Last modified on 19 April 2015, at 17:33

Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 


Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

  • RFC on the implications of Flickr's new PD license option. ()
  • RFC on Hosting files for 3D models. ()
Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch



OldiesEdit

Font in VP headerEdit

Commons:Village pump/Header, which is displayed at the top of this page, has been using Template:Portal-head2 to format the words "Welcome to the Village pump". For some strange reason, that template uses the style "font-family:Gill Sans, Futura, sans-serif; … font-stretch:condensed;". Also for some reason unknown to me, the Windows 8 computer I have to use at work to browse the web chooses some kind of "fantasy" font to render this text, making it damn-near unreadable. Being of the opinion that there's really no good reason to use a particular sans-serif font in the first place, I decided to boldly change the template to use the more conservative style "font-family:sans-serif" (ignore the "background" part of my edit summary: I was mistaken about that). Another editor reverted my change, noting that "people" (presumably users on their own user pages) are using that template "who want its output to look exactly like that". A debatable claim, but whatever. I have created the similar but font-wise more "conservative" Template:Headline and changed the header to use it (old version, new version). I trust no one will have a mental breakdown if I make similar changes on the other "public" (i.e., non-user) pages that are currently using the other template? - dcljr (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hang on. An overeager admin deleted the wrong template… - dcljr (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Dcljr, you said above that you created Template:Headline, then you complained that it was deleted, yet the deletion log says «2015-04-02T10:36:13 Taivo (talk | contribs) deleted page Template:Headline (Unused template: author's request on creation day)». What’s going on? (Pinging User:Taivo.) -- Tuválkin 10:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh… I created Template:Portal-headline, named by analogy with Template:Portal-head2, which I was intending the new template to (partially) replace. Since we don't use portals here (the original template was apparetly copied from the German Wikipedia several years ago), I decided to move the template to Template:Headline, which left a redirect at Template:Portal-headline. So, not thinking that this would become a huge hassle, I tagged the Template:Portal-headline redirect with the {{speedydelete}} template. Only I didn't remove the "#REDIRECT" directive, so when User:Taivo came along to speedy delete it, he accidentally deleted the redirect's target, Template:Headline, instead of the page that was actually tagged for deletion. Then he deleted the then-broken-redirect Template:Portal-headline as an "Unused and implausible, broken, or cross-namespace redirect"! I have asked Taivo to undelete Template:Headline, but he apparently hasn't seen that request yet. (Yes, I know I can just recreate the template, but it's the principle of the thing: it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place, since not only was "author's request on creation day" not true of that particular template, it wasn't even "Unused" at the time!) - dcljr (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And now User:Taivo has disappeared. Can another admin undelete Template:Headline so I don't have to spend the time re-creating it? - dcljr (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Done INeverCry 01:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, let's try this again: I've replaced {{Portal-head2}} in the header of this page with {{Headline}} (old, new). Is anyone offended by this? Any compelling reason not to do the same with the other similar "public" (non-userspace) pages that use the other template? (Obviously, if folks at another page object, they can just revert my change.) My reasoning here is this: such "public" pages need to be usable to as many people as possible, and clearly specifying particular fonts only invites problems (despite the fallback mechanism for font selection, my experience described in my original post shows that significant problems can arise) for very little actual benefit (a slightly different looking font, when it works right). - dcljr (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer {{portal-head2}} for two reasons:
  1. "Welcome to the Village pump" is not a headline, but a greeting, and therefore should look differently.
  2. So far, no one has reported any display issues on Commons or the German or English Wikipedia.
As I have now added an id to {{portal-head2}}, you may add #portal-head2 {font-family:sans-serif !important;} to your common.css to alter the font family displayed to you.    FDMS  4    10:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Point 1: It does look different. Normal headers are in serif font. Point 2: I just did. The rest of your comment: Fine, but very few users are going to know enough to take advantage of that fix (and it doesn't help logged-out users at all). - dcljr (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot that I overwrote the Typographyrefresh. Could you upload a screenshot of what {{portal-head2}} text looks like for you so we can understand what exactly the problem is?    FDMS  4    20:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I knew that was coming. I can't figure out how to do that on this machine. There doesn't seem to be "screenshot" application, and I can't install anything on it. I was about point out that, to be fair, "damn-near unreadable" is a bit of an overstatement. (I just really don't like "cute" font selections on websites for no good reason, and that is coloring my commentary about this.) The text is readable to a native English speaker (/reader), but probably significantly less so to non-natives. I also haven't been able to figure out what font this browser is actually using, since the "sans-serif font" is set to Arial, and this ain't Arial I'm seeing. - dcljr (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am running 2 kind of "Screenshot-Scripts" on http://mol.wmflabs.org - one is "select an element by clicking it" and the second is "take a secreenshot of the whole screen and cut it to the browser window dimension" - both do uploading by their own - would they be helpful to Commons? -- Rillke(q?) 23:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but only with some kind of "you have to provide attribution" warning and maybe a speedy deletion criterion to get rid of them after some time.    FDMS  4    19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
