Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 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


Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Review of initial updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. Message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

The Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. For 15 years, Wikimedians have worked together to build the largest free knowledge resource in human history. During this time, we've grown from a small group of editors to a diverse network of editors, developers, affiliates, readers, donors, and partners. Today, we are more than a group of websites. We are a movement rooted in values and a powerful vision: all knowledge for all people. As a movement, we have an opportunity to decide where we go from here.

This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve. We hope to design an inclusive process that makes space for everyone: editors, community leaders, affiliates, developers, readers, donors, technology platforms, institutional partners, and people we have yet to reach. There will be multiple ways to participate including on-wiki, in private spaces, and in-person meetings. You are warmly invited to join and make your voice heard.

The immediate goal is to have a strategic direction by Wikimania 2017 to help frame a discussion on how we work together toward that strategic direction.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Beginning with this message, monthly reviews of these updates will be sent to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a review of the updates that have been sent so far:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 20:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

February 16[edit]

Overview #2 of updates on Wikimedia movement strategy process[edit]

Note: Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English. This message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.

As we mentioned last month, the Wikimedia movement is beginning a movement-wide strategy discussion, a process which will run throughout 2017. This movement strategy discussion will focus on the future of our movement: where we want to go together, and what we want to achieve.

Regular updates are being sent to the Wikimedia-l mailing list, and posted on Meta-Wiki. Each month, we are sending overviews of these updates to this page as well. Sign up to receive future announcements and monthly highlights of strategy updates on your user talk page.

Here is a overview of the updates that have been sent since our message last month:

More information about the movement strategy is available on the Meta-Wiki 2017 Wikimedia movement strategy portal.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, 19:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC) • Please help translate to your languageGet help

March 10[edit]

File:Emma Frost by Nig PS.jpg[edit]

Is that file acceptable ? I'm not sure and I don't want to launch a DR by mistake. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, with CC-BY-3.0 on the source page. But if you tag it with {{LicenseReview}} it can get a more authoritative ‘stamp of approval‘ from an admin or image-reviewer.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I disagree, the image is about a copyrighted comic book character. While the fan art author may have allowed the image to be used, he/she most likely does not have permission from the publisher to actually do so. MKFI (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@MKFI: In that case, shouldn't we consider that any cosplay would also be a lack of respect of the copyright ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say it is clear copyright infringement on the character Emma Frost. As COM:FANART states: "Re-drawing does not avoid copyright infringement". The usage of the X logo and costume make it clear this isn't just some pinup of a blonde woman (compare to official art e.g. [1], [2]). If this were put in a comic book or trading card, Marvel Comics would certainly sue for infringement. Animalparty (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the image appears to be a collaboration, note the signatures include "B N S(?) 02 Dally" , and colors by Nig. A link to "orignal draw" on the source Deviant Art page (now a 404) further suggests this is a derivative work. Assuming even the original is freely licensed, wouldn't we need the permission from both penciler and colorist? Animalparty (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Definitely the penciler. The colorist, not necessarily -- colorization is rarely a copyrightable act in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This gets into so many gray areas... hrm. Fan art is quite often derivative works (and not fair use). However, a particular piece of fan art is only derivative if it actually copies expression. Imagining and drawing a character from a book may not necessarily mean the drawing is derivative of the character -- they can be separate expressions of the same idea. On the other hand, making drawings of a comic book character -- which are drawings themselves -- will usually get into derivative work territory. For this one, I'm not completely sure. It's obviously of the character, given the costume. But given the original work links given, the general depiction of the woman doesn't seem derivative -- often characters are drawn in a particular way, and copying that particular style would definitely make it derivative (such as drawing a very recognizable Mickey Mouse in an original pose). This one, seems like there are many styles of drawing the woman out there, and unsure if this depiction is derivative of another, or a mostly original drawing of a woman with the character's costume added. If it's the latter, then there's a chance, though still a gray area -- even just the costume drawing may still be derivative. It is distinctive, and the risk of being derivative of a drawn character is much much higher than being derivative of a written description of a character. But... it sounds like this was a drawing by Ed Benes and Mariah Benes; here is a link to the black-and-white drawn version (and this seems to be another variant). A free license by someone adding colorization isn't very effective -- that may not be copyrightable at all, and since the original drawing was published elsewhere, there is no reason to believe the original artist allowed the license. So on the basis of that alone, it's a near-certain delete, without getting into any character derivative right issues. Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Any guideline for User Templates in Commons[edit]

