Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Village pumps for other languages:

বাংলা | Alemannisch | العربية | asturianu | авар | Boarisch | bosanski | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 |  | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | मराठी | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | occitan | polski | português | русский | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | suomi | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | Zazaki | +/−

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


The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


Font in VP header[edit]

Commons:Village pump/Header, which is displayed at the top of this page, has been using Template:Portal-head2 to format the words "Welcome to the Village pump". For some strange reason, that template uses the style "font-family:Gill Sans, Futura, sans-serif; … font-stretch:condensed;". Also for some reason unknown to me, the Windows 8 computer I have to use at work to browse the web chooses some kind of "fantasy" font to render this text, making it damn-near unreadable. Being of the opinion that there's really no good reason to use a particular sans-serif font in the first place, I decided to boldly change the template to use the more conservative style "font-family:sans-serif" (ignore the "background" part of my edit summary: I was mistaken about that). Another editor reverted my change, noting that "people" (presumably users on their own user pages) are using that template "who want its output to look exactly like that". A debatable claim, but whatever. I have created the similar but font-wise more "conservative" Template:Headline and changed the header to use it (old version, new version). I trust no one will have a mental breakdown if I make similar changes on the other "public" (i.e., non-user) pages that are currently using the other template? - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. An overeager admin deleted the wrong template… - dcljr (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Dcljr, you said above that you created Template:Headline, then you complained that it was deleted, yet the deletion log says «2015-04-02T10:36:13 Taivo (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Headline (Unused template: author's request on creation day)». What’s going on? (Pinging User:Taivo.) -- Tuválkin 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh… I created Template:Portal-headline, named by analogy with Template:Portal-head2, which I was intending the new template to (partially) replace. Since we don't use portals here (the original template was apparetly copied from the German Wikipedia several years ago), I decided to move the template to Template:Headline, which left a redirect at Template:Portal-headline. So, not thinking that this would become a huge hassle, I tagged the Template:Portal-headline redirect with the {{speedydelete}} template. Only I didn't remove the "#REDIRECT" directive, so when User:Taivo came along to speedy delete it, he accidentally deleted the redirect's target, Template:Headline, instead of the page that was actually tagged for deletion. Then he deleted the then-broken-redirect Template:Portal-headline as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect"! I have asked Taivo to undelete Template:Headline, but he apparently hasn't seen that request yet. (Yes, I know I can just recreate the template, but it's the principle of the thing: it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, since not only was "author's request on creation day" not true of that particular template, it wasn't even "Unused" at the time!) - dcljr (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And now User:Taivo has disappeared. Can another admin undelete Template:Headline so I don't have to spend the time re-creating it? - dcljr (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done INeverCry 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, let's try this again: I've replaced {{Portal-head2}} in the header of this page with {{Headline}} (old, new). Is anyone offended by this? Any compelling reason not to do the same with the other similar "public" (non-userspace) pages that use the other template? (Obviously, if folks at another page object, they can just revert my change.) My reasoning here is this: such "public" pages need to be usable to as many people as possible, and clearly specifying particular fonts only invites problems (despite the fallback mechanism for font selection, my experience described in my original post shows that significant problems can arise) for very little actual benefit (a slightly different looking font, when it works right). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer {{portal-head2}} for two reasons:
  1. "Welcome to the Village pump" is not a headline, but a greeting, and therefore should look differently.
  2. So far, no one has reported any display issues on Commons or the German or English Wikipedia.
As I have now added an id to {{portal-head2}}, you may add #portal-head2 {font-family:sans-serif !important;} to your common.css to alter the font family displayed to you.    FDMS  4    10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Point 1: It does look different. Normal headers are in serif font. Point 2: I just did. The rest of your comment: Fine, but very few users are going to know enough to take advantage of that fix (and it doesn't help logged-out users at all). - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot that I overwrote the Typographyrefresh. Could you upload a screenshot of what {{portal-head2}} text looks like for you so we can understand what exactly the problem is?    FDMS  4    20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I knew that was coming. I can't figure out how to do that on this machine. There doesn't seem to be "screenshot" application, and I can't install anything on it. I was about point out that, to be fair, "damn-near unreadable" is a bit of an overstatement. (I just really don't like "cute" font selections on websites for no good reason, and that is coloring my commentary about this.) The text is readable to a native English speaker (/reader), but probably significantly less so to non-natives. I also haven't been able to figure out what font this browser is actually using, since the "sans-serif font" is set to Arial, and this ain't Arial I'm seeing. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am running 2 kind of "Screenshot-Scripts" on - one is "select an element by clicking it" and the second is "take a secreenshot of the whole screen and cut it to the browser window dimension" - both do uploading by their own - would they be helpful to Commons? -- Rillke(q?) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but only with some kind of "you have to provide attribution" warning and maybe a speedy deletion criterion to get rid of them after some time.    FDMS  4    19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dcljr: You said you're running Windows 8, so please follow these steps.    FDMS  4    19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I found the font it's using: a Playbill font (condensed). Still don't know why. It's the "Gill Sans" font choice that's causing it, BTW, not "Futura" (and not "sans-serif"). - dcljr (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See, that very much looks like a font configuration issue on your side (computer or browser). Which is why nobody reported any problems yet: In fact, there are none. If for some reason you can't fix your configuration issue, the CSS still works …    FDMS  4    19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but the fact remains that if the template hadn't been referring to a specific font, the problem wouldn't have shown up in the first place. I don't know if it is, in fact, more likely for a randomly chosen computer to show an acceptable font when "sans-serif" is specified or an acceptable replacement font when "Gill Sans" is specified and it is not available, but it is an interesting fact that the computer right next to the one I have been using (in a computer lab) also shows a rather poor looking font (apparently not Gill Sans or Futura, but definitely not Playbill either — although note that it is more readable than Playbill) Playbill (although not condensed) when {{Portal-head2}} is used. This suggests to me that specifying a particular font and relying on proper font fallback/substitution when a user's computer doesn't have that font is not at all reliable. - dcljr (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [Note: {{Headline}} doesn't even set the font family, and hence uses the default font for regular text: sans-serif. - dcljr (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)] {Edit: Nope, it was Playbill, too! - dcljr (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)}
Sorry, but your conclusions are just wrong. "Safer"? Repeating myself: Except for you, no one who has encountered any problems so far, and you are refusing to let us help you fix it on your side. Also, there even is a "safe" font replacement, the default sans-serif family font. However, there is no mention of Playbill in the template's syntax. Have a look at it.    FDMS  4    21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody, for the mess I created. I was on 4-day vacation (without any computers!) and before that I decided to delete some junk. I opened "Other speedy deletions" and found ... more than 200 things. I deleted during 1 hour and 44 minutes 279 things, deleted and deleted, until misdeleted. Thank you for restoring the correct file. This error happens, if speedy deletion tag is placed after redirect link, not before. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't create a mess, just a slight inconvenience. ;-) (And I really should have realized the template shouldn't have gone after the redirect.) - dcljr (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

