Last modified on 27 April 2015, at 17:06

Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch


Template:Multilingual description wrong displayEdit

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

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

AWB changes affecting commonsEdit

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

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

I also asked for a couple improvements:

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

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

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

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

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

Images Published in Public Domain are DeletedEdit

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

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

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

Zoom Viewer and large imagesEdit

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

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

April 20Edit

Irregular bannerEdit

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

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

Category disambiguationEdit

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

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

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

File renaming script malfunctionedEdit

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

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

April 21Edit

Nominations are being accepted for 2015 Wikimedia Foundation electionsEdit

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

Wmf logo vert pms.svg


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with the Picture Challenge interfaceEdit

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

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

For the voting page ,

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

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

That's probably because setting up something like this requires coding skills the people behind the Photo Challenge don't have, and the people who do have those skills have many other important things to do. But I'm not even sure if anyone has ever asked them directly → @Rillke: what's your opinion on this? Do you think it might be possible to re-use some of the POTY magic for the Photo Callenges? --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
To be frank, I was always under the assumption Photo Challenge and QI, VI and FP people liked the way they were running their contests and the people who run these contests must be happy with what they have; E.g. do they want a straightforward process, at all? While we continuously increased voting volume in POTY, I wouldn't say we increased real "participation". In fact the committee almost died this year, we had to postpone things, didn't manage to announce results properly; even though things were a lot easier for us compared to last years. If someone comes up with a good concept of how things in Photo Challenge could work (including making it easier for new photographers), I guess there will be someone willing to put a few lines together. A good concept would of course not only be something roughly described in 4 sentences but a complete draft including UI, flow, considerations about that, comparison with the old process, and ideas how to gradually implement it. If the final, desired state can be achieved in small steps it's more likely to be successful. -- Rillke(q?) 12:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I assumed that there weren't sufficient users who had enough skill/free-time/motivation to write a good "end-user-experience" for Photo Challenge. Running the POTY looks like an awful lot of work, even though it has a nicer UI. So that model doesn't really work for something run every month. But PC is too reliant on me running some programs on my PC to generate voting pages and calculate results -- that needs better automated and shared. If someone is interested in coding a better photo challenge (submission, voting, validation, results) then get in touch with me and we can figure out how to get there. I keep meaning to ask if WMF have any developer time to give to this. Photo Challenge isn't the only forum with problems here: QI review is an edit-conflict nightmare, and the presentation of Commons search results and category listings leaves an awful lot to be desired. Plenty areas to improve Commons if WMF want to spend some money or volunteers want a project.
In the meantime, there are probably some quick fixes that might help. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think PC is a bit different from things like FPC etc. in that it actually seems to attract a comparatively high amount of "new" users and thus I think it could really benefit from a simpler, one-click interface for submitting and voting. One year ago it was basically just a let's see if people like this at all thing, so not too much energy was spent on building the technical backbone. I think by now PC has proven to be attractive and it's time to think about how to make it run more efficiently. I guess some combination of clever bots and templates could possibly do most of the stuff that currently runs on Colin's PC. The good thing is: unlike FPC etc. PC doesn't have any specialized bots yet that would crash a whole system because of small changes ;-) If you consider the last ~1.5 years as an alpha test, now we've got the chance to "do it right" straight from the beginning.
I'm not good with templates, bots and stuff like that, but if we can gather a small team of interested/skilled people, I'd be happy to share some ideas and work on a joint concept. --El Grafo (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , I could probably formulate a UI design for this , but could I have a design copy of the POTY interface so that I could play a bit with it and try for a better design for the Picture Design? As for the coding part , I am no expert on it , with me knowing only VisualBasic and some HTML. Thanks.--Leaderboard (talk) 07:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Should we create a subpage for coordinating/discussing this? Something like Commons:Photo challenge/UI overhaul? --El Grafo (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.
@Leaderboard: These are the things I learned first :) With copy you mean "live copy" that is actually running? Do you permit me to install it in your user namespace? -- Rillke(q?) 12:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@El Grafo: , Not a bad idea , but if such a method is used , prominent notices should be displayed so that more users can participate.
@Rillke: , Yes , I'm looking for the "live copy" that you are talking about. I'm fine with installing it on my user namespace. , but I am a little confused on how it would work on my userspace.--Leaderboard (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: Here we go: Your common.js contains the code loading the configuration and main program code. If you need to disable the application, just empty your common.js. If possible, please make changes to the configuration only. Configuration members will override any value sharing the same key in the main script, so it is also possilbe to re-implement functions. Feel free to adjust the style sheet as you desire. Start viewing the gallery for voting or viewing an individual voting page. I suggest ignoring the 2014/R2 and similar first and revisiting this after you completed a working process. Good luck. Any specific questions welcome. -- Rillke(q?) 15:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , Thanks , I've done a little bit of changes to the interface(see my userpage , I've kept a log there).
However , I have a question here. I am able to see the votelist , which does not seem to be expected. Is the interface in the vote-only mode or is it in the mode designed for counting? .--Leaderboard (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
The list of voters was also available during POTY. Votes are publicly recorded, like almost everything in this wiki. For counting, I had a different script that was verifying each single diff on the pages where vots are collected. I also see that you want to introduce a point system. This will be a little workload. background-image: url("//"); will most likely not work because this is the file description page and not the raw image which can be found on {{filepath:3.svg}} (// Using SVGs directly however, will render the application incompatible with older browsers, notably IE 8 which is still sitting on lots of Windows XP systems. -- Rillke(q?) 23:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: , When I replaced all instances of POTY with PC(with some additional minor changes) in the main JS file, the app broke. Can you tell why?(accessible in the history page)--Leaderboard (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You should definitely know what which change will cause, a simple find and replace operation is not really necessary here. The solution is: You have a problem you would like to "fix" (e.g. POTY appears somewhere in the text) and you address this issue specifically. Also some JavaScript debugging skills would be of help; for example, open your browser's JS console (Ctrl+ Shift+K; F12 on IE) and you'll see a pile of debugging messages created by the POTY script and thus you see where it errors-out. One thing that would for sure cause breaking it was replacing potyconfig with pcconfig while forgetting to adjust it here. -- Rillke(q?) 15:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Marie LafargeEdit