@Dcljr: You said you're running Windows 8, so please follow these steps.    FDMS  4    19:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but I found the font it's using: a Playbill font (condensed). Still don't know why. It's the "Gill Sans" font choice that's causing it, BTW, not "Futura" (and not "sans-serif"). - dcljr (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
See, that very much looks like a font configuration issue on your side (computer or browser). Which is why nobody reported any problems yet: In fact, there are none. If for some reason you can't fix your configuration issue, the CSS still works …    FDMS  4    19:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but the fact remains that if the template hadn't been referring to a specific font, the problem wouldn't have shown up in the first place. I don't know if it is, in fact, more likely for a randomly chosen computer to show an acceptable font when "sans-serif" is specified or an acceptable replacement font when "Gill Sans" is specified and it is not available, but it is an interesting fact that the computer right next to the one I have been using (in a computer lab) also shows a rather poor looking font (apparently not Gill Sans or Futura, but definitely not Playbill either — although note that it is more readable than Playbill) Playbill (although not condensed) when {{Portal-head2}} is used. This suggests to me that specifying a particular font and relying on proper font fallback/substitution when a user's computer doesn't have that font is not at all reliable. - dcljr (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC) [Note: {{Headline}} doesn't even set the font family, and hence uses the default font for regular text: sans-serif. - dcljr (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)] {Edit: Nope, it was Playbill, too! - dcljr (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)}
Sorry, but your conclusions are just wrong. "Safer"? Repeating myself: Except for you, no one who has encountered any problems so far, and you are refusing to let us help you fix it on your side. Also, there even is a "safe" font replacement, the default sans-serif family font. However, there is no mention of Playbill in the template's syntax. Have a look at it.    FDMS  4    21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody, for the mess I created. I was on 4-day vacation (without any computers!) and before that I decided to delete some junk. I opened "Other speedy deletions" and found ... more than 200 things. I deleted during 1 hour and 44 minutes 279 things, deleted and deleted, until misdeleted. Thank you for restoring the correct file. This error happens, if speedy deletion tag is placed after redirect link, not before. Taivo (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't create a mess, just a slight inconvenience. ;-) (And I really should have realized the template shouldn't have gone after the redirect.) - dcljr (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
(responding here to FDSM4's April 9th comment above, since it's getting progressively more awkward to keep responding above Taivo's comment) "Except for you, no one [else] has encountered any problems so far" You cannot possibly know that. "refusing to let us help you fix it on your side" I don't need any help fixing it on my side. That's not why I posted here. (Thanks for offering the suggestion, though.) "there even is a 'safe' font replacement, the default sans-serif family font" And yet that's not working on 2 out of the 5 computers I've checked. Simply using the default font, however, works on 5 out of 5 of them. Not statistically significant results, to be sure, but meaningless? I say no. I say it's illustrative of the fact that using the default font is safer [yes, safer] than specifying particular non-generic fonts. "Have a look at it" I've looked at it plenty. As you know, I edited it before even posting here. This discussion (as it has turned out) is more about you not being able to look beyond the particular computer I mentioned in my first post to the larger issue that I was trying to bring up here. So, returning to that issue: You gave 2 reasons above why you prefer the original template. It looks like you withdrew the 1st one, since I pointed out that the font looks different either way (except, of course, for users who have set things up to use sans-serif headers — these people, no doubt, can deal with the consequences of that choice). Regarding the 2nd one, I simply don't accept that as a legitimate reason to not change templates (from the old one to the new one, I mean). Having heard no objections from other users, I can only assume (ironically, using the logic of your point #2 above) that no one else cares. Are we then at an impasse? Let's just cut to the chase, here: Setting aside my reasons for wanting the change, is there any reason, other than simply inertia, why Gill Sans condensed must be the font used in the header? Any reason why regular sans-serif must not be used? - dcljr (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hearing no other objections, I have replaced most instances of {{Portal-head2}} with {{Headline}}, as described in my original post. I left user pages alone. The visible changes should be minimal. Incidentally, I found the underlying reason for the bad font choice discussed above: "Gill Sans" should have been quoted since the name contains a space; when this is done, the chosen font looks like normal sans-serif. I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}, since it might change the appearance on the user pages that are still using that template. - dcljr (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Statistically meaningless? I'd say yes.
No one cares except for two users with different tastes → no consensus → "my change will not make it objectively worse" → let's just implement the change? I'd say no.
"I have not made this change to {{Portal-head2}}"? I say ahem?!
I got used to {{headline}}? I quietly say yes …
   FDMS  4    22:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Interiors of / Interior ofEdit