(responding here to FDSM4's April 9th comment above, since it's getting progressively more awkward to keep responding above Taivo's comment) "Except for you, no one [else] has encountered any problems so far" You cannot possibly know that. "refusing to let us help you fix it on your side" I don't need any help fixing it on my side. That's not why I posted here. (Thanks for offering the suggestion, though.) "there even is a 'safe' font replacement, the default sans-serif family font" And yet that's not working on 2 out of the 5 computers I've checked. Simply using the default font, however, works on 5 out of 5 of them. Not statistically significant results, to be sure, but meaningless? I say no. I say it's illustrative of the fact that using the default font is safer [yes, safer] than specifying particular non-generic fonts. "Have a look at it" I've looked at it plenty. As you know, I edited it before even posting here. This discussion (as it has turned out) is more about you not being able to look beyond the particular computer I mentioned in my first post to the larger issue that I was trying to bring up here. So, returning to that issue: You gave 2 reasons above why you prefer the original template. It looks like you withdrew the 1st one, since I pointed out that the font looks different either way (except, of course, for users who have set things up to use sans-serif headers — these people, no doubt, can deal with the consequences of that choice). Regarding the 2nd one, I simply don't accept that as a legitimate reason to not change templates (from the old one to the new one, I mean). Having heard no objections from other users, I can only assume (ironically, using the logic of your point #2 above) that no one else cares. Are we then at an impasse? Let's just cut to the chase, here: Setting aside my reasons for wanting the change, is there any reason, other than simply inertia, why Gill Sans condensed must be the font used in the header? Any reason why regular sans-serif must not be used? - dcljr (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no other objections, I have replaced most instances of {{Portal-head2}} with {{Headline}}, as described in my original post. I left user pages alone. The visible changes should be minimal. Incidentally, I found the underlying reason for the bad font choice discussed above: "Gill Sans" should have been quoted since the name contains a space; when this is done, the chosen font looks like normal sans-serif. I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}, since it might change the appearance on the user pages that are still using that template. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Statistically meaningless? I'd say yes.
No one cares except for two users with different tastes → no consensus → "my change will not make it objectively worse" → let's just implement the change? I'd say no.
"I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}"? I say ahem?!
I got used to {{headline}}? I quietly say yes …
   FDMS  4    22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Interiors of / Interior of[edit]

This category has been moved back and forth from "Interiors" to "Interior" and back again so much that each of the two is now a redirect to the other and categorization to parent levels (these two) was lost — and I’m afraid there may be much more like this…

While I’m sure that both wordings are acceptable, they are distinct and I’d argue that, in this case, the plural form is more accurate (unlike, say, for a hangar, a greenhouse, or a circus tent). However what needs to be addressed urgently is the ceaseless and distructive pingponging (see typical example). Any ideas?

