Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/05.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [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.

April 25Edit

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HuangFei 2018.jpgEdit

抱歉,我英文不好,我被告知一定要來這裡討論。 我也很不習慣這裡的討論方式, 最後我被逼著一定要來這裡回。


就算錯也得有個開始。 我用中文回,哪裡有錯就再修改吧! 謝謝。



剛才發現這裡的編輯環境會把換行符號吃掉,所以我還得補上標點符號。 給 Kai3952,你覺得我都不理你? 你也不理我啊!你看,我回你信了,你有回我嗎?

當你自顧自的一直寄信來我信箱時,你有沒有想過我完全無法回應你?然後你自己就可以寫一兩個 pagedown,猜測一大堆。 在單向沒有溝通的狀況下,你可以一再寄信,而我心中滿滿的話全部找不到方法回應。 看著我也很急。

我覺得 wiki 首先應該把這個回信機制給做出來,不然我們很難有開始。 對於母語不是英文的人(雖然我是工程師,寫了二十年程式,但我習慣看的文件和這種型式不一樣;而且我承認因為我英文不好,所以看錯了很多文件,相當程度的影響了我閱讀文件的能力) 對於操作 wiki 不熟練的人,這都是門檻。

一開始我甚至不知道這個 edit 鍵按下去就可以參與討論,因為這不是 document,文件嗎? 我們對於 wiki 的文件就是尊重,一堆英文看到就是忽略,最大限度的不去影響已經運作的東西,只修改自己維護的頁面。

拖了十幾二十天,我終於按下 edit 鍵了,謝天謝地。 你們千萬別因為這篇不合格式什麼的就刪了,不然我可沒法子開始了! (這種討論真是見鬼了,所以我也可以任意修改別人的發言?雖然你們可以去查 log 知道誰做的並還原,但這不是很辛苦嗎? 這裡是不是只有理組,沒有文組的人?不知道怎麼越過溝通的最後一哩路嗎?) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

2021/05/05 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

^^^ The above was added belatedly to this section, at the top, by an un-signed-in IP. I don't read Chinese, and have no idea whether it is on-topic. Would someone please either translate it, or if it is off-topic delete it along with this remark? - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not good, I was told that I must come here to discuss.

I am also very unaccustomed to the way of discussion here, In the end I was forced to come here back.

I am here.

Even if it is wrong, there must be a beginning. I will reply in Chinese, and modify it if there is a mistake! Thank you.

My account is Piper Shepherd Boy, and my real name is Huang Ruichang.

Thank you.

I just found out that the editing environment here will eat newline characters, so I have to add punctuation marks. To Kai3952, do you think I ignore you? You ignore me! You see, I replied your letter, did you reply to me?

When you keep sending letters to my mailbox, have you ever thought that I can't respond to you at all? Then you can write one or two pagedowns yourself and guess a lot. When there is no one-way communication, you can send letters over and over again, but I can’t find a way to respond to all the words that are full of my heart. Looking at me is also very anxious.

I think the wiki should first make this reply mechanism, otherwise it will be difficult for us to get started. For people whose native language is not English (Although I am an engineer and have written programs for 20 years, the documents I am accustomed to reading are not the same as this type; and I admit that because my English is not good, I read a lot of documents wrong, to a considerable extent Affects my ability to read files) For those who are unskilled in operating a wiki, this is a threshold.

At first, I didn't even know that you could participate in the discussion by pressing the edit button, because this is not a document, is it a file? We respect the wiki files. When we see a bunch of English, we just ignore them. We don't affect what is already in operation to the greatest extent and only modify the pages we maintain.

After more than ten or twenty days, I finally pressed the edit button, thank goodness. Don’t delete this because it’s out of format, otherwise I won’t be able to start! (This kind of discussion is really hell, so I can also modify other people's speeches at will? Although you can check the log to know who did it and restore it, isn't it very hard? Are there only people in the rationale group and no literary group? Don't know how to cross the last mile of communication? )

translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at my previous edit and you'll see that I nominated this image for deletion. Because the source given is "Facebook," and the image author (黃瑞昌) stated in the Facebook site is not the same name as the uploader (吹笛牧童), which suggests it might not be the uploader's own work and therefore potentially a copyright violation. It's my regular way of checking whether pictures are copyvio or not.

The uploader refused to talk to me and instead lodged a complaint with Reke against me. Here you can see that they are discussing me on the PTT site. I believe the uploader does not understand our policy with regard to OTRS. But Reke doesn't think so. Instead, he believes that my Asperger's syndrome caused the problem. I feel like Reke was overdoing it a little bit rather than really focusing on discussing to the image itself. Any case should be focusing on how to make the user do his consideration of the issue in a less hostile fashion, not personal attack. So, I go to his talk page to discuss it with him.

