Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


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

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Content pagesEdit

What the heck is going on with the count of "content pages" (which I thought were only "gallery" pages in the main namespace)? It has increased by over 75,000 (a whopping 58% increase) in the last 3 days with nowhere near that level of new main-namespace pages shown on Special:NewPages over the same period. Did someone recently change which namespaces count as "content" on this wiki? - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW: can't be new links added to existing pages in the main namespace, either, since there haven't even been that many total RecentChanges in NS0. (To clarify: the last 500 such edits as I post this extend back to midday on June 8th [UTC], but there was definitely an increase of more than 33,000 additional "content pages" in that time period.) I suppose a new link could have been added to a widely-used template that previously didn't have any (internal) links on it… Would that cause this kind of steady increase in "article count"? Hmm… I notice that (again, as I type this) there are 136190 items in the "jobs" queue. Could that be circumstantial evidence that this has indeed happened? - dcljr (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It's now up to 318,417 (as I post this), meaning it's more than doubled in the last week. - dcljr (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I figured it out: this settings change, which was done as part of Phabricator task 167077, added the "File:" namespace to the list of Commons' "content namespaces", meaning the content-page count will now continue to rise nearly as fast as files are uploaded (AFAIK… since almost every upload now results in a File: page containing at least one wikilink). It also means the "true count" of content pages (under the new definition) is nowhere near the count currently observed; the wiki would have to be recounted from scratch to fix this. Was this change ever discussed anywhere on this wiki before it was made? - dcljr (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no". OK, please see #Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?. We need to decide how to respond to this change. - dcljr (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

150 old postcardsEdit

Old road to Gibraltar.jpg

I recently had to act fast. In a secondhand bookshop I got the opportunity to select lots of old postcards from the heritage of a postcard collector. The seller give me only limited time before he sold the collection on to professionals. (They buy these collections and then sell the individual postcards on the internet) After two hours work I selected 150 interesting postcards wich I intent to upload to the Commons. However this means I had pay out 300 euros (around 2 euro per postcard for high quality and special postcards) More than the usual 50 eurocent in the postcard boxes with enormous amount of junk. Then I spend about an hour to select 3 or 4 postcards. Is it posible to get some compensation for the outlay? I have selected postcards from all around the world (the deceased was wel travelled). I will need assistence to classify the Japanese ones.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bulk unsorted price maybe 50 Euro-cents but if you have 150 interesting postcards in your possession then you may well have 150 postcards worth 2 Euros or more each – which is what you paid for them. To the right collector... some maybe worth more. Take it that this may be your first purchase of PP's. Get to know the market and sell them on. There is a big difference between a ordinary picture postcard of (say) Amsterdam Harbour and a rare ones that commands a few Euros more. If the Japanese ones are pre-war then all the better. Tell you what. After you have uploaded them -so I can see them, I might offer to buy the whole lot for what you paid for them via Paypal. Will even pay the post & packing... how's that! P.g.champion (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
To categorizes the Japanese postcards you may need some country specific knowledge. So you could ask here as a starting point on the talk page of: はがき P.g.champion (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
you could submit for a rapid grant, or talk to your local chapter for some funding. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hankow waterside.jpg
I am not really a postcard collector in the sense that I only keep the postcards for reference and posible rescan. I am only interested in the historic images to upload to the Commons not the postcards themselves. If posible I photoshop them to remove stains, marks, discoulouring (I scan Black-White when the original image is Black and White) I have a box with scanned and uploaded postcards, one inbox with still to scan and upload and one small box wich has license limitations (most not yet 70 years old). If someone is really interested I can sell a specific scanned postcard, but I am not setting up a shop. I will be setting up a work category for the 150 postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Kobe postcard.jpg
It is OK Smiley.toerist. Think we know where your coming from. You spend some 300 euros on cards that you knew would be of value on WC. Yet, you have no interest in the post cards themselves - just the images. Reading between the lines, you know that these are traded on eBay but you are primarily a WP contributor and not a eBay trader. You don't need to be a experienced trader to get your money back. Suggestion: Upload images to WC and the scans of the back of these postcards. Wait a while, for other editors to review and add provenance. Then ask around, friends, family and neighbours to see if the a have a spotty teenager that knows e Bay inside out and would love something to sell on your behalf. Tell them that you bought this for x and anything more they can get for you, you will spit the profits 50/50. You selected a 150 postcards and the seller had a cash buyer before him. He may well have given you a discount for a bulk purchase for 'selected' post cards that are worth more. You may have found yourself in the right place at the right time and seized the opportunity to buy. Trust your instincts. P.g.champion (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I started uploading to the Commons. The dating and the corrert licensing can be tricky. Is the Gibraltar one under a Spanish or GB license? I there a anonymous license for China? I will put all such uploads under the hidden workCategory:Postcard collection Smiley Toerist.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

All the Japanese postcards have been uploaded. Two of them are already in the Commons from museum and library sources. File:Nunobiki Road Kobe postcard.jpg (the museum version is worse). I informed the Japanese community in Help_for_Non-Japanese_Speakers.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 11Edit

Localities around AradEdit

Săgeata Verde, Arad.jpg
Arad Mândruloc 2017 5.jpg

I took some pictures along the tramline to Ghioroc. There is also a village Mândruloc. I suppose these are in Category:Villages in Arad County but I am not certain. Could someone classify these places? More pictures wil be uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

They are both in Arad County as you suspected. Ghioroc is a commune and Category:Ghioroc, Arad is classified as such. ro:Mândruloc, Arad is a village in Vladimirescu commune. I've created a category for the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I created a new category: Category:The Green Arrow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, though you might find the category full of copyrighted images of the comic book superhero before long. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
See history. Maybe use the Romanian name Sageata Verde?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

How to easily add photos taken and donated by others to Commons?Edit

Hi! I am updating Wikipedia for my customers. Sometimes I am also adding pictures for them. Normally it is not easy for them to add the correct CC license on their web page (don't know why but that is the case) so I have asked them to add the photo they are donating to Google Photos and tell the license there. Now one of the photos I've added was removed "because anyone can create a Google account". Anyone can create also a Flickr or Twitter/Instagram account too so now I am left clueless - how to easily add photos taken by others to Commons and prove that they have a free licence on them? I was told to ask the customer to send [1] an OTRS request and read that the queue is 53 days (!) long. Phew! A long time to wait. So my solution in this case is to add the same photo to Finnish Wikipedia instead but I would like to know the answer for the future. Donating photos via OTRS does not sound like a solution either due to the long wait. I don't think my customers are willing to create an account here just for donating a photo and if they would do so, I assume you would still want a prove about the release rights of a press photo. So should I just forget about adding photos here taken by other people? Kind regards, --Jjanhone (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jjanhone: If you are sure that the customer is actually the copyright holder (be aware that the great majority of the time, the copyright holder is the photographer and not the subject), then have the customer send the email to OTRS following the instructions on this page. You don't need to then await a response before uploading, just make sure to include {{subst:OP}} in the "permission" field while uploading. This helps ensure that the file won't be deleted while the email lies unread in the queue. The OTRS agent may require some kind of evidence that the person emailing is the copyright holder, but once they receive the ticket, they will mark the file with {{OTRS received}}. Then, depending on the outcome of their interaction with the customer, they will either have the file deleted if they are unsatisfied, or mark the file with {{OTRS permission}} indicating they believe the ticket to be good. If on the other hand, you are not sure that the customer is the copyright holder, then we are not going to accept the license, and you should not attempt uploading the file either here or on local Wikipedias. Never claim {{own work}} on images you have not created yourself, and only use a license tag that corresponds to the actual legal license. I hope this clears it up. Storkk (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
or use flickr which for historical reasons, is "trusted" more than google photo. sending a backup email is good, but currently broken. as noted they may still get doubted that they have photographer permission, make sure it is a "work for hire, including transfer of rights", or take your own photo and upload to your flickr stream. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! --Jjanhone (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Bug says everything’s a "Fave"Edit

