Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

January 29[edit]

Category:Fire chiefs[edit]

I'm a bit amazed there is no Category:Fire chiefs. Is this under some different name that I'm not thinking of? - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Apparently there is none. Ruslik (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, but needs now to be populated. -- Tuválkin 22:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I've populated it at least a little; I bet there are 100+ more photos that should be there, though. - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

More surprising missing categories[edit]

Again, are these under some other name I'm not thinking to look for? Not readily finding anything. Also, Category:Recreation centers is a soft redirect to Category:Sports halls, which seems very much a young person's perspective. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like we could need a redirect for American vs British spelling: Category:Community centres exists with a number of subcategories. But, alas, senior citizens have not yet been considered. De728631 (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll create that redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Senior citizens exists, just not Category:Senior centers.
Another one I'm surprised not to find: Category:Interns and/or Category:Internships. - Jmabel ! talk 00:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I guess I'll create them. Surprising that no one has yet done so. - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

To what degree is Category:Senior citizens simply a positive euphamism for "old people", and are we okay with that? I'm not sure of the best decision here. Note that Category:Old people has been under discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country for over two years. - Themightyquill (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:Senior citizens may be problematic, but I think Category:Senior centers is not.
In the U.S., "senior citizens" is at least moderately well-defined: More objective than "old", anyway. To a teenager, a 40-year-old might be "old"; conversely, I think it would be very contentious for us to apply the term "old" to a 70-year-old politician. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I've now built Category:Interns & some subcategories (e.g. Category:Medical interns). I've put 600+ images directly in Category:Interns, and probably another couple of hundred in subcategories. Some of the images directly in Category:Interns should doubtless be consigned to further subcategories, a few of which are obvious once these have been brought together like this; I'll get there. I'm absolutely certain there are many pictures overtly identified as "interns" that I haven't gotten to, but I've literally put over 8 hours into this, and it's all I have time or patience for in terms of tracking down images.
If someone wants to help, please feel free to place more images in Category:Interns!
I've gone almost entirely after things that are captioned in English, partly because I'm unsure how words in other languages line up in this particular area. For example: I believe stagiaire is a bit broader than the English "intern"; is there some way to know which pictures of a person described as a stagiaire would belong in this category? And doubtless there are other words I don't know at all in other languages. - 07:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Images from[edit]

There is a large number of images from recently uploaded from I have come across many of them while clearing, and generally they lack sharpness (typical example: ). Since it seems to me an omnipresent feature, I think that it is because of an overdone jpeg compression, with the effort to keep the file size small, rather than an individual photographer's issue. I'd like some opinions/discussion whether it's worth to keep them on Commons. I have already categorized a lot of them, but quite often they are photos of places having other and better photos, so I'm having some doubts whether it's worth the effort. JiriMatejicek (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Freddy2001: you should be flooding Commons with uncategorized files. You should add a category on upload or at least at a category like Category:Images from Geograph Deutschland to be categorized to sort out to not flood the general system.
Clicking through the uploads I see a lot of interesting things. Freddy2001 thought it was worth the effort so yes it's worth to keep them. Multichill (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: I'm a bit confused with this answer. Did you mean to say "you should _not_ be flooding Commons with uncategorized files"? Do I get it correctly that Freddy2001 initiated or executed this massive upload? JiriMatejicek (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Geograph is a project which has the aim to collect photos of many different places across germany as possible. This means: 1. We can get a lot of photos of objects or locations which we do not already have on commons. 2. All of this photos are geo-tagged which can be useful to link them to use them with reference to a specific place. Not all of this photos may have a good quality or are interesting, but thats not the primary point of the Geograph project. Unfortunately the Geograph project offers just those small, compressed 640 × 480 width files, but they have quality enough to insert them into an Article, if there is no better image available. -- Freddy2001 talk 20:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Freddy2001 appears to be batch uploading using pattypan. It's best practice to either add one or more categories at upload, or add a uncategorized category specific to the batch upload. That didn't happen here so a bot came along and added the uncategorized template. Can you please look into that Freddy2001? Multichill (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The images are indeed all of pretty low quality, but I already went through a few hundreds of them to categorize them (and wanted to continue if I have time) and there are many showing subjects with no other images on commons yet making them although useful und valueable. I used[1] to add categories to one picture after another, which seemed to me the easiest way under this circumstances lacking a category. – KPFC💬 20:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I have categorized a lot of them, too, but pretty often they had subjects which already had other photos. I guess with this number, there would be plenty of both cases. I've been going through, where the images are sorted alphabetically - this makes it easier to categorize more of them at once. JiriMatejicek (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
Multichill, BTW as side remark: There are some active edit requests for template {{Geograph-de}}. — Speravir – 21:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

April 06[edit]

Monet challenge[edit]

Le Grand Canal, Monet 1908. See here for free, or view the original for £22!

Several national newspapers in the UK have run sensationalist reports on the eye-watering £22 ticket price for the Monet & Architecture exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery (NPG). The gallery is free, but charges for special exhibitions have been rapidly escalating. Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph

This raises the question of whether on Wikimedia Commons we could either match the exhibition with high resolution images of paintings on display, or use this as an opportunity to identify missing images of paintings in our collection :-). Though the NPG's description of the exhibition catalogue mentions 77 paintings, and an article in The Standard mentions 80 paintings, there is no list of the included paintings readily available (without buying the catalogue).

The NPG website video (link) has a page of credits towards the end for the images they use. Of itself this is interesting due to the number of misleading copyright claims over faithful photographs of the paintings (rather than copyright of the video animations), plus even in this short-list there are a few that appear missing from our images or we only have at very poor resolution:

  1. View of Bordighera (Vue de Bordighera), 1884 © Hammer Museum, Los Angeles, CA
  2. Houses on the Old Bridge at Vernon (Maisons sur Ie vieux pont de Vernon), 1883 © New Orleans Museum of Art
  3. The Church at Varengeville and the Gorge of Moutiers (Eglise de Varengeville et la gorge des Moutiers), 1882 © Columbus Museum of Art
  4. The Quai du Louvre (Le Quai du Louvre), 1867 © Collection Gemeentemuseum The Hague
  5. Gardener's House at Antibes (Maison de jardinier a Antibes), 1888 © The Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio
  6. Houses of Parliament, Sunset (Le Parlement, coucher de soleil), 1904 © Kunsthaus ZUrich. All rights reserved.
  7. Rouen Cathedral (Cathédrale de Rouen), 1894. Private collection © Photo courtesy of the owner
  8. Rouen Cathedral. The Portal and the Tour d'Albane at Dawn (Cathédrale de Rouen. Le Portail et la Tour d'Albane a I'aube), 1893-4, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
  9. The Grand Canal (Le Grand Canal), 1908. Nahmad Collection, Monaco © Photo courtesy of the owner
  10. The Grand Canal (Le Grand Canal), 1908 © Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
  11. File:Claude Monet-Waterlilies.jpg [2]
  12. File:The Thames below Westminster 1522133421-1774a.jpg
  13. File:The Saint-Lazare Railway Station 1522133478-43f10.jpg [3]
  14. File:Monet Snow at Argenteuil 1875.jpg
  15. File:The Museum at Le Havre 1522133526-07a8e.jpg
  16. File:Dolceacqua, la vieux pont sur la Nervia.jpg
  17. File:Claude Monet - The Coalmen - Google Art Project.jpg

