Commons:Village pump - Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections ↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓ 🌐 Village pumps for other languages Commons discussion pages (index)

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

Start a new discussion

A village pump in Burkina Faso [add] Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

June 07[edit]

Increased occurence of incomplete digital photographs[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T190988

Recently (last several months) I noticed rapidly increased occurrence of incomplete digital photographs, especially uploaded by inexperienced new users. I didn't succeed in investigation what is the cause, but some cases indicate that this is not any mass infectious disease of various types of cameras, but rather some problem with our upload process. Maybe, premature close of browser window, poor-quality internet connection etc. and insufficient detection and warning system of our upload interface. --ŠJů (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

When this was happening to my uploads it was related to WMF operational issues. It may be worth looking for a pattern by plotting instances over time. -- (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@: These three files were all uploaded with the identical comment "Cross-wiki upload from", if that helps.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That can have a relation with the fact that I found the files sorting Commons:Media needing categories (Czech description), rather than with the core problem. --ŠJů (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@, Jeff G.: What I discovered is that all the incomplete photographs have a size 5MB in its file history, independently on the fact what is the size of the undamaged file. --ŠJů (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@ŠJů: I think this calls for a phab task.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:52, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I created a bug report. But as I experienced, most of bugs remain unresolved for years. --ŠJů (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I noticed this recently with several Flickr images needing human review but many were nominated for deletion, in what I think was a drive-by manner, when most, maybe all, could have been fixed by the nominator themselves or asking the uploader to do them again. Direct uploads like the ones above need the original uploader to be contacted. Ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: As the problem is with some technical process which doesn't accept any file bigger than 5MB, such asks for reuploads are a bit nonsensical. At first we need to detect and fix the cause urgently. As long as we don't know the cause, we can't advise how to avoid the damage. The only reliable advice is to lower the quality of all uploaded files under 5MB. For now, the problem seems to be related with cross-wiki uploads. Shouldn't we switch them off urgently? Regrettably, most of Phabricator tasks remain many months or years without any adequate reaction. --ŠJů (talk) 06:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
ŠJů: I'm pretty much aware of the issues and the Phabricator time scale. I've mainly noticed this occuring with Flickr images and I have reuploaded some of those. However, I wonder, because these all seem to be crosswiki uploads, whether they can be rescued or restored at the local wiki and then manually uploaded here as currently the number of files is low enough so it would not be a significant burden. Ww2censor (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: I'm not sure you understood good what means the "cross-wiki upload" tag. I think that are images which were uploaded through a Wikipedia link, but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia stores some "original" of the image. Btw., most of the affected files are from one-time and occasional users. It is not promising to ask them for reupload, especially when we are not able for many month to identify and fix the primary problem. --ŠJů (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Correction for inaccurate time in EXIF[edit]

Do we have any sort of template that allows indication that the EXIF data for a photo is off of local time by a known amount? I know I don't adjust the clock in my phone when I travel, so it's always showing West Coast U.S. time; similarly for Standard vs. Daylight time. If there were an easy way to indicate this, I'd certainly use it on my uploads. Instead, I end up with things like the date on File:Bucharest - Str. Mendeleev, nr. 30 - 01.jpg: "2014-12-19 (EXIF data is West Coast of U.S.)". - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't think so. If set to automatically update, phones should get current local date/time from the nearest cell tower on their network. This works for me, as I am usually more interested in local time than the time in my home time zone.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
There was nothing in my question about a phone, so is an answer to something I didn't ask. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
no, no way to visualfilechange exif. have to edit it before upload in file. some modern cameras incorporate wifi with time reset like phones, but for the old ones, it is still set and forget. you could build a template, but why? time of photo is not material to license. the over reliance on exif is a problem, with no one caring about exif setting except commons admins. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jmabel: There exists {{Invalid Exif date}} as warning label for files with incorrect EXIF date and/or time. There exist some image-edit softwares which are able to shift the EXIF date+time simply. However, when I asked such a correction of uploaded images here, nobody claimed his readiness to do so. Thus, a possibility is to edit EXIF at home by external editor at upload the corrected files as new versions. --ŠJů (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
I have zero interest in downloading the photos, editing the EXIF and re-uploading. It just seems it would be quite simple to have a template that would be a more effective version of my notice on the date "EXIF data is West Coast of U.S.". - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
you could use VFC to add a maintenance category, and even date field. but exif no, sofixit. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
+1 Agreeing with previous comments. Unless there is corruption or deliberately misleading data, like false attribution, it is always going to be better to keep the file digitally untouched and add corrections on the wiki image page as notes. If someone is pulling out coordinates, time, license et al, then they should be using the most recent data on the image page, not pulling out of the EXIF data. That's supposed to be one of the benefits of having a wiki anyone can edit, anyone can add value to the data.
PS I deal with a lot of photos of historic artefacts and artworks where even the photo may be of historical significance and the reproduction of it a much later reprint or scan. In these cases date and place can be complex things to answer with multiple values being correct and of value, including the digital stamps on the file. -- (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Library of Congress maps - 100,000 high resolution images[edit]

