Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help deskVillage 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 of Sabah, Malaysia. [add]
noborder: no color ; background:pink
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

October 03Edit

Images donated by BBC correspondent Mark LowenEdit

Category:Photographs by BBC correspondent Mark Lowen contains 250 images donated by BBC News correspondent Mark Lowen, mostly taken in Turkey. Wikimedia UK have a blog post about this donation.

Please help to add categories and structured data to the images, and make use of them on our sister projects. Hopefully, this case will encourage other journalists to donate images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way Commons users could express their gratitude to the donors? If the donor were the uploader I could send a wikilove star, but he was not. Maybe Creator_talk:Mark_Lowen?--Roy17 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Photographs by BBC correspondent Mark Lowen :-( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)n

October 06Edit

6000 extra adminsEdit

Clickbaity title. We always argue about a lack of admins.

I just thought of this, so I haven't pondered the details at this point. What if we create a new user group, "file hiders" (or something) and add that group to all the autopatrollers, patrollers and license reviewers. I say new group because I suspect there could be a few users who might not be able to handle this responsibility while we do want them to be autopatrolled.

Hiding a file will only be possible for files that were uploaded less than a month ago that aren't edit/overwrite protected. (this limits the potential for disruption) Any file hider can hide and unhide a file while it has been uploaded less than a month ago. If the file is still hidden a month after uploading, it will remain hidden and require an admin to be unhidden.

When a file is hidden, all hotlinking will be disabled. Search engines will be instructed not to index the file page. The file won't appear in any non-maintenance category. When searching, the file page for the file won't be suggested. You need to know the link/filename, browse a maintenance category or uploader history. If you are not logged in, all you get is the file page and if the file is visual you can download a small thumbnail (like 220 pixels or so, the default Mediawiki thumbnail size) that can't be hotlinked. A document with multiple pages gets only one thumbnail. If you are logged in, you can also download the original file. (optional: only allow downloading the original while the file is less than one month old?)

If you are a file hider, you can also enable searching the hidden files.