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

The earlier version of File:Lafarge.jpg is so small (150 × 198) that it is not very useful, and it is also very similar to the current version. --Jarekt (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It may be "similar", in some respects, but it is undisputably a dfiferent image. I'm not aware of any minimum-size restrictions on Commons. Andy Mabbett (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
On WikiMedia projects you can trust that everything has a template, or two, or ten not counting redirects. For this issue {{split}} might do the trick, I've added it, but it might be lost in a database lock due to server issues. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do we have "flat categories" or not?Edit

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think flat categories are a good idea, mostly because they are redundant with non-flat categories. Our main problem here is that our category tools absolutely suck, and there is no easy way to show all images in a category and all its sub-categories. Therefore, in my opinion, time is better spent on lobbying to improve those tools than to create redundant categories. --Sebari (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I was a party on the People by name category discussion and although I don't see any point in a giant, all encompassing category that can never be complete and has virtually no usability. I also don't see why we shouldn't have some diffusion to make the data more useful. So worst case scenario we have two very similar categories on the same file. Using the People by name example, I was adding Men by name and women by name to the categories and then deleting People by name. Some people objected and that was fine with me, so I stopped removing the people by name and I have seen several others who then went and deleted the People by name category behind me. So it seems to me that we do need some discussion about the need for these flat categories. I also think Fae has a great idea with the template. If we put a template on there that categorizes the file or category, then that solves a lot of the problem. Reguyla (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Srittau: Using FastCCI to show all images in a category and its subcategories is quite easy (maybe the label could be improved, ping Dschwen if that hasn't been discussed before), the problem is that it "doesn't work" with non-file pages (because it's a picture tool). All in all, I agree that our category tools (not FastCCI by itself; or rather the category "interface") do indeed suck.    FDMS  4    21:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Help topicons linking to external help pages soon displayed everywhere?Edit