This category has been moved back and forth from "Interiors" to "Interior" and back again so much that each of the two is now a redirect to the other and categorization to parent levels (these two) was lost — and I’m afraid there may be much more like this…

While I’m sure that both wordings are acceptable, they are distinct and I’d argue that, in this case, the plural form is more accurate (unlike, say, for a hangar, a greenhouse, or a circus tent). However what needs to be addressed urgently is the ceaseless and distructive pingponging (see typical example). Any ideas?

-- Tuválkin 11:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Surely a building can only have one interior? There may be more then one room inside a building, but still only one interior, so using the plural in the case of a single building seems odd to me. Oxyman (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Since it's undesirable to have two redirects pointing to each other, I've also acted boldly to fix the issue by converting "Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém" back to a category. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
So bold. I hope you restored the original’s parent categories too, yes? -- Tuválkin 19:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Which original? — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
The originally first created category, with links to its two parents (other interiors and other palaces). I see that you did restore. So it’s good. -- Tuválkin 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, yes: You agree with Oxyman that it should be always singular ("interior"), never plural ("interiors"). That means you disagree with me, and with whoever thinks either form should be used, depending on the context. That is the matter under discussion — rushing to a decision before consensus was reached is something else, not bold.
Now, I may be utterly wrong here, maybe influenced but such distinction in Portuguese ("interior" / "interiores"), but I would like to hear more opinions, especially from native English speakers.
-- Tuválkin 16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's a singular example then it's Interior of..., as in Category:Interior of Palácio Nacional de Belém. However it should be Category:Interiors of palaces in Portugal where there are many examples to choose between. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Emptying Category:People by nameEdit

