Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05.

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

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 What issues remain before we could switch the default interface skin to Vector 2022? 15 13 Enhancing999 2024-05-16 19:25
2 Category diffusion, again 10 7 Ymblanter 2024-05-14 10:17
3 Flag of Minnesota 5 4 Gestumblindi 2024-05-17 19:11
4 Inkscape svg drawing no line-hatch shown with Firefox on Wikipedia Commons 9 3 Glrx 2024-05-14 19:13
5 Deleting images 4 2 Ser! 2024-05-14 12:02
6 Service categories in the various WikiLoves+ projects 10 5 RZuo 2024-05-15 12:02
7 I didn't find a map with the purpose I wanted 4 3 Broichmore 2024-05-21 19:58
8 Help with Flickr2Commons import 3 2 Adamant1 2024-05-15 05:52
9 Science and technology 6 3 Jmabel 2024-05-14 17:49
10 Image showing as 0 by 0 pixels in Wikipedia but entirely there in Commons 1 1 Bawolff 2024-05-14 22:11
11 Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC 1 1 MediaWiki message delivery 2024-05-14 21:21
12 Freeing the Freedom of Panorama for Mongolia and other changes 3 2 Chinneeb 2024-05-15 11:47
13 Name for this kind of images 3 2 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-05-15 13:21
14 Javascript users needed 1 1 RZuo 2024-05-15 11:54
15 Art about Holodomor 6 4 Kazachstanski nygus 2024-05-16 16:45
16 Nordisk Film 6 3 Yann 2024-05-16 20:57
17 Cat-a-lot disabled for search results? 5 4 Enhancing999 2024-05-16 19:57
18 Wrongly uploaded file. 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-17 14:52
19 Page in PDF and page in the physical book 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-17 22:16
20 Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location 4 2 Nihonjoe 2024-05-20 18:10
21 Editing a file's metadata 3 3 Prototyperspective 2024-05-18 15:06
22 Mandatory captions 9 5 Ymblanter 2024-05-20 21:47
23 Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering 2 2 GPSLeo 2024-05-18 12:04
24 Expain to me, please, what I have done wrong 8 6 Jeff G. 2024-05-19 01:52
25 Top right icon for POTY finalists and winners 2 2 Basile Morin 2024-05-19 08:03
26 Transcriptions of uploads at Commons 4 3 Adamant1 2024-05-20 01:04
27 Is there a page or list of wikipedia entries that are considered examples to follow? 2 2 Jeff G. 2024-05-20 10:57
28 Verify the existence of paintings 6 4 Alexpl 2024-05-20 15:43
29 Новый интерфейс загрузки 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-20 17:04
30 Identity yheft 2 2 Jmabel 2024-05-21 01:36
31 Bugs in Upload Wizard 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-21 01:38
32 Strange behaviour of PDF previewer 1 1 ZandDev 2024-05-20 21:56
33 Photo challenge March results 1 1 Jarekt 2024-05-21 03:32
34 Rename a file 2 2 Broichmore 2024-05-21 19:31
35 Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign 1 1 Mrb Rafi 2024-05-21 18:49
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 05[edit]

What issues remain before we could switch the default interface skin to Vector 2022?[edit]