Here's the challenge. Can someone find a definitive list of which paintings are in this notable exhibition, then can our community derive a short-list of Monet's paintings which are missing from Wikimedia Commons or for which we need better quality images? -- (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

here is a vizquery for monet [4] adding a institution yields no results. we can start with cleaning all the metadata, and adding images Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. It would be interesting to add a property of "Architecture" for the subject of the painting where relevant. Producing our own list via Wikidata and comparing it to the exhibition catalogue would be a useful analysis to discover differences either way. -- (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
sum of all painting has been working this, and works with willing institutions, but as you see in the File:Cluade monet, la casa del giardiniere ad antibes, 1888.jpg for cleveland, louvre, and NPG, they are also doing wikilovesart, which will be limited to camera resolution rather than scanner. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't find a link, but wasn't there a case a couple of years ago where a CD track list was deemed to meet the threshold of originality for a collection in the United Kingdom so that you need permission from the author of the track list to distribute the same selection of songs in the same order? In that case, selecting a number of paintings and presenting them in a specific order maybe also meets the threshold of originality, meaning that we could only present a different selection of paintings in a different order. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
The potential-copyright-of-a-list does not apply in this case, because there is no subjective ranking and hence no creative work has gone into the list.
The list of "what was on public display in the exhibition" is a simple logical list and the list of "all Monet's paintings with Architectural themes" is purely logic, not a creative decision. In the case of this exhibition, these are not the best paintings or in order of some other human perceived value, but the exhibition itself claims to be all the Monet paintings that feature architecture and were available to the NPG.
My understanding of copyright in this area (UK, USA, India), came from long debates about the copyright of film box office estimated figures. This list does not meet the bar for any creative standard. -- (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
i agree, however, courts have ruled in unreasonable ways before - apparently in Sweden the online listing of public art was infringing-transformative in a bad way. [5]. (i would proceed- very low risk but not zero) you could also group the painting in a gallery or "collection". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
If the selection was based on a simple criterion (all available paintings focusing on architecture), then I agree that the selection doesn't meet the threshold of originality. It would be different if they decided to display the 50 best paintings or something, since 'best' is highly subjective. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
you are confusing marketing with selection criteria. the selection is based more on which institutions will lend, than "simple criteria"; and grouping enough items to make a blockbluster that interests the public.
made a gallery here Monet & Architecture. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Arxiv image[edit]

Can I upload this image I found at which was originally published here? The Arxiv license is here Just granpa (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • is not a license. It is a policy, including list of what licenses are acceptable on their site. Can you determine what license applies to this image? A "non-commercial" license would not be acceptable for Commons; the others that they list would be, and you'd need to upload with the same license used for this particular image on - 16:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Just granpa: Yes you may. Regardless of the licensing of the paper as a whole, the a simple scatter plot would be {{PD-ineligible}}. LX (talk, contribs) 07:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to answer me. I uploaded it here. Just granpa (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

April 08[edit]

Historical Society of Pennsylvania[edit]

How can we have a category for the "Historical Society of Pennsylvania" in Philadelphia, PA, founded in 1824, as the source of many images in the Commons, and has a photograph of their building on English Wikipedia? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I created Category:Historical Society of Pennsylvania for you and deleted the page Historical Society of Pennsylvania. The trick is the Category: prefix. De728631 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

April 09[edit]

Uploading an image onto my article[edit]

Can I upload an image from an ebook onto my article, as long as I cite and give credit? If yes, why will it not upload? It says it's a mhtml, can that be changed? Jeseel99 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeseel99 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This is the book Galloway, Terry. Solar House: A Guide for the Solar Designer. Amsterdam: Architectural Press, 2004. Internet resource. I'm trying to use the image on page 10, for the article Environmental Impact design. Jeseel99 (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeseel99 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jeseel99: Exactly where on the Internet can we find this book and the image on page 10? How do the credits for that image read? What file format are you trying to upload? Where do you want to out the image, in which article?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Assuming it is this book, the "all rights reserved" notice all the way in the front indicates it is a big no. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Rivers and streams[edit]

As this could affect a large number of categories, watchers here may wish to comment at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/04/Category:Rivers.--Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about the best ways to create photo essays for Wiki Loves competitions[edit]

Hi all

I'm looking at ways of creating photo essays for Wiki Loves competitions to make the process as simple and easy as possible for both organisers and new to Wikimedia contributors with no need for source editor. Wiki Loves Africa have done some great photo essays e.g Commons:Wiki_Loves_Africa_2017/photo_essay/Zanzibar_seaweeds and I would really like to offer them as an option for Wiki Loves Earth this year.

So far my thinking is that the user should upload their photos as normal, then the user creates the photo essay separately. There should be a FormWizard form where the user fills in a name and possibly the number of photos and then clicks a button which creates a new page with a set layout, perhaps something like this, at this point the new page is saved as a blank template. The user can then replace the placeholder photos with their photos and add descriptions and they're done. My main questions around this approach is:

  • Is it easy to ask to add new extensions to Commons? And how long does it take?
  • Is there a simple way to replace placeholder images with user images on Visual Editor?

Does anyone know of any other approaches that might work or variations on the current idea to make it easier to use or implement?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Nasty cat[edit]

This cat… /smh

Is there already a category for media about this nasty habit? -- Tuválkin 16:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-15[edit]

18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Weird JPEG rendering issue[edit]

Hey, I found a weird issue with MediaWiki's thumbnail generator. In the full-resolution version of File:Exitos939LAlogo.jpg, the image is black and red (at least on my computer). But in all of the low-resolution thumbnails, the black parts become yellow—here's an example. I notice the image's metadata includes the property "Color space: Uncalibrated", which I imagine might have something to do with the discrepancy, but I don't know enough about image encoding to be able to speculate any further than that. I've never seen MediaWiki have color issues with JPEGs (usually it's SVGs), so I figured I ought to report it. Should I report this on Phabricator or is it a known issue? Thanks, IagoQnsi (talk) (please {{Re}} me) 19:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not see any yellow color. Ruslik (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
What I see—as in the thumbnails of most or all CMYK images here—is a negative image: instead of being (photo-)black & red on white, it’s greyish-green & blue on (hyper-)black. I’ve always assumed it was something to do with the thumbnailer and my antique browser (Safari v5) not being ‘on the same page’ WRT subtractive & additive colour models. I haven’t noticed it in TIFFs, but may not have come across any that were in CMYK. Of course PNGs and GIFs are always RGB.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, weirdly enough, after User:Jeff G. uploaded a new version of the image using CropTool, most of the yellow images went away (even the link I posted above is now black). This thumbnail of the first revision of the file is the only one that still has yellow for me: [13]. Perhaps it's an old bug with rendering that has been fixed since these files were uploaded in 2010, and the thumbnails just hadn't been regenerated? –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@IagoQnsi, Ruslik0, Odysseus1479: Compared with fair use en:File:KXOS Exitos.png (in use at en:KXOS) and it's source (a newer logo is on the live website now), I think this file may be a copyvio.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Ruslik0, Odysseus1479:.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I don’t find the own-work claim very convincing, despite the uploader’s user name. That said, I’d be very surprised if the design is above the American TOO.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I've fixed the license to {{PD-textlogo}}. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@IagoQnsi: @Jeff G.: I think I fixed it by visiting - Alexis Jazz 19:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, only thumbnail of the first version has yellow color. Ruslik (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW they still look the same to me (the original thumbnail is darker than the other two, but nothing has changed since yesterday): mine is evidently a different problem from the original report.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: @Odysseus1479: have you guys emptied your browser cache? All the thumbnails are correct for me now, including [14]. - Alexis Jazz 21:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
All fine now for me now, the first version was still yellow some 10-15 hours ago. This kind of delayed reaction can happen with a huge job queue.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
All are fine now. Ruslik (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 11[edit]

