Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic"Edit

This is an effort to get more consensus on a matter where Grabado (talk · contribs) and I are disagreeing. He started unilaterally moving various categories from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic"; right now he's suspended that activity at my request pending broader consensus. I'm bringing this here rather than CFD, because things can languish on CFD for a long time, and because so many categories are ultimately involved (probably hundreds).

If I understand correctly, his case for the change is that "Roman Catholic" is too narrow, in that it excludes Eastern Catholic Churches, such as Greek Catholics and some Uniates. (Conversely, Old Roman Catholics are self-defined Roman Catholics, but are not in full communion with Rome.) My case against just "Catholic" is that it also can include the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Church of the East,re Anglicans, Uniates that are not in full communion with Rome, and certain independent Catholic churches. (At least that's my understanding. I'm not a scholar of this area, and I'm ready to stand corrected by someone with citable sources.)

Overwhelmingly, possibly even completely, the images in these categories have indeed been of Roman Catholic churches, clergy, etc. I think that distinction should continue to be in category names. We already have (for example) a Category:Greek Catholicism under Category:Catholicism.

I'm not totally wedded to a particular solution to the, so to speak, hierarchy, but if hundreds of categories in this area should be renamed against the consensus we reached when this matter was last discussed several years ago, it shouldn't be because one user unilaterally started moving categories, it should be because we develop a new consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer "Roman Catholic" as it is more descriptive and less ambiguous Oxyman (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I haven't explained my view very well (English is not my mother language), but I'm afraid that is not exactly the problem I tried to point it out. This message in Category:Catholic Church was the problem:
The problem is that the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are exactly the same thing (as you can read in en:Catholic Church). Instead, Category:Roman Catholic Church was used as if it were the Western part of the Church, in opposition of Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. Even despite the Eastern Catholic Churches are 23 churches part of the (Roman) Catholic Church! I'll try to explain it better tomorrow if necessary. --Grabado (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Grabado: I would think from the above you could have a cat for Catholic Churches (with no files permitted), and under that Roman Catholic Churches, Old Roman Catholic Churches, Independent Catholic Churches, and Eastern Catholic Churches. Then under Eastern Catholic Churches, you could have Greek Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox Churches, Russian Orthodox Churches, Church of the East, Uniates, other region & language specific churches, etc. Then under Roman Catholic Churches, you could have Roman Catholic Churches by country, then down to (in the US for example) state, city, diocese, parish, however that particular denomination subdivides. And then, there are the Cathedrals.   — Jeff G. ツ 21:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I believe you are more or less describing the status quo ante. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
What Grabado is saying is consistent with en:Wikipedia. Category:Catholic Church is another name for Category:Roman Catholic Church, so the latter should be redirected to the former, and it can have Category:Eastern Catholic Churches as a subcategory. --ghouston (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Ghouston. That's exactly what I was trying to say. As I promised, I'll try to explain it better:


1. The church leaded by the pope is called "Catholic Church", but also "Roman Catholic Church".

2. The Catholic Church is composed by 24 autonomous particular churches.

3. One of them is the Latin Church (Western Church). The other 23 churches are the Eastern churches.

The problem

4. In Commons, Category:Catholic Church has been used as the root category while Category:Roman Catholic Church and Category:Eastern Catholic Churches have been used as subcategories at the same level. This pattern has been reproduced all over the category tree.


5. Category:Roman Catholic Church has been used as if it were the Latin Church (Western Church) and opposed to the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches.

6. Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church is not the Western part but the whole Catholic Church.


7. Because "Roman Catholic Church" is not an unambiguous way to call the Catholic Church.

Why is ambiguous

8. "Roman" was added in a Protestant context to emphasize the link between the Roman pontiff and his Church.

9. But "Roman" has another meaning in a Catholic context. The Roman Rite is the main liturgical rite used in the Latin Church (do you remember? The Western part of the Church) but not in the Eastern Catholic Churches. In that sense, the Eastern Churches wouldn't be part of this "Roman Church". In fact, this is the main difference between West and East.

10. Because the Latin Church is by far the largest (Roman) Catholic Church, people tend to think both churches are the same.

11. Anyway, for these or any other reason, "Roman Catholic Church" is erroneously used to name the Latin Church instead of the whole Catholic Church. You can see this edit. You can see wikidata:Talk:Q9592 (the section titles are very descriptive). This is a common erroneous belief that gives headaches not only in Commons, but also in enwiki (they have finally decided to rename the category to "Catholic Church" after years of discussions).

To sum up (two things to do)

12. We could talk about if we should use "Catholic Church" or "Roman Catholic Church". That would be another discussion derived from this one.