Hi all, in the past days, a number of people categories on my watchlist have been moved from Category:People by name to Category:Men by name and I see that the latter has grown from 900 to 1200 since yesterday, so there´s obviously some effort going on to move all subcats from "People by name" to "Men by name" or "Women by name". I would have expected some extended discussion about that, but found none. Is this uncontroversial? (Then it will need some help as we are talking about 250,000 cats that have to be changed.) Personally, I think that "People by name" worked well as a flat category and would prefer it stayed that way, but if a consensus goes the other way I´ll certainly help with the recategorization. (Pinging User:Reguyla) --Rudolph Buch (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion and I look forward to the outcome. I had asked about it a couple times and it didn't seem controversial, the comments I got seemed to indicate it was a desired change (although a large undertaking) and no one objected so I went ahead. As you said, right now I am merely going through Category:Men and for the named individuals moving them to Category:Men by name. Also, since Men by name is a subcategory of Category:People by name, it made sense to refine it to the more specific category rather than leave the parent, People by name category as well. The Men/Women by name categories serve the same function as the People by name category, they are just more specific and allow, IMO a more specific view. I want to clarify I am not trying to eliminate the "Men" category, I'm just trying to refine it a little to be more accurate. Also, Auntof6 started a similar discussion above on some related edits I was doing with categories. I wanted to add these other similar discussions regarding this topic.
  1. Commons:Village pump#Help checking categories by new user
  2. Commons:Help desk/Archive/2015/03#Question about categories
There's plenty to do here so I won't do any more from that category for a while so this discussion can play out. It seems to me, aside from what I am doing, there is room for some discussion about this category in general. Its grossly underpopulated and the instructions about adding Category:People by name don't mention or specific using Men/Women by name at all. Another user was recently asking in a CFD about the Category:Living people which is an ambiguous redirect to the Category:People by name. So IMO I think its good to have this conversation so the community can decide on how we want that category structure to be and then we can move forward with implementing that. Reguyla (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Seems to me to be an ill-conceived direction. As I understand it, the idea of Category:People by name was as a maintenance category where we would put all people in one category. In general, I'm pretty suspicious of gender-based categories, although there are some areas where I guess they are relevant (e.g. athletes). Especially, it's very hard to decide what to do here with transgendered or ambiguously gendered people. Is there somewhere that a central discussion is happening on this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The transgender question is a good point and something that definitely needs to be considered but I think we should treat those as we would the ones we don't know and simply leave them in the People by name category. As I mentioned above, this doesn't eliminate the people by name category and the Women/Men by name categories fall under the People by name schema. There will always be some we cannot sub categorize. So just as we would sub-categorize years under decades and decades under centuries, this is the same thing. IMO, just piling everyone into a giant category isn't really all that helpful and doesn't make it more manageable. It would be like grouping all date related articles into a giant category called Category:Stuff by date. I would also add that I didn't create these categories, I am just adding people to categories that already exist and are underpopulated. We could leave them in both the Category:People by name and the men\Women by name categories but again, since these fall under the People by name parent category it would be redundant and unncessary per Overcat. Reguyla (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Consider also that not every male is a "man" and not every female is a "woman". (Children, anyone?) - dcljr (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jmabel. Is there a reason for having categories, or are we creating them just because we can? Separate categories by gender are rarely needed. Besides that, it would be a royal pain to do the dividing. How would we decide who goes into which category? You can't go just by name, because people don't always use traditionally male or female names as they used to, a name that is male in one language can be female in another, and some names can be either (not to mention that few of us are probably familiar with male and female names in all the different languages represented here). You can't go by appearance, because more and more people are identifying as other than male or female. The only way we could tell for sure is if the person is already in a male or female category of some kind. Even then, though, I just don't see the need to split the main category. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The categories have already been created however, which means it's hard to complain that people are using them. You could start a discussion to delete the categories, but I can predict what will happen: some people will say they should be kept, and the result will be no consensus to delete. --ghouston (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
However, since People by name is a maintenance category, and a member of Category:Categories by name (flat list), it's not a hierarchical category, so adding a file to Men by name etc., doesn't mean it should be removed from People by name. --ghouston (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Precisely. If someone wants to create "Men by name", etc. I don't care if they waste their time doing so, but "People by name" should continue to contain all people. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a perfect category and its unrealistic to make any category with the thought that it shouldn't be done unless its 100%. Because there are always going to be a few that are outliers and don't fit. This category is no exception and I personally do not perceive making a more specific category that "People" as a waste of time. I personally do not see the utility of having a giant meaningless category that currently isn't any more accurate than the ones I have been populating. I again want to clarify that "People by name" still contains the same number of "people" as it did before. They are just subcategorized within it rather than lumped in. Reguyla (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the idea was to have a single maintenance category that (1) would make it easy to spot omissions and (2) would make it easy to see if everyone was alphabetized correctly. When we pull things out of the maintenance category, we defeat both purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but with respect, how does a category, with hundreds of thousands (or millions potentially) of files and categories become useful? Even scanning it with an app like AWB it takes a couple days to cycle through 20, 000 so 200, 000+ is unreasonable if your scanning for problems. You need to break it down into chunks to be manageable for anything. Additionally, I would argue that if that were the case, and you were looking for John Smith, then going to the category. Category:Men named John and looking through that list would be a whole lot easier rather than just sort to J and scroll through 20 or 30 pages of categories and files until you found or didn't find the one you were looking for. Additionally, if I were looking for one, I would probably just search for it and see what came up there. I'm just wondering, has anyone here actually ever used this People by name category for anything? Or is all of this discussion just what if scenarios? That would be a good place to start this discussion IMO. If there is a use for this category then we should look at what its for and if this improves or does not improve that. Reguyla (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If Category:People by name becomes hierarchical then it's basically a duplicate of Category:People and may as well be deleted. If you think People by name is pointless, then the best thing to do is ignore it, like we all do with categories we think are pointless. Personally I think Category:Men by name and Category:Women by name are pointless categories that don't even have the marginal usefulness of Category:People by name, so I intend to ignore them. Also, if People by name is too large to be useful, then Men/Women by name are not much better. --ghouston (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I think People by name is a logical diffusion of People just as I think Men/Women by name is a logical diffusion of that just as I think Men/Women named X is further still a logic diffusion. People is the higher level parent and Men/Women named X is the lowest level. In the example I gave earlier, we don't pile all the years into one giant years category either. We group them by decade and then by century. Reguyla (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because something is logical doesn't mean we need it. You're overlooking the fact that Category:People by name is a flat category. Flat categories are not hierarchical, and they aren't intended to be useful for the general reader. As far as Men/Women by name, I would ask why we're creating those categories. It's not to subdivide People by name, because that category isn't hierarchical. Has there been a need for the separate categories? If we think People by name is of little use, why would Men/Women by name be sufficiently more useful to warrant having them? I would also ask, since we can't go by name or appearance, how are you deciding what categories go under Men/Women by name?
"Just because something is logical doesn't mean we need it". I'm sorry but that statement doesn't even make sense to me. As for the comment about the category being flat and not hierarchical...its not. The hierarchy is there and has been since before I came here. I am just populating it. Again, if people want to have a giant unmanageable and unusable category that is a redundant parent category for more specific categories then that's totally ok with me, but I still think its needed to break out the people into meaningful groups as well. Otherwise, wy do we need categories like Category:Smiling men, Category:Men wearing hats or Category:People by name by country. According to the logic being displayed here in this discussion none of these are needed either because they are already in the People by name category. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the example of not combining years into one giant category, the names of years follow a pattern (1, 2, 3, etc.), so we don't need a category to find them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
But we do have categories to find them, like Category:1970 falls into Category:1970s and that falls into Category:20th century by decade. Or are you saying you don't think we need those categories because the years are linear and follow a pattern? Maybe I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You talk about AWB taking a long time to go through the large number of entries. AWB is not a good tool for doing that kind of work. There are much faster methods of going through it. I heard tell of a database dump (or is that only for Wikipedia), against which it would be much quicker to look for or check things. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Your correct AWB isn't a good tool, but the list of people who are capable of mining database dumps is extremely short. Probably less than 20-30 including myself, a couple of bot operators on here and the people who work at the WMF and the dumps are enormous (in the dozens to hundreds of GB and often over a TB) making mining through them difficult and outside the capabilities of most. Especially for commons where the images take up a lot of space. Reguyla (talk) 15:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox aircraft imageEdit

