Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

November 27Edit

MP3 uploading is now liveEdit

(audio) Chopin - Waltz in E minor, B. 56
Performed by Olga Gurevich
Problems listening to the file? See Commons:Sound.

Admins, image reviewers, and extended uploaders (previously called MP3 uploaders) can now upload MP3 files to Commons. Also, all newly uploaded ogg vorbis files will automatically have MP3 versions created via transcoding (similar to what happens with video files).

If the community decides they want to open this up to more users, it's controllable via an abuse filter. I created a proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey to build an audio/video review tool for Commons to help automatically identify copyright violations and flag them for human review. Such a tool will probably be needed before opening up MP3 uploading to all users. If you want to support this proposal, please go to Meta and vote for it.

Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

::@Kaldari:, the abuse filter needs updating. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Never mind. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

here are two place to mass upload from: ; Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 01Edit

{{On Wikidata}}Edit

Hi, I'm writing here to get a broader audience than on the template's discussion page. Reason is this starting edit war with User:NeverDoING: see [1].

The documentation of {{On Wikidata}} says: This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Q20675724 (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm, no need to add {{On Wikidata}}, which obviously does not add information to the category (the link to the WD item is in the left menu anyhow). So why is there a need to additionally add a redundant {{On Wikidata}} with the item's own Wikidata-id (if so, could be also defaulted to own id)?

Can we clarify on the template documentation page, when to use and when not to use {{On Wikidata}}?