13. Independently of the above, Category:Roman Catholic Church shouldn't be used as if it were the Latin Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

+1. The main category should be Category:Catholic Church (syn. Category:Roman Catholic Church). Subcategories Category:Eastern Catholic Churches and Category:Latin Catholic Church (syn. Category:Western Catholic Church) should be under it. Jee 13:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I dispute your theory of "Latin Church" as reflecting the most common naming practice in English. Every church building under the Pope in Rome that I've ever seen has had either "Roman Catholic" or it's abbreviation "R. C." in its title or subtitle, whereas I'd never seen "Latin Church" before this discussion.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with this and would Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose if we end up having categories like "Latin Catholic churches in X" or "Latin Rite churches in X", especially when the individual institutions (ie schools and churches) describe themselves as "Roman Catholic".
To add, how else are we to distinguish the Greek Catholic Category:Church of the Pokrov in Bielanka‎ from Category:Holy Trinity church in Gdynia‎ (which uses the Roman rite) if we DON'T use "Roman Catholic"? Both are Catholic churches, so Category:Catholic churches in Poland would contain both.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Right, and we could have Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite as a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic churches. I Symbol support vote.svg Support reverting Grabado. On a point of syntax, you do too, right?   — Jeff G. ツ 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, but I haven't said that the "Latin Church" is the most common naming practice in English. Actually, what I've said (in number 10) is that many people confuse it with the Roman Catholic Church (it's what's happening in Commons).
You haven't seen "Latin Church" before because you probably don't live in Middle East. So for you every church of latin rite is simply a "Roman Catholic church". You don't need to distinguish it from an Eastern Catholic church if there isn't any in your area (because you live in the Western world). Not the case of the en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the en:Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Baghdad, the en:Latin Catholic Diocese of Acre or the en:Latin Catholic Archdiocese of Nicosia.
But you may know the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church. This is the first cannon: "Can. 1 The canons of this Code regard only the Latin Church."
@Nilfanion: I haven't proposed a solution... yet (number 12). In first place I just want you to understand the problem. What I'm saying is that using "Roman Catholic" in opposition to the Eastern Catholic Churches is absolutely wrong and against the facts (number 13). Every Eastern Catholic Church is a (Roman) Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: I was replying to you at 14:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC), not to Jkadavoor, and I don't appreciate your adding of a colon to indicate otherwise. However, I appreciate your point regarding "Latin" naming in the Middle East and possibly other areas. As a compromise, we could have parallel Roman Catholic, Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox intersection subtrees based on the names or translations actually in use (perhaps combining the two Eastern ones if nothing on the Eastern side of the schism is actually named Eastern Catholic).   — Jeff G. ツ 16:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
See our's. It is also a Roman Catholic Church under Pope though an Eastern Church. So I don't think considering Eastern Churches outside R. C. is good. Jee 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: I'm sorry, perhaps I was misinformed in school. What I learned was that there was a schism in which the Eastern Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics, did not recognize the Pope at the Holy See in Rome as their leader, and most organized into _______ Orthodox. How was that wrong?   — Jeff G. ツ 17:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are some eastern churches not under Pope. That may made you confused. Jee 17:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It's not that you were misinformed in school, it's just that you misunderstand what exactly is being discussed. Here's the 10-cent version. In the early days of Christianity a large number of churches were founded in various cities (Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc). Over time, differences in belief arose between these churches, which were all independent... this resulted in a whole series of ecumenical councils (like the one in Nicea that resulted in the Nicene Creed). Some of these particular churches, at various points in time, disagreed with the results of these councils (and with the increasing dominance of the Pope) and split off to form their own new communions... the Oriental Orthodox about 451, and the Eastern Orthodox in about 1050 being the notable ones. Those communions are, however, still composed of 'particular churches' (though they use the term 'autocephalous') that are generally about the same age as the Latin Church.
The "Eastern Catholic" churches are not the result of a split with the Latin Church, it's in fact the opposite.... they are the 'particular churches' that never did split off and so are still in communion with the Latin Church under the ultimate leadership of the Pope.
As a general rule, for what it is worth, most Protestant churches (and most history classes, even at the undergraduate level, in the west) do a very poor job of explaining all this, if they even try. - Reventtalk 08:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Sorry, that's the way I'm used to in eswiki. I've tried to fix it. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Grabado: Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
As Jkadavoor has just said, the Eastern Catholic Churches are Roman Catholic Churches just the same as the Latin Church. But at this moment Commons says that the Category:Catholic Church is divided into the Category:Roman Catholic Church and the Category:Eastern Catholic Churches. And that is simply not true. --Grabado (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There are Eastern Catholic churches in the West (mostly Greek), but they are clearly much less abundant than those of the Western church. Could you demonstrate how the Eastern churches are "Roman Catholic"? The Latin church uses the Roman rite and is governed by the pope, is it those things that make it Roman, and are those true for the Eastern churches?
There are a few things I see here:
  1. Should "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" be treated as distinct concepts?
  2. Should the Latin Church be treated as distinct from the Catholic Church?
  3. If not, how do we distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest?
IMO all these questions need an answer before any change is made. If there's a problem with the current set-up, a partial fix will make matters worse, we need a complete fix. If we try a partial fix and merge the (current) Roman Catholic with the main Catholic tree, then it will be a major nuisance to split the Eastern churches back out again - the distinction will be lost and they will be buried among the majority of Latin churches. We should look for a "correct" way of marking the Latin church, which both preserves the distinction and is actually natural. Category:Latin Catholic Church or Category:Western Catholic Church aren't acceptable (no-one calls it that, so they aren't recognisable). Category:Roman Catholic churches which practice the Latin Rite would work for church buildings, but is clunky and doesn't work for other Catholic concepts (like schools, bishops or dioceses)--Nilfanion (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Church and Rite are different as mentioned in English Wikipedia. According to en:Latin liturgical rites, the Latin Church uses different rites though Roman Rite is prominent. The problem here is Roman Catholic Latin Church is commonly called as Roman Catholic Church where no other R. C. churches exist. Jee 17:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The Eastern Catholic churches exist in Western countries, especially in the large cities, but they are much less common. For example w:Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Family in Exile is in London, and is not a Latin church. An additional complication some churches support both Latin and Eastern Catholic services (for instance).