here it’s a mainly-UK term for a factory. So I’m not surprised it couldn’t be found in the singular, and it might not appear at all in American sources.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that; the only downside is the loss of parallel wording to Category:Dye works. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

Delete template cannot be seen while logged in[edit]

MAKEKA has been nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/MAKEKA. While I am logged in, I cannot see the nomination page, but when I log out, I can see it. I tested it in both Firefox and Chrome as well as with a brand new account. Any ideas? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Wikimedia parser broke. Reparsing solved it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Do we have a policy specifically prohibiting sockpuppetry? I can't find anything; there's no link at Commons:SPI, for example, and that page has a note saying It is forbidden to use multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Such accounts will be blocked. Seems to me that it would help to have something of a sockpuppetry policy, even if it's as simple as saying "en:WP:SOCK is now our sockpuppetry policy" or making the two-sentence note on COM:SPI the entire policy. It's a common-sense concept, at least for anyone familiar with other WMF projects, so I don't think we ought to put effort into writing a policy, but since many other projects have policies on the subject, it would be helpful to designate something as our equivalent. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, by definition, is the use of multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Indeed, alternative accounts are not disallowed; sockpuppetry is the abusive use of alternative/multiple accounts. The SPI quote alone is a prohibition and COM:BLOCK has the explicit reason "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions." Sockpuppetry is not allowed by policy (COM:BLOCK), and that has been, and is, the current practice. What about the current handling of socks needs to be changed? What actual problem needs to be resolved here? Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
gosh, what a wonderful idea to just import tl;dr policy from english, and the english drama. if you are serious, start a Commons:Village pump/Proposals. but i do not think you have a consensus. not broken = don't fix. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42[edit]

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

How to convince others to licence without non-commercial?[edit]

When trying to obtain photos on a platform, answering a query as to why Wiki has to reject licences including non-commericial, I wrote: "Wikipedia has been forced to create strict policies on licences by court cases it has lost, that made Wikipedia responsible for misuse by third parties. I do not know the details. It tries to convince users with objections against its ban on non-commercial use conditions with this cartoon:"

The unexpected response was: "Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Now all we need to know is what "inexpensive" means in terms of books and CDs, and how many billion copies they will sell ..."