Disk with NeverDoING: [2], no answer until now. Pinging @Jean-Frédéric, ŠJů: as the main authors of the template. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: The template {{On Wikidata}} was created before several newer function and possibilities. However, there remain several types of situations where the template can be still useful.
Not every Commons page has its own corresponding Wikidata item page. Most of Commons categories are related to a specific item, they are counterparts of Wikipedia articles. However, if the corresponding Wikidata item page is linked with the Commons gallery page, it cannot be linked concurrently with the Commons category pages of identical item. Generally, to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard (and the gallery page is preferred to be linked with the Wikidata item page). That's one of reasons why some Commons category pages have not a direct link to Wikidata item via Wikidata interwikis. Similarly, if the Commons category page is linked with the Wikipedia category page, it cannot be linked directly with the Wikipedia article page and its Wikidata item page. As accurately says the documentation "This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so)."
The newer template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} is more sophisticated and is even able to extract interwikis using category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910) from the sister item page of the identical item. {{On Wikidata}} includes this template which enables to utilize both possibilities.
The template {{On Wikidata}} can be removed as duplicate (and replaced with {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) from those pages which are directly linked with a corresponding Wikidata item. However, in such cases, the change is needless because both the templates work identically. In other cases, {{On Wikidata}} needs to be kept. --ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů:, confuses me even more. What about my example? Is {{On Wikidata}} necessary or not? And why? We have a minor church, Commons category (P373) is set and we have a simple single page on WP - single item on WD - single commons category - relationship. It is rather unlikely that we will get a category for the church on WP side or a gallery for the church on Commons side (and if things change, we can change using {{On Wikidata}} too, in general we do use a quite iterative approach in the wikiverse). Setting Commons category (P373) on the WD item will allow to navigate from the WP article to the Commonscat (through the left menu, no need to add explicit Template:Commonscat) and allow to navigate from the commonscat to the articles in various languages. Not sure that I even understand what an interproject link is. I consider this to be one of the blocks at the end of an WD item: Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, ... and Wikivoyage and Other Websites (or excluding Other Websites?), you can set the commonslink under Other Websites but that is not necessary, Commons category (P373) is sufficient. In my example IMHO the negation of (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so) applies (means: an interproject link at WD **can** be used) and there is no need to add neither {{On Wikidata}} nor {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}. If this is not true, than there is a consistency constraint that **all** commons categories **must have** either {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (your last paragraph says so). This should be done by correct implementation, but we hope to achieve consistency in the long term by uncoordinated millions of user edits?
Just another remark to {{On Wikidata}} vs. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}: the later does not need an explicit item identifier, which is less error prone than the first.
The other way round: If 'to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard holds, is my usage of Commons category (P373) in Q20675724 (Q20675724) violating rules? (That's my standard proceeding). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: Regarding the edit war at Category:Saint John the Baptist Church (Sankt Johann in der Haide), the template {{On Wikidata}} is not needed there for now, but it is also not needed to remove the template. There is not probable (but also not impossible for the future) that that specific church will have its own category at any Wikipedia project - some other church can have its own category. Should such category appear sometime, the template {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} can extract interwikis from both linked Wikidata pages. I wish that Commons pages have this function implemented defaultly, without adding these templates. But it has not. That's why it can be better to have {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} at every page. Then we need not to prophesy which item has a chance to have sometime it's own Wikipedia category somewhere and which item hasn't.
I personally always supported the Commons-category - Wikipedia-article connection and opposed the gallery - article connection (however Commons-category - Wikipedia-category relation should be preferred to Commons-category - Wikipedia-article relation). Regrettably, designers of Wikidata (as I know) were mostly of the contrary opinion, even though galleries are of quite different character than articles. I have even a fear that some aggressive proponent of that opinion will erase the category-article connections all at once by a bot and destroy a lot of useful work of others.
Regrettably, all these problems were caused by ill-considered conception of Wikidata project which doesn't follow it's own principle that one item should have just one item page in Wikidata. IMHO one item page should link both together - article pages of the item as well as category pages of the item. Both the mentioned templates and P373, P301 and P910 properties are only surrogates which should reduce and compensate the basal defect. As soon as the problem is solved sometime, all the properties and templates can be transformed to interwiki links. Regrettably, such a progress is not in sight. --ŠJů (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů: Thanks a lot for your explanation and for your (fruitless) efforts to get it right. Still {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} should be preferred / replaced by bot, as it does not need the magic number already defined somewhere else. Alternatively {{On Wikidata}} should work without parameter set. Can you please change the documentation of {{On Wikidata}} accordingly, as deprecated in favour of {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} and that every commons category should have a {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (despite: when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Maybe the later can be also achieved by a bot? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think you're wrong about Commons category (P373) being sufficient to make interwiki links appear on Commons. Take Chad Brook (Q44198284) as an example. It has a sitelink to en:Chad Brook and a Commons category (P373) link to Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham. But on Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham no link to Wikipedia or Wikidata appears. In your example, Q20675724 (Q20675724), by contrast, there's a sitelink to Commons and a Commons category (P373) link, and I think it's the sitelink that causes the interwiki links on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21:, you are right. Usually I did link from the commons category to the appropriate WP article (via the adding-interlanguage-links feature in the menu) which creates a situation as in Q20675724 (Q20675724) and I always cared for that constraint. (I tried and reverted it also on your Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham). But doing so, creates the navigational links I mentioned above. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think, the quoted sentence from the documentation is still as accurate as was originally. This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). This condition applies especially to the case when the interproject link to Commons on the Wikidata item page is occupied by the gallery page, and that's why the Commons category pages cannot by associated with the Wikidata item. And analogously, if we would prefer links to the Commons category, the template can apply to the gallery pages. Btw., the two templates ({{On Wikidata}} and {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) should be merged, and should be usable in both ways - with a parameter (Q item code) (if the item page is not associated by Wikidata interwiki) and without a parameter. --ŠJů (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Some clarifications. Herzi Pinki wrote: Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Q20675724 (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm. No, adding Commons category (P373) does not add interwikilinks, only adding sitelinks to the items adds interwiki links to pages on Commons. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} template is a second way of adding interwiki links. I think it needs to be used with the q-code, in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, but it can be used without it in case of commons-category to wikidata-category links when you want interwiki links to link to articles instead of categories. I also like to have {{On Wikidata}} as it provides visual link to Wikidata. I also like using {{Wikidata person}} and {{Wikidata place}} templates. --Jarekt (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jarekt:, I corrected my error, see answer to Bjh21 above. But then it works like a charm (in case of commonscat - wd - wp article = 1: 1: 1 (no commons gallery, no wp, wikivoyage, etc, category). That I have to enter the commonscat in such a case in two places in wikidata, to allow different values in 1 of a 10000 cases, is annoying. And I do not agree that we need the q-code in case of commons-category to wikidata-article links, we need the q-code only, if the commonscat sitelink is not set on wikidata. As wikidata is our one and only central data repository, the link to commons (commonscat) **has** to be set on the wikidata side.
I understand your wish to have a visual link, but the visual link is already there in the left menu (and more visuality is a matter of css). Adding additional visual links for some purposes clutters the appearance of a page and makes it more difficult to find other stuff. So if we could keep the information in just a single place, it makes it much easier to find other information not duplicated for making it more important. Not everybody can sit in the first row. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki, sorry I did not see your correction. If I want a template to work on Commons I do not want to leave it up to users on Wikidata to keep the commons-category to wikidata-article sitelink when the usual attitude is that same namespace sitelinks are preferred. For example if we got together and agreed among ourselves that sitelink to category is always preferred over a sitelink to a gallery, than we could try to push such preference but at the moment you can add a template without q-code but at any point it can stop working due to edit on Wikidata and I am not even sure if I should reverse such edit. As for {{On Wikidata}} template it is a preference issue: You value lack of clutter more and I prefer ease of and speed of navigation. I have often the hardest time finding the link I am looking for at the left menu and find Wikidata icon much easier to locate. But as I said it is a matter of preferece and priorities. --Jarekt (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Agreed. Just allow me one more ideological remark: I consider the wikiverse as an interrelated common structure of parts called wikipedia, commons & wikidata (and some others), where we should do things where they are most effective and we should avoid doing duplicate work (especially if it puts workload on volunteers we consider to be an endless and completely scalable resource - they are not). What is the problem if someone replaces a commons category by a commons gallery on wikidata? As long as the gallery is categorized into the corresponding commons category (I consider this as a constraint), it is one more click for navigation (in 1 of 10000 cases) to the category. There btw is another design flaw in wikidata regarding commons: while there should be only one commons category for a real world object, commons galleries are by concept language specific (by naming conventions, but I never saw that) and there could be more galleries for a category showing various aspects; but the commons interwiki link can only hold one of those. regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki, let me start from the beginning. There are two ways (at the moment) that templates on Commons can learn the q-code of the related item:
  1. Q-code is hardwired, as we do with {{Creator}}, {{Authority control}} and many other templates
  2. Q-code is detected, because the commons page is linked as a sitelink from the item (or related category-item). That approach is used by {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}, {{VN}} and probably other templates
The second approach is nice because the link-data is only stored at a single location (on Wikidata) which simplifies maintenance. However in case of cross-namespace sitelinks, someone can just replaces a commons category by a commons gallery and break the template on Commons that was relying on it. By the way meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Allow_multiple_entry_from_same_site_on_wikidata and meta:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Wikidata#Stop_using_string_datatype_for_linking_to_pages_on_other_projects proposals could be a big help with this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Since I was mentioned) I honestly can’t remember which use case I had in mind when creating that template. Back then it was just a top-right icon and not a banner (so way more discreet). As others said this was all before we had other ways of integrations with Wikidata, so the template is definitely not always the best choice. Jean-Fred (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: Perhaps we should fork the template, with one template displaying just a top-right icon as originally designed by default, and the other displaying a banner as currently implemented by default, with optional parameters to trigger the other display method.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

