Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


Allow WebP upload[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Allow WebP upload

June 29[edit]

Another Upload wizard annoyance: dates[edit]

A recent change to the upload wizard seems to require users to enter an exact, day-precise date. This is of no use for artworks dated to, say "1883" or ""before 1932", or any value including "circa". My workaround is to enter a random date and manually fix after upload; my worry is that novice editors will take the former step but not the latter. Where was this change discussed? Andy Mabbett (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Upload Wizard should provide some kind of a front-end for {{Other date}}, so I've created phab:T110028. --El Grafo (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, I was rather disappointed to find that the Upload Wizard no longer takes the full date and time from the EXIF data of photographs, only the date. Shouldn't the time be extracted if it is present? (I have filed a bug at Phabricator about this.) — Cheers, JackLee talk 19:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The time should be taken with caution. A lot of photographers dont pay attention to the precise time, certainly when they travel across timezones. Only when I came back from Taiwan did I notice a 6,5 hours time difference. Luckily there was one picture with a station clock.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
It was due to concerns over time zones not being taken into account, and lack of consistency in how times were imported [1]. Bawolff (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, if that is the justification, then the date could be wrong too. The solution, in my view, is to give uploaders the option of whether to use the date and time in the EXIF data or not. — Cheers, JackLee talk 12:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Wherever I am in the world, my camera is set to UTC. Since there is no timezone parameter when uploading here, I've always assumed that to be correct. To repeat my unanswered question: Where was this change discussed? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
yeah, wow, while i had liked the "improvement" support of wizard, this is an awful gated way of compelling data input, with an opaque gear bypass. need to help uploaders to input dates, not turn them away if they can't. time to go back to old uploader. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 14:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Like all changes to MediaWiki, it first appears here as a proposed change. While its a proposed change, you or anyone else can oppose the change by logging into gerrit (It uses accounts from, which is kind of annoying, but that's life) and marking the change as -1 and explaining why. Changes are not votes, whether or not anyone listens to you depends on how good you argue you point, however code reviewers (Generally people listed here + most WMF staff. Some extensions have additional reviewers) will take your point into consideration. Once a code reviewer has approved it (+2 it in gerrit speak), the change appears on the test commons site and it is listed in the merged section of gerrit [which is similar to Special:Recentchanges ], but you still have a couple days to object before it appears on real commons. Generally objections after +2 need to be argued more forcefully (Since instead of just convincing someone to not do something, you have to convince them to revert the change), but they will still be taken into account. Usually, all recent changes to MediaWiki and extensions are gathered up at around 18:00 UTC Tuesday, and deployed to and Then the following day, if there are no major problems they are put on commons (and other non-wikipedia sites). Of course, even after this fact you can object, as was done here (The change we're all talking about is scheduled to be reverted on sept 2)
In this particular case the patch was reviewed really quickly, but there was still 5 days between it being submitted and it appearing on commons for people to object. We know that most users won't want to be looking at gerrit all the time, and we do try to bring up controversial changes on wiki, but there are lots of changes happening, and we can't always predict what will be controversial. If you want to be apprised of every changes, you will have to be reading the gerrit site, just like if you want the option to object to every change on wiki, you have to read Special:Recentchanges (If you're only interested in only some types of changes, you can filter by project on gerrit, which is much like filtering by namespace on RC.). Bawolff (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
here's the problem with this process. where's the UX review? there is a marked lack of new user empathy or testing. talking among the choir, and then breaking stuff until people complain, is a real bad process. i thought we were going to improve our open source feedback, given the history. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 02:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
So what would you rather we do instead? I doubt any sort of usability review would have had an effect on this change, there wasn't really any change in how the user interacts with the website to actually measure, no new buttons, etc. But lets take a step back. Concretely, what sort of process would you like us to follow instead? Bawolff (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [edit: I just realized you were talking about the adding non-precise date issue, not the issue surrounding timezones in camera exif. I guess I'm following too many similar conversations at once. Your comment about usability review makes more sense now]
i dunno, better UX? better programming not coding? i know its tedious to newbie check all interface changes, or code changes, but this is the default process for all newbie uploaders. a little workshopping would go a long way. there seems to be a propensity to "solve problems" by coding, rather than system improvement. also for the exif, i understand it's problematic, but some data is better than none. it's invisible, maybe conscious-raising is in order; some faq's for the newbie to set their camera, i know some have asked for exif supression, maybe a setting. when you are building open tools for newbies, feedback is critical. saying come to our separate venue is inadequate. make a party out of it: "come celebrate our continuous improvement of upload wizard !" Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 12:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Where it's buried among items with titles like "Make onEchoGetDefaultNotifiedUsers hook use DB class" and "WIP de-centralize mustache js"? It's ludicrous to expect most editors - even most regulars - to be able to participate meaningfully in such an environment. Andy Mabbett (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
yes, i see there is some beginning of friendly feedback at m:VisualEditor & Talk:Reading/Strategy/Kickoff, so there could be be a button and a dashboard or wizard. i should think it would be standard procedure for continuous improvement. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 22[edit]

