Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is 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


It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place where dwellers discussed ideas for the improvement of their locale. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Why the hidden category is not removed?[edit]

I've seen that many of the photos in Category:Tasnimnews review needed are already license reviewed. Is there any problems? --Mhhossein talk 20:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

They were directly categorized --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, but should not the category be removed automatically by the time the image is reviewed and verified? --Mhhossein talk 13:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It would work if Category:Tasnimnews review needed is categorized by some review template, just as Category:Flickr review needed is categorized by {{Flickreview}}. Tasnimnews unfortunately uses {{Licensereview}} and uses direct categorization via substitution. The reviewing script AFAIK only changes template tags, and not category tags. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
You are correct that the current Tasnim template being used is {{subst:Tasnim/tasnim}} that automatically applies the correct Tasnim attribution license, the {{Licensereview}} template and also places the file in Category:Tasnimnews review needed. See Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#Tasnim. So manually removing the category seems like the only option unless someone knows how to modify the reviewing script. Ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

Moving a file from commons to[edit]

Is there an easy way to do it?

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Just making sure, you do know the images on Commons can be used on all wikis without moving? --Palosirkka (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Palosirkka: Yes. There is an image on commons that is fair use, and not free. If it's possible to transfer it without deleting and re-uploading, I'd like to know the process. Evrik (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Anyone? Evrik (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd take this silence as meaning there is no easy way anyone knows to do this. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean it isn't hard normally. There just isn't any automated tool that I know of. Downloading to your computer and reuploading locally doesn't take that long though. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I thought there were a couple, but they seem to have disappeared:
  • There is a separate Windows (or Linux Mono/Wine) utility called "For the Common Good" (FtCG). I use it, but only to copy to Commons. It can be run in reverse, but requires a bit of configuration file editing: The author describes this at en:User:This, that and the other/For the Common Good/Reverse transfers. It sounds like the configuration changes aren't worth the work unless you have a lot of files to move.
  • I think that an older version of "Move to Commons Helper" (CommonsHelper) used to do it, but I don't think the current version does; the source code seems to have hardcoded in multiple places. @Magnus Manske: Do you know of any utilities that work in reverse anymore?
  • I don't see any sign that the new external program "Move to Commons!" (MTC!) will do reverse moves either. @Fasily: Have I got that right? --Closeapple (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Over 10,000 hi-quality, PD images from the LOC[edit]

Example 1876 poster, the USA as a "porcineograph" in the LoC PGA collection.

Popular Graphic Arts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf:, I presume there is no "bulk download" option? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a script for loc, I'll take a look next week. -- (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@: Thanks! —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: These will be appearing (slowly) at Category:Popular Graphic Arts, with no other categorization. Do pick out the interesting ones and add some categories. However due to changes on the LOC servers, I am unable to get SHA1 duplicate checking to work properly as I get 403 errors. I'm carrying on with the upload on the presumption that nobody else has done a mass upload for this LOC project, it's a bit naughty but I want to ignore standard errors that get flagged by uploading jpegs and TIFFs with the same filename. If this leads to any unnecessary duplication, hopefully someone will waive a red flag and I'll look at the error traps in more detail. Thanks -- (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll poke thru a few. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Friendship love and truth LCCN2001699760.jpg is the same as the first-uploaded version of File:Friendship love and truth.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Wu Cheng'en portrait[edit]

Hi. I can't find any information about this image. Is it in the public domain? Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • There are several images on that page. I see no particular reason to think any of them would be in the public domain. Why do you think they would be? - Jmabel ! talk 03:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    I mean the first image. I don't know, it has an ancient look. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid "an ancient look" isn't enough if you don't know the origin of the image. Given that this is on a site about a film, they could easily have commissioned a picture with "an ancient look". - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      Yeah. The image actually appears on several thousand websites (mostly on Chinese websites; uncropped image here). But I don't know who the original author was... Thanks for the help anyway. ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
      • If you look at the uncropped version you can see the reflection of someone photographing the painting behind glass. The usual international complications about originality apply, but at the very least the existence of a copyright should be assumed. The article is shown as being written by a Чжан Цайся (Zhang Qaisia) - is that them in the photo? Who knows. 15:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
      Note that Cyrillic Цайся = pinyin Caixia =(?)
      中文: 彩霞
      . Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Are images on Wikimedia Commons indexed by search engines?[edit]

Whenever I use a service like Microsoft Bing or another search 🔍 engine to look for an image I never get results from Wikimedia Commons unless that image is being used in a Wikipedia article, and even then it's more likely for the image to link 🔗 to Wikipedia then it is to link to Wikimedia Commons. Strangely enough user pages, user sub-pages (including user-galleries), categories and galleries do show up in search 🔍 engines (though not all of them consistently, most do still show up), if I were to search for User:Fæ/Userlist it shows up here, but if I were to search for File:Steam Boiler 2 hu.png it doesn't show up either here or here. Now if I were to look for educational resources relating to steam boilers I would expect to find images from the world's largest repository of free images (maybe after Verizon’s Flickr) but apparently Wikimedia Commons images are hard to discover.