-- Tuválkin 11:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely a building can only have one interior? There may be more then one room inside a building, but still only one interior, so using the plural in the case of a single building seems odd to me. Oxyman (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Since it's undesirable to have two redirects pointing to each other, I've also acted boldly to fix the issue by converting "Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém" back to a category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So bold. I hope you restored the original’s parent categories too, yes? -- Tuválkin 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Which original? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The originally first created category, with links to its two parents (other interiors and other palaces). I see that you did restore. So it’s good. -- Tuválkin 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes: You agree with Oxyman that it should be always singular ("interior"), never plural ("interiors"). That means you disagree with me, and with whoever thinks either form should be used, depending on the context. That is the matter under discussion — rushing to a decision before consensus was reached is something else, not bold.
Now, I may be utterly wrong here, maybe influenced but such distinction in Portuguese ("interior" / "interiores"), but I would like to hear more opinions, especially from native English speakers.
-- Tuválkin 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's a singular example then it's Interior of..., as in Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém. However it should be Category:Interiors of palaces in Portugal where there are many examples to choose between. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft image[edit]

On Template:Infobox aircraft image, the Category:Template documentation is being transcluded on the template page, in addition to the template's /doc page, Template:Infobox aircraft image/doc. I can't find the error, could someone help, please? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I still see the Category:Template documentation as the first category on the template's page. Is there a sub-template that is causing the transclusion? Funandtrvl (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea how Category:Template documentation is added to {{Infobox aircraft image}}. I think it is only added by {{Documentation subpage}} template, but I am not sure where that one is called either. @Rillke:, you are the template documentation expert. Can you figure it out? --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There was an undocumented parameter set in the transclusion of {{TemplateBox}} which forced displaying {{Documentation subpage}} everywhere, even on the template's main page. The solution was to remove the parameter. @Jarekt: Can you please check {{Documentation subpage}} - there is a page parameter documented but it's used nowhere in the template. Perhaps it was meant to suppress displaying {{Documentation subpage}} on the described template and the text To view the template page itself, see should probably also respect it. Can you fix that? -- Rillke(q?) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Rillke, I am having pretty hard time following the logic of the documentation templates, but from what I gather {{Documentation subpage}} "page" parameter is broken and it is only used to create correct link in the text. For example {{Assessments/doc/it}} has text "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments/doc". If the parameter would work correctly you would see "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments." There are very few pages where "page" parameter is needed and would be noticed, but I will fix it. Even Template:Assessments/doc should probably be rewritten using {{TemplateBox}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it! Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

Needlessly glary hue[edit]

Could this template be less visually intrusive? (Yes, it matches the kindergarten design of Media Viewer, but there’s no need for us to be stuck with it here: At least there is no global lock pending on modifying this template, I hope…) -- Tuválkin 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The upload method is already stated in the upload summary anyway, so do we really need such IMO promotional banners?    FDMS  4    19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ping User:Ubahnverleih
I don't think so. The template is fine, but it should only add the (hidden) category. --Sebari (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Implemented.    FDMS  4    21:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome that Ubahnverleih forked the Commons mobile app! Multichill (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

Category > More > Download all (Broken)[edit]

I just wanted to note that the "Download all" feature listed under "More" on category pages is out of order. The Haz talk 04:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been pointed out a number of times before, e.g. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 48#Deprecated URLs in MediaWiki namespace, but that was archived (twice) without being fixed. Could an admin please just remove all links from MediaWiki:Gadget-ExtraTabs2.js? LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
done, AFAIR, it was just a shell script bundled with wget.exe - we might implement it entirely in JS. Iterating over all category members is easy, compiling the list, too and dropping everything into a ZIP is as easy as it never has been. Thanks to Dschwen's fastCCI, it might be even possible to have more sophisticated selection. well just an idea needing someone with enthusiasm. -- Rillke(q?) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha, client side zip file preparation, sweet idea. But can it handle a GB download (for large categories)? --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
He, I wasn't mad enough to think about that; what I had in mind was just preparation of a shell script, to bundle it with wget.exe (for Windows, surprisingly - other systems usually have it installed), put it together in a ZIP file and to offer that for download. This is what the old catdown on toolserver did and what is perfectly feasible to be carried out client side. Smaller categories might be downloadable as whole, often users only need thumbnails or wallpaper size so ... -- Rillke(q?) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical work[edit]

Hello! When filling images of stamps on the Commons there is a need for a set of cross references. Perhaps, they can be divided into 3 groups: 1) galleries of versions; 2) templates of series; 3) archives and miniatures. It is purely mechanical work. With pleasure I will look after the volunteer, temporary or constant. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying:
  1. galleries of images of a single stamp
  2. templates related to series of stamps
  3. (Actually, I have no idea what the third one is about)
Could you confirm/clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words. This image of stamp have all 3 groups of cross references. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mechanical work" sounds like Commons:Bots/Work requests; however I am also confused about what is required. May be you can do a few edits and show before and after state. One usually also needs list of files the work needs to be done on. --Jarekt (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
At first the simplest group 3. Addition of a template {{Compressed version |file=NAME.png}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.jpg file and a template {{Archival version |file=NAME.jpg}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.png file, if only files NAME.jpg and NAME.png have identical names "NAME" and are uploaded by the same user Matsievsky and if these templates aren't written down yet. --Matsievsky (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Inspire Grant proposal[edit]