SVG photos[edit]

File:Eskisehir Justice Department.svg appears to be a real photo taken with a camera, but it is stored in SVG format. I think that the user might not have been familiar with SVG format and their choice might have been a mistake. They might have wanted to crop the original image (File:Eskisehir Justice Department.jpg) and store it under the same name, thus inevitably with a different format, and they have chosen SVG format haphazardly. Another possibility is that I am completely wrong here, and SVG‌ photos are possible. I want to know your opinions. Thank you. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: I tagged it {{BadSVG}} and notified the uploader for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you. I am wondering if we should remove {{vector version available|File:Eskisehir Justice Department.svg}} from File:Eskisehir Justice Department.jpg. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done by Alexis Jazz.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: well this image yes, but I noticed it's not the only one.
So not completely done yet. - Alexis Jazz 13:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ivan Demidov - what's this about?[edit]

The NSFW portrait at File:Иван-Демидов.jpg shows this chap, apparently with his balls out. The photograph is used on ru:Демидов, Иван Иванович in the infobox on his biography. Does anyone know the background of this photograph, just in case it is a fake? Thanks -- (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@: I marked for review, if that helps.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
My concern is whether this is a fake or not. If he's known for getting his junk out for a laugh, then it's probably okay to host on Commons, but I doubt whether it should be the main portrait photo for a Wikipedia article... but that's a matter for ru.wp... -- (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@: I don't know if it is fake. However, I cropped the original to File:Ivan Demidov 2.jpg, and now I am having trouble adding it to ru:Демидов, Иван Иванович because I don't know Russian.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be better to point out the new image on the Russian embassy page, there may be local politics you would not want to poke. -- (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@: is that his junk?? Is he a horse or something? Seems more like this is part of a (broken?) chair or something. Or a massive tumor. - Alexis Jazz 15:10, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
This is why I raised it. The photo is odd and lacks an explanation of provenance, so whatever that is (a turnip, his balls, dumplings?) could also have been faked in, or maybe someone censored his penis by obscuring or smearing the photo in some way. -- (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC) some sort of money belt I guess. - Alexis Jazz 15:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Good grief, what a thing to strap to your waist. BTW, I only came across this via my crop upscaling experiment, anyone interested in image processing on Commons can read about it at User:Fæ/upscale. -- (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It certainly looks like a money belt now that Alexis Jazz provided another link. But I would certainly not buy one that colour. Because of its controversial look, I think it would be better gone, especially if it's copyright status is being questioned. Looks like it was shot at the bar of a Bewley's Hotel either in Dublin or Manchester but I think they are now Clayton Hotels. Ww2censor (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

510 files in Category:JPEG files[edit]

I suppose I'm right to assume that the random collection of 510 files in Category:JPEG files doesn't make sense? Either we would have to add that category to all the millions of JPEG files on Commons, or remove it from most? Some, such as File:JPEG example JPG RIP 001.jpg, (examples of characteristics of JPEG files) rather belong to Category:JPEG file format. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Let's remove the files from the category. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I haven’t looked, but some may actually belong, if they could go into one of its children. (I can’t imagine any purpose for it other than as a container for those maintenance cats.) I expect the vast majority just to be inappropriately ‘keyworded‘, though, like most of the files that trickle through the JPG and JPEG disambiguation cats. Anything that actually illustrates the JPEG algorithm or its results belongs in JPEG file format.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Is a hidden category anyway. Completely meaningless. I'm dumping it. I do check the thumbnails before dumping, but nearly nothing belongs. File:Sunflower as JPEG.jpg maybe. Added to Category:JPEG file format, gets used for image compression articles around the web a lot. - Alexis Jazz 19:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I created the category. I know it's meaningless, but it's technically correct and it cleared them out of Category:JPEG (which wasn't distinguished from Category:JPEG file format at that time). --ghouston (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what the requirements were at the time, but it's better to have files being uncategorized than putting them in a meaningless category. But perhaps at the time it made sense. - Alexis Jazz 02:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
They were JPEG files in a JPEG category, it made sense to me. --ghouston (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
My goal was to try and lure people adding the "JPEG" category to use "JPEG files" instead, which is hidden and can be forgotten about. But it never really worked: they still preferred Category:JPEG. --ghouston (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this image uploadable?[edit]

Could someone advise me about this?

I have been to the British Museum's Web site but could not understand the permissions section, which seems complicated. Thank you. Deisenbe (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, use the Template:PD-Art. in the upload wizard, it is "Faithful reproduction of a painting in the public domain because the artist died more than 70 years ago" if you had a British Museum url that would be good also. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Is this public domain?

Is this public domain?

Victorgrigas (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the CSPAN subtitles are below the threshold. It's worth noting the 3 stooges Zuckerberg has sitting behind him. They nod and try to look intelligent on every sentence, no matter how irrelevant the actual content. The comparison of Facebook's data misuse to the worthy #metoo campaign is an insult. Presumably they are all senior Facebook employees. Performance art, there's nothing real about it. -- (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you speak Arabic? Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim - please check photo for import to commons[edit]

Maybe it is possible someone with knowledge in Arabic language would check this photo of Fatima Ahmed Ibrahim in Arabic wikipedia? Maybe it could import to commons? Thank you for check :-) --Tozina (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tozina: No, it cannot be transferred to Wikimedia Commons, because it is a non-free file that has been uploaded to Arabic Wikipedia per WP:FAIR USE policy. You might know that Wikimedia Commons does not accept COM:FAIR USE media files. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, what a shame! But thank you very much for reading and answering! :-) --Tozina (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

5,000 more birdsong mp3 files[edit]

Enjoy the soundscape of birds in the woods of Slovakia
Can you identify different Thrushes from their song?

We have just finished refreshing Category:Xeno-canto with new CC-BY licensed files from the open knowledge bird enthusiast's project [15]. The first uploads in 2013 (Pigsonthewing request) released around a tenth of the number of recordings we host today, plus we have the recent bonus of being able to upload mp3 files which are much easier for reusers to handle, and listen to on their mobile phones, compared to the ogg versions. As well as being a great reference resource, the recordings have location details from rainforests to city back gardens and the background soundscapes instantly transport you there.