Most copyvio and out of scope files could be dealt with sufficiently this way. Hidden files are not useful for anyone looking to abuse Commons as a webhost or personal photo album. As I said, I haven't pondered all the details and potential ramifications of this yet. I'm just throwing it out there. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Still mulling it over. For legal reasons, we would probably need to give everyone the same access, but that access could be made more cumbersome for some. So anyone can view thumbnails. Instead of 220px, let's go with 120px. (default for <gallery>) Still no hotlinking. Thumbnails can be viewed on the file page, in maintenance categories and uploader history by anyone. They can be searched and seen in search results by file hiders. Original files can be downloaded by anyone while the upload is less than one month old. But anyone who isn't a file hider has to enter a CAPTCHA for each download. No inline viewing. (worst personal photo album site ever) After a month, only admins would have access to the originals. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Is there a need for hiding files in the first place? From there, then what is the special need for a new user level? Is there a particular task that these hidden files need reviewed? I'm missing something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Admins are overworked, there are backlogs for many things, we are missing obvious copyvios, hiring the amount of admins we need is difficult. (we'd need like twice as many - unrealistic) When files are hidden (which would require no admin intervention), they could be left as they are. For most copyvios and out of scope files, this is sufficient. Uploads of entire songs/ebooks/etc would still require deletion and admin intervention, but a logo the exceeds COM:TOO or some random stock photo could just be hidden and thus dealt with without admin intervention. Such a stock photo could not be hotlinked from external sites, could not be used in articles, will not appear in any non-maintenance category, downloading of the original gets disabled after a month and few rightsholders will be bothered to file a DMCA for 120px thumbnails on file pages that no search engine even indexes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: So the issue is a backup at Commons:Deletion requests that you want solved? I'm just saying you're kind of skipping over the whole "let's have files hidden" part as if that's a sure thing. If files that people uploaded were immediately hidden away (or hidden away because of a notification no one can see that easily), then we're discouraging new users. If your point is that we should blank images up for deletion like English does with its copyright violation notice (replacing the page with the deletion notice rather than adding it at the top), then that's an interesting idea and leaves us less worried about copyright issues (you can't index a blank warning page) while the file is still hosted on the site for direct linking. If there's a way to hide the image, you don't need any special new user category, it's something any decently-experienced user knows and it solves most of your other concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: Deletion also discourages new users, even more so than hiding because hiding can be undone more easily. Files that are obviously copyvio would be hidden, and very quickly, because 6000 admins. Files that are edge cases would still get a DR to discuss. Hiding would be a completely new status. Files could be online, hidden or deleted. Hidden lingers somewhere between the two.
Yes, we could add such "hide" functionality to the autopatrollers group. Perhaps that'll actually be fine. But I suspect some users may have difficulty with that responsibility. The question becomes: can anyone who is autopatrolled be trusted with this? And I think strictly, the answer is no. I think 90%+ can be trusted with it, but not 100%. So that group, if that suspicion is correct, would need to be autopatrolled but without file hiding ability. (which requires a new group) Alternatively, file hiding could be restricted to, say, patrollers. Removing someone from the autopatrol group causes issues for others, removing someone from the patrollers group doesn't. But I believe the majority of autopatrollers can handle this. They can also correct each other, so they don't have to be flawless. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, “hiding” is simply deleting in our terms and indeed the majority of admin actions consists of deletions. But this is actually the main area where we need the trusted judgment of admins. Whoever is capable of this should run for adminship and not for something less. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it's different. The "people should run for admin" story is getting a bit old imho, the reality is many won't. When a file has been deleted, that's (semi-)permanent. Undoing it is hard. In addition, admins have a block button which not everybody is trusted with.
Hiding is different. It can be undone rather easily in case of a mistake within the first month. And after that, undoing it is still infinitely easier than it is today. Anyone can see what it was. For example:
  • Imagine the files in Roy17's mass UDR had been hidden instead of deleted. Imagine how much drama that would have saved us!
  • Imagine a re-user has used a photo from Commons that was deleted for any reason that's not relevant for the re-user. They may rely on a link to the file page for attribution. Deletion breaks that attribution. Hiding wouldn't.
  • This also makes life harder for abusive greedy authors like Marco Verch.
  • Increased transparency. Was a file rightfully deleted? I generally couldn't tell you, because those files were deleted. Was a file rightfully hidden? That would be easy as pie.
  • Anyone can also see it when a user is repeatedly uploading the same copyvio, so those users can be reported sooner.
  • Uploading content that will enter the public domain very soon, just in case the source would go down before the copyright actually expires. You could hide your own uploads.
