Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/01.

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:

Village pump in Sabah, Malaysia. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

January 01[edit]

Personality Rights Question[edit]

Hi, and a Good New Year to everyone.

I have a question about this Commons photo I just came across. To the best of my knowledge, the Amish will tolerate but do not exactly love having their pictures taken. So, while I do not question the copyright status of this file (the photographer seems to be identical with the original uploader), I do feel uncomfortable about the personality rights of the people in the picture. Would they have agreed to having their picture uploaded here and having it published in a world wide medium? Or are we doing this only because we can feel safe that they don't use this medium and will never find out? -- 13:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I think as the user has 60k edits on enwiki, we could trust that it was okay to take the photo. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what the identity of the user or the number of their edits has to do with it. Anyone can make mistakes, and a seasoned user with thousands of edits is not immune.
Commons:Photographs of identifiable people seems to be the relevant site for this question, though it is, as far as I can tell, by no means clear on this. In the U.S., it seems to be o.k. to take and publish pictures of identifiable people in public places -- unless there are reasons like defamation or moral concerns etc. to prevent it. This may, strictly speaking, not be the case here, and legally the picture is probably not a problem.
I personally would prefer to err on the side of respect for the personality rights and the moral values of the people in the picture. But I guess there can be different opinions on this. -- 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
P.S. As to the possibility of a seasoned user making mistakes: The most recent upload by this very user was this one which they uploaded as "own work". Seriously? To my eye at least this looks very much like a page scan from a book. -- 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the photographer likely did not speak to the people before the photo was taken without their permission, I'd like to know how the photographer confirmed that the people pictured are Amish and not Old Older Mennonites. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why you think the photographer "likely" did not ask beforehand, and why it seems not to cross your mind that they could have asked afterwards instead. To me it seems the family is undisturbed by the camera; perhaps the photographer is a friend. –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Upload form is outdated, please convert to dynamic dates[edit]

Special:UploadWizard still asks if "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" because it was "First published in the United States before 1925" but the American public domain now starts in 1926. Can someone with access to the server please change this from a hard-coded date to something dyanmic with JavaScript that will just subtract 95 years? If no one reading this can do that, then I can open a ticket on phab:. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 09:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

pinging some ppl from Gerrit:571050 @Jdforrester (WMF), DannyS712, Multichill, Raymond:.--Roy17 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I will submit a patch tomorrow. Raymond 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: Please submit a Phabricator task to update this. A dynamic (non-human-reviewed) value isn't appropriate for legal text, however. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): phab:T271766. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I just gave a +2 to the patch, so it is merging now and should be live here next week (see phab:T267419 for the deployment progress) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Importing files from the source wiki[edit]

I tried to put the images on w:te:గోవిందరాజస్వామి ఆలయం, తిరుపతి in Category:Govindaraja Temple, Tirupati but got the message "Unfortunately, importing files from the source wiki ( is not yet possible because there is no configuration for the wiki in the configuration file list". Is there anyone who can make this possible? Wouter (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be set at the Mediawiki site by someone who is in the know of the templates and categories of the Telugu Wikipedia. I think your chances would be better if you asked directly at mw:Extension talk:FileImporter. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I did. Wouter (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Large number of acceptable files being needlessly DR-ed[edit]

I refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yprpyqp and User:Gun Powder Ma.


  1. Majority of these files nominated are scans of old books whose copyrights have absolutely expired long ago.
  2. The uploader often put down {{Own}} in the source parameter.
  3. However, most images do have adequate sourcing info in their filenames or descriptions, or such info could be easily deciphered from the images themselves (e.g. the title of the book is in the image itself).

Now this user insists on DR-ing such files. S/he's done so in May 2020: Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/05/09. I have reported this problem to COM:AN twice: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Qiushufang's_files_in_DR Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_82#Nonsense_DR_still_open_five_months_later, yet most files were still deleted by User:P199. I protested the deletion, but it was useless: User_talk:P199/Archive_3#Wrongly_deleted_scans_of_old_books.

May I ask the community to arrive at a solution to this kind of files?

Solutions I can think of:

  1. Feed such nonsensical demands and delete the files even though their copyrights have expired.
  2. Keep the files as they are even though the uploader wrote the source parameter wrongly.