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nilfanion: The Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Catholic Church. If you want to call "Roman Catholic Church" to the Catholic Church, then it seems obvious that the Eastern Catholic Churches are part of the Roman Catholic Church. The point is that, as stated in en:Catholic Church, the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church are the same thing. So, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" should not be treated as distinct concepts. --Grabado (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that might be true. But we want to be able to treat the individual Eastern Catholic Churches as distinct entities (in sub-cats). If we merge our current "Roman Catholic Church" category with the overarching "Catholic Church", we will be unable to distinguish between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church. That's not acceptable, and we need to be able to keep that distinction. That means we need a GOOD name for what is currently in Category:Roman Catholic Church. The problem here is a rename is needed, of the non-Eastern Catholic Church, not a merger of "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic".--Nilfanion (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand. All the files now under Category:Roman Catholic Church need to moved to a new category (Latin, Western, or any other preferred name). After that Category:Roman Catholic Church can be redirected to Category:Catholic Church. A simple rename is not good as it will confuse people later. Jee 03:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is all quite confusing. I tend to think it generally best to follow "professional best practice" rather than come up with our own rules. Failing that, if Wikipedia have debated this for years and come to some consensus, then it may be reasonable to follow their practice rather than debate it again. However there are some important differences between us and Wikipedia. They can rename an article and that is pretty fixed, and they have relatively few articles to worry about vs images. If there is doubt about what the article scope is, that can be highlighted on a banner at the top, or on the talk page. Our categories do not have that luxury. For people uploading content, the upload wizard helps them pick existing categories but will not offer advice on which one to choose. So if "most people are confused about this" then most people will continue to put content in the wrong categories. Similarly, for users searching for content and expecting the categories to help them, they will continue to look in the "wrong place". If they have no idea what the "Latin church" is but (think they) know what a "Roman Catholic church" is then the category system might not help them. Particularly if, as some point out, the institutions themselves use the "Roman Catholic" part in their names. So perhaps, rather than getting the categories perfect it might be best to accept uploaders and users will continue to come here with incorrect assumptions, and we should ensure they mostly pick the category that is helpful to both. The point of the category system is to help people find content, not to be an authority on the naming of divisions in the church. -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Colin: I agree with you. I don't think something like Category:Latin Catholic churches in France is a good idea (even more when in places where Eastern Catholic churches are uncommon). My proposal would be:
Where should we put Latin Catholic churches? All churches that are not Eastern Catholic would be in Category:Catholic churches in France. With my proposal, both Latin and Eastern Catholic churches are under a common category (Category:Catholic churches in France) but we can also distinguish the Eastern Catholics from the rest, as Nilfanion asked.
With my proposal it's not an issue whether people confuse the Latin Church with the whole Catholic Church or not, because there's not an special category for Latin churches. All latin churches would be directly under "Catholic Church".
Moreover, it works fine no matter if we finally choose the term "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". --Grabado (talk) 10:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Your current proposal moves the Latin church from the same level as the Eastern churches to the higher level above them. While the names may be wrong, by correcting the names you are introducing another problem, which is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole. Therefore I oppose it.
Ultimately you need the Latin church to be at the same level as the Eastern churches, as a sub-cat of the overarching church. To be explicit having All Catholic above Latin and Greek is better than having All Catholic (including Latin) above Greek. Find a solution that makes "All Catholic" = "Latin" + "Eastern", with useful names for "All Catholic" and "Latin". Your proposed change just compounds "All Catholic" with "Latin", making it even harder to draw the distinction between the two.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it that way. Maybe I haven't explained it well. Remember that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Latin Church, but the whole Catholic Church. Having All Catholic above Greek means that all of them are Roman Catholic but only a part of them are Greek Catholic, which is absolutely true. We are not saying that all Catholics are Latin. We are just saying that all are Catholic. All the churches that are under Roman Catholic but not under Greek Catholic are Latin churches. We solve the problem and we are close to the fact that the largest church is the Latin Church (and therefore that in most places all the catholic churches are Latin churches). --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I know the names are wrong, but your proposal introduces a whole lot of NEW problems by throwing away the distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. To give a couple explicit examples of the problems your proposal will introduce:
  1. Category:Church of Saint Anthony, Korets‎. With the current set-up, its obvious that it is part of the Latin church. With your proposal, that information is lost; and it will no longer be clear if its fully categorised or not.
  2. Category:Holy Trinity Church, Zhovkva. Its currently not marked as a Catholic (judging from the WP article its Ukrainian not Latin). With the current situation, if I put it in Category:Catholic churches in Ukraine, that is correct but incomplete. It will stick out as misplaced, allowing someone who knows better to properly place it as a Ukrainian church. With your proposal, it will just be buried in among the Latin churches, and it might not get correctly placed as a Ukrainian church at all.
In both cases, there needs to be a category for the Latin church at the same level as the Eastern churches.
Instead of trying to merge the category for the Latin church with the category for the entire Catholic church, give a good new name for the Latin church.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion:. At this moment there's no distinction between the Latin church, and the Catholic church as a whole. Four days ago Wikipedia thought that our main category for this topic was Roman Catholic Church instead of Catholic Church. What we have in Commons are two categories for the same thing. People just use one category or the other depending on what name they are used to, not if the church is Latin or not. --Grabado (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, if that's the case categories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine will have a high error rate. Tell me, how many are Latin church? (I don't know). And seriously, please give a GOOD name for the Latin church instead of just repeating over and over that Roman Catholic = Catholic. My current thinking is that "Roman Catholic" will end up being a dab, between "Catholic Church" and wherever we put the Latin.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine doesn't have any error rate because all of the churches there are Roman Catholic Churches. The error appears just if we say that Roman Catholic churches are Latin Churches (as we are actually doing now). --Grabado (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You've completely missed my point there. The current category set-up for Ukraine treats Roman Catholic as different to Eastern Catholic - and treats "Roman Catholic" as a synoynym for Latin. My question is, how many churches in Category:Roman Catholic churches in Ukraine are not Latin churches? If they are ALL Latin, we want to preserve that grouping, and move them to a good new name.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've got it. Of course we cannot know how many churches are not Latin churches because we can't know if users knew that only in Commons Roman Catholic Church doesn't mean Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Its easy enough to answer my question - it just takes some time. Just look at each church that is actually listed there: Is Annunciation Church a Latin church? How about Church of St. Barbara? And so on. If all the churches listed in that category are Latin churches, then that category is a badly named category for the Latin church, not a badly named category for the entire Catholic church. And if so, merging it to the entire Catholic church is a bad thing.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
And are we going to check all the churches from all the countries? --Grabado (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