Hi, everyone! I would really love your feedback on my Inspire Grant proposal, "Bored with Boards: Attract Pinterest Users to Wikipedia." The project would entail initiating a match-making program between Wikipedia articles and women who are actively engaged in content creation and evaluation on female-dominated social networks, such as Pinterest. One Commons-related question I would hope to research is whether active female Pinterest users are more likely to participate in crowdsourced projects like Wikipedia if they are asked to provide or evaluate images, as opposed to text. Thanks a lot! -Hahahammond (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Inquiry regarding the hosting of IS/ISIS/ISIL Videos for the purposes of referencing said works in an academic article.[edit]

Removed cross-post of Commons:Help_desk#Inquiry_regarding_the_hosting_of_IS.2FISIS.2FISIL_Videos_for_the_purposes_of_referencing_said_works_in_an_academic_article. Discussion is there. Please do not split discussions by asking the same question in two different places. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain licenses on flickr[edit]

According to Flickr Blog as of this month "Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0" licenses. This creates problems for some of our upload and review tools that can not handle them well yet. Flickr CC0 license (used here) is easy enough as it well matches our {{CC-zero}}, but Flickr's Public Domain is harder, because there is no way of knowing why is it in public domain. For example this or this image look like {{PD-Author}}, but the same license will be probably used for other PD license, like {{PD-US-Gov}}, {{PD-old-100}}, etc. It will not be possible for an upload tool to match one PD-flick license with 100's of out PD licenses. Probably the best way would be to create some template that has to be replaced with a PD license or the image is delete in one or two weeks. Ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • That sounds to me like a good approach. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This was already raised on the pump (now archived). On the issue of how to handle the licenses, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Ultra7 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultra7 thank you for this link, I missed it. I guess images can be uploaded now with some tools, but the license is still cc-by-2.0. Review process also know about those licenses but adds non-existing templates, and the images are ending up in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. So we just have to make sure all the tools are compatible with those 2 licenses. But lets continue at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. --Jarekt (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation of Ski Areas[edit]

How to categorise, where to discuss? I have created Category:4 Vallées which as a ski area comprises five ski resorts. Category parent is currently Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland. Drawback is that the individual resorts can no longer show up there without violating categorisation guidelines. What about Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland > Category:Ski areas in Switzerland > Category:4 Vallées > Category:Verbier given that similar parent categories are all organised by resort?--KlausFoehl (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. -- Tuválkin 11:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

date categories[edit]

Hi, I've been categorising images in Pakistan and just discovered a category I'd overlooked: Category:Categories of Pakistan. It has many categories by date, centuries, decades, years etc. I've discovered similar categories for a few other topics, and they're always hard to find and time-consuming to access since they're only organised by date and not by topic. And most of cats such as this have few to no images. I'm wondering what's the point of such hidden away cats? Is there a greater purpose, like linking the world by date? Thanks, EChastain (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this sort of category too - and decided not to bother. If you make a research categories of you will see that there are plenty of them. I can't see any use. For example Category:Categories of Pakistan has a sub-category Category:Categories of Pakistan by century and then Category:Pakistan by century which is also a sub-category of Category:History of Pakistan. In fact the category can easily be found when searching in "history". In my opinion the categories categories of... should be deleted. Traumrune (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
hmm, well the few times I've deleted a year from an image I've been soon reverted by an overseer editor. So I guess I'll leave it alone. The trouble is often images are hidden away under these"date" cats, and unless an editor is willing to go through them all looking for images, they'll never be used. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Tower Bridge is also a good example. It seems like there are only a few images, however most have been categorised by year under History. Hopefully some day a software solution will be found to treat dates differently, but for now it doesn't seem like much can be done. --ghouston (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
At least Category:Categories of Pakistan by century seems redundant. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Template:Multilingual description wrong display[edit]

why are multilingual descriptions doubled at the moment? see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multilingual_description, eg. at the top of Category:Canals: 1. English: 2. Nederlands: and again 3. English: 4. Nederlands:
i hope someone can fix this. Holger1959 (talk) 11:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