There are not many Chinese speaking users around. And it's quite time consuming to go through the files one by one. For the batch nominated in May 2020 and now deleted, I had categorised the acceptable ones (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Qiushufang's_files_in_DR, I made convenient links to search the files when they were not yet deleted) and asked sysops to keep them but User:P199 deleted them anyway. Frankly I dont wanna waste my time anymore for this painstaking task just because one user is nitpicky and unhappy about the files.

I should emphasise, that when my effort would be appreciated, I am happy to skim through the files DR-ed and identify which ones are acceptable, but because of uncooperative sysops I am not doing it since my effort would most likely be trashed anyway.--Roy17 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that we should not use deletion of the file as a "teaching" tool for the user uploading the file. If somebody makes a mistake in the description that is obvious, the correct way to fix the problem is to fix the description. Deletion of the file should be the last resort measure, when no other approach can be taken. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The best way to deal with this issue is to correct the info in the file descriptions. The DR's are nowadays open for months. That gives you ample time to fix the source, dates, and licenses (just categorizing them is not sufficient). If you still need more time, ask for an extension at the DR to let us know that you are working on it. But if we see no progress, we won't keep unsourced images with wrong licenses. Regards, --P 1 9 9   22:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
What a joke. A nitpicky user blindly nominates 100+ files within seconds. Then volunteers have to spend hours to save them? And I did make an effort, spending some minutes to batch identify good ones, so that responsible sysops could deal with them easily on a whole. And without guarantee my effort would be honoured--my effort was indeed wasted because of sysops like P199--I of course would not go to the great lengths to feed such ridiculously stringent demands by one user who keeps wasting everybody's time.
Be aware, that the nominator only clicks one button to mass DR automatically, but to reverse it non-sysop volunteers have to not only "correct the info in the file descriptions" but also edit the DR pages, everything done manually.
Such deletion does not obey COM:D either. A user, at best clueless, at worst nitpicky, DR the files. Another user with the knowledge has pointed out which exact files have no problems and advised sysops to close. Then there's no reason to delete it.--Roy17 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like adding the correct information to File:Nude Mona Lisa - Primoli Version,Rome.jpg today. Should I just slap a DR on it, which would be much easier? Yes, it sometimes takes extra work to do things the right way, but just throwing DRs, especially mass DRs which are hard to handle, is not the appropriate approach.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting these files is a very poor idea. Fixing the description is much less work than undeleting. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SDC precision[edit]

A couple of days ago I uploaded a photo File:Bukhara Sarrafon Hammam ceiling ornament.jpg and now it has a warning message saying the camera location coordinates I indicated have 23m discrepancy with SDC coordinates. What is SDC, how does it know where my camera was when I took the picture, and what should I do about the template warning?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Multichill:s bot added the SDC data [1] so he can say where the data comes from. Based on diff i would say that it looks like it comes from wikitext and it could be a rounding error(?) --Zache (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
SD=stuctured data (I guess C may mean coordinates?). After you added to the file description page a reference to a Wikidata entity [2], approximate coordinates were entered by the bot BotMultichillT [3]. The stuctured data section of the file description page claims (apparently incorrectly) that coordinates are from Wikidata, where (different) coordinates were entered by the bot MatSuBot [4], who itself copied it from Wikipedia in German, where they were entered by the user Bjs [5] [6]. However, the coordinates added to Commons by BotMultichillT are different from those added to Wikidata by MatSuBot. The edit link provided by the stuctured data section of the Commons page does not lead to Wikidata, but to Wikimedia maps and it gives no clue as to the history of who entered coordinates there. Your life is ruled by bots now. Even if you know better. Reality is irrelevant. Is it not a wonderful world? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I always (well, in the last 8 years) add the coordinates myself, and these are not the coordinates of the object but the coordinates of the point I have taken the picture from (as it is clear from the template, I use {{Location}}, not {{Object location}}). In this case, I first misidentified the object and then identified it correctly, changing the Wikidata ID. Maarten's bot's edits came in the middle, and probably a template was upset by the difference between my coordinates for the location and the coordinates of the object. Still, the two objects are close to each other, and it is perfectly fi ne to take a picture from a distance of 23 m, so I do not quite understand the warning. Let us wait for Maarten.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You changed the coordinates in the template one day after uploading the file. So the coordinates copied by the bot in to the structured data are the original ones added during the upload. The the coordinates during the upload where wrong you have to change the structured data coordinate the the new corrected coordinates. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This is exactly what I do not understand. The coordinates refer to the point where I took the picture, not to the object. How could the bot know where I have taken the picture?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You added the location on upload. The original page has the location template. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I obviously know this, because I added them myself. However, I amended coordinates in my pictures many times and never got such warnings. It must be that the bot stored the camera location coordinates somewhere, but I can not figure our where and how I can correct them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You have to copy the coordinates from the template and then replace the old coordinates in the structured data tab with them. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. You upload the image with location template set to {{Location|39.772552|64.418664}} source of edit
  2. The robot pick this up and puts it in latitude 39.772552 / longitude 64.418664 in structured data
  3. You change the coordinates to {{Location|39.772471|64.418906}} so it no longer lines up with the structured data
  4. I removed the structured data so the picture is back in Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 missing SDC copyright license (which is monitored by my bot)
  5. The bot will add the structured data again, but now with slightly different coordinates. When that's done you'll be able to see this diff in the structured data.
Everything said by Asclepias is incorrect. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to all of you. Is it correct that I can not edit the structured data myself without a script?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
No that's not correct, you actually just edited the structured data. All the editing of other statements is about the same as Wikidata (updating coordinates on Wikidata isn't that easy either). Multichill (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Multichill, thank you for looking into this. It was on my to investigate list as it relates to the Module:Coordinates code, which generates the alert. It seemed to have worked as designed. --Jarekt (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the coordinate tab shows to me as not editable, unless I am missing something (I can remove coordinates, but I can not add new ones).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If you mean that the coordinate "add" button is greyed out, you probably have not entered new coordinates yet. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I did. In fact, if in any of my files I go to the Structural data tab, I only see P180. I only see other information there if l look at the diff of the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Commons in read-only on Tue 26th January[edit]