Good news everyone!

Since April we have been gradually uploading the latest high resolution scans of public domain maps from the Library of Congress. As a large proportion of the maps have multiple sheets, a count of files is a bit misleading, the actual number of maps is probably around 30,000 so far. These are mostly America related maps, but there are maps in the collection from all over the world, and from all periods of history. The largest single source of images is the Sanborn insurance maps collection, which are incredibly detailed books of maps of American towns and cities, showing individual properties and their layout in the 19th and early 20th century.

On the project page you can find several example ways of searching the collection for maps you may find of interest. Though date, and where possible location, have been used to add categories, these are basic and rely on the metadata being specific. If you can help out by adding categories or refining the existing ones, that would be great, and you will be added to our GLAM volunteer report. In many cases the TIFF versions are very large, so jpeg versions are added as the more workable file, which also renders more clearly as thumbnails for use on Wikipedia(s). It is the jpeg versions that probably should remain a priority for categorisation.

Thanks to Jheald for the original request. By the way, this volunteer driven independent upload continues, and may do for another couple of months. It's a complex slow and steady process which regularly drops out due to LOC server downtime, WMF server time-outs and home broadband brown-outs. -- (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@: Thank you. Please consider captioning the galleries like this.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Adding the linked filename in a gallery is not a norm, and this may become an issue when files are renamed or duplicates removed. There is some retrospective housekeeping of LOC galleries to make multiple versions easier to understand at a glance, see example diff, which adds the file format, updates changes to filenames, and swaps old style links to a more standard/generic use of the gallery tag. Where the filenames are identical (by far the most common case for LOC galleries), adding more than this seems superfluous for the viewer or reuser. -- (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@: Really great to have 100,000 / 30,000 of these now on Commons. Thank you so much. It's a huge achievement, and I hope people will find them a fantastic resource.
One glitch I have seen occasionally, is that a few maps and categories for U.S. places have been added to the old maps categories for their U.K. namesakes (eg Category:Old_maps_of_Cumberland). Not a big thing to fix by hand, the next time anyone is going through the UK tree; but would it be possible to put in sanity checks to avoid this? Understand completely if it would be too much of an additional hassle to code, or if you think there would be too many exceptions still getting through the net. Jheald (talk) 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the observation. The uploads are mostly done, but this might be something that can be added within LOC housekeeping. The metadata potentially has city, county, state, country, within location and the "Old maps of " + place category is generated from that; so far without any complaints. I can imagine vetting the LOC maps collection by intelligently sniffing through the unique set of actual categories, and testing them as they appear by checking within a sensible set created from the UK tree. As both sets are probably a lot less than 10,000, this could be done with a bit of modestly naive programming.
I'll add this as something to ponder when the heatwave is over and there are more excuses to spend time on the keyboard. -- (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jheald: I have been taking a look, and in the first 1,000 files only problem cases I have found is to swap Category:Old maps of Georgia with Category:Old maps of Georgia (U.S. state). So fixing is remaining semi-manual at the moment. Any other examples you've noticed?
Additional I have now added a category mapping table at User:Fæ/LOC_maps#Categorisation specifically for the housekeeping, the table being the array cut&paste from the code. If any are missing, notes about them are welcome on my talk page. -- (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@: I was going from the other side, looking through Category:Old_maps_of_counties_in_England and Category:Old maps of cities in England and was finding quite a few, particularly in the latter, for example under Category:Old_maps_of_Birmingham, Category:Old maps of Bradford, Category:Old maps of Brighton, Category:Old maps of Bristol, Category:Old maps of Cambridge, ... etc. The LoC maps tend to fairly easily spotted by eye, either being in whole Sanford sub-categories, or alternatively occurring towards the end of the categories (because the UK Old Maps categories are generally pipe-sorted by date, but the LoC maps are not). Jheald (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional examples, I've added these as a precautionary set to my table, which can be mapped as they occur. I'm not predesigning the cat map, just inheriting more maps as actual files pop up in the housekeeping task. The vast majority of cats are okay and are much wider than US/UK, e.g. Old maps of Greece, Old maps of Virginia in the American Civil War, Old maps of Belize, Old maps of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
As the LOC metadata location set has no hard rules for its creation or granularity, it would probably be unproductive to import large sets of locations, like U.S. city names, and tease out possible mismatches in advance. However when examining individual cases I have found Locations in the United States with an English name and List of US places named for non-US places helpful in finding out if multiple matches might exist, hence the addition of a regex filter to match other location text not just the one in the cat name. Obviously there are a lot, but hopefully only a small subset will be of practical concern to us. -- (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Whats the easiest way to find all the files in BOTH two sets of subcategories and add them to a third category[edit]