From his reply (1, 2) I feel he understand the licensing and OTRS policies very well. Because he told me that, from his experience, in this case it is not necessary to request the permission, only you (Kai) would do it via OTRS, and that's why the problem is occurring. But what I see is that the author is 黃瑞昌 and not 吹笛牧童. The uploader does not provide evidence of permission, then how do we know if he got the rights on this image?

Look at [1]. The uploader is upset with what I did. I can see from his tone and attitude that he seems to be angry. Because the correspondence between himself and Reke indicates that my intention was fight somebody. I'm trying to keep myself out of controversy, but...Reke banned me for disruptive editingwith respect to the images without permissions, and strongly upheld policies what he said. Until now I still can't nominated any images for delete.

I would be greateful if one of you that know a bit more the licensing and OTRS policies than I could have look and see if what I do is correct.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The claim there is that OTRS is in progress. Either we will get adequate permission and it will be kept, or we won't and it won't. Nothing worthy of discussing at VP. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmm…I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain what I did wrong?--Kai3952 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      @Kai3952: We got adequate permission two years ago, and it is filed in Ticket:2019080410000399. You were right to suspect a photo prima facie sourced to Facebook.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Now the problem is not that we got adequate permission two years ago, however, the uploader and Reke both indicated that there is a serious problem with my way of checking copyvio and use of {{Delete}} in pictures. If I am right why did Reke say on my talk page: "in this case it is not necessary to request the permission"? I am starting to feel confused about our policies. You see: 1 and 2, I did the same thing as yours, but the result I got is like the example you saw earlier (in which the uploader lodged a complaint with Reke against me). I don't know what I did wrong at all. Because Reke is a volunteer who doesn't just work for Wikimedia Taiwan, he do care for a needy user (except me). As you know now, I followed his suggestion, or I should say, I did buckle under his pressure. In my case if this is not resolved then I can not nominated any pictures for deletion. I's not the case when we think we are doing it right. You would think we did really great, but I am sure there are things we need to resolved.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Kai3952: For the first of those links, your first step should have been the "No permission" link or {{subst:npd}}. The second link seems fine.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    If so, then take a look at this. Jmabel told me that, "If the answer to both of those is "yes," then fine, no need to use OTRS. Otherwise, OTRS or delete." As far as I could judge from what I saw from the source of the image:, it might not be the uploader's own work and therefore potentially a copyright violation. But Reke doesn't think so. Instead, he believes that the normal average person can judge the image was uploaded by the author and does not need to be confirmed via the OTRS process. See: Reke's reply on my talk page. If your ability to discern the copyvio images is the same as mine, then I don't understand why he corrected me. I have been wondering if there is any way to prove that our policies are fully justify (for example, images previously published in Facebook need OTRS-permission)?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think you did anything wrong. Legitimate challenge, OTRS requested (uploader seems to have resented being asked to give confirmation to claim; that happens sometimes). Seems resolved. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Seems resolved? Why? Did you not see that I also mentioned what Reke said?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @Infrogmation:. Actually, to ask OTRS can't solve the question in this case. If we believe the Facebook User 黃瑞昌 is "User:吹笛牧童", we can believe it at the beginning. An OTRS permission can't prove that 黃瑞昌 (on FB) is User:吹笛牧童. If the photo is from a organize, we can check the domain name of the mail is belong the organize or not. But if the photo is from a person, OTRS means you don't believe his statement, and ask some information that still can't confirm anything. That's why some uploaders resented.--Reke (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Reke: Once the OTRS team establish communication, someone on the team can (for example) request a PM on Facebook verifying the identity of the Commons account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Okay, but the other problem is e can't prove that the photo is belong the Facebook account right ? As the opinion from 吹笛牧童, he felt that is not a useful way but annoyed. I also heard some new volunteers thinking as him. Can we just ask OTRS for those photos which have stronger reason for us to doubt? --Reke (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                • @Reke: Today I realized that you have too many misunderstandings about our policies, because you have had strong views about this from the beginning. You assumed that 吹笛牧童 was 黃瑞昌, and asked me to believe him, which is unreasonable. To some extent, you seem to encouraging us to "ignore" the licensing and OTRS policies. OTRS can not only obtain permission from the author, but also prove whether the facebook account user is the author or not. If you want to keep the photo, then you should convince the uploader to provide proof otherwise of owning copyright instead of resisting the policies. Unfortunately, you choose to believe your views and then you accusing me of doing something wrong. Up until now, I still haven't seen your apology nor your admission of your mistakes. Honestly, uploader's resentment comes from themselves. Because they can neither try to understand nor accept the OTRS policy. I am aware of 吹笛牧童's views on the issue, if he does not want to obtain permission via OTRS, the best way is to upload the original file directly to Commons.