This has been happening to me today: All hyperlinks in a filepage replaced with "Fave". Any ideas? -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 01:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG are you sure your computer is fine? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I had since three days, especially when the Internet is slow. Everything fine when refreshed several times. Jee 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Same here, though my connection is far from slow. Probably somehow related to the Favourites Gadget. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I installed the Favourites Gadget but this doesn't happen to me. What browsers were you using? (I am using Firefox for iOS version 7.5) Poyekhali 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It keeps happening, maybe once every 10 filepages I open; I report the same situation as El Grafo (fast connection; good after refresh). Using Firefox 52.1.2 on WinXP here. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 13:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was using a Linux Mint with Firefox when it happened – sorry, don't know the software versions. Right now I am on a different machine with Linux Mint 17 and Firefox 50.1.0 and it does not seem to happen. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Me tonight I got "Unfave" when opened a file, lol :). For info it also happened with my authorized tools in the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Another observation is that the links work even if they are replaced by "Fave" or "Unfave". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But I understand why I got "Unfave" instead of "Fave", it was because the file I tried to open was already in my favorites...Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Is "fave" the new "watch"? In what dialect?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: fave and watch are two different things a user can do to filepages. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 01:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Perhelion: My understanding: In MediaWiki:Gadget-Favorites.js: mw.util.addPortletLink($('#p-views').length ? 'p-views' : 'p-cactions', '#', '-', 'ca-fave', '-') can execute before DOM is ready, returning a false / null / undefined value. $('a', link) then selects all links on the entire document, instead of just on the link added by fave gadget. How would you fix this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Christian Ferrer, Tuvalkin, El Grafo, Poyekhali: I've made a small change to the gadget. @Zhuyifei1999: The problem comes pretty sure from function "toggleLink", it used a very common variable name "link" as global (I changed also the window.focus.event). If the problem still exist, the variable should be made local (in this function). The author of the gadget is User:Dschwen. (PS: Maybe it is a bug of jQuery) -- User: Perhelion 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: The variable is scoped with a IIFE... unless being unstrict make it the window scope?! Unless the scope of variables is determined by the environment of the caller, not the environment of the function definition (I thought the latter)?! Anyways, I feel the behavior of jQuery is actually expected --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the bug still appearing? @Zhuyifei1999: Yes, theoretically the variable is only in the scope of IIFE, but as we can see something as changed this var external, very strange. Maybe it is a Firefox bug. -- User: Perhelion 20:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


I have particular concerns about cat hierarchy within geo-political/geo-administrative categories. Are there Commons projects (as there are on Wikipedia), producing consensus guidelines around these, and other, issues. I can't imagine that we could resolve problems or disputes if there aren't, otherwise we would be just making it up as we go along. A village pump response would just rely on those who just happen along rather than those who have taken a deep interest and time over a particular subject. Acabashi (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • To the best of my knowledge there are no such projects. Could you give some indication of the sort of problem you see? - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Commons does have Wikiprojects: Commons:WikiProject, but they are considerably less prominent than in en-wiki. Commons Wikiproject guidelines are not as generally accepted as Wikipedia project guidelines and they are not often used as arguments in disputes. MKFI (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel:@MKFI: Many thanks for responding. I've looked at the Commons projects and none seem to cover my concern, and possibly a future bone of contention, viz:
England geo-political/administrative entities typically for importance starts with England (1st level administrative order), then Counties (2nd level administrative order), then County districts (3rd level administrative order), and then Civil parishes (4th level administrative order). This follows accepted political/administrative hierarchy. On Commons this works fine when it comes to civil parishes, rightful placed below the others, and which is always rightly higher up the cat chain than any subservient settlement within them, these added as sub cats. The problem as I see it arises when the name of the civil parish is the same as a settlement within the civil parish. In these cases a civil parish is more significant, and I believe the actual plain name should prioritize the civil parish without any definition, ie '(civil parish)' in brackets next to it. Any hamlet or village lower level settlement with the same name within that civil parish should have its status under the civil parish added after its name, ie (hamlet) or (village). This is not obtuse as any search for a name will go to the plain name first (as with all cat searches), which if this refers to the village, the more important civil parish and its photos is sidelined by a bracketed afterthought.
In many cases there are so few photos that it is not worth separating settlement and civil parish, but in others there are so many photos that separation is advisable to avoid confusion. This general type of separation works well on Commons, for example with churches ['St Andrew's Church (stained glass)' under 'St Andrew's Church']; and would we change 'New York' as 'New York (state)' for the sake of 'New York City', or change 'Essex' to 'Essex (county)' for the sake of its Uttlesford district. I am suggesting that where a civil parish and village within it holds the same name, the undoubtedly more important civil parish should hold the name, and the village should be bracket-identified as such, as I have done here and here. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Acabashi: I know practically nothing about administrative organization of England but this seems sensible. In my opinion you can use this scheme, and perhaps write a note of this in Category:Subdivisions of England to aid other users. We get a lot of mass uploads from Flickr/Panoramio/etc. and users sorting the results are often not very familiar with all the topics.
Commons has a smaller community, and that community is spread thinly among many languages, millions of categories and tens of millions of files. And since files and categories generally require less collaboration per page than articles there is a tendency to just "do your own thing". Category tree structure is perhaps where most collaboration is done, but even then there is less firm organization structure than bigger wikis. MKFI (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Prioritising putting civil parishes ahead of the village they are named after: The village is more significant to viewers and is the most commonly understood term of that name, even though the parish is larger.
In particular, note that when an English district (3rd level) is named for a town/city, its the town that gets the base name, while the larger district is put at a disambiguated title. So Category:Canterbury is about the city, while Category:City of Canterbury is the district. This was extensively discussed on WP, and the same approach should be applied to parishes. See my more detailed comment here.
A side problem is the parish is the administrative unit, and its the administrative unit that holds status as a city or town. ie If Foo-town is a town in Barshire, then legally its the parish of Foo-town that is the town, not the urban area, and that makes Foo-town (town) confusing.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Acabashi: I'm not sure this is a problem. Few parishes have so many pictures that it's a problem to scan through them looking for pictures of the particular village (the main culprit is the Geograph project, from which a million or so images were imported by a bot and mostly allocated to parishes). Wikipedia articles tend to cover both parish and village, and I can't see any reason why Commons categories can't do the same. If there's a need, just add a subcat of "Foo village" within the "Foo" category. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: Your edit summary has confused me. I'm pretty sure that is Acabashi's proposal is (1) only split if needed, and (2) if a split is needed put the parish at "Foo" and the village at "Foo (village)". That's what pretty much your suggestion, but you described at as "oppose"? My position is the contrary one to the proposal, which says if a split is needed "Foo" should be the village and "Foo (civil parish)" the parish (rationale is above).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: Apologies, you're right, I suppose I am supporting the proposal. What I was objecting to was the idea (which maybe wasn't being suggested) that every parish category should have a subcategory called "Foo village" (or "Foo (village)") when in most cases there's no need, all the photos can simply go in the parent category. I'm with Acabashi on the hierarchy too: parish above, village below. This also works if a parish contains more than one village or hamlet, which doesn't work if it's the other way round. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks, that makes sense. Either way around the village category would be a sub-category of the parish category (parish above, village below). The only real difference is what "Category:Foo" actually contains. My view is that category should be as useful to people searching for media as possible, which means making Category:Foo about the most common, actual day-to-day meaning of "Foo" (which is the village). That means the less common meaning (the parish), gets a disambiguated title, even though it is a larger geographic area.
IMO this is exactly the same situation as with districts (everything from Ashford to Wokingham); Barnsley is about the actual day-to-day meaning of "Barnsley" (the town), while the less common meaning (the district) gets a disambiguated title (Category:Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley). I see no reason why parishes should be any different, apart from to make it harder for people actually looking for media.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes the common convention has generally been to have the parish disambiguated and the settlement at the base name. If like Whitchurch the parish doesn't include the village a hatnote can be included. As pointed out we have done the same with districts, this is also like Liverpool vs Liverpool F.C.. We don't want disambiguation pages at the base name if we have 2 categories about variations of the same place (DAB pages are for situations where substantially unrelated topics share the same name like Poughill), as users can just navigate through the category tree per w:WP:DABCONCEPT. In the case of Barnsley the other different meanings are far less important to Barnsley in South Yorkshire taken as a whole can be considered primary and images intended for the district can be defused. A further question that has been raised before is where the village and civil parish are spelled different on the OS but are simply alternative names. See Category:Stainton Dale and Category:Staintondale. In this case probably "Stainton Dale" should redirect to "Staintondale" and the parish be at "Stainton Dale (civil parish). Similar to Category:Stratford-upon-Avon and Category:Stratford-on-Avon District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion:@Jmabel:@MKFI:@Crouch, Swale:@Dave.Dunford:
I think the idea of a hatnote on parish settlement pages is very sound and essential if the civil parish is to have '(civil parish)' after it where the name is the same, or close to the same, with the settlement with no added appendage.
We should remember, this includes me, that Wikimedia is a poor relation depository... have you like me got a blank look when explaining where the the photos I'm taking are going to be ? Everyone knows of Flickr, etc., but I've found that virtually 100% have never heard of WikiCommons. People search and link through via Google images almost exclusively. Why do Commons images come so far down a Google search nowadays ? Because they are not found and linked from external sites... just put a Google image search for 'Boreham, Essex' to see how 'family search', 'beerinthe evening' 'primelocation' and the like take priority... Commons, unlike previously, is almost invisible. If anyone not initiated (virtually everybody) does find their way to Commons we have cats (ie tags) out of the way at the bottom of the image page, not immediately against the image as in rival depositories, so cats are next to useless anyway to those not in the know.
I know this appears slightly off the point, but it isn't, and raises perhaps a wider point on the way image pages are structured. A hatnote appears at the top of a cat and is immediately apparent to anyone (the most) who doesn't realise there are bottom-of-page cat-tags, which, if the hatnote is for the civil parish it will give a fair crack of the whip to those photographers who have bothered to stray past the confines of a village which is often a minor aspect. I would go farther... I would add a hatnote at the top of any settlement, this linking to the parish, even if of a different name. Acabashi (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19Edit

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" (part 2)Edit

Ok, here we go again.