proposal 2

@Nilfanion: What about Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in France? It starts with a common name: "Catholic churches" so that it's easy for users to find the category. There's no need to use "Roman Catholic" to differentiate it from others churches that call themselves "catholic" because it's also an unambiguous name (since "Latin Church" is added). It's versatile: if we wanted (i'm not proposing it, just as an example) we could also extend the pattern to Eastern Catholic Churches like Category:Catholic churches of the Syro-Malabar Church in India --Grabado (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone? --Grabado (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I continue to prefer the term Roman Catholic, but I'm not going to fight over it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


I tried to find references. I didn't find much; but it seems Britanica is matching with English Wikipedia that all churches under Pope are Roman Catholic. But I got a clue on how the confusion arise. Here and here we can see Eastern Orthodox Church is officially call itself "Catholic" due to some theological reasons. I don't know how to handle this. Jee 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

en.Wikipedia and Wikidata have a concept of "Catholic Church" [1] which is "Christian Church led by the Pope and consisting of a Latin Church and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches". It doesn't seem out of place for Commons to have a matching category. Eastern Orthodox Church wouldn't fit there regardless of what names it uses. --ghouston (talk) 05:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that is the truth (Catholic Church = Roman Catholic Church = Latin Church + Eastern Catholic Churches). If we can agree on this (I think we need to accept it), now the issue is whether people agree on the name Latin Church ([2]) for the Western Church. Jee 06:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

May 07Edit

Photo I purchased from the photographerEdit

I purchased an interesting photo in 1998 from a firm in Hong Kong that specialized in taking photographs of airliners on approach to the old Kai Tak airport. They carefully documented which flight it was and on what day and time, so that the pilots or cabin crew could purchase those photos for their own library, being confident it was a photo of the flight they operated.

I purchased the one they took of my last approach to that airport. In my view, I rightfully own that photo that I paid them for. I was not made aware of any claim to copyright of those photos, by that photography firm. I Didn't have to sign or agree to anything which would indicate I was not purchasing the full rights to that photo, when I paid them the agreed amount of money. They did not have any legal notices posted in their shop, nor did they tell us they were retaining any legal rights. They were just happy to sell those photos to us after they documented the dates and times they were taken. Over the years since then, I have published that photo in various Internet forums.

My question: Can I donate/upload a copy of the photo that I own, to Commons? EditorASC (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, based on what you are telling, you are not the copyright holder. Copyright can only be transfered by written agreement (e.g. an invoice in which it's explicitly stated that you pay for the copyright as well). If no written document exists to the contrary, copyright sticks to the author. Jcb (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify: nowadays, in almost every country in the world, a photograph is copyrighted by default and that copyright can only be passed by written transfer. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes: buying a copy does not transfer copyright (which is especially clear here as copies are sold to several people, otherwise no more copies could be made after the first transaction). But I have not noticed anything about only written agreements being valid. Is that the case in some specific jurisdiction or is it included (as it sounds from your statement) in the Berne convention? --LPfi (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I can't find anything in the Berne convention, but the US law, Title 17, Chapter 2, Section 204 says "(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Hong Kong does probably not share copyright law with USA, as it has developed after 1783. In e.g. Finnish law I cannot find such a requirement. --LPfi (talk) 11:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