--Kai3952 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • I would say that all policies are for a better Wikimedia movement. A contributor need do more things just because he/she doesn't publish his/her own work on Commons first, that is so unfriendly to many photographers. They often share their work on social networking sites as soon as they finish shooting. If we only think on the basis of the Wikimedia, we will lose a lot of new users and good photos. Even if I know this regulation, I hope it can be amended; or at least be more flexible in its implementation. --Reke (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                    @Reke: Each of the photographers who "share their work on social networking sites as soon as they finish shooting" may post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work (or identify the name of their Commons account) on their website or social media presence (anywhere their work appears online before uploading here) and refer to such on each file description page or their user page, or they may send the photo(s) and such permission or account identification via OTRS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • Or post higher-res and full EXIF here, or indicate on their social media account that they have this particular Commons account, or deal with OTRS one time around to verify that the social media account in question is run by the same person as the Commons account … - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
                      • @Jeff G., Jmabel: Sorry to ping you again, but I must report to fulfill my reporting obligations. When I tried to help him (the uploader) with my experience from many years in the Commons, he went to PTT to lodge a complaint against me. I do not know the cause for this, but I suspect that one reason may be that he chose to learn how to work with others in an "incorrect" way because all his photos are uploaded with his account that was logged into it on Commons. This shows that he can put feelings aside to learn how to work with others. However, he twisted my words so that it seemed like I was accusing him of resisting the policies. Look at all responses from PTT, everyone were criticizing me and showing they disrespect me (or, say, they are very unacceptable to how Commons works) because Albito said: "我只能說是那個人有問題,沒人有義務幫忙幫到底," and also say: "只會要求別人配合他,本來就不是來談事情而是來找架吵的." Andrew43 too had added fuel to the fire and said: "把問題提出來討論。根本和小學生一樣." None of them really gets at why Commons need to get an OTRS-permission from 黃瑞昌. Judging from their criticism there are some who seem to believe that our discussions are like elementary school students. I don't know what that means. Our all are mentally immature kids? No matter what it means to us, they have proven that they are ignorant of Commons's policies and how Commons works. That's why I said that the uploader's learning was a "incorrect" way. If he really needs our help, he knows to go back to Commons and to ask users from Taiwan (like Reke) for help. On Commons, there's a genuine plethora of people from Chinese speaking environments to edit files, in which some of them are often active on Commons and on other Wikipedias. Personally I think they can provide any help to 吹笛牧童 but I don't know what he is thinking about nor know why he acted the way he did (which means he went to PTT and to ask for help). His action is inconsistent with his need/expectation so I get confused with his illogicality. However, I feel he seems to imply that we are not cooperating him in the way he want or to imply that we are not as good as those who helped on PTT. Actually I have helped him, and I specifically told him in my email that, if you cannot accept the policy OTRS then I won't force you. I am neither interested in his photos nor hostility against him. The majority of my discussion is based on improving Commons or learn how improve my own actions. Given that he will twist your words as much as he want, I recommend any user that is interested in 吹笛牧童's photos to take this into account, not just to request OTRS. Furthermore, the same problem occurred with another photo File:Anne2289-fixed.jpg. The summary shows that the author is 小胖 and not 吹笛牧童. When I saw his complaint, my time tells me that I should do something more beneficial for Commons. So...I decided to stop wasting my time on helping him. If the problem still occurs, please don't ping me or say "Kai3952". From now on I don't give in to ignorant people. In order to continue doing this work sustainably, I must rethink how to not to be misled by their claims about their supporting evidence that I have Asperger's syndrome (which means they believe that my ability affect to get along with others such as I report to COM:DR that suspicious photos with no evidence of permission). I very appreciate to Jeff G and Jmabel. I got self confidence and courage from our talks. You not only provides me with the best assistance but also proves that I am a normal and healthy person.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: @Jeff G.:, thanks a lot. That is a better way to those contributor. However, how could they know this way in the first time they uploaded? The "Interactive Release Generator" will give a template mail for these kind users?--Reke (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • When other Taiwanese users (like PsychokillerFa) abide by the OTRS policy, why only 吹笛牧童 has a "strong reaction" to our requests for permission? I think OTRS itself is not a problem as it's not to damage anything to get those desired results or cause any trouble to uploaders. It just annoys me when he play the victim role on PTT. Honestly he did not take responsibility for himself. We should be aware that a uploader must abide by the licensing and OTRS policies so we still insist on requesting it this way under no permission. Unless someone want to prove that he/she is an uncooperative user himself/herself.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 03Edit