Today's upload was requested by Aa77zz, a Wikipedian keen to use more of the files to populate bird species infoboxes.

This got me to thinking, the collection we now have is definitive, and an excellent example of how volunteers from different projects can create cutting edge audio content. Would anyone like to review how Wikidata has the bird species records populated with the audio files, and knock out a report on Wikipedia (infobox) usage in all languages? This may be useful to share with Wikipedians, and provide a hit list of bird articles missing available audio illustration. Thanks :-) -- (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


This discussion is not about copyright.
he should do that via Wikidata, obviously.
Today I had a meeting with the top reference of bird research in Brazil. And we will start a work by the end of May (unfortunately WMF didn't gave me the support to this project)
So this is also important to me.
Did you know about that: Commons:WikiProject Birds/lists?
As you can see by the first list, Wikidata seems to not have many articles with audio files. Jura1 could give a more light on this subject, as creator of the lists.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I've begun to categorise some of these files which includes creating subcategories for large batches of files from the same species or genus. If anyone else is interested in this job, I recommend using the {{AudioBiology}} template. This may or may not serve as background music. De728631 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate renames[edit]

Is it appropriate to request a rename to removed a lengthy description from a File name? Example: "File:Hairpin Banksia, Banksia spinulosa, a member of the Proteaceae thatoccurs in Eastern Australia from the Cairns area to southern New South Wales on the coast an in the mountain ranges. (17080824066).jpg". The same generic text may be used in multiple file names. What would be the rename category? I understand the need for long names for bulk uploads from archived literature but I believe the example was the result of a Flickr upload.User-duck (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Unless that name is inaccurate, there is no need to change it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Indeed, such requests are typically denied. A file name has to be meaningless, ambiguous or contain obvious errors. (this is not my opinion, this is the official guideline) - Alexis Jazz 23:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • this is the typical "metadata in the image title" method often seen on flickr. many people seem to want to impose their item name conventions (that do not have consensus) by moves. maybe you could counsel them, and send them to metadata cleanup. maybe we could make it easier to rename at upload, and include long descriptions in the descriptions field. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Copying old maps in pre-1923 books[edit]

All of a sudden, when I right click and copy, the image comes up in Microsoft paint as a negative. Any idea why and how to remedy? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: try adding more words. - Alexis Jazz 04:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I've copied lots of maps from Archive org book pdfs into Commons under the US pre-1923 copyright rule. but all of a sudden, when I highlight the map, right click and copy, then click "paste" in microsoft Paint, the image appears as a negative rather than a positive image like the pic on the book. Are there any aficionados reading this who can advise me on ways to get the positive image like in the old days? (Any better Alex?). Regards Keith-264 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you try using another pdf reader to see if it works? A link to a sample pdf file would also be helpful. De728631 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The war history of the 4th Battalion, the London Regiment (Royal Fusiliers), 1914-1919 map following p. 296 "The third Battle of Ypres, 1917 (1/4th Battalion)". Keith-264 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Keith-264: I'm not sure how/where you are reading this book/doing this. When I go to and look up page 296, right click and "open image in new tab" I just see the map at By changing scale to 0 and rotate to 90 I get which seems usable to me. (if I were planning to invade Ypres. I'm not.) - Alexis Jazz 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I see, I have it downloaded on my laptop as a pdf. Keith-264 (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Keith-264: please provide links in the source for your uploads. - Alexis Jazz 23:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

The criteria to be a 'woman of the 20th century'[edit]

There is an administrator, Blackcat, who alleges people who were born in 1994 shouldn't be considered as people of the 20th century. And it's not only words. He removes 20th-century women of Canada from categories of female Canadians who were born in the 1990s, see an example.

Could someone explain the 'reasons' behind Blackcat's actions? It's strange that people who were born in the 20th century are not considered as people of the 20th century. --Russian Rocky (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if any such criteria have been discussed before, but I would agree with Blackcat that you would have to live more than some six or ten years in a period that spans 100 years to be considered a contemporary person. De728631 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you understand that we also have categories of famous children who died before their puberty? Corporate ethics is not good in this case, you should discuss it with the whole community.--Russian Rocky (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Why so aggressive? You've come here to discuss the matter and so was the first to reply. Of course there are categories of children, but these can be treated differently from adult categories if there is a need for it. By the way, why didn't you ask Blackcat about his edits in the first place? De728631 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I just said that it shouldn't be decided 'behind closed doors', but by the whole community. I'm sorry, if you interpretate it as aggression, but it was an appeal. Actually, Blackcat started this topic on my page. He considers the second category as a mistake and I have a different view. I think the community should decide this kind of question.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that's alright then. Thanks for clarifying this. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Why only "20" or only "21"? How about "20-21" ("20/21")? UPD: so, we have 3 sets: 1) "20", 2) "20-21", 3) "21". --Fractaler (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Fractaler, only Blackcat can answer to this question. There were both "20th" and "21st" categories in the above-mentioned example, but Blackcat removed the "20th" category. I assume, he doesn't consider those who were born in the 1990s as people of the 20th century.
I also don't know why there can't be both of them. As I said earlier, there are a lot of famous people who died before their puberty, see for example en:Category:Christian child saints. So the argument "live more than six or ten years..." is invalid.--Russian Rocky (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Every person alive in a particular period of time should be considered to be "of" that particular period of time. As for "women" vs "girls" or the more inclusive "females" for their status in their local communities, that can be debated.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The time period is not a problem and can easily be agreed upon by consensus but we shouldn't descend into the territory of adulthood by standards of a local community. I think defining such diverse criteria and adhering to them would do more harm than good to categorisation. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

August Ames was born in 1994. She was 7 in 2001 when the 21st century came. She became adult in 2012. We consider on Commons "Women" or "Men" people in their adulthood (equal or past 18). She cannot be a "20th century woman" because in the 20th century she was a girl. And she wasn't relevant or notable as girl- -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 19:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Rename category to Category:Females who were alive in the 20th century. (or something like that) Problem solved. Strictly speaking, August Ames wasn't an adult (woman) in the 20th century. The renaming suggesting is not a joke: if we don't do it we will endlessly squabble over who was or wasn't an adult or notable during some period. - Alexis Jazz 20:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: also Female people by century so to cut it short.
PS @Russian Rocky:, to answer to your question before, if a notable American boy has died before puberty, there's the category "Children of the United States", for example
These are arbitrary lines; the 20th century is just numbers, which is why there's talk of the w:Long nineteenth century (1789-1914) and w:Short twentieth century (1914-1991). I could argue that being 7 in 2001 means they've already been stamped with 20th century attitudes and understandings that no person born in 2001 would have, but that's putting too much on the arbitrary lines. Why is "Died after 1900 and born before 1982" a better category than "died after 1900 and born before 2001"? It's more confusing, and conveys no more value.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
I suppose, @Prosfilaes:, that the ratio of NNth-century men/women from XXXXX is adult male/female people (+18) thus leaving little or no room to discretionality or ambiguity. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat)
Ratio is a false cognate here. A man born in Ireland in 1983 who left Ireland never to return in 2000 is still shaped and formed by 20th century Ireland, and is thus a 20th-century man from Ireland. Also Category:21st-century people of Canada does not have Category:21st-century children of Canada as a subcategory, only men of Canada and women of Canada, therefore inferring that children are not to be categorized in there seems unwarranted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

PS that apart @Prosfilaes:, I agree with the arbitrariety of the subdivisions by centuries or decades. Whereas under the chronological aspect the 1970s start with 1971 and ends in 1980 scholars and historian of history of Italy agree, for example, that the decade started in 1968 and ended in 1978 with the assassination of Aldo Moro, and that the 1980s starded since and ended in 1991....