May 13Edit

en-dashes vs hypens in category namesEdit

We've have a several category discussions about the use of en-dashes (–) vs minus signs (-) in category names. I count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 CfDs that reference the debate. The arguments generally come down to grammar (using en-dashes when they are gramatically correct) versus convenience/usability (using minus signs even when they aren't gramatically correct because they are more likely to be typed in by users searching for or adding a category). Because both arguments are reasonable, I don't think there has been a clear solution to the debate. Anyone have additional helpful thoughts on the matter? It would be great if we could make this a more standard rule in the future. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Themightyquill: I prefer typing the minus sign because it's on my keyboards and the en dash is not, even on the soft ones; I blame IBM, Apple, and Google for this. It appears enwiki prefers en dashes because they're more grammatically correct, and there is a button for them below the new "Publish changes" button. I use an em dash in my sig because I like how it looks.   — Jeff G. ツ 11:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a strong preference for minus-signs. Yes, the other is theoretically more correct, but that seems to me to be pure pedantry, and a complete liability to actual users. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The minus sign / hyphen is easier to work with. It also seems to be preferred by most Wikipedias, judging by [3] and [4]. --ghouston (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have the n-dash as AltGr-hyphen, and thus I use it extensively, but category names are technical features, as are article names. I think that for them the easiness for everybody to type a "hyphen-minus" is much more important, as are any coding issues ("-" is in ASCII, and thus coded uniformly in most modern encodings). Using n-dashes we introduce ambiguity, as often also m-dashes, minus signs and whatever could be used, for correctness or by cluelessness. I think that could be a real source of frustration, while grammatical correctness is much lower a priority here. Use dashes in the text itself, in DISPLAYTITLE:s etc. and leave the "-" where people other than the author has to type it. --LPfi (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For several reasons of interoperability/usability/simplicity, Commons Category names are not really the place for typographic refinements in punctuation. See Commons:Requests for comment/straight vs curly apostrophes from six months ago... AnonMoos (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

So using the ASCII hyphen is already a policy. From Commons:Categories#Category_names: "Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable." --ghouston (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ghouston, that's very helpful. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

VisualFileChange fails with a strange errorEdit

I just tried to nominate all files in the Category:Stained glass windows of St. Andreas (Köln) for deletion because they show copyrighted windows and FoP does not apply to the interiors of buildings. However, attempting to use VisualFileChange.js just gives me this strange error:

API request failed (tags-apply-no-permission): You do not have permission to apply change tags along with your changes. at Tue, 16 May 2017 13:47:42 GMT served by mw1231

I have no idea what this means and where the problem lies. I was able to use VisualFileChange.js before for another deletion request, so that's not the reason. -- 13:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: It seems that IPs can't do tags --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
We do allow IP's to use VFC? --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Yes. They can load it simply using withJS, as linked on COM:VFC --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
gosh - i wonder which ip editor would want to use VFC? is that a duck test? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Strange UploadWizard - Flickr upload behaviorEdit

Aloha! Am I the only one with problems moving stuff from Flickr to Commons? Everytime I try to upload more than three or four files I receive an error msg and the upload form is missing the part where one can copy categories, tile, description, and such. Is the UploadWizard broken? --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Detailed error messages and reproduction steps are usually key in finding, duplicating, and fixing errors.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I know. Just a preliminary question. No need to make a ton of screenshots if the problem is known. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Without sharing the text of the displayed error message it's impossible to say if someone else gets the same error or problem... --Malyacko (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Help needed at DR particularly with FoP issuesEdit

Commons:Deletion requests/undefinedmoyan brenn

Photographer Moyan Brenn has taken many photos from his travels round the world, and released them with a CC BY-SA 2.0 licence. About 900 of them have been uploaded to Commons, and he's keen to take and release more images. They are generally of very good quality and in-scope for Commons. He is concerned though that some of his images are of properties, statues, people, etc, where the law means they break copyright or other laws. After a mis-step yesterday at DR, he's narrowed down a list of just over 100 images that he's particularly concerned about. He's going to need help from people who are familiar with FoP rules worldwide in particular. Please can we, as a community, show our thanks for his large amount of images taken and donated, by helping him with these concerns. I hope you can join on the DR with some suggestions about which images remain a problem. Please err on the side of caution wrt being confident an image is legally ok, as the photographer is keen to delete any material that might be harmful for him/others legally, which is different to our usual situation where folk get upset that their images are deleted out of excess caution. Thanks -- Colin (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I've checked the 3 images from a city in Germany, which are perfectly covered by FOP of Germany (and would also be no problem per US law, IMO).
Regrettably, User:Moyanbrenn opposed my evaluation by claiming "not true for commercial purpose", which is without base in the law[5]. May be, he has a different understanding of "commercial". --Túrelio (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have chopped the list up by country: Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey, UK and USA. Each country only has a small number of images, so hopefully someone can take a bite out of a country group. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please fix the typosEdit

Search results
Change 聯係 into 聯絡, thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LNDDYL (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Can an admin who can read Chinese please help out here? I'm in no position to determine whether this should be done. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    They contacted me via my talk page so this is ✓ Done. I personally don't see the difference in the meanings. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Script errorEdit

I'm seeing this error message come up when I load any page. I'm using Monobook skin.