Hi all

I'm running a competition as part of Wiki Loves Earth and need to find all the files which appear in BOTH a subcategory of CATEGORY A and in a subcategory of CATEGORY B, I know that this is probably possible through some kind of search query in CirrusSearch, but can't work out how to do it, any suggestions? Also bonus points is you can suggest a simple way of adding all the files which appear in this search result to a third category (I expect I'll have to do it manually..... If its possible to do this easily by bot here are the searches I want to run and the additional category I want to add:

Show files that appear in a subcategory of Category:Geoparks AND in a subcategory of Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2018. I want to add these images to Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks 2018‎

I also want to do the same for Biosphere Reserves as well as Geoparks so:

Show files that appear in a subcategory of Category:Biosphere reserves AND in a subcategory of Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2018. I want to add these images to Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks 2018‎

If there's no simple way of adding them automatically I'm happy to spend a few hours doing it manually


John Cummings (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Jmabel, so I deepcat:"Geoparks" deepcat:"Wiki Loves Earth 2018" which should give me exactly what I need but it gives "Deep category query returned too many categories" :(. I'll try to work out how to use the template today. John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah.... it looks like the template won't do enough levels of subcategory and the bot has been shut down because of some technical change :( I'll have to find some alternatives.... I know I managed to find a way to do it last year but can't for the life of me work out what I did (or who did it for me if it was a bot thing). John Cummings (talk) 09:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel:, amazing, thanks so much :) Let me know if there's anything I can swap you for. John Cummings (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: so is there anything that should change about Template:Intersect categories? Because it explicitly mentions User talk:CategorizationBot. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Hmm ... This was a specific bit of code that I wrote for WLE/biosphere (it's actually a precurser for the first category walker I used for the infobox deployment), and it currently has to be run manually to generate the list, which is then manually checked passed to another script to add the categories. The bot request above was for the process of adding the new category rather than anything else. That said, if this is something that there is demand for, then I could look into expanding it into something more general. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • There might be a demand; I guess what I was more driving at is:
    1. I gather from what John said above that User talk:CategorizationBot is no longer running, so at the very least the template probably should not refer to that bot.
    2. If someone now uses Template:Intersect categories, will any bot follow up and take the action, or will it just sit there indefinitely? - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@John Cummings: A combination of Petscan, a gallery page in the user name space and VisualFileChange should do the trick. I'm just not sure about how many category layers we are talking here. Going seven levels deep gave me roughly 3700 files, which fall into either cut set and don't have Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks 2018 yet (petscan could deal with more depth in my test). I created a gallery page in my user namespace (User:MB-one/WLE18_maintenance). Now, using VisualFileChange, we can append [[Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks 2018]] to each of those files, without too many clicks. Does that help? --MB-one (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much @MB-one:, I know @Mike Peel: has also been working on this, I'll let you both decide which is the best way forward. Looking at the images they all look reasonable and I looked at around 20 and couldn't find any errors in the selection, my guess is a few more layers of subcategory probably wouldn't hurt. I think the easiest way to do this is if {{Wiki Loves Earth 2018|unesco}} could be added each image, that way it will look nice and also add the category I need to be able to do the judging. If I can swap either of you for a non technical task (e.g writing a piece of documentation) please let me know.
