Commons:Village pump

(Redirected from Commons:VP)

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

A village pump in Cork, Ireland [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.

November 24Edit

UNESCO's Women in African history website licensesEdit

One of the files I have uploaded here, File:Mariama Bâ.jpg, has recently been deleted, and I am a bit confused as to how to handle photos and other material from UNESCO's website «Women in African History». The UNESCO website states that all material on the site has a CC BY-SA license. Is that not to be trusted? If that is so, I might as well stop uploading their material, which is often unique and interesting, and meant for dissemination. It is not worth the «trouble», if it will be deleted by someone who does not trust UNESCO's (and M. E. Joubeaud's) statement. I added an explanation in April, but obviously, that was not enough/trustworthy. What to do? Kjersti L. 10:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjersti Lie (talk • contribs)

Some images are historical photos/paintings, so site's licensing statement doesn't appear reliable. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Does everybody share EugeneZelenko's view? Will there be a consensus, or will I just have to try to upload the photos from UNESCO's website that I think have a reliable license, and risk them being deleted again? Maybe I should try to get UNESCO to state the license explicitly for each photo (as a byline?) on their website? Kjersti L. 11:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjersti Lie (talk • contribs)
(Pinging @Anthere: here, maybe she has connections or knows more, from her role as international organiser for Wiki Loves Africa and Wiki Loves Women. Ciell (talk) 12:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This is irritating... Indeed, I read The license obtained by UNESCO applies to all content on this platform (including text, illustrations and soundtrack). which seems to suggest that all the women images are indeed CC BY SA. Whether it is credible is another story. Because even if Unesco claims those images to be CC BY CA, they do no properly provide attribution for them. I could not find any place where the name of the photograph is mentionned. The only mention of attribution is Unesco itself; Which really calls for caution... as "Unesco" is not the name of a photograph person, and even if it was satisfactory to "remove" the name of the photographer and attribute it fully to its organization (I do not find that satisfactory for the record), I doubt VERY much Unesco is the author of ALL those historical photos. It may be, but most likely is not true. On [1], it states that the attribution should mention both Unesco AND the authors. Unfortunately... missing the author name for the picture... So well, indeed, I agree with @EugeneZelenko: on this. I do not consider the site's licensing statement reliable. I would consider it reliable when it comes to the texts written about all those women. I would not consider it reliable at all when it comes to pictures. Anthere (talk)
On the bright side... all the artists who worked on the cartoons and pictural representation of the women ARE clearly identified. And clearly attributed. Check out the Artists section, and for example this text. This suggest that what is CC BY SA is the text about each women, and the artistic representation of them (we should be able to use those visuals). But the historical pictures... should not be counted in the licence statement. Anthere (talk)
  • @Anthere: is "CC BY CA" above a typo, or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
lol. Clearly a typo ;)) Anthere (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: do you have any helpful advice here ? Did you already experienced that ? Is there a way to get someone to send permissions for specific historical images ? How should we deal with that ? Anthere (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi, for context I work as Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO, a couple of questions:
  • Where does it say on the website everything is CC BY-SA or is it just in a private email?
  • Which photo was deleted? I can't seem to find a similar named thing on the website
Also to say if you're interested in this topic the entire General History of Africa is available under CC BY-SA here including instructions on how to add open license text to Wikipedia articles.
John Cummings (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings: File:Mariama Bâ.jpg was deleted per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mariama Bâ.jpg. "The license obtained by UNESCO applies to all content on this platform (including text, illustrations and soundtrack)." appears on   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
By the way... I found this old historical file.... File:Nzinga Mbandi Queen of Ndongo and Matamba French.pdf Anthere (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@John Cummings:, (or someone else), I still hope you can give us some advice on how to handle the material/photos on the UNESCO site. There are several photos there that would be interesting to use in Wikipedia articles/biographies Kjersti L. 15:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjersti Lie (talk • contribs)

November 26Edit

Jacques Forestier photos on Commons.Edit

Not sure who or where to ask this... BIU Sante uploaded a photo they said was of Jacques Forestier (see; the one in the white lab coat. I was contacted by one of Jacques' grandchildren (via my French Wikipedia talk page), who confirmed that was not him in the photo. They have since uploaded two family photos to correctly identify Jacques Forestier. How should we handle the other two photos of the man in the lab coat who isn't Jacques Forestier but was labeled as such at the time of upload by the BIU Sante? I wanted to ensure this discussion was on record somewhere for transparency, but not sure how to proceed at this point? I checked the BIU sante website and it would seem they've also corrected the photo. What do we do with the photos of the man in the white lab coat, who's identity remains a mystery?Oaktree b (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oaktree b: Is this article about a different person? Courtesy links: File:03572 Jacques Forestier.jpg and File:03572 Jacques Forestier (cropped).jpg.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
The article is about the same individual as the Wiki article, but uses the incorrect photo. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Guessing: Einar Meulengracht? Fits with: 1) the signature, 2) the general looks of the subject [2] and 3) at BIU Santé, the image number 03571 where the image is missing right before the image number 03572 about Forestier. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
See also this photo in the issue in homage to Einar Meulengracht in Acta Medica Scandinavia, supplementum 213, Rosenkilde and Bagger, Copenhagen, 1948. -- Asclepias (talk) 07:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Good catch. Sometimes credible repositories and sources get things wrong, sometimes from simple catalog mix-ups, other times from incorrect identification, e.g. the wrong James Parkinson. --Animalparty (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The “consensus” on “UN maps”Edit

Hello everyone, I am a new editor and trying to better understand the various policies, standards and consensuses that exist with respect to editing certain maps. I am also interested to hear what others feel the ultimate goal of such maps are.

To preface this discussion, it is my opinion that maps should be clear, precise, and factual. With a good map, a user should be able to read the title, read the legend and have enough context to have a rough understanding of the point the map title was attempting to make without the need for much supporting details or data. Maps are often used as a quick reference or cheat sheet as they are often located in the infobox, so it is especially important that they are clear.

Anyways, after reading the Wikipedia article for the Paris Agreement after the United States pulled out, I noticed this map titled “Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement” showcasing in the legend “Parties”, “Signatories” and “Parties also covered by European Union ratification”. It sounds like a straightforward and simple map until I noticed a few inconsistencies with disputed territories, such as Taiwan being colored as a party to the Paris Agreement. There is no indication that the map is a “UN map” (whatever that means… from the perspective of the UN?) or that any sort of dispute exists with respect to the data being presented. On 8 November 2020 I made a comment on the Talk page about the issue and nobody commented, so after two weeks I made an edit to correct what I thought was an overlooked issue. Within a few hours and without a reply to my comment on the Talk page, the map was reverted. I later asked for clarification why, for which a user responded “This is a UN treaty and the UN recognizes Taiwan as part of China” and the user later stated that such decision was part of a “consensus”.