Error: at line 48: SyntaxError: missing ; before statement

Thanks. howcheng {chat} 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be resolved now. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

BIG blue button will break some scriptsEdit

The devs have slowly been converting from MediaWiki UI to mw:OOjs UI. You may remember when the edit summary box got a little taller earlier this year; this one is going to change how some buttons are created, which has the side effect of changing their size and color. Phab:T162849 has some before-and-after screenshots, if you're primarily interested in the aesthetic aspects.

Some older editing-related scripts are incompatible with this change. I've collected some information about this at mw:OOjs UI/Fixing scripts and gadgets, including diffs that show how some scripts were updated. I don't know how much this will affect Commons, but they deployed it to and the Persian Wikipedia last week, and it broke more scripts at the Persian Wikipedia than I hoped for.

If you maintain any user scripts or gadgets, then please check that page and test your scripts (instructions on the page). If you need help, then w:en:WP:VPT is probably the best place to ask for technical assistance. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Break scripts created to do useful work because “the devs” need to polish their resumes — it will be needed when they flee the sinking ship of WMF for greener pastures. Sounds right. -- Tuválkin 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Heh. -- Tuválkin 01:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Whatamidoing (WMF): User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js has been working badly for me for the past few days. I have to purge most file pages in order to get the [change license] [license +] [license -] buttons. I've found a good solution, which is to do less reviewing. Daphne Lantier 05:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pinging @Zhuyifei1999: @Krd: @Steinsplitter: If you guys have any time to spare, can you take a look at this? I'm still able to do reviews, but I have to purge the page on a lot of images to get [change license] [license +] [license -] to display so I can complete the review. It slows things down terribly, especially with series of images, which are usually the quickest and easiest ones I do. I figured I'd ping you guys because the gadget is a very important one, and we have a big backlog. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Daphne Lantier 19:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Daphne Lantier: Looking at your common.js, I bet it's User_talk:Zhuyifei1999#Technical_problems. Please uninstall VFC from your common.js and see Help:VisualFileChange.js#Step_0:_How_to_Install --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Zhuyifei1999: That worked! Thanks for the help! I'll get back to killing the license review backlog. Every time I get it down to 300 images, someone uploads a batch of 500 or 1000 new images to fill it up though... Face-smile.svg Daphne Lantier 01:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 18Edit

ICYMI: MP3's patent expiredEdit

So apparently the patent for MP3 expired last month. (Sources: [6][7][8]). If I'm not mistaken, this means we could start uploading MP3 files to Commons, perhaps using this media extension. Is this something we want to do? FallingGravity (talk) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

MP3 support is currently stalled for WMF Legal review, and there are concerns that supporting MP3 will dramatically increase copyright violations. I recommend to convert them to OGG, or FLAC, for now.. Poyekhali!!! 05:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Here is the Phabricator task for it which gives a good overview. --John Cummings (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. FallingGravity (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
i see there was previous discussion by the community. i take it, if the community wanted, it could allow the uploads.
you could allow MP3 as a precursor to conversion to OGG and then deletion. and maybe we should allow MP4 as well. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
According to English Wikipedia's article, "the last MP3 patent, U.S. Patent 5,703,999, will not expire before 30 December 2017". So I think that, if we are going to allow MP3 uploads, this shouldn't be done before December 31, 2017. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
That's not really correct. If I remember correctly (from earlier times i looked into that) that patent is a continuation of a continuation or something (refiling of an earlier version), so it's actually 20 years of that earlier version of the patent (prior art). I'll blank that section, since it's a bit original research.. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to do a search to show all images from a category and all its subcategories?Edit

Hi all

Is there a way to do a search to show all images from a category and all its subcategories (and all their subcategories up to a specified depth)? I want to get all the images for all the Biosphere Reserves in the world to find suitable images for a competition and social media campaign I want to run. I realise this is probably a lot of images but I'm looking for something quite specific (high quality images with people in them in Biosphere Reserves).


--John Cummings (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you tried Petscan? It should do those thing for you easily. Cheers --MB-one (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks very much MB-one
--John Cummings (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Have you tried using the "Good Pictures" button? Martinvl (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Martinvl, I think you just saved me about 2 days of work :) --John Cummings (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

May 19Edit

An image in wrong categories?Edit

Removed. The problem is that Flickr tags applying to a whole series of images have been turned into categories for one image. That's a really dumb thing to do and only makes work for others. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Who or what did it, and what can we do to avoid it in the future?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: It seems to have happened automatically at the upload. You'd be better asking User:Fæ why this is thought to be a good idea. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thanks. Fæ?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, many times. There is a balance of confidence in the source and how to add value to the uploads, I even include a notice at the top of my talk page about category diffusion. I could just stick to a rule of never importing any categories and leaving batch uploads in a maintenance category by default, but plenty of fellow volunteers will turn up on my talk page and complain bitterly about not categorizing. I am reaching 3 million uploads, the surprising thing is how only a vanishingly small percentage of images in my batch uploads projects have a categorization problem, but that's probably due to how carefully I assess the batch and design the workflow to cater for specific issues of the source; including Flickr and creating categorization trees for more technical projects, such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

Those that have concerns can raise them on my user talk page, rather than the Village Pump where I may never see them. I have a long history of responding to issues and fixing most of them as they get raised. Checking my talk page history, I see no questions from Anthony Appleyard in the last three years, and the most recent question from Rodhullandemu was in October 2015, about a category that I removed the same day it was raised for my attention.