Thanks again
John Cummings (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@MB-one, John Cummings: So, now I'm confused. Going through Category:Wiki Loves Earth 2018 to a depth of 3 (91675 files) then Category:Geoparks to a depth of 10 (121647 files) yields 554 files in common, which are listed at User:Mike Peel/WLE18. That's quite different from 3700 - or does that count include the biosphere reserves? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, John Cummings: sorry for the confusion. Yes, the 3.7k files include both Geoparks AND Biosphere Reserves. Also I made a spelling mistake. The "could deal" should have spelled "couldn't deal" in the first place. But I doodled around a bit and found a way to make 11 levels work (4007 files, []). With your permission, I can append {{Wiki Loves Earth 2018|unesco}} to each of those files. --MB-one (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@MB-one:, amazing, thanks, yes, please add the template :) John Cummings (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm wondering about this simple solution. But it might be much better to have only one template like {{Wiki Loves Earth 2018|de|unesco}}. --XRay talk 13:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@MB-one: thanks so much for making this happen, I'll be using it tomorrow :) John Cummings (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@MB-one, John Cummings: Sorry, I'm one of the organizers of WLE Spain 2018. As part of this thread, we've found that some hundreds of images uploaded as part of such contest, now show a misleading template that suggests that the images were uploaded as part of another contest (this WLE UNESCO stuff). As that's wrong, I'm going to remove the template. Let me know whether you want me to manually add Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves and UNESCO Global Geoparks 2018 (a bot will do it). Thanks for your understanding --Discasto talk 08:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Discasto:, can you tell me why you think the template is misleading? Could you suggest a change to the template that would resolve the issue without removing it? This would allow us to save a lot of effort and avoid the problem happening again.
If you do decide to remove the template yes please add the category, the images are eligible for the UNESCO competition and the category means that they can be included. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The images were uploaded as part of the Spanish edition of WLE. It's pretty clear. They were not uploaded as part of your contest. In fact, and according to your own rules, they wouldn't be even eligible as they were uploaded in May. If you feel your template is necessary, feel free to include it after the original one. I have no objection to that. --Discasto talk 12:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 06[edit]


Has anyone noticed the number of commercial Logos that are appearing on Wikimedia? I appreciate that it not as simple as delete then all but most are out of scope and many are copyright violations. Part of the problem is the assumption by uploaders that they need Wikimedia entry to display their logo in Wikipedia. As I understand it, you can use “non Free” logos in Wikipedia provided they are low resolution and in context where they are considered “fair use” . However fair use cannot be applied to Wikimedia.

Furthermore some of them are “cross-wiki uploads” which suggests an option has been selected on upload to Wikipedia to automatically upload to Wikimedia. I suspect this has been done in all innocence by uploaders not realising the difference in rules.

I suspect also that most corporate lawyers would be horrified to find the corporate logo licenced under a CC-BY-SA licence!