And what are the downsides? I can't think of many, surely nothing that outweighs these examples. Deletion will still be preferable in some cases, but actually not that many. It will require a fair bit of dev effort, but that seems like a good use of time. I can think of various users who would likely engage in this. BevinKacon, , GreenMeansGo, GRuban, Patrick Rogel, Prosfilaes, Yuraily Lic, pretty much all license reviewers. And that's just a few of them. Those are not all going to run for adminship. And they shouldn't have to. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? I can see something like this being useful in a couple of circumstances, with probably a number of kinks worked out. Surely we've all seen someone upload an obvious copyvio and then add it to a gazillion projects. It would be useful, when nominating for copyvio, to click a box, run de-linker, and disable links until the file can be properly deleted. I'm also remined of a DR backlog that goes back to biblical times. So while non-sysops cannot close a request as delete, they could judge that there is sufficiently serious doubt that the file should be de-linked until (sometimes months laters) the DR is properly closed. Obviously not every DR should be hidden, but some probably should out of an abundance of PCP, when it looks likely to be deleted eventually anyway. GMGtalk 12:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: indeed, details are up for debate, but I believe the essence of the idea is solid. I wonder, and maybe you have some clue: why would or should we even bother deleting hidden files? When hosting it invites obvious abuse (like hosting entire ebooks or files with malicious code), the original shouldn't be available for a whole month. When the file contents are abusive (imagine what you will, personal attacks, racism, etc), sure, get rid of it. When the file page contains unfree or abusive content, yeah, get rid of that too. But the majority of problematic files doesn't fit in any of these categories. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Legal will not allow us to do away with a delete function. Same reason they would never allow unbundling of view deleted access. The legality of the site requires that deleted content is only viewable by a small number of users who have passed "some RfA like process" (their wording as I recall it). GMGtalk 13:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: there's actually no issue with that. Deleted (really deleted) content has to be available to only a very small number of users. (admins) You can imagine why: if we had thousands of admins and anyone could easily become one, Commons could become a private file sharing site. Hiding files doesn't give us any of that legal trouble. Everyone has the same access, though anyone who isn't a file hider has to enter a CAPTCHA to download originals, which is only possible for a month anyway. (many DRs take longer to be closed) From a legal perspective, we don't need admins to delete anything at all! We could leave all copyvios up, desysop all admins and let WMF handle it through DMCA claims. (there would be a lot of DMCA claims if we went that route, while currently it's just a handful) This is obviously a bad idea because it would destroy Commons as a free media repository and reduce it to another imgur or ImageShack. But legally, it would be fine. If we only hide files instead of deleting them, technically rightsholders could file DMCA claims to have that 120px thumbnail taken down. I predict they won't bother. In fact, such 120px thumbnails just might be covered by fair use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Umm...Well, we still have some moral obligation to our off-wiki reusers. You know...we're not making any money off of it, and we happen to have a fairly robust legal team to fend off frivolous lawsuit threats. Those who reuse our content, probably not, and part of our purpose is to try to level the playing field with regard to free knowledge, so that the lady trying to publish her first book, or the guy trying to put together an upstart website aren't massively disadvantaged to predatory [expletive deleted] who try to charge them a fortune to use (often public domain) media. Hiding content behind a captcha doesn't necessarily do them much good. But maybe we're getting far afield of the original proposal.
The unfortunate thing here is that I think this would need substantial additions to current guidance. I'm not sure we can approve it without those additions, and I fear that if we make proposed guidance, then we will get lost in arguing over the specifics and be unable to enact that original package to begin with. It may be more productive if we parse this down the minimal required functionality of a new tool, and use that to build upon incrementally. GMGtalk 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Just thought I would mention that the "biblical" DR backlog is not a matter of adding more admins but a matter of convincing the ones that we have to work from the back. I work from and pay attention to the oldest month's DR list so I'm pretty confident when I say that there are less than 10 admins that regularly close requests from the back. "Hiding" files is not going to change that in any way and adding the necessity of unhiding files that are fine to the list of things admins have to do makes me uncomfortable. I would really need to see the details of this outlined to make a decision on whether or not I like the idea. --Majora (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • So... the idea is to let autopatrollers/patrollers hide a file, if I'm not mistaken. This indeed does have good aspects, I can think of many. But I'm not sure about it. First, we will need to ensure that file hiders (probably patrollers) will be able to deal with hide/unhide request. We don't want to discourage a new user by hiding their upload(s) and not being responsible for it. To ensure this, I think we'll have to grant the right more strictly (and revoke it more easily), so we may discourage our potential users as well.
Another point to note is that the idea of hiding files is somehow like deleting them. I think that major differences can be that hiding 1) helps admins with backlogs because non-admins handle it, and 2) can be easily undone. However, I'm worried about the long-term effect it will have on how we deal with copyvios. Imagine a patroller hiding a copyvio while a thumbnail of it is still there, and you can still download the full-sized version. In some cases, it can be fair-use; but what about files that don't fall into that category? Also, I believe we can always check user's upload log to see if they are repeatedly uploading inappropriate files.
In general, I think this can be a good idea, but we first need to consider all advantages and disadvantages of it, and decide accordingly (and of course, we still need more admins!). Ahmadtalk 15:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea to have a king of reviewed main file storage and a normally hidden but accessible to everyone storage where we store all content we can store without legal issues. Yes I would keep all out of scope files there but deleting them does not safe us any storage as they stay on the servers for ever. But I do not think the proposed idea would work well. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 09Edit