My question is, where do such consensus come from? And what is the ultimate point of such maps like this one in my example?

There is no debate that the Paris Agreement is a UN treaty, and that Taiwan/ROC/Formosa/Chinese Taipei or whatever name you prefer to call it is not a United Nations Member State. It is a fact that only UNFCCC member states are entitled to become parties to the Paris Agreement. However, this map is simply titled as "Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement" and it is a fact that the government that has full de-facto control over that area of land we informally or formally call Taiwan did not sign or ratify the Paris Agreement. The government over this specific area of land is not bound or obligated to the terms in the Paris Agreement.

I am of the understanding that the purpose of this map is not to debate the internal political positions of UN members or other territorial disputes, but to showcase the reality of which countries/states/territories/jurisdictions of a specific area on a map are "signatories or parties to the Paris Agreement". Even though the treaty itself is a UN treaty, shouldn’t the map be from a neutral perspective based on the reality and facts, independent of internal UN Member State positions? I also proposed a potential compromise making Taiwan and other disputed territories striped, to indicate some sort of dispute does exist in case it’s relevant to that specific user looking at the map.

The majority of us have studied the topics we are editing and we understand much of the context to these issues. However, your typical student or person glancing at this map wondering if Taiwan is part of the Paris Agreement would read the title- “Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement” - read the legend “Parties”, “Signatories” - and see Taiwan is marked as purple and now might assume that <the government with de-facto control over> Taiwan is a party to the Paris Agreement, despite the reality being that Taiwan is not bound or obligated in any form or way to the the Paris Agreement. This situation requires additional context not displayed on the map, but this map is without indication that such additional context exists… and that in my opinion, makes it a bad map.

I also searched the Village Pump for other discussions, but they simply said to refer to the Talk page of each map that has this issue with Taiwan, often which has unanswered people asking every few years why Taiwan is colored on the maps and many reverts when the map gets changed, but I did not see anything that seems like a "consensus". Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

For better context, I was the person participating in the discussion with the user above and wanted to comment more on the situation. The user felt that all maps needed to represent the de-facto situation in the world, to which I explained that while that it is very appropriate in certain situations where geopolitics matter, it is more common to find maps that simply rely on international recognition, generally outlined by the UN. It is even more common to find those maps when the subject is of a UN treaty such as the map of the Paris Agreement, which the user still fails to understand is a map of a UN basis treaty signed by UN members under the jurisdiction of the UN, precisely why Taiwan was coloured as part of China in the first place. I further explained that relying upon the policy of international and UN recognition is a common method of avoiding POV pushing after he stated that "states such as Abkhazia, Somaliland, Ossetia, or Kosovo whose governments are not bound to the Paris Agreement, should absolutely be highlighted or striped". It is a common practice of Wikipedia and Commons to try and present neutral information, and while the inclusion of contested regions often helps NPOV, at other times when the matter refers specifically to a version of a state on a map recognized by larger organizations such as the UN, it is simply most appropriate and neutral to present the common international recognition policy. --Ratherous (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Even if the map would have Taiwan as part of China, Taiwan should be grey. en:List of parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change clearly states "Applies to Macao, extended by Portugal on 28 June 1999. Application remained in force after transfer of sovereignty to China. Applies to Hong Kong from 8 April 2003." As the other special administrated areas of China are specially mentioned as part of the membership. I would assume that the other special regions of China Taiwan and also Tibet are not part of the UNFCCC. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually in terms of special administrative regions the Chinese UN membership only extends that to Hong Kong and Macau and no other region, as can be seen by its ratification of the Paris Agreement [3] and the declarations made by the state. Neither Tibet nor Taiwan officially hold that status. Otherwise there would be explicit territorial exceptions made by the state as Denmark has done in regard to Greenland, which can also be seen in the source. That is why Greenland remains grey on the map, despite Denmark's ratification. --Ratherous (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous, GPSLeo brings up a few good points and it seems the Paris Agreement map by including Taiwan as part of China is indeed inconsistent compared to other maps related to the UNFCCC. Taiwan appears grey on the "Parties to the UNFCCC" map, the "Kyoto Protocol Parties" map and lastly the "Ratification of the Doha Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol" map. So 3 out of the 4 maps related to the UNFCCC have Taiwan as grey, with the Paris Agreement map being the exception. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Maps states that the rule of thumb is "On world and regional maps, Taiwan should not be included as a part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) in general.". Eclipsed830 (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not very surprising that Taiwan would appear grey on older maps, many of which were perhaps created prior to the general agreement of displaying disputed territories, as the maps automatically create Taiwan as a separate object on SVG editors, and I don't see much reason to change that at this point as they are not as widely used and refer to essentially defunct agreements. More so, I'm sure there are a number of maps that do not properly display UN member state boundaries, however that does not mean that general NPOV understandings for UN maps should be ignored for the future. One of those maps entirely uses a wrong map template with the inclusion of circles for overseas regions, which is generally not appropriate for UN maps, so using them as examples really doesn't make them correct. As per the recommendation made by the Manual of Style, I would completely agree that Taiwan should generally be shown separately from mainland China as I have numerously done in maps such as File:COVID-19 Outbreak World Map.svg and others, however when it comes to maps specifically intended to visualize UN members, under UN parameters, Taiwan's area does fall under the Chinese UN membership whether one agrees with that or not. --Ratherous (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous What "general agreement" are you referencing? I think it's clear that to be consistent with other UNFCCC maps, Taiwan should be grey on the Paris Agreement map too. By having Taiwan colored, it is implying something that simply isn't true and is inconsistent with the other related Wiki maps. I also must reiterate, nothing in the Paris Agreement map indicates that it is from a "UN map" (whatever that means?) or from the "perspective of the United Nations". Let me ask you, is the government that has full control over the area we formally/informally call Taiwan either a party or signatory to the Paris Agreement? Eclipsed830 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The general agreement exercised on most maps of the UN and other international organization which generally tends to follow their recognition of boundaries, exampled of which I have already presented to you, the most prominent of which is File:United Nations Members.svg as well as maps of other organizations such as NATO and the EU which include certain disputed regions and omit others based on the organization's recognition. Also, I'm not sure how many more times I'll have to repeat this, as I have already done this over and over in response to your comments, the Paris Agreement is a UN Treaty signed under the parameters of the UN, which is why the map displays UN members in accordance to UN recognition. Which leads to the response to your last question, the answer to which is when it comes to maps displaying UN member states, the position of a UN unrecognized governments is quite irrelevant as it does not fall within the framework of the organization (members of which, once again, are displayed on the map precisely as member of the UN). It then becomes absolutely clear from contexts of articles on Wikipedia that the disputed Taiwanese government is not a party to the treaty as it is a UN treaty, allowing the reader to understand the situation regardless. --Ratherous (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I do not feel that all maps need to represent the “de-facto situation”, but what is the readers intention with respect to the data they are looking for? Is a user that clicks on a map of “Signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement” looking to see the internal affairs of member states and border disputes within the UN, or the actual jurisdictions that are “signatories and parties to the Paris Agreement” and therefore bound to the agreement? Nothing on the map indicates it is a “UN map” and from the perspective of some UN member states. If this is a UN map based on internal recognition of some member states, it should be stated in the title, or if there is a dispute, it should be indicated or noted in the legend. A good map should be able to stand alone without additional context, something this map cannot do. Eclipsed830 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
It hardly seems likely that a government can have much influence on pollution in areas it doesn't control, so using the de-facto situation isn't illogical. It would particularly affect countries like Somalia, Libya and Syria. However, such a map may also become out-of-date very rapidly. It should be consistent at least in what method it picks. --ghouston (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps there may be a need in the future to have maps based on the level of active commitment to the Paris Agreement, or mitigation of pollution under the Agreement, or anything of such sort where 'de-facto' boundaries matter above all, but when it comes to a map of UN member signatories and ratifiers of a UN treaty, there is simply no need of ever-changing unrecognized boundaries. --Ratherous (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to add another top level comment but I didn't want to edit my original post. After further research with “UN maps”, aside from the map of “Members of the United Nations” linked in the infobox on the United Nations page, I found the vast majority (every one I looked at aside from one resolution) of other “UN maps” have the area we call Taiwan/Formosa/ROC/"Chinese Taipei" greyed out or highlighted and does not include it as "part of China" (PRC).