Multiple gauge trains in Spain[edit]

Train types in Spain are now categorized as either normal gauge or Spanish broad gauge trains. This can be confusing as some train types can change gauge and are found on both types of railway lines. Maybe useful to split into three categories: only broad gauge, only normal gauge or both gauges. By the way: Is the high speed line between Ourense and Santiago broad gauge? My train from Madrid didnt change gauge at Ourense.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Three categories sounds reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I created Category:Standard/broad gauge electric multiple units of Spain and split up Category:Electric multiple units of SpainSmiley.toerist (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Please can somebody control the contributions of IP I have the impression that many of his contributions are imperfect, or not useful, or just vandalism. Thank you all, --DenghiùComm (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the latest ten edits and can´t see any vandalism. To remove Interwiki links to Wikipedia articles where Wikidata provides the links to Wikipedia categories may be controversial but is not against the rules. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
What I have seen on other occasions is that interwiki links were removed for replacing them by the same by Wikidata, not to let nothing, or to replace 3 or 4 where before were 20. It's controversial? Strange: for me simply it's not useful. IMO it's better to leave something which is imperfect but useful, rather than delete useful things simply because they are out of date. Or we replace Interwikis thoroughly and completely, otherwise it is better to leave everything as it was before. This is my opinion. Best regards, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Specific objects (people, buildings and such) often have articles in many Wikipedias but only a few Wikipedias also have categories for them. So if you change the Interwiki link from article to category (and this is what happens if you use the Wikidata entry) you loose a lot of the Interwikis because they now point to the related categories instead of the related articles - this is why it´s "3 or 4 where before were 20". Personally, I consider this to be a negative effect and still use the manually inserted Interwiki links whenever I create a category for a specific object, thus overriding Wikidata and connecting the Commons category with the Wikipedia articles. But this is surely as controversial as doing it the other way. So I think what the IP does is not his fault but a consequence of the sad lack of a clear consensus and directions about interlinking categories at Commons. Please neither blame him (or me) nor call him a vandal :-) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I did not know these details. Thank you for your explanations and clarifications. Cheers, --DenghiùComm (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Have restored the wikipedia links on a number of Categories where the were deleted by IP In practice, it is good to have these links, wikidata is largely unknown and click(s) away, so why take the links out? Damaging, sort of vandalism. Regards, Hansmuller (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 26[edit]

Undeletion request + a general point[edit]

Please will someone resurrect File talk:DSC09873.JPG, which is referred to in Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSC09873.JPG. Generally, populated talk pages like this should not be deleted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We don't need to keep such talk pages. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned talkpages will be deleted on sight. It is standard practice here on commons. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never before been refused access to a deleted discussion on any Wikipedia project. Is there some private information or derogatory information on that page, that would cause an admin to refuse such a request? Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Access is a different question to page undeletion. If there is something you want to check, or maybe paste a relevant part of elsewhere, then I suggest you ask a specific admin to email it to you. So long as it's not private information being posted by accident, or otherwise harmful to an individual, there shouldn't be a problem. -- (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In the interests of openness, everyone, not just me and not just admins, should have access to discussions (subject to the caveats alluded to in my previous post, or blatant vandalism or spamming). Andy Mabbett (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
In this case, at least, I don't see any reason not to post the content publicly. Here it is:

Possible copyvio?