On Template:Infobox aircraft image, the Category:Template documentation is being transcluded on the template page, in addition to the template's /doc page, Template:Infobox aircraft image/doc. I can't find the error, could someone help, please? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed now. --Jarekt (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I still see the Category:Template documentation as the first category on the template's page. Is there a sub-template that is causing the transclusion? Funandtrvl (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea how Category:Template documentation is added to {{Infobox aircraft image}}. I think it is only added by {{Documentation subpage}} template, but I am not sure where that one is called either. @Rillke:, you are the template documentation expert. Can you figure it out? --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
There was an undocumented parameter set in the transclusion of {{TemplateBox}} which forced displaying {{Documentation subpage}} everywhere, even on the template's main page. The solution was to remove the parameter. @Jarekt: Can you please check {{Documentation subpage}} - there is a page parameter documented but it's used nowhere in the template. Perhaps it was meant to suppress displaying {{Documentation subpage}} on the described template and the text To view the template page itself, see should probably also respect it. Can you fix that? -- Rillke(q?) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Rillke, I am having pretty hard time following the logic of the documentation templates, but from what I gather {{Documentation subpage}} "page" parameter is broken and it is only used to create correct link in the text. For example {{Assessments/doc/it}} has text "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments/doc". If the parameter would work correctly you would see "To view the template page itself, see Template:Assessments." There are very few pages where "page" parameter is needed and would be noticed, but I will fix it. Even Template:Assessments/doc should probably be rewritten using {{TemplateBox}}. --Jarekt (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing it! Funandtrvl (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12Edit