Sock puppetryEdit

Hello, do we have any sock puppet like policy here on commons as well? A user on English Wikipedia help desk asked for some help in deleting their files from commons. I doubt that that user is perhaps a sock because the files they gave the links to have been uploaded by an other username who says that they are from England while the user at English Wikipedia help desk says that they are from Brazil. The doubt maybe wrong. But, see if this is any problem. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain:, per "Commons:Blocking policy" it reads:
"Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances."
Though for it to be considered sockpuppetry it should satisfy one of these, if the user simply uses another account and requests deletion without attempting to do the above then it is simply using multiple accounts rather than misusing them. It might be more likely they the user is lying and isn't the original uploader, also courtesy deletions must come from the original uploader and they must be able to verify it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lightbluerain: Any idea why they are pursuing a prospective Commons deletion on en-wiki rather than nominating the file for deletion here on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There are Commons admins who will block accounts for a suspicion of non-damaging multiple accounts, bulk delete all their uploads (even the good stuff) and then squat on the user page to remove any unblock requests afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocking accounts on sus, not evidence, should be firmly condemned. Someone with sysop rights who persistently abuses them this way should be desysoped, they are being a "bad cop". -- (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, obviously. And just as obviously, Welcome to Wikipedia! There is no sanction on admins, you know this.
User talk:SandyShores03 / Deleted content (No DR filed, they were just deleted)
User talk:HefePine23 / Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HefePine23
I raised this at User talk:Elcobbola#Titanic amount of deletions re: SandyShores03 and they didn't edit for a week, conveniently giving the DR long enough to run that it might be closable. Of course I didn't receive a reply anywhere.
Their response to a Request for Unblock was to revert, reverted and the page locked.
@Elcobbola:, as is usually expected. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Problems with Elcobbola Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley:, perhaps my response is not needed here but because the question was raised in my section only, I am responding: I didn't totally understand your case. I just went through some of the links you gave. If you think they made a mistake, we are all humans and are supposed to do so. Now, if there is anything you can do to amend it, then go on. If you can not, leave it. Not everything always goes per our wish. All-time complaining develops mental stress in ourselves and the second person. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
An illustrative example is the person that happily uploaded photographs in Hong Kong. To protect their anonymity they used a different account every time they did some uploads, literally hundreds of accounts.
Considering later political events in Hong Kong, the use of sock accounts in this way is completely legitimate and their anonymity should be respected, not circumvented because someone is arbitrarily obsessed with outing sock accounts when there is no evidence of abuse. -- (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: and @Andy Dingley:, thanks for the info. @:, I agree with this. @Jmabel:, I have no idea. Here is the link to the question. Maybe the user didn't know about where to ask on commons. Lightbluerain (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine that we will find ourselves deleting a properly licensed geometric image because someone considers it sacred, or because it resembles something someone considers sacred. Neither one is a particularly unusual geometric image. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel:, I agree but I understand the user's perspective. I know a sect near me who use similar curvy triangular figures and call it the Eternal Place. Pretty wierd, but they do so. So, if the user has any issue, I think it is better to get the images deleted rather than getting them into trouble. Lightbluerain (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, what am I supposed to do now? Should I ping the user here? Tag their images with appropriate template? Or, talk to them on their English Wikipedia talk page? The question on the help desk got archived now. Lightbluerain (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting more 360-degree photospheres on CommonsEdit