The tagline "5th September 2005 to 25th November 2005" is ambiguous; does it refer to the period this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf?

If so then this picture is a copyright violation (albeit an unwitting good-faith one), as in this case this was a temporary installation so FoP does not apply. -- 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The above dates do indeed refer to the time this sculpture was installed at Canary Wharf, as part of an exhibition called Sophie Ryder: The Minotaur, Hare and Other Animals (one of a series of exhibitions collectively called "Sculpture in the Workplace"). It is thus indeed a derivative work and copyvio, as FoP applies only to permanent installations, which this is not.
A pity, as this is an attractive and potentially useful picture. -- Korax1214 10:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[END copied content]

i've seen a propensity of deleting deletion discussions, rather than link to image talk page. the community needs to rethink this. deleting discussion history certainly looks bad; if an image was deleted, you need a process trail for uploaders to follow; and how would anyone learn from past history, where there is none? Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 15:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a good point. Perhaps Andy would like to raise it on Commons talk:Deletion requests, suggesting good practices for where potentially useful discussion and information should go when the related image page is due for deletion? Note that the vast majority of deleted images will have no created discussion page. -- (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I copied the content of the talk page to the DR for reference: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:DSC09873.JPG. Yann (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
i would suggest linking to deletion discussion on the talk page of the deleted image or kept image using the Template:Kept. this could be automated, and then there would be a trail for the history of deletion discussion. Slowking4Farmbrough's revenge 22:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can't upload over a bad svg[edit]

Over at en:Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, I yesterday asked for someone to upload a new map on top of File:Adams County Washington Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Washtucna Highlighted.svg, which was corrupt. After the mapmaking person reported an error, I deleted the corrupt image, and everything went fine, but the error report surprised and confused me. I quote it: I can't upload the file with the correct "Washtucna" name, because such a file already exists (and is unusable, because it contains invalid SVG). And I can't replace the current invalid "Washtucna" file, when I try I get the message "Please modify the file description below and try again", but there is no "description" field to modify. Can anyone understand why uploading over the bad image didn't work? Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

PS, at the time of attempted upload, the corrupt file's description page was as follows:

|Description=This map shows the [[:en:Municipality|incorporated]] and unincorporated areas in [[:en:Adams County, Washington|Adams County]], [[:en:Washington|Washington]], highlighting [[:w:Washtucna, Washington|Washtucna]] in red.  It was created with a custom script with US Census Bureau data and modified with Inkscape.
|Source=My own work, based on public domain information.  Based on similar map concepts by [[:en:User:Ixnayonthetimmay|Ixnayonthetimmay]]
|Date=26 Oct 2007
[[Category:Maps of Adams County, Washington]]

Nyttend (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I is not possible to upload invalid svg files. The old file was from 2007 (this is explaining a lot). But it shouldn't be a problem to re upload a valid one. You can try to report it at phabricator:, but i am not sure if this will help. The problem is hard to reproduce now because you deleted the file. All database entry has been likely overwritten. --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Usually the "Please modify the file description below and try again" error (Which from a ux prespective is pretty horrid), is paired with a second error message, explaining what the real issue is. Usually that error message is only a warning, and you can click ignore to it, and upload the file anyways. Hard to know for certain though without seeing the issue myself. Bawolff (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

Location on the North Spanisch coast[edit]

I took a train all the way from Ferrol to Oviedo. Most stations and names I can place. For the other pictures I have to use the timing.

The route of the train is on google maps.

Thanks, Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

La Concha de Artedo, a beach near Lamuño in Asturias, seen from La Magdalena train station. Very easy to find in Google Earth with railroad layer activated. --Sitacuisses (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Camera location 43° 33′ 34.61″ N, 6° 11′ 05.13″ W  337.5° View this and other nearby images on: OpenStreetMap - Google Earth info

New type of train in France[edit]