The current default interface skin is Vector 2010, which is now legacy. I've been trying the new Vector 2022 skin here for a while now, and it seems to be working well. You can try it by changing the interface at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The fixed width issue has been a sticking point on other wikis, but since that is motivated by the length of a line of text that is easily readable, and we have a very different use case here since we're dealing with media browsing, I think we have a good case for disabling that part by default. Is there anything else that could be an issue? Do we want to have a vote here about changing the default, or should we just submit a request to make the change? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is what it looks like to me: https://i.imgur.com/GQvAaZK.png (Win 10, Chrome 123.0.6312.107)
The only thing I have a strong opinion about is the ability to continue using the Vector 2010 skin even if it's no longer the default one. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the same boat of opinion as ReneeWrites. Just like the current implementation at enwiki, older Vector skin still exists as an option in the user preferences even if the default skin is Vector 2022. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReneeWrites @JWilz12345 Thanks for your comments! It will be possible to use the old Vector skin, after that Vector22 becomes default. You will have to update now your GlobalPreferences to choose Vector10, or change to legacy version once the new default is set on Commons, since the default will change. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Vector22 seems to be the lack of easily accessible interwikis.
2022 is already a while ago, so we might as well wait for the next Vector version. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose I have tried the Vector 2022 but I think for Commons it is not an improvement. Because so much space on the right is taken by standard stuff that is useful on sister projects (even when you do not want that stuff, it still takes a lot of empty space), that less space is left for the things Commons is about: images. In the old version there are eight images on a row in a category (on my desk top), in the new version seven (that is four more rows to scroll through when there are 200 files in a category). Same for gallery pages; when the "widths" is set on a larger number than the standard, there are only three or four images left, while in the old version there were five or six. For instance Gallery page Art, with standard width: five images on a row in the new version, eight in the old one. That is why I decided not to use the new version. I would like to grant users who are not familiar with vectors the same experience as I have with the old version. So my plea is to keep the old version as the default interface. JopkeB (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I originally disliked V22 due to how much space was wasted, either by whitespace or by things I wished would just be out of the way, but figured I'd give it a chance when enwiki switched to it. So I found the settings for fixed the annoying things. Like enabling full-width rather than limited-width (in the preferences pane). Like sending the TOC and tools menus to become collapsed pulldowns rather than being sidebars (the 'hide' buttons), which includes the interwiki links. I just compared Category:Benzene on my small/medium-sized desktop browser: V22 gives the same or even more images per row (depending on exact window width). DMacks (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible that interwikis aren't of much use if one uses mainly English Wikipedia and Commons and relies on being logged-in. The Commons default layout is already a problem in mobile view. Let's not make it worse for the other 50% of users. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I hate Vector 2022, I'll never get the time it took me to switch to Vector 2010 back on English Wikipedia, and I'd like to not have to waste time switching back to Vector 2010 if 2022 becomes the default. Commons layout works fine as is. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per others. I don't think the minimal improvements that come with adopting it (assuming there even is any) are worth forcing established users to relearn the interface. Especially since the only improvement from what I can is more white space, which is of questionable benefit on here. Although I think it's good for Wikipedia, but there should really be a new vector style that works with our unique case. Instead of us just adopting one that was clearly created purely for better viewing of Wikipedia articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the two sidebar design is horrible. it's in no way an improvement. who came up with that?!
hiding all interwiki links in a button-activated menu that requires you to type the langcode is also very dumb. wastes so many more clicks and typing to get to something that just exists on the sidebar in vector2010. RZuo (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, it’s just another paintjob —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that Vector 2022 is not yet ready to become the default for Commons. The new design is nice for reading articles but not for handling hundreds of files in categories and galleries with many different tools. The sticky sidebars are nice but not if you need to scroll inside the sidebar and I do not want a drop down menu to access my talk or contributions and files pages. GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Generally support. I've tried it and agree with above that the small body width is detrimental to Commons where media is consumed rather than text; ideally the Tools sidebar would be minimized by default and the left sidebar would be smaller. In general though I support moving to a modern interface - Commons is beginning to appear outdated compared to most other Wikipedias and the internet in general. Is there a way to gather more feedback from current Commons users before release, and will it be possible to gather feedback and make further adjustments afterwards? Consigned (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think mobile view illustrates that no adjustment are made once it's released and users are plagued with the same problems for years. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 08[edit]

Category diffusion, again[edit]

When was it decided to diffuse categories such as Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2024-03-15 to Category:England photographs taken on 2024-03-15 etc?

What purpose is served by doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And others have brought this clear down to London on particular dates. I'm completely against this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Sahaib, battleground mentality, and edit warring and User talk:Sahaib#May 2024. The user really believes that there is clear consensus for splitting the cats. This is the zillionth time it happens (every time with a different user). I believe all these categories must be deleted, and the files must be categorized back. Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because several nations have enormous first-level subdivisions, that are larger than many nations, with the US, India and China coming to mind. The UK's subdivisions aren't huge, with Northern Ireland (the smallest by size and population) being about the size of Montenegro and about the population of Latvia, but given that the UK is the 21st largest nation by population, a division to first-level subdivisions doesn't seem unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, OK for me to have "by date cats" for first-level subdivisions, provided we definitely STOP there. Cities should only have these cats if they are themselves a first-level subdivision (like Berlin), otherwise there is effectively no limitation on notability, given the fact that many cities have only a couple of thousands' population and then one might be arguing that "by date cats" for localities within cities were okay because certain localities have more inhabitants in comparison with some cities... and so on. But of course: should there be an RfC with a consensus to STOP at country level, I'm perfectly fine with this too. Regards --A.Savin 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with others about this. It seems fine to have "by date cats" for first-level subdivisions. As long as it doesn't get further subdivided into cities, towns, consensus designated places, random streets in the middle of nowhere, Etc. Etc. There's barely enough files by date to justify it at the country level as things currently are. Let alone anything beyond maybe states (or whatever they are called outside of the United States), and even that's a reach. you take countries with the population of say San Marino or Monaco though "by date cats" are essentially pointless. -Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But these categories are hidden and are intended to be used in templates. For real categories potentially in use by humans we have "Month in Foo", which can be diffused down to villages sometimes, depending on the number of photos. May be there are also categories "Day in FOO", but I have personally never encountered those. Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/07#Category:2020 photographs of Hannover. RZuo (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 11[edit]

Flag of Minnesota[edit]

Maybe that wasn't the wisest move. File:Flag of Minnesota.svg is now the new, current flag of Minnesota. But until it was moved yesterday by User:Mateus2019, the file that is now File:Flag of Minnesota (1983–2024).svg was using that file name. The result is that Wikipedia pages or page sections in various language versions that explicitly deal with Minnesota's old flag suddenly wrongly show the new flag, because it's using the same file name. For example, I had to update de:Siegel Minnesotas which basically said "the seal of Minnesota is shown on the state flag" accompanied by the new state flag which doesn't show the seal at all. Of course this was a good opportunity to also update the text to say that it's shown on the old state flag, but I don't know how many similar cases there may be in the many projects that use File:Flag of Minnesota.svg. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Existing filenames should not be repurposed for new different files UNLESS they carry the {{Current}} template. This causes chaos for any wikis that uses InstantCommons (which includes a lot more than just Wikipedia). User:Abzeronow, FYI. Nosferattus (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fry1989: The redirect was moved to the new file after Mateus had moved the file to a different name (that same user also filed a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Minnesota.svg so the redirect could be deleted.) I believe most wikis were using it to show what the flag of Minnesota is and I had believed at the time, there was enough consensus to do the move. I probably could have waited a day or two for the various wikis to change text to prepare for the change in the flags, but I do believe the move was less disruptive than the alternative. However, in the future, I'll wait to verify there is consensus to move the file if a similar case happens. Abzeronow (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When flags have changed in the past, the move of the old flag to include the bracketed years of use and the new flag taking over the current namespace was performed in relatively short order. I find this rather silly. Projects are editable, any "disruption" can be easily corrected. Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Commons shouldn't force projects using Commons files to edit their pages. As the articles on the flag of Minnesota need all updating of the text anyway, too, I think that in the meantime an outdated article that correctly describes and shows the old flag of Minnesota is still better than a "mix-up" article that talks about the old flag and shows the new flag alongside (because it's automatically embedded from Commons...) - Projects shouldn't have to deal with Commons files suddenly changing their content completely. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 12[edit]