Why isn't this category working?Edit

I cut-n-pasted the category from another article, yet its redlinking to this page. Can someone fix this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: It looks like a category, because it has a title and some content, but it hasn't been created. It has now. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, by "cut-n-pasted", you mean you made this edit? Merely adding a category to an image page does not automatically create it, nor would we ever want that to happen (else we'd have a dizzying array of badly named or inappropriate categories). Further, the actual category already existed under another name: Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships (ping Rodhullandemu). I'll handle the cleanup. Huntster (t @ c) 12:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done the redirect. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain the issue properly.

There was an existing page on a Flower-class corvette that had a category at the bottom entitled "Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy". When I clicked on that category link in that article, I was taken to a category page that already existed and was filled with articles.

As this was obviously the correct category for my upload, I cut-n-pasted the category link into my own upload. To my surprise, this was a redlink. I thought perhaps I had left off a ] or something, but such was not the case.

I am asking how it is that an existing, working, category in one article was broken in another? Was there some sort of invisible redirect that acted there? A sub-category of some sort? How did this happen? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a redirect? Please try to remember the page you found this link on. Huntster (t @ c) 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Maury Markowitz, are you sure it was a category in in Wikimedia Commons (here), and not, say, a category in the the English Wikipedia? -- Tuválkin 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure it was a category here. If it was a redirect, that would have been part of the link I cut-n-pasted, right? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
That's curious because en:Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy is a category that exists on English Wikipedia, and unlike most categories on Wikimedia Commons, it's full of articles. --bjh21 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
It is, however, not filled with images, whereas the page I was visiting was. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like an interesting mystery; the diff of your edit would be a good start to unravell it. -- Tuválkin 00:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging design consultationEdit

I've published a design consultation for the computer-aided tagging tool. Please look over the page and participate on the talk page. If you haven't read over the project page, it might be helpful to do so first. The tool will hopefully be ready by the end of this month (October 2019), so timely feedback is important. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

October 10Edit


Seems to be down. -- Tuválkin 00:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Liwan should be an architectural part of an Arabic house. This category shows some blocks of flats/skyscrapers. Could you please tell me why? Is that "Liwan" a place in some Arabic country? Can someone help me categorize them?--Carnby (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Liwan is a neighbourhood of Dubai. See From the English Wikipedia article, I think the English plural of "liwan" is "liwans", so this category should be split into Category:Liwans for the architectural feature, and Category:Liwan for the neighbourhood. Give me a moment and I'll sort that out. --bjh21 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
@Carnby: ✓ Done --bjh21 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!--Carnby (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Varvara KutuzovaEdit

Hello! I received a letter in the mail that the photo file was deleted from the page of my daughter Varvara Kutuzov since it is not mine. I refute this information and send you confirmation that this photo belongs to me personally. The photo removed from the Varvara Kutuzova Wikipedia page is my own, and I ask to restore it. I personally ordered a photo session with this frame for her, so I do not understand the reasons for deleting the file. I also asked the specialist to add new information to the page, as the old information is not relevant. The expert did everything according to the rules and added facts, relying only on the rules of the WIKI and on authoritative sources. Am asking you return photo on place and not block or challenge this article, grew she the entire consists of truthful facts. I subscribe to all the words I have set forth, as I am the mother of Varvara Andreyevna Kutuzova.Sincerely, Natalia Kutuzova

ru:Кутузова, Варвара Андреевна
— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 October 2019‎ (UTC)
Apparently refers to File:Варвара_кутузова.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 11Edit

Newbie question about licensingEdit

I have an online textbook that I recently applied a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license to. I'd like to modify and use a graphic I found on wikipedia that has a CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Am I able to do so without violating the owner of the graphic license? I have provided the attribution, indicated the original was modified and provided a link to the original. Am I safe if my web page has a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license but the graphic has a CC BY-SA 4.0 license?