Bordeaux Saint Jean in de steigers III.JPG
I havent seen this type before. New category? Other examples are File:Dax station 2015 II.jpg and File:Dax station 2015 III.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks like Category:Alstom Régiolis. --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree, only there is a totaly different number series: 51519 and 51525 do not connect with the 83500 and 84500 series. And I cant find a 51xxxx serie. Only SNCF Class Z 5100 but thats old.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The Régiolis train presented to the press in Bordeaux in 2013 had a 515.. number as well: [2] --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
According to fr:Régiolis, the 515 numbers are electric only, the 835 and 845 are "bi-mode" (electro-diesel). --Sitacuisses (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Created Category:SNCF Class Z 51500. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - A Group Of Ants[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#A Group Of Ants Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 19:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

Fotoğraf yüklerken.[edit]

Fotoğraf yüklerken şöyle bir yazı var. Düzenlenmesi lazım. Kolay gelsin. --KediÇobanıİleti 09:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kırmızı ile işaretli yazı.

m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Tobias Conradi[edit]

Per m:Global bans, I am notifying the project of this proposal. Everyone is welcome to go and voice their opinion of the proposal and about the user in general.--GZWDer (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender of musicians[edit]

I see that someone is diffusing Category:Drummers from the United States into Category:Male drummers from the United States and Category:Female drummers from the United States. Is that really desirable? What does gender really have to do with being a drummer? It seems to me that the effect is to "ghettoize" the female drummers, who are the minority. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @KurodaSho: - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for raising a question. "Someone" seems me. I have no special idea about this matter but if you think so why not suggest the abolishment for these gender-related category. (I'm sorry if I miss the point...) Regards, KurodaSho (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • In the case of people in general, it looks like we give each person Category:People by name in addition to one of Category:Men by name or Category:Women by name. This seems helpful since the gender is useful distinguishing information, but in many cases someone who's browsing will just want to see a full list with no regard to gender. That does raise this question: would we really want to add these two extra categories for every single category of the form Category:[Occupation] from [Country]"? Much nicer if we could just find the intersection of Category:Drummers from the United States and Category:Women by name when searching... BMacZero (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is a discussion we should have, but looking at Special:Prefixindex/Category:Female and Special:Prefixindex/Category:Male, it kind of feels like this train has left the station quite some time ago. What is a bit concerning from a gender neutrality perspective is that male often seems to be the implied default; there's no Category:Male politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) to match Category:Female politicians of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or Category:Male guards in Nazi concentration camps to match Category:Female guards in Nazi concentration camps (to pick some oddly specific random categories at random). LX (talk, contribs) 18:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article about w:Female guards in Nazi concentration camps says that under one tenth of the guards in Nazi concentration camps were female. Being purely historical, there is no chance that will change or that we are reinforcing current trends; we're reflecting the reality that male was the default for the guards in a Nazi concentration camp.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

tool to review uploads in a grid[edit]

I saw someone mention it online and it got me thinking; there used to be a tool that you could click on to see all your image uploads in a grid that also showed how many other language Wikis were using it and other stats on the image, all in an easy to read format. That was pretty cool. Is it gone? Why? If so, any way to resurrect it? Cheers, Nesnad (talk) 04:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Commons:MyGallery is a great tool (and as such ignored by the powers that rule us, unlike the crap not-so-great stuff they keep pushing):
Have fun! -- Tuválkin 13:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh Thank you!! You have made my wiki-Month, maybe my wiki-Year! That is a tool I've missed subconsciously for so long. Thank you for bringing it back into my life. Have a great day, cheers, Nesnad (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a nice tool, but it seems to show only about 2500 uploads.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Template does not work[edit]

Hello.This template is not working.Please fix it.thanks --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Could someone look into the uploads from User:Arbiben[edit]

I'm positive User:Arbiben does not hold the rights to the pictures they uploaded. Large disparity in quality- some look professional, some are copyrighted and others are hard shots to get. I could go and nominate each one for deletion, but I know there's someway to nominate them together. However, I don't know how to do this. So I wanted to bring this blatant violation to someone else's attention. Xochiztli (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Right. Deleted or DRs created. Yann (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with template {{Photo challenge watchlist notice}}[edit]