Inkscape svg drawing no line-hatch shown with Firefox on Wikipedia Commons[edit]

I made a drawing and surprisingly the hatches are not always shown. It concerns the line hatches shown on Wikipedia Commons with the browser Firefox. Strangely on other browser(s?) this problem is not shown.

File:Screw_vs_Bolt.svg

Even stranger is that when the image is just open by the browser alone, it is shown without any problems.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Screw_vs_Bolt.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public-Publicity (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it from a problem how the drawing was made? Is it a problem how wikipedia commons handles the image? Is it a combination of factors that make this problem occur sporadically?

Any tips how this could be avoided in the future from a drawing making perspective (and maybe some improvements on the website might be helpful also if it is involved in creating the problem)?

Thanks in advanced ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public-Publicity (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Public-Publicity: can you be specific what you are seeing different? I don't see the difference, so you may just have a caching issue or such. You say "the line hatches" but you don't say where in the drawing there is a discrepancy. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://paste.pics/39dd784c502950a100401be901883c50
See the link
The issue is that this is also not show within the article where it is used.
For the normal view you can just see the direct link to the file itself:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Screw_vs_Bolt.svg Public-Publicity (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
normal view:
https://paste.pics/b119cf11045eeae29f663047b77ea1c8 Public-Publicity (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How it is seen on the article side by me on Wikipedia and with Firefox:
https://paste.pics/c27c7d94bfdec4deac9b4d2f8e8ba134 Public-Publicity (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weirdly, also on Firefox, I see the first difference but seem not to see the second. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF does not display the SVG directly. Rather, it uses librsvg to convert the SVG to a PNG and displays the PNG.
It looks like the left-hand cross hatch disappears when the the image is displayed at a width of 293 (i.e., width used on the File: page). A larger PNG will display the cross-hatch:
The display of a PNG should be the same on all browsers.
Clicking through on the File page will render the SVG directly. I suspect the browser rendering has more fidelity, so the hatching is visible at the native 612 width.
Glrx (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG file is also complicated. Some patterns use a stroke of 1 pixel, but the x dimension scaled by about 0.02 or 0.03. When used, patterns have cascaded transforms. Glrx (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Glrx Don't know what you mean.
If there is a pattern of 1 pixel with a very small scale you would not see any pattern because of it small size. It would be seen as all the same, as solid fill. When it is too small why is it only seen with certain methods and not on Commons?
What do you mean with 'cascaded transform'?
(The concerining patterns are just simple patterns made with Inkscape. If there is some lost floating pattern, not seen, with a very small size as 1 pixel and a very small scale than this is not correct indeed but it does not concern the occurring problem?) Public-Publicity (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It often helps to use simple expressions to represent something. Complicated expressions may get misinterpreted. Software often has bugs, and the more complicated expressions may trigger those bugs.
IIRC, the file's cross hatching is overly complex. Instead of having a simple pattern and scaling it by 0.4, it creates a 1/50 size pattern and scales it by 20. That should work in a perfect world, but the world is imperfect.
Inkscape produces complicated SVG that is verbose and full of pointless attributes. There is no guarantee that simple patterns made with Inkscape produce simple SVG. Inkscape also may also use SVG 1.2 or 2.0 features, but those are not supported by WMF's SVG 1.1 renderer.
Glrx (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 13[edit]

Deleting images[edit]

Hey all. I've uploaded two recent images from the AFC Bournemouth YouTube channel, which releases match footage under the CC license. It's come to my attention through searching that these images are actually not as free as I had thought, given they're just reuploaded Premier League footage and past decisions have led me to believe they should not be up there. The two images are this and this. I figured I would make it known here as I do not know how to delete images and was wondering is there any way to speedy delete them or delete without going through deletion requests? Apologies for any inconvenience. — Ser! (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for posterity, I'm also uploading a few images from AFC Bournemouth's channel, but from videos that have actually been released on a CC license and are generated by the club's social media team, so not a violation as the Prem footage was. Ser! (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser!: You can use {{Copyvio}} with appropriate parameters on the relevant file pages. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, have now done. Ser! (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Service categories in the various WikiLoves+ projects[edit]