seems fixed now, don't know how or who, but thanks. Holger1959 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
verdy_p worked on Module:Multilingual description. -- Rillke(q?) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There was an unrelated bug, and while fixing it, and also adding a test module, another issues appeared which was not expected (and not detected by the test module). I had noted that pages were doubling the languages for strange reasons: the effective list was correctly sorted, followed by all languages again (in "random" order, in fact the internal storage order of PHP associative arrays, that are using a randomizing "hashmap").
There was in fact no bug in the Lua module itself, but this is an issue in the way MediaWiki invokes Lua and binds parameters (first parsed internally in PHP) in an pseudo-array interface offered to the Lua engine: Lua accepts to modify the array silently, but this has no effect because the "parent frame" returned by MediaWiki is only a "shadow" interface to the actual PHP array, and this interface is read-only (Lua reports absolutely no error, execution continues without the change applied, and Lua does not notice that the assignments had no effect at all!).
I solved the problem by copying the arguments array into a true Lua array where it is possible then to alter keys and values of the content (I made the copy myself, because even the mw.clone() function in core library of MediaWiki for Lua does not work, as it also copies the "hollow binding" interface functions, and it is really slow; instead I just create a new array and sets its keys and values by only copying references to string values).
Also I've solved many other issues remaining with all the many untested languages (and I created a couple of test pages for them).
There are still issues but now in this template/module: they are in the localisation data for MediaWiki itself (which really has a lot of bugs for its internationalisation data). Now more than 400 languages are OK after my change (before, it was OK only for less than 50), and soon it will support correctly all languages supported in CLDR (i.e. BCP47, plus aliases, plus legacy codes from ISO639... more than 8000!).
However the "Multilingual description" template is deprecated: it does not have any support for fallbacks, and generates tool much data in pages, and it requires javascript and ignores user preferences (either in the browser, or by using the ULS or user settings recorded in the account). The migration to LangSwitch (or templates using LangSwitch) will make life better for everyone... verdy_p (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these detailed explanations and your work, verdy_p. -- Rillke(q?) 17:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm still looking for solutions in some Multilingual modules that no longer work due to a change in Scribunto (we can no longer expand something else than pure templates and nowiki tags, all other special tags are cleared. MdiaWiki now no longer expands special tags before the final step of HTML generation and will NEVER call the special tag extension hooks before that step; the "frame:*" API in Lua now only generates "stripped tags" with an encrypted unique ID (representing the tag name and its parameters in a hidden string indexed by this unique ID), and the old solutions (based on #ifexist) still have a huge cost that I try to reduce.
If only there was a way to enumerate subpages by a function in "mw.title:new():subpages(...)" or "mw.title.newprefix(...)" taking parameters like in Special:Prefixindex so that in just ONE call we could have a list of up to 200 page names (like when viewing categories of viewing the Prefixindex page), I've tried all other solutions (with "#tag:", or with "<tag>" or with other "frame:*" methods, none are working.
We desesperately need a Scribunto extension library capable of enumerating a reasonnable number of pages in just ONE query to the database.
Prefix queries are efficient, this requires only one random access to the pages index and the rest is purely sequential within that sorted index. After all, Special:Prefixindex does not cost a lot and is extremely fast, and category pages are also indexed very fast and we should also be able to use "'Category:Name'):pages(...)" or just "mw.category('Name'):pages(...)" with the same parameters as when navigating the content of a category (by group of 200 subcategories+200 pages+200 files!) and with options to filter redirects, or keep only pages or only files or on subcategories.
On the opposite the expansion of 400 "#ifexist" is much longer (400 distinct queries to the database, the cost is huge, and the text geenrated for the #ifexist expansion is also taking a considerable memory and we could save a lot by just generaing the needed content for pages that really exist). We have about 445 language codes in Wikimedia, with 2 or 3 queries we could browse them all and find the one or two dozens that exist just to generate a few lines of wikitext instead of several hundreds! All that is needed is to count an prefixindex query or categoryquery as having a cost of 1 (or 2) per group, and make sure that we won't return more than 200 pagenames per query (we can restart by using "from=" parameters to support 200 times (or 100 times) more pages to test with the same cost on the server). verdy_p (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

How to handle an image with a copyright[edit]

Hello guys!

I have images to use in an article in Wikipedia. All the images are under copyright. The author is agreed with the fact that her images to be used in Wikipedia, but wants to emphasize her authorship. She is ready to give any written agreement.

Couldn't you please clear up the sequence of actions i should made to use the images in Wikipedia, to retain her authorship and not to allow the images to be deleted. I am a newbie here, so I am not well in the mechanism, and, moreover, haven't ever faced with something like that.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterndmitri (talk • contribs)

All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons should be in the public domain, or under a free license. See COM:L for details. An author can give a specific permission for such a license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Further explanation could be given if you indicate which images you are talking about. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Sterndmitri: please read COM:OTRS and COM:L first. Those pages page should contain everything you need to know. If anything is still unclear afterwards, please don't hesitate to come back here with your specific questions. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If the goal is to use the image on Wikipedia: the Wikipedias in several languages (including English) have rules to allow use of certain non-free or insufficiently free images that are genuinely important to particular articles. Those images are hosted on the individual Wikipedia, not on Commons. If you can't get broader permission, you might go that route. Even in this case, OTRS would be good to clarify that permission for use in Wikipedia was given. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

AWB changes affecting commons[edit]

As I have been working with commons and using AWB here I have noticed that AWB is doing some things it shouldn't be doing and not doing some things it should. For example:

  1. AWB attempts to add Category:Living people to things that appear to be living people but Category:Living people is a redirect to People by name here so I asked about either stopping this or changing it to the right category.
    1. When AWB adds the above it adds it at the bottom of the page regardless of where categories are on the page
    2. AWB should not add it if the category is already present.
  2. AWB often tries to remove the en. from links to [[en.Aricle name]] and it shouldn't.