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

Right. A link to a MediaWiki page in English only isn't really an improvement. :/ Yann (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think they're English only? This, that and the other (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons has its own policy & helppage about categorys. No need to link to mediawiki. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the help page? I didn't find one. See below. --Nemo 11:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Not helpful at all... *sigh* This should be disabled. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
+1: If we can't redirect it to something more useful (like Commons:Categories), it should be disabled. --El Grafo (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The CSS can be targeted to only hide the link on categories, I don't see why hide them all when you dislike only a couple of them. Yann, mw:Help:Categories exists in dozens languages, what do you mean "English only"??
IMHO it's useful to explain what categories are to Commons users, who often misunderstand them. The link could be customised to link Commons:Categories (a bit long, needs translatability) or Help:Categories (almost empty). Perhaps the help-y part (e.g. about difference from galleries) could be moved from Commons:Categories to Help:Categories and made translatable.
As for the "everywhere", no: this is mostly about special pages and actions, sadly not all of them are documented. See phabricator:T45591#1227210 for the documentation being worked on now. mw:Special:LanguageStats and m:Special:LanguageStats have groups for help pages where you can help translate or see what's available. --Nemo 10:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: I do not only dislike a couple of them, but think that directing new users seeking help to an external project targeted at website operators and developers generally does not make a lot of sense.
Categories are the main content (browsing) pages on Commons, not "special" pages, and I don't think that more people are confused about their purpose than what Wikipedia articles are (not), yet there are no large help icons there either. There is a point where users should just read "the manual" first (linked to in the sidebar and on the main page) if they don't get it, as "category" is not even a wiki-only term like "OTRS" or "talkpage" but quite self-explanatory.
On Commons, help about subjects being only available in the project namespace is not unusual, and I don't really see any reason to change that …
   FDMS  4    20:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Suggestions by Nemo regarding moving applying content from Commons:Categories to Help:Categories and making this page a little more friendly make sense to me. -- Rillke(q?) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
"If file uploads are enabled (if not, you'll need to configure file uploads)…" (bolding by me) and those instructions are not really relevant to Commons; as the page title suggests this is for people who just set up their first MediaWiki installation. The form at Commons is rebuilt by default. Information about how to fill in a form on a separate site that isn't able to provide these visitors or potential contributors (human, individual) help, is not helpful maybe even confusing as they are unlikely knowing what MediaWiki is or why they landed at, hence I am going to hide the symbol and the text on the upload form. -- Rillke(q?) 19:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am inclined to switch this of on commons... It is not helpful. It is not linking to the commons policy's, but to some MW page. --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22Edit


Is it allowed to upload bandscans of the aircraft band to Wikimedia Commons? What about the firefighter and police bands? -- 07:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm sure the answer varies by country. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

In particular: What is the answer for the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Russia, the United Kingdom, or the United States? -- 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The US should be fine copyright-wise, subject to scope and privacy concerns. The UK has some serious non-copyright restrictions that would make me strongly discourage uploads, and I don't know about the others.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In Germany, it is forbidden by law (§88 and §89 of the Telekommunikationsgesetz) to even listen to anything that is not transmitted either directly to you or the general public. If you accidentally happen to hear something, you are not allowed to pass that on to anybody. Theroretically, you can even go to jail for that (§148). Hence, it's probably not a good idea to upload stuff like this here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Furthermore, this petition has been rejected. -- 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the links. --El Grafo (talk) 08:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • In Malaysia, it is strictly forbidden by law (Import/Export) to even import any broadcast receivers capable of receiving radio communication within the ranges (68 - 87) MHz and (108 - 174) MHz. -- 08:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

230k SUL user renames by User:Maintenance scriptEdit

Recently, User:Maintenance script run by User:Keegan (WMF) performed 230k user renames as a part of SUL finalization. The rename went mostly unnoticed, but there are some issues which we will have to fix:

  1. broken transclusions of user-namespace license templates. See for example 500+ files using User:Alx 91/license which was renamed to User:Alx 91~commonswiki/license or files using User:Dysprosia/lic, User:JCarriker/licensing or dozens of other license templates.
  2. broken author attribution links. For example File:The Lamy logo.jpg author's field lists [[User:Dysprosia|Dysprosia]] as an author; however User:Dysprosia was moved to User:Dysprosia~commonswiki without a redirect to the link is broken and similar links for 230k users.

The first issue is of much greater importance (since we do not keep files without licenses). Anybody familiar enough with a database to search renamed userpages for pages transcluding licenses (or transcluding {{License template tag}}) which were in use? Such list can be posted at Commons:Bots/Work requests with request to fix files using them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like there is only a small number - (Query used select page_namespace, page_title, tl_title from templatelinks inner join page on tl_from = page_id where tl_namespace = 2 and tl_title like "%~%/%" and tl_from_namespace in ( 0, 1, 4, 6, 7);) Bawolff (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that a bot should go around and update all page links and template links to renamed users. The old user names now belong to someone else, and it looks confusing if a comment on a talk page was written by one user but the signature points at a different user. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Bawolff, thank you. I fixed bunch of those files already but your list looks very incomplete (maybe pages were not updated yet) for example over 500 files transclude User:Alx 91/license. --Jarekt (talk) 20:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I has my logic backwards. I've updated using a better query. It now lists 3259 pages (Query used select p1.page_namespace, p1.page_title, tl_title from templatelinks inner join page p1 on tl_from = p1.page_id left outer join page p2 on (p2.page_namespace = 2 and p2.page_title = tl_title) inner join logging_logindex on log_namespace = 2 and log_title = tl_title and log_type = "move" and log_params like "%~%" where tl_namespace = 2 and tl_from_namespace in ( 0, 1, 4, 6, 7) and p2.page_title is null;). Bawolff (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
User:Alx_91~commonswiki is probably the same person as w:en:User:Alx_91. Although the password or e-mail differs from that of the global account. The account can be moved back and the user asked to merge it manually. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Several moved accounts ask to be contacted on English wiki so it seems like pairs: w:en:User:BesigedB/User:BesigedB, en:User:Alx_91/User:Alx 91, en:User:JCarriker/User:JCarriker, w:en:User:MPD01605/User:MPD01605, w:en:User:ZoRCoCuK/User:ZoRCoCuK belonged to the same people but the commons accounts were moved to the accounts with "~commonswiki" like User:BesigedB~commonswiki and probably need to be moved back if the users are still active. Bawolff thanks again for this rather crazy SQL query. I processed bunch of those files and asked for help at Commons:Bots/Work_requests#230k_SUL_user_renames_by_User:Maintenance_script for the rest. --Jarekt (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23Edit