The current primary database master for Commonswiki needs to be replaced. This host is old and out of warranty, so needs to be decommissioned. This maintenance operation requires a 15 minutes read-only window for Commonswiki.

As a consequence, Commons will be in read-only on Tue 26th January, starting at 07:00AM UTC. No edits or uploads will be allowed. Reads will not be impacted.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before this operation starts. This maintenance operation will also be announced in Tech News. 

Please help by sharing this information with your community!

More information: phab:T271427, phab:T271791

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

{{PDMark-owner}} and Category:Media without a license[edit]

Hi, as apparently {{PDMark-owner}} made by User:King of Hearts is intended to be used. Is there not a way to modify tools such as Flickr2Commons for that the files be uploaded directly with that template because in addition to have a manual review to do there is also to add the template. The categories "Media without a license" such as Category:Media without a license as of 14 December 2020 are crowded. I did it for a few files such as this one. It makes too many editions to do on too many files, and if this template is indeed intended to be used, IMO something should be done. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

{{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} is more specific license for files from flickr using PDM there, while {{PDMark-owner}} should be used for files from other sources. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes ok, but the issue stands. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right. Requests for changes to flickr2commons can be done at [7]. I did not test Special:UploadWizard but changes to it should be requested at Phabricator. --Jarekt (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Asking for advice on the right way to categorize[edit]


I don't want to COM:OVERCAT. I am categorizing Category:Buena Vista Park and I created the category Category:Views from Buena Vista Park. Some of the "Views" also show parts of Buena Vista Park. At what point should I put a file in both categories i.e. in "Views from Buena Vista Park" and "Buena Vista Park" or just in "Views"? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the part of the park visible is substantial, you can place them in both categories. Ruslik0 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Comes down to personal judgement at the end of the day Oxyman (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I used my judgement. Krok6kola (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File formats?[edit]

Hi, what questions are likely to be asked by a new user or non-expert user? These seem essential.

  • What file formats are acceptable?
  • Among formats with a similar functionality, which are preferred for various requirements?