as we will be running three challenges this month (one of them for two months), I tried to add further parameters to the template {{Photo challenge watchlist notice}} - but I don't know enough about templates to make it work. Can anybody help?
The parameters I'd like to use can be found here (the third theme 100 years later (September-October) is the one I can't add to the template...).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Anna reg, do you still need help? --Jarekt (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello Jarekt! Thanks for asking, as yes, I do still need help. While I found a temporyry solution for September without using the template, it would be great to add the possibility of a third challenge (with a different deadlines) for future months (e.g. October and Nomvember).
Best wishes, --Anna reg (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok I will look into it. --Jarekt (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Jarekt! --Anna reg (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done That was a one messy template. Anna reg, I simplify it a bit by breaking it down into smaller pieces and it should work now. The situation with months is a bit confusing since months 1 and 2 are beginning and end of theme 1 and 2 and months 3 and 4 are begining and end of theme 3. That is an original design which is not well documented. --Jarekt (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks great, Jarekt! I will probably need a bit of time to understand everything you did... especially the documentation - as I'm sure I was responsible for some of the messiness of the old template (e.g. the month 3 and 4 was my attempt to find a solution for a second deadline).
Lots of thanks for your help, --Anna reg (talk) 06:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Misplaced file[edit]

This picture was miscategorized in a Line 1 station of the Barcelona metro. But wich station of metroline 7 is this? By the way we need to give to rename the picture to something meaningful.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure about the station, but the filename "Trn213dlfgc.jpg" means "Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya". -- Tuválkin 10:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile, User:Lotje renamed this file as "Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya.jpg", going against COM:FR and even altering the text (not a link!) in my reply above, which is also against the guidelines. But do not worry, User:Lotje: When a short and usable filename is changed to a multi-line monstrosity with whitespace in it and likely to be mangled by reusers, it is as if COM:FR meant that changing filenames willy-nilly is a good thing. -- Tuválkin 12:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin:, I thought: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.... sometimes monstrosities get attention. Lotje (talk) 12:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the reader should not be subjected to a cryptogram. The original question is stil not answered.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The original question is not answered, that’s why this is threaded as an aside; the original question is not answered, but this is responding to your comment in the OP wrongly claiming that the original filename was not meaningful (it took me a few seconds to find its meaning). The original question is not answered, maybe because you posted it in Common’s (English language) Village Pump, instead of, say, at ca:Discussió:Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya (where I meanwhile echoed this request). -- Tuválkin 14:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lotje:, “Ignore all rules” is an wp:en document discussing wp:en rules — very meta, and scarcely related; maybe you should check Commons:Be bold instead. To deal with file renamings we have COM:FR, which is both mandatory in Commons (in a way English Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays are not) and addressing this specific matter, not just some generic ideas. And why was it wrong to rename "Trn213dlfgc.jpg" to "Tren 213 de los ferrocarriles de la generalitat de catalunya.jpg"? This is actually a good example of the snowball effect of “improvement renaming” COM:FR tries to prevent in the first place. Because you ignored case in the new filename, next up someone wants to rename it "Tren 213 de los Ferrocarriles de la Generalitat de Catalunya.jpg"; we could even argue whether "Ferrocarriles" should be capitalized or not, and that could mean well meaning users renaming it back and forth, not to mention some would argue that this filename should be fully in Spanish ("Tren 213 de los Ferrocarriles de la Generalidad de Cataluña.jpg") or fully in Catalan ("Tren 213 dels Ferrocarrils de la Generalitat de Catalunya.jpg"), and keep renaming this file back and forth. So much for filename stability; the original "Trn213dlfgc.jpg" was immune to this kind of concerns — inherently stable and fully understandable. -- Tuválkin 14:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Trn213dlfgc.jpg" ... fully understandable. Are you joking? Yann (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No, I’m not joking, User:Yann. Please be polite, and read the discussion if it actually interests you. -- Tuválkin 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not all that experienced here, but COM:FR does have an example of renaming a file named as an acronym to expand the acronym, and supports this as a good use of the policy. BMacZero (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
If the said acronym is understandable (and it is — if you know one thing about Iberian railways, you recognize "fgc"), and if its expansion is problematic and prone to cause a cascading of further renamings, then it is good idea to leave it alone. -- Tuválkin 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Pere prlpz confirms this is at the L’Hospitalet - Av. Carrilet station. Maybe the "S7" indication on the train was either a mistake, an exceptional operaion, or a former route, thus disagreeing with the routes listed at ca:Estació d'Avinguda Carrilet? -- Tuválkin 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Please notice that I don't "confirm" the station. I just say that I can't see any reason to doubt of the location stated in the description.
According to line S7 used to exist in the 2000s, and trains stopped an Avinguda del Carrilet station. Therefore, the train doesn't cast any doubt in this 2006 photograph.
Furthermore, I can't see any contradiction with images and description in . In the image the station can barely be seen, but I think an extra track can be seen behind the train, and l'Hospitalet - Av. del Carrilet is one of the very few underground stations in this line with more than 2 tracks.--Pere prlpz (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is a good idea to copy the discussion above to File talk:Trn213dlfgc.jpg once this matter is closed and achived. -- Tuválkin 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Another iffy train photo in northern Spain[edit]