I'm unsure how to do this properly. Perhaps someone has got some advice. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Non-commercial licenses prevent reuse in most cases. A blog with advertising, a book sold in a bookshop, a documentary on TV, etc., all these require a commercial license, even if the primary objective of the publication is educational. So practically, a license which allows reuse for commercial purpose is needed in almost every case. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That cartoon is really dire and should be deleted. There is some info on what "non commercial" means at CC FAQ and CC FAQ Mix and Defining Noncommercial and NonCommercial interpretation. I don't think court cases are a factor at all. The point of Wikipedia and Commons are to be "free content" projects where the work (text, image, video, etc) can be freely reused by anyone for any purpose. As Yann notes, a surprising number of situations are commercial-use. I think that as a photographer you have to ask what you are trying to achieve with your photography. If you are trying to make a living from it, by selling images, then the images you feel have commercial value should of course not be given away with a free licence. Perhaps still there are images you've made that you don't see yourself making money from but have sufficient educational value that Wikipedia or others might find them useful. But an awful lot of photographers do it as a hobby and are not dependent on selling images to pay their mortgage. I say then that if you are not planning to make money from your photo, what harm does it do if someone else does? Far better to let others use and enjoy your photos for the biggest audience. And normal "(c) All rights reserved" means your photos cannot be used by anyone else for 70 years after you die. So unless you become a famous wealthy photographer with lawyers to manage your estate when dead, all you've done is ensure virtually nobody will use and enjoy your photos till the next century! Which is such a waste. Lastly, having a CC licence doesn't eliminate the chance of being paid for your work. There are companies who may want to use your image in a way that they don't want to have to provide even minimal attribution and licence details, and are willing to pay. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Technically yes. But as a non-profit, Wikimedia Foundation is they're legally obligated to spend any profit fully to support their stated purpose by, for instance, purchasing access deals from pay-to-read journals for some elite class of editors, updating and maintaining their servers, hiring lawyers to sort out the sort of legal jumbles that arise in such a huge co-operation of volunteers (and vandals) from the world over, hiring developers to maintain and improve the software the sites operate on, etc etc.
More importantly, trying to sell any content or media published in Wikimedia Foundation projects--like Commons photos or Wikipedia articles--is like selling salt water by the sea. A lesson in supply and demand. The supply is endless and available for free for anyone that can access the Net. To create demand you'd really have to add value--like hard cover books for people who really, really dislike reading on screens. Not much of a market potential there if you ask me. Releasing any rights on intellectual property is irrevocable, so Wikimedia Foundation cannot restrict the licensing on their published content--they don't own it, it's free now and forever--they're just providing some sites and systems people can use to find them. Even if the Foundation was put down tomorrow and the sites went permanently down--anyone would be free to publish the stuff on mirror sites. As a matter of fact, there already are multiple sites that mirror Wikipedia letter-to-letter.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that non-commercial licensed media cannot be used in things like educational pamphlets, print-outs for workshops or courses, USB drive books or any other knowledge distribution if the publisher needs to accept any sort of payment from distributors or end users to help cover costs or prevent the Free Stuff Syndrome. Not just here where Internet is pm everywhere and charities to help out disadvantaged people have plenty of wealth around them to ask donations from. But in developing countries where conflict, remoteness, extreme wealth disparity, political issues, and sparser infrastructure can make spreading of knowledge a real challenge and demand stuff like print materials, fuel, fees... By releasing without non-commercial, the media can be used by the locals to educate their neighbors and countrymen without restricting their options for supporting the operation financially. --Pitke (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
i would not waste time trying to convince; rather, work with the willing. i am sympathetic to the use of NC, when you have re-users not attributing SA images, and sending collection letters to photographers who donate images to the public domain, but you are not going to convince people whose pecuniary interest is to collect fees. we lost that battle. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
People ask a reasonable question "Why do I have to avoid -NC if Wikipedia is not commercial?" They deserve a better answer than that Wikipedia might sell the content on DVD or a book. Wikipedia killed off Encarta, the last encyclopaedia on a DVD, and Encyclopædia Britannica's last print edition was 2010. Wikipedia doesn't even publish content any more than MS Windows publishes an operating system. If you follow the photography forums, especially US ones, there is a mindset where absolute amateurs are desperate to watermark their Flickr or 500px photos just in case someone in Hong Kong sticks it on a calendar and makes a dollar from their work. Both Wikipedia and Commons are Free Content projects, and that concept deserves an better explanation. The software world went through the same confusion, distrust and eventually reached understanding and acceptance. -- Colin (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
we do not have better explanations because it is ideology, not reason. barriers to sharing, assume you believe in a sharing economy and scholarship. for those who believe in commerce and pay to play models, the sharing ideology is a non-starter. we do not have good reasons to favor SA and not NC, it is an ideological choice. reasonable people very well could have chosen to have NC on commons.
in addition, "They deserve a better answer" and they will not get it. "Free Content projects, and that concept deserves an better explanation." reasonable people could be Open, but not here. no need for explanations, when you can block people. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I accidentally removed an edit here and can't undo it now because the section has been altered. Feel free to re-add what I removed, and sorry again for the inconvenience. --Rosenzweig τ 21:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
here your go Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Community policy for 3D object uploads (request from WMF Legal)[edit]


We at Foundation Legal would like to request that the community make a policy regarding 3D files, in particular addressing how weapons and other people’s inventions might be handled, and perhaps more generally addressing what types of files you all would accept of these file formats.

Uploads of STL files were turned on early in 2018. Right now, 3D files make up a small number of uploads, so we think this is a good time to address some of the issues that these files can present proactively, rather than waiting for a problem to occur. The thing that made us think about this topic is the recent news about the Defense Distributed case in which the owner of plans for a 3D gun has been making heavy efforts to try and get them online. The STL format probably isn’t great for this, but we don’t know what sorts of things someone might try to upload. Even lower resolution files could have information for making some types of weapons or perhaps certain parts of weapons that do not require high resolution imagery that are prohibited by law, or for making objects covered by someone else’s patent.

The Defense Distributed case might also lead lawmakers in the United States to introduce new bills about 3D printed weapons. There’s a chance this will lead to further restrictions on the types of content platforms like Wikimedia can host. The recent passage of FOSTA (amending CDA 230) and general interest in additional internet regulations in the United States also make this possibility more likely. A proactive policy on Commons would be a good way to show how user-driven content policies can address problems online much faster and better than legislation.