Astonishingly, the word "format" is not in the Help:Contents page. "Search help pages" in Help:Contents is not helpful. How can such obvious questions be ignored? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:File types, there's a mention in the FAQ which itself is linked in the getting started part of Help. Also COM:Formats. -- (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That page is crucially valuable. Thanks. But indirection, a link to a link, hides it. Even the search failed to find it. Someone please put a direct link on Help:Contents. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Help needed for Alexander Altmann[edit]

Hi, Help needed to fix the Authority control for two different persons : Category:Alexander Altman (1878-1932) and Category:Alexander Altmann (1885-1950). The first is sometimes spelt Altmann (with 2 n). Knowledge of Russian would be useful. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Russian name is correct, if this is the question. Standard Romanization would be Altman, but he lived most of his life in France and presumably was spelled Altmann there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks for the answer. Lockal claims here that they are one and the same. I could understand that there are uncertainities about the birth date, but how to explain that one died in 1932 and the other in 1950? And that one is born in Odessa, and the other one in Kiev? [8] seems to support this claim, but we have a precise date and place of death in France: September 14th, 1932, Nemours (77). It should be easy to get the death certificate. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I see that both Russian and German Wikipedia (which refer to different Wikidata items) refer to the birthplace as Sobolivka. The death date is indeed unclear, but so far I do not see any sources for 1950 death.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Although I am not offended myself, I wonder if using {{Motd/2021-01-19 (en)}} and {{Motd/2021-01-20 (en)}} as Media of the Day would be a good idea, given the current political climate in the United States. Richard 11:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, mild parody and not focused on recent events. Were these specifically about current US terrorist threats, there would be reason to reconsider if this were the time to have them on the front page. -- (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The timing of both, being the last 2 days of his presidency, appears designed primarily to needle and provoke a reaction. They will likely be ammo to inflame and harden conservatives' distrust and disdain of Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. While certainly many people will be glad when Trump leaves office, I see no overall net positive to posting these, other than making a few liberals smirk. --Animalparty (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Its net result will only be making angry people angrier. Richard 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Oddly, Commons:Media of the day does not tell how the images are chosen. Seemingly files are nominated at the talk page, but I could find no entry for these files, uploaded by the same user who put them into the templates for the day. Just vandalism? –LPfi (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It's not odd. It's not watched much so some people just take it upon themselves and when it's problematic, people come here, we question the lack of review and it continues on. POTD has a lot more interest. I think it should be moved to weekly personally which make get enough eyes on stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I also found File:ASSHOLE, Bigot, Liar and Pussy grabber Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant. Dump Donald Trump in 2020.webm ({{Motd/2021-01-19}}) and file File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm ({{Motd/2021-01-20}}) not that funny and totally not appropriate for out Main_Page. On and around US presidential inauguration, I think we should run positive US politics related videos or generic celebration videos. How about
--Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Should we forcibly rename the files? I do not think such names are appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. The first one was already renamed, I renamed the other one. The file description was so offensive that I had to revision-delete it. I removed the autopatrol flag from the user, and warned them that one single instance of adding similar secriptions to files would result in a block. If there is any community process which results in featuring files with such descriptions at the main page, this process is badly broken.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This rename was unnecessary and does not meet COM:FR.
Trump is famous for using the words "pussy" and "asshole", these are extremely well established in global press headlines. Removing exactly these words from filenames about Trump is to put personal tastes over fact. It would have been better to leave the uploader's choices in place. -- (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I am pretty sure WMF T&S would support me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Wrong. WMF T&S would make no comment. If you think otherwise, you misunderstand their scope and legal responsibilities. Feel free to email them.
Your actions in this case fail to meet the requirements of COM:FR. Please consider reverting your changes and removing your unnecessary and controversial "warning" to the uploader. Thanks -- (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
No. I am also not sure why do you call my warning "controversial" if you can not see the content which I revision-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