Needlessly glary hueEdit

Could this template be less visually intrusive? (Yes, it matches the kindergarten design of Media Viewer, but there’s no need for us to be stuck with it here: At least there is no global lock pending on modifying this template, I hope…) -- Tuválkin 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The upload method is already stated in the upload summary anyway, so do we really need such IMO promotional banners?    FDMS  4    19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) ping User:Ubahnverleih
I don't think so. The template is fine, but it should only add the (hidden) category. --Sebari (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
✓ Implemented.    FDMS  4    21:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome that Ubahnverleih forked the Commons mobile app! Multichill (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13Edit

Category > More > Download all (Broken)Edit

I just wanted to note that the "Download all" feature listed under "More" on category pages is out of order. The Haz talk 04:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been pointed out a number of times before, e.g. Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 48#Deprecated toolserver.org URLs in MediaWiki namespace, but that was archived (twice) without being fixed. Could an admin please just remove all toolserver.org links from MediaWiki:Gadget-ExtraTabs2.js? LX (talk, contribs) 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
done, AFAIR, it was just a shell script bundled with wget.exe - we might implement it entirely in JS. Iterating over all category members is easy, compiling the list, too and dropping everything into a ZIP is as easy as it never has been. Thanks to Dschwen's fastCCI, it might be even possible to have more sophisticated selection. well just an idea needing someone with enthusiasm. -- Rillke(q?) 19:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ha, client side zip file preparation, sweet idea. But can it handle a GB download (for large categories)? --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
He, I wasn't mad enough to think about that; what I had in mind was just preparation of a shell script, to bundle it with wget.exe (for Windows, surprisingly - other systems usually have it installed), put it together in a ZIP file and to offer that for download. This is what the old catdown on toolserver did and what is perfectly feasible to be carried out client side. Smaller categories might be downloadable as whole, often users only need thumbnails or wallpaper size so ... -- Rillke(q?) 20:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Mechanical workEdit

Hello! When filling images of stamps on the Commons there is a need for a set of cross references. Perhaps, they can be divided into 3 groups: 1) galleries of versions; 2) templates of series; 3) archives and miniatures. It is purely mechanical work. With pleasure I will look after the volunteer, temporary or constant. --Matsievsky (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Let me make sure I understand what you are saying:
  1. galleries of images of a single stamp
  2. templates related to series of stamps
  3. (Actually, I have no idea what the third one is about)
Could you confirm/clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A picture is worth a thousand words. This image of stamp have all 3 groups of cross references. --Matsievsky (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"Mechanical work" sounds like Commons:Bots/Work requests; however I am also confused about what is required. May be you can do a few edits and show before and after state. One usually also needs list of files the work needs to be done on. --Jarekt (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
At first the simplest group 3. Addition of a template {{Compressed version |file=NAME.png}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.jpg file and a template {{Archival version |file=NAME.jpg}} in the beginning of the description of the NAME.png file, if only files NAME.jpg and NAME.png have identical names "NAME" and are uploaded by the same user Matsievsky and if these templates aren't written down yet. --Matsievsky (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14Edit