With respect to other UNFCCC maps (which the Paris Agreement falls under), Taiwan is grey on:

I also went down the “List of specialized agencies of the United Nations” and found that every single agency that has a map of its member states or various resolutions passed also has Taiwan grey and/or not "part of China". For reference:

In addition to those UN organizations, the same applies to every "related organizations" map of members/participants listed within that same wiki:

This same practice also continued with various UN moratoriums or resolutions that contained maps, such as:

At this point, I am just not seeing the "general NPOV understandings for UN maps" that Ratherous claims exists, but actually the opposite. I do believe it would be appropriate to revert the Paris Agreement map back to my edit so it stays consistent with the other UN maps. Ratherous do you still object? Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The existence of those maps really doesn't justify anything, it just shows that if the policy of displaying maps according to the displayed organization's recognition continues, then those maps need to be changed. I can just as easily present an array of UN maps where Taiwan is shown as a part of China. Some examples:
The most basic idea of consistency applies as well where the main UN map used by Wikipedia clearly shows Taiwan as part of China, under the UN framework. Other UN maps should stay consistent so long as that is the chosen display. Not to mention that there are numerous precedents with maps of other international organizations, which also depict disputed areas per the recognition policy of the organization.
Some examples would be maps of the European Union, which for the most part include Kosovo, which has recognition from the organization as a whole (and is even given a status of a potential candidate, but usually exclude disputed states such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, Transnistria and others, which hold no recognition from the EU as a whole.
Maps of NATO follow a similar pattern, where relations with Kosovo are established, unlike other disputed states.
Maps of the Council of Europe, which does not recognize any disputed states, including Kosovo which is shown as a part of Serbia (despite not being a part of the organization similar to the Taiwanese government and the Paris Agreement), exclude all disputed states.
Following the organizations' recognition allows for the most consistent NPOV. Wikipedia is a space where you often have to put your personal opinion aside and stay neutral. --Ratherous (talk) 04:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Ratherous All of the maps I linked were top level maps specifically related to the UN and its organizations. Many of the maps you included are "regional maps", not based off member status, but the physical geography (WHO regions, WTO regions, WMO regions, etc). You also linked to multiple maps and organizations that both Taiwan and China are members or observers of such as the Asian Pacific Group so of course Taiwan would be colored in those situations too. Lastly, you also included many maps such as the Refugee Convention Signatories map which was adopted in 1952 and 1967, at which point ROC/Taiwan was still a UN Member State.
Significantly more important, you linked to maps that show states that ratified various UN treaties, its important to note and understand that despite Taiwan not being a UN member, the Taiwanese government continues to de-facto ratify such treaties and therefore essentially becomes bound by them. For example, the Taiwanese government ratified the terms in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). Factually it is correct to color Taiwan green on the map of states that ratified CEDAW, as CEDAW was de-facto ratified as domestic law and its terms and conditions apply on the jurisdiction that Taiwan falls under. With regards to the Paris Agreement (the initial map in debate), Taiwan domestically ratified the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals, but not the Paris Agreement itself. If the Taiwanese government passed domestic laws to indicate that they will ratify the terms and conditions of the Paris Agreement, I agree that it should be indicated that Taiwan ratified the Paris Agreement too.
The most consistent NPOV would/should generally show the de-facto point of view. In simple terms, a map showing "Signatories or parties to the Paris Agreement" should show the de-facto situation in which areas on a map are Signatories or parties to the Paris Agreement.
If I ask you independently: "Yes or no, is the government that has de-facto control over Taiwan a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement?" You or most people will probably say "no".
If I show you the map and ask "Yes or no, based on this map is the government that has de-facto control over Taiwan a signatory or party to the Paris Agreement?" You and most people would say "yes".
Do you not find this a bit problematic? | Eclipsed830 (talk) 05:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Very deceptive of you to say most. I can maybe agree with you on two of the maps being only region - the WHO and UNWTO, the rest even WMO specifically show member states where only China is a member but Taiwan is highlighted as well, so I'm sorry but that does not discard the absolute majority of linked maps to be directly relating to member status. You also presented a link to a completely wrong organization than the one that I presented a map for. I gave an example File:Asia-Pacific Group Member States.svg which is a United Nations regional organization entitled Group of Asia and the Pacific Small Island Developing States consisting of actual members. You sent a link of the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering, which is a completely separate organization. Also there really is no such thing as 'de facto' ratification under the actual framework of the organization itself. No one is arguing that Taiwan is not an excellent example of democracy and the country may have changed its laws domestically yes, but that does not make it a party to any of the treaties is chooses to take example of, especially not in the views of the actual organization. If you look at official lists of the parties to those treaties on the UN Treaty Collection, including your given example of CEDAW, you can clearly see that it is only China that is listed [4]. Also I'm glad that you mentioned the historic time period of 1952 and 1967, because at the time mainland China and Taiwan were already de facto separate states and yet they are both highlighted on the map together. Is it suddenly okay for you to include both states when they are represented by the government in Taipei, because that is now starting to look like POV pushing. Readers of articles can very clearly understand from the article itself whether or not the unrecognized government in Taipei is a part to the treaty, that is not a reason to violate NPOV. --Ratherous (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This argument does not belong on Commons, except as in connection with advice to map makers. If there is a dispute on how some regions should be marked on a map, Commons hosts both versions and the Wikipedias and other users can choose what one they use. If you make a map to be used on en-wp, it of course makes sense to follow the Wikipedia MoS, but any relevant point of view can be the base for a map hosted here (but name and description should match content). –LPfi (talk) 20:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