At least I can see that content was removed (but not revdeleted) by user:Animalparty from one of the files and that this removed content was the exact description of the file at vimeo, from where it was imported. With the rename and the removed content, it is no longer possible to see what the file is about and it looks like some unremarkable comic video, while in fact it is a document with a meaning no longer identifiable at commons. Should it be also changed or deleted at vimeo, no one can still know what it is about. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As the blanking of information given by the original artists at the source, appears to contravene the intention of COM:Not censored, I have added it to the description diff.
If anyone wants to argue the case that the description text must be censored, I suggest creating a thread specifically for that, or maybe having an RFC to establish this file as a case to amend COM:Scope for files that appear to criticize or parody Donald Trump. -- (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm, as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
File renames do not require sysop rights.
Opinions in this discussion (this is not a vote) relating to censorship of filenames do not carry more weight from those with sysop rights.
If you disagree, a link to the relevant policy would be helpful. Thanks -- (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not vote. I did exactly my administrator's job namely as an administrator, I fully endorse the strict application of our policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view concerning the change name that have been done in File:Carnival Trump burning.webm. And yes, you're right this is not a vote, neither a democraty, try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
And yes again, that is fully my (our) administrator's job, to apply and enforce our policies, included the one about "Neutral point of view" Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a discussion.
Nobody asked you to do anything here in an administrator capacity.
You are making clear threats ("try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean") where none is necessary or helpful, and appear to be imposing your will on everyone else using your sysop rights to do so. Many would call this bullying in order to by-pass civil discussion. Nobody has more weight in discussion because of the groups they are a member of.
Behave yourself. -- (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't remember that I have to wait after you ask me something. You can discuss what you want, and in my first comment I just intended to discuss and to support the action of my colleague against your objection, that's all. But apparently that was not sufficient for you. Yes again, as user and as administrator I can say if I endorse an action (administrative or not) and yes I can say if I think that an action is in line or not within our policies, that is fully my right and my duty if I wish it. And yes it appears that this action is fully in line with our policy IMO. And, yes again, that is/will be my duty as administrator to enforce or to help to enforce this policy if I judge it necessary. I see not a single begining of abuse of administrative power or of threat in my attempt of discussion, while your answer had a tone much more questionable, because it does not go at all in the direction of an open discussion. Behave yourself you too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
"Enforce", "I judge it", "my duty as administrator"
This is not a discussion, with these words you saying you are the law. Reading the discussion before your interventions, nobody has dared to suggest that they would do anything against policy, there is nothing to "enforce" here, and nowhere has there been any request for an administrator to take any action. To be a sysop is to offer to help with a mop, not a gun.
No doubt these powerful words of strength makes you feel good, so it's great for you to get all this out of your system.
If you have anything positive or constructive to add to the discussion, any helpful suggestions, maybe you could focus on that rather than tangential ideas about "duty" or laying down "judgements" that will just close down discussion unnecessarily? Thanks -- (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I return to you the compliment "If you have" nothing "positive or constructive to add. (...) maybe you could focus on" other things. My point of view, my judgment about that topic if you prefer, were and stay the same: "As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm, as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view.", this comment is not at all unconstructive. You are more interested by controversy than about the destiny and name of this file, that is a fact. Luckilly we took care of this file and now that I placed it in my watchlist I will manage to do my duty, I mean to verify that nobody move it to a controversial name, and if necessary (I hope no of course) I will use of my administrator tool's (my duty gain!) to enforce our policy regarding this file. Thanks you for helping me to clarify the things. I look forward to your response, if either ther is one. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@: You're saying that the rename to File:Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant.webm doesn't meet FR criterion 5, which explicitly includes gratuitous vulgarity? pandakekok9 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Replying to ping, but my opinion has been expressed clearly enough already TBH; this would be the wrong reasoning. Trump is explicitly notable for "pussy", "shithole countries" and calling Mexican immigrants "rapists". Defending his most venerable reputation by avoiding these vulgar words is not the intent of FR5.