Hello everyone, once again I bother you with problems I encounter in my dirty, very dirty, work here on Commons, and having had good feedback on a categorisation problem by place and date above I try again with the same hope. This time it's about the service categories created, evidently for control purposes, for example during national WLMs, such as the one that has been taking place in Italy for years but which leaves a 10-year old trail, i.e. categories that still remain, which IMO were useful during the counting of images for the purpose of an award ceremony but which IMO have outlived their usefulness, for exemple Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Italy needing check (13 518!!!). My latest worry is instead Wiki Loves Africa, a laudable project but where often, if not very often, you find images of little use, without a really interesting subject. Thousands and thousands of people who represent a nation, but at least who are categorized, for example, by ethnicity (but no), hundreds of cars or even more characteristic vehicles (see tuk-tuks), It's as if photographers don't know exactly what to photograph and point their camera or cellphone at random. I'm afraid that these projects don't exactly know how to instruct users on the purposes who, although I am aware that they are all volunteers and that for this reason we cannot demand rigor, then in the end they fill with categories of service images often without the indication of subject, place of shooting, date of shooting, with Exif data that seem incongruous with the image (uploaded in 2023 in broad daylight but which from the data seems to have been taken in 2010 and in full night...). I also find categories of service that do not respond to their function as in the case of Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020 without categories and that instead at least one category (non-service) has been added over time. I wonder if it is possible to do something or if I have to resign myself to doing everything by hand once again, passing image by image investing a lot of time that I could perhaps invest in more nobler causes. See you later (alligators) ;-) Threecharlie (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, in short, you are saying that there are some maintenance categories (not even topical categories) that probably aren't much use. If they aren't much use to you, I'd recommend just ignoring them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if I am here writing about it and asking for advice, it is not by ignoring the problem that it is solved, I would continue to have it every day that I do my dirty work, finding service categories that should help my work and instead complicate it. IMO ignoring is not a solution. Threecharlie (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably argue a lot of these types of categories are totally pointless. Especially long-term, but it seems like Wiki Loves Monuments has their own way of doing things that we seem to ultimately have zero control over. At the end of the day they can just dump images wherever, use as vague file descriptions as they feel like, create whatever pointless categories, and then just ignore people who complain about it. So your better off just ignoring them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's an answer out of context, I don't need it and it's also exaggeratedly POV: WLM is without a shadow of a doubt an opportunity, if you don't see it as such it's not here that you should talk about it, open a discussion and if you bring home a win fine otherwise it's sterile polemics. Threecharlie (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WLE in Germany we use these categories for things like monitoring the file usage and to generate statics for example on how the fraction of disqualified und insufficient described photos developed. Of course we do not click through the category page but we need the category for the glamtools or petscan. GPSLeo (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't disagree. It can both be an opportunity and have it's own ways of doing things that are sometimes at odds with the wider project's goals and probably won't change. They aren't mutually exclusive. your free to ignore that, but at least IMO your better off just not worrying about it. Or maybe talk to the people who created the categories in the first place about it. I don't think you'll get a better answer here though. It's ultimately on the individual projects to change how they do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Render unto Caesar... Here we are on Commons and there are no projects on Commons, and God or whoever knows how much I feel we need them... Threecharlie (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:WikiProject Postcards is pretty active. Although admittedly with only three serious contributors and that's the only one I can think of. I do agree we could use more then that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have noticed these cats before and probably written some ideas of mine. i cant find them but i'll redo it.
all these cats ("... to check" or something similar) are obviously only intended for short term use, right before they were even created.
so i suggest, any such new cats should be tagged with a template to indicate when they will become useless. otherwise, they are assumed to be useless 2 years after the event is over. for example, Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2024 to check should be deletable after 2026-12-31. RZuo (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 14[edit]

I didn't find a map with the purpose I wanted[edit]

Hello. Have a good week. I did not find any map on Wikimedia Commons that captures the tropical and subtropical oceans of planet Earth. I'm writing about creatures that live in tropical and subtropical oceans and seas, but I don't have a map for it. Mário NET (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean something like the files in Category:Alisov's classification? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about a map that has colored much like the killer whale distribution, but a map that marked what are considered oceanic tropical and subtropical regions together and as a whole. I am writing about a genus of mollusk that sails in tropical and subtropical waters (the Argonaut) and I would like to point out where this genus sails. Mário NET (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask for a map to be designed to your specification at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop? - Broichmore (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Flickr2Commons import[edit]

Hey is there anyone willing to do an import from this album on Flickr for me? I'd do it but I'm busy with other stuff and don't know how to use Flickr2Commons anyway. Everything, or most everything in the album, should be PD. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done! About 70 images were eligible for importing. About 40 of these were imported, the remaining 30 were already on Commons. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReneeWrites: Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology[edit]