Personally I would guess that this is some “anti-abuse” measure that was put in place to stop “spammers” from promoting something but user pages (of non-blocked users) and galleries can still be found with search 🔍 engines so that wouldn't make much sense. It just seems odd to me that a website that should be about making educational resources available to an as wide audience as possible is trying to hide itself. Most people I know don't even know that Wikimedia Commons exists and the few that do ended up here accidentally by clicking on an image on a Wikipedia, thinking that they’re just on “a different part of Wikipedia with a different logo”, the only way this website would actually get traffic 🚦 from people who are genuinely interested in finding free images would be by making Wikimedia Commons images indexable by external search 🔍 engines which doesn't seem to be the case right now. If this is deliberate, is there any support for making actual educational images on Wikimedia Commons to be searchable via search engines like Microsoft Bing?

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 09:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess it depends on the search engine; afaik there is no "don't index this" instruction on our side. If I use Google to search for "vermisste eckersdorf", File:2.WK Vermisste Eckersdorf.jpg is the first hit in both web and image search even though it is not being used anywhere. If I try the same thing with Bing, it doesn't show up at all. Same for Beidou, but at least the image search finds a lot of cats. Yahoo image search doesn't find it, but the normal search finds at least Category:Taken with Pentax K-5 and Category:Photos by User:El Grafo. --El Grafo (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've found quite a few of them in searches that I'm pretty sure are not used in Wikipedia articles. As I understand it, though, Google still tends to give lower rank to images with no incoming links, so if it can find lots of images of something, it's unlikely to give high priority to an unused image on Commons. I can't speak much of other search engines, because that's the one I use 90%+ of the time. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The magic word __NOINDEX__ works on Commons as elsewhere, and should stop search engine indexing for relevant page types. I doubt it applies to image pages, but someone would have to check $wgExemptFromUserRobotsControl for Commons to work this out (I don't know if I can see this as a non-admin non-dev). -- (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Degraded JPEGs on top of good ones[edit]

While examining contributions of a user I noticed this phenomenon – a high-res JPEG scan uploaded initially, and then a gravely degraded version with low resolution uploaded over by the same person. This irregularity can also be seen in several other places in Drawings Album to Russian Army XIX Century Firearms by Colonel V. G. Fyodorov (or search for it in uploads), although on B&W images the effect is not that striking.

Obviously, a degraded image on top of a File: page is not good. But what namely should I suggest to KVK2005 (talk · contribs) to rectify the matter? To place {{LargeImage}} on huge images? To use {{Archival version}} on originals and {{Compressed version}} on separate files to be used on wiki? Which format (PNG or the same JPEG) to prefer for compressed files, and if the former, then in which cases should they be posterized? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the situation is quite as simple as you suggest. For instance, the crest in the high-resolution version of File:RussianFirearmsXIX_cover.jpg is heavily pixelated, while the text underneath it is not. Similarly, the high-res version of File:RussianFirearmsXIX 16-18 FlintlockRifle1826.jpg seem to have been scaled up by a factor of two at some point. --bjh21 (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Whoops… the thing I took for a high-res scan during a cursory examination isn’t so. I didn’t notice this thing, thanks Bjh21! A good point to ask the uploader about. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Flor de la Vida y los 7 Solidos Platonicos.jpg[edit]