As a referece to This Template used Here shows that its a possible use of advertisement for photoshoots or event shoots. Does this type of template allowed, or as an uploaded user, some relaxation can be offered. The doubts particularly on contact me area of the templates ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 10:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a borderline case but would still allow it. Ruslik (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
@Guillom: Any thoughts on making the credit template wording less promotional? More simply, linking to a statement about your photography work on your own website, where you are free to say whatever you want, would avoid any possible contention on-wiki. Thanks -- (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. I appreciate the ping, ; thank you for making sure I'd see this discussion. I've never made any money from photography; indeed, over the past 12 years, I have instead poured thousands of euros and dollars into travel, conference fees, and hotel expenses to take photos for Commons. The wording was merely to avoid the (very real) expectation that some people have that I would just take photos for free for their benefit, whereas my priority was to take photos for the benefit of Commons. I have tweaked the language of the template since I sadly don't have time to do any photography any more and I have sold all my equipment. guillom 15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
i don't see anything wrong with the template, any more than the hybrid license "advertisement" such as User:Fir0002/credits. if you want to get a consensus on "non-promotional" terms on reuse, go for it. but i think you will find you have an out of consensus view. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
This Template Looks good now, But as indicated User:Fir0002/credits template is still confusing If you require a less restrictive commercial license please email me to negotiate terms public will be confused on the wording and will be doubt if the image is free or still copyrighted, A standard guideline on such template is good for using as a reference guide- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Wrong source[edit]

Hello.There are images from "" licensed under "the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" But the sources do not reach the same image on the site so if the license is correct, Please correct the sources.Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Yasser1963: At least the bulk of these are your uploads, could you please weigh in? - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform is online[edit]

Wikimedia Nederland launches the Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform. The platform aims to stimulate global re-use of Dutch collections on non-European cultural heritage. In particular, it aims to stimulate collections on countries with which the Netherlands have had historical ties. These countries include Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Brazil, Ghana, Suriname, South Africa, and others.

The platform also aims to foster contacts between Dutch cultural heritage institutions and Wikimedia contributors across the globe. However, participation is not limited to Wikimedia contributors. Anyone can participate, making it relevant for education and research as well.

Key properties:

  • Dutch heritage institutions can post offers on (parts of) their collections that are relevant to non-European countries
  • Wikimedia contributors gain insight in the contents of Dutch collections and can make requests for digitalisation.
  • Knowledge exchange and cooperation are key concepts.

The platform is easy to use. After registration, users can post offer/requests notices, depending on whether they are looking for material, or want to offer material for re-use. Statistics on re-use are also available.

The Netherlands and the World Exchange Platform is part of the program The Netherlands and the World. This program is supported by Wikimedia Nederland and aims to make available knowledge and content on non-European countries.

Development of the platform was financially supported by DEN.

Best, --AWossink (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Stargate Atlantis[edit]

  • - panoramio (1039).jpg
    I was looking for the location of this image. Someone pointed out that this is from the TV serie Stargate Atlantis. However I suspect this is a picture of a floating model used for the series. The wave size does not match the scale if this is really a bigg city. The floating object I estimate at 50 meters large. Even if this is a model I suspect there are copyrigth problems. I would still like to know more about it before it is probably deleted.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    • It appears to be computer-generated. This may actually be a concept shot for the series finale; I don't remember there being any land so close to the city in the show. Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I'd tend to agree with @Smiley.toerist: looks more like an actual scale model shot on a lake to me. Pretty sure we can't keep it either way. Stargate Atlantis was shot in and around Vancouver, so the hills in the background could potentially lead to the shooting location. But you'd probably have to ask a local to identify it, as there are many lakes with hills around them in this area. this location looks quite similar, for example (check it out in StreetView). --El Grafo (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
      • I am pretty sure this is not a real-life shot. Considering the amount of sunlight, I would expect building side-facades to be illuminated, but all we see is a silhouette. Additionally, if you follow the shade lines on the floor at the left, they do not converge at the center of the sun. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fake or vandalism ?[edit]

Who is this man?

