Open main menu
Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/T· COM:VPT

Welcome to the Village pump technical section

This page is used for technical questions relating to the tools, gadgets, or other technical issues about Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.


Please note
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Auto categorisation of imagesEdit

Images on commons can be assigned categories of cities / towns based on GPS exif data using a bit perhaps. This way sorting by location will improve. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 00:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Capankajsmilyo, Product photos (e.g. showing packaging) might not be too useful categorized by spatial distribution. It would be nice if the upload tools could suggest some categories based on Geo-Location though. There are actually many ways to "sense" suitable categories automatically (through image usage in sister projects; automatic identification of image contents; Wikidata links and Exif-Data as suggested). BotMultichillT used a subset of those information in the past. -- Rillke(q?) 22:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I dont think any such tool is operational now. Can you please enlighten me. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 12:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I think so, too. If you plan on writing software, you may get more input by writing your bot's specifications on Commons:Bots/Requests before even starting any implementation. -- Rillke(q?) 13:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

captchas for some category changes?Edit

Why do I have to fill out captchas for changes like this or that one? The captcha explained to me that I had added an external link, but category changes never have external links. There must be something wrong about it. Is this issue known? I can give more examples, if I get any. Not every category change is interpreted as external link, but why these ones? --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the exact text that appears before the captcha:

  • “Your edit includes new external links. To protect the wiki against automated spam, we kindly ask you to enter the words that appear below in the box (more info):
CAPTCHA Security check”

Special:Captcha/help/MediaWiki:Captchahelp-text also only says something about external links. But, for example, here I changed just a category, and on the whole file page there was and is no single external link, only Commons links. I do not understand this. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 13:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A test for the direct file link. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC) PS: no captcha necessary

A test for the license link. Thus, only the Template:Self needs a captcha because of the license link, but there have been no new templates, only categories on file pages. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 13:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Another example for a captcha without external link, also on a file page, but now without any category change, just a typo correction. The following edit there didn't need a captcha, so wikilinks to en.WP seem to be no problem. But all were on file pages, maybe the license links in templates may cause a problem? --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 16:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Testing links to other WP via wikipedia:de:Peter Zimmermann and wikipedia:de:Zimmermann (Familienname) like in the last edit with captcha on a file page. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 16:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC) PS: No problem, no captcha needed, it's not the reason for the captcha for this edit.

I noticed that, too while doing edits from work during a break a couple of days ago. -- Rillke(q?) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Also in other wiki, de-WP, same error in German, just formatting, no links, this time no file, but article namespace without license links. Really strange. 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 07:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit should also not be counted as addition of external links. I just added a template for dead links inside as it is usual, the dead links were already there before. Maybe it is also possible to fix this here, it is regularly with the template because the template generates webarchive search links, in this case to a subpage. That is the template, but the template des not add any external spam links, such as file upload links or links to en-WP also are not counted as spam. Or is this expected to produce captchas like the licebse links in license templates which also are no spam links. Perhaps some more exceptions for such template produced functional external links would also be helpful, because those links and templates have nothing to do with automated spam links. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 10:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC) PS: This test with a link also forced a captcha like the dead link template does.

The same has been the case yesterday in English WP with 3 article edits with only addition of a template with ref tags with external links in the template, but not in my edits, 3 times for all the 3 template edits, see below. In my opinion, if external links are accepted in templates as refs, licence links or webarchive links, then those links in the template cannot be validated as spam anymore. I did not add any external link in any template, it should be possible for the software that only addition of links to templates force captchas, but to make sure that a free use of whatever templates will be possible in the future, if they generate external links or not. It is not spamming links only to use normal templates. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 19:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Developer's note: Did this happen recently (=in last 7 days) too? Please provide diff, so we can look for it in server logs. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

edits which forced editing captchasEdit

list of edits on file pages which forced editing captchas:

  • just category changes: [1] + [2] + [3]
  • just typo correction, no category change, no links – the licence templates have the only external links on the whole page: [4], [5]

article namespace without license links

  • just formatting, no links, de-WP, same error in German: [6]
  • just adding the template for dead links in de-WP without adding new links by myself, the template generates search links to a webarchive: [7]
  • adding only a template with ref tags with external links in en-WP without adding new links by myself: [8], [9], [10]

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Optimum WikiC image file size for current 2019 DSLRsEdit

I am sure this topic has been discussed before, but a perspective based on digital cameras available in 2019 would be helpful.