User:Beyond My Ken has kindly asked me to stop doing what I proposed in the previous discussion. He says that "No Roman Catholic church in the United States identifies itself as anything except "Roman Catholic". You will not find "Latin Church" anywhere on them, and we should not identify them in a way that they themselves do not use, and which baffles the user."

The reason because you probably won't see "Latin Church" in the US was already explained here. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not an American community but a worldwide one, and so in many places the distinction "Latin Church" is necessary (please read en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, [2] and en:Latin Church).

Anyway, I've not replaced "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church", as he has told me in my User talk. I've not created a category called "Latin churches in India". Instead, I've categorised churches that are part of the Latin Church into Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in India and churches that are not part of the Latin Church into their respective category under Category:Eastern Catholic churches in India (same with Iraq, Ukraine, etc). As I explained in the previous discussion, churches under Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic churches in India and Category:Syro-Malankara Catholic churches in India are also "Roman Catholic churches", because "Roman Catholic Church" is a synonym for "Catholic Church", as stated in en:Catholic Church. Instead, in Commons "Roman Catholic Church" has been used sometimes as if it where the Western (Latin) part of the Catholic Church, in opposition to "Eastern Catholic Church", which is absolutely wrong.

As I tried to explain in the previous discussion, many churches are wrongly categorised because of that confusion. In fact, as you can see in [3] [4] [5][6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11][12] [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20], I'm nearly checking church by church if they are correctly categorised, not simply moving all churches from "Roman Catholic churches" to "Catholic Churches of the Latin Church".

I would like to ask something to User:Beyond My Ken: What does "Roman Catholic Church" mean for you? There are two opposite options:

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Latin Church" (aka "Western Church", the part of the Catholic Church that uses Latin rites)
Then all Eastern Catholic churches have been wrongly categorised for years. Examples: [21]

[22] [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31].

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Catholic Church" (the whole Catholic Church, that includes the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches)
Then this message was wrong and the way we have been categorising in Commons has also been wrong for years.

Sorry, but there wasn't a previous consensus on this, not on where to put Latin churches and Eastern Catholic churches. If there was, it has been ignored for years [32]. There existed only two contradictory ways to work, and people have been using one or the other without any criteria. --Grabado (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Grabado is making what is essentially very simple into something overly complex. To wit:
  • There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches".
  • There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Catholic" in the name of a church is no guarantee that it is part of the Catholic Church: the Eastern Orthodox Church is technically the "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". "Catholic" simply means universal, and is used by churches that are and are not related to the Catholic Church
  • The categorization of churches by the rite they use is perfectly acceptable as long as it is a parallel hierarchy and does not replace the long-standing "Roman Catholic" categorization hierarchy. It is this replacement of "Roman Catholic" by "Latin Church" performed by Grabado which is objectionable and disruptive, because:
    • (1) it was done without consensus
    • (2) it is not what our users expect to find
    • (3) it does not accord with normal usage in the real world (one will search high and low for an indication that a Roman Catholic parish identifies itself as a "Latin Church")
Given all these factors, Grabado needs to realize that they have no consensus to make the changes they desire to make, and that the changes they made were disruptive and unwise. They need to undo the changes they made as soon as possible, and perhaps even stop editing religion categories, as their judgement on this appears to me to be untrustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I really appreciate that you've taken your time to respond to me. Could we keep discussing it a little bit? (Please: just a little) Because I think one of your points is completely wrong:

There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not true. In fact, this is the problem: There's no something called "Roman Catholic Church" and then 23 Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with it. According to your idea, if the Eastern Catholic Churches tomorrow would broke the Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church will remain the same since the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. That is wrong, according to en:Catholic Church (many people agreed with that in the previous discussion, like User:Ghouston, User:Jkadavoor or User:Revent).
What we actually have, always according to en:Catholic Church, en:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites and en:Global organisation of the Catholic Church , is a "Roman Catholic Church" that is made of 24 sui iuris churches, all of them in full communion with the Pope. That is, the "Roman Catholic Church" is formed by one Latin Church (en:Latin Church) and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. If you don't understand this, I really cannot help. If we can agree at least on this, I'll be absolutely opened to work to solve the problem and even revert any change i've made, If the final consensus reached implies to use another name for the categories. But we cannot make any progress if we don't agree with something that is a fact, stated in the first line of its Wikipedia article--Grabado (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are) no one except specialists are going to look in a category called "Latin Church" for something that in the real world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and no one looking for images of the Maronite Church, for instance, is going to look under "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". We are here to serve our users, and that means to categorize things the way they expect them to be categorized. Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy if that mirroring makes it difficult (or indeed next to impossible) for people to find what they're looking for.
Your mistake (again, accepting for the moment the validity of your explanation) is in confusing the church's structure with a category hierarchy that is useful and valid for this repository. That you keep pushing this point, in the face of no consensus, indeed little to no support from other editors, is a problem, as is your refusal to clean up the mess you made. You are preaching the wrong argument to the wrong audience, and you need to realize that and move on.
You said on your talk page that if someone had just told you back in May "No", you would not have gone ahead with the changes. Well, someone is now saying "No" to you -- several in fact, here and on your talk page, so it is now incumbent on you to stop and backtrack and undo what you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking now at the extent of what you've done, I think I'd be within my rights to call for you to be blocked for the extensive damage you've done to the the Roman Catholic category hierarchy. You've not only changed RC to "Latin Church", you've added unnecessary layers of categories, and you've done this country by country, all of which makes it much more difficult to undo. The changes you've made on your own will take a team of editors many days to undo -- and you did this all without having a consensus to act, because no one told you "No, don't do it"? You have screwed up this hierarchy good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: "Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy". I get the constant feeling that I'm being ignored. Have you read my first message, where I asked you a question? I've NEVER said that the structure of the Catholic Church must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy. Actually, mi first proposal was THE OPPOSSITE: forgetting all about the Latin Church (as we do in eswiki).

User:Nilfanion opposed to that proposal because "is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole". So, please. First step: do we recognise that we've been following two different criterias? Second step: What does the community want? Keep the distinction and mirror the Catholic Church structure or not? --Grabado (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What the community wants, Grabado, is what you have consistently and aggravatingly ignored: it wants that state of these categories returned to what they were before you began meddling with them. That is the bottom line, that is the be-all and end-all of this discussion,. Your continued attempts to "win" the discussion are in the way of that, which is why they are being ignored. Your pedantic and unnecessary questions will continue to go unanswered, because you simply are not getting the point: change the categories back to what they were.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Unless User:Grabado acts immediately to undo the changes that they made to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and return it to the state it was in before they started to edit it, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked from editing The Commons, as their judgment about what edits are useful and which are disruptive appears to be extremely poor.

  • Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I'd much rather find a milder remedy such as a topic ban -- I think an indef block is probably excessive -- but I've also been very frustrated with Grabado's unilateral changes against obvious consensus in matters related to religion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I, too, would normally hesitate to jump to an indef block, were it not for the extent of the damage caused by Grabado and their consistent reluctance to undo it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. Beyond My Ken is terribly wrong on stating There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches". He is wrong on the next point There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church. We had discussed in depth about it earlier. Feel free to find the previous discussion.
I can understand why Beyond My Ken think so. Here in India, "Roman Catholic" simply means to the public as "Syro-Malabar Catholic church" and the Latin church is called explicitly "Latin church". This is because Syro-Malabar Catholic church is more prominent here. Similarly "Roman Catholic" simply means the Latin church where that church is prominent. But this will not change the truth that Roman Catholic Church is a union of Latin and Eastern churches. Jee 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • India is not the world. The consensus here is that what you are call a "Latin Church" should be called a "Roman Catholic Church". In countries where the Latin rite is dominant, that is what those churches are called. Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic? In fact, let me quote from en:Catholic Church in India: "There are 168 dioceses in India organised into 30 provinces. Of these, 131 are Latin Catholic Church, 29 Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and 8 Syro-Malankara Catholic Church dioceses," so your statement that "the Syro-Malabar church is more prominent here" is clearly untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. "Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic?" Who said so? In fact Grabado is following the nomenclature what English Wikipedia and Britannica following. 2. For India, it is not about the number of dioceses scattered in a large country where not much catholic population. They are concentrated into a few states. Further the latin church is very new here compared to the other two churches. Jee 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Who said so? The editors of the Commons reached a consensus that said so (and despite your claim, English Wikipedia does not follow the "Latin Church" usage), and I doubt your arguments that we must follow the practices prevalent in India is going to change that consensus. It certainly explains why Grabado did what he did, attempting to impose Indian practices on Wikipedia without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
1. It seems you didn't see Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism. This is not limited to English Wikipedia; has followed by 130+ wiki projects. 2. I hardly see Grabado has a connection to India. Jee 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that, and that is not a reference to the use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed a confusion on whether "Latin" or "Western" is more acceptable. The only link I saw in English Wikipedia pointed to this where it used Western Catholic Church: "30. The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity." So "Catholic Church" may meant "Western Church" prior to that decree on 1964; but not now. I asked some priests here for a better official reference. Will be back if got one.) Jee 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither "Western" or "Latin" is acceptable. This may be out of your experience, but every single Latin-rite Roman Catholic church in the Western world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and that is what they should be called, as the standing consensus holds. You want to change it, find a consensus of editors that agrees with you. So far, looking here and at Grabado's talk page, there is not one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I got a reply with this link. Jee 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"The use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made". Again: No, this is not the change I've made. --Grabado (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Your statement does not accord with the reality of what you did. PLEASE RETURN THE CATEGORIES TO THE STATE OF WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE YOU ROYALLY FUCKED THEM UP. I do not want to spend the next week or so reverting your changes, but if you leave me no resort, I will have to do so, and when I have finished I will press much more forcefully for you to be blocked as a disruption to Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal doesn't make sense to me. You want Grabado to *both* undo the changes *and* be indef blocked? --99of9 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not too hard to understand: I want Grabado to undo the changes or be indef blocked. If Grabado undoes what he has done, then I will withdraw the proposal, but if he does not, and the proposal gains sufficient support, then he can be indef blocked until he pledges to undo what he has done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the matter is here but please take it as a note as an Indian citizen we respect all the religions in the country. As per Christianity is concerned whether we are a few we don't distinguish between Roman Catholic and other Catholic. We all believe we believe in one God and that's what we are united irrespective of Roman Catholic or Protestant or any other Catholic.@Yann: u too from India what do u think?as I find this proposal not appropriate(The indication of India and Roman Catholic made me comment here)--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't clutter this discussion with irrelevancies. No one has said anything about the Indian respect for religion, because it plays no part in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In the Western world (ie where either catholicism or protestantism is dominant), there is no need to change anything. In the English-speaking countries Catholic churches self-identify as "Roman Catholic", and are commonly called that, so Roman Catholic should be used not just Catholic for the West. Jkadavoor, the official guidance of the church should take second place to the actual common usage on the ground in the West for churches in the West. The existence of the Eastern Catholic churches shouldn't complicate the situation for churches in the West. It is sensible to make changes for those countries where Eastern Catholics are significant, and only those countries. There is also a case to improve the global categories for the church, as in those that are not country-specific.
I think the present situation could be seen as consensus for Grabado's changes outside the West, a consensus against within it and no consensus on the global cats.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The complaint is that categories like Category:Catholic churches in the United States contain subcategories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, but Wikipedia says Catholic churches and Roman Catholic churches are the same thing. They've got 55 pages of archives in w:Talk:Catholic_Church by the way. But apparently there's no acceptable alternative name for the Roman Catholic subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I was coming to quote ghouston's early comment at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/06#References. I think English Wikipedia and probably other Wikipedias may be discussed this a lot and made the current stand. And Commons too needs to follow that path. That English Wikipedia article has so many references. I added one more. (BNK's arrogant and threatening comments make this discussion difficult to participate. I'll not comment more unless he stops it or an admin asked him to stop.) Jee 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to redirect Category:Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, with the Eastern churches as a sub-cat. I'm really not sure what to do about the Western Church but there is no reason why we can't use Catholic and Roman Catholic for different parts of the tree (based on local preferences).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with that proposal, Nilfanion. Actually it is what we do in eswiki and it is more or less like my first proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to throw in a remark without having read the whole discussion: There are Western Catholic Churches that aren't "Roman". Im thinking particularly of the en:Old Catholic Church that separeted from the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century. The Old Catholic Church in Switzerland (there called "Christkatholische Kirche", "Christian Catholic Church"), a church recognized by cantonal governments, has basically the same theology and rites as the Roman Catholic Church - but doesn't recognize infallible papal authority, therefore separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Yes, you're absolutely right. There are other Christian Churches that consider themselves to be "catholic". That is why I've explicitly asked here about "the whole Church leaded by the Pope". --Grabado (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First questionEdit

Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church is also known as "Roman Catholic Church" [33]. Here in Commons, we've been treating both concepts as if they where different things. No matter what term we finally chose to solve it, no matter what solution we finally choose, even if we finally decide there's not consensus to choose between any solution and the best would be doing nothing, do we agree on this? Do we agree that we have a problem?

I ask you, the community:

Do you agree that Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church" (the whole Church leaded by the Pope of Rome) is also called "Roman Catholic Church" and that we shouldn't contradict this statement here in Wikimedia Commons?
--Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No matter the result of this, I'll revert any changes to the previous status quo once the community had reached any consensus about this question or if an admin requests me to do it previously, as I've said in the Administrators' noticeboard. Even if the community agrees there is a problem, I'll revert my changes to the previous status quo before keep discussing about any actual proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, as proposer. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This is a leading proposition (implying there's only one alternative), and also doesn't actually say what Commons should do. To clarify, this should be a relatively simple (set of) questions: What to call the global category tree? What category name to use for institutions, that call themselves Roman Catholic, in the West? How about regions where the Latin church is not the dominant local variant of Catholicism?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Of course I don't say "what" commons should do. I just ask you: Should we do something? People like Beyong My Ken still doesn't agree with the first line of en:Catholic Church (he told me: "even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are)"). We cannot reach any consensus about how to solve something if we doesn't agree that we have something to solve. This is the first step to even start discussing any proposal. If the community doesn't event want to solve the problem, I'm not going to make more proposals (like I already did)--Grabado (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
A statement of principle is a waste of time. You don't need to hold a discussion to say "Commons should generally follow Wikipedia", we know that. You also know full well how contentious this was on WP. While it has consensus, that's not the same as unanimous agreement, so your comment does NOT accurately represent the reality of what happened on Wikipedia. What is productive is working out what Commons should do about it. Please close this section.--Nilfanion (talk)
I honestly don't know what to do when people keep saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Given how complex this situation is you will always get people saying that, and the best thing to do is to explain to them the difficulty, not just tell them they are wrong without saying why. The above is an empty appeal to authority, which is likely to annoy people not persuade them. Its also badly phrased: The Pope leads the Latin Church, not the entire Catholic Church. For instance, the Syriac Catholic Church is led by its Patriarch, not the Pope. Focus on what Commons should do about it, perhaps the discussion on WP will find something constructive (but I doubt it - the problem with Latin Church is its completely unrecognisable).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Ok, I'll take your advice. Thank you. But I believe that is more or less what I've been trying to do since the beginning. Just one small hue on the last thing you said: the Pope leads the Latin Church, but also the whole Catholic Church. Even when every sui iuris Church has its own Patriarch, the Pope has ultimate authority (As an example: the en:Eritrean Catholic Church was erected by Pope Francis as an autonomous sui iuris metropolitan church in 2015; here you have the Apostolic Constitution). --Grabado (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's something which could be done with little effort. Complain on w:Talk:Catholic Church that the enwiki category system is broken: it has exactly the same issue as on Commons, with w:Category:Roman Catholic church buildings used as a subcategory of w:Category:Catholic church buildings. See if somebody there can solve it. --ghouston (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done [34] --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Grabado: You continue to attempt to lead the discussion to the place you want it to end up, and you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position, I simply do not agree with it in regard to your solution to it for cetgorization. Further, I'm not interested in debating the church's hierarchy with you, because the only real issue here is that you made massive changes to Commons categorization (which, as Jmabel said on your talk page is not an epistemological exercise, but a way for people to find things) without even a scintilla of a consensus to do so, and that you steadfastly refuse to clean it up. Stopping your changes is not enough. If you want a debate on the merits, then return the categories to what they were before you messed them all up, restoring the long-standing consensus, and then you can open a community discussion to see if there's a new consensus. I refuse, however, to debate that issue as long as your edits remain in force, a Sword of Damocles over the head of the community. Fix your egregious disruption, then talk can take place, not before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:: "you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position". If you understand my position now, I'm happy. But you cannot say that I "continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying", if in your first message you said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not Roman Catholic Churches [35] and you've been discussing about it with another user.
I've already made clear my position in the Administrators' noticeboard regarding whether I should revert any changes or not. I'm not going to discuss the same thing in two places at the same time. You've already opened a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard and I've said there all I had to say about that. --Grabado (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, not on the Administrators' noticeboard itself (took me a while to find the comments in question) but on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (more precisely Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Grabado. But over there they said to resolve it here. So, Grabado, if you want the discuss it there rather than here, we are at a bit of a standoff. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
[36] --Grabado (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Grabado: You are being terribly disingenuous. I have never said that the Eastern Churches are not part of the same overarching Church as the Roman Catholic churches, and your continuing attempt to portraying me as saying so is simply a way to deflect attention from what is the only real issue here: you made a change (or, rather, a huge series of changes) that you think is right without having consensus behind you, and now you refuse to return to the status quo ante, after which discussion of your proposal can proceed -- however, no consensus discussion is going to take place while your disruptive, non-consensual changes remain in place. Restore the state of categorization to what it was before you meddled with it, and you can discuss the name of the pins the angels are dancing on to your heart's content, and if enough editors agree with you, changes can be made -- but not before you undo what you have already done, not simply stopped doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, now as ghouston asked a talk page discussion is started at en:Talk:Catholic_Church#Our_whole_category_system_might_be_broken and two experienced users (TSP and Chicbyaccident) agreed that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope. It was discussed earlier too. Now BNK is asking to shut down that discussion which I didn't understand. The only merit I see in his argument is he is saying Grabado acted without the consensus. It is not true. When Jmabel questioned his edit earlier, we had discussed about it. The only point we didn't arrive on a consensus is, to find a suitable name to identify the Latin Church (Western Church). This can be discussed further. But I see no need of further discussion on the main point, that whether the "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope or not. It is clearly set so in English Wikipedia and most other Wikipedias. Commons should provide a matching category for the Wikipedias. Jee 03:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're entirely missing the point, which has nothing to do with the stuff you're referring to, and everything to do with Grabado editing without consensus (Grabado cannot have had a consensus to make the massive number of edits to categories he did if, as you admit yourself, the discussion didn't "find a suitable name", because he made those changes with a name that he, alone decided was appropriate), disrupting a long-standing category hierarchy, and refusing to restore the state it was in before his edits. The combination of disruptive editing and what we call on "I didn't hear that" behavior, is the one and only issue here at the moment. When this stuff is settled, and the category hierarchy is restored to the state it was in to begin with, then and only then can a consensus discussion be held to determine what the next step is. Grabado's going to with a Commons matter is grandstanding, since the community doesn't determine what happens on Commons (or vice versa). Grabado is, in fact, doing everything possible except the one thing he should be doing: reverting his edits so we return to our starting point and his damage is undone. To me, that's sufficient grounds for blocking, but, frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of banging my head against this particular brick wall, and having all the energy sucked out of me by an intransigent POV editor with an idee fixe that he will not let go of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what was (he stopped editing for the time-being) wrong with Grabado's edits? As you didn't participate in the first discussion, I can make a small summary. Earlier the category structure was not matching with other wiki projects; Eastern Catholic Churches were out of Roman Catholic Church. Grabado placed them inside. So the parent category Roman Catholic Church now includes all Eastern Catholic Churches as subcategories and the Latin Church directly under Roman Catholic Church without a subcategory name. As far as I know this is the system Spanish Wikipedia follows. Nilfanion or somebody else opposed it as it is confusing. But we failed to arrive into a consensus to call a name for the Latin Church. While checking the official pages of, we can understand why this confusion. They rarely address the Latin Church with a name. So we've only two options; 1. find a name for the Latin Church 2. add them directly under the main cat (Roman Catholic Church) without a name as in Spanish Wikipedia. Your demand to restore the early state (kick-out the Eastern Catholic Churches out of Roman Catholic Church) is not acceptable as it is not the truth. Let me know if I understand your demand in a wrong way. Jee 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Above all, what was wrong with his edits is that he made major changes when there was no consensus to do so, and when the status quo ante did not have any serious problems, and when quite a few people had actively objected to the direction he wanted to go with this.
  • At the risk of repeating myself: the category hierarchy is not an exercise in abstract logic, epistemology, etc. It is a means of helping users readily find files related to particular subject matter. As long as it is clear what goes in a particular category, and that category name is one that users are likely to use and to understand, things are fine. Unintuitive names are a much bigger problem than ones that are not strictly accurate. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Categories like "Latin churches of the Catholic Church" seem unwieldy to me. But using "Roman Catholic churches" when it's ambiguous and doesn't match the primary meaning on Wikipedia seems confusing. If it's just a disambiguation issue, with multiple meanings for "Roman Catholic", maybe they could be disambiguated with "Roman Catholic (Latin) churches" or something. --ghouston (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Jmabel, could you elaborate a bit more with an example? I checked his edits; but didn't find anything particular. I saw some edits he reverted on your request. That is a simple one and easy to solve. I agree with you that Wikimdia projects are intended for common people and so should be easy to understand. But that doesn't mean we need to keep a misinformation even after we find it untrue. As I commented here, George Alencherry and Baselios Cleemis are Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. They voted in the last Pope election. So if I need to find a church during my travelling, I'll prefer any Roman Catholic church than an Orthodox church. I don't care whether it is Latin or Syrian. Here in Kerala people go to the nearby or convenient one irrespective of their rite. I can understand in some places where only Latin Church exists, people may note be aware of other Catholic Churches. This is not a simple topic for somebody outside. (The concept of more than one Rite in one Church is more complicate to understand.) Jee 05:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations, BMK Could we go back and start discussing about how to solve the problem I reported? --06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

When you have reverted all of your changes, discussion can begin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I object. Improvements were postponed for a long time, despite much needed. Its precise terminology may be altered, but I consider the edits improvements. So I advocate we take it from here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, nothing has been "postponed", because no consensus for a change has ever existed. The "precise terminology" will be decided by community consensus, and not by the opinions of random editors, especially one with 279 edits over the course of 4 years. In any case, the non-consensus edits need to be undone before any change in terminology can be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Chicbyaccident. I had asked above to give example on what edit seems problematic; but nothing is given so far. If provided, we can look into it. Otherwise no need to revert something that need to be restored after the discussion. Jee 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time now to go through the edit histories and work out what edit several weeks ago started this all. I am not the one who has been seeking some sort of disciplinary action here; I'm just trying to keep the categories useful. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel, your comments here and in the previous discussions are very useful. What we need is such a friendly discussion and I too ready for it. BTW, I tried to make Category:Roman Catholic Church as a disambiguation page as Ghouston suggested above. Feel free to revert if not good. Jee 02:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chicbyaccident and Jkadavoor for your support. I'm going to revert my changes as BMK has asked, as a first step to continue discussing. Don't worry, I could easily do the same work again if needed. --Grabado (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Just be certain you have a clear consensus before you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-25Edit

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with revertEdit

Hello. Apologies if this is a FAQ. I am trying to remove the black border around an old photo, File:Gateway_District-Minneapolis-a.jpg. Revert doesn't like me. Thanks if you can help. I've tried purge and tried replacing the image. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Purge is sometimes stubborn, but both your revisions lack the border, so it’s good now. I hope you’ll be able to see it for yoursel soon. -- Tuválkin 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Tuvalkin. When I look at them, only the middle one is missing a border. I tried to revert again today, no luck. Your system believes both my new uploads are the same. Stubborn is right! Why do I see them differently, still? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Susan, the second and third, active version are byte identical, I just checked. Reload the file description page without cache following theapproach following my signature (this is transcluded content available in several languages). — Speravir – 20:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache . (You only need to do it once.)

Internet Explorer: press Ctrl+F5, Firefox: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+ Shift+R), Opera/Konqueror: press F5, Safari: hold down Shift+alt while clicking Reload, Chrome: hold down Shift while clicking Reload

By gum, you are right! I switched to Chrome and everything looks fine. Thank you much, Speravir and Tuválkin. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

BIG Blue Button will probably break scripts in JulyEdit

I left a note about this project at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/05#BIG blue button will break some scripts, and I wanted to give you a quick update: It'll probably break things at Commons sometime in the last half of July.

I've recommended that Commons be the very last wiki to get this change, because this community has some of the most important old editing scripts. But you don't have to wait: the required fixes work now. So, please, if you maintain a script or gadget, please check now to see whether it's going to work later, and fix it now. And if you depend upon a script, then please find the people who are supposed to be maintaining it, and make sure that they know about this. Anyone can test scripts they use.

Testing most scripts does not require significant technical skills. Just take your regular URL for editing (such as ) and add &ooui=1 to the end ( ). See if it works like you expect. If it does, then you're okay. If it doesn't, then there is more information and examples of how other scripts have been fixed at mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons.

I don't think that this affects scripts that use the API for editing. I also don't think that this will affect scripts that aren't used for editing (e.g., to add links to pages when you're viewing pages).