I am not an English speaker. This man is presented like being the French philosophe André Tosel. Sure, it's not the reality. Who is this man? (LaVoiture-balai (talk) 22:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC))

Le mieux est de demander à l'importateur de la photo : User talk:TCY#File:André Tosel.jpg. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 17[edit]


Is there a way to revert all edits i made beginning from this till this. If so, please tell me how or just do revert it. --14:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know an automatic way to do this. However there are "only" about 250 edits to revert, so list your last 500 edits, find the beginning and using middle mouse button ("open in new tab in my Firefox") click on "revert" link. Of course do not open 250 tabs at once – do it in batches of 20-30 tabs. IMO it should take less than an hour to revert all these changes. --jdx Re: 15:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done Well, it took for me about 25 minutes to revert these changes. --jdx Re: 15:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you a lot and sorry for the inconveniences. --Arnd (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Help:VisualFileChange.js with "custom replace" also works. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I also thought about that, but it turned out it won't work. Poké95 02:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kerkscheepjes... but that's Dutch[edit]

This is a... ?

I've taken some photographs this week and amongst them there is one of a scale model of a ship in the Reformed Church in Huisduinen (Dutch wiki). But I know of at least three others, and there should be severall more. Now I'm asking you: what is the English name for these ships so I can make a new category with an English name. Or is it a typical Dutch fenomena and should I use the Dutch name? Dqfn13 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See Category:Models of ships in churches in the Netherlands Jane023 (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jane023! Dqfn13 (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Files with malformed sections[edit]

Why are there so many files that are lacking a description template with the appropriate language tag, such as {{en|text}}? PokestarFan (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Lots of people don't know about language tags. And prior to about 2008-2009, they weren't at all commonly used, so they are very rarely present on older files or non-Wizard newbie uploads. - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

We invite you to join the movement strategy conversation (now through April 15)[edit]

05:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

commons poty banner[edit]

hey User:Fæ i see that POTY is now banner spamming all projects. [3] there is a consensus requirement. where is that? [4] what goes around comes around. maybe a little talk with the enthusiasts would be nice. rest assured i will now never participate in this solipsism, and preening. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with POTY, too many things to follow. -- (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
This is the Commons village pump; Fæ's talkpage is located at User talk:Fæ. Like the annual fundraiser itself POTY has been advertised using ContralNotices for many years, therefore this "consensus requirement" (note the exact RFC closure statement) for new messages certainly doesn't apply. I would appreciate a less disrespectful attitude towards projects aiming to increase awareness of and participation on Commons – after all, this should be a goal we all share.    FDMS  4    15:24, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
According to meta:CentralNotice/Usage_guidelines#Approval "Standard Community Notices" receive automatic approval; I do not see how a standard practice for many years has been changed, as we followed the described process. As for whether you wish to participate, it's your choice (and we'll respect your choice), but please do not use these words such as "solipsism" or "preening" unless you are backed up. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
well, there is a consensus requirement that is now openly flouted. if admins cannot follow the central notice policy to "4. Be consensus-driven" [5] then maybe they need to be desysoped. what is the point of having policy if no one will follow it? but i see there is a global turnoff of all central notices. good. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
As you want de-sysop, please back up your argument --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The CentralNotice for POTY 2016 had been approved by a CentralNotice admin 3 days ago, see m:CentralNotice/Request#Picture of the Year 2016, so I don't think there is anything to discuss about regarding the CentralNotice of POTY 2016. Poké95 07:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
read the link to meta CentralNotice/Usage guidelines about consensus. "Most banners will need some sort of consensus before hand. This can be achieved via the CentralNotice Request process. As part of this process the host communities should then be notified via the host wiki's community notice board (Village Pump, Cafe or equivalent) – or whatever is most suitable to efficiently reach most interested users - linking to the Central Notice request. Any request will be open for at a minimum of 7 days." one admin notifying the whole wide world with no discussion, is not a consensus process. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
m:CentralNotice/Usage guidelines is not a policy, it is, surprise, a guideline. Also it is good to know what "most" means: --jdx Re: 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
i see last year they went through the motions of providing notice here. no such luck this year. i.e. where is the notice on each and every wiki which is getting banner spammed? you understand that the summary process tends to undermine the credibility and authority of the admins? you cannot say a word about the fundraising banners if you will not show good behavior on your banners. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
You're free to feel whatever you want. We are not here to convince you anything. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to everyone." And one user thinks an interactive poll among the Wikimedians to get a feedback on what they consider as the best and useful media here is spamming. See, this is a continuous process and it will give the photographers an idea on what the community is expected them. This poll includes images that are collected from other sites too; so this will help the content curators who frequently check other sites for potential media to upload here too. I can provide a lot more benefits this poll will give to Commons if the OP is interested to know. Jee 02:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
no - misuse of the central notifications without notice or consensus is spam. if it is so great, why not go through the motions? no, i am not interested; rest assured "content curators" are not interested either - they go to flickr after getting their items deleted here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
If you have a problem with the way how the notification is handles, please discuss it in meta as it is off-topic here. I know very well what Flickr is. Where you see a place for content curators there? Jee 13:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

File:Antarctic Beech at Comboyne.jpg[edit]

please delete file File:Antarctic Beech at Comboyne.jpg

location details must be kept secret.