Inspire Grant proposalEdit

Hi, everyone! I would really love your feedback on my Inspire Grant proposal, "Bored with Boards: Attract Pinterest Users to Wikipedia." The project would entail initiating a match-making program between Wikipedia articles and women who are actively engaged in content creation and evaluation on female-dominated social networks, such as Pinterest. One Commons-related question I would hope to research is whether active female Pinterest users are more likely to participate in crowdsourced projects like Wikipedia if they are asked to provide or evaluate images, as opposed to text. Thanks a lot! -Hahahammond (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16Edit

Inquiry regarding the hosting of IS/ISIS/ISIL Videos for the purposes of referencing said works in an academic article.Edit

Removed cross-post of Commons:Help_desk#Inquiry_regarding_the_hosting_of_IS.2FISIS.2FISIL_Videos_for_the_purposes_of_referencing_said_works_in_an_academic_article. Discussion is there. Please do not split discussions by asking the same question in two different places. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Public Domain licenses on flickrEdit

According to Flickr Blog as of this month "Flickr now offers Public Domain and CC0" licenses. This creates problems for some of our upload and review tools that can not handle them well yet. Flickr CC0 license (used here) is easy enough as it well matches our {{CC-zero}}, but Flickr's Public Domain is harder, because there is no way of knowing why is it in public domain. For example this or this image look like {{PD-Author}}, but the same license will be probably used for other PD license, like {{PD-US-Gov}}, {{PD-old-100}}, etc. It will not be possible for an upload tool to match one PD-flick license with 100's of out PD licenses. Probably the best way would be to create some template that has to be replaced with a PD license or the image is delete in one or two weeks. Ideas? --Jarekt (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • That sounds to me like a good approach. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This was already raised on the pump (now archived). On the issue of how to handle the licenses, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Ultra7 (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ultra7 thank you for this link, I missed it. I guess images can be uploaded now with some tools, but the license is still cc-by-2.0. Review process also know about those licenses but adds non-existing templates, and the images are ending up in Category:Media without a license: needs history check. So we just have to make sure all the tools are compatible with those 2 licenses. But lets continue at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. --Jarekt (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Categorisation of Ski AreasEdit

How to categorise, where to discuss? I have created Category:4 Vallées which as a ski area comprises five ski resorts. Category parent is currently Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland. Drawback is that the individual resorts can no longer show up there without violating categorisation guidelines. What about Category:Ski resorts in Switzerland > Category:Ski areas in Switzerland > Category:4 Vallées > Category:Verbier given that similar parent categories are all organised by resort?--KlausFoehl (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me. -- Tuválkin 11:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

date categoriesEdit

Hi, I've been categorising images in Pakistan and just discovered a category I'd overlooked: Category:Categories of Pakistan. It has many categories by date, centuries, decades, years etc. I've discovered similar categories for a few other topics, and they're always hard to find and time-consuming to access since they're only organised by date and not by topic. And most of cats such as this have few to no images. I'm wondering what's the point of such hidden away cats? Is there a greater purpose, like linking the world by date? Thanks, EChastain (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I saw this sort of category too - and decided not to bother. If you make a research categories of you will see that there are plenty of them. I can't see any use. For example Category:Categories of Pakistan has a sub-category Category:Categories of Pakistan by century and then Category:Pakistan by century which is also a sub-category of Category:History of Pakistan. In fact the category can easily be found when searching in "history". In my opinion the categories categories of... should be deleted. Traumrune (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
hmm, well the few times I've deleted a year from an image I've been soon reverted by an overseer editor. So I guess I'll leave it alone. The trouble is often images are hidden away under these"date" cats, and unless an editor is willing to go through them all looking for images, they'll never be used. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Category:Tower Bridge is also a good example. It seems like there are only a few images, however most have been categorised by year under History. Hopefully some day a software solution will be found to treat dates differently, but for now it doesn't seem like much can be done. --ghouston (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
At least Category:Categories of Pakistan by century seems redundant. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17Edit