If you have questions or need help, then please leave a message at mw:Talk:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons (or {{ping}} me here). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20Edit

Parsing myriads of diffs requiredEdit

Hello. This request or question is intended for people having access to WMF Labs (that I haven’t) or skilled with MediaWiki API (where I am not). There is a large run of edits by one well-known Commons user, namely: [40], [41], and yet many thousands older. Of these, most are such Commons media maintenance-related job as changing dates in {{uncategorized}}, {{check categories}}, or in [[Category:]] tags directly. But there are several, such as [42] and [43], that tamper with the upload date. As conjectured at MediaWiki talk: VisualFileChange.js #Possibly wrong replacement in the upload date, these were random user errors most probably. How to detect all illegitimate changes and hunt those edits down?

As a side note, VisualFileChange is poorly designed since permits for tampering with important metadata as easily as doing routine maintenance. Especially poorly considered are edit summaries—contrast VFC to HotCat in this aspect—that’s why a complex search&destroy operation is required now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not "tampering with important metadata". The file upload date is given in the "File history" section, and you cannot change that with VFC or anything else. These changes just affect maintenance categorization. I really don't think this is worth getting worked up over. Storkk (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Which maintenance category does {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}} set? Doesn’t this marker certify that a particular version was uploaded originating from en.WP, not from anywhere else? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, we don’t know which else data might be changed, observing thousands identical cryptic “consolidate” labels in the summaries. I found two spoiled {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}}s, but who can ensure now that {{Information}} or {{Artwork}} weren’t damaged anywhere? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If this template has been applied incorrectly, you can fix it, or if this is a large number of images you could ask at Commons:Bots/Work requests for a mass correction. No, the use of this template does not "certify" anything, it appears to be used to make information easier to see and is not used consistently. Were an API or bot savvy user intending to do some analysis or make some mass changes based on upload date, they would not start with looking at the second-hand numbers entered into this template, they would run some SQL against the commonswiki or enwiki databases to use original records. -- (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn’t make a work request before understanding what namely have we to look for. Users with SQL access could do some preliminary analysis, if only to check whether other erroneous patterns are present in the contribs in question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, however any errors related to this template are unlikely to be a hazard for other contributors, so looking into this any more deeply is not a priority for me. If you can highlight an example that makes it seem more urgent, I still suggest asking for mass corrections at bots/work. -- (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It sets Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard, and the date would appear to only affect the sort order of the files displayed in that category. Storkk (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Uploaded_with_en.wp_upload_wizard is hidden, but isn’t a maintenance category. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a category that exists purely to aid in maintenance, which is what I meant by "maintenance categorization". This is such an utterly trivial error that I personally don't think it's worth investing a tenth of the time we've already spent discussing it. Feel free to continue if you still feel it worthwhile, though. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an easy explanation for this: Sometimes maintenance categories get consolidated in order to make it easier to fix things. It doesn't much matter if we have temporary categories shitABChappend 2014 + shitABChappend 2015 + shitABChappend 2016 or dump it all together into shitABChappend or shitABChappend 2017. Same process has been done last year(??) All media needing categories as of 20XY. It's just a maintenance tag without any further use. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21Edit

Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?Edit

Historically, the count of "content pages" here at Commons (shown at Special:Statistics and accessible through API requests) has included only pages in the main namespace ("galleries") containing at least one wikilink (matching the classic definition of an "article" used on most Wikimedia wikis). The count of "uploaded files" has been a completely different thing (one that, admittedly, most people care about a lot more than the number of galleries).

Now, following a change I pointed out almost 2 weeks ago, the definition of "content pages" includes both galleries and File: pages containing at least one wikilink. This means the content-page count will increase (almost) as fast as files are uploaded (assuming they result in "File:" pages containing at least one wikilink, which I believe is true when the Upload Wizard is used). As a result, the content-page count has jumped to around 530,000 as I type this — an increase of around 300% since June 6th.

Unfortunately, this current count is almost completely meaningless, since it contains only qualifying (wikilinked) "File:" pages created after the settings change of June 6th. (Already-existing "File:" pages were not "retroactively" counted.)

To get a "meaningful" content-page count, we will need to have the entire wiki recounted from scratch — something that is being done periodically to every Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage, but to my knowledge has never been done to Commons.

I stress that this will need to be done whether we accept the change that was made on June 6th or not. However, we need to decide which definition of "content pages" we want to go with before the recounting is done (since it will be a relatively [or maybe extremely] long and resource-intensive process).

Specifically, then, we need to decide between the following options:

  1. The count of "content pages" should include only galleries in the main namespace. (i.e., request a revert of the June 6th settings change and recount the wiki)
  2. The count of "content pages" should include both galleries and pages in the "File:" namespace. (i.e., accept the June 6th settings change and recount the wiki)

Some things to note about the two options:

  • The first option is how things have been done for several years, up to 6 June 2017. The current count under this scenario "should be" around 130,000 (based on the count before June 6th) and represent how many wikilinked galleries we have. Using this definition would have the debatable benefit of separating the count of galleries entirely from the count of uploaded files.
  • The second option is how things stand as of 6 June 2017, but as just explained above, the current count (around 530,000) is now a mixture of galleries and only-recently-created "File:" pages. It is impossible to know what the count "should be" under this scenario, but I'm guessing it's at least several million. (For comparison, the count of uploaded file is just shy of 40 million.) After recounting, using this definition would have the debatable benefit of eliminating "File:" pages lacking links to, say, uploader userpages and/or local pages explaining licensing terms.
  • It is (also) debatable whether the existence of links on "File:" pages (or even gallery pages, for that matter) is even a meaningful way of qualifying such pages as "content". Thus, we may want to consider switching to the "any" method of content-page counting (counting all pages in "content namespaces" rather than only those containing a wikilink).
  • As discussed in the Phabricator task that precipitated the settings change, the intent of the change was to allow Special:Random and Special:Nearby to work with both galleries and files. Currently the navigation menu (left side of page) contains a "hardcoded" link to Special:Random/File rather than Special:Random. With the change, Special:Random now brings up (presumably) either a file or a gallery page. Is this desired? Do we care? (As for Special:Nearby, I can't say much since I've never worked with that.)

So… comments? Should I open an RFC about this? - dcljr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dcljr: I agree that a "content page" on a media repository should probably include the media itself but what practical effect would this have? We already have a magic word for the number of files and it's shown on the Main Pages, so anyone could easily have an idea of how big the repository is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The "content pages" count shown at Special:Statistics is also accessible through {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} on-wiki and tracked at stats:. Many people also gather "content pages" counts for various Wikimedia Wikis (including this one) through the API. If the wiki is going to report its count of "content pages", however defined, it should report the correct count, right? That's all I'm saying. We just need to decide which "correct count" we want to use. - dcljr (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: Oops… I forgot: stats: uses it own, different definition of what constitutes "content pages", and does not rely on wiki-reported counts. - dcljr (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or the other, but if the File: namespace is included, the Data: namespace should probably be included as well. --El Grafo (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the change should be reverted (+1 to dcljr).--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
What about file pages that don't use [[normal links]] but do have other kinds of content? When I upload images (I'm just past twenty thousand of them), I tend not to use normal links; instead, I provide lots of {{w}} links to en:wp. For example, my most recent upload, File:Marlbrook near Glasgow.jpg, transcludes {{w}} six times in a 32-word description. Nyttend (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Interwiki links do not qualify pages as "content pages" under the "link" definition being used here at Commons, only "normal" internal wikilinks. Specially processed links like [[Category:]] (to place a page into a category) or [[File:]] (to display a file) don't count either, although the "normal wikilink" versions starting with colons, like [[:Category:]] and [[:File:]], do count (but we don't want to use this fact to "game" the system into counting pages that would otherwise not be counted — we should choose the settings for counting method and content namespaces that best reflects our current practices/opinions about content). - dcljr (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Just a note to say I'm investigating how to reset the count. Will do that regardless of the decision around the value however my goal is to make sure the chosen value is well documented (since it is not obvious) to avoid this happening again. Note that the page Special: Nearby and default behaviour of Special:Random and other things depend on the value. The former will be broken (and probably disabled) if we need to switch it back. Something to consider. Jdlrobson (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about San Fermin posters' licenseEdit

Hello! The city hall of Pamplona has uploaded all the posters of San Fermin fiestas since 1846 here. I wonder which of them are on public domain and which of them evidently not, as they were public posters published each year. -Theklan (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If we don't know about the specific artists, I guess it's a question of what date is considered safe in a "life + 70" situation. I'd think 150 years is safe (so up to 1867, at present; this would allow or a 20-year-old artist who lived to be 100). After that it gets shadier. Not sure we have a clear policy on this, but if we don't know anything about the specific artist, I don't think anything newer than 125 years could even be argued for: someone could easily have lived 55 years after creating the poster. It looks like the linked site gives the artists' names, so there is a good chance death dates can be worked out, which might allow some as late as the first third of the 20th Century to be used. On the other hand: these are pretty low-res, so not of all that much interest. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe Spain is life+80 for all practical purposes; see COM:CRT.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