November 28Edit

Using ndash in category namesEdit

I have come across a category Category:Marshal's batons – Germany. This name strikes me as a very weird name that should probably be changed. Firstly, if we are using ndash rather than a minus sign, then we should probably use an apostrophe rather than a single tick; but in this case I would support using minus because it is easier to type. In general I believe that it is appropriate to name categories correctly even if the symbols do not exist on a keyboard, but this case is strange. Secondly, this ndash is not even grammaticaly correct. I would read this category name to mean that there is a specific type of Marshal's batons that are called "Germany" not that that they come from there. Thirdly there is a sub-sub-category called Category:Marshal's batons Nazi-Germany – on flags, which shows that ndash is being added in random locations of the category name, or it would have to be something like "Marshal's batons – Nazi-Germany on flags" or "Marshal's batons – Nazi-Germany – on flags". In short the whole thing seems to be a mess. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The preference is for basic ASCII characters. See Commons:Categories#Category names: Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." --ghouston (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
ASCII is preferred where ASCII contains appropriate characters, as in "-" etc. Where a name cannot be written in ASCII, we do not limit ourselves to it. We have e.g. Category:Niña (ship, 1491)‎ and Category:Lech Wałęsa‎. –LPfi (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that even a minus sign is not needed here, however. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Not a minus, but "U+002D HYPHEN-MINUS" (in Unicode parlance), which is the one found in ASCII. There is also a real minus available. But yes, here the "–" should probably be replaced with "in" or "of". –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
"Of" seems appropriate. The naming scheme in Category:Marshal's batons by country was apparently started by User:HHubi, who has since been blocked. --ghouston (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Martin Urbanec's answer for File:Літары беларускай арабіцы.svgEdit's_answer

Maybe despite number of the issues[5] we cannot remove the file itself, but at least it should be removed from all the Wikies, and decategorised from "Belarusian language", "Belarusian Arabic alphabet" (I would propose "Lingvofreaks", "Fakes" or something like this.)! Thanks. 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

November 29Edit

Bug report for wrong cats on uploadEdit

File:Oil lamp on thrikarthika.jpg is sorted in Category:Photographs taken on 2020-11-30. The information table says "30 November 2020 (according to Exif data)". The EXIF data says "Date and time of data generation: 18:40, 29 November 2020" , "File change date and time: 18:40, 29 November 2020", "Date and time of digitizing: 18:40, 29 November 2020".
I am confused. Is this now a bug or is this person somewhere in the world where it already is the 30th of November?
--D-Kuru (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Uploader Rahulrnath001 appears to write captions in Malaysian. Malaysia uses time zone UTC+8 (MST). The file was uploaded 13:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC), or 21:53, 29 November 2020 (MST). I think you're right, some logic is at least 10h7m fast, as the date in the Information template should be UTC. The uploader could also be visiting any of the 8 jurisdictions with documented time offsets East of +10:00 per en:Template:UTC time offsets, but how would the logic know, unless Mobile Android App (Commons mobile app) 2.13.2~757c7b008 is leaking this info via "|date={{According to Exif data|2020-11-30}}"?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Pinging @Misaochan as maintainer.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This is something that we are still trying to figure out (see Github issue). It happens only very occasionally, so it is difficult to reproduce so far. Any assistance would be appreciated. Misaochan (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Misaochan: Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Misaochan, D-Kuru: Rahulrnath001 wrote "I am not a Malaysian. I uploaded the image on IST." in this edit and on User talk:D-Kuru. That would be en:Indian Standard Time, +05:30, so upload was 19:23, 29 November 2020 (IST), 43 minutes after photography.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
At least we know that it is the mobile app that is causing it. If it's not already dones, some bot could check all files in Category:Uploaded with Mobile/Android and see if the inserted value fits the EXIF data. Maybe that way we can figure out what is going on here --D-Kuru (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

November 30Edit

Wikidata descriptions changes to be included more often in Recent Changes and WatchlistEdit

@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Thanks, but please ensure that we don't get more duplicates like the one below.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Apologies. This is a known bug of MassMessage tracked here, no solution was found so far. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Thanks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
This improvement was requested by many users from different projects.. You mean a few people asked essentially to bother every other user with Wikidata-Changes (...) and you thought that would be a good idea. Great. I´m out. Alexpl (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
You can turn on or off Wikidata changes. This is about showing more relevant ones for those who haven't turned them off. Whether on or off should be the default is another question. –LPfi (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lea Lacroix (WMDE): Commons is multilingual. Descriptions in Bezug auf welche Sprache werden auf Commons angezeigt werden? Für ein hochgeladenes Bild können Beschreibungen in mehreren Sprachen (auf der Beobachtungsliste) relevant sein. Wird es endlich mal eine Möglichkeit geben SDC-Bearbeitungen (und nur diese) auf der Beo auszublenden. Da ergeben sich immer wieder tausende Entries in der Watchlist in wenigen Stunden, was die Beobachtungsliste unbenutzbar macht. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. Most of the time, it will be English, as the "content language" setting of the pages is English. However, on specific pages that use another language, like Hauptseite, it will retrieve information in the content language of this page. Unfortunately, I can't give much update about SDC, as I'm not involved in this project. I hope that helps nevertheless. Lea Lacroix (WMDE) (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monument, a mediocre contestEdit