If anyone has realistic ideas about how to run automated categorization in a better way, and that avoid high manual intervention, please post them on my talk page and I'll ponder them for future projects. Thanks -- (talk) 12:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 20Edit

Seeking help re MediaWiki:Gadget-QuickDelete.js usageEdit

Hi. Hoping that someone with coding knowledge can assist. When using the QuickDelete gadget, it has a box that used to enable a conversion of a speedy deletion request to become a RfD. For a while the button has changed and getting an error (below) with nothing happening.

Error: at line 106: SyntaxError: invalid regexp group

It is way beyond me to work out which bit of that error message is the problem.

I have turned off all other gadgets, cleaned out my commonswiki customisations in global.js and local common.js; I have tried in vector; and all with zero success. Anyone able to help or point me to where I should look, or whom I can ask, especially as no evidence of changes in the QuckDelete.js script itself. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for isolating the problem. Which page are you attempting to convert to DR? It could be, though unlikely, a page specific-error. (If not, having a single specific page to test on still feels better than selecting a random one from the speedy category) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Not file specific, it has been happening from about time that this button changed its "look" (which would not be code specific, though maybe a flow on from some other parts of other templates. File I was practising upon is no longer in the category. Console isn't very helpful, not that I am the best at deciphering things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Actually, I see the issue. @Jdx, Perhelion: Special:Diff/243151122 /(?-i:SD)/i does not seem to be not a valid JS regex. @billinghurst Thanks anyways. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, this ?-i is a PHP effective flag, which I forgot. Simple remove it but this could collide with {{sd}} vs. {{SD}}. -- User: Perhelion 11:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I just found Not sure how to workaround it :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
We must remove the generic flag /i and specify all names separately/individually. -- User: Perhelion 11:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
It would be a maintenance pain if we must specify the cases of every single character explicitly with brackets. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's the limitation of this template technique and JS regex. Any other solution would be good. -- User: Perhelion 11:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
A proper adequate solution would be to omit/remove the usage of SD!? -- User: Perhelion 12:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Not sure. It's not a simple redirect, but an "advanced redirect" transcluding templates based on its parameter. Based on that I'm wondering if it's possible to override the that regex for this template so it is case-sensitive. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Yes I found a proper solution on template:SD itself. Untested! But this exclude the variant of redirect. You must remove also the |SD from the Speedy. -- User: Perhelion 13:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done. Your regex LGTM. Thanks! --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Locator-tool guide step 06.png

Locator-tool is a tool which helps geocoding existing images, i.e., to add {{Location}} information to images on Wikimedia Commons. Since today, you can add it to your toolbox via your gadget preferences (enable the Locator-tool gadget). – Simon04 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:56 20 may 2017‎ (UTC)

@Simon04: Looks awesome, very convenient! Any chance you could add support for the heading: parameter? The Geolocator has a pretty nifty feature for that: Place the marker, then hold the shift key to set the direction the camera was pointing. The only thing I kind of dislike about how this is implemented there is that it uses general directions like "NE" or "WSW" instead of degrees. Both is possible with the {{Location}}-template, but I think degrees would be more precise … Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you! This feature is already on the wishlist, see I'm unsure about the user interaction since the Shift key is used set the marker for Template:Object location. – Simon04 (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Simon04: Of course it doesn't have to be shift, could just as well be ctrl or alt. --El Grafo (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 21Edit


Can I upload Below Images on Common? [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not? Ruslik (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jayprakash12345: File:OpAmpModel.png is already at Commons. For the rest you might want to use something like CommonsHelper to make sure everything's moved correctly. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Sir.-Jayprakash12345 (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 22Edit

Montage containing a picture which has been deletedEdit

This montage File:Takaoka_montage.JPG contains a picture File:Takaoka-jyou.JPG that does not exist anymore.

If it has been deleted as a copyright violation, should not the montage be fixed as well?

Cheers! Syced (talk) 09:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the montage must be fixed otherwise it will also be deleted. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-21Edit

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Are there any examples of mass import of vector graphics scraped from publications? Trying to set up a process for graphics from UNESCO publicationsEdit

Hi all

I'm in the process of setting up a system to extract vector graphics from UNESCO publications and add them to Commons. Currently I'm extracting them by hand with is taking forever and not scalable. I'm hoping we can move to something more automated soon since there are well over 1000 open license UNESCO publications available in up to 6 languages, many of which will have graphs in, some will have 10s or even 100s in.

Question: Does anyone know of any examples of where a large volume of graphics have been extract from a set of publications before?

My main take away from this process is Commons is horrible at rendering text in SVG files, the only way to stop text spreading across the image in unpredictable ways is the convert it to shapes.