A few minutes ago we uploaded our 40th millionth file. Hurrah! -- Tuválkin 23:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Commons comunity! --Hume42 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Whouuuuu Partyhat icone.png0x010C ~talk~ 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Does the uploader of #40,000,000 get a prize, a t-shirt or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
… and of these Ms the site has several millions items of garbage, and much higher garbage ratio in recent uploads. The time to look for pockets where the garbage accumulates due to various glitches in software or display→‎keyboard interface. I deem, there are more such pockets than one. And, then, to chase the waste-makers, fix software, add abuse filters, or whatever. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not understand the previous remark. Can anyone clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22Edit

Japanese text and paintingEdit

Postcard Japanese painting.jpg
Can someone identify the painter? On the backside there is Japanese text.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think the text on the back is helpful. It appears to read きかは便郵. (I'm roughly ja-1, though, so YMMV) Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
the text is not きかは便郵 but 郵便はがき (Yûbin Hagaki, mean Carte Postale). --eien20 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eien20: That would make much more sense, but could you clarify? This is the back, possibly a printing error? or was it written RTL? Sorry if I'm flaunting my ignorance here. Storkk (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
so, It written RTL. see w:Horizontal and vertical writing in East Asian scripts#Right-to-left horizontal writing for details.--Yizumin (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Yizumin: fascinating. Thank you! Storkk (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I didn't research a painter. --eien20 (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

And is this one from Kobe as most of my postcards from Japan are?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi flagship store in Tokyo, probably in the 1920s. cf [44], [45] A more precise date could likely be found by looking at when the neighboring building (Mitsui bank?) was constructed, and what was there before that. Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Following this reasoning it must be before 1929: File:Mitsui Bank and Mitsukoshi Department Store by Koizumi Kishio.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
refers to Edo-Tokyo Museum, and according to the website, the Mitsukoshi postcard was made in 1914. also refer to NIHOMBASHI MITSUKOSHI NEWS its footnote says "Photos from top:Post card...1914"--Yizumin (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Good and bad news about cross-wiki search results in WikipediaEdit

Good news: The cross-wiki search results from other projects are now live in English Wikipedia. Bad news: The search results from Commons are suppressed via RfC discussion in English Wikipedia, meaning users won't see those results in English Wikipedia. Don't feel down yet. Users from non-English Wikipedia may still see the search results in their respective language sites. Feel free to share your thoughts here. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tit for tat, if the English Wikipedia thinks it can rule above other projects and not being a sister project, and it will can block cross-wiki search results to several projects - including Wikimedia Commons - on the flimsiest of argumenst why then Wikimedia Commons doesnt block all images from being displayed on said Wikipedia? It would be at the same low level, but it would be a fitting answer to such callous act. Tm (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Commons block cross-wiki uploads from Wikipedia? Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Alas it decided to do it, almost a year ago but fortunately cross-wiki uploads is still very much active. Tm (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I find it interesting how much effort people who call Commons' content objectionable put into finding the most obscene material – some of it so obscene that one user couldn't help but prominently exhibit it on his personal user page.    FDMS  4    08:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Meh, surely we are all bored rigid about the regular dramah ethusiasts shouting porn and sniping about Commons, but from the safety of the English Wikipedia community where the old boys club give a virtual slap on the back for throwing "cunt" or "fuck" into discussions, just to prove how Jimmy's personal interpretation of free speech is alive and well (diff). Perhaps instead of giving a fig for how they mess with their project, you might focus on what you want to see the WMF prioritize to make meaningful improvements to Commons? For example, you could go vote for an implementation of image hashes. -- (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
people will go to a great deal of effort to denigrate those projects that they do not "control". not invented here, is become you shall not pass. such veto behavior would not matter much, except that it ruins a community. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with allowing Commons search from Wikipedia. The first of course is the NSFW issue, which is a serious one and sadly the Commons reaction continues lack a mature understanding of what the word "censorship" means. Other image sites (Flickr and 500px for example) have ways of rating their content, so there's no fundamental reason why Commons could not and yet still exist as an uncensored repository of material. Freedom is allowing the hosting of content that some might object to, while also providing a user interface with options that permit users to choose what they want to see and when.

But the second problem is the nature of the way Commons is built, which is largely by independent users uploading distinct content, rather than a collaborative structured database. Both projects share a category system which is used by search and is maintained by a community who can watch over entries to some limited degree. But the text on Wikipedia is community created and reviewed and watchlisted. The text on Commons is by and large written by the uploader (or the third-party site from which content is scraped). This makes it much more likely that such text may produce undesirable search results: there are no eyeballs looking at it until it turns up in someones search. How quickly would Wikipedia/Commons be Google Bombed by folk uploading unpleasant images with "Donald Trump" in the description?

On the RFC, Fae suggests using Wikidata to associate search results with Commons images. That's certainly one way of trying to improve the quality/accuracy of results. It depends how well Wikidata is managed and resists vandalism/spam, which I don't know. A drawback is that it would hugely reduce the result set because very little content is linked.

WMF on the RFC said they tweaked the algorithm to "use boosted images". I don't know what they mean by that. Is it images that have passed FP/QI/VI? Or is it images that are in-use on sister projects (like a simple PageRank measure)? The problem with the former is that FP standards are high enough to exclude a lot of useful content, and QI is only valid for images taken by a Commons user, so excludes the millions of imported images. Requiring an image to be "in use" also hugely restricts the result set. All these measures could be used to ensure the top results are better and most likely relevant.

I would very much like my images to be displayed via Wikipedia search. Only a minority of my images get included in WP articles. So there is much content that will not be found. If Google Images turned up NSFW images in its first page of results, one could not use it in an open environment. They quite rightly realise that a "Safe search" option is necessary, though give the option to turn that off. When Commons refuses to implement something similar, the result is the entire site is blocked from WP search results. The result: my images are all censored because the fundamentalists outnumber the pragmatists. Way to go, Commons! -- Colin (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

don't know why you are fretting about the same old walled garden on english. there is not a new WMF initiative they will not opt out of, or filter. and yeah, to the extent you have an image at wikidata, that will route around. (and if you want your images used, you will have to edit them in yourself. getting to a thousand images in use is easy.) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I seem to remember this being discussed on Commons previously, about whether there should be a "flag for possibly objectionable material" or something. I notice a few comments in the Wikipedia discussion suggesting that Structured Data would somehow give a solution. Either way, whether structured data or a category, it would require software support so isn't something that the Commons community can implement on its own. I'm also sceptical that a single "flag" would be so easy to determine, given the endless possible disputes about exactly what would be considered objectionable, with the usual discussions about women breastfeeding, naked children running away from napalm, equal treatment between men and women, sexual images that are legitimately in use even on en.Wikipedia (which still prides itself on being uncensored), and different language Wikipedias potentially wanting to apply different criteria. --ghouston (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
yes, Commons:Sexual content and m:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two; m:Image filter referendum/en; m:Image_filter_referendum/Results/en. as you see below, the "free speech" meme is strong here, and the commons local consensus differs from the wikimedia consensus. this will have consequences such as the brickbrats from english. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, a statement: Wikimedians's mission is to collect all knowledge and make it available to all people. Projects are just tools to achieve that end. They are not ends in themselves. So when there is talk about different content standards for diferent languages, I'm worried. We are being asked how we see Wikimedia Movement in 2030: with such different standards supported by the communities (normally, just the loudest shouters in each language plus some friends of theirs), what I see are a lot of Reinos de Taifas.
So files in Commons have to be equally accesible and usable from all projects in all languages. (Note: some languages are used in very different cultural contexts. A topless woman on a beach in Cullera is normal, but I don't know if it is the case in Mexico, Chile or Equatorial Guinea).
I have generally opposed flagging files or articles on religious, nudity or similar grounds, but right now, after what is happening in Turkey, China, and other places, I think that tagging files with "contains nudity" or "non kosher/halal/se salta la norma del Viernes Santo" is not all that relevant, as people already have to find their ways to our contents. So my main worry (a Big Brother compelling people to compulsory use filters) is already in place in a much bigger way (Big Brother closes access to every(wiki)thing).
In short, local communities' norms restricting access to other parts of the Big Wikimedia Project are bad. Something like building a border between Iowa and Illinois. B25es (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I think in practice what you'd end up with is dozens of different flags that could be applied to an image, and separate raging battles on each project about which images should be filtered by default, and perhaps even whether the filter can be disabled in preferences for logged-in users. It's not just about nudity, the Wikipedia article mentioned gore, and there are other issues such as images of Muhammad or same-sex couples in some cultures. Maybe someone will want to filter images relating to abortion, evolution or global warming. It will also be offensive to some if same-sex couples are flagged as potentially offensive, so there would be no way to win. --ghouston (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Most people would find photographs of mutilated corpses on the battlefield, or the bodies of children with disfiguring diseases, much worse to be 'surprised' by in a search than an erotic or nude shot. It's interesting to see how those that have lobbied for several years for NSFW or equivalent flags have learned to dodge the word "censorship" and elliptically talk about "unexpected results" without tackling the fact that in their tiresome "pron" campaign, they miss that the most truly disturbing images are famously historic or have high educational value, and should be accessible by minors who want to learn about the reality of war and disease. We all know that as soon as the WMF adopts any sort of NSFW flag, all those images will become impossible to access from most schools and countries where internet access is being ever increasingly censored by Government agencies. This remains the precise opposite of the open knowledge mission this project and the Foundation was established on.
I agree that astonishingly even illustrations of the fact of evolution is something we have to fight for, with Turkey right now removing any "anti-creationist" material from its education system. Pop, there go the dinosaurs. I don't want to contribute to any system that makes that type of illogical censorship easy to enforce. -- (talk) 10:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
"surprised" is coder talk for "readers gave negative feedback". i tend to agree, given the virgin killers case but the slippery slope is too much. enabling a user filter gadget is not the same as a global blacklist by institutions. your ideology of "knowing what is best for minors" will get you called Socrates. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
We are here to provide open knowledge (media) for everyone not to hear a bunch of reactionary creeps discovering Clark Kent is whip-able as everyone else or sexual intercourse exists. They want to display our content? Good. Lucky them. They don't? Their loss. After all, the arrival of "structured data" will allow censorship in the subtlest ways, so, why shoud we care at this point about providing a NoSafeForWork (in which particular country? in which particular job?) tag?Strakhov (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot. Even when multimedia results, i.e. images, audio, and video, are suppressed, we can still see Commons results in English Wikipedia... just in text descriptions... and mixed into results. --George Ho (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