We think it would save the Foundation and the community some significant headache to address this now before a problem occurs. This is because the issues with 3D files fall into a narrow category of intellectual property and criminal laws that are not covered by either the DMCA or Section 230, which could mean that if a problem occurs, the Foundation would have to intervene (or even turn off the feature in a particularly bad situation) before a community policy could be made.

We’ve offered some information and background on our wikilegal page about 3D files that might be helpful, and are appreciative of any review you’re all able to do in this area.

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone provide a link to the previous discussion about this issue? Thanks -- (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
To some extent Commons already has a policy, namely Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. That policy already acknowledges while, in general, Commons considers non-copyright restrictions to not be grounds for deletion of works from Commons, certain works will nonetheless be illegal for Commons to host. A very brief mention of patents is already at that page, but no specific mention of 3D printing of the objects depicted in 3D files possibly infringing on patents and definitely no mention of 3D printable weapons. It seems reasonable that we should, at the very least:
  1. Add a mention of 3D printable weapons to Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Non-copyright_restrictions_that_directly_affect_Commons.
  2. Add new non-copyright restriction tags for 3D files depicting objects that if they were 3D printed might be considered patent infringement or weapons manufacturing. The tags might perhaps be {{3D Patented}} (along the lines of {{Trademarked}}) and {{3D Weapon}} (along the lines of {{Personality rights}}).
This would allow us to begin to track such files and respond to evolving Commons policy for 3D files (or, if necessary, respond to changes in US law in this area). We should be careful to word any policy in this area to be confined to 3D file types, as freely licensed photos and illustrations depicting patented objects or weapons are very unlikely to be subject to the same restrictions. It sounds like the WMF is encouraging Commons to do more than this (i.e. craft an explicit policy along the lines of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), but I think we should at least start with the two items I mention above (assuming there aren't any objections to recognizing that 3D files might be subject to new forms of non-copyright restriction not currently mentioned in Commons policy). —RP88 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Washington Kennedy[edit]

Is there any supervisor of volunteers with whom I can discuss these photos? As I have stated repeatedly, I am the sole heir of the Kennedy Estate, and as such, the owner of the copyrights of these photos. Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Kennedy are deceased, and their photos date back to the 1940s. I have submitted their Last Will and Testament as proof.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina07011960 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nina07011960: You can write to; however, I remind you that the subject of a photo does not normally hold a copyright, the photographer does. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • i see youhave uploaded a fair use image on english wikipedia here [6], you may have to do the same for your other image [7]. a transfer such as fairusebot could work, but that would require a helpful admin. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate method of requesting edits to the live MOTD[edit]

Today's MOTD had an ungrammatical caption. I proposed an edit request at Template_talk:Motd/2018-10-16_(en), since Talk:Main Page suggests going to the equivalent page for a POTD problem, but it took about 10 hours for the request to be noticed by an administrator. Given that this sort of error should ideally be fixed significantly faster, what is the correct course of action for reporting an error with MOTD, and could something suitable be stated in the header of Talk:Main Page? GKFXtalk 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just post such requests on COM:AN. Or here. IMO this is the fastest way. --jdx Re: 22:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

File:Manji swastika symbol with idols in Kyoto Japan.jpg[edit]

This file contains the mirrored Nazi symbol, and the number of tiles in it is also an abbreviation for the year, in which the bad part of German history begins, but there is no warning for users in Germany. -- 05:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading the cultural context. Rama (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
And should Category:Swastikas be added to Category:Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen? I know, that the use of such files can sometimes cause criminal persecution. -- 06:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There may be some sort of issue with German (or other European) laws here, but certainly in the Japanese context there is approximately zero chance that this has any relation to Nazism. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving image dropdown problem?[edit]

I tried to move an image today but when clicking 'select a reason' the dropdown did not appear... it just repeated 'select a reason' highlighted in blue. I experimented with a couple of other files but the same thing happened. Is there an anomaly or is it just me!? (I tried purging and re-loading). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two "move" options. The first one is just to move the image. There is no any dropdown menu for selecting the reason. The second "move" option is actually to request a move but not to move anything and it has a dropdown menu for selecting the reason. (It works fine for me.) I suppose that you are asking about the latter as you are not a filemover? Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes the second method. I tried it a few times during the day, with the same result but not after about 18:00 (UTC). However, I just tried it again and whatever was wrong... it's fine now. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commonshelper doesn't work[edit]