Not all the local contests but the vast majority of the organizers make an absurdly mediocre photo selection and It should be required to clearly inform who will be the judges of the contest that must meet a series of requirements and not place judges without any kind of photographic knowledge. Sadly I note with great concern that many low-quality images, with filters that add artificial colors, exaggerated contrasts, dramatic filtering, and even fake retouching are selected as winners in many countries. On the contrary, images of high quality and superior from a technical point of view are not selected in several countries. I think that countries are interested in participating in WLM but they pay little or no attention by selecting mediocre photos, which results in a negative impact for those who collaborate in the contest, which causes excellent photographers to stop contributing to Wikimedia Commons. It is something that I have raised every year without receiving any response, I wonder, what the hell are the organizers playing? --Wilfredor (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The competitions and the judging panels are hard to arrange, and probably getting harder each year. Of the "Wiki Loves" contests I have helped the judging for, the technical issues of quality, composition, and potential fringe copyright issues have been raised in the ranking of photographs, but are not necessarily as important to the goal of finding a diverse selection of photographs taken by volunteers that represent the spirit and aims of the competition. In some circumstances a very unusual but representative photograph may be chosen that could be poor on any of these aspects, but better quality alternatives are not submitted that score higher in the competition values. For example in one competition we were looking for 'historical' photographs, such as those taken in the 1980s that had been scanned for the competition. It that scenario, it's reasonable to accept some digital enhancement post-scan, or to accept that the photograph's quality is limited to the original technology and print quality.
If you feel you have the eye to make good photo assessments, be sure to volunteer or ask about helping with judging in the future. Keep in mind that most of the initial assessment is a case of whittling down the submissions to a final hundred or so, and has to be done with very little of our valuable volunteer time per photo. -- (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
@: Every year I contribute as a jury, this year I have been a jury in three different countries (Portugal, Iran, Italy) reviewing thousands of images, however, I cannot be a jury in all the Local WLM contests especially in which I participate as a candidate. Additionally, for each jury trained there are other jurors that are not trained (generally normal people without any photographic knowledge), so the jury vote is lost in the tumult. The result is obvious, beautiful thumbnail images but when you expand them, they are usually full of a lot of noise, artificial colors, changed skies, exaggerated distortions, with fake HDR filters, etc. Images of excellent photographic quality, of monuments without photos and with great value not only encyclopedic, remain behind impossible to compete against predetermined artistic filters on cell phones. This kind of thing frustrates me --Wilfredor (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: Competitions are stupid. Don't enter them, and don't be surprised when they are stupid. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
When the prize can be enough to pay for a good lens or even a runner up can win enough to pay for a month or a year's broadband costs, it does encourage photographers to find out about this project. -- (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Speaking as an organizer for the U.S. contest, pretty much said what I wanted to say. Technical quality is indeed one of the factors the jury is tasked to take into account (we ask our jury to review Commons's quality image guidelines and take them into account), but we also ask the jury to consider originality; usefulness for the encyclopedia; and our existing coverage of the historic site, among other factors. Ideally each selected photo is the best of all worlds, but depending on each juror's background and how they prioritize, certain criteria can come out over others. I absolutely do recognize that previous winners have included photos that are poor from a technical standpoint, and understand how that's frustrating to Commons regulars (it is for me too). We have been trying to remedy through various means (adjusting criteria, better jury training, adjusting our juror selection, etc.). Something new we did this year was hold a live meeting between jury members to review the final rounds' photos together, partly so that technical quality issues could be surfaced—we'll see how the results go. I think the most obvious way to remedy is bringing on more jurors from the pool of Commons's quality photographers, especially for later rounds, but this can be more challenging than one might expect based on availability (which was worse than ever this year given *waves arms wildly at the country*). But I do think we can put more effort into recruiting from Commons in the future. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is WLM looking for the most artistic, the most technically correct these two can be in conflict depending on the photographers aim. WLM should also be looking encyclopedic value in the photographs. Countries are limited to selecting what is their best photos both by the criteria and ultimately by what is entered. When I put the judging panels together for WMAU I reached out to my non-wikimedia networks to get trained judges we also sat in one room and talked about each image. Requiring everyone to use the judging tool eliminates that critical feedback and discussion, makes it robot motion 1/0, 1/0...... Ultimately the purpose is to get useable photographs of "monuments" for free use and to expand the number of people contributing. By all means expect exceptional quality and artworks at the peak of International judging but actually organising a national WLM is a lot of work getting people to judge what can be 20 entries or 20,000 entries can put a lot of pressure on volunteers. I remember there being a year where India competition fell over because of the shear volume of entries was beyond the teams capability to process. Gnangarra 05:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point about encyclopedic value. In the United States, we seem to be encouraging people to upload more photos of the same National Register of Historic Places sites which are already covered abundantly on the site, while at the same time ignoring other sites of historical value.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
~ 3-4 years ago, on public meeting at WMF headquarter, I recommended to include coverage statistics about each monument, so participants would know which monuments are still not so well represented and jury could account this too. Another recommendation still not implemented: to clearly warn about monuments that are problematic from freedom of panorama point of view. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@Gnangarra: That is the problem, most of the jurors are not photographers or do not have any basic elementary knowledge about photography. An image with encyclical value should be a faithful representation of reality and not filled with fake HDR filters oversaturated with altered colors. --Wilfredor (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
We aim for the opposite in the U.S. actually. One of the criteria for the jury is encyclopedic value, and that includes ranking uncommon and less-photographed sites higher. Unlike all (or nearly all) other national contests that only cover their national equivalent of the NRHP, the U.S. contest also allows users to upload any historic site that is recognized by some sort of authority (like a state- or local-level historic society), and we do get many images from those lists. Photos of common sites will always be inevitable of course, because that's what people, well, commonly photograph. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Jmabel. Comeptitions are stupid, and when you enter any, don't be surprised if it turns stupid. So, my best way to go is simply to ignore all that "Wiki Loves something" stuff, both as photographer and in case someone invites you to a jury. I do, for several reasons, with poor focus on quality and usefulness being just one of them. --A.Savin 19:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what people are expecting. This is not a project for experts and often it's a project that is hostile to expertise. I mean, in the end, it's not like we are asking experts about which image should be used for the encyclopedia pages. I suggest we have different awards with perhaps a smaller prize for technical quality. What I think we should do is start the equivalent of English Wikipedia "red lists" for something like "villages in India (or towns in the US or streets in London or whatever) that have no images" and ask for those instead which is something that will not encourage technical photographers but will help the encyclopedia strongly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It would not be that hard to create a auto-refreshing reports page for desired photographs. Using a bit of SPARQL to generate a basic list of prospect topics, then filter that down to assess not just missing, but with no Commons category and topics/places that have some photos but no Quality or Featured images, could be useful to give folks ideas for future photography promotions, editathons and even the somewhat tarnished idea of competitions. In all of this, consideration should continue to be given to the fact that our volunteer time is scarce, and we should always be thinking of smarter ways to make best use of it. -- (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of File:Berenjacht tijdens Corona.jpgEdit