June 25Edit

Buciumeni, DâmbovițaEdit

Can someone create the category? It is confusing because there are several places called Buciumeni in Romania. I have some railroad pictures close to Fieni to upload.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

maybe the fact that it's part of only the tree of Communes in Romania and not also of Villages in Romania? But yes, this the right category. --XXN, 17:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
When there six places in Romania called Buciumeni, I want to be very carefull I add the files to the rigth categories. Luckily some had a location. I still have 7 files where I am not certain of the place: (and no filled categories)

I suspect that files 2 and 3 are in Buciumeni, Galați.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "Judet" is county, so the ones that say "judetul Valcea" must be a Buciumeni in Vâlcea County. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Going by Wikipedia, this must be the Buciumeni that is described there as "a village in {{w|Drăgoești, Vâlcea}". - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Codru" is a region of Moldavia (in the portion of the historic principality of Moldavia that remains within Romania, as against the independent country of Moldova). Going by Buciumeni, the only Buciumeni in Moldavia is Buciumeni, Unghen; since Unghen County intersects Codru, that is presumably correct.
  • That should sort out all but the first one. The title just means "the preferred Buciumeni road" (or maybe more like alley). Nothing in the title indicates which Buciumeni, so the only chance to get it right is if it can be determined by comparison to some other image (on Commons or elsehwere), or if someone can work it out from other photos by the same photographer, or if someone knows the place from their own experience. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

There is no Buciumeni Commons category in Vâlcea County. Either village or commune. There is a Romanian article wich uses the images.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Right. But now that you know which Buciumeni it is, you can create the relevant category as easily as anyone else can. - Jmabel ! talk 15:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere ReservesEdit

Dear all

There is less than one week left to enter the Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves competition. There are sites in 120 countries allowing people to enter a Wiki Loves Earth competition even when no national competition exists.

If you could retweet, share etc UNESCO's messages that would be really helpful in encouraging people to take part.





Thanks very much

--John Cummings (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

GPS coordinates do not uploadEdit

I have bought a Sony HX400V with GPS function. When I upload individual files the location is not transferred to the uploaded file on Commons. When I upload multiple files the coordinates are uploaded to all files save the first one. Can I get around this issue? Thanks, Ad Meskens Ad Meskens (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Upload wizard picks up the coordinates from EXIF during the upload process. For other uploads DschwenBot should add coordinates to the file description page within a day. But: the last bot activity was on June 23rd. Additionally, File:Barcelona El Prat 05.jpg (an image recently uploaded by you and taken with the Sony camera) doesn't contain coordinates in EXIF data. --Magnus (talk) 13:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate image problemEdit

Hello! I found that File:Download Thousands Of Free Stunning Stock Photos. (23698819004).jpg is a duplicate of File:2mooredWhiteBoats@canal(byLinhNguyen).jpg; the first has higher resolution, but the second seems to refer to the original author and also has coordinates. I don't know what is the best way to handle this. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 15:12, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Assuming that they are of different resolutions, merge the information to the page of the higher-res file, then mark the lower-res file as a duplicate. My eye says that even though the former is a larger file, it is not of higher resolution. I suspect someone just did something that bloated a JPEG without adding information. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Duplicate deleted. No useful information was contained on its description page. Huntster (t @ c) 18:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • Ok, thank you! -- Syrio posso aiutare? 18:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
        • So why was File:2mooredWhiteBoats@canal(byLinhNguyen).jpg also deleted? - Jmabel ! talk 04:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
          • I see. User:Syrio moved it to File:Two white boats moored in a canal in Bruges, by Linh Nguyen.jpg, which is borderline acceptable (the latter is a better name, but the first was reasonable), and normally we leave those alone. Then User:Daphne Lantier deleted the redirect, deeming it a "Useless redirect with bad name" (which I think is wrong) and ignoring the fact that the file had sat at that name for over three years, so it is significantly likely that someone off-wiki may have links to that old name. Redirects should not be deleted in those circumstances. I will restore the redirect. - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
            • @Jmabel: Syrio requested the deletion of the redirect, and I didn't look close enough when I deleted it. I didn't ignore anything, I just made a simple mistake. I do a lot of work, so mistakes are bound to happen, but I keep it down to very few. You should be a bit more civil, especially with a newer admin. Daphne Lantier 05:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
              • What precisely do you find uncivil in what I wrote above? - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
                • Uhm, sorry, the old name didn't look very reasonable to me, so I guessed the redirect wasn't needed :\ -- Syrio posso aiutare? 09:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating Creator:Edit

I don't find the right screw to turn: If one wants to create a Creator: page (only if using German language in preferences or even swapping the language on top) on top of the page a redlink Template:MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Creator/de appears. Try it clicking Creator:Testcreator. Other languages I tested didn't show this behaviour. --Achim (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The call to Template:MediaWiki Newarticletext NS Creator/de is made from MediaWiki:Newarticletext/de (code {{MediaWiki_Newarticletext_NS_{{NAMESPACE}}/de}}). @Raymond:, You last edited that page (11 years ago). Something must have changed. Can you figure out how to fix it? One way would be to change MediaWiki:Newarticletext/de so it is like other similar pages . --Jarekt (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jarekt: Thank you for the ping. 11 years... wow :-) I am in travelling mode this week so I do not have much time to look into it. I will try but it depends from a lot of things. Raymond 16:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 26Edit

Daguerreotype of Juana Manso (1819-1875)Edit

File:Juana Manso.jpg (the only image in Commons about today's Google Doodle) was scanned of a book published in Argentina in 1971 (the photos that were first published in Argentina in 1971 are public domain in this country), but it is a digitally altered version of an ancient daguerreotype (cropped and with grayscale conversion). It was made possibly by the same author of the book, since I can not find any identical version before the 70's. That is an unmodified version, uploaded by the Dirección de Extensión Cultural de la Cámara de Diputados de La Rioja ("Directorate of Cultural Extension of the Chamber of Deputies of La Rioja Province", Argentina). There is much information about photography that I can not find: date of the daguerreotype, location of the original copy, etc. Can someone help me to properly complete the information template using this data? I have difficulties with this... --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 11:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks a lot more like an engraving than a photograph to me. Maybe it's an engraving of a photograph... AnonMoos (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Nehoiașu and NehoiuEdit

Nehoiașu station 2.jpg

The Nehoiașu station is to the city Nehoiu but not part of it. Nehoiașu is the locality, but is this a suburb of Nehoiu?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-26Edit

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

June 27Edit

Turning off imagesEdit

What should I do if I don't want to see some pictures? How can I hide images from my view if I don't want to see them? Sinner (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That's more of a browser-internal thing. Examine your browser documentation... AnonMoos (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

API to know whether my many images being used in articles?Edit

I develop a tool that helps people upload pictures.

As a kind of feedback to them, I would like to show them some statistics, for instance "Your images illustrate 157 articles in 6 Wikipedias and 2 Wikivoyages, thank you!". Or maybe "Your recently uploaded picture Banksy_at_work.jpg has been added to 2 English Wikipedia articles here and here". Or something similar.

Is there an API that can provide me with this information?

Important: It is not about a single picture, it is about ALL of my pictures, or at least all of the pictures that I have uploaded recently. Querying the API for every single picture would take too long.

Thanks! Syced (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Go to and select "Show limited details"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)