Doesn't seem to work. Is it just me? Does Magnus Manske maintain this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It ded. GMGtalk 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We screwed. Magnus rarely responds to anything. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible for another volunteer or someone from the Foundation to usurp the tool? Helper is essential when transferring files from projects where you don't speak the language. GMGtalk 15:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I concur that it appears to be dead and that Magnus is responsible for it. I filed a ticket at   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Eventually all tools will die this way. Sadly so will we, but let's not think about that too much. -- (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Collective account for technical edits[edit]

It may be a trivial question, but I can't find the answer in the policy pages. Is it allowed to have a user account that is not linked to a single person but belongs to a group of people? Specifically, there is a group of people organizing Wiki Loves Monuments in a given country, and they would like to have a joint account for making technical edits related to this competition (sort and categorize photos, greet new participants, etc.) Such an account won't be used for uploads, policy discussions, and similar activities. This will be stated clearly on the user page. Would it be fine, or not? --Alexander (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the answer is "technically no", it's forbidden by the TOU, but Commons has allowed them occasionally anyway. GMGtalk 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy to forbid it, either in the wmf:Terms of Use or in Commons:Username policy. Policy on other Wikimedia sites varies, so for instance such an account couldn't be used on English Wikipedia because en:Wikipedia:Username policy forbids sharing of accounts. --bjh21 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The TOU states You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should never disclose it to any third party. Presumably, any shared account would also have a shared password. Therefore TOU violation. GMGtalk 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I admit that I hadn't spotted that rule, but it doesn't prevent shared accounts. Even if "you" in the TOU can't be plural, one could use OAuth to grant API access, or have a proxy that handled authentication, or simply have one person log in multiple browser profiles with "Keep me logged in" ticked. On the other hand, I agree with Fæ below that this is probably not a good idea even if it's permitted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Computer magic. GMGtalk 15:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Avoid it please. It's easy enough to set up a series of grouped accounts like "Alan (WLF 2018)", "Alice (WLF 2018)" and "retire" the special purpose accounts when you are done with them. If something goes wrong, such as one user appearing to disrupt the project, then there is no individual accountability for the actions taken by a multi-user account. Putting aside the non-accountability in a sockpuppetry case, it becomes impossible to, say, mass revert damage without mass reverting similar changes (or uploads) in the same period from other users. -- (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
+1 -- User: Perhelion 19:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

General upload frustration[edit]