Reasoning that could and should be used to rename is that it matches the source title. Why folks seem to want to avoid that extremely obvious rationale and instead go on this crazy jag to foment an uprising, and in the process throw around threats of blocks, is beyond me. Keep it simple. -- (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why his usage of those vulgar words is a reason why the file shouldn't be renamed, but ok. The vulgar words on the filename is obviously directed towards Trump, not about his usage of those words. It seems nobody can change your mind here, so I'm not going to insist from now on. But I'm still of the opinion that the rename by 4nn1l2 Animalparty is perfectly within FR5, which includes gratuitous vulgarity, with "gratuitous" in this case meaning unnecessary. pandakekok9 02:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
While none of the renames were done by me, I think both of them were in line with COM:FR#FR5. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were the one who renamed that. Corrected it now. :) pandakekok9 05:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
While I will not comment on the points if a renaming was needed or allowed, I think that the chosen names are not ok. These are not vids of Donald Trump drinking deinfectant or Trump burning, these are Videos of ridiculing Donald Trump for proposing to drink desinfectant. The new names are missleading and therefore wrong. A missleading name choosen by the author is acceptable, but changing a name given by the author to a missleading name is not. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm on Template:Motd/2021-01-20 (en). This is politicizing Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose User:Jarekt's proposal to deliberatly choose Videos that celebrate ("run positive US politics related videos") the US at the time of the inauguration of a new US president. Wikipedia and Commons was not made as an advert for a better world, but to showcase the World as it is. The anti-trump videos are about things that happened (albeit in a insulting way), but they are only a comment on the past. Painting Biden as a hero (comparing him with Kennedy or Obama) is actively taking sides. Wikipedia is for the whole world, it is for Chinese people (if the get the chance to take a view on wikipedia), it is for Russians and turkish or kurdish people. It is for people from islamic Sudan and christian South-Sudan. It is highly inadequate to showcase the US (that broke a number of treaties that are also of high significance to Wikipedia, open access, open software, human rights, ..) as a light tower of freedom on a day, that might turn out as a day of attempted coups by Trump supporters. (PS: the inaugurations of Kennedy and Obama are also an insult to Trump supporters, especially on a day four years after Trump was inaugureted, the president, who made America Great Again, who undid the things Obama and Kennedy did and who hosted the best inauguration ever) --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • When people's have strong opinions, especially on live events, Jarekt's proposal, as you name it, makes sense as it is a good thing if we try not to put fire in a way or in the opposite ways. Without censorship, of course, our "Media (or Pictures) of the day"s must not become a platform for activists whatever their bias. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I oppose unilaterally choosing controversial media as Media of the Day. If you think some controversial files should be featured, you should nominate them much before the day they are due, to give time for discussion, and explain why you think they are appropriate and good. I think also "positive" media are controversial, especially if they are chosen for that reason, and should likewise be discussed. It is too late to nominate controversial media for the 20th, but I really think Commons:Media of the day should explain the role of the feature, the expectations on it, and the procedure for nominating and choosing the files. –LPfi (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Videos nominated month of even a year before they should been featured have not been discussed (probably because of the very small number of people who look after MOTD), videos who have been nominated a month before the date have been removed after they appeared on the main page. While it would be a good thing to actually discuss the videos, there are simply no users who actually do. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Look at all the rancor these proposed videos have incurred here, among a small group of geeks with the shared interest of curating educational content. Now imagine when the Daily Mail or The Daily Caller sees the videos and magnifies outrage to their audience. The wisest choice is to just show an innocuous video of rice being harvested, or how planets rotate, or a skateboarding monkey. While MOTD says nothing about quality or educational utility, I think it should emulate Commons:Picture of the day in presenting high quality, high value media likely to inform, inspire, and be reused, not crude (and not very funny) animation from essentially unknown cartoonists (COM:PARTYPICS?), or politically charged burnings in effigy. If choice A invites the potential for needlessly pissing off millions, and choice B does not, go with choice B. Save political videos for occasions where they can do more good than harm, like documenting government abuses of power, or teaching lessons more valuable than "here are some people who hate Trump". --Animalparty (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Doing… I replaced video for Template:Motd/2021-01-19 with File:SanSebastian.Flag of La Concha, 2012.webm which was one of the winners of the April 2018 Photo challenge, and unless there are better suggestions will replace this evening (in 6 hours) Template:Motd/2021-01-20 video with File:Nagaoka Festival Fireworks 2017 Phoenix 20170803 (No audio version).webm. --Jarekt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done both files replaced with neutral non-political non-US videos. @Richard thank you for alerting us about this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    • No problem. Thanks for replacing the videos. Richard 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Description in multiple languages.[edit]