Could someone speaking Spanish look at this change, please? --jdx Re: 16:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • The uploader, Arstempo was someone briefly active here, only in 2015. Arstempo, if you are still here, feel free to weigh in.
  • Perhaps this would better be handled at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If someone wants to move this discussion there, or to link from there, feel free. I'm more-than-average knowledgeable on copyright, but not expert.
  • Because this is a low-quality rendering, possibly scanned from somewhere, it's hard for me to get all that exercised about keeping this particular image.
  • I'm not sure that image is even eligible for copyright: it's a simple arrangement of reasonably conventional renderings of the Platonic solids. The only thing that is arguably original is some slight shading on the solids, but it's so minimal and so poorly executed that I don't see much creativity there. The text in the image dates back to matter old enough to long since be in the public domain. So there may not be any copyright here at all.
  • Instead of using any conventional means of notification, someone has anonymously (IP address) put a claim that the copyright belongs to a defunct esoteric organization. They haven't provided any evidence of that; they've merely asserted it. I have no idea how to evaluate the claim.
  • The claim is written in a way that I find downright bizarre for a claim about copyright. E.g. "En base a la Esencia de la Vida Sagrada, lenguaje universal en que están escritos textos: sánscritos, alquímicos, códices, codex, crop circles, biblia, torá, etc. con la perfecta Psicogeometría cromática-armónica del Arca del Alma (barca) y exacta Gnosismatemática alfanumérica-simbólica del Gran Espíritu, superado el Tribunal de Osiris, Elohim, Guardianes del Tiempo, Vigilantes o Vivientes de la Ciencia de la Esfinge y Veredicto de Isis, Aelohim, Ancianos de los Días, Arquitectos o Dioses del Conocimiento de la Pirámide y decodificado el Génesis Creativo y Apocalipsis Evolutivo." ("On the basis of the Essence of Sacred Life, universal language/jargon in which texts are written: Sanskrit, alchemical, codices, codex, crop circles, Bible, Torah, etc. with the perfect chromatic-harmonic Psychogeometry of the Ark of the Soul (boat) and exact alphanumeric-symbolic Gnosis-mathematics of the Great Spirit, surpassing (? the grammar is quite odd) the Court/Tribunal of Osiris, Elohim, Guardians of Time, Watchers or Dwellers of the Science of the Sphinx and Verdict of Isis, Aelohim, Ancients of Days, Architects or Gods of the Knowledge of the Pyramid and [having] decoded (again, the grammar is quite odd, and I'm not sure I'm correct to use a gerund here) the Creative Genesis and Evolutionary Apocalypse.") Frankly, this is well outside of the language of a normal claim of copyright, and it's a bit hard for me to see how someone can say, in effect, "This goes back 3000 years, and it's copyrighted." It goes on in the same vein; I don't have the patience to translate it at this time, but if it's really needed I will.
  • So, if I have this right, we could resolve this simply by someone creating a similar image, better rendered, not matching this particular shading; any copyright claim on this image would be moot. That's the course of action I'd suggest, unless someone thinks there could be other copyright issues; I don't know for certain what threshold of eligibility would apply, since I don't know what Spanish-speaking country we are dealing with. Maybe Costa Rica? Some of the uploader's contributions seem to come from there. The reference to "artículo 270 del vigente Código Penal" might make that clear to someone, but not to me. Some of their other non-photographic contributions look possibly a bit doubtful on copyright basis, but the only time one of this contributor's uploads has ever been deleted on a copyright basis it was an FOP issue, which is a common honest misunderstanding. - Jmabel ! talk 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The added text looks copypasted. Can copyright notices as elaborate as this be copyrighted themselves? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Noting that TinEye finds a similar image from 2012 here: the polyhedra are basically the same but this arrangement of six elements is somewhat different from the file in question‘s seven. No idea whether these two are part of a series or one is an alteration of the other. I’m inclined to think they might have been scanned from a book, but that’s just a guess.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's very peculiar, since the geodesic dome ("sexaedro") and sphere are NOT Platonic solids! -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-3[edit]

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

File:OSIRIS Mars true color.jpg[edit]

What does "true color" (or rather "true-colour") mean in this context? "Natural colours", that is colours a human (or a standard camera) would see? --jdx Re: 20:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems to mean "natural colours" because OSIRIS seems to be "standard" digital camera with CCD sensor. --jdx Re: 20:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Ideally, yes. Space probes are rarely trichromates like us primates who made them. They are scientific, not artistic, instruments. If they have any color it's most often by a color wheel with several filters that make them multispectral. Scientists choose the filters by mineralogical criteria; by their ability to discriminate rocks. For popular release they choose three of the filters that happen to correspond roughly to human cone cells, or to printing inks or usual electronic screen phosphors that in turn were chosen to correspond roughly to human cone cells. So, yes, it's approximately what our eyeball would see if we were there but looking through a transparent window. False-color, on the other hand, picks filter bands that show the particular rocks or temperatures or magnetic fields or altitudes or whatever else is under study at the moment, including wavelengths (usually infrared) and properties such as polarization that human eyes cannot see. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jim.henderson: Thank you very much for the explanation! --jdx Re: 21:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

requesting template help[edit]

I tried, and failed, to create a template, by copying an existing template.

Lots of museum and government archives request re-users show their idiosyncratic internal reference numbers. Smart contributors created templates to help comply with those requests. I tried copying and modifying Template:TPL to create a new one, Template:NWT archives.

I'd welcome some help getting the new template to work.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: Moved answer to Geo Swan’s talk page. — Speravir – 18:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Speravir 18:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

January 16[edit]

Flickr2Commons is broken[edit]

This is starting to become worse and worse as more Flickr images are uploaded so an announcement here seems to be in order. Flickr2Commons is currently broken and is uploading corrupted images. For example see File:Debra Medina (6162036574).jpg. Pinging uploader MB298. These images are being put into the license review needed category as they are, obviously, not being accepted by the bot. --Majora (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized that when I transferred a couple hundred images. Most came out fine, but a few (especially the early Debra Medina images) were broken. MB298 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't just you. This has been happening all day. I just notified you since you were the latest "victim". --Majora (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've had a separate problem where Flickr2 Commons would upload a photo, but point the source to a different picture. It needs maintenance. Artix Kreiger (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Poke Magnus Manske who (I think?) maintains it. --Majora (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Just my 2 cts: I think that the first issue is a bug related to timeouts. The second issue can happen when you reuse the form while it is actually still uploading. To prevent this I normally close the tab and restart the tool in a new tab. Rudolphous (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Error due to deletion of Wikidata item[edit]