Trena feve donostia zorroaga amara.jpg

This Flicker image certainly has the wrong date 19?? and has nothing to do with Donostia city itself but the between Hendaya and Donostia (if I read the text correctly).Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Added subsection header and echoed it in a better place. -- Tuválkin 14:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Fundraising banner or Wiki Loves Monuments banner?[edit]

Hi, Just FYI (for users which are not reading mailing lists), because commons is involved in WLM: meta:Requests for comment/Fundraising banner or Wiki Loves Monuments banner --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

August 31[edit]

Should blocked users be allowed to upload?[edit]

It might seem like a silly question perhaps, but in practice, there is currently nothing preventing a user who is blocked here on Commons from uploading files to another Wikimedia project that allows local uploads of ostensibly free files and having them tagged for transfer here. I just spent considerable time and effort reverting transfer tags and trudging through English Wikipedia's 26-step(!) deletion process (in which 23 of the steps are devoted to pointing to other deletion processes) – all to prevent us from hosting files uploaded by a user who is currently blocked for three months for uploading nothing but copyright violations.

Should that really be necessary? If not, what steps can we take to prevent such situations – automatic, procedural or otherwise? LX (talk, contribs) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick temporary solution is to add en:Template:Do not move to Commons when you remove "transfer to Commons" templates. AnonMoos (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO this would depend on why they were blocked. If they were blocked for issues regarding their uploads like Copyright content and the like then no we should not allow it. If however they were blocked for something unrelated to images then I don't think we should prevent good content from being pulled in from another project because that person is blocked here. It would be like ENWP not allowing any images I touched or uploaded here to be used there because I am currently blocked on ENWP. It wouldn't make sense. Reguyla (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 01[edit]

Copyright release question on image[edit]

There is a good mushroom image, File:Bronze Roehrling.jpg, which has an email permission dated from 2008 but not to OTRS unfortunately. The uploader hasn't been active since 2008. Are we sunk and do we have to delete it? Or might there be a permission lying around somewhere....? I would be unhappy but not heartbroken to see it deleted... cheers, Casliber (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

As understand from the e-mail, the image was released "for Wikipedia" only. Unfortunately, such a license is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Commons photo not indexed in Google[edit]


I uploaded this material on WikiCommons:,_Pr%C3%A9sidente_de_la_Fondation_Andr%C3%A9_Malraux_avec_Florence_Malraux,_fille_d%27Andr%C3%A9_Malraux.jpg, but I can't find it on Google if I search with the key words. Does anyone have any idea why this happens? Thank you --Fondation André Malraux (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I found it as the fifth result if I Google Angela Craciun Malraux. What search failed for you? - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, you should probably revisit the categories for that image, using categories that actually exist. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I await response thanks: Commons:Bar italiano#trasferimento immagine da enwiki a commons[edit]

Commons:Bar italiano#trasferimento immagine da enwiki a commonsI await respinse thanks Eticanicotao (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate category?[edit]

Hello ; are these categories duplicates Category:Cloister of Saint-Étienne de Toul and Category:Cloisters of cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toul‎? Have they to be merged?--Havang(nl) (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, they look like duplicates. As far as I can tell, the merge could go either way. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Bar italiano[edit]