@Blackcat: Who're "we consider on Commons"? Could you please give a link on Commons where it has been decided?
Adulthood can be defined biologically or legally. Biologically, an adult is a "human or other organism that has reached sexual maturity", sexual maturity is "the capability of an organism to reproduce". According to this list, the youngest confirmed mother was 5 years old.
I know your words "equal or past 18" indicate you are talking about the age of majority, but again, it doesn't mean "18 and above" by default. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, "age of majority is based on physical signs of puberty (bulugh), with age 15 as the upper limit."
If you like to be 'strict' in terms (it's difficult because of the above-mentioned reasons), why don't you create Category:20th-century females of Canada and Category:20th-century males of Canada?--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
But we are not in Saudi Arabia, period. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 22:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Who're "we, period"? Talk for yourself please. If it's the servers location, it still doesn't mean we should categorize everything according to U.S. standards.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Blackcat: Statistically, some of us probably ARE in Saudi Arabia.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Back to basics here: The purpose of these categories is to help users find images and subcategories they are looking for. If a person did nothing notable in the 20th Century, and we have no pictures of them in the 20th Century, then putting that person in Category:20th-century women of Canada serves no useful purpose. It might not be harmful, but it's certainly not useful. - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

There are flaws to it. In this case, people notable for only one event and people known only as child actors should have only one category according to you. Bear in mind that there could be no image of a person in his/her prime.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
the typical punk behavior from blackflag. edit warring worth of a trout, and civility warning. continue with your childish category pseudo-intellectualism, the adults will be over at wikidata where they can query by DOB and sex without all the dramaz. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:51, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@ According to me? I didn't say anything of the sort. Obviously, like anyone else, they should have multiple categories; e.g., presuming they went to university, they'd get an alumni category, just like anyone else. Year of birth, gender, where they are from, etc. As for century categories: part of what I said above was "and we have no pictures of them in the 20th Century". If someone was born in 1990, was only famous as a young child (the opposite of the case I was considering), obviously they belong in a "20th Century" category, and if we have 21st-century images of them, then it is reasonable to put them in a "21st Century" catalog. But in the much more common case where someone was born in 1990, did nothing notable before, say, 2010, and we don't have pictures of them as a young child, as I say, putting them in a 20th-century category may be harmless, but it isn't of use to anyone. - 15:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
It would be hard to maintain it this way, because every time when a 20th-century photo is removed (via copyvio or other problems), we should remove a "20th century" category as well. I tend to think the "20th century" and similar categories should be added as per a person's birth/death dates instead of his/her 'notable time' (that is too vague).--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Notability is disputable. Birth dates are easy. The categories on a category should not depend on its contents, which can vary as photos get added or deleted. They're a person from Canada from the 20th century; why is putting them in that category any more or less useful than putting any other 20th century Canadian in that category?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes perhaps. But my point was not that. @Russian Rocky: places a 1994-born Canadian porn star in a category that suggests that she is alas WAS a woman of the 20th- century just because a Saudi Arabian bordering pedo- custom grants adulthood to a child at her first menstruation. You see by yourself that the whole argument is flawed. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Blackcat: Again, why do you remove Category:20th-century women of Canada instead of adding Category:20th-century people of Canada? As it was mentioned earlier, there is no category as Category:20th-century children of Canada or Category:20th-century females of Canada in Category:20th-century people of Canada. Go ahead and create those subcategories.
Also, we are not here to discuss pedophilia in Saudi Arabia. This example just makes your definition of the age of majority ("equal or past 18") invalid, because it clearly varies from country to country. Take a note, there are also categories about former countries (Category:People of the Ottoman Empire, etc).--Russian Rocky (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The plain fact is that you're wrong and you're trying to twist the debate using flawed arguments, since you cannot demonstrate 1. that a 1994 born is a "woman" in the 20th-century and that 2. was so notable as a six-year old child to deserve to be classified amongst "20th-century people". -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The plain fact is there is no consensus to say what is rightful in this case. You are not "we" to say for everyone, the whole community should decide how to categorize it. I wonder, what would you do if a user from Saudi Arabia started to add 5-7 year-old females who were born in the 1990s to "Category:20th-century women of Saudi Arabia"? The criteria shouldn't be defined by you in each case, but by consensus.
1. You ignore that the problem is not only "X century women/men of Y country" categories, but also your subsequent removals without adding at least "X century people of Y country" categories. In other words, you make search more inconvenient: If I need to find a person who is Canadian / was born in the 20th century, I open Category:People of Canada, then Category:20th-century people of Canada. There are only two categories by gender, so I suppose I can find it in one of them but that's a dead end.
Literally, each time I need to know the exact time of a person's adulthood before starting the search. That's ridiculous.
2. Again. In this case administrators have to decide constantly when each single person was notable (see ONEEVENT above). It's not a variant.
I think it would be better to refrain from "men/women" categories at all and rename them to "males/females", because of the people like you.--Russian Rocky (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
She was a woman of the 20th century because no matter how long she lived, that's where she started from. You can never escape your past. And again, because your way doesn't make it simpler or more useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

A Picture of Dry Shampoo Cans is needed[edit]

Hello! If anybody has a can of dry shampoo or has a local store selling it, would you take a picture of the can/cans please then upload to Commons? No picture of that on Commons. Thanks in advance :) --Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Reem. Would this do? Rehman 15:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello man. I think because of my connection, I can rarely view a picture of Flickr. It takes a super long time to load and most of the time it doesn't load in the end. If it is a picture of a dry shampoo can to be used here, then great. But how to import it to Commons?--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
@Reem: Maybe this link would work for you? Although it is PD, I'm not too sure if this can be uploaded due to the picture being a close-up of a commercial product. Most part of the designs are PD-text IMO, but I'm not entirely sure about the rest. Perhaps someone else reading this can guide? Rehman 01:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

LyricWiki logo; new vs old[edit]

File:LyricWiki.png has two versions. The newer logo should have been uploaded as a separate file, not as a new version. However, quite a few pages link to the file, so I'm not sure if it is okay to revert. What should we do? FalsePaul (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that you should leave it as is — it was re-uploaded long ago. You can also upload the old version as a separate file. Ruslik (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Previews loading slowly[edit]

Preview images on file description pages are currently loading quite slowly for me, though my Internet connection is otherwise fine and fast. A known current issue? Gestumblindi (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought it was my internet connection. Looks more like something wiki-specific then. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dutch translations[edit]

Hello, I was wondering if there were any pages that needed Dutch translation. If so, I would be happy to translate them! Please tell me if there are. Thanks in advance. Sincerely, NeoMeesje (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@NeoMeesje: for example, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:taken on (again)[edit]

@Robert Weemeyer: Do we have a clear policy about using Template:taken on? If not, can we form one? I'm really tired of continually getting notifications as various people do different things with this template, often reversing one another.