I noticed recently that Category:360° panoramic photographs has only a few hundred entries. Compared to roughly 170,000 videos and 72 million total files, that's basically nothing. Trying to be forward-thinking, I think there's a very plausible case that VR photography is going to be very important in the future once we're all walking around with VR headsets, and that not having a VR photo of a place will be as noticeable as not having a color photo is to us today. It'd be nice to stay ahead of the curve, and while some of that involves support we need from the WMF, I'm sure there are things we could be doing ourselves. Does anyone have ideas about how we can encourage more of these to be uploaded? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Right now we don't even have support for non-photosphere panoramas. {{Pano360}} used to have support for files like File:Charles W Morgan and Thames River 360 panorama from City Pier, New London.jpg that are 360 degrees horizontally but not a full photosphere, but that functionality no longer works. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Many of the 360° photo's don't have the template {{Pano360}} and/or it does not work properly. What I like of using 360° photography is the possibility of creating virtual tours in for example museums where you can go from one room to another and zoom in on paintings. Wouter (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
When the day comes that we're all walking around with VR headsets on, people will probably be too focused on navigating their jetpacks between all the flying cars to bother with 360° photographs available on Commons. Besides which 360° photographs are not stereoscopic. Having said that, as someone with a penchant for panoramas I'd love to see 360° scrolling made available (360° x 180° photospheres, not so much). nagualdesign 01:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C (1.6 crop factor) camera, which yields about 200 pixels per degree, so a full 360° photograph is around 72,000 px wide. The more pressing problem is simply being able to download such enormous files, hence I don't even bother making them let alone uploading them to Commons. The common or garden variety 360° photograph is stitched from just 2 fisheye images and doesn't have a particularly good resolution when viewing a small section at a time, so it's a bit of a toy/gimmick. Even Google Street View uses multiple times that resolution but, like Google Maps, the browser only has to download a few sections at a time and stitches them on-the-fly. It will be some years before the technology is commonplace (or 'Commons-place') since there isn't much demand. nagualdesign 02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Street View in an outdoor sculpture garden could be cool.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely. Check out Google Arts & Culture for some interesting views. Unfortunately, it will be quite a while before Commons can rival Google. Staying ahead of the curve, as the OP suggested, is something of a pipe dream. nagualdesign 02:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OT: Why does the wikidata contest use a person with VR googles as logo, WM does not support it? I have provided a number of stereoscopic images, but WM has no native way to display these in VR - and I do think like user:Sdkb that VR (or AR more likely) will be a thing for WM and it is a good idea to stay ahead (only with stereoscopic content. Creating 360 degree images while respecting personality rights is difficult). --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 04Edit

LOUD TEMPLATES (red, bold, big, warning symbols)Edit

warning symbols
unimportant ~ red
important ~ yellow

The amount of attention a template draws to itself, should correspond to its importance.

  • The templates deserving the most attention are probably {{Delete}} and {{Speedy}}, and they are styled with the appropriate loudness.
  • Less important ones are styled more modestly, e.g. {{Disputed}} (a first step towards deletion) uses a warning symbol and a red border.
  • {{LargeImage}} warns that the user's browser could freeze, and thus uses a bit of red.
  • {{Uncategorized}} and {{Check categories}} are important maintenance templates, and their style is rather modest.

This is how important templates look like. So less important templates should use styles, that draw less attention.

But some templates are styled as warnings, although they just contain hints that might be interesting to some users:

My main suggestion is, that the use of red in templates should be restricted to cases, that require the immediate attention of the user. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 00:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. There is no need to draw attention to something that is not that much of an deal.--Snævar (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
What about {{Tracks are for trains}} – is it appropriate, IYO? — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a general piece of wisdom, that requires no action by the uploader, and does not affect, how the image can be used. It is less important than {{Personality rights}}, and should be smaller. In my opinion it should be one expandable line. --Watchduck (quack) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there no style guide, that is to say guidelines explaining current norms but not enforced as policy? Maybe there should be. -- (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
IMHO it should be differed:
  • warning informations to each viewer, as e.g. {{LargeImage}};
  • general information that maintenance is needed, as e.g. {{Uncategorized}};
  • warnings to the uploader (but later to others just a maintenance information), as e.g. {{Created with}}.
It seems difficult to expand the upload feature that the uploader will be warned loudly but every viewer should get later another more modest appearance.
I agree that Fictional, Fake sports logo, Communist symbol should be less alarming; I am not so sure with SVG with raster elements. -- sarang사랑 07:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with SVGs containing raster elements. E.g. they are essential for Human body diagrams, to keep them editable and translatable. If anything, files like this should contain a hint, that they should be SVGs with raster elements. But anyway: It is just a hint, and no call to action specific to the image.
It is slightly different for {{FakeSVG}}. I am inclined to say, that there is an implicit call to change the wrong file extension, which would justify formatting on the level of {{Rename}}. I have just done that for this file. (There should be a better procedure for this mix of overwrite and renaming. See here.) --Watchduck (quack) 11:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Argh! Don't strike out stuff in other peoples messages! Answering within another message is usually a bad idea - especially without proper indentation. --Watchduck (quack) 22:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Read only time on 05-May-2021 at 06:00 AM UTCEdit


Some services will be in read-only for a short time on 2021-05-05 at 06:00 AM UTC.

During the restart time (expected to be around 60 seconds or so) all the components and extensions that use the x1 database will be read-only.