Bear hunt during Dutch COVID-19 lockdown

In April 2020 I uploaded this file. User:A1Cafel has nominated this picture for deletion for reasons that I consider to be wholle inadequate. I have tried to use reason, common sense, humour, irony and sarcasm, to no avail. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Berenjacht_tijdens_Corona.jpg. He just does not bother to reply. This picture has been flagged for deletion for five months now. What is the procedure for the community to decide on a request for deletion? Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The procedure is simply for an admin to decide to delete or not to delete and close the discussion. But when an admin checks the discussion and thinks they cannot make a good judgement because of lack of expertise and lack of strong arguments, they may choose to leave the decision to the next one passing by. If none of the admins seeing the discussion feels confident, it may stay open for a long time. –LPfi (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

December 01Edit

images located on earth's diagonalEdit

Hi folks, at the moment there are more than 5000 images with geolocation set to lat=lon:, which is rather unlikely. As we depend to a certain amount on coordinates being set correctly, those coords should either be fixed or deleted. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Herzi Pinki - looking at the query's results, is there a way to filter those with lat/lon = 0? File:Mantowoc North Pier.jpg doesn't appear to have any geolocation info, and if that is getting included, I'm surprised that the query only came back with ~5000 results. Chris857 (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the file you mentioned is that that wrong coordinates are in the exif-data. And not in the file description. This can also happen with coordinates /= (0/0). These cases would need a solution in the software either by removing such coordinates from Exif or by ignoring them. What you can do is to overwrite such wrong data with correct data using {{Object location}}. You can sort the results of the query by column, which means also by lat or lon. A modified query will filter away those with (0/0). Still > 5000. Don't know how to grep only those files that do have explicit coordinates aside the exif data. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a data inconsistency with redirects, thanks for letting me look into it in more detail. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

December 02Edit

transfer pictures from :bar: for en:SchuhplattlerEdit

one done 01:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  Not done, they are not marked with a compatible license.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I've updated the source information for bar:Datei:Schuahplattla-Weabung.jpg according to information from the Oldenburg University's library system. {{PD-old-assumed}} should apply and it would go into Category:Collectible cards of Liebig's Extract of Meat Company (or better: Category:Liebigbilder_1892,_Serie_221_-_Nationaltänze_III). I'll see if I can convince the FileImporter to accept this … --El Grafo (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Here you go: File:Schuahplattla-Weabung.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FAQs are outdatedEdit

Hello, I just realized how outdated (parts of) COM:FAQ are. Examples:

I'm sure there's much more outdated information that should be updated. Just in case someone is bored and needs something to do ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


Hello, folks! At the Community Wishlist Survey 2021, I added a proposal to have an improved image/video search page. I was told that it already exists, Special:MediaSearch, and it looks awesome!!!

Were any of you aware of it? How could we encourage people to use it? --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

You can also use filters like "filemime:audio" in the normal search. One benefit of the standard search is that it shows you how many total matches there are, which the special pages does not. I may be overly technically minded, but this way feels more flexible for me. -- (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@NaBUru38: glad to see that you like the new MediaSearch. It's still in active development and I've been slowly spreading the word about the new tool as features become available. I think one of the best ways to encourage people to use it right now is to link to it and reference it in conversations here on-wiki. Word-of-mouth is a pretty good way to share new tools in a small way that can contribute to good, active feedback about using the tool while it's still being developed but before it's ready for any sort of big announcement. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Page, related changes on CommonsEdit

Page is trans person who recently came out as trans (or non-binary depending on the sources), generating a lot of press attention. There's been a pretty good response across our projects, updating articles and references to their gender. Checking our main category for Page, Category:Elliot_Page, raises some potential further corrective action. I'm raising here for general comment and suggestions, and because this notable example might be a good case study for future policy.

  1. Where Page is named in the filenames, their deadname is being used. In line with best practice by journalists, and the practice on the English Wikipedia, the respectful change would be to rename these to their current name to de-emphasize the deadname. I can technically do this, but it's not currently covered in a clear way by COM:FR, apart from a possible "harmonization" rationale.
  2. Wikidata has been updated, so the category infobox has also updated. Unfortunately Page's deadname is listed in the "Date of birth" field. A respectful change would be to design the category infobox to avoid emphasizing deadnames, and it looks like obvious avoidable emphasis here. Could someone with access to Wikidata and knowledgeable about the {{Wikidata Infobox}} design find a way to improve this?
  3. The category name has been moved and some of the parent categories relating to gender identity corrected, so that seems to have been mostly dealt with, and very promptly. Thanks folks!
  4. The descriptions of photographs have not all been changed. Again though we have no clear guidelines, the respectful approach is to swap the uses of their deadname to Page's current name. As far as I can see, that would be unlikely to cause anyone to be confused.