Although the Category:Technology category is currently categorized under Category:Applied sciences, I have doubts on whether the parent category is correct. According to Wikipedia, science is "a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world", while technology is "the application of conceptual knowledge for achieving practical goals, especially in a reproducible way." That is, science is the cause and technology is the result, and the two are separate academinc disciplines. If proposing a new category scheme falls under COM:CFD, then I would nominate Category:Technology for CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category talk:Science and technology (archive of a CFD), where the nominator Ghouston showed a distinction between science and technology, similar to Wikipedia. I found no mention of "technology" in the Wikipedia article on applied science, except a citation and a portal link. Similarly, I found no mention of "applied science" in the Wikipedia article of technology. So technology is not a subclass of applied science and instead of Category:Applied sciences, the correct parent for Category:Technology should be Category:Academic disciplines. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is correctly categorized. One can't separate science and technology, the emphasis/subject of each is different but they're inseparable – think of technology as the artificial products and methods that are the fruits of science (a subset of science). For the development of technology, science as you described it is needed and part of it. For further clarity see Engineering. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but technology is not an applied science or a branch of science. It is a product of science. So it should not be categorized under Category:Applied sciences. It may be directly categorized under Category:Science, similar to Category:Research. Or the interdisciplinary category Category:Science and technology may be revived to cover science and technology together. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once there is a technology, it is an applied science. But since it's less clear for technologies that aren't applied much outside a given research endeavor and because that cat is currently tucked away underneath only cat:"Scientific disciplines" it would make sense moving it. I think the best solution would be to have it in the applied science cat and the top-level cat somehow but your explanations make sense so I misunderstood what you intended to do. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-catting is not necessarily an "is-a" relationship. For example, Eduard Carbonell isn't a surname or a museum. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image showing as 0 by 0 pixels in Wikipedia but entirely there in Commons[edit]

As someone here in Wikihelp told me : < @M F Gervais, ask for help on Commons at their Village Pump. It is very strange. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Monarchs_of_Spain.pdf says it has 0x0 pixels but links to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/M_F_Gervais_Monarchs_of_Spain.pdf which is all there. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)>Italic text

So here I am, And I don't understand what is hapening. Can someone help? Was I cannot use this picture, as the others, in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M F Gervais (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by purging the page. Bawolff (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC[edit]

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 15[edit]

Freeing the Freedom of Panorama for Mongolia and other changes[edit]

Hello community,

I've recently discovered that Mongolia's changes to copyright legislation, enacted in 2021, have granted Freedom of Panorama for architectural works, statues, and sculptures per Article 46 of the revised Law on Copyright and Related Rights (as amended May 6, 2021). The Mongolian original is available here and the English translation of the law is available here. I've updated the following pages with information and the relevant sources:

The new copyright reform also has the following changes:

  • Currency is now under works not protected by copyright.
  • Article 42 has a variety of provisions regarding "Partial exploitation of works stored in archive, museum and library resources without the authorization of author or without compensation" (this seems to have been the result of an effort by Mongolian Libraries Consortium (see: https://www.eifl.net/resources/copyright-law-fit-modern-mongolia) - I've added this to the "FoP-Mongolia" templates as they seemed vaguely relevant but I'm open to suggestions.

I'm not sure if we have a process to Free the Freedom of Panorama for countries, and was wondering if old images deleted due to FoP rules can be reinstated? Is there anything else I need to do as well (besides updating the map images)?

Regards Chinneeb (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant deletion requests should be in Category:Mongolian FOP cases/deleted. If everything checks out, undeletions shouldn't be a problem (like for Kosovo justa few days ago). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've opened a mass undeletion request for currency-related files. I'm holding off on asking for undeletions of FoP cases for now - Please note that a discussion has been opened at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Updated_FoP_in_Mongolia to discuss any potential issues with the new FoP rules. --Chinneeb (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name for this kind of images[edit]

Hi!

What do you call videos where objects on a turntable rotate once around their own axis? Which category fits? (example: File:S3 Graphics Chrome 430 - 460 Nr. 2.webm)

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Seamless animations? _ Broichmore (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javascript users needed[edit]

there are a couple of code changes waiting for review for a long time. can you please take a look:

  1. MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js multiple changes
  2. MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Could a warning popup appear when adding a DAB cat while using HotCat?.

RZuo (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Art about Holodomor[edit]

Hi, can someone help me with finding better source of this painting? I mean I need more info about this art but I can't find it anywhere except for some facebook fanpage. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kazachstanski nygus: Can you explain how this would relate to Commons? Stylistically, the image is almost certainly from the last 50 years, so it is almost certainly copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak fro Kazachstanski, but here it is on Commons, claimed to be from 1939, yet sourced from Facebook. So the veracity of the dating may be questioned. If we could find the original, we'd be able to verify the origin of our own image, and keep or delete it. I guess Kazachstanski asks for private purposes of their own, given how the village pump is pointed out to be the central place to ask all kind of questions. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that date is impossible, but my gut says it's improbable. Have a look at Category:1939 posters and its subcats for propaganda art of that period, and you'll see what I mean. Then compare (for example) File:MosBeauty89.jpg (from 1989) which looks much more likely to be of a period with this work. - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Imo this poster definitely looks like something from interwar period or ww2 but whatever, our impressions don't matter here, I just want to find some legit source of info about that art. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nordisk Film[edit]

I noticed that the film studio Nordisk Film have started to release all their recent YouTube videos (read: film trailers and clips) under the CC license. Is it "safe" to host them on Commons? --Trade (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were huge discussion about similar cases the last months. They tended to keep them. (File talk:Hogwarts Legacy – Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm). CC-licensed contents by huger companies on YouTube is not that rare as some people may think --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As these kind of videos are usually also protected by trademark protection, there are still restrictions on how to use them, but it is not further relevant to this project --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think these videos can be uploaded if Nordisk Film really owns the content, i.e. if there is no derivative works from other sources in the videos. Yann (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question is whether or not purchasing the right to distribute a movie in a specific jurisdiction also gives them the right to license clips and trailers of it under a different license. --Trade (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. If they are only a licensee of the films, they can't release them under another license. Yann (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 16[edit]