I also asked for a couple improvements:

  1. Could AWB be changed to remove double categories on commons like it does on ENWP.
  2. AWB should add Category:People by name to categories if they are about living people and do not already contain it. This can be done by looking at the People related categories like it does on ENWP.

It was suggested that the best thing might be to turn off the logic that adds Category:Living people or change it to the right category and to turn on the Meta data sort functionality. That functionality does quite a lot of different things though (most of which would not apply here) so I wanted to mention that here and see what people thought about it. If you want to see all the things this would do you can see it here. A partial list of the things this would do though:

  1. Remove duplicate categories or interwiki links
  2. Make sure interwikis are below categories
  3. Basically it puts things in order. So page body, categories and then interwiki's.

If there are other things you would like to see it do, I could ask about that as well. Please let me know if you have any questions. Reguyla (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AWB usually only does what you program it to do. English Wikipedia has some standard set of queries which are safe to perform, which were bundled as General fixes but those should not be used on Commons as they rely on categories and templates which are used on Wikipedia not Commons. It would be nice if when you switch projects in AWB you would also switch "general fixes". You might find some commons specific general expressions in Commons:File description page regular expressions and this file has some code (I do not know how well tested) that might work in similar way to "general fixes".--Jarekt (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Greetings Jarekt. After speaking with some of the AWB developers it was determined that there were some built in fixes that were happening here that shouldn't be and those are going to be fixed. Also, thank you very much for pointing out those pages, I will take a look. Reguyla (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Images Published in Public Domain are Deleted[edit]

Hi there, I uploaded some Magazine covers of Mehfil Magazine and asked the Magazine founders to email OTRS about the public release of the images. Although they sent the email, the images are deleted as shown here:

Please can someone check OTRS archive and do the undeletion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMattu (talk • contribs)

  • Once a free licence is confirmed by OTRS the files should be undeleted. Sorry, COM:OTRS states there is currently a 75 day backlog. Also, the best place for queries regarding OTRS is Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
The OTRS email was send a week after the upload and 5 days after deleting admin requested search for it. So I am not surprised they were deleted. Once they are processed by OTRS they will be undeleted. --Jarekt (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Zoom Viewer and large images[edit]

@Dschwen, Rillke: The Zoom Viewer doesn't seem to be working. No Flash or Flash versions. Also, I thought there were always links to the large image viewer tools when an image was above a certain MP, without having to install the gadget. But I don't see them if I uninstall the gadget. -- Colin (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

We switched it to a default gadget (= on by default for everybody, including users without account) and since that time, everyone who disables the gadget explicitly doesn't get the links. Additionally, the links shouldn't show up on pages where the resolution is below 2 MPx, even with gadget enabled. -- Rillke(q?) 23:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. The zoom viewers still don't work, though. -- Colin (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I can confirm that, neither variant works for me atm (Firefox 37.0.1, Scripts allowed, ad-blocker disabled). --El Grafo (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It is up again. It might have been a recent webservice update on tool-labs. --Dschwen (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dschwen -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20[edit]

Irregular banner[edit]

A banner saying «The 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections are starting soon »¶« Learn more and help find diverse candidates to lead the WMF.» is showing up on the top of selected pages. That’s all very good, except for one thing: The whole is built in some really crappy HTML (a DIV reacting to onMouseUp?! — I didn’t even want to look at the source…) and if you right-click it to bring over the context menu, it will open the target in the same window; if you want to hover the mouse for some info in your browser’s status bar, there is none; if you CTRL-click it to open the target in a separate window, it will open it also in the current window… This is a major annoyance, and it is also, once again, the WMF showing its profoundly anti-wiki philosophy and worldview. Too bad that is not going to be changed in the coming elections… -- Tuválkin 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerns about the board election are probably best addressed to the election committee. In theory they are independent of the WMF. I imagine that meta:Talk:CentralNotice/Calendar would also be a good place to lodge complaints about the notice (There's already one there about an accessibility concern), or perhaps an editprocted request directly to meta:MediaWiki:Centralnotice-template-Election2015_BoardSubmission. Bawolff (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Best to make all requests for banner changes to one of the meta admins or (preferably) to the person who made the banner which you can generally see on the logs. That said Bawolff pinged me and I've made this change. Jalexander--WMF 02:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Category disambiguation[edit]

Is there a category disambig template anywhere? I was just about to tidy up a redlinked category and link it to a parent category. The category I was going to link to is Category:ICT, which I expected would redirect to Category:Information technology, instead I see it redirects to Category:Islamabad Capital Territory. Given the range of meanings that ICT may have, I don't think this category should redirect anywhere. A quick look at Category:Islamabad Capital Territory turned up the expected: category ICT had been dropped onto files of technology, and a bot had come along and recategorised to the redirect target. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for {{disambig}}? --Rudolph Buch (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - at first glance I thought it was for pages, but a second look refers to categories, so I'll use it... Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