Patrol/Autopatrol applicationEdit

HI, I am not an oldest but an old user of commons and past experience has given me a lot of knowledge of policy, guidelines etc. I have even gone through various papers to gain knowledge on copyrighting. Can I apply for Patrol/Autopatrol ? If yes, where can I apply ? --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 07:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I granted you autopatrolled. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank You @Steinsplitter: for changing my right permission. I appreciate it. I've sent you an email too. Please check.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Jnanaranjan sahu: If you would like to become a patroller, which would be a real honor an help for us, read COM:PATROL and follow the instructions from there. -- Rillke(q?) 13:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@Rillke: Rather it'll be an honor for me to work for the society and people. I've applied here. Please consider my application and give me any other rights if you think my purpose will suit it. Thank you.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 06:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank You--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) talk 12:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Topic related to picturesEdit

I know Wikipedia and Wikimedia are different sites but this discussion is related to upgrading Wikilove pictures like barnstars and adding aquarium fish along with kittens. People form commons can give their valuable ideas. --Cosmic Emperor (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-App "Share a fact"Edit

Not sure if this was topic at Comons already. Some contributors voiced strong concerns about a new Wikipedia app, launched by the Wikimedia Foundation, that shares article snippets along with an article's first image. Stephen LaPorte with the WMF Legal Team stated in a legal note that attribution requirements for text and for images would be sufficiently met by a link to the Wikipedia article where they were derived from. How does the Commons community think about this? More details here and at the talk page. --Martina talk 20:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24Edit

About pictures licensesEdit

The user uploaded a lot of pictures but didn't have copyright. And then he said he give up his licenses with C.C. 1.0. Could somebody help to delete these all about "his work", thanks.

The website with all what he done please click here --Cjackh (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done Hi Cjackh, thanks for reporting. I've opened a deletion request → here. --El Grafo (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Uploads Fuoco9Edit

Hi. I think that all the uploads of user Fuoco9 are unused personal photos, without encyclopedic interest. --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

✓ DoneCommons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Fuoco9 --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Uploading files with a clearly incorrect licenseEdit

Once in a while I find old photos online that obviously have an incorrect, unfree license. This can be tricky, there are quite a few times when I suspect a license for an old photo may be incorrect, but not many times that I feel certain about it. But it does happen. For instance, a photo may be labelled as CC BY-NC-SA while it is in fact in the public domain because the photographer died more than 70 years ago. What is the correct procedure if I want to upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Can it be done at all as long as the given (incorrect) license isn't acceptable on Commons? Blue Elf (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Basically, yes, as long as you can give a solid explanation as to why it is PD. In the "Permissions" field of the "Information" template, it's worth giving an explanation of there being a false claim at the source. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Be wary of things like URAA, which can affect files that should really have been PD in the USA. Otherwise, as Jmabel says, feel free to upload images as long as you can demonstrate the PD status. Green Giant (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, it is not unheard of (not even rare) for digitizers of old works to claim a copyright in the digital version... if the digital version is a faithful reproduction of the original (there was no 'no authorship' in the form of significant edits) then the 'new' copyright claim is invalid... see COM:PDART. Revent (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
(not that I am implying that you should use PD-Art for a scan of a photograph, as opposed to something like a painting, but the same logic applies) Revent (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25Edit