On the to do list so far is:

  • Put the figure number and page number the file was extracted from into the source field
  • Make a nice pretty source template

All the images I've extracted from the publication are available, just over 200 so far all extracted by hand. If you can find it in your heart to add a few to articles so that they start to get reused that would be really really nice.


--John Cummings (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

May 23Edit

Simple redirections in Category redirectionsEdit

Recently, there has been a new fashion for adding simple redirections next to category redirects, for example: Category:Mosque. I wonder ... isn't it better to correct the {{Category redirect}} template instead of correcting thousands of pages?
Second point: There was a time when redirects didn't appear while selecting a category by Hot-Cat or Upload Wizard. Now, unfortunately, they appear - and new users often put files in redirected categories. Is it possible to fix it? Wieralee (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Wieralee, R'n'B: I have restored this particular category. Cat-a-lot automatically resolves categories marked with {{Category redirect}}. For example, if you try to add Category:Mosque, it will change it automatically to Category:Mosques in unidentified countries. This was broken with the "test". Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've seen many such categories, f.e. Category:Actor, Category:The Netherlands, I don't remember all of them... New users are not using Cat-a-lot, they are using Hot-Cat and Upload Wizard... Wieralee (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Hot-Cat does automatically bypass category redirects; and it works with or without the additional hard redirect (that is one of the things I tested). If you try to add a file to Category:Actor, it will go in Category:Actors instead. --R'n'B (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    • However, Cat-a-Lot does not correctly bypass the redirect if a hard redirect directive is added. This is a problem. --R'n'B (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Does this photo go under COM:ADVERT? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 17:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • (Edit conflict) The filename may be, and the description. But not the photo — and it’s the photo that matters. -- Tuválkin 18:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It is out of scope anyway. Yann (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is: Uploaded by Fae, so there must be something wrong with it. -- Tuválkin 18:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
LoL. I didn't realize it was uploaded by Fae until after I nominated it for deletion. You are so wrong that you will resort to patent nonsense to make a point. As I answered to Fae in the DR, high resolution images of modeling would great. This is not the case here, and yes, the title and the description are not appropriate. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it’s hard to keep track who has an irrational grudge against Fae and who does not. But anyway — Does resolution make scope? -- Tuválkin 18:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The photograph is clearly not an advert, nor is it out of scope. Other photographs hosted on Commons by the same photographer, but not uploaded by me, show women performing fellatio on men, and have graphic nudity, so it's odd that the focus should be on my upload of this modest portrait with neither nudity nor sex. These are issues that can be discussed in the DR here, rather than using Village Pump space. -- (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for renamed the files and fixing the description. As an experienced contributor, you should know better, and have done this when uploading the files. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Rubbish. Please do not waste everyone's time with unjustifiable DRs, or grandstanding on the Village Pump attempting to defend your pointless act. "You should know better" being an admin, and be able to set an example for other community members.
If you believe files like this need to be "fixed", then fix them yourself rather than making your preferences everyone else's problem. I suggest you start by fixing the identical "problems" with all the heterosexual extreme pornography that that were uploaded by others from this photographer, which apparently you have yet to notice or put any effort into sorting out. -- (talk) 12:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
These uploads look a blatant examples of increasing your upload count at any cost, irrespective of the quality of the material. It is not my job to fix your uploads. And no, it is not only the picture which matters. The small image with a bad description is often useless, while the same image with a good description and title is useful. Again you fall down to usual rant: "I am a victim of homophobic people"... *sigh* Regards, Yann (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Nobody has mentioned homophobia, and I have never, ever, accused you of anything like that. The uploads from this photographer include sexually explicit material, all of which is heterosexual in content. That is a statement of fact, not an allegation of homophobia. By twisting this discussion with that word, you are being actively abusive and disruptive in a way that I consider direct and offensive harassment. STOP IT. -- (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
You shot yourself in the foot in mentioning "heterosexual" above. Again you are not able to withstand criticism without resorting to attacks. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

It is absolutely fine to say that photographs are explicitly sexually heterosexual in nature, as indeed it would be fine to say that photographs of explicit homosexuality were so. Your offensive and revoltingly hostile parody of me has been raised for review at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Yann: "I am a victim of homophobic people". Feel free to defend your actions as being appropriate for a long term administrator there rather than grandstanding about it here. Thanks -- (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Start of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Funds Dissemination Committee electionsEdit

21:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - PixixicaEdit

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Pixixica Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Cross-wiki upload from commons.wikimedia.orgEdit

What he heck is a “Cross-wiki upload from” on Commons? Example: File:Sterbender Stier, 1983.jpg. It’s also hard to find more with the internal search, but see, e.g., this: "Cross-wiki upload from" (Startpage). — Speravir – 23:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Without double checking, I guess someone used the visual editor on a commons gallery page to upload said images. --MB-one (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
This was discussed in a hijacked task phab:T137269 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The upload feature is also available in the wikitext editor – you can click Embedded file on the toolbar, then "Upload" in bottom-left corner. The log message is a bit silly, it just uses the same format as uploads from other wikis. Matma Rex (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

May 24Edit