Things that might experience some issues when creating new writes:

  • New short urls cannot be created
  • Email bounces from lists might not get recorded
  • There might be issues with new translations
  • New items on the notification list might fail, some notifications may not be delivered
  • Reading lists might not record new items added to "bookmark" or "read it later" feature

Details: T281212 & T281375

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this read-only time.

-- Kaartic [talk] 18:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

May 05Edit

Category:Tones and IEdit

I've asked for help at Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I on 30 April 2021 but have received no reply. At the Category:Tones and I page there is an infobox, it contains contentious information, specifically: year of birth, date of birth and middle name. This information is not supported by reliable sources and may violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. How can this be removed from that infobox? According to policy it should be removed immediately.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shaidar cuebiyar: For the future: it might have been better to ask at Category talk:Tones and I than Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I.
  • All of that info comes from the wikidata item Tones and I (Q62887629). Date of birth is referenced there. Anyway, if you have references to the contrary, Wikidata would be the place to take it up. I don't think privacy can possibly apply to information cited from NRJ. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up. The NRJ article does not give her birth date. The closest it comes is repeating the claim, seen in Australian media, that she was 19 at the time of a performance (not precisely dated nor verified by the artist or management). There is no indication of a middle name here. The NRJ cites from an unnamed article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
    • Nick Bond of is cited at wikidata for her birth date. However that article presents this as a claim by other media outlets and also discusses another date put forward. Note: the English WP article has had both dates at different times but neither (nor other contenders) has been supported by the artist/managers. There is no indication of her middle name.
    • I believe wikidate has it wrong and will try there, next.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse bits from Louvre on WikidataEdit

Hi, can anyone help with this and this category? After a rename I put AO 16313 on Wikidata, but it still conflicts with AO 16613. I don't do a lot things like this on Commons and Wikidata, last time was easy, now it's not correct. Links to files: File:Bit-AO 16313-IMG 0900-white.jpg and File:Bit-AO 16613-IMG 0900-black.jpg. Wikidata: Q106710047 and Q29053872 - Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I resolved it, the right information is being showed now. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Uploading a mp4 video...Edit

Hi Can someone ipuload this for me: Robert Henke & Christopher Bauder / Atom (from Flickr). It is cc-by-sa. Thank you --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - 13:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @El Mono Español: Is there a reason you want someone else do do this rather than do it yourself? - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, because it tells me that I can't upload it, and I don't understand why – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
El Mono, Go to Commons:Video2commons or failing that convert it to WEBM online. For reasons I don't know or care to know MP4 files aren't accepted here. Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 19:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. ! – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 18:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@El Mono Español: ✓ Done, please see File:Robert Henke & Christopher Bauder - Atom.webm.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Please see Commons:Mp4.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow thanks for the link User:Jeff G. - I knew codecs existed but had no idea of the copyright behind them I'm genuinely surprised, I just assumed it was rejected because of MediaWiki software or for other minor reasons but had no idea of the extensive story behind the rejection. Reading that it's certainly understandable as to why MP4 isn't allowed here. Anyway thanks again for the link Jeff, Take care and stay safe, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 12:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 06Edit

SVG validation / derasterization etc.Edit

I was just fixing various high-use SVG files and had just cleaned up File:Wikisource-logo-as-3.svg when I discovered that it was protected. If an administrator can briefly unprotect it or reduce the protection level, please do let me know. Shyamal L. (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shyamal: If an Admin does not notice this timely, please consider reposting on COM:AN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Copying to AN now. Shyamal L. (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions in Middle EnglishEdit

I’m an editor in Middle English Wikipedia and I should like to add descriptions to images in Middle English. I have found the image File:APictureOfAnIsraeliFloor.jpg and I have translated the description to Hebrew but when I translate it to Middle English it says that enm is an unrecognized value. Can you help? Btw, the translation to Middle English is An Israeli flore. Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Btw, for convenience, can you please ping me in your reply.😅 Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: you can create Template:enm analogous to Template:en. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: thank you very much! Can you please check that I have done it properly because to be honest I don’t understand what the stuff I have written means or how it knows that enm is Middle English. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: It knows because it knows the language codes, and pulls from its own title. No need for {{Heavily used template}} on this one. I removed that; we can restore it if you really get around to doing a few thousand ME descriptions of images. Should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I tried to enter this description but it still gives the same error. Also when I try to search for languages it doesn’t show Middle English in the list. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Not sure what tool you are using that won't let you enter this, but it should be perfectly possible to hand-edit the file page and add this content. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I tried what you suggested and I can edit the summary but not the captions. Is that because Middle English Wikipedia is still in the incubator and doesn’t have its own subdomain yet? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: By captions, to you mean the structured data (in wikibase, not in wikitext)? For that, you'd have to talk to the strucutured data team about them recognizing an additional language. One more reason I don't love structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I see. I think I will do only wikitext. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the rendering of a SVGEdit

Where are the F♯ keys?