I know no one will care, but I still just need to express my frustration after carefully picking the best available photos from a large bunch (horrible lighting and lousy camera, but I can't do much about that, it's either that or nothing), then trying to carefully document a series of photos during the upload so all the main information would be in the description, in the filename, and categories (which of the seven musicians standing in a row is which?) - only to get an error message that the file names are too long and no, they can't be automatically shortened, I can't get a chance to rename them, nah, all my work is just scrapped and will have to start over because someone who wrote the uploader didn't give a jimmy about the other people's work. Well, I'll try to recall which ones I chose, throw in some general description and shut the browser because, honestly, if no one else cares, neither will I. I know Commons is hopelessly broken, so why do I keep coming back? I have no idea. --Ehitaja (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to care, but what upload method did you use? Both the Upload Wizard and the old Upload form seem to fail gracefully when presented with a stupidly long filename, preserving all the other data I've entered. --bjh21 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
With further testing, I've found that the Upload Wizard fails slightly messily if I actually try to submit an image with a 250-character filename. I can click "Back" and then "Next" and all my metadata are still there, but there's no indication that some of my files were uploaded successfully. I'll see if I can work out where to report this. --bjh21 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reported this as a bug (phab:T207336). --bjh21 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
TBH, it would be sensible if the standard upload wizard gave a warning to users when they are trying to enter more than, say, 5 or 6 images that they may want to save their work in small batches. Browser failures are common and can be very frustrating, let alone unpredictable server failures etc. Alternatively, the wizard might provide a helpful link to COM:Upload tools so that newbies are aware that other methods exist. -- (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ehitaja: I feel your pain, but I hope you can make a lesson out of this: When uploading to Commons, use Special:Upload, Commons:VicuñaUploader, or Commons:Pattypan — not Special:UploadWizard: that is hopelessly broken. As for no one caring about your predicament, that’s an unfair and untrue aspersion, although, even with all my admiration and support for people caring about categorization and documentation and other forms of curation, even of photos with horrible lighting from lousy cameras, you did lost me at long filenames.
As a general advice for anyone in this same situation, though, I’ll say it doesn’t have to be all done in one go while uploading: First, name your files offline, in your own computer, with the names they will have in Commons, then upload everything caring only for an acceptable license and adding each file to a single bundle cat which can be even a red cat, and then, once it’s uploaded, do all your curation as regular wiki editing, on the files in that cat.
-- Tuválkin 08:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
No to draw out the discussion, I'd still quickly explain my personal reasoning behind long filenames. Pictures uploaded to Commons tend to have a lot of adventures on the Internet where, quite often, nobody bothers with metadata. I can resign to letting go of my authorship, any kind of attribution and licensing (yeah, it's important but there ain't much hope to change the humanity), but I still consider metadata relevant (e.g., who is on the photo, when and where). The best chance at attaching metadata to the photo as fast as possible is writing it in the filename. Most people who reuse the photos in traditional or social media won't bother renaming them (filenames come along by default, licenses etc won't, and humans are lazy), so there's a better chance that they use the descriptions given in the filename, not inventing some general crap. The chances aren't big but it's something, at least. Also, it is much more comfy to use a photo in the wikitext when its name already says everything and you won't have to check whether you wanted Someguy12345678.jpg or Someguy12345679.jpg --Ehitaja (talk) 09:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
As with many "simple" questions, "how to name a file" is far more complex to do well on this project than it first appears. You may find it helpful to browse through some of the project pages at User:Fæ/Project_list as many of the projects have specific naming and template mapping schemesjust for that project. In general it's good to have a maximum of 200 characters (which approaches the limit which varies by character set) and for readability aim for fewer than 100. The scheme should go left to right from the specific to general; the most used cases being <title> + <unique identity>. However filename is not a good way to present metadata - if you are worried about metadata always persisting with the image, you should investigate how to use EXIF data on the file and how to manipulate that with offline tools before uploading to Commons. Embedding data this way will make it possible for you to track reuse elsewhere, even if the filename or file page text is lost by the reuser.
An old but interesting example is User:Fæ/Projects/Xeno-canto, from when MP3 files were not hosted on Commons, so I re-encoded the audio to ogg format and fed as much metadata as possible into the recoding in a similar way to EXIF data which sits as an invisible "header" to the file. Consequently if a user downloads and reuses a file like Haemorhous mexicanus - House Finch XC99546.ogg, their audio player should be able to display the original source URL, author, date, location and more. Unless they deliberately recode the file, this metadata will stay with the file wherever it goes. -- (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Commons images on without attribution[edit]

There are lots of Commons images without attribution on

In the past this kind of thing has led to deletion requests, because someone thought that the Commons image is stolen from the image collector (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manny Pacquiao weigh-in.jpg). There is some danger that this might lead to premature deletions. So if there is a way to list this site as untrustworty, I hope someone will do this. Probably no one has time to deal with the copyright violations, but who knows. Here is a rant I found about the page: See also: Commons talk:How Alamy is stealing your images Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 00:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The only person who can pursue a copyright claim is the copyright holder.
  • If you like, though, you can use {{published}} on the relevant file talk page and indicate illegal reuse. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Watchduck, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. I added it to COM:CLONE for now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I sent them 25 DMCA notices for images in this set, and should hear from them within a week. There would be nothing unusual about bundling copyright complaints, and affected users could be notified and opt in if they want. The question is whether or not it is worth the effort. I suppose this boils down to three questions: Is this commercial use, how much money do they owe for it, and do they have it? But I guess the answer to the last question is no. Watchduck (quack) 20:04, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • From a couple of searches on random heraldic terms it appears they’ve also misappropriated some of Sodacan’s work. While I’m of the opinion that generic, traditional heraldic devices (and standard compositions thereof) should not be subject to copyright, I believe that artists with a distinctive style deserve attribution.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic images containing Nazi swastikas[edit]