What should occur at 中国#Casino which is currently showing an error due to its use of {{label|Q5047871|link=commons}} and the fact that d:Q5047871 was deleted in November 2017. A text caption could be made up to replace Q5047871, or the photo/caption could be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about one caption of little significance, wouldn’t be better to focus attention on headings first? These are incoherent {{label}} gibberish, possibly not a single item from Multilingual tags: Gallery headings. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm removing a few pages from Category:Pages with script errors and don't know what should happen when a caption goes bad. A similar problem is at Poitou-Charentes#flag & coat of arms due to deletion of d:Q16629984. As you suggest, the headings in 中国 are strange, but I don't have the expertise to fix them. Taking your hint, perhaps Lustenau is a model of how section headings should be done, while 中国 and Deutschland are not. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I need you here with your care about galleries. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I put that and Caspium on my watchlist and will try to work out what is going on in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
yeah - welcome to the wikidata deletionism. you could ask for an undelete as "structurally useful" or use another item. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I undeleted the item, but it is not notable by Wikidata standards, so that another solution is preferable (such as for example replacing the template with the actual name of what should be there).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks although I agree that d:Q5047871 (label "Casa Real Casino") is a problem. It was apparently created because en:Casa Real Casino existed, but the latter has been deleted twice. Its website says the name is "Casa Real Hotel Macau" and I see no mention of "Casino". If Q5047871 is deleted again, should the caption be replaced with just plain English? Poitou-Charentes#flag & coat of arms also has an error due to deletion of d:Q16629984. Johnuniq (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The problem with d:Q16629984, d:Q5047871 and other items is that people create them, do not fill any information: No sitelinks to wikipedia articles or commons categories, no address, country or other information. If Wikidata item does not have enough info to distinguish it from other items than it will get deleted. {{label}} is a translation template: You put your translations on Wikidata and access them using {{label|Q5047871|link=commons}}, but in this case there is no translations in the item only English title. There is no point in using {{label}}. So if yo do not want your favorite item deleted than fill in some information. If you think some deletions are in error, I can help checking them out and possibly undeleting. --Jarekt (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but I do not think the deletions were in error. I see you have fixed d:Q5047871 including its en label. By the way, if you haven't seen Template talk:Label#Deleted Q numbers yet you might have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Remove Flickr header[edit]


Other than this at the start and 33 Pompeii-related files at the end followed by three files nominated for deletion, all of the files in Category:Media renaming requests needing target begin with "Flickr - ". Is it possible for an admin who is bot or script savvy to do a mass preliminary rename which removes "Flickr - " and add another targetless {{move}} template? It would make coordinating this little project much easier as it would alphabetically order the series of pictures.


StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done -- (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

How to manage large categories with well named files in 2018 ?[edit]

Hello All,

I'am back on Commons and my pet projects after few years away and need information on how to manage such rich categories. The sum of the Commons:Stroke Order Project & Commons:Ancient Chinese characters project's categories I act upon is about 18,000 well named files. For better encyclopedic accuracy and due to recent expansion of our projects' scopes, we are considering changes in our strict naming conventions. I come here to get guidance, help is welcome to point me out relevant resources, tools, tutorials, or place to ask these questions.

  1. Download a category: In 2018, how can I provide non-wikimedians a download system for all files within one category ? is there a download link by category ?
  2. Massive rename with regularity: In 2018, how can I lead massive renaming upon 5,000 well named files {chinese_character}-{keyword}.{ext} into {chinese_character}-{new_keyword}.{ext} ?
  3. Mass upload with right tags: In 2018, how can I time-efficiently upload 1,000 files to a category with custom descriptions ?
    Ex: file {chinese_character}-{keyword}.{ext} must be uploaded with template {{ACClicense| {chinese_character} | {keyword} }}.

I'am aware that the renaming would have rippling effects on other wikimedia projects so I first want to learn about available tools, so we can set up contingency measures easing the transition. All help welcome. Yug (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) RE downloading, I don't think we have a one-click-solution available, unfortunately. Commons:Download tools links to a bunch of different command line tools, but your best bet is probably the Java-based Imker. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(2) RE renaming all I can say is that it would probably make sense to keep redirects from the old file names, as it seems there are some external re-users who might be linking to the old names.
(4) Machine readability: By the way, looking at some of the files I noticed that some (all?) of them use specialized templates that produce things like "See the date of uploads shown in the "File history" section." for dates and "see contributor name shown in the "File history" section." for authors. I can see why this was done, but it is problematic as we'd like to have all these things stored as Machine-readable data. To make things worse, they don't even show up in Category:Files with lack of machine-readability, as those "see file history" statements themselves are technically machine-readable. This is important for external re-users (see also meta:File metadata cleanup drive), as well as our efforts to store meta data at Commons as COM:Structured data. Probably easy to fix by bot though …
Oh, yeah, almost forgot: Welcome back, of course! --El Grafo (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hahahah, thanks @El Grafo:. If I remember well we were both active on one of the Graphic Lab, on map making (?). If you are interested in map making and have Nodejs skills, we have a talk to do ( ). Also, please note that I added a point (3).
(1) Ok thanks. It's quite sad we still haven such easy download ability as of 2018 (!). It's core functionality for a repository. Don't we allow to download a whole wikipedia dump ? the dump of one single category should be accessible via a simple link / archive. #callForDeveloper #PleeeeeeeaseHelpMeeeee Face-grin.svg
(2) Thanks for the hints on redirect. Would be better indeed. I plan to plant AGRESSIVE RED WARNING template on the file moved, for one year, so the local community edit the relevant templates to adopt new naming conventions. Noet: Yest it's for you Wiktionary guys !!!! Face-grin.svg
(4) As for citation, ACC and SO projects being on Chinese "letters", ALL our images are PD. Do we really need to name a creator ? We are literally filling the existing shapes with the Inkscape "bucket" tool. So we all agreed to be very cool with our authorship and play the PD license fully.
PS: As for 2-Renaming with pattern and 3-Mass uploads, I still miss guidance and I still welcome everyone's input. Yug (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
(3)-Massive uploads "@Yug: :) I recommend using mw:Manual:Pywikibot- it has a script for batch uploading images: mw:Manual:Pywikibot/, which I used when uploading the glyph images. Wyang (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2018 (UTC)" -- copied here by Yug (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
(3)-Massive uploads, the tool Commons:Commonist (github) has also been recommended to me. Yug (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