Feedback on these changes and suggestions for any further fixes would be welcome, especially if expressed in a respectful way. Partly my interest here is via discussions within the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group. Thanks -- (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WRT (1), the relevant filenames have been moved today on the basis of no objections being raised here. -- (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@: There is a parallel discussion at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Elliot_Page_-_dead-naming_in_historical_images. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel, RexxS: for the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I suggest changing the birth name (P1477) statement on Wikidata to have deprecated rank, or asking at d:Wikidata:Project chat about the best way to handle this in the data. On the infobox side of things, I'm not sure it should change, since it is appropriate e.g., for married people who change their surname. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure
    • Yes this is an important issue in general
    • Yes there is a lot of wiki community conversation about this particular case, and it makes a good case study
    • Yes a wiki guideline should govern this issue, and also I think if there were a proposal and conversation we could come to some consensus on this issue including with the Wiki LGBT+ group's participation
    • No, we do not have a guideline to apply right now
    • Yes this course of action seems reasonable seems reasonable for this case and also would apply to many other cases
    • Yes this course of action could be a draft proposal for a guideline and a practice to repeat
    • Yes I support executing all of these actions now, but only for this one case until further discussion
    • No I do not immediately support standardizing the above actions as a guideline for all cases
Problems with the above course of action include the following:
  • Lots of people have strong opinions that a particular course of action is ethical and other courses of action are unethical. The issue is too heated to resolve without organizing public discussion.
  • Expert LGBT+ organizations have differing opinions or the odd absence of opinions on this issue; we need to talk it through.
  • In general, being without a guideline gets less criticism than setting a debatable policy without first having community process. We can delay taking a firm position.
  • This is an issue with no global consensus, as people from different language communities and cultures would handle it in different ways.
  • Being trans is a personal and individual experience, and in addition to a default practice, we should also clearly state when we entertain exceptions. The reason to clearly state conditions for exceptions is that if we do not, then the precedent is that every one of these cases gets treated as exceptional and meriting a huge discussion. While it is not sustainable to debate every individual case without trying to form some general principles, we need to be ready in advance to clearly give conditions under which we will make exceptions.
  • The Wiki Community has already done a lot to try to address this. We organized meta:Queering Wikipedia, a summer 2020 conference to sort this and other issues. COVID was the cause of cancelling that meeting and delaying progress. Anyone who wants faster progress can direct concerns to the Wikimedia Foundation and encourage them to more completely sponsor and support community conversation on challenging issues which cross language and cultural barriers.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 03Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by CoagulansEdit

All these "unsourced" files are my own works, as pointed out in the description. Please someone review the reasons for this deletion request, per WP:POV. Thanks. - Coagulans (talk) 07:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The rationale given was "Scope" and the files were deleted after only 2 days. Should these "unused" files have been used at some MediaWiki-powered FanArt-Wiki via InstantComnmons, than they shouldm't have been deleted at all and clearly not after two days. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Sorry to contradict you, but the DR dates from November 17 and the files were deleted on November 24. How do you count the two days? --Pafsanias (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I did misread your vote from 22nd for the signature of the DR author (and your vote is the only diskussion that took place). --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I messed up the Structured Data of File:All Your Base -22-10-10).oggEdit

I added

and then I got an error that English speech synthesis (Q103169476) should only be used as a qualifier. Is this wrong? Shouldn't I be able to specify what type of English the audio file has in the structured data or are categories supposed to cover that like [[Category:Speech synthesis sounds]]?

I also made some clumsy edits after that which I regret. Instead of doing those I should have posted here immediately after getting the first error on my first edit. LotsofTheories (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a bug caused be the Warnings on Wikidata they make no sense on commons are still shown here. This should be fixed in the future. Now you can just ignore this. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata connection delays?Edit

Not sure if I'm doing something wrong here, or if there's a technical problem, or what. The uploading tool I'm using (iNat2Commons) requires connections between Commons and Wikidata to work. So I created Category:Symphyotrichum_nahanniense, and made the connection on Wikidata under "other sites" Pretty much immediately, the Wikidata Infobox populates properly on the mobile website ( But now, 18 hours later, the infobox is still not working on the non-mobile website and iNat2Commons can't detect the connection either. What is going on? I don't understand why there would be this discrepancy between the mobile and non-mobile websites. Somatochlora (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It is now working properly. I can't imagine that it was a coincidence that this happened within 5 minutes of me posting it after 18 hours not working, but as no changes have been made at either Wikidata or Commons that I can see, I don't know what has happened. Another page still isn't working: Category:Symphyotrichum_simmondsii Somatochlora (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
No queries with Wikidata, or tools that depend on them, are guaranteed to work. Larger queries are almost certain to suffer from multiple drop-outs over a year, and eventually all suffer permanent breakages. The onus is on the unpaid volunteers that create these tools to constantly maintain them, year after year, which is obviously not sustainable. There is no commitment on WMF dev to consider second order breakages when they make whatever changes they feel may be interesting. Though the WMF has enjoyed benefits in promoting Wikidata, including selling special access for the Googles and Amazons in the commercial world, there is far less strategic commitment to keep Wikimedia Commons operational or functional. One need only look at how ghastly and clunky the Upload Wizard interface and basic workflow is today for newbies, to understand how the current strategic priorities actively damage this project and limit our future here. -- (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
"selling special access for the Googles and Amazons in the commercial world,": Are you saying that the wmf makes money directly off the efforts of volunteers? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
This is under development, there's been no move to stop it and yes, it is a way to fund and grow the WMF into more directly commercial services. It's not a secret, just most volunteers remain unaware that this is the WMF strategy and implicitly it means that the whole of Wikidata is going to be promoted for commercial use, from biography data through to training AI systems, of precisely the sort that Amazon are leading in. Refer to m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration 1/Revenue Streams/1 and m:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Increase_the_Sustainability_of_Our_Movement states:
Building enterprise-level APIs (with high standards of availability, throughput, and usability).
Engage partners in the development wherever appropriate, incorporating the needs of a spectrum of small, non-commercial, and larger commercial reusers.
Explore fees or sustainability models for enterprise-scale commercial reusers, taking care to avoid revenue dependencies or other undue external influence in product design and development.
-- (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
The WMF is a non-profit foundation; any income from OKAPI, as the service is to be known, are to be spent on running our projects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes sure.
This can include paying a commercial marketing manager a six figure sum, coming out of the Google fees. Of course if Amazon pay an access fee of $1m to the WMF and makes a profit of $100m, precisely none of that goes to volunteers that created the data that is the content that Amazon is selling.
The WMF remains a non-profit, so that's all fine. Completely unrelated, there's been no action recently to give volunteers second-hand laptops the WMF has written off. Waiting is up to 2 years now... it would be nice to feel slightly more cared about as we make this content that fuels all this commercial interest. -- (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Fæ, you've gone way off topic to this thread... Mike Peel (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Mike, you know the village pump is for varied discussion, this is not a proposal or a RFC. The reason you would rather close down pointing out these facts about the promotion of Wikidata by the WMF for commercial sales is not really because this is a meandering discussion. Many folks are alarmed by this strategy and the lack of any detail about how it is being implemented by the WMF, it's not a fringe concern, it's core to the relationship between Commons and Wikidata, and why diverting or by design forcing our Commons volunteers into editing on Wikidata to display or add basic information about Commons content is highly problematic, and long term those volunteers are likely to feel misled. -- (talk) 10:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
My point was solely that you should have started a separate thread for this if you wanted, rather than going off topic. I think you're wrong/developing conspiracy theories, though. Mike Peel (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@: As respectfully and non-confrontationally as possible, I and I'm sure many others already know how you feel about Wikidata and everything related to it and are a bit tired of seeing you frequently jump to attack it in threads that are just looking for solutions to specific technical problems. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Facts about Commons on the Commons VP are not "attacks" on Wikidata.
Interesting point you make, but I don't recall mentioning the commercial access service on village pump at all in 2020, so why you feel that providing some facts and links to a WMF board member writing about it are "frequent" seems like shutting down me personally and fooling the reader in to thinking I'm a fringe obsessive. Putting 'non-confrontationally' in the same sentence given this context of a subject being mentioned once, speaks for itself. -- (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Somatochlora: Next time, try Help:Purge-ing the page cache on the non-mobile page. The appearance of pages on Commons is only updated when they are changed locally, so you may have to do this when you change something elsewhere that affects the page appearance. It's possible that the mobile and non-mobile versions have distinct caches, and someone may have done this after seeing your message. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
That must be it, thanks! Somatochlora (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Normally when this happens, I do a null edit (click edit then save without changes) and then purge the page, and that clears the cache. It can either be due to normal caching, or it can be an occurrence of phab:T233520, but the null edit + purge fixes both of those possibilities in the individual case. Interesting to hear that the mobile version updates quickly! (and any feedback on the choice of data to show in the infobox on mobile would be useful, BTW). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
ISTM cache-updating has been particularly slow recently. I overwrote an image a couple of weeks ago, and on some pages its thumbnails continued to show (a distorted version of) the previous picture for several days, despite a few purging attempts on my part. And in the past couple of days I’ve seen a handful of Talk and project pages not showing recent posts (except as diffs)—something I don’t recall encountering before. (Manual purging did work in these cases.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: I usually find that out-of-date thumbnails (especially if distorted) are caused by your browser's caching of the image, which is separate from Mediawiki's server caching. You could try clearing your browser's cache next time for that (Ctrl+F5 or Shift+F5 on most browsers). – BMacZero (🗩) 22:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: I doubt it could be my local cache because I’d never visited a couple of the category pages in question before. Unless the browser caches individual images, recognizing them regardless of the page they appear on? Even MediaViewer would briefly show an enlarged version of the previous thumbnail, before pulling up the current image in full-window resolution.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: That's actually exactly how it works, to my understanding. That type of caching is generally based on the image's URL rather than the page's URL because the main point is to save the browser from downloading images it's already downloaded. That also explains why you might get an old thumb but an up-to-date full-sized image because those are different image URLs (e.g. for the category thumb and for MediaViewer). – BMacZero (🗩) 03:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 04Edit