Why has {{Swastika}} been removed from File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051620-0043, Hitler, Göring und v. Schirach auf Obersalzberg.jpg, but not from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-12078, Adolf Hitler und Anton Franzen.jpg? -- 07:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
And should all historic images containing Nazi swastikas be tagged with {{Swastika}}? -- 14:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I believe they should. Does anyone disagree? - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say that Western uses definitely should, the thing is that the swastika as the symbol is used by many other cultures as well, should they all be marked? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 18:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The operative term here is "Nazi swastikas". Obviously, a Japanese or Navajo swastika is an entirely different matter. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Suspected embedded data for my image[edit]

Our house's frontyard

File:Our house's frontyard.jpg has been tagged with {{embedded data}}, but I don't know what to do, since I'm pretty sure I took it with my phone. --stranger195 🇵🇭 (talk(please ping)contribsguestbook) 11:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Stranger195: what is "GPEncoder"? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I don't know. I just took it on my phone. A search engine result turns up almost nothing, although this might be it, "an encoder AVI to MPG4". Don't know how a JPEG uses that though. --stranger195 🇵🇭 (talk(please ping)contribsguestbook) 12:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Stranger195, Zhuyifei1999.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Stranger195: There's 95KB of junk tacked on to the file, probably compressed media. Can't say much else about it, but I doubt your phone produces files like this out of the box. What model phone do you have and what app do you use to take pictures? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Also: how is this blurry image of a nondescript yard in scope? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It's too blurry to be credibly usable.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

The MediaWiki Upload Wizard should utilise redirects[edit]

Since there isn't a Commons:Village pump/Technical I wrote this in the Phabrocator (see attaches ticket 🎟):

"One major difference between Wikimedia Commons and every other Wikimedia project is that not only are redirects essentially useless, they’re also annoying as [redacted]. Now this wouldn’t as annoying if the MediaWiki Upload Wizard would ignore them… but it doesn’t, nor does it actually warn users about the fact that they just selected a category that directs to another category. However ignoring redirects would create its own problems altogether as the redirect would make more sense or is the same name as its equivalent page in the English Wikipedia so without these redirects many users wouldn’t even be able to find the pages they're looking for. However we don’t want the wizard telling users “you shall not pass”.

So the solution is actually simple, let’s say a user types in “Turkish museums” in the MediaWiki Upload Wizard they should be automatically redirected to “Museums in Turkey”, currently only a bot 🤖 does it but then the files still end up in the redirect category first. Now redirects are very handy if they are utilised correctly, someone typing “Museums of Turkey” might not know that it's “Museums in Turkey”. Now visualise this, the uploader types in “Turkish museums” in the upload form, they press “enter” and suddenly the correct “Museums in Turkey” is selected. This way category redirects could be useful rather than a mere hindrance. This is similar to what Hot-cat does today, it simply adds "the correct" category when a user wrote the redirect."

Is there a more direct method that I can contact the developers of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard? As this isn't really a policy proposal and apparently technical users don't frequent the help desk either I actually have come to realise that it's quite difficult to get an immediate hold on the developers of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard. Is there a reason why Hot-cat can immediately add the correct category when you type in a redirect while the Upload Wizard can't? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you redact yourself? Just say annoying as hell if you don't want to say fuck. Hell used to be a swear word.. but no more really.
HotCat is a gadget. AFAIK it doesn't run on the Wikimedia servers, it completely runs on your computer. So it can go around and figure out which categories are actually redirects and fix them. UL technically could do the same, but it's probably not desireable from a technical point of view. It would make more sense if the Mediawiki software would take this into account when requesting matching categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that the Wikimedia Commons Mobile app from Google Play already does that, I remember it actually being a lot more useful in picking categories than the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, I'm just curious as to why the developers of this tool haven't really updated it to make it more user-friendly. There's a large update to how mobile browsers view Wikimedia projects in the works which finally improve the editing environment for mobile users but Wikimedia Commons (at least upload-wise) always seems like an afterthought for the developers, both the volunteer ones and the paid ones. Redirects on Wikimedia Commons in their current state are pretty much useless despite them actually having a lot of potential, I can see them making the project a lot easier to navigate for non-English speakers however creating non-English redirects now would probably be more confusing to those people rather than guiding.
Why are the developers so hard to reach anyhow? Why isn't there a technical village pump like on other Wikimedia projects? Especially for one of this size. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 20[edit]