Commons:Bar italiano is almost entirely unattended. People are asking questions but not getting decent answers. An admin or other experienced user with better Italian than I have (I can read Italian pretty well, but can't write it) would be very useful there. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Les Paüls / Laspaúles / Laspaúls[edit]

I have moved category Les Paüls to Category:Laspaúles. The reason is that the oficial name seems to be Laspaúles/Laspaúls. As it is in a Catalan-speaking area, I expected it to be either Les Paüls or Laspaúles/Les Paüls or some other combination of both. Laspaúls doesn't conform to Catalan ortography, so, well, I just didn't feel it the right option. Anyway, I left a category redirection from Les Paüls to Laspaúles and I'm open to any other solution to this ortographical-sociolinguistic problem. In case things are moved to another category name, please keep a redirection from the other forms. B25es (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

September 02[edit]

Introducing the Wikimedia public policy site[edit]

Hi all,

We are excited to introduce a new Wikimedia Public Policy site. The site includes resources and position statements on access, copyright, censorship, intermediary liability, and privacy. The site explains how good public policy supports the Wikimedia projects, editors, and mission.

Visit the public policy portal:

Please help translate the statements on Meta Wiki. You can read more on the Wikimedia blog.


Yana and Stephen (Talk) 18:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sent with the Global message delivery system)

  • Gotta love how the clickable polygons were maked in the "process-wheel-link process-wheel-link_*" thingy — who’s geeky and has no regard for the naive user’s experience now?… -- Tuválkin 19:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant that each of the 5 wheel sectors should be clickable along a polygon that matches the visible element, not a rectangle, centered on the text, that bleeds off the said visible element and yet doesn’t cover it fully. The technology to make irregular clickable areas has been around since HTML 3.2, and the possibility of its integration with vectorial drawing software has been around ever since (just parse an .AI to harvest all xy values — it got way simpler later on). Funny to see these “designers” sneering at wiki markup and at most WMF projects’ visual design as «outdated» (even with Vector!) and yet falling in the trap of needless bells and whistles wrapped up in clumsy solutions. I meet this sort daily but non-profits should be free from this curse. -- Tuválkin 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Slaporte (WMF): precisely who are the views on that site supposed to represent? WMF as an entity, I'd guess, but it doesn't seem to say that anywhere. Is there any way we, as active participants in WMF projects can influence that content? - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, it says: «Everyone should be free to read and write without governments looking over their shoulders.» Hmm, governments? What about corporations? Obviously it should text instead that everyone should be free to read and write without anyone looking over their shoulders. Why restrict it to governments? Do I detect a whiff of libertarianism here? -- Tuválkin 19:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I second the above about corporations (and would expand it to employers in general, whether corporate or not. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Jmabel, I think we can all agree about the need of being free to read and write without anyone looking over their shoulders. Corporations’ data harvesting are a problem both for their employees as for their clients, and in most countries private companies are especially shielded in ways non-profits, government agencies, and private citizens are not. -- Tuválkin 01:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The same problematic outlook in this other quote: «Everyone should have the right to share and access knowledge free of government censorship.» I’d say that all censorship should be opposed — and while governments may be particularly pervasive and resourceful in their censorship practices, others forms of censorship are not less powerful, such as religious censorship. What’s with this anti-government mania? -- Tuválkin 02:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Another point: It says that «People don’t just read; they create, share, and remix. Copyright law should evolve to reflect this new reality.» This is problematic in two ways:
  1. First, the creation of derivatives is no «new reality», quite the opposite. And copyright law has been growing more and more stringent against (i.a.) derivatives in recent times, not just lagging behing a «new reality», as this blurb wrongly implies. (This is though true concerning other points of contact between laws and new technologies, such as privacy — maybe whoever wrote this got their trends mixed up?)
  2. Second, although it's probably the opinion of most WMF project volonteers (us all) that copyright law should change to be less restrictive (and not the opposite direction), I seriously doubt that lobbying for its change is (or should be) in any way the WMF’s policy — rather we work within the frame of existing (and “evolving”) legislation to provide access to free knowledge. That’s a very different job.
-- Tuválkin 01:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Pappa Fourway[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Pappa Fourway Thank you! Jalexander--WMF 23:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

September 03[edit]

September 04[edit]