Open main menu

Hi! Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, the central media repository site. This page is for discussion of the Main Page only.

Semi-protection-shackle.svg This page is protected: Because of excessive spam/offtopic this page is semi-protected. New or unregistered users can ask their questions at the help desk.


Remove mobile special casing

I would like to propose removing special casing of the main page on mobile. Currently only certain parts of the main page appear on mobile (e.g. the upload button doesn’t), and also those lack styling. (I admit the lack of styling is partly because of my recent edit request, but it wasn’t perfect before, either. What is currently missing was missing also before.) The differences can be seen by comparing the English main page using English interface language and the English main page using German interface language (or any other); this is the issue mentioned in #Main Page looks inconsistent before and after log in. If you think something should not appear on mobile, it can easily be hidden from the not special-cased version (the one seen with non-English interface language), so don’t hesitate to propose it, but the default (in contrast to the special-cased one) is to display everything. If there’s consensus to remove special casing, I’ll make the edit request for the switch. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Support. It would be much more handy with it. -- ato (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Very much in favor of removing the special casing yes. The special casing is deprecated, and it hides the fact that our content just doesn't work on mobile. By aligning and use templatestyles, it will be better and easier to deal with differences between mobile and desktop, as there at least is visiblity. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 09:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses! I’d expect a bit more activity on the talk page of one of the most important pages on one of the largest Wikimedia projects (with over a hundred recently active watchers, not counting several different-language main pages where I advertised this section), but if really no one else cares, I’ll go ahead and make the edit request. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

With help of TemplateStyles it's possible to rebuild the mobile special casing with responsive web design, which makes the page easier to maintain for administrators. --Great Brightstar (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually this page uses TemplateStyles since about a month. This is why turning off mobile special casing can be considered at all. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand, thanks, I also thought it's possible to simulate mobile special casing via TemplateStyles, which could gives you more rights to customize the mobile layout. --Great Brightstar (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


สวัดดีครับ ช่วยหาข้อมูล ของผม ใน Wikimedid Kitithat Phengaro (talk) 09:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello Help me find information on Wikimedia Commons for me. Thank you. ช่วยหาข้อมูลของผมในวิกิมีเดียคอมมอนให้น่อยครับ Kitithat Phengaro (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

What information are you looking for? If you know the subject, I suggest that you start with a quick search (search bar is available on the top right). If it will not return much useful information, try finding a supercategory of what you are looking for. For example, if you are searching for Postal Offices (a topic that I am personally interested in) you can try looking at the media related to buildings, government buildings, photos related to mail, etc. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Media of the Day: porn instead of medical/sports content

Hello! I'd like to express my displeasure with the content of today's MOTD.[1] Whereas the caption reads "The lifestyle fair Venus Berlin showed various novelties such as TENS devices, which are controlled by bluetooth from a playlist on the smartphone or Virtual Reality as a means of recreation, but also activities like free solo climbing or a mechanical bull," the video shows VR porn. Although this is an interesting field in itself and I don't oppose Commons hosting this video, the video caption does not correspond to its actual content. I wanted to share this video on my social profiles (I post a lot on medicine and sports), but after having seen that, I will refrain from doing so. I will appreciate if you (whoever curates the MOTD) pay more attention in the future. Best regards, --Eleassar (t/p) 13:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