Template:Multilingual description wrong displayEdit

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

seems fixed now, don't know how or who, but thanks. Holger1959 (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
verdy_p worked on Module:Multilingual description. -- Rillke(q?) 14:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There was an unrelated bug, and while fixing it, and also adding a test module, another issues appeared which was not expected (and not detected by the test module). I had noted that pages were doubling the languages for strange reasons: the effective list was correctly sorted, followed by all languages again (in "random" order, in fact the internal storage order of PHP associative arrays, that are using a randomizing "hashmap").
There was in fact no bug in the Lua module itself, but this is an issue in the way MediaWiki invokes Lua and binds parameters (first parsed internally in PHP) in an pseudo-array interface offered to the Lua engine: Lua accepts to modify the array silently, but this has no effect because the "parent frame" returned by MediaWiki is only a "shadow" interface to the actual PHP array, and this interface is read-only (Lua reports absolutely no error, execution continues without the change applied, and Lua does not notice that the assignments had no effect at all!).
I solved the problem by copying the arguments array into a true Lua array where it is possible then to alter keys and values of the content (I made the copy myself, because even the mw.clone() function in core library of MediaWiki for Lua does not work, as it also copies the "hollow binding" interface functions, and it is really slow; instead I just create a new array and sets its keys and values by only copying references to string values).
Also I've solved many other issues remaining with all the many untested languages (and I created a couple of test pages for them).
There are still issues but now in this template/module: they are in the localisation data for MediaWiki itself (which really has a lot of bugs for its internationalisation data). Now more than 400 languages are OK after my change (before, it was OK only for less than 50), and soon it will support correctly all languages supported in CLDR (i.e. BCP47, plus aliases, plus legacy codes from ISO639... more than 8000!).
However the "Multilingual description" template is deprecated: it does not have any support for fallbacks, and generates tool much data in pages, and it requires javascript and ignores user preferences (either in the browser, or by using the ULS or user settings recorded in the account). The migration to LangSwitch (or templates using LangSwitch) will make life better for everyone... verdy_p (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for these detailed explanations and your work, verdy_p. -- Rillke(q?) 17:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

How to handle an image with a copyrightEdit

Hello guys!

I have images to use in an article in Wikipedia. All the images are under copyright. The author is agreed with the fact that her images to be used in Wikipedia, but wants to emphasize her authorship. She is ready to give any written agreement.

Couldn't you please clear up the sequence of actions i should made to use the images in Wikipedia, to retain her authorship and not to allow the images to be deleted. I am a newbie here, so I am not well in the mechanism, and, moreover, haven't ever faced with something like that.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterndmitri (talk • contribs)

Hi,
All images hosted on Wikimedia Commons should be in the public domain, or under a free license. See COM:L for details. An author can give a specific permission for such a license. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure. Further explanation could be given if you indicate which images you are talking about. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)@Sterndmitri: please read COM:OTRS and COM:L first. Those pages page should contain everything you need to know. If anything is still unclear afterwards, please don't hesitate to come back here with your specific questions. Thanks, --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
If the goal is to use the image on Wikipedia: the Wikipedias in several languages (including English) have rules to allow use of certain non-free or insufficiently free images that are genuinely important to particular articles. Those images are hosted on the individual Wikipedia, not on Commons. If you can't get broader permission, you might go that route. Even in this case, OTRS would be good to clarify that permission for use in Wikipedia was given. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 19Edit

AWB changes affecting commonsEdit

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

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

I also asked for a couple improvements:

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

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

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

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

Images Published in Public Domain are DeletedEdit

Hi there, I uploaded some Magazine covers of Mehfil Magazine and asked the Magazine founders to email OTRS about the public release of the images. Although they sent the email, the images are deleted as shown here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_SteveMattu

Please can someone check OTRS archive and do the undeletion. Thanks.