  • (IANAL but...) Assuming that "I have an online textbook" means you are the author, the only thing missing here is that you need to indicate that particular illustration has a different, more generous license. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am the author and have indicated the type of license for the graphic in its caption.
Well, you have to fullfit the license of the original graphic. Name author and license, which also means that you have to publish that part of your textbook (only this graphic) under CC BY-SA 4.0 and not CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. regards. --JuTa 06:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 12Edit

Should I use Creator or Institution for a govt?Edit

I uploaded Hong Kong govt gazette like File:The Hongkong Government Gazette 19220228 Emergency Regulations Ordinance.pdf. I wanted to create an author template, but I am not sure which one to use.--Roy17 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You should use neither. 'Creator' namespace is only for individuals and 'Institution' namespace is for places of permanent location of works of art. Ruslik (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

October 13Edit

Massive category rename: automobiles to carsEdit

Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles

"You'll need to bring this to the village pump and/or tag a lot of the subcategories (linking to this discussion) before I'm personally going to move this whole category tree."

You heard the admin. Vote yes on proposition CAR! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Serious question though, why? "Middle English carre, borrowed from Anglo-Norman carre, from Old Northern French (compare Old French char), from Latin carra, neuter plural of carrus (“four-wheeled baggage wagon”), or Gaulish origin. Doublet of horse, hurry, rush, courier, and course." (from the Wiktionary), "car" is a lot more ambiguous than "automobile". I do not see the advantage of this rename, maybe more redirects need to be made, but the term "car" is just far more ambiguous. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: because I was looking for "dogs in cars" and couldn't find them. Also nobody who is looking for police cars is searching for "police automobiles". Automobiles is North American English, not international. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:, I'd say that we need "Commons:Commonname" (or "COM:COMMONNAME") and redirect the rest. I too have often fallen by typing in "cars" where it's "automobiles", but while I have heard of "police cars" and not "police automobiles", so too are binocular visual aids "spectacles" and not "glasses", but those that work against sunlight are still "sunglasses". It should not be about being consistent but about what would realistically be most used and the least ambiguous. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC).
Never mind, "Category:Spectacles" is about smartglasses. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Indeed, while Category:Cats redirects to Category:Felis silvestris catus, we don't have categories like Category:Lolfelis silvestris catus, Category:Felis silvestris catus in boxes or Felis silvestris catus in cars. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Lolfelis silvestris catus was the best! ROTFL --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 14Edit

Captions, uploadzaubererEdit

Sometimes the uploadwizard "forgets" to add captions for one or two files without an error message. Some time ago I opened a phab task, but it was closed, because I didn't add a way to reproduce the error. Well it is only sporadic. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

October 15Edit

Old upload form (solved)Edit

Since this morning, the old upload form was replaced with a mask where lines have to be filled. I need the old form in order to C&P data which takes some seconds. Now it takes a time effort of c. 10 times more (!) to fill each line which is extremely bad. Who do I address that problem to? --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Mateus2019, under preferences/gadgets, make sure that "ImprovedUploadForm" is not checked. I think this is the behaviour your are experiencing. Huntster (t @ c) 15:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, now it works just how I need it!!! Best greetings, --Mateus2019 (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Improved" means it now makes you waste time -- Tuválkin 16:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for the European Number of Identification (ENI)Edit

The European Number of Identification (ENI) has the same meaning for inshore vessels in Europe as the IMO-Number for seagoing ships worldwide. For the categorization it would be very useful, to have a Template:ENI analogous to Template:IMO and a Template:ENIcat analogous to Template:IMOcat including translation. --Ein Dahmer (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

CropTool with .tiff imagesEdit

Can someone see anything in this image? Personnaly I can't.

Hi, I tried to crop this image: File:France, 1897-1904 (NYPL b14896507-1631969).tiff with CropTool. The preview with CropTool was perfectly ok but I can't see the new image: File:France, 1897-1904 (NYPL b14896507-1631969) (cropped).tiff. I tried with several web browsers, logged in and logged out, with two different web providers but my screens didn't display it. Can someone help me or just confirm that the cropped image is bugged? Thanks, --Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Yep. It's broken. Tiff cropping is a fairly new feature for this tool though. Looks like maybe we've not worked all the kinks out yet. GMGtalk 17:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also @Danmichaelo: GMGtalk 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Face-smile.svg GreenMeansGo. I will use GIMP to crop this image.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

October 16Edit