Is there any way we can point the perils of putting Logos on Wikimedia - a sort of “are you sure you want to do this type statement. Any thoughts?--Headlock0225 (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind, that copyright and trademark are quite different. It is quite possible to have one's logo copyrighted under a free licence or even be public domain and yet the trademark protection will be sufficient for those most corporate lawyers. But you are correct, sometimes people think that something they found on the internet is "free" because they didn't have to pay to download it, thus if the logo is unfree it should be deleted here. And finally, not all Wikimedia projects accept fair use, some wikipedias do, others don't. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks Gone_Postal. Although sone may well be deliberate, I suspect the majority are here by accident or misunderstanding. I have some sympathy for the person trying to create a Wikipedia page for his/her company or brand. It naturally needs a logo. If it stayed on Wikipedia (alright most Wikipedias!)it wouldn’t be a problem but Wikipedia users are encouraged to put images on Wikimedia. I think there should be a warning somewhere for Logos. Perhaps it an issue for Wikipedia village pump (do they have one?) --Headlock0225 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
There are warnings here on Commons, e.g. {{Trademarked}}. And afaik Fair Use is exclusive to --MB-one (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@MB-one: Re "exclusive", please see m:nfc.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
@Headlock0225: English Wikipedia's 14-year-old Village pump is at en:WP:VP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


Please help me to add more categories or rename some files. They all got description. --Sergkarman (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm confused: what is the basis for these being "Top 100"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
    • ESO chose them, i think: [] --Sergkarman (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I'd wager most of these are duplicates of existing images, since they are all fairly high profile images. I'm guessing this was a straight dump and none were checked against what's already here? — Huntster (t @ c) 12:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
        • I try to check them but this files are different and uploader dont give warnings during upload. Except 3-4 files that i move to this category without uploading. I search for duplicates now. Give them this category and delete second file. --Sergkarman (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Sergkarman, I'll be working on this as well as time permits. Use {{Duplicate}} to tag the image in question. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 09[edit]

Commons denies pictures were taken by photographer[edit]

We are running a digitization project where a seasoned journalist has decided to donate with her historical pictures she took during apartheid era in South Africa to be used on Wikimedia commons for free but the problem is everytime she tries to upload them the system says the pictures where not taken by her. How do we solve this problem? Her name and Wikipedia username is Gille de Vlieg. Bobbyshabangu (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Bobbyshabangu This is probably because the pictures were already published before where a copyright release was not present, in which case we tend to be considerably more careful with donations. You might want to read the "for images" part of Granting us permission to copy material already online if you truly want to release the material freely. However note that we do not accept material to be used ONLY on Wikimedia. If you release material to us, you release for the entire world, to use and to adapt for eternity. Be sure to make this very clear. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
these uploads here? File:Gille.jpeg, File:Eric Itzkin.jpeg might want to have User:Thuvack send in an com:OTRS confrirming what you said. the assumption of bad faith is typical, Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

Overwriting a file to remove a de minimis element[edit]

File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg has been modified to remove the Pepe the Frog character. The character was considered de minimis in its first deletion request. However, this seems to remove a huge amount of context from the image. Would I be correct in thinking that this violates COM:OVERWRITE? 93 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

If the character is contextually important enough for a removal to violate COM:OVERWRITE then is it actually de minimis? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
DM or not, blanking a portion of the image seems like it should warrant a new version instead of presenting it as the original. 93 (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It's a very bad idea to create a new version in this case. We want to keep the history, but can only really present the blurred version, the original is there only as the history and can be reverted a hundred or so years in the future. Overwriting was the correct way to do that. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 03:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
it's de minimis, but by all means keep censoring the protest signs, the problem with your editing or rev-diving, is is makes it hard to keep provenance. and you are imposing your own ego judgement over consensus. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data - Depicts statements draft is up[edit]


There is a presentation posted on the first draft specifications for using Wikidata depicts statements on Commons. Please visit the Get Involved page for the presentation and to leave feedback. These statements are an early feature of the Structured Data project, you can expect to see them live on the wiki sometime early next year so your input at this early stage is very valuable. Thank you for your time, see you on the talk page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