An alternative file has been uploaded without exif data

Poyt448 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to revert mass templating of old images[edit]

Hello, please discuss about the mass tagging of images with linkrot sources for license review at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to revert mass templating of old images. Thanks, Poké95 07:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Circular categories: Category:Sound - Category:Acoustics - Category:Sound[edit]

How to solve this circular categorization? //  Gikü  said  done  Sunday, 19 March 2017 23:11 (UTC)

I'd suggest that by analogy with Light, the study of which is Optics, Sound is the thing and Acoustics its study. Therefore Sound should be a parent rather than a subcat of Acoustics. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
We also have acoustics as the study of waves, and sound is only part of that. --ghouston (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, mechanical waves, and it depends how you define "sound" I suppose; considering vibration, sound, ultrasound and infrasound. --ghouston (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Tech News: 2017-12[edit]

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

March 21[edit]


What do you all think about enabling the QuickDelete gadget for all registered editors? I think that having "Report copyright violation" in the side bar might help us get a few more Wikipedians (correctly) tagging copyright violations for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure that newly created accounts will use it wisely? Ruslik (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
No, just let's not do this. Natuur12 (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Why not, Natuur12?
I think that the people most likely to notice it (and therefore have a chance of using it) are experienced editors from other projects, so I do think that it would most often be used appropriately. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Experienced users from other projects know how to turn on a gadget. There is absolutely no evidence that this would have a positive effect other than your speculation. One of the reasons why we can process copyright violations fast is because most off the tagging is done by experienced editors. A possible scenario is that enabeling the gadget will encourage editors unfamiliar with our policies to nominate files even more easely. Btw, is this WhatamIdoing the volunteer or WhatamIdoing the staffer speaking? Natuur12 (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
No, Unexperienced users can create mess with this tool. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 22[edit]

Native English speakers: Copyright issues with cartoons from John F. Knott[edit]

I asked this on the village pump copyright corner and got the advice the start deletion requests, but I think it would be useful, when a native English speakers looks at it:

See cat. John F. Knott. Most of the images there are uploaded from a Flickr account ofSMU Central University Libraries. On the Flickr pages for every file they claim, that there are no known copyright restrictions. But: John F. Knott died in 1963. For the US only cartoons from before 1923 should therefore be in public domain (and the now used license tag would be wrong); for most other countries it will last decades, before the images will be free. On the other hands it is possible to hand over copyrights in the US. How to find out, whether this is the case here? — Speravir – 00:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

There’s another possibility, that the cartoons were published without the notice, registration or renewals that US law required at the time. No idea whether or not that is actually the case here, just pointing out that publication before 1923 is not the only reason for a US copyright to have lapsed ahead of the now-usual 70 years pma.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
i'm not showing any hits for renewals at [13] (after 1978 online) don't know why you are second guessing SMU library. you realize there is a greater chance of an "FoP germany" getting taken down, than a "no known copyright"? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

License advice[edit]

Can ro:Fișier:Orașe și ani.jpg be moved at Commons using {{PD-Text}}?Ionutzmovie (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Ionutzmovie: The image depicts a literary work, so it is not {{PD-text}}. For that image to be moved to Commons, the copyright of the book depicted must have expired in its source country and the US. Who's the author of the book, and when did they died? When is the book published? Thanks, Poké95 03:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pokéfan95: with all due respect, you are wrong. This is not the body of the work in question, it's the cover. Nothing here should rise to the level of being copyrightable: it's simple typography on negligible content. But I'd probably use {{PD-ineligible}} rather than {{PD-text}}. - Jmabel ! talk 06:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for correcting me. I didn't knew that cover pages with no copyrightable elements are not themselves copyrightable. Poké95 09:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

March 23[edit]

March 24[edit]