Can someone create collage of Rhacophoridae diversity (picture as File:Spiders Diversity.jpg)?--OJJ (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I made it. OJJ (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Have a collection of Chinese penises[edit]

Aren't they just lovely? Special:ListFiles/A570204111 --Palosirkka (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

勃起陰莖&龜頭 is probably the best, in terms of illustrative use. Is that the sort of answer you are fishing for? -- (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Actually I was expecting a mass delete as the Commons penis collection is pretty encompassing already but hey whatever. --Palosirkka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Do some research on cock rings and ball stretchers, there's a lot of types we don't have illustrations of. A photo competition might be helpful to fill in the gaps and make nice change from monuments and butterflies. Thanks -- (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to approach a sex museum 🎨 (or the penis museum 🏛) or pornography website or just a sex toy company and ask them to donate their images to Wikimedia Commons? By far the most recurring argument I find for deleting these images is low quality which could easily be solved by phoning in the professionals. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

January 17

PHP fatal error: Stack overflow[edit]

The URL gives "Error - Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. PHP fatal error: Stack overflow"

A developer assures that this error was not occurring yesterday.

Where should I report the problem? Or is it somehow expected?

Thanks! Syced (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Raise it on Phabricator. Easy to do and even if it is a temporary problem, it may be relevant for ops to do some analysis and log it against the ticket. -- (talk) 09:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Syced (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Fixed :-) Syced (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to change font size in edit box?[edit]

Is it possible to change font size in the edit box, i.e. the box shown when one presses "edit" link on a page? I suppose the size used to be 12pt, but after recent changes in MediaWiki it seems to be 10pt. IMO there should be some CSS' "magic incantation". Vector skin, Firefox, Windows. --jdx Re: 17:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Post the following in your common.css:
	font-size: 12pt !important; 

--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it works! --jdx Re: 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jdx, Steinsplitter: Just as information, not correction: mw:Editing/Projects/Font size in the editing window. — Speravir – 20:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Correction of the English name for a category[edit]

Hello, forgive me , but my English language is nor as good as I would wish. In the purpose to categorize templates in the kind of {{Month by year in Hérault}} I want to create Category navigational templates for months by years in France. Are there any spelling or grammatical errors, especially for plural agreements, in the name I chose? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • It's fine. In general (nothing you can do about it) this is a somewhat odd construct, and either "month by year" or "months by years" is equally acceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Great, thanks you! Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Except, looking now at what you linked, you don't want to use "Category:Category..." It should be Category:Navigational templates for months by years in France - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking like you, but in fact no, look Category:Category navigational templates for countries, it is because these templates are intended to be used only in categories. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Nazi symbol template[edit]

There is a proposal at Template_talk:Nazi symbol#Proposal to remove "(or resembles)", intended to reduce the possible misapplication to non-Nazi related artworks, especially pre-20th century works that happen to include swastika type elements.

Please add comments on the template talk page rather than here. Raising a flag as compliance with this part of German law is a sensitive topic for many contributors. Thanks -- (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

is it necessary to merge identical image?[edit]

File:Caspar_Schmalkalden-Formosa.jpg and File:CasparSchmalkalden TaiwanMap.jpg seems to be the same. Is it necessary to merge these 2 images? --Wolfch (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The images aren't identical: they appear to be different scans of the same map. I don't think it would be appropriate to delete either of them, but each should be linked from the other_versions of the other. --bjh21 (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Upload Wizard links broken[edit]

Hello, I noticed that the Wikicommons Upload Wizard had problems in the links structure when you go to the "Release rights" (Droits accordés in french) phase. But only on the french version of the page.

For example, to read the legal text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, this link is used and leads to a page with content:

Bad title
The requested page title contains invalid characters: "<".
Return to Main Page.