My understanding is that the category added by this template is intended as a flat category, and that it is pretty much always acceptable to use this template. I was not originally using it, but started doing so because people we adding it to my photos. Then (presumably other) people started removing it from my photos. Now a variant I've never seen before: keeping the template but preventing it from categorizing, presumably because the intersection category Category:United States photographs taken on 2016-07-17 was added to the the photo by someone else.

It seems to me that if we want categories like Category:United States photographs taken on 2016-07-17, we really ought to be adding country to Template:taken on as a parameter. "cat=no" seems to me like the worst of both worlds. But in any case: is there some sort of policy here? I'm more than willing to follow a consensus, but not happy about the file pages of my images becoming battlegrounds over trivia. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlikely there is any kind of policy on its use, but considering it is a very widely used template, it should likely be locked down. I do like the idea of adding a country parameter, though. It should probably include an auto-detection feature so that non-existent country categories won't be red-linked, but will function if created in the future (I presume this is possible?). Huntster (t @ c) 16:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Lua version of {{Artwork}} is now live[edit]

I just deployed Lua version of {{Artwork}} template. Like {{Creator}} and {{Institution}} templates before, the new {{Artwork}} template is able to pull a lot of artwork information from Wikidata if wikidata parameter is provided; however, values stored on Commons take precedent. Templates without wikidata parameter should remain unchanged. Please report any issues at Template talk:Artwork. --Jarekt (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks. Could you please show an example where this works? Regards, Yann (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
This is very cool - nice work! Here's an example for Mona Lisa, just providing the Wikidata ID:
Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Yann, my main concern at this stage is to make sure that images using Artwork template do not show any errors, so a roll out where nobody notices any change would be great. In case of images with Wikidata item ID, you should see changes. Just pick any image from Category:Artworks with Wikidata item. You should see, artist, title and wikidata link in the top row and image of the artwork on the right. The image is similar to what {{Category definition: Object}} uses and it should help verifying that we link to the correct wikidata item. Also fields not filled by the template will be filled based on Wikidata, although, custom made templates might still be better. --Jarekt (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Amazing! For those of us who work with GLAM initiatives --and have to go through the pain of uploading as different steps on Commons and Wikidata-- this is really cool. GiFontenelle and I are about to make an upload of 226 paintings from Museu Paulista in the context of a GLAM initiative with this museum. We normally use Pattypan or GLAMpipe for uploads to the Commons, and QS for data. What would be the best strategy to make this upload and take advantage of this new deployment? Thanks. --Joalpe (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I did not think that far ahead. If you already create Wikidata items for the objects, than you do not have to add fields which are pulled from Wikidata. I am not familiar with the Pattypan or GLAMpipe, (I know they exist but did not used them yet). I mostly work with d:Help:QuickStatements for the metadata uploads. I imagine that some GLAM upload protocols might change to take advantage of this. --Jarekt (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi, How long does it take to update a category when the information comes from Wikidata? I added some information to Wikidata to fix these issues Category:Artworks with Wikidata item without image and Category:Creator templates with Wikidata link: item missing linkback, but the categories didn't change even after several purges. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Yann As I reported in Phabricator:T173339 Changes on Wikidata do not trigger page removal from tracking category on Commons. While working with subcategories of Category:Wikidata related maintenance, I always keep AutoWikiBrowser handy. To refresh a category you just need to add an empty line to every page and save. The edit does not show up in the edit history, but the page is permanently refreshed. Purge does not fix those issues. --Jarekt (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, that means it's not usable yet. Considering how Artwork is a core template for Commons, in use on 1,826,398 images, of which at least 360,000 are my uses, it would have been sensible to do some testing and gain a consensus on the prerequisite criteria for turning Artwork into a Lua + Wikidata significant dependency and risk for Wikimedia Commons.
At the current time, especially with this bug, I would have voted against. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, if I had a voice in this, which apparently, I do not. -- (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
, as far as I understand, the old behaviour still works. There are things we can't test without starting the implementation. So, we should wait before a mass deployment, but this should not prevent working on it. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
A test would have been as simple as deploying on {{Artwork-lua}} for 1,000 images rather than the main template on 1.8m images. A fix to T173339 would be as simple as creating a bot to assist users with nop refreshes, automatically.
Breaking stuff that work perfectly well, is not improving Wikimedia Commons. It is called breaking Wikimedia Commons and being too lazy or chaotic to be bothered with testing or gaining a consensus for major changes. -- (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
I understand that you propose another way to test thing, which is fine. But saying that Jarekt's work breaks Commons is just false, and rethoric. Nothing is broken. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) , if you feel strongly about Phabricator:T173339 "bug" than please leave comment on the phabricator page. I considered it more of a "feature" than "bug" but some developers at Wikimania thought that it might be something that should be fixed eventually. The maintenance categories which are affected were added by User:Multichill a year ago, and I just recreated them in Lua. They affect only people who work on updating Wikdata based on Commons metadata, so if you are affected than just do not work on that task or use the workaround of applying "touch" operation to the pages you want to work on. --Jarekt (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that you have instantly gone live on a template affecting 1.8m images. Where is your consensus or test strategy? What risks did you identify in advance and plan for? Making major changes then reacting to bugs is not a strategy. Neither is shifting the problem to other volunteers who point this out. "If you are affected then [go away and fix if for me for free, it's not my problem]" is not working collegiately.
As we have seen in this discussion, by rolling this out on Artwork and showing super duper examples, we are ramping up GLAM expectations that this is an improvement to their objective of donating images to Commons. However there is literally zero user friendly infrastructure to support a serious sized donation, the best workflow is to go ahead and use a tool like GWT to upload without worrying about Wikidata at all, and hope to do this later through partial housekeeping as appropriate. At this time a workflow that pushes their datasets to Wikidata will be complex, probably need good programming skills, and there are a series of issues around mapping object, person, category and so on, to existing Wikidata structures that would make this an arduous project rather than something done over a weekend. -- (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Fæ, I am not sure what gave you the idea that anybody "instantly gone live" on this template. Module:Artwork/sandbox went through about 60 iterations with about half based on testing on actual images. Testing is usually done by picking an interesting image and changing {{Artwork}} to {{Artwork/sandbox}} and using preview (without saving) to see the output of the new code. As for the charge of "ramping up GLAM expectations that this is an improvement to their objective", I thought that simplifying the way to use Commons is the point, so people do not have to do silly stuff like in this file to pull metadata from Wikidata. So now you have an option to either set up {{Artwork}} the way it worked for years and still works just fine, or to upload metadata to Wikidata and pull most of it from there. By the way, Lua version of {{Artwork}} was being discussed for over 3 years at Phabricator:T89600 and User:Zolo started to work on it about the same time. --Jarekt (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Doing stuff is not an evidence of consensus. The module history shows two people edited it, and T89600 is on Phabricator, not this project, and has exactly one meaningful comment from someone that was not you.
No doubt you made many edits, but the rest of us remain in the dark and nobody else appears to have contributed any ideas for how to test this before going live.
This was not the result of collegiate work and the most engaging discussion in this process appears to happening post-release. If you make no attempt to gain a consensus in the first place, please do not feel disappointed when someone points out that you do not have consensus for the changes you made. -- (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@: I'm confused. Is there anything that worked before and doesn't work now? If so, what? If not, why do you care if a different method of doing things is now also possible? - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Working on Category:Artworks with Wikidata item without image, I have noticed that many items have the wrong P31 entry, i.e. d:Q20185642. This is a tea pot, not a painting. Also the date, which is an essential data, is also missing (would it be possible to make a list, or to fix it with a bot?). Regards, Yann (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Most "bot" jobs on Wikidata are done using d:Help:QuickStatements. A list creation is more tricky, maybe petscan or quarry? I also sometimes use page scraping with AWB (example) or in special cases Special:LinkSearch. --Jarekt (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Got pinged, but I'm traveling so I'll keep it brief: Good job Jarek, thanks for the conversion and I'm sure any bugs will be fixed quickly.
Category:Artworks with Wikidata item without image have been around long before the conversion. Number of items doesn't seem to have changed a lot. A lot of the none paintings in there (probably all) are from the MET. Their old (scr)api returned anything painted when you asked for all paintings, so painted pots, painted furniture, etc. Still on my list to figure out a way to clean that out. Will do that at one point. This is mainly a category to feed tools. Currently the best suggestions are on User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata/Category match, User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata/Wikidata creator, institution and inventory number match (mostly done) and on Wikidata we still have a ton of suggestions at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Image suggestions/Creator, institution and inventory number match. Help with these lists is appreciated and much more rewarding than trying to clean out that category. Multichill (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Image from The Project Gutenberg[edit]