Hi, when I view this page with Firefox, only the description in English is visible. In edit mode three other languages are visible. Should the browser display the description in all the languages? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Hi, and welcome. You may want to uncheck the "Show labels, aliases and descriptions in all my languages on page load" checkbox at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and Save.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@PeterEasthope: The browser should only display the description in all the languages if that checkbox is unchecked.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, I unchecked it. This feature was introduced recently. Prior to the introduction, a description was visible in all languages available. For me this new feature is a detriment rather than benefit. I wonder why the original behavior wasn't kept as default. I.e. require a specific setting to restrict languages to a particular subset of those available.
Most files are described in only one or two languages. Multiple languages don't incur a large overhead of communication. So I wonder about the need for this feature. In fact I'm concerned that it is another instance of feature creep as occurs in many aspects of computer use. Sorry to say, continued embellishment with bothersome and unnecessary features will cause me to consider reduction of donations. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Anybody heard of MediaSearch? Knows responsible techies? Knows where to get rid of feedback: mw:Help_talk:MediaSearch? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The development and discussion page is here: Commons:Structured data/Media search. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thx --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Category:Aerial views of Menton[edit]

I have a question about how languages are used in categories. Category:Vue générale - Menton contains three files named "Aerial view of Menton" and one "Menton (aerial)". It also contains two files that should be in Category:Menton and one "Vue Mention" but not an "aerial". Is it ok to create a category for "Aerial views of Menton"? It seems to me the current cat name is confusing, considering its mixed contents. How should this be handled? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

National Museum of Ireland images are CC by-sa[edit]

National Museum of Ireland's Publications Policy:

"Copyright of all images rests with the National Museum of Ireland unless otherwise stated. All National Museum of Ireland images are made available under Creative Commons BY-SA licence."

per a recent update to - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm indebted to User:Smirkybec for bringing this to my attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:User at project/core[edit]

The Finnish part is now |fi = [[{{{4}}}User:{{{1}}}|{{{5}}}]] projektissa [[{{{4}}}|{{{3}}} {{{2}}}]], which generates "Jnovikov projektissa suomi Wikipedia", and that's very bad Finnish, the right form is "suomenkielinen Wikipedia" but I think that the template cannot generate it so "Wikipedia kielellä suomi" which is easier to execute is okay also. Ergo can someone who is able to edit the page mentioned in title of this topic change it to form |fi = [[{{{4}}}User:{{{1}}}|{{{5}}}]] projektissa [[{{{4}}}|{{{2}}} kielellä {{{3}}}]]? Jnovikov (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jnovikov: Done; please check it's working as expected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. It seem to be working well. Jnovikov (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing campaigns in regards to runningmatees[edit]

@Prosfilaes: keeps removing Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920 from parent category Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920. He believes it does not belong in either that, nor would it belong in Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt was James M. Cox's vice presidential runningmate in 1920. The category featuring images of this campaign would not be findable from Roosevelt's category with Prosfilaes changes being made.

I makes sense to include the category for the campaign in "Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920", as this was something Roosvelt was a part of/did in the year 1920.

It is commons convention that we include vice presidential runningmates (or sub-categories that separate media related to them to the respective year they were on the ticket) as parent categories for presidential campaigns. It makes sense as the campaigns the categories contain media of are strongly related to the individuals who were the runningmate.

However, this is a convention that Prosfilaes believes is overturned because of a village pump discussion in which two or so editors said it did not make sense to them to include "Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920" in the parent category "Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1920" (BEFORE it was mentioned to any of them that Roosevelt was the runningmate, so it is possible that they simply did not know this context when they declared it did not make sense to them). On these weak grounds of comments by users lacking the full context (as Prosfilaes had neglected to provide them with the context that Roosevelt was Cox's runningmate), Prosfilaes took the initiative of declaring themselves there was a "consensus".

This is a widespread convention impacting possibly hundreds of categories, and it should not be overturned by weak so-called "consensus" from a discussion that did not properly even mention that the dynamic of the parent cat being the runningmate on the presidential ticket actually existed.

Another example of this convention being used is that Category:Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020 is sorted under the parent category Category:Kamala Harris in 2020, as Harris was Biden’s running mate.

This convention is pretty much universally applied to the categories for campaigns of presidential nominees.

This convention has also been used for gubernatorial campaigns in which the lieutenant governor ran as a runningmate on the same ticket. For example, Category:J.B. Pritzker gubernatorial campaign, 2018 has been included in the parent category Juliana Stratton, as Stratton was Pritzker's runningmate.

Do editors believe that it makes sense to retain or overturn the convention of sorting categories for campaigns under the category for their runningmate?