It also seems like a strange video to give as MOTD. Does it really highlight the best of Wikimedia Commons? If the central focus of the video is the two simulations/demos taking place on television screens, then that seems like it would be a copyright violation. Killiondude (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Killiondude: It is not a copyright violation.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Jeff! Could you answer my question since you're here? Killiondude (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Killiondude: I don't know, I didn't propose it for MOTD or see the caption.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
As a further follow-up, Eleassar, I'm not sure it was actually on the main page. It seems the tag was accidentally placed on the wrong image. See Commons:Media of the day#14 for the correct file. Killiondude (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) It looks like Jdx (talk · contribs) added the {{Media of the day}} tag to the above-linked file on 14 July 2019, but the actual MOTD on this day was File:Visual tour of Italy- Milan, Venice and visit with Pope Leo XIII, Summer 1896.webm according to Template:Motd/2019-07#14. I am thinking the tag addition was an error. Mz7 (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This is extremely bizarre. According to the Internet Archive, the porn video actually was on the Main Page: Mz7 (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That's because it was on the main page. The original was deleted with only a few hours left in the day. Every single time anything racy appears on any main page people get all bent out of shape. As always though, if you have a problem with something than you should participate in the selections. There is no point in continuing this conversation since it is past the 14th and the original MOTD was removed without comment by another administrator. --Majora (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The correct measure to prevent this reoccurring in the future is not to participate in the selections. It is that the administrator(s) who are updating the MOTD should check whether the caption corresponds to the video content. This must be implemented in the workflow. --Eleassar (t/p) 02:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, media of the day is not done by administrators. Neither is picture of the day. The templates that control them are not protected until they actually appear on the main page and that is only due to cascading protection. You are more than welcome to keep an eye on COM:MOTD and COM:POTD to ensure that everything is as it should be. --Majora (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. In any case, it would be of benefit to streamline the process - add some instructions for editors. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The interesting question is why Multichill deleted Template:Motd/2019-07-14 (en) and associated templates less than 5 hours before the end of the day. The reason he gave is This MOTD was removed, but hell, I don't get it at all. The video is still here, it isn't a copyvio and actually there is no porn at all. Then, about an hour later, Yann recreated Template:Motd/2019-07-14 (en) with a new content. Perhaps needlessly. @Mz7: While I was adding {{Media of the day}} the video was still on the main page. It was there for over 7 hours longer. @Eleassar, Killiondude: C.Suthorn is known from "strange" (very loosely related) descriptions he gives to "his" MOTDs. Anyway, please bear in mind that everyone can nominate or even change a MOTD. --jdx Re: 08:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The video was of such a quality that I spent some time trying to figure out whether an administrator account had been compromised. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC) wasn't a featured item. The revival/creation of featured sounds and featured videos is rather new. The two projects only really started (or were revived) in May. There aren't enough featured media to meet the needs of that section yet and the proposal to restrict that section to only featured media was rejected until we have enough. I can assure you no admin account was compromised because featured media is not chosen by admins but by regular editors. You can participate in these selections if you wish. --Majora (talk) 03:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: the original MOTD was removed without comment by another administrator — not really, the comment was Being bold and removing this trash from the main page. [2]. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Yes, Multichill deleted the initial MOTD template, and I recreated it one hour later. I agree that the initial video was not a good choice, but removing it without providing a replacement is IMO even worse. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A request for opinion

During a voting there, we had differences about some topics that we couldn't resolve, even after filing a request for comment. We have came to the conclusion that an external arbitrage is needed. George Ho suggested m:SRM as a mechanism. As you have been involved with our project before, your suggestion will be very valuable too - as will be your opinion about the disagreement, should you decide to give it.

Thank you in advance, and please accept my apologies for wasting your time with this request. -- Григор Гачев (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Restriction of POTD to Featured Images is nonsense and against the scope of Commons, Valued Images should also be eligible

Scope of Commons is to collect images for other Wikimedia projects, it's not a photo competition. Desert or beach panorama number 735 may be nice to look at, but adds nothing of value to Commons. On the other hand, an image of a rare flower or bird does, even if it may be not a technically perfect photo. Commons should show on its main page that it follows its scope, not worship pictures that no one is using. Looking at recent VI no one can claim that this would be a step back in quality of the photos.<
Alternatively, two photos of the day should be shown: one to please the Lightroom and Photoshop nerds and one made by people who work for the scope of the project. They deserve to be recognized prominently, too.--Chianti (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Main Page" page.