Question: Is it correct to Upload to Commons an image from a book in The Project Gutenberg, like in this one: [16]?

Thank you. Greetings, GualdimG (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@GualdimG: I believe so. Images from the original English version would also be welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
In most of cases, yes. Here the images are by Gustave Doré, so no problem. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! Saudações, GualdimG (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
You need to be careful; most Project Gutenberg files are in the public domain in the US, but they don't concern themselves with the source nation like Commons does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-16[edit]

15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Free media sources[edit]

Are there any free media sources with pictures of the Netherlands? Ps. I know I can use Flickr, but I would like to see if there is another website. Sincerely, NeoMeesje (talk) 11:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Most Anefo press photographs from Dutch National Archives have been transferred to Wikimedia Commons in the last months. More than 330,000 press photographs (made in the period 1945-1990) have been uploaded, from the Netherlands and abroad. Descriptions (in Dutch) have been transferred to Commons, categories need to be added. See Category:Images from Nationaal Archief (>350,000 photographs) and Category:Images from Anefo (>260,000). Thanks to User:Mr.Nostalgic for this gigantic upload and to Dutch National Archives for making all photographs available under CC-zero. Vysotsky (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Also {{Koninklijk Huis}}. - Alexis Jazz 20:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
BTW the Images from Nationaal Archief has been around for a while, so 355 different people have contributed to the uploads, of which 8 have uploaded more than 1,000 images. -- (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Wikidata Infoboxes disrupt sorting[edit]

Apologies if this has been brought up here in the past, but I regularly notice that the addition of Wikidata infoboxes in Commons disrupts sorting, see Category:Female economists (see under C, J and Y). It seems that adding a familyname to a Wikidata item helps to restore this. (Problem is that one can only choose family names from a list, and the correct names aren't always available.) So I guess having a family name in Wikidata is a prerequisite for adding Wikidata infoboxes to Commons? And then: who will repair already added items? Vysotsky (talk) 09:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: The infobox code auto-adds DEFAULTSORT if family name (P734) and given name (P735) are both defined; if not, then it doesn't have enough info to define a decent DEFAULTSORT, so it doesn't try to do so. You can add DEFAULTSORT outside of the infobox as usual (and you can set "defaultsort=no" as a parameter for the infobox to disable its auto-generated one if needed). These examples were new categories created by @NeverDoING; it shouldn't be an issue for adding the infobox to existing categories since they'll already have the sort keys, and I assume new categories will continue to be maintained/repaired as usual, just with a bit more auto-help from the infobox? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fine -in theory. But what I actually see is that sorting is sometimes disrupted in existing categories (when adding Wikidata infoboxes), and wrongly applied in new categories when a family name is missing in Wikidata. I see no coordinated action to improve these mistakes. Vysotsky (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: can you elaborate, please? The only one I'm aware of is when the infobox defines a new DEFAULTSORT that conflicts with another one, which ends up with the category being added to Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts - those then either need to be resolved manually, or I could write some code to check through there every so often and add the "defaultsort=no" parameter to the infobox if that's what is causing the conflict. Other than that, I could create some new maintenance categories that are used for people categories where family or given names aren't on Wikidata, if that would be useful to editors here to look through. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
See this category. Brendan Nelson was correctly sorted under N, until the Wikidata infobox came along. And I could give hundreds of similar cases. (7 in that same Category!) Vysotsky (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal to create a new maintenance category ("Categories with defaultsort ruined by Wikidata infobox"), but I think the existence of such a category should be avoided, not created and then left for others to clean up. Vysotsky (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: That one seems to have happened with this edit by @Bidgee:, which removed {{PeopleByName}} that was using local info to define the DEFAULTSORT. I've fixed it with this edit on Wikidata, and the infobox now sets the DEFAULTSORT. These are issues that shouldn't happen during the bot deployment of the infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Does the same apply to the 9 other wrongly sorted categories within this category - 8 out of 9 with a Wikidata infobox? Vysotsky (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Looking through a few more, the answer seems to be 'yes'. There are others in that category where the infobox is correctly sorting them, e.g. Category:James Robert Dickson. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
But I see dozens of other wrongly sorted categories due to the wikidata infobox: Louw de Graaf was and should be under G, not under L in this category. Vysotsky (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That's because NeverDoING removed DEFAULTSORT at the same time as adding {{Wikidata Infobox}}. Had they only added the infobox, there would have been no change to the sorting. --bjh21 (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Vysotsky: I quickly ran the bot code through that category (with manual approval of each edit), and it added the infobox to 6 more categories. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Please let me know if that caused any problems - as far as I can see it worked fine. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Thanks. Looks good. Vysotsky (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Following up on my earlier comment, Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no family name and Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no given name now exist, and will be populated when I next update the main version from the sandbox, along with some DEFAULTSORT fixes described at Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#Q-values_leaking_into_DEFAULTSORT. I've also written the bot code to fix Wikidata infobox cases in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts, and will follow that up at Commons:Bots/Requests/Pi bot 1. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Conclusion (if I understand the matter correctly): when people add a Wikidata Infobox to an existing category, they should leave the DEFAULTSORT untouched. (And make sure sorting is OK if they create a new category.) Vysotsky (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Or make sure that there's sufficient info on Wikidata that the infobox can auto-generate the DEFAULTSORT correctly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's worth having a list of the problems mentioned in this thread and what directly caused them:

Please update this list if new causes come to light. --bjh21 (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ny Ellebjerg construction works[edit]

Ny Ellebjerg 2018 3.jpg
Indicates that there are big construction works with a new platform. I suspect it could be a new station for the new high speed line Kobenhagen - Ringsted. It looks to big to be a new S-train station for line F (Theoreticaly it could be extended to the airport but I dont read anything about it). See also File:NyEllebjerg.png Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sneak Peek: Importing local files to Commons with the extensions FileExporter and FileImporter[edit]

There are many files on local wikis that should be in Commons. But importing a file with all of its information, including its original uploader and complete history, is currently not easily possible. That’s why the Technical Wishes team from Wikimedia Germany is working on a feature that will allow importing files from local wikis to Commons while keeping all data complete and intact.