And it's like that for all the external links, they're all broken. I don't know if we can fix it ourselves or if we have to make a ticket on the Phabricator, so I wrote it here... Cordially. Lofhi (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

January 19[edit]

Duplicates of grammar templates[edit]

template:I18n/by (histlogsabuse log) vs template:by (histlogsabuse log)

Thanks to Camulogene77 (talk · contribs) Commons now has a pair of templates (maintained separately) for the preposition. And this problem may recur in any future time – how many template masters are aware of template:of (histlogsabuse log)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


If someone is good in insects: [7]. Rudolphous (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Find missing DEFAULTSORT by Petscan[edit]

Dear all, I had bookmarked a Petscan query that found missing DEFAULTSORT-Templates in the subcategories of a certain category. Regretably I´ve lost the link- can anyone please tell me how to do it, again? Thanks, --Rudolph Buch (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

January 20[edit]

Stop bulk-uploading using meaningless generic file names![edit]

Should this be Google Art Project inv. nr. SK-C-5 by photographer eQEojRwTdypUKA at Google Cultural Institute, or should it be The Nightwatch by Rembrandt? (or something similar) For most of us I think the answer is clear: the latter.

Commons is being flooded by mass uploads of files, that have meaningless generic file names, that aren't allowed on Commons. Often they use bots and apparently they don't verify the quality of their contributions. Generic file names like (fictitious examples) flickr-image-0023.jpg or national-museum-of-france-catalogue-nr.403272.jpg are against Commons guidelines. They contribute to Commons becoming more and more of a chaos. People need to be able to find files easily. The standard for file names is not the internal method of the supplier or individual uploader, but the guidelines as determined by Commons.

Similar as Wikipedia is not meant to be used as a personal blog, Commons is not a cheap personal file storage space of individuals or organisations. Cooperation should never mean submission. Arguing by some uploaders that the files providing institution is demanding certain file naming, is also a contradiction to the Creative Commons license or Public Domain status of the files. The files where released supposedly to be free for anyone to use, even commercially. The only demand even close to obligatory file names is naming of the author, but even that is not necessary in the file name.

Also, Commons is being flooded by mostly those same uploaders by files that have no or almost no categories added at the uploading stage. Often all they add is the category name of the institution which provides the files.

Furthermore, some institutions feel that their institutions name should be in the authors space of the file description on Commons. Only the name of the artist should be in this space, even if the institution should somehow commercially own the authorship. The same goes for photographs of 2D art works like paintings, where some institutions demand that the photographer should be mentioned in the artists field, no even mentioning the artist that made the painting.

It seems like some bulk uploaders feel that Commons is at the level of beggars can't be choosers. I think all uploaders of files should consider the fact that when they created their Wikimedia account, they agreed to abide by the rules of Wikimedia, and in this case Wikimedia Commons. And when they perform a new upload, they should apply the file uploading rules of Wikimedia Commons, not those of any third party.

I have in the past even been approached by other Commons users, to undo files name changes, where I changed meaningless generic names to file names according to the standards of Commons. That they should be descriptive of the content of the file. All because their institution (apparently) demands that their own standards be applied on Commons.

Hopefully we can start a meaningful debate on how to deal with this subject. Personally, I rather have a smaller amount of files on Commons than huge amounts of files of which we can not discover that they even exist, and where their descriptions are filled in according to rules of institutions that conflict with those of Commons Wikimedia. As a contributor that has done a lot of categorization work of files that I didn't add myself, trying to be useful as a Commons volunteer, to help build up Commons, I feel that something needs to be done. Regards, --oSeveno (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don´t mind meaningless file names and would rather support a proposal to remove that point from the list of reasons for renaming. They are just an identifier and renaming them is usually not worth the effort, especially if this leads to annoyance for the uploader. I don´t mind undercategorized uploads either if they are due to a lack of data at the image source. The only expectation I have is that mass uploads that need further categorization are put into a specific maintenance category instead of flooding content categories based on best guesses. In my experience this is respected by most organized GLAM uploads, problems occur mostly with individual flickr or panoramino imports. In general I do not share your somehow negative view of mass donations but I´m sure that any detailed suggestions you have for further improvement of the process are welcome by the contributors that are active in that field. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I completely disagree. They're not just an identifier that only needs to be unique, they're more than that. The filename is the only captioning that an image gets in a category view -- it is the only way to sum up information about what the image is for somebody browsing the whole category at speed. In that context a meaningful and informative filename adds *hugely* to readability. Jheald (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Agreed but of two minds I think that meaningful names are obviously a good idea and the benefit extends to search, captions, etc. But the one advantage of arbitrary naming is that it's language-agnostic (especially if it's just numbers and no Latin characters). But the strengths outweigh the downfalls. Frankly, the most international language is English as so some kind of language agnostic name is preferable (e.g. one built around ISO codes), followed by English, and then some logical local language (e.g. Arabic for a map of the Middle East). —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm functionally monolingual (though linguistically interested), and I'd far rather have any of the Romance or Germanic languages in Latin script than numbers. There's a good chance I can figure something out--the painting used as an example is known in Dutch, the language of its painter, as De Nachtwacht. Pretty much any language in Latin script is likely to be more mnemonic for me than numbers. Maps should be named in the language of their labeling, not the place depicted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
I think in many cases, having some institutional code or number can be beneficial, e.g. if it is an accession number or meaningful bit of data that can help identify works. If it's just arbitrary enumerator, like the file names in Flickr files (e.g. File:Secretary Tillerson Arrives in South Korea (24374348158).jpg), the meaningless numbers aren't required (Fae bot uploads appear to omit these), but they can help differentiate and avoid overwriting multiple files with the same title, and I'd assume help in verifying original source should file descriptions be altered. Commons:File renaming (an official guideline) and Commons:File naming (a proposal) cover reasons to change or not change fairly well. I suppose an ideal file name from a museum would include the name of the work, the artist, and accession number, but files should not be hastily renamed without reason. Animalparty (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There are some rules of thumb, beyond policies, which are helpful for mass uploaders; i.e. projects of more than 10,000 files where files are coming from an existing archive:

Best practice is to create a project page on Wikimedia Commons which explains technical aspects, copyright checks and license chosen, filename scheme, categorization scheme and anything else worth laying down as a long term record of how the upload was run.

Archive based filenames can have several basic schemes, before starting any large upload these should be defined and if unusual are worth raising for discussion. Some archives have hard challenges, such as containing hundreds of valuable historic images with titles like "undefined". Here are some suggested formats and good and poor examples of them from my projects:

  1. Modern photographs <descriptive title> <date?> <archive reference or unique identifier>
    1. File:'A Good Ship Was She' - RAHS-Osborne Collection c. 1930s (15777226145).jpg
    2. File:Afghan National Police at a Graduation Ceremony in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan MOD 45153406.jpg
    3. File:Aermacchi MB-339PAN, Italy - Air Force JP6366808.jpg
    4. File:Digital Jihad- How Online Networks are Changing Extremism (16093295344).jpg
    5. File:1933 Fortepan 77969.jpg
  2. Artwork <artwork title> <archive reference>
    1. File:A convention of the not-ables LCCN2004676789.jpg
    2. File:Croix-rouge française (French Red Cross) (6798225776).jpg
  3. Organism <common name?> <taxonomy> <archive reference>
    1. File:Gymnopleurus sericeifrons (Zoosphere 147 066).jpg
  4. Landmark <feature> <location (simple address)> <archive reference>
    1. File:Lake Loppio, Lake Garda, Italy-LCCN2001700813.jpg
    2. File:"Guest House", 300 East High Street, Oxford, Butler County, OH HABS OHIO,9-OXFO,1- (sheet 0 of 6).png
  5. Historic artefact <artefact title> <period, album or collection> <archive reference>
    1. File:'A Seaman fishing off a gun' (Bray album) RMG PT2015.tiff
    2. File:1890 garden and farm manual (Page 20) BHL42592341.jpg

At a fundamental level these all look like:

<title with specific to generic descriptive elements going left to right> <unique archive or project identifier>

Filenames created this way will sort most usefully in categories, without necessarily needing sort keys added. The inclusion of archive identities in the filenames, means it is much easier to re-categorize or have housekeeping run on them if anyone wants to research the external archive and improve file descriptions or categorization with later mass automation, without having locally to download the text of every image page and analyse it.

Most mass uploads with problematic undescriptive file names come from using standard upload tools like Flickr2Commons, by someone well meaning but with no experience of larger upload projects. It has been discussed several times about how to implement potential restrictions, I would still like it to become an enforceable "norm" that anyone uploading over 10,000 files as part of one apparent project, might be asked to stop what they are doing until they can link to a project page that explains their approach.

Lastly, Wikimedia Commons is not a bureaucracy. If someone wants to upload their personal collection of 100 photographs, they should be free to go ahead without worrying an awful lot about file naming structures, so long as they are "reasonably" descriptive names. If someone is planning to upload 100,000 files, that's different, a responsible uploader must be advised to create a batch upload project page or they are very likely to run into lots of complaints about how they are categorizing, naming, licensing their uploads and this may create a lot of downstream work and hassle for them and others. However, so long as they create a project page, they have evidence of being open to feedback and can show the logic of their choices, even if these choices do not match other standard schemes that is still likely to be okay.

Anyone looking for past reference projects, possibly to refine our guidelines or gain some insight to issues and working practice, should browse Commons:Batch uploading and User:Fæ/Project list. Thanks -- (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

—— Thanks for the replies. I notice we do not all agree on the best formats. I speak five languages, of which three on an advanced level. Being natively Dutch speaking, I do not object to using English descriptions and titles for files of Dutch authors. This since I recognize that Wikimedia Commons is of U.S. American, thus of English language origin. I strongly feel that nationalistic feelings should have no place on Commons, it being in the spirit of an international effort, to cooperatively provide freedom of access, to information or files, that may be freely studied and used. Often I notice, that although information is available regarding descriptions of files, the bulk uploader doesn't make any or insufficient effort of adding it to the description or categories. Or when it is clear that the default file name of a series of photo's doesn't describe the actual photo's, like amounts of file names that have the name of a street in it, although it is very clear that the photo's are of several different places. When the uploaders to panoramio or flickr clearly provide incorrect information about the content of the images, why even bother uploading them to Commons? Still, this happens regularly even by 'experienced' contributors. To me, the value of contributions should not be about the quantity, but about the quality. You may expect a minimum amount of effort put into each upload. I am not talking of human mistakes, which we all make, me too. In the end Commons is for the end-users, the people looking for a file on the Internet, to add to their article on Wikipedia or their homework for their school project. We need to keep that in mind, in my opinion, when uploading new files. Providing descriptive names and adding descriptions and categories, are essential for it's purpose. I hope this debate will go further than just that. I see there are some good proposals. Regards, --oSeveno (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing all that new about this -- the files uploaded in 2005 with source "The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH." all had pretty generic filenames (many of which have since been changed). AnonMoos (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 21[edit]

