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

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 30Edit

華北交通アーカイブ (North China Transportation Company Archives)Edit

Kyoto University has recently released under CC-BY-4.0 the 華北交通アーカイブ, archives of 40k photos taken by North China Transportation Company (and others). (More info: [1][2].) Quality is pretty good. So far a handful has been transferred by a user. I wonder if someone would like to get in touch with the Uni to arrange for a systematic upload here. Or, if someone wants to unilaterally upload the entire collection.--Roy17 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Looks worth uploading, even if metadata is not always present. Syced (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice collection.--Vulphere 06:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Fyi, the breakdown of the archive holdings: 39,775 images (38,797 photos plus 210 images of notes on their wrong side totals to 39,007 images from the North China Transportation Company.)
Name of the archive:
(North China Transportation Company photos)
Maintained by: w:en:The Kyoto University Research Centre for the Cultural Sciences which originated from the Institute of Oriental Studies Tōhō Bunka Gakuin, funded by w:en:Boxer Rebellion compensation.
Basic collection: used for public relations composed