SecretName101 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The last comment on that section said "that requires discussing things with people here rather than ignoring everyone with a drive-by comment and revert to get your way." So instead of continuing the last discussion, SecretName101 waited a month before reverting the category again. Note also they falsely accuse me of things I never did; I did not start the last discussion, nor even joined it, merely enforced what seemed to be a fairly clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone considered compromising on {{Seealsocat}}? - Jmabel ! talk 08:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if you were not the one who started that conversation. @Jmabel: had been. However, THEY knowingly left out a key dynamic of WHY the category was categorized that way. A consensus cannot be founded upon such incomplete information. And uniformed position is often the wrong position. SecretName101 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel properly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is clear. Do we want to forbid this widespread convention, thereby making campaign categories UNFINDABLE from the categories belonging to runningmates or not? WHY we would forbid a convention that makes sense, and makes things easier to find, is beyond me. SecretName101 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I don't think we should forbid this convention. Runningmates are important, as well as campaigns, and cats should link them.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. @SecretName101: How exactly would my suggestion of using {{Seealsocat}} make runningmates unfindable? Alternatively, I'd have nothing against a subcat specifically for the vice-presidential candidacy and campaign which could be under both the person and year category and the category for the presidential campaign.
  2. @Jeff G., SecretName101: The problem with SecretName101's approach is that typically only a small fraction of the pictures in the presidential campaign are pictures of the runningmate, so when those are no longer directly in the category for that person and year, you end up with it becoming quite hard to find those few images when you start from that person and year. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to search within a "collection" or category?[edit]

Boston Public Library recently announced they were uploading 11,000+ images to Wikimedia commons. This is great!. Is there a way I can search within this collection for specific items? I'm thinking of looking for words like "portrait," or other keyowrds. Things I tried....

  • using Google to search WC with the phrase "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" and the individual word "portrait"
  • same thing with the WC site search
  • using the advanced search to search for "portrait" within the category "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" (example. this WILL work if I re-set the "Search in:" parameter to ALL but will not work if that setting is set to "default" and I am not sure why.)

So, I've found a hacky way to do this but I am wondering... is there an easier way? Thanks for any help or advice. Jessamyn (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Your last example seems like the way to do it, to me. The only reason it doesn't get any results as-is is because the File namespace is not included, and that's the one all the files are in. Corrected query: [9]. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, this will be helpful. Jessamyn (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

When was this painting done by Rudolf Alfred Höger?[edit]

This file btw. If there any other places to ask, let me know! Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this was August 1916. Wouter (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Wouterhagens can I add a reference to the file like I did? Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
That link may change within a year. Why not the articles in Wikipedia (see the long list at the bottom of the page of the image) such as the English WP. Wouter (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
On the page of the image is also the date given with a link to "7/8 The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century, by David Reynolds". Wouter (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion Wouterhagens, I added the reference to wiki-en instead of the Commons page. Cheers Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I also added it to Close combat on the Doberdo (Q104878729) --Jarekt (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I add the property "country of origin" in Structured commons data on files?[edit]

Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Eternal categorisation loop[edit]

I was about to recategorise File:Non-official language speakers density ZA.svg from Category:Unidentified maps to Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa, when I realised it was already in there. It is just a hidden category. Now the problem: removing [Category:Unidentified maps] will trigger a bot to tag it as uncategorised, because there are no non-hidden categories. If we then add the only correct but hidden category, we're back where we started. How to fix this? --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@FogueraC: Why did you hide Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa in this edit?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Can someone fix this odd upload error?[edit]

Only the old versions of File:Savannah Portland NewYork City Blocks.svg are updated, and it's probably been long enough to not be a delay since it's failed to update for longer than it took for me to notice the good version showing up in the old versions. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: It looks good to me. Please see COM:FAQ#PURGE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm still seeing the bad 2014 version after pressing the purge button I got from appending the URL with something. Only the thumbnails of versions from earlier tonight are good. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way: I'm seeing 6 blocks of Manhattan NYC (264' center-to-center spacing in the North-South dimension, 1/20th of a mile) in all offered thumbnails on multiple browsers on multiple devices on (virtually) multiple coasts.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Which is really weird as I purged by button and now rebooted the phone and still see 3 blocks except in the previous version and the one before that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way, Jeff G.: PURGE clears any cached data on the Commons server (typically, this is the text content of the page and not any of the images, I believe), but your web browser also has a cache of images it has downloaded that might need to be cleared if the server's image changes. You can clear that cache with a force refresh (Ctrl+F5 or Shift+F5 in most browsers). It will eventually expire on its own, but might take days or weeks depending on how things are configured. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Sagittarian Milky Way: You may also have some sort of miserly system between your phone and the real Internet that has it's own cache to provide a faster user experience without downloading too much.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Weird, incognito mode works for me but not refreshing or pasting the URL into normal mode and then going there. But I'm now convinced that only people who've accessed this image in the last few weeks might possibly be affected. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)