I know the SVG rendering has some troubles and I can handle them usually but there is one for which I can't find a workaround: in the picture File:Reconnaitre quintes justes.svg, two black keys are missing in the PNG conversion.

Any guess?

Cdang (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem was solved by @Chatsam: thanx to her. In "cloned a clone".
Cdang (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons down?Edit

Today I just get a seemingly infinite "Loading..." - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have the same issue. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

May 07Edit


How do I empty the UploadStash, when the UploadStash is so big, that I cannot open Special:UploadStash (timeout)? The deletion is started by a POST-Form, that is only available from Special:UploadStash. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename misleading file title?Edit

File:Live radio broadcasting from the scene of the Hindenburg disaster.ogg

en:Herbert Morrison (journalist) recorded an en:acetate disc on May 6, 1937, in Lakehurst, New Jersey, went back to en:WLS (AM) in Chicago and the en:acetate disc was broadcast on May 7, 1937.
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx: You can suggest a better name using the "Move" option in the "More" menu (top-right of the screen in the normal case), or by adding the {{Rename}} template to the file description. See Commons:File renaming for more information. I think this would fall under criterion 3. --bjh21 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

May 08Edit

Censoring "sacred" images?Edit

Are we now COM:CENSORED? See:

@Pescarts:, @Podzemnik: Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a courtesy deletion. Even when not required to do so for legal or other policy reasons, Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. --Zache (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
A deletion based on some evidence that a tribal copyright claim exists for specific designs would be a good rationale.
This may not exist for these cases, but if the files were unused and this request was from the uploader, it's a reasonable courtesy to delete for almost any reason (user creation not going to be used, uploaded in error, etc.). The uploader may have been better advised to use a speedy if they changed their minds within a day or two of upload, thereby avoiding having to wait weeks for the DR to close and risking a Streisand effect by having a DR in the first place.
Not really a censorship case. -- (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Accusing someone of censorship is a very unfortunate way how to start a discussion. It was a Courtesy deletion following COM:IAR and my own beliefs. I believe that we, the community of the biggest free media repository in the world, should be role models in setting up good examples of respectfull approach to indigenous peoples and their heritage. According to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "Indigenous peoples have the [...] right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects". I don't know if these particular images are really sacred to local indigenous communities or not, but as I said in my reasoning, I believe the uploader that they are and that's why I decided to delete them. Have a read eg. here, continue here and take it from there. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If these are courtesy deletions, on behalf of their author, then that's fine. But we have an increasing number of DRs claiming that "precedent" is reason to delete something (it shouldn't be - our policy doesn't change based on past deletions). Also we do have religious edit-warring to remove content that one group finds offensive for some reason. Falun Gong is the obvious one, but we've also seen this between Hindu and Muslim nationalism from the Indian subcontinent. I would definitely not want to see, as was my concern here, a basis for deletions on the grounds that one group doesn't like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure anyone is disagreeing with this being a perennial issue, it's just not the case with these. -- (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
We should treat this case like as the authors of the pattern holds the the power to use it and to licence it and has not done so. So the publication has no permit and the uploader has stated his mistake when he uploaded it. And while some governments and laws might allow the use, the laws of that tribe might say otherwise or they might require a special procedure to get the licence to use the pattern on your personal skin. These are things that might be not enforceable by international law, but the Wikimedia foundation has somewhere in its foundation, that it respects people of different religions or cultures and would not allow material that has an unclear legal status.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Do new versions take time to update?Edit

I have uploaded a new version of this file but it doesn't seem to have been updated

Hello again, I'm sorry I'm a bore but I have many doubts. I have uploaded a new version of the following file. All right. However the image still looks the same. Why? Do new versions take time to update? – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 14:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have tried to load the new version again and it tells me that it cannot, because it is exactly the same as the current version. (but obviously it isn't) Heeeeeeelp 🥲 – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
=> Help:Purge Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you.! --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - 12:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Sería útil que vincule al mapa original. -- (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