Cat-a-lot disabled for search results?[edit]

Does any one else see this? Is this just me? Seems to me this worked fine as of earlier this month (my last successful use was at 2024-05-01 11:34 UTC) and I've been using Google Chrome on Microsoft Windows 11 for about a year now, but using Cat-a-lot from search results using Microsoft Edge seems to suffer from the same problem. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have experienced the same problem, for the first time today. My workaround: click in the Cat-a-log gadget on Preferences, and then check the box "Allow categorising pages (including categories) that are not files" (which after months, still not works for subcategories with subcategories, see Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Cat-a-lot_does_not_work_for_categories) and then you can select whatever files you want. I'll add this problem there also. JopkeB (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg out of the millions of javascript programmers in the world can we not have 1 person to review and approve the code changes? RZuo (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for me at [1]. I think it does attempt to categorize the same image twice though. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The code change just got released, I think. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 17[edit]

Wrongly uploaded file.[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kafe_20220718_092905.jpg

Please delete this... 01x07x2022000 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@01x07x2022000: you uploaded this years ago. I see you have also started a normal DR, which at this point is probably the only process by which it can be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page in PDF and page in the physical book[edit]

Hello. I am looking at some images scanned from a physical book, like this one: File:1938 CoA of interwar Zalau.jpg. As it is sometimes the case with digitized books, the page numbers in the resulted PDF do not match with the page numbers in the actual book. For example, while the provided image is found in the source PDF at page 1001, if we take a look at the scan we realize it was page 697 in the physical copy.

Is there a structured way to indicate both page numbers in {{Information}} – like some sort of a template? If not, how would you suggest to improve the text for the Source parameter in order to clearly explain the difference between PDF page and physical page? (At the moment it only displays the PDF page.) Thanks. Gikü (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gikü: I'm unaware of anything standard, but I've been known to write, for example, "p. 4 (p. 9 of PDF)". - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location[edit]

Jugermai (talk · contribs) has submitted hundreds of file rename requests (see their contribs) to add locations to images (at the beginning of the filename, too, rather than at the end), even when disambiguation is not needed. Has there been a discussion somewhere that suggested this would be a good thing? Isn't that what categories are for: to indicate the location of the subject of an image? It seems to me this is needlessly complicating the filenames, as well as moving the most important information (what the image actually contains) to the end of the filename. I don't want to approve any more until it's determined this is a good thing to do. Thanks for any input. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't have a strong preference either way, but I'd like some input before I approve any more like this. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As described, this sounds as a very bad idea. The policy is described in Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed?, and it doesn't include that any file can be renamed just because of the naming preferences of some user different from the uploader. Even if the requesting user could argue that his version looks a bit better (which I think it doesn't in this case), the policy clearly states that "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better."
If somebody wants to make clear that Toronto is in Ontario, Canada, file names aren't the right place to do it, but categories and structured data.
In summary, I think Jugermai's requests should be reverted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pere prlpz: That's kind of the way I'm leaning, too. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has any thoughts. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

Editing a file's metadata[edit]

Is there a way to do it aside from downloading an image and editing it on a computer? Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, no. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A way was requested here. A drawback would be that it probably increases faulty metadata that is hard to correct. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory captions[edit]

Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering[edit]

So far, when loading many files, the number ending the names was increased by 1 in subsequent files. Now you have to renumber the names of all files manually. Why? Kenraiz (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem and will be fixed with the next MediaWiki update. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expain to me, please, what I have done wrong[edit]

Hello, could you please answer the last question I asked the admin on my user-talk page? They did not answer. For context: I requested deletion of several NSFW images for being outside of the scope of Commons for not being educational. Almost all of them were closed after a few hours and I was warned for vandalism. I now recognize that all (except one) of the requests were erroneous, because I didn't know that anything used on another Wikimedia project is unconditionally considered educational and that some of the images were parts of important "collections" or "projects" unknown to me. But the admin seemed to argue that no files should be ever deleted as uneducational (they said: "Creating deletion requests without a valid rationale disrupts the project"). Could you clear my misunderstanding, please? Ltalc (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Your only edits on Wikimedia Commons are requesting deletion of these images. We often have accounts created only for such a purpose, and we do not welcome them. Images showing nudity or sexual acts can have an educational value. And we do keep any file with a proper license used on another project. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand now.
I would like kindly to ask you, for the sake of future newbies, to consider limiting the usage of the templated vandalism warning. When I saw it on my user-talk page, it at first provoked anger in me. I was accused of something I didn't do, vandalism – deliberate bad-faith destruction. I fully understand your motivation – Commons is surely flooded with vandalism every day, just like all wikis. But I have a feeling that overuse of that standardized warning has a quite adverse effect.
It would be nice if you elaborated to humble beginners like me what makes deletion reasons invalid. In my case, it took quite a long for me to understand that that rationale (of images not being educational) was not invalid per se, but it was invalid for each of the images for varying reasons, such as that I didn't know the policy or that I missed some context.
Take my advice with a grain of salt, I know almost nothing about Commons. Have a nice day. Ltalc (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this user and think people who start out with deletion requests or initially largely make a few DRs are dealt with way too harshly and without proper justification. Also I don't think the rationales were invalid, they are just not established recognized rationales but at least they're rationale and reasonable valid ones in addition. Repelling such users is problematic for several (incl those) reasons and doesn't really reduce workload. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, checking the contribs of the user, it doesn't seem like the text above is a roughly accurate description of what happened: the user removed a quite large number of files from Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, female model photos so the action seems probably appropriate. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat contradictory: "I know almost nothing about Commons." and "I requested deletion of several [..] images for being outside of the scope of Commons [..]". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top right icon for POTY finalists and winners This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year[edit]

Hi! I have already posted this here and here but I've been just told to post it here so here is my post here.