File renaming script malfunctioned[edit]

Not sure whether to report this here or somewhere else, or at en:wp:VPT...Yesterday I uploaded File:Olean Road in Corsica.jpg and added it to en:Corsica, Pennsylvania, but some minutes later, I noticed that it wasn't on Olean Road and used the file-renaming script to rename it to File:Main Street in Corsica.jpg, and I tagged the original title for deletion because it was new and unlikely to be used. However, I later noticed that a file-delinking bot removed the photo from the Corsica article, because an admin here deleted the image in use — in other words, unlike normal, the script didn't edit Wikipedia to fix the filename, and the en:wp bot thought that the admin had deleted an image. Does anyone know why it wouldn't have? Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the API reported faulty global usage details or global usage hasn't been shown on the file description page correctly or both. (The RexExp in MediaWiki:Gadget-libGlobalReplace.js would have matched it, that is sure.) -- Rillke(q?) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21[edit]

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation elections[edit]

This is a message from the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee. Translations are available.

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


I am pleased to announce that nominations are now being accepted for the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections. This year the Board and the FDC Staff are looking for a diverse set of candidates from regions and projects that are traditionally under-represented on the board and in the movement as well as candidates with experience in technology, product or finance. To this end they have published letters describing what they think is needed and, recognizing that those who know the community the best are the community themselves, the election committee is accepting nominations for community members you think should run and will reach out to those nominated to provide them with information about the job and the election process.

This year, elections are being held for the following roles:

Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection. There are three positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the board elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC)
The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) makes recommendations about how to allocate Wikimedia movement funds to eligible entities. There are five positions being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC elections page.

Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) Ombud
The FDC Ombud receives complaints and feedback about the FDC process, investigates complaints at the request of the Board of Trustees, and summarizes the investigations and feedback for the Board of Trustees on an annual basis. One position is being filled. More information about this role can be found at the FDC Ombudsperson elections page.

The candidacy submission phase lasts from 00:00 UTC April 20 to 23:59 UTC May 5 for the Board and from 00:00 UTCApril 20 to 23:59 UTC April 30 for the FDC and FDC Ombudsperson. This year, we are accepting both self-nominations and nominations of others. More information on this election and the nomination process can be found on the 2015 Wikimedia elections page on Meta-Wiki.

Please feel free to post a note about the election on your project's village pump. Any questions related to the election can be posted on the talk page on Meta, or sent to the election committee's mailing list, board-elections -at-

On behalf of the Elections Committee,
-Gregory Varnum (User:Varnent)
Coordinator, 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia Foundation Elections Committee, 05:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

The problem with the Picture Challenge interface[edit]

I think this issue has been mentioned before , but I have to mention it again.
The voting and submission page for it is not good.

For the Submission page , what happens is that at times I get 'Section does not exist' error , at other times someone may mistakenly upload it to the Examples section. Here , a better interface based on POTY should be implemented instead.

For the voting page ,

  1. It is not straightforward and error-prone.
  2. Users easily tend to click the place where users have already voted.
  3. Why can't we just customize the POTY page for this Picture Challenge - it is much better in layout and usability. Users' comments can be seen at the end of the voting process when the results are declared.

Why is this not being fixed? --Leaderboard (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

That's probably because setting up something like this requires coding skills the people behind the Photo Challenge don't have, and the people who do have those skills have many other important things to do. But I'm not even sure if anyone has ever asked them directly → @Rillke: what's your opinion on this? Do you think it might be possible to re-use some of the POTY magic for the Photo Callenges? --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I was always under the assumption Photo Challenge and QI, VI and FP people liked the way they were running their contests and the people who run these contests must be happy with what they have; E.g. do they want a straightforward process, at all? While we continuously increased voting volume in POTY, I wouldn't say we increased real "participation". In fact the committee almost died this year, we had to postpone things, didn't manage to announce results properly; even though things were a lot easier for us compared to last years. If someone comes up with a good concept of how things in Photo Challenge could work (including making it easier for new photographers), I guess there will be someone willing to put a few lines together. A good concept would of course not only be something roughly described in 4 sentences but a complete draft including UI, flow, considerations about that, comparison with the old process, and ideas how to gradually implement it. If the final, desired state can be achieved in small steps it's more likely to be successful. -- Rillke(q?) 12:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that there weren't sufficient users who had enough skill/free-time/motivation to write a good "end-user-experience" for Photo Challenge. Running the POTY looks like an awful lot of work, even though it has a nicer UI. So that model doesn't really work for something run every month. But PC is too reliant on me running some programs on my PC to generate voting pages and calculate results -- that needs better automated and shared. If someone is interested in coding a better photo challenge (submission, voting, validation, results) then get in touch with me and we can figure out how to get there. I keep meaning to ask if WMF have any developer time to give to this. Photo Challenge isn't the only forum with problems here: QI review is an edit-conflict nightmare, and the presentation of Commons search results and category listings leaves an awful lot to be desired. Plenty areas to improve Commons if WMF want to spend some money or volunteers want a project.
In the meantime, there are probably some quick fixes that might help. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PC is a bit different from things like FPC etc. in that it actually seems to attract a comparatively high amount of "new" users and thus I think it could really benefit from a simpler, one-click interface for submitting and voting. One year ago it was basically just a let's see if people like this at all thing, so not too much energy was spent on building the technical backbone. I think by now PC has proven to be attractive and it's time to think about how to make it run more efficiently. I guess some combination of clever bots and templates could possibly do most of the stuff that currently runs on Colin's PC. The good thing is: unlike FPC etc. PC doesn't have any specialized bots yet that would crash a whole system because of small changes ;-) If you consider the last ~1.5 years as an alpha test, now we've got the chance to "do it right" straight from the beginning.
I'm not good with templates, bots and stuff like that, but if we can gather a small team of interested/skilled people, I'd be happy to share some ideas and work on a joint concept. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Marie Lafarge[edit]