Today I recognized this strange shortcut (redirect)[8] and I'm a long time user here on Commons. My first thought was a link template to Meta (like m:Template) as there are corresponding cross-wiki templates. And indeed the first intention of this was exactly this, but later this shortcut was usurped by (a) french user(s), because there is a corresponding template on FrWiki for fr:Template:Modèle (of course not exists here). Long story short, my intention is a deletion of this shortcut template as it breaks some Commons rules (which would lead to chaos if every language would occupy his own shortcut names). But before I would get some meanings to this on a wider crowd, because (it is a bit special) it is not young and it is included around 5000 times. -- User: Perhelion 20:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: for comparison only, e.g. on DeWiki there exists not even such corresponding shortcut for this de:Vorlage:V. -- User: Perhelion 20:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand what you want to delete: {{M}} redirect or {{T}} template? Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Perhelion: If it keeps the French Wikipedians happy by not breaking their copied wikitext, why mess with it?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

File:Deepak Chopras Go To 3 Minute Meditation To Stay Focused.ogg[edit]

Could someone more experienced than me verify the licence of this video, please? On the source page there is no licence specified under "show more" link/button. --jdx Re: 06:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • @U3143109: I see nothing on the YouTube page to indicate this is anything other than the default "all rights reserved". What am I missing? - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
I tagged it as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:39, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

submitting a tool[edit]

hello, hope to be in the right place. I am new in Wikimedia Commons, and I've wandered in the website before landing here. I've signed in, and my username is Rcecinati. I live in Italy. My small contribution to Wikimedia Commons would like to be sharing a new tool of mine, I am going to introduce. It is essentially a chatbot development platform , whose name is Telegram Road, and which can be used to create mobile applications for Telegram Messenger (like the name suggests). The reason why I'm here is that one of the very first developped apps is Telegram Tour, which can show the nearest monuments around you (golocalized), and those monuments can also come from WikiLovesMonuments archive. The Wiki source is clearly declared and shown, and visitors are soon redirected to the WikiLovesMonuments website. I have read that a mobile Android app was developed with this aim , but it seems to be any longer neither available nor supported. What's more, having chosen the Telegram Messenger base app, we get important side effects, such as :

- no new app is required for installation on the smartphone, only Telegram which is widespread and shared for several apps (chat, bots, ...) - its UI is known to the user, no learning curve is required - it's available on Android and iPhone platforms, as well as on desktop - it's supported and debugged by a large team , granting high security standards

At current time, here are the coordinates to get in touch with Telegram Road and Telegram Tour are

- Telegram Road website : - Telegram Road bot : - Telegram Tour bot :

Nowadays, only the italian monuments are registered, but the app is ready to import other worldwide contents, should an OK be received and some technical issues be solved. I hope this can be somehow useful to Wikimedia Commons , and ready to go further steps.

yours Riccardo Cecinati

Georeferenced Audio Content: "Camera location"[edit]

I started uploading audio recordings of bat calls with geo location added. Now this reads on the file description page: "Camera location: ..." (or "Kameraposition: ..." in German), see e.g. File:Chirps151018-22NR.mp3. Looks and sounds strange, would there be a way to adapt this text to the specific content type? --Burkhard (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

SVG quality of one image[edit]

I noticed that Hertha BSC Logo 2012.svg looks horribly pixeled when downscaled. Why's that? Too high resolution? --Redeemer (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it is a PNG image embedded in an SVG file. The original version seems to be OK, i.e. pure vector graphics. --jdx Re: 15:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@DCB: conduct like this led at least one user to long-term blocks, and in my opinion is not better than overt vandalism. If you worry about a vector image (for some legal reason, or else), then nominate it for deletion. If you have a PNG version of such image which can serve as a replacement or you deem useful for another reason, then upload it as PNG. Don’t overwrite vector images with raster images. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with Zoomviewer ?[edit]

Is Zoomviewer down for some reason, or disabled and I'm out of the loop ? It's been a few weeks i've tried to use this tool (flash and non-flash) to check different high res images on commons, and I just cannot access to it, on any browser. Most of the time the loading fails with the message "No response from server iipsrv.fcgi" ([this map] for ex). Does anyone know what is happening with this pretty convenient tool, and how to fix it ? --Louis H. G. (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)