PD US 1923Edit

When and why did the license tags realated to PD US 1923 change to 1926? Seven Pandas (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the law in the US is published before 1923 or more than 95 years ago. Therefore, in 2019, works from 1923 left copyright, and once more for each year that's gone by since then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The passage of time and US Copyright law's changing rules.
2021 - 95 years = 1926. In 2022, it will be 1927. In 2023, it will be 1928.
Material published before 1978 has a 95-year copyright term.
Before 1978, the maximum copyright term was 28 years plus a 28-year renewal for a total of 56 years. If you copyrighted something in 1923 and renewed, the copyright would last to 1923+56=1979. But the law changed so that material copyrighted in 1923 or later (and still in copyright) would have a 95-year term. For a long time, the 1923 year seemed to be fixed because the time difference between 95 and 56 years had to tick away, but that finally happened a few years ago.
Glrx (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I understand. Thanks! Seven Pandas (talk)

Upload more than 4 photos from Flickr?Edit

Is there a setting to be able to upload more than 4 photos from Flickr or other websites? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the mass-upload flag, which is in the autopatrollers (and patroller/image-reviewer/sysop) user group, which you can request at COM:RFR, additionally you can use a tool like COM:Flickr2Commons. Dylsss (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

May 09Edit

The growth rates in the number of photos on CommonsEdit

I would like to know if the growth rates in the number of photos on Commons has been affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. If possible, I also would like to know more details, such as the growth rates of each month in each country, and which countries have grown the most in the past 16 months (calculated from December 8, 2019).--Kai3952 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be difficult. user:Fæ has uploaded a million PDFs during Covid, a user from the Filipines, who uploaded more than a million files in the last years, stopped uploading after a conflict about FoP, and started to upload thousends of files with a new account, Lingua Libre contributers have started to mass upload lingua libre files, user:Askeuhd mass uploads views of earth. Nothing of this has to do with Covid, but it has massive affect on the growth rate. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Here are the statistics [2], in March 2020 we had a new record but topped in November 2020 and March 2021. In April and May 2020 we had a non bot edit record. In February 2020 we had a non WLE/WLM new user record.(Maybe there was an other new contest?) And we had a all time page visit record in March and April 2020 with more then 1 billion page visits and did not hit this value since then. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are also a massive number of archive files uploaded by DPLA, starting 25 April 2021. Krok6kola (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @E4024, Krok6kola: I have never heard of a bot getting sick, not to mention contracting the COVID-19 virus (unless you mean we all are "bot").--Kai3952 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

move User:JoKalliauer/Optimization to Help:OptimizationEdit

A short introduction can be found at Help:SVG#Tidying_up, however optimizating/validating svg-files is controversial and often breaks svg-files (at least from being easyly editable), and generally (if no rendering-issues occur) should imho not be done to files where you are not the author (except you know what you are doing). Some Wikimedians think valid svg-files would be desired, that's not fully correct. If a file is xml-invalid (not only svg-invalid), that would actually be bad, but such files imho cannot be uploaded (any more), because of the xml-parser of MediaWiki checks that and blocks such images (e.g. phab:T279240). If a file contains invalid attributes and/or elements that is often desired, some examples can be found at User:JoKalliauer/Optimization#Invalid_elements_that_should_be_kept (grides,guides,labels,layer,...), they are often necessary for editing the file, and only a few of them influence rendering (such as e.g. SVG2.0-features such as vector-effect), and also should imho not be removed because they are ignored anyway if not understood.

And validity is non-objective, it depends on the validator, and all validators will report e.g. line-height="1.25" (common for non-inkscape-files) as error, however the validators do not recognize the identical command style="line-height:1.25 (inkscape uses style="..."), therefore validity should imho not get much attention, as it often seems.

DTD are imho irrelevant and controversial and they are not required nor recommended (but not depreciated as in the upcomming SVG-Version 2.0). Since SVG 1.1 is the current standard there is no correct answer, that is explained at User:JoKalliauer/Optimization#DTD_or_no_DTD.

Some people minimize svg-file-diskspace-size, generally that's a good intention (if it does not make the file unreadable like removing linebreaks and comments), but generally pure source-code-edits (without any visual effect) do not justify a reupload (with imho some exceptions). Optimizers (scour,svgcleaner,svgo) are buggy and according to Help:SVG#Tidying_up hardly developed any more, to avoid data-loss&rounding-errors there are some recomendations for optimzers, to minimize risks. For users without much knowlege I personally recommend to use (front-end of cleanupSVG), since it makes workarounds for the librsvg-version used by Wikimedia and uses quite safe options.

There is a short section about lossless PNG-compression and lossless&lossy JPEG-compression, which can also reduce SVG-file-sizes with embedded images.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support but @JoKalliauer: I fixed the name.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, spelling is not my strong side (because of dyslexia)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 14:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

May 10Edit