There already are icons on the top right of each file considered Featured picture , Valued image , Quality Image , Wiki Loves Earth winner and Wiki Loves Monuments winner . Could we also add a top right icon for Picture of the Year winners and finalists ?

There is two ways to do it.

One would be to copy paste the following code on each individual file page :

For 1st place files: This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year 

{{Top icon|imagename=POTY barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=001}}

For 2nd place files: This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 2nd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=002}}

For 3rd place files: This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 3rd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=003}}

For finalist files: This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY ribbon.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=004}}

I have tested it and it works perfectly.

Another way is to edit this template and to edit the top code of the page to something that looks like this:

Code 
{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |1| {{Top icon
| imagename    = POTY barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 001
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |2| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY 2nd barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 002
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |3| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY 3rd barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 003
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |f| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY ribbon.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 004
}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{quality|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = Quality images logo.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Quality images
| description  = {{Top icon hover i18n|Quality image}}
}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{featured|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = {{#switch:{{{featured|}}}|1|3=Cscr-featured.svg|2|4=Cscr-former.svg}}
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Featured pictures
| description  = {{#switch:{{{featured|}}}|1|3={{Top icon hover i18n|Featured picture}}|2|4={{Top icon hover i18n|Featured picture|former=y}} }} }}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{valued|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = Valued image seal.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Valued images
| description   = {{Top icon hover i18n|Valued image}}
}}}}<!-- end of topicons
 
start of the banner
-->

For the template code I’m not 100% sure because I can’t test it. I'm also not sure if {{{POTYyear}}} is the right way to display the year it won.

I hope this can get implemented and I wish you all a nice day.

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions of uploads at Commons[edit]

I was just told that "Commons is not the place for transcription; go to Wikisource with this". But we have over 100,000 djvu files with embedded transcriptions, the same for older pdf files with embedded transcriptions. Should we delete all the embedded transcription text or are transcriptions allowed? While Wikisource is a place to store text, we have tens of thousands of books and news articles that do not appear in Wikisource, and we have no control over what meets Wikisource notability. My file did not have the text embedded in the pdf, but as text on the file page. I can embed the text inside the pdf, but then OCR errors will not be fixed and links to people/places/things cannot be formed. I can embed the text by combining the image with the text in a djvu file. If this is about server space, the text takes up the same amount of room if embedded or if appearing as text on the file page. And of course, each of the words in the text act as a keyword, if someone is searching for the document via a search engine. The title of the document-image gives minimal context. So, what are our rules? RAN (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem transcribing File:Albert Einstein Anzeige 1902.jpg, but your question seems to be about lengthy pdfs. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a 4 page letter. I can't find a rule that excludes text, since pdf and djvu files contain embedded text. One of the differences between Wikisource and Commons is annotations. Wikisource is for the original text, errors and misspellings remain in place. Commons allows annotations and references and notes. Wikisource also was removing links to Wikipedia and Wikidata until recently, and may go back to removing them. --RAN (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with transcribing something like a paragraph per say and putting the transcription in the file description. Anything over that just seems like turning Commons into Wikisource or Wikipedia though. Especially if said transcription involves creating a whole new section outside of the file summary as was done with File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf, which is odd RAN didn't mention BTW since that seems to be what this whole thing is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 19[edit]

Is there a page or list of wikipedia entries that are considered examples to follow?[edit]

I'm looking for a resource that lists wikipedia pages that are widely recognized as models to follow. The category of entries closest to what I'm looking for might be described as a practice or service. For example adoption may be a good one. In the talk it is labeled as "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." Is there a way to find a list of articles that were part of Wiki Education Foundation, and could be consistered a 'gold standard' of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylnoj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to ask at Wikipedia: try w:Wikipedia:Help_desk. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nylnoj: Hi, and welcome. See also this special page.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 20[edit]

Verify the existence of paintings[edit]

There have been a bunch of uploads with belgian artist´s Category:Léon Houyoux (1856 – 1940) works recently. I was unable to verify the existence of those paintings, even the titles don´t seem to match up with artnet. Do we have any proceedings for finding out if they are real/legit? Alexpl (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexpl: Why didn't you ask the uploader? Yann (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader already wrote "private collection". So that doesn´t really help - unless they are listed somewhere else. I did hope for somebody to come up with another good source for such things. Alexpl (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at least one has source https://archive.org/details/catalogueillust1907soci/page/42/mode/2up?view=theater--Oursana (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comes directly from our family (descendants), these paintings have already been shown in retrospective exhibitions and appear in catalogs and books dedicated to Léon Houyoux. Yours sincerely, Nicolas Houyoux Halhyx (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the paintings have been documented in catalogs a.o. and you have the details for those publications, you should put them in the "Description" text for each file. Alexpl (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Новый интерфейс загрузки[edit]