  • I read it through. It adds to the fascinating case of how a heavily promoted and funded feature still cannot, after half a dozen years, even grasp the coarser aspects of Commons curation. It is, paradoxally, a very wiki thing, though: On one hand, a volonteer community, in an organic and unguided way, develops and keeps improving a mechanism that works, while on the other hand a top-down, hamfisted approach, only nominally guided by collaboration ideals, attains laughingly modest results while trying to tackle the same data for the same curation purposes. Between a Rube Goldberg contraption that works and vaporware that does nothing but fog, I chose the first. -- Tuválkin 00:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the report. Rube Goldberg does not scale, and the volunteer overhead is "soul crushing"; there is more ware than vapor there; i prefer the latter. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

August 11[edit]


At Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_70#ديفيد_عادل_وهبة_خليل_2 you can see how fellow user @ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: feels free to add Category:Child marriage to obviously unrelated photos of little girls and no Administrator feel they need to step in before the subject gets automaticly archived. Maybe the community at large wants to say something, or at least be warned. -- Tuválkin 00:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Looks like two people disagreeing about the categorisation of the image. When I looked at the image the first thought was 'child marriage' as well, but that is probably because I read this post first. I agree that it can be either a bride or a bridesmaid, and either categorisation was contentious. Perhaps it could be categorised as both to avoid edit war, somewhat like people insist on incorrectly adding Category:Vegetables by common name to Category:Tomatoes and nobody just wants to start fighting with them. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 03:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, if these were about tomatoes, proper categorization would still be important. However in this case, what’s at stake is more than mere accuracy in categorization (and I do consider accuracy in categorization to be very important in Commons): This is about personality rights, compounded by these being of a minor. Obviously great care should be excercised when classifying media of identifiable minors into something as problematic as Category:Child marriage.
There’s no overstressing of this, and I am appalled at both the repeated emmerging of more users who don’t have a clue about this and the deafening silence of the admin community, usually so swift to asperse admonishings for much lesser matters. -- Tuválkin 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

«Please delete»?[edit]

Since the original categories are not acceptable, please delete the images ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:, the thing is that the image is either educational or not and either free or not. In some very rare situations, when somebody uploads by mistake files do get deleted if somebody asks right away, but now more than a year has passed (uploaded here on 7 June 2017). Tuvalkin's response was completely disproportionate, you have twice categorised the image that you have spent time transferring to this project and that was labelled as you "insisting" on such categorisation. It is a shame that no admin felt free to step in to stop such anti-social behaviour, even though it occurred on the administrators' noticeboard (so they either ignored or tacitly supported it... at least they didn't join it I guess). But, even though you were in the right before, please consider that this project attempts to collect educational material for all categories, not only the one you were trying to populate, as such you can just leave that image as is and simply move on making other contributions. If you want to help others to categorise their uploads, I am sure they would be thankful. Alternatively, if you feel that this file is of high enough quality, that is essential to keep it in the correct category, you can start a discussion on File talk:Little girl wearing a white wedding dress 3.jpg or Category talk:Child marriage. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: I uploaded it to be in a category that is not accepted by other users so delete them better than keep them and leave them to cause problems (Edit wars annoying and edits for the uploader or an annoying category for others) ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Often the goal of such behaviour is to get some sort of validation from others. By demanding deletion you will only make yourself look bad in this situation. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: I do not upload the pictures for others to check and change their contents but to benefit from them as they are and if they are kept, I will be very bad (from the point of view of others) because of the problems mentioned above and block requests will be repeated ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: Image that you have uploaded is licenced under a free licence. All the text that you put on Wikimedia Commons is also placed under the free licence. When you edit any page it says the following: "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons licence." It takes a long time to explain different licences, but all the free ones allow modification for any purpose. So yes, if you do not wish for the description to ever be changed, you should not place any file or text on this project. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 13:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gone Postal: Yes I know, therefore, these files should be deleted because edits are always unacceptable ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • When I posted this to AN/U the main matter of User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2’s issue was the patent insensitivity to the matter of a minor’s personality rights, but the above suggests a deeper and wider lack of understanding by this user. -- Tuválkin 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Images in Public Domain?[edit]