Place map[edit]

Hello. With Template:Countrymap and Template:Countryonmap, you can see red spots on the map and when you click on them you are moving to a different place. I want to do something similar and easier I quest. I have a map of a place and I just want to add the spots to some places, so they can link to some specific pages. Is that possible? Anyone knows something similar? Xaris333 (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

You need to create your own version of {{Countrymap}} by replacing the contour image and then using the existing {{Countryonmap}} template to place dots at appropriate locations. Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion spree in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355[edit]

There is a situation occurring Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 2875355. In this deletion request, for four times, thousands of file were deleted for the dubious reason of "Low quality, unusable, many alternatives available", without giving what are the "many alternatives available", when there were several files of reasonable of good, and many times the images were the only images that documented particular buildings or landscapes of Russia.

Even if they were several rightfully deleted files because of being of low or very low quality , the situation is still bad as the deletions were made in the first and second time within the regular 7 days but the third time was made 4 days after being open and the fourth time 2 days after being opened, so under a 7 days as the rules state.

Fact is that there were several deleted files of low or very low quality, is also true that there were several thousand files of good quality, as i could see for myself in both cases.

Nominations of thousand of files to deletion, because of quality and such speedy deletions do not give times to anyone make a reasonable and factual assessment of quality. So all this thousands of files should be undelete and then, if needed be, nominated in smaller groups so that there is a reasonable assessment of quality and not deletion of thousands of reasonable or good quality images deleted by a sloppy job of the nominatorMitte27 and the deletionist administrator Jcb. Such shotgun approaches to deletion requests, if copied to all Commons, only to make a count on deletion moninations and administrative edit, would leave only the FP and QI and not much else. Tm (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Basically over 99% of these files were useless. Till now only very few files out of several thousands were identified as usefull. These files were criticlessly mass uploaded, apparently without any human review. The DR is so large that it e.g. makes the day page hardly accessible. That's why I closed the 3rd DR a few hours early (not after 4 days as Tm somehow wrongly calculated, but after six and a half days). In the fourth DR I saw that all the files were uploaded by User:Panoramio upload bot, so that any comment on individual files was not to be expected. In e.g. the 1st DR, two manual transfers by NickK were involved, which I kept. Flooding Commons with thousands of useless files in the hope that a handful of usefull files will be between them is disruptive rather than helpful. If you can indicate individual deleted files that could be usefull, please let me know, so that they can be undeleted. Individual usefull files can be identified and kept (or undeleted), but they are like a needle in a haystack. Jcb (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
These are thousands files uploaded without any meaningful selection that create a boring job and lead to increased tensions, not the reaction from Mitte27. Administration should admonish the user(s) who abused mass transfer tools for such an end. Also note please that I don’t like unilateral and hasty actions by Jcb either. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The DR should have been closed as rejected due to being unmanageable. I attempted to comment, but was unable to do this as I was limited to a tablet, the page simply would not load.
Mass DRs with thousands of files listed should be rejected on sight, not closed as keep or delete. It is simple enough to insist that more thought goes into a DR before it is raised. -- (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@: separate requests were of a manageable (although large) size. But Mitte27 was lazy enough to post all five requests under the same name, and they were concatenated to a single wiki page having five sections with identical heading. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

January 22[edit]

Files by Panoramio user Gio la Gamb[edit]

Hi, there are screenshots or captured images from broadcast televisions in Files by Panoramio user Gio la Gamb. Unfortunately, the some files have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (Files by Panoramio user Gio la Gamb) from Panoramio.

For example, File:Dera Jinjia - panoramio.jpg (deleted) and File:Seiti - panoramio.jpg, these are captured image from NHK World TV (International broadcasting service by Japanese broadcasting station NHK), and have copyright violation problems. Additionally, there are same problems in Files by Panoramio user Gio la Gamb.

I think that the files about things Japanese are most likely due to captured image from NHK World TV. The files have unusual and characteristic motion blurs. In the case of this, I don't know what one is going to explain details of them in Deletion requests.--Categorizing (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, such stuff as File:S_A_K_E - panoramio.jpg is anything but not a photo made with a modern camera. But note that overwhelming majority of images from Photos from Panoramio ID 3265834 are fine. @Categorizing: submit a mass deletion request for all “things Japanese” from the category. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: You've been a huge help! Thanks to you, I have just been able to try to submit a request.--Categorizing (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)