Kindergarten, day care, preschoolEdit

We now have separate category trees at least for Category:Kindergarten, Category:Day care and Category:Preschools. We also have e.g. Category:Child development centers, Category:Child day care, and Category:Nursery schools. Some of these are linked by {{Category see also}}, but only some, and only to a few of the others – and not all are under Category:Early childhood education or "see also"-linked to it. There are differences, some major, some subtle, but not consistent across countries.

I suppose it makes sense to have categories for specific systems like pre-kindergartens, or Montessori preschools, but shouldn't those preschools be in "by country" categories for more general terms? At least we should agree on a main category they all would belong to (or a few "see also"-linked categories).

Not all these categories are linked to Wikipedia articles by the same name, and few have descriptions, so what they are intended to cover remains unclear.

LPfi (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Surname category remains emptyEdit

Recently I created Category:Bettina Gilois. From Wikidata was added the not yet existing Category:Gilois (surname). I created that category, but the Category Bettina Gilois was not visible in that surname category. The null edit + purge did not help including that of Category:Surnames. As the Category:Gilois (surname) remains empty the sorting is according to the Bettina (given name) as can be seen in Category:Female screenwriters from the United States. What I fear is that at a certain moment a bot comes along and speedy deletes all empty categories in Category:Surnames. How to solve these problems? Wouter (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: I fixed it with this edit, purges, and a null edit.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, is this just a trick or is there an explanation too? In the latter case, there should be a warning that the label in the official language must also be entered in the label table. I made many of these surname categories and will check them as far as I can remember them. Wouter (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The infobox uses the English label to generate these categories, so you have to set that for the category to be populated. It's also good to add the commons sitelink if you can, as the infobox might switch to using those in the future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: That happens even if the family name originates from another language. It seems too English-centric because proper names are excluded from the English language requirement for cat names here. I didn't try using a label in another language.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried it with Category:Franck Balandier. The category Category:Balandier (surname) is empty. In the Wikidata Balandier the label in the official language is indicated as French. I also added for other sites the Category:Balandier (surname). The Category:Balandier (surname) remains empty and does not give a link to Wikidata. Wouter (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, again, you need to set the English label, at the top of the Wikidata item. Sorry if it's English-centric, that's one of the reasons we might want to change to the sitelinks in future. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and fixed it. Huntster (t @ c) 17:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical eventsEdit

Decision to make? Example: Category:Battle of Navarino, 1827.

The images of record for this battle were made by Category:George Philip Reinagle. We have sketches, studies, lithographs, watercolours and oil paintings of his eye witness records, based on a core of 12 views, extrapolated many times. We have other works of art that are inspired or copied from his (very well known) work by others.

To complicate matters the event was in the days before photography, art was the medium of record.

So we have cats for "Battle of Navarino" and "Battle of Navarino in art". In this context art for me is made up fantasy images. Whereas Sketches of record by participants in the battle, are something more than that; not art as such. We have History cats by date out there, before the American Civil War it was all art. That war itself, was a hybrid of art and photos.

What are the community's views on this? How best to categorize pre-photographic events such as this? How should Reinagle's work be represented? category: "Battle of Navarino as seen by by Reinagle"? or left in the main cat, which would be my preference given that we're not likely to exceed 80-90 images in total (80 of them art?)... Broichmore (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

December 05Edit

Add colorEdit

Please. Can someone make the tree green?
File:Menlo Park California Logo.svg
The color you can see here:
File:Menlo Park California Logo.gif
--Vlixes (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)