Hi all, I have a question. I am currently working on the article associated with Eldfell volcanic eruption in 1973 on Iceland and I am searching for images. I just found this webpage where many very nice images are. I would like to copy them to Commons, however, I am not sure if I can. It is written on the page that "Except where noted, all photographs are by the late Svienn Eirikksen, fire marshal of the town of Vestmannaeyjar. Photographs courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey." As USGS is a US federal agency I assume that images are available under the Public Domain. Right? Or did I overlook something? Thanks in advance for help and if they will be in Public Domain, I will upload them to Commons. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I read this the following way: Sveinn Eirikksen provided his private photographs to USGS which were then given to the owner of website ("courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey"). So as Eirikksen was not a member of USGS the images are not public domain. The only one that is explicitely attributed to USGS and can be uploaded here is this: "The town of Vestmannaeyjar and the harbor after the eruption. Eldfell and the 1973 lava flows are just beyond the town. Photograph by Robin Holcomb, U.S. Geological Survey." De728631 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi De728631, thank you a lot for your opinion and explanation! So I will upload only one picture. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Please go ahead. You may use {{PD-USGov-USGS}} as a licence template. De728631 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Action throttled in renaming categories[edit]


I've undertaken solving erroneous category names related to the "Orchomenos" toponym (Greece), which is the name carried by two distinct locations in Boeotia and Arcadia. I was renaming the existing "Orchomenos" categories into "Orchomenos (Boeotia)" or "Orchomenos (Arcadia)", or creating new ones, depending on which place they were referring to (based on the pictures they contained).

I in the end got an "Action throttled" warning message: "As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."

I might not be doing this the best way, but I don't think automation would do it in this case (I'm clearly checking the pictures inside the categories before moving files and categories around). Once I'm done with the clean-up process, I'll upload the pictures of Orchomenos (Boeotia) I've taken to complete the existing Commons iconography.

In the end, my question is: is there a way to get a "clearance" so that my work is not impeded by the "Action throttled" mechanism?

Thanks in advance. --LeZibou (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Jo Ann Davidson (City Club of Cleveland).jpg[edit]

The youtube license says 'nonprofits & Activism'? What is the license for this image? Is it free...I have no idea. Feel free to review it if you know what the license means at youtube. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  • You have misread that. It isn't the licence, it is the category of the video. When YouTube does not state the licence it mean it is YouTube Standard Licence, which is not free. As such this image must be deleted as a DW of a non-free work. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank You Gene Postal. That was what i was afraid it was. Thank You, --Leoboudv (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

Editing problems[edit]

I have created categories and uploaded images for many years without any problems and in the last two weeks I am suddenly having odd problems. When I create a category by putting CategoryːX in the search box I get an option to create the page but it is created as a gallery page and I have to use move to change it to a category. When I put in double square brackets they are autoconverted to "ʽ". ~~~~ is autoconverted to " ̴̴" I can get round the autoconvert problems by inserting symbols using the bar below, but not being able to create categories is an irritating problem. Does anyone have any idea what is going on? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Turn off VisualEditor, maybe? -- Tuválkin 17:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks but that does not help. It is very strange, as if it is a bug which has changed editing to a different character set, but only in Commons. Typing a colon to indent does not work, but copying a colon in a Commons page does. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Heather Brooke May 12.jpg[edit]

Both File:Heather Brooke May 12.jpg and the derivative File:Heather Brooke, 2012 (cropped).jpg are tagged by the uploader, the photographer, as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Despite this, both have been recently tagged {{No permission since}}. I removed the latter, with explanatory edits summaries, but have been reverted by User:Ruthven, who also left a charmless standard template on my talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