Кто-то с недавних пор поменял интерфейс загрузки файлов. При копировании названий файлов автоматическая нумерация не работает. Если загружаешь семь файлов, то все они будут иметь число семь в своём названии после копирования, а не порядковый номер по загрузке. Зачем и почему? Теперь ещё и приходится заполнять подпись к файлу, что стало обязательным пунктом при загрузке. Она копируется в последующие загрузки, но дело в том, что размер подписи ограничен. Зачем нужна обязательная подпись, если есть обязательное описание? Мало того, описание теперь не копируется в последующие загрузки, хотя такая галочка копирования у меня всегда нажата, в результате чего приходится копировать вручную. Зачем нужно было предпринимать такие нововведения, которые затрудняют мне работу в Викискладе? Кто-нибудь советовался в теми, кто активно и помногу загружает изображения на Викисклад? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Вы написали на русскоязычном форуме, я там ответил и дал ссылки. Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy this to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identity yheft[edit]

someone is downloading all kinds of files that ain't true to my accounts..this last one that I share with Evan Remillard...not true I'm never joined no family I don't have no online buissnesses or events someone is using my identity..I want info how to close this account please they are changing stuff from 2022 2023.mot only here Facebook Twitter 2603:7081:7C00:2292:E14C:852D:D0AC:4C4E 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't say what account this is about there is nothing we can do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs in Upload Wizard[edit]

Hi, can I report bugs in the Upload Wizard here? If not, would anyone be kind enough to copy and paste these to the appropriate place? (I do not have an account for any bug-reporting system, and do not want one.)

1. I tried to type ''...'' (pairs of single quotes) around a word in the "Title" field, wanting italics but forgetting that it was the filename, and got the incorrect message "Please write a more informative title". No matter how "informative" I made the title, the message persisted until I removed the quote characters.

2. Uploading multiple files, "Copy title (with automatic numbering)" did not create automatic numbering. Instead, it put the same numeric suffix on all files, which I then had to change manually.

3. Uploading multiple files, "Copy description" no longer seems to work. I'm guessing that this may be because the "Same as caption" setting is not turned off for the subsequent files, which I suppose it needs to be for the description to be picked up.

Thanks, ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ITookSomePhotos: For the second point there is an answer above (see section #Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering). --ZandDev (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ITookSomePhotos: In general, try Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, will do ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange behaviour of PDF previewer[edit]

I was surfing Piedmontese language category and I found inside the subcategory Bibia piemontèisa with some files, as e.g. Esechiel (test complèt).pdf. The thumb image is the (fallback?) PDF icon and it is written that the file dimensions are 0×0. Chrome file viewer display the files correctly (it has 127 pages, A5, PDF-1.5). --ZandDev (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 21[edit]

Photo challenge March results[edit]

Grays: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Sieben graue Köpfe Reflections - Shyok River Nina-Replica
Author Mensch01 Prof Ranga Sai Wingerham52
Score 20 18 11
Courthouses: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Palazzo di Guistizia
with Courte di Cassazione
at river Tiber, Rome, Italy		 North facade of Palais de justice de Paris. Supreme Court of Finland at night
Author Mozzihh FreCha GPSLeo
Score 19 15 12

Congratulations to Mozzihh, FreCha, GPSLeo, Mensch01, Prof Ranga Sai and Wingerham52. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename a file[edit]

How do I rename an image here? File:Pinconning.jpg is clashing with a Pinconning.jpg on Wikipedia proper, and I would like to rename the former. TenPoundHammer (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could just use the export to wikimedia commons button inside (top of) the wikipedia page, during the export process you will have the opportunity of renaming the file to (example) Pinconning, cows in a field.jpg. Otherwise, you could apply for file mover rights to rename your own file, which is unnecessary. Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption from certain bnwiki editors in wikimedia commons campaign[edit]

We are organizing Wiki Loves Earth in Bangladesh 2024 from Commons:Project Korikath. We have received interruption during our CNBanner and Massmessage. The rationale stated is, the organzers (including me) of this campaign is blocked on bnwiki and so I can't organize the campaign on commons.

There is already one RfC on meta regarding my bnwiki block. There is another RfC regarding alleged disruptive editing by the individual who is most actively involved in the aforementioned disruptions. This person threatened one of our contributors over facebook messenger and made him remove (one of over forty) his uploads from our last wikimedia commons campaign, we have evidence of that. The same person got engaged in an edit war a few days ago with our contributor on wikidata. There are several wmf t&s cases against these certain people.

I am not engaging with bnwiki anymore and investing my skill, network and effort for Wikimedia Commons. Since all the campaigns arranged by me or my team is taking place on commons, bnwiki is irrelevant there and demand of removing bnwiki editors from our massmessage list, removing CNBanner from all user with Bangla as the interface language from all wikis (including commons) is completely irrelevant and it disregards the autonomy of other projects considering the fact that a language can't be owned by anyone. I am raising this matter to the community since the insentisity of disruption is raising everyday. If we did anything unconstructive which is harmful to wikimedia commons, we are open to the consequences and discussion. But we don't want anyone outside wikimedia commons to disrupt our wikimedia commons campaigns and projects.--Mrb Rafi (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=878344770"