The earlier version of File:Lafarge.jpg is a completely different image to the current version; can an admin split them, please? Andy Mabbett (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The earlier version of File:Lafarge.jpg is so small (150 × 198) that it is not very useful, and it is also very similar to the current version. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have "flat categories" or not?[edit]

Recently I objected to the diffusion of Category:People by name. Now someone appears to be diffusing Category:Black and white photographs. It seems to me that the only reason for such categories is if we use them as "flat categories", more like tags, and don't diffuse them. Otherwise, we will eventually replicate all people categories under "People by name" and almost all categories under "black and white photographs of".

  1. Should we perhaps adopt an official notion of flat categories and develop a guideline for this?
  2. Is it acceptable for those of us who disagree with these edits to revert them?

- Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not have both? Take my example — I really want to keep populating, and making use of, say, Category:Black and white photographs of trams in Portugal, but none of that populating and using is affected by having Category:Black and white photographs on each and every image in that category.
It is indeed a “tag”, a flat category not meant to be diffused in itself, but that doesn’t mean that the “black-and-white-ness” of photographs is not a valid sorting key for meta-categorization «by type of media». We can have, along with the huge flat category, a Category:Black and white photographs of Lisbon trams, just like we do have a Category:Color isolated photographs of Lisbon trams‎, a Category:Fisheye images of Lisbon trams‎, or even a Category:Sounds of trams in Lisbon‎ or the sadly still not existing Category:Diagrams of Lisbon‎ trams (to move the focus (excuse the pun!) off from photography, and asserting the implicit notion that color photographs are somehow a default for media items (a notion probably deserving challenge)…)
(As for §2 above, I would therefore suggest that instead of moving from the flat cat, splitters please copy instead, retaining the big flat cat whole.)
-- Tuválkin 16:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, it should be noted that it is very easy to go through all categories that are about «Black and white photographs of …» something and add to all their member images the “tag” Category:Black and white photographs. The opposite (following Jmabel’s §2 above) cannot be done in any automatic fashion. Therefore, splitting the flat cat may be against policy and may be criticized, but reverting said splitting is destructive. Best course of action would be to assert the existence of the flat cat, implement it (by bot, even) and discourage (but not reverting) its splitting. -- Tuválkin 16:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I rely a lot on some of the "flat" categories like Category:People by name and they need to remain flat. Images in "flat" categories should also be categorized in hierarchical category tree. I support development of "official" guidelines and policies clarifying such categories. May be we should add a section to Commons:Categories. --Jarekt (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We actually have a policy on that, COM:OVERCAT. Categories that are both flat and hierarchical make maintenance (subcategorising) very difficult and therefore in my opinion should not be created anywhere without clear consensus. Flat lists is something that I think should be created by gadgets instead, but until such a thing is implemented and enabled by default, I do agree that it should be clarified when to and not to create flat lists on COM:CAT.
Not directly related: How is Category:Black and white photographs different from Category:Portrait photographs or other similar photography categories?
   FDMS  4    17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Because Category:Portrait photographs is actually about subject matter, so it will not intersect most other categories (e.g. it will never intersect categories about buildings, species other than humans, inanimate objects). Category:Black and white photographs is entirely about medium and can intersect pretty much anything photographic, and photographs constitute the bulk of our content. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WRT opening statement, 1=Yes, 2=No. A template to highlight flat cats would be a good outcome. -- (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Help topicons linking to external help pages soon displayed everywhere?[edit]

A new "( i ) Help" topicon with a link to mw:Help:Categories is now being displayed on all category pages. Similar and equally inappropriate topicons have already been added to various special pages including Special:Upload (with a link to mw:Help:Managing files), but this is the first time users get to see this on our main content pages. As this is clearly not a well-thought-out change and I've been told that there won't be any customisation options (via system messages, …) "for now", what do others think about removing all such topicons from Commons, by adding #mw-indicator-mw-helplink {display:none;} to our site CSS?    FDMS  4    19:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22[edit]