I have a Nikon D750 (not the latest but a current DSLR) that will produce a 24.7-megapixel image (6016 x 4016-pixels). If I happen to make an FF image that requires no cropping, I upload a 6000-pixel long side image to Wikimedia Commons. If some cropping is required, I upload the cropped image with a long side resolution of whatever it happens to be after cropping (no upsampling).

Some of the medium format and latest DSLRs outputs images with much higher pixel sizes. For example, the Nikon D850 outputs a larger 45.7-megapixel image (8,256 x 5,504-pixels).

Q1: How should images from the D850 (or similar) cameras be dealt with for an optimal WikiC upload? Upload this even larger image at native file size for the camera or reduce the file size (downsample? downsize?) and if so, to what?

Q2: Let’s assume I make a panorama of 5 full-frame images on my Nikon D750 with approximately 20% overlap resulting in a 14,2364 x 4,165-pixel panorama image when stitched. It has been my understanding that the appropriate way to deal with this would be to export it as a JPG with a 6000-pixel long side resolution (some downsampling). Can you advise on best practice to deal with large panoramas for WikiC uploads?

All comments welcome,

--GRDN711 (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Do not just downsize any image. Use downsizing only if it is needed for noise-reduction. The guidelines for images are here: Commons:Image guidelines. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@GRDN711: I concur with GPSLeo, but add that you should tag any image over 2000 pixels/side with {{LargeImage}}.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Over 2000? I think you missed a zero. Nearly every image has more then 2000 pixels per side. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: 2000 was on that template page for the first 18 months, and was removed in December 2008.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

RE: Q1: I was aware of the image guidelines. Commons accepts a range of image sizes from a preferred minimum of 2 MB (ex: 1600 x 1250) to a maximum of 4 GB (beyond huge), with no guidance on an optimal file size or image resolution between those extremes. Some vague concept of being of sufficiently “high quality for future technologies” is not enough.

Is there any guidance on a recommended upload file size or image resolution given that as of 2019, some upper end DSLRs and many middle format digital cameras have native file sizes from 30 to 50 MB per image?

What about guidance on computer-generated images that display at the resolution of the viewing device but can be made to any file size? I have seen one computer-generated image of 10,000 × 10,000 pixels with a JPG file size of 80.77 MB. It was slow to load but it was under the Commons upper limit of 4 GB. Is bigger better?

What about scanned images at high resolutions? I have seen an image from a flatbed scanner of 23,538 × 10,447 pixels with a JPG file size 85.45 MB? It is within the Commons guidelines but is it too large?

RE: Q2: Your comments have been helpful in my thinking about the best resolution for my stitched 14,236 x 4,165-pixel panorama image.

In stitching the panorama in Lightroom, I am basically increasing the long side dimension by overlapping several images of native resolution. The original Nikon D750 images used in stitching the panorama had a native resolution of 6016 x 4016-pixels (24.7 megapixels; 12.1 MB JPG file size).

If I want to maintain the native resolution of the 5 original D750 images in the panorama, without upsampling or downsampling, this would be driven by the short side resolution which should be at most 4016-pixels (no cropping).

Assuming no cropping on the short side with the long side staying proportional, the dimensions of my 5-image panorama should be 13,726 x 4016 pixels (55.1 megapixels; 24.3 MB JPG file size).

This approach seems reasonable to me – comments?

--GRDN711 (talk) 02:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@GRDN711: How did you get from 4016 to 4165 pixels high?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jeff: The 4165-pixel short side was what Lightroom happened to make when I blended the panorama as a DNG file. There may have been some displacement in the native images and in blending, there could have been some displacement. There is an automatic crop-to-avoid-edges feature which I use. By Adobe magic, out of this came a stitched 14,236 x 4,165-pixel panorama DNG image which I then exported as a JPG file for upload to Commons. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Jeff - I am trying to find some rational way of determining a resolution (and corresponding file size) for these panoramas I make and upload to Commons. There are quality guidelines for making panoramas but nothing that discusses a best practice for setting the resolution and file size for Commons upload given my native Nikon D750 image size and resolution; whatever magic Lightroom does in stitching and the end choices I make in cropping. If I crop such that the short side is less than 4016-pixels, then that panorama would be exported as a JPG with the short side at the cropped resolution (< 4016-pixels) and long side proportional. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@GRDN711: while tools like jpegoptim should never be used to overwrite any file on Commons, you are free to apply it before uploading. Such tools can reduce file size, sometimes significantly, by rearranging the file structure. Some cameras are rather inefficient. Be careful not to erase metadata or color profiles though. If you are shooting RAW, try converting to w:WEBP instead of JPEG. YMMV. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-30Edit

13:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Creator template doesnt work well with TimedMediaHandler's menu displayEdit

File:The Kid (1921).webm for example. TimedMediaHandler takes {{Information}}'s author field, which is malformed when it's a creator template.--Roy17 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Database pages have been down for monthsEdit

Please see the pages "User:Fæ/Userlist" which has the message "Report last updated on 2019-03-18" (Mobile 📱) and the page "Commons:Database reports/Upload log stats" with the message "Top 300 users with the most upload log entries. Data as of 06:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC). See also mw:Manual:Log actions" (Mobile 📱), the issues on both pages seem to have happened around 2 (two) months apart so I suspect that there are different reasons why they are not updating, but is there a reason why these database reports aren't properly working? Is there someone with the technical capabilities here to fix them? Because as far as I can tell neither pages were abolished and the statistics on the main page haven't stopped updating so I'd say that it's not like these logs are completely unavailable.

Should I report this issue to the Phabricator? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

disallowed file extensions trigger false positive when used anywhere in the file nameEdit

I noticed the upload wizard will block a file if a disallowed extension is found anywhere in the file name. To reproduce this issue, simply try to upload a file with a valid extension but with a disallowed string somewhere in the file name. For example, will trigger the error. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that the disallowed format thing is part of the actual mediawiki software. It doesn't appear that you hit any local filters, at least not according to your logs. If there is a bug in it I would imagine a phabricator request would have to be make to get it corrected. --Majora (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Mass uploading of 1927-1934 ortophotography of NavarreEdit

Hello! The Government of Navarre has uploaded a set of pseudo-ortophotographies taken between 1927 and 1934 to their FTP. The images are free and the author is Julio Ruiz de Alda Miqueleiz, who died in 1936, so can be licensed under PD-Old without problem. The photos come with a .txt file describing their up-left and bottom-right corners UTM 30N coordinates. Is there any good practice to upload everything to Commons? Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 19:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

File upload cacheEdit

The UploadWizard crashed during publishing the files after uploading them. In know there was an page to finish the upload in such cases but I do not find it. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Special:UploadStash.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately it looks like I also destroyed these page, I get a PHP timeout when opening it. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo:I also when I click Publish files does not work.How can I benefit from the page that you mentioned? ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-31Edit

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to find files that have no file pages?Edit

Recently a bug resulted in some uploads that had no file pages: special:permalink/360238062#[BUG]_file_page_was_not_created??. I'm wondering whether a tool exists to check for this kind of files.

And the inverse, file pages that have no files (deleted or never uploaded)?--Roy17 (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Probably with a database query at Quarry. Once, there was a bot updating Commons:Database reports/File description pages without an associated file. -- Rillke(q?) 00:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Main PageEdit

Main Page by URL is in English but interface is in Russian, Ctrl+f5 can't to help. 14:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please try Заглавная страница or   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-32Edit

13:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Calling a template with all parametersEdit

Is it possible to call a template from another template and pass all the parameters that were given to the first template? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Not in native wikitext, unless it is a simple redirect. It is possible to do that in Scribunto, however. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Finding wrong coordinatesEdit

I recently stumbled upon more than 80 pictures with the exact same coordinates of 64.129652|-21.941885 which point to Reykjavík City airport, and actually none of these pictures was taken there (but at various places all around Iceland). I removed these wrong coordinates using VisualFileChange, but I wonder: Maybe there are similar cases that could be fixed? Would it be possible to create a script or something that checks for descriptions where, say, more than 10 pages contain the exact same coordinates? I would guess that in this way, we could find more errors (it is likely that there's something wrong with a multitude of exact same coordinates for many pictures) - and probably false positives, too, but it could be worth a try? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Category redirects connected to wikidataEdit

I believe no cat redirects should be connected to wikidata. Example: Category:Polonia (Polish diaspora). Either a bot should check for these, or {{Cat redirect}} could be modified to add a maintenance cat (like Category:Non-empty category redirects). It seems this is not as easy because there isnt a magicword that indicates whether a page is connected to wikidata.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

{{#if:{{#invoke:Wikidata|pageId}}|connected|not connected}} --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Extra dot after a hlistEdit

Could someone please help remove the extra dot after Macau? Many thanks!--Roy17 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/360816143 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Adding a new function to modul:StringEdit