Our plan is to make this feature accessible for the first wikis within the next few weeks. We are still actively developing on it, but we wanted to show it to you know to make sure we are heading in the right direction.

How the feature will work

  1. A link “Import to Commons” will appear on local file pages for logged in users. This link leads to an import page on Commons.
  2. On the import page, the user gets a preview of the import. File title, templates, categories and other info can be edited.
  3. After the import, the file has a proper file page on Commons, including all information from the local file page plus info about all changes that were made during the import.

A more detailed description of the planned feature as well as testing instructions can be found on the page of the wish (Meta). Please tell us what you think!

Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Sidebar and other translations for Serbian[edit]

Could someone translate main sidebar items for sr i.e. sr-ec: "Welcome" → "Добро дошли" (Commons:Добро дошли), "Village pump" → "Трг" (Commons:Трг) and "Nominate for deletion" → "Номиновање за брисање" [or "Номинација за брисање"]. For example, in German "Village pump" is translated as "Forum für Fragen" or "Nominate for deletion" as "Löschung vorschlagen" so it is possible to have this important part of page that is displayed everywhere translated completely.

Nominate-for-deletion-form needs translation too: "Why should this file be deleted?" → "Зашто би ова датотека требало да се обрише?", "Preview:" → "Претпреглед:", "More information" → "Више информација"; "Proceed" → "Настави", "Cancel" → "Откажи"; "Proceed [Enter] in single-line text fields" → "Настави [Enter] у једноредним пољима за текст", "Close this dialogue [Esc]" → "Затвори овај дијалог [Esc]", "Expand to textarea" → "Прошири на подручје текста".

Longer text part:

Clicking "proceed" will
add the {{Delete}} template to the file description page
create the Deletion Request discussion page
add the discussion page to the daily log
notify the uploader with a message in their preferred language using your signature, which is your IP address if you are not logged-in.
These are the steps, which must be done for an ordinary deletion request.
Please be sure your request is in accordance with our deletion policy.

Клик на „Настави” ће
додати шаблон {{Delete}} на страницу описа датотеке
направити Deletion Request страницу за разговор
додати страницу за разговор на дневни дневник
обавестити отпремаоца поруком на његовом преферираном језику коришћењем вашег потписа, који је ваша IP адреса ако нисте пријављени.
Ово су кораци, који морају да се ураде за обични захтев за брисање.
Будите сигурни да је ваш захтев у складу с нашом политиком брисања.

Also, "Shortcut: COM:VP" in the top right corner of this (Commons:Village pump) page: "Пречица: COM:VP".


--Obsuser (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Objectification of women[edit]

Hi, I removed quite a lot of images from Category:Female eyes and Category:Human hair. AFAIK, these are standard features, so it is quite silly to add every portrait into these categories. It looked like that the only important aspect of women is their hair. And nearly only women were categorized under "Human hair"... It seems men do not have hair. :( Yann (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I believe the word you want is "objectification." - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, thanks. I fixed that. Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ignoring the objectification part, people categorizing marginal features of images is often a problem. For example, recently I have removed several images from traffic sign categories, where the sign was visible somewhere in the background. I feel our page on categories is in dire need of an overhaul. Instead of clear guidance, it contains lots of philosophical rambling, redundant information, and is generally much too long. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it silly to assume bad intentions from people's often well intentioned but in the whole random categorisations on this project. Oxyman (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is really bad intentions. It is a misunderstanding of the purpose and operation of categories. And objectification is often done without being aware. Regards, Yann ([[User talk:Yann|
  • It's not necessarily misunderstanding of the purpose and operation of categories just because you say so, maybe those categorising the images hoped a more knowledgeable user would find suitable subcats for the images, people should think of all possibilities before accusing others of errors. "objectification is often done without being aware" may be a catchy soundbite but it has no validity to it, no real evidence is presented supporting this thought terminating cliché. It is clear from multiple responses here that there is no real case of "objectification" here (a word that has been so overused that all meaning attached to it has been lost anyway). Off course you are free to see what you want in any situation and you can have biases, paranoias and political motivations for such. That doesn't change the facts on the ground, the facts are that there is no problem here other then possibly too many images in a high level category. That is hardly a rare problem in this project it is repeated in many categories here. I could complain about too many close up images of automobile details are just categorised in the London category, I don't I just try and find a more relevant category for such images. That is far more useful course of action the trying to use such categorisations as a tool for a predetermined agenda. Such agendas really should have no place on this project. Oxyman (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

talk]]) 16:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree with Sebari; there seems to be confusion between what is a category and what is a tag. We shouldn't be using the latter when we have a category structure that is (ideally) wide and deep. I ask myself "would anyone use this as an image of Category:X?". One case in point is that some people categorise images of complete churches by their parts, e.g. towers, spires. The natural consequence of this is that several images of the same tower call for the creation of a subcategory. This would lose information because images of the whole church end up in a subcategory of itself. As for objectification, I don't think that's the intention, it's a case of picking out features to categorise, but if the part is so much smaller than the whole, I'd avoid that categorisation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, it is not the intention, but the end result is pretty clear. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I followed the existing cataloging pattern because I thought it was customary. Note that in many "human" categories there are sub-categories of gender. For example, in this case there is also - Category:Male eyes Chenspec (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Categorizing by gender is not automatically objectifying, especially if a higher category is getting overcrowded. If I need a picture of a female feature, such as a hairstyle, I don't want to have to page through hundreds of irrelevant images. Categories are supposed to make it easier for users to find what they need, and that is what should be asked - does this category serve that purpose. If the category is too general or unhelpful, that is a different issue, but having male/female hair or male/female eyes is not objectifying. TMagen (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Swat, Pakistan[edit]

There seems to be some confusion with Swat District in Pakistan:
1) In its category it is said it's divided into two tehsils: Mardan tehsil and Swat tehsil. However, the wikipage lists none of them, but seven others. Moreover, is listed under Mardan District.
2) There is a subcategory with no clear distinction from Swat District, while the wikipage does not mention any subdivision or populated place of this name within the Swat District.
Could someone with sufficient knowledge of that region please clarify this? JiriMatejicek (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

April 20[edit]