What did Ruthven say when you asked about it on their talk page? Or did you come straight here without trying to discuss it first? World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
the same thing that the uploader said, when she talked with them on their talk. the summary process by template originates with the admins; it is not a double standard for the not admins. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, I gave explanatory edit summaries. These were ignored. Do you think these files should be deleted? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Uploader name matches photographer name, {{self}} tag, similar high quality uploads, and appropriate metadata. What evidence does Ruthven have to suggest this isn’t the uploader’s own work as claimed? clpo13(talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there's no reason to delete the images. Maybe Ruthven knows something I don't, but I suspect this is just a misunderstanding. I'm not sure why this needs to be discussed here at all when it probably could have been settled on their talk page simply by asking for clarification. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 03:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok guys, problem solved! It was simply a scrolling issue, so the uploaded appeared to me to be Pigsonthewing instead of the author. As a side note, I've to say that replying in an edit comment is not the most visible way to comunicate, even just because the lenght of the sentence allowed. --Ruthven (msg) 07:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
As anone can see, my edit summary when I removed the {{No permission since}} tag on the parent image was "clearly marked {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} by the photographer)". You reverted me with no regard for that, and no edit summary. The uploader in both cases is clearly not me. Your actions and responses ("a scrolling issue" - really?!?) call into question your competence to be making such edits. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
the larger problem is the over-use of "license needed" tag, without interacting with the uploader about what the license concerns are. it is a sword of damocles; it is not a professional standard of practice; it is pernicious and undermines the credibility of commons. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Three closely related categories to be joined.[edit]

These two categories, Category:Siberia and the Exile System Vol 1 (book) and Category:Siberia and the Exile System Vol 2 (book) should be made to be sub-categories of Category:Siberia and the exile system (1891). I would do it except I never moved categories, only files. Anyone's help would be greatly appreciated and I would learn by looking at the results. — Ineuw talk 22:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  • @Ineuw: I've made the relevant edits; please take a look at the histories of the respective category histories to see how to do this, it is super-simple. I have not examined the other attached categories to see if this makes some other existing parent categories redundant. - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: My thanks. Your change is exactly what was needed. I realize that there will be redundant categories because at first, I copied categories from the image category page to the (book) categories, I will check tomorrow and will clean up any redundancies. By the way, FYI just swimming in the artificial waves of the Gellert Baths and other artesian bath houses, is worth the trip to Budapest. :-) Spent a lot of time at the Gellert Baths as a kid.— Ineuw talk 06:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm very fond of the Gellert. - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Can't locate source of image[edit]

I am unable to locate the ultimate source of this scanned image by Johannes Itten, and thus do not know if it was created earlier than 1923, or is in the public domain for some other reason. Is there a better search engine than Google for this purpose? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

In the "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" section of the upload page, which option do I choose? There is an "First published in the United States before 1923" option, but I don't know if it was ever published in the United States. Thanks. SharkD  Talk  15:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
So why are you confident that it is in the public domain in the United States? - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The Flickr page actually says 1919-1920, which would put it before 1923. SharkD  Talk  15:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Images on the Commons must be free in both the US and their country of origin, if different. Johannes Itten was Swiss and the writing in the image is in German (i.e., no reason to believe it was first published in an English-speaking country, the US). Switzerland is pma +70, so this would not be PD there until 01.01.2038 (1967 + 70). We cannot host the image. Эlcobbola talk 15:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. SharkD  Talk  16:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
According to w:Johannes Itten, he was living and working in Germany at the time the drawings were made. Does that make a difference? SharkD  Talk  16:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Copyright laws are roughly the same in Germany. SharkD  Talk  16:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No, Germany is also pma + 70. A possible way forward: unlike the Commons, only requires a work be free in the US. You could upload the image locally there with the pre-1923 publication rationale and include the {{Do not move to Commons|reason=USonly}} template. Эlcobbola talk 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
That works, thanks. SharkD  Talk  17:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-33[edit]

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

  • CSS in templates can now be stored in a separate page on all wikis. This is called TemplateStyles. This is to make it easier to edit how templates look. [1]

Changes later this week

  • There is no new MediaWiki version this week.


  • You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 14 August at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
  • You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • The developers are planning more ways to block users. This could be blocking someone from just a page or a namespace. You can read more. You can leave feedback on the talk page. [2]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by botContributeTranslateGet helpGive feedbackSubscribe or unsubscribe.

17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Retrieved from "[]" Categories:

Navigation menu

Personal tools








      In other projects


      In Wikipedia

      Edit links