Help me, pleaseEdit

33 St Rawson day vc.jpg

Hello all,

When I uploaded this file using flickr2commons, I got an error. As a result, the file has been uploaded, but does not show up in its category, and also the bot that should check its license consistently skips it. What might be the problem? Thanks in advance. Vcohen (talk) 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see any problem here. It has the {{flickrreview}} tag, so the bot should get to it in due time. You can add categories to it just like any other file; right now, its only category is Category:33rd Street – Rawson Street (IRT Flushing Line). It could use more of a description; does "LIC" here mean "Long Island City"? - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I will try once more... 1. The bot runs once an hour, every file I upload gets the bot's signature in less than an hour. This file did not get it in about 20 hours. 2. If you see the category, please open it and see that the file is not there. Vcohen (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I renamed the file, now it is in the category. Let's wait for the bot... Vcohen (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, renaming solved the problem. The bot processed both this file and another one I uploaded several minutes ago. Vcohen (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

darktable to Wikimedia CommonsEdit

Hi all,

As you may know, it is possible to upload to Wikimedia Commons from some image processing software − with digiKam using the KIPI uploader (an effort to which I have modestly contributed a couple of years ago) ; with Adobe Lightroom using LrMediaWiki (thanks to Ireas)

I am becoming a keen user of darktable, a free and open-source raw developer. I was wondering if there would be interest in extending the software in a similar fashion to upload directly to Wikimedia Commons. If there is some interest here, I would be happy to go ask the darktable devs whether this is something they would be happy with. If yes, then, I have no plans yet but we could safely start one then. :)

I have started gathering some thoughts on User:Jean-Frédéric/darktable. Feel free to chime in.

Jean-Fred (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 26Edit

Error in metadata viewer?Edit

Hi, in many of my latest uploads, I find that the display of the exif metadata of selected fields are wrong on the file page and deviate from what other tools tell me. I use Lightroom to edit metadata before exporting and have done so for some time without any problems of this kind, e.g., this file has displayed metadata as intended. One such example of wonrg display is File:Sarcophagus of Louise of Great Brittain, Roskilde Cathedral, Denmark, 2015-03-31-4813.jpg, where the Camera manufaturer, camera model and copyright holder fields as displayed are wrong. However, if I use Jeffrey Friedl's Exif Viewer on the same file, the EXIF looks correct and identical to the ones I have in Lightroom. I conclude that there must be some special cases of EXIF data, which the metadata viewer on Mediawiki does not render correctly. In my latest uploads the 'caption' field in the metadata has often included the "'" character, e.g., "...Frederick IX's Chapel...", but not always. Anyone understand what is going on?-- Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Tracked. --McZusatz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, McZusatz. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@Slaunger: Its due to a bug in php's exif support (Its triggered in files where the values for the exif tags come before the list of tags contained in the file). Until the bug is fixed, one potential way to work around it using exiftool is the following command: exiftool -TagsFromFile input.jpg -all:all temp.mie; exiftool input.jpg -all=; exiftool -TagsFromFile temp.mie -all:all input.jpg. (Assuming input.jpg is the name of your image file). Bawolff (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

USA train picturesEdit

Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (clcean up2) has a lot of train pictures taken in the USA. These are taken by Peter Van den Bossche and downloaded from Flicker. I already classified a lot of his European pictures but I am not familiar with the USA scene. Could someone help?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Filtering Category-views by license?Edit


Wikimedia Commons has become a fairly useful resource for "stock photos" other than just for usage on wikipedia projects etc., but when browsing the repository for images to be used in projects the mix of licensing schemes is a constant nuisance that makes it hard to find a usable set of images with compatible licenses.

Especially when selecting images to create a "collage" of various images, such as showing two or more similar looking species of animals side by side or some such, it is often necessary to use images that have the exact same license as the various Creative Commons licenses are not at all as compatible as one would think/like them to be (cannot combine a CC-BY-SA and a CC-NC-SA into one collage with CC-BY-NC-SA for example as the resulting license would be more restrictive than the originals). Mostly your best bet is to use either PD/CC0 only, or select one important/scarce image with a different license and select all others with the exact same license and/or PD/CC0 to assemble the rest.

So the question is: How do I filter a category view on wikimedia commons to give me things like "only PD images" or "only CC-BY" or some such? I'm aware of the search option "hastemplate:" as in Coccinella hastemplate:PD-layout, but it's really not comparable to "browsing" the categories with a filter set to something equivalent.

If the software doesn't support this, wouldn't that be a useful feature to add?

Cheers, Pudding4brains (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Intersecting content and license categories using FastCCI is the most "comfortable" method I know of; you are not the first or only only having (IMO rightly so) suggested to introduce such a filter to category pages.    FDMS  4    17:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 27Edit