Hi, could someone add the function i proposed at Module talk:String#Please add the following function. Thanks. - Premeditated (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Premeditated: I tagged it "{{editprotected|technical=yes}}" for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

several jpg images don't show upEdit 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@ you. Which .jpg images are you referring?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

NSPOSIXErrorDomain:100Edit is not accessible at the moment using Safari 12.1.2 on macOS 10.14.6, it returns an NSPOSIXErrorDomain:100 error. The file is accessible using Chrome or Firefox, and similar files like are accessible in Safari as well. Maybe the server configuration has a problem?--Micge (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Navbox for windmill floorsEdit

I recently created categories for the individual floors (danish: loft) of the windmill Silllerup Mølle and have tried figuring out how to create a navbox to help understand how they are stacked as well as navigate between them, but so far without much luck. Could someone please help? --Hjart (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-33Edit

18:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Representation of Mathematical Functions on WikipediaEdit

Currently mathematical functions on Wikipedia are represented in large part using HTML. Consequently, many word-processors are unable to parse this HTML used for rendering mathematical functions on Wikipedia. The result is that many of these functions are simply converted into blank spaces when copied by the user’s word-processor.

Since Wikipedia is a multilingual, web-based, free-content encyclopedia project supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and based on a model of openly editable content, I propose that ascii Text be used instead of HTML to represent mathematical functions in Wikipedia. This would provide more complete openly editable content to the user by permitting the users word-processor to parse all of the content of Wikipedia articles, thereby permitting the Wikipedia user to benefit. --Systems.Engineer.00000001 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Systems.Engineer.00000001: this (Wikimedia Commons, an audio/visual archive) is the wrong venue. You were probably looking for our Wikipedia counterpart. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Systems.Engineer.00000001: See also the "Math" heading on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

2 year+ blockEdit

I performed a two year block on a IP range and I received “2 years, 12 hours, 21 minutes and 36 seconds“ instead of just 2 years. Is there an error going on? Comparison: enwiki: [24] commons: [25] 1989 (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Opt some pages out of CommonsDelinker?Edit

Is it possible? I want all subpages of User:Roy17/香港示威 opted out.--Roy17 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


On File:Julian sterckel-1550160501.jpeg I came across the date 1970-01-01 as the apparent date the photo had been shot, which seemed wrong to me. Asking the uploader, User:DutchTom, he answered it is some sort of bug that occurs when uploading from Wikiportret and that I should just ignore it. Now, I don't know what exactly goes wrong, but it seems quite undesirable to me, because future users will probably take the date 1970 for granted. Is there anything that can be done about this? Thanks, Eissink (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC).

Do not involve me in your problem. Commons adds the date, not me. The proces is semi-automatic and I only have to fill-in a category. The way you start this topic here is not about the 'bug' or 'problem' but about me. So do not involve me please. Bye DutchTom (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I address a problem and provide an example. Your reaction is a bit disturbing and really quite absurd. Eissink (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
You and me both know there is a history between us and you and many other users on Dutch Wikipedia. Keep in mind that people's respondses change when there is history like this. DutchTom (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for involving the ghosts of 'many other users', which much be the small faction that despises me for the justified exposure of corruption on NL Wiki. I addressed a problem, but there might be two problems here, and I don't think I am one of them. Eissink (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
On-topic: see Category:Photographs taken on 1970-01-01 Eissink. DutchTom (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice, but when you say it's a structural problem concerning Wikiportret, I think it would be better to address that problem in a structural way. Your lax response doesn't solve a thing. Eissink (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC).
No I just found out it has nothing to do with Wikiportrait. Half of my thoughts are true, Commons picks the date from the exif but some camera's or scanners save the wrong exif. So the problem is there where the picture is made or scanned. The date stays in the exif, nothing to do about that. Except being alert when uploading a picture, but as you see it is a common(s) issue. DutchTom (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I have seen it before. It does happen sometimes - not always! - when a date is not filled in by the uploader and not present in the exif. I mailed one of the developers if he is aware of a cause. Elly (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it'd be good if the date 1970-01-01 was treated as if no date was given, or rather: why not give the uploader a pointedly alert in those cases? Eissink (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC).
One of the developers wrote it was indeed a mistake in the automatic uploading software to Commons, which has already been corrected some months ago if I remember well (I forgot the details). If you see more recent uploads with this date (when obviously incorrect), please let us know. Elly (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)