December 02Edit

Frozen food + Liquid nitrogenEdit

How would you call the category of food frozen using liquid nitrogen? "food frozen in liquid nitrogen"? "food frozen using liquid nitrogen"? "liquid nitrogen food freezing"? I'd like to use what could sound more appropriate for an en-N.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: "Flash frozen food", or is that something different?   — Jeff G. ツ 13:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it used? Is it "neutral" in tone? I trust you... I just need a reliable name. I should/will put this category to remove two parent categories, so the key doubt is: is "flash" here equivalent to "using liquid nitrogen"?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
As a comparison, it should be used in files like this one, this one, I am not sure maybe also this one and there is some fancy image of "chemical cuisine" (how is it called, that modern style of cooking that shows off the use of chemistry?) too.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Wonder if this could be posted on [Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science] for better clarification. 'Flash frozen' is my choice. Commercially, food is not dunked into to liquid nitrogen because the sudden contraction and expansion shatters the food. The liquid nitrogen is 'sprayed' in at the end of the freezing process. The cold vapor then travels down the tunnel to cool the incoming food. Thus avoiding any sudden temperature changes but too quick for ice crystals to form and puncture the cell walls. Thermodynamically, it is more efficient this way. So mention of liquid nitrogen is not needed in the name of the category even though students let loose with a vacuum flask of nitrogen can use it to rapid freeze. P.g.champion (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I did not know that, interesting. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Still. This doesn't answer your query. As you are more than aware, we like to keep categories simple and logical, so thank you for running it by us in oder to get broader opinions. The Category:Liquid nitrogen now looks large enough to be split into two as you suggest. Think the original cat can be kept as it is for showing images concerning the liquefied gas itself and its containment flasks etc. Suggest a new cat called Freezing with liquid nitrogen. This can then include, not just foods such as File:Dragon's breath.jpg (which needs to be immersed in a cryogenic liquid in order to produce the desired effect) but also freezing flowers etc., so that they become brittle and shatter in ones hands. Soft flexible rubber to can be frozen this way so that it becomes solid enough to be turned on a lath or milled and drilled. All the interesting images of this nature can then be included in the new cat. When that cat fills up, we can then think about splitting it again. I am more than happy to create this cat if others think this is the logical taxonomy solution. It is an import question because getting it right now, will save a lot of time in the future. I've spent many fretful hours on WC, kicking badly structured cats back into shape. What do you think? P.g.champion (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've informed two projects on enwikipedia. Personally, I agree with the creation of "Freezing with liquid nitrogen" as a reliable starting point.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we could simplify it further and just have for the major cat Cooling with gases. Let me explain the semantics of freezing/cooling. We want to keep things simple and at their most basic. Most people -in normal speech- associate the freezing of object with said object undergoing a change of state. I.E., liquid to solid etc. This is via a process of cooling, which I think is a better broad scientific term. It encompasses, cooling using gaseous/liquid nitrogen, argon, gaseous/liquid/ solid/carbon dioxide and some more esoteric applications using helium etc. It should be obvious to the image up-loader which cooling method is involved and we want to make it easy for them to find the right cat to place it in and likewise, easy for someone searching WC to find the right cat. So I suggest a belt and braces approach. Cooling with gases as the main cat. Then (with a request that administrators don't delete empty sub cats) we (me even) can populate it with some sub cats which include Cooling with nitrogen. WC has a feature that when an up-loader searches for cats, all he will have to do is type in 'nitrogen' for cats. The list can then show amongst all the available options as Nitrogen, cooling with. Thus, making it obvious which cat is most suitable. Same for for dry ice etc. That will display in the list Dry ice, cooling with. Conversely, someone searching WC for images of a cooling method only has to type in nitrogen or dry ice etc., to find a list of categories dealing with these gases. Food stuffs (along with biological samples and seed archives) will then be easy to categories and sub divide as more images get uploaded. P.g.champion (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
As this could circle around for sometime,... I have created Category:Nitrogen used for cooling to show what it looks like. It can always be undone if nobody likes it. P.g.champion (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Before this discussion vanishes in the archive, I have thanked P.g.champion for the category and I think that it fits the scope.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


This is a sample

Jitra is a town located in Kedah, Malaysia. But the category have many child where not belong there. Can somebody cleanup that picture and only leave for the town one? Thank You.*angys* (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Convenience link: Category:Jitra. - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @: you uploaded these, any idea how this should be sorted out? - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand the question. -- (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
These files are tagged Jitra on Flickr, but they are apparently not referring to the town in Malaysia. I'm not sure what Jitra they refer to. --ghouston (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's possible that it just means "morning". --ghouston (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
In the example the tag appears to refer to a Czech folk group; Dubinek is another.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
So can we create a Category:Jitra (Czech folk group) for these? - Jmabel ! talk 16:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Seeing no objection, I will do that. - Jmabel ! talk 06:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't object, because at least it cleans up the Malaysian town. But I'm not entirely convinced that Jitra is the name of folk group. At least, we have File:31.8.15 1 ZZ Bavoracek 031 (21050225281).jpg that says something like "detsky folklorni soubor Dubinek / Barovacek", or "the folklore ensemble Dubinek / Barovacek", and if we Google those we find pages that do seem to be folk groups [3] and [4], but I can't find any page like that for "Jitra". Who knows. --ghouston (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Feel free to fix those up however you want. My guess is that none of them will ever be used for much, but I just wanted to get them out of polluting Category:Jitra. Once I looked through and decided they didn't look particularly useful, I did not take time to evaluate or analyze them further. I just fulfilled the apparent intent (classify them in as the folk group Jitra). - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Dubinek appears to be better known; my identification of Jitra was based on a few mentions on pages like this (Google Translate: “The following ensembles performed here: […], Jitra, […] and, of course, our ensemble.” and this (GT: “The [youth] and children's folk ensemble Dubínek from Sezimovo Ústí will take part […], accompanied by Jitra.”) The latter prompts me to speculate that they’re a musical group that plays for folk dancers, but at any rate they seem to be part of the South Bohemian ‘folk scene’.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. --ghouston (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Freedom of panoramaEdit

After uploading photos of a public sculpture, I have become concerned about the copyright status. The photos were for the article Digital DNA. The sculpture has generated a lot controversy, and photos appear in numerous places, including:

The possible solutions to to the copyright problem might be:

1. Ask the artist to use commons licensing, through orts.

2. Ask the artist to furnish a photo with the necessary commons license.

3. Use a photo in which the sculpture is in the background.

4. Use some other exception for considering the artwork in the public domain. Even the government web site is using images of the sculpture. All these news organizations seem to have a way around the copyright.

5. Does fair use apply, since there is controversy about removing the artwork because it is weathered or defective. The photo shows the condition of the art.

What should I do? Comfr (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Upload a low-res version to Wikipedia as non-free content? See en:Wikipedia:Non-free_content. --ghouston (talk) 05:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Comfr, Ghouston: There are other projects than English Wikipedia which accept non-free content; all are listed at m:nfc.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comfr -- The de minimis doctrine is for when you've incidentally captured some part of something copyrighted in a photograph, but the main purpose of the photograph is something quite different. If you're using "a photo in which the sculpture is in the background" for the purpose of illustrating the sculpture, then you're violating at least the spirit of de minimis. But thanks for linking to the en:Digital DNA article, which is quite entertaining... AnonMoos (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the fair use hypocrisy. contemporary art, that are widely published, are denied here, because "have a care for the downstream profiting reusers" whoever they are. you can write an article on english and get one fair use image. consensus is cast in stone. you can save images to flickr. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything "hypoctritical" about having policies and applying them consistently. Hypocrisy would be making "convenient" exceptions. I may not love all the policies, but they are generally community decisions that have been hashed out at length. - Jmabel ! talk 02:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Some of the sites linked above probably can claim fair use, e.g., for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching". How can an image archive like Commons claim fair use? Can Commons host any file as long as it has a "fair use only" disclaimer on it? I doubt it. --ghouston (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
the policy is not consistently applied: on the contrary, it is the symptom of an ideology, that deletes what it is not interested in, like say art, and fights to the death the "censorship" of porn. (and dictates license terms to institutions, who use NC, as it allows hybrid licenses with NC). it is fundamentally at odds with the sum of all knowledge. art history go away, we do not value your knowledge. and hey if knowledge graph and now everipedia steal views, that is just fine, they are not as pure as us. new users are baffled, maybe a warning template of license purity FAQ is in order. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Whether Commons should censor porn or host NC files doesn't seem relevant to this particular case. Porn can't be hosted on Commons as fair use, and the Digital DNA sculpture isn't even licensed NC. --ghouston (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
it goes directly to the claim of hypocrisy. it is not the free license, or scope or policy, but rather it is who the uploader is. the list of examples is enormous. lacking a standard of practice, the community thrashes with periodic drama, but it is not unhypocritical. you realize there is an ocean of fair use with PD-old that is only curated by waves of drama, not teamwork? let's not look. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is fundamentally at odds with the sum of all knowledge. If you wish to run the Pirate Bay version 2, go ahead, but that's not us. If you like art, then perhaps you should reconsider pirating artists' works instead of letting the artists profit from their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
i love the reflexive ad hominem to "pirate bay", to criticism of this place. you are holier than they are. being without a standard of practice or code of conduct will inevitably lead to inconsistent and even hypocritical decisions. you should not imagine that outside people with standards will not notice. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
You mean standards like knowing what ad hominem means? Anyone without a standard of practice cannot engage in inconsistent or hypocritical decisions; each decision is then de novo and thus can not be inconsistent with the last. Complaining that we delete art and keep porn (a silly accusation if you actually look) is complaining about what are standards are, not that they don't exist.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
you means standards like RIAA, MPAA and author's guild? anyone without a standard lives the hypocrisy, as they thrash from day to day from one sophistical excuse to another, but the ignorance is not de novo, it is an affect. complaints of inconsistent deletions are a waste to Cretans. and rest assured, the professionals are staying away from interacting with this morally challenged site. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 07Edit


Hi, anybody here wanting to take a look at this category to be renamed --> English text. Thank you for your time. :) Lotje (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Challenge: date this tin of buttonsEdit

"Honeyco", 2lb tin of honey

Can anyone suggest a date for the original design of this tin? I'm guessing the 1940s based on style and appearance of the earliest buttons stored in the tin. Someone may have an idea of how to discover more about the company, Honeyco, which was in New Zealand, or in fact remember their products. Thanks -- (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This is out of my wheel house so I'll just add what few crumbs I found. The patent for the tin itself is dated 1934. You can also see a honey can from the same company (the canning company) here with a press-in lid, so they changed the type of can at one point. A similar but slightly different press in lid from same company can be seen here and that page says 1960s. So based on that limited information would lead someone to believe it is from somewhere between the 1930s and before the 1960s. I know that isn't much help, but hopefully someone more knowledgeable can chime in. - Offnfopt(talk) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming a terminus post quem, nice work. I saw the patent number but was unsure how to track it down. Maybe someone will be able to find a logo redesign date which can pin it to over 70 years old. -- (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
If you wanted to take a look at the patent you can find it on the New Zealand Intellectual Property Office site. - Offnfopt(talk) 20:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • The Internal Marketing Division mentioned on the tin, existed between 1937 and 1948. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Given the state background, it seems likely that the design would be unchanged after the war. It seems safe to presume a pre-1946 terminus ante quem for the design, if not the specific tin. Thanks for the research, great evidence. -- (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tool for removing pages from DJVU files?Edit

Are there any tools for removing pages from DJVU files? (Especially for cases like File:Annali_della_Scuola_Normale_Superiore_vol._VI_1889.djvu.) Kaldari (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Install the djvulibre package, and use "djvm -d[elete] doc.djvu pagenum".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Flickr's Top-25 photos of 2017Edit Unfortunately, only two allow reproduction, both NC-SA. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultationEdit

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team invites all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

How can you help?

  1. Share your ideas on the discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
  2. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  3. Help with translation.
  4. If you know of previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

We are looking forward to learning your ideas.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

December 09Edit

"Upload to Commons with flinfo or Bryan's upload tool": Both brokenEdit

WDFIST is great to search for free images to use on Wikipedia.

For any search, it shows available Flickr images with links: "Upload to Commons with flinfo or Bryan's upload tool".

Unfortunately, these two tools say "SSL_ERROR_RX_RECORD_TOO_LONG" and "No webservice" for my query.

After a WDFIST search, users usually want to upload one or several of the results to Commons, so it would be great if we could have a tool for that :-) Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Syced: Do you have a link? And where it is lined from? I see nothing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I edited my question to add a link to my query, thanks! Syced (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert? How does it even work?Edit

I tried reverting File:Barhagaunmuktichhetra.png to its original version. After four attempts all I have is a lot of versions. Can someone please delete the versions? I have given up on the revert already. It just doesn't work. Aditya (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Aditya Kabir, it looks like your first revert worked. You may have needed to be patient while the image thumbnail was regenerated, and to clear your browser's cache in order to see the change. Of course there were then subsequent reverts and now the file is back to the uploader's 2nd version. seb26 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And, in the process I have managed to generate a large number of silly versions. Can someone delete them? Aditya (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted some of the intermediate versions and hope we now have the intended one since it wasn't clear what you were trying to achieve. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
you need to purge your cache. if you go to preferences you can set a maintenance tool check box to add a page purge drop down button. [5] given that this is a common UX failure maybe we should enable for all editors. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Why the hidden category is not removed?Edit

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

They were directly categorized --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, but should not the category be removed automatically by the time the image is reviewed and verified? --Mhhossein talk 13:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It would work if Category:Tasnimnews review needed is categorized by some review template, just as Category:Flickr review needed is categorized by {{Flickreview}}. Tasnimnews unfortunately uses {{Licensereview}} and uses direct categorization via substitution. The reviewing script AFAIK only changes template tags, and not category tags. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

December 10Edit

Bug changing category names with HotCatEdit

Hi. in these weeks I am dealing with a lot a files because of the current Wiki Science Competition 2017 and I keep noticing something almost once or twice a day. It looks like a problem of page update maybe, but it wasn't there months ago, not that I recall.

Here it is: when I open a input box of category to change the string adding some text in front of it for example, I can write the first letter, than it automatically jumps at the end of the word. see this edit. Usually I would have written quickly "green" in front of "light", than looked at the screen one second later and corrected the capital "L" form light. But in these weeks If I click at the beginning of the text, write "green" on my keyboard and look at it after that, "Glightreen" appears. At this point, I usually delete everything and start from zero.

I just want to know if you have experienced something similar as well. I use Firefox, on Windows 10 on a brand new ACER. I was too busy to make consistent tests with other combination but I can do it later. I can simply start to use the other web browser, but I am curious.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I have seen that off and on for a long time. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
So I am not the only one! There's hope it will be fixed :D I have never noticed, when I was mostly using my older MAC with IE or Firefox.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This isn't something that just happens occasionally. It's something Hotcat always does. Go to any category, and insert any letter at the beginning, and the cursor will jump to the end. It doesn't happen if you insert a letter at any other position. I have no idea why it does it. --ghouston (talk) 09:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems to be related to the capitalization. If you insert an upper case letter it doesn't happen. --ghouston (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, strange I never noticed in all the other moments I had to massively use it. 1) was it discussed on Phabricator? 2) does it occur sometimes even when used on local wikipedias?--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Templates not being expanded on user talk pageEdit

I can't tell if User talk:Talmoryair has broken a July 2017 final warning for copyright violations, because the warning templates they've been given since then are all unexpanded. Is this a bug, or do templates just stop being processed beyond a certain page size? --Gapfall (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The page has been added to Category:User talk pages where template include size is exceeded, take a look at that page, it includes more information. - Offnfopt(talk) 13:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Is it appropriate to step in and archive another user's talk page for them, at that point? It doesn't seem great that we're trying to warn the user about copyright issues (which they could potentially clarify and fix for us) and they're just getting mangled, empty messages with nothing to click. --Gapfall (talk) 13:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm all for a policy which forces users who have more templates than MediaWiki allows to archive their talk page. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Proposed. --Gapfall (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
fix your semi-automated templates. your code bloat is your problem. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

December 11Edit

Conventions for SVG-Files?Edit

I've got some problems with uploading my svg-files and the resulting pngs. I've found out by trial and error what's not possible:

  • CSS for presentational attributes
  • HSL-Color codes

Are there any webpages/ discussions related to SVG? This page (Help:SVG) doesn't seem to cover my problems. TIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by MScharwies (talk • contribs) 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The first issue is discussed at Help:SVG#Stylesheet. I've never heard of HSL (I have heard of HSV, but I'm not sure what it has to do with SVG). Anyway, there's Commons:Graphics village pump and Help_talk:SVG... AnonMoos (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. HSL_and_HSV are color Codes like hex-values and rgba. With them you can easily change to a lighter or darker hue, by just adapting the Luminance.
I will search the Links - especially the Help_talk:SVG ----MScharwies (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Hi, someone hanging around who is willing to move "in one go" "policecar" into "police car"? It hurts my eyes. :) Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It's OK in file names (should be corrected in file descriptions). AnonMoos (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Lotje, AnonMoos: ✓ Done per AnonMoos's specs.   — Jeff G. ツ 10:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just came across another one... Lotje (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Needs something to be done on [ "protrait" in the filename? Lotje (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Batch uploads of interest in DecemberEdit

Good news everyone! Right now there are four interesting batch upload projects well underway in December, this is a shout out for anyone with some volunteer time spare to help with reuse and categorization. Samples and explanations below. If there are suggestions for mass improvements that could realistically be automated as part of housekeeping, please drop a note on my talk page. -- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Project page search
Category:Collections of the Cooper–Hewitt, Smithsonian Design Museum

Cooper Hewitt is a design museum, part of the Smithsonian Institution. Collections include the history of decorative arts and design. The batch upload will probably add around 70,000 photographs to Commons and should complete this week. Requested by Kaldari (archive).

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Auckland Military MuseumEdit

Project page search
Category:Images from Auckland Museum

In addition to military history, the collections include a very wide variety of oddities both early and modern. It is uncertain how many images will be uploaded, the current estimate is over 200,000. Requested by Noideawhatiamdoing on Commons:Batch uploading.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ordnance Survey maps of BritainEdit

Category:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:10560
Category:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:2500

These are high resolution scans of the 19th century Ordnance Survey maps of Britain. The 1:2500 scale maps (png) are selected cities with very fine details down to the level of individual houses and facilities from Jewish cemeteries to public toilets. The 1:10560 (tiff and jpeg) is a complete map of Britain and is about half way through the uploads in alphabetic order. The maps are a great resource for research into local history or might be an interesting way to map some monuments photographs. Volunteers are needed to create galleries, similar to the London map.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

MP3 music from IncompetechEdit

Project page
Category:Audio files from Incompetech

Thanks to Commons now accepting mp3 files, we are uploading 1,277 mp3 music files originally hosted by Incompetech available a cc-by license; no need for transcoding and the upload should complete today! The music makes for great tracks to sample for video creation, background for an application or to just to listen to while jogging. Requested by ShakespeareFan00 on Commons:Batch uploading. Files are categorized by genre.

-- (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In followup, it would be nice if Commons contributors identified the composers of works here Category:Classical_music_from_IncompetechShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Mint logo.png - overwritten by unrelated fileEdit

I found this file and I'm not sure how to deal with it...

The original upload (from 2010) is a screenshot of Linux Mint, and it was overwritten in 2015 by a logo of some Turkish movie company (MinT Motion Pictures). This second version may very well be a copyright violation. And on top of that, the file is used on two Wikipedias (different languages), where in one case the first version should appear, and in the other case the second one.

I thought maybe somebody else should look into that; I hope this is the right place to ask.

Thanks, Novarupta (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It should be split.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. -- User: Perhelion 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50Edit

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Images from eBayEdit

I'd like to upload more images of out-of-copyright two-dimensional objects (postcards, bank notes, cheques, etc) from eBay, does anyone know of a script or other tool to expedite this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea but do not know of any tools that might be helpful. --Jarekt (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I like the idea too but my concern is that it would too easily be misused by newbies to upload images of 3 dimensional works, which don't fall into 'slavish copies' of two dimensional works for which there is no copyright. Ebay is undoubtedly a cornucopia of such great useful images. Therefore think, such a tool would be very useful but think it would need to be special written. First and foremost, to place the uploaded images into a Limbo category. To be released only after editors experienced in the subtle differences of copyright have reviewed them. As the OTRS team are already overloaded with reviews, maybe we could create a second-tier level of reviewers that can distinguish flat from 3 D. We have plenty of script writers that can take on this challenge if the result is worth the effort. Just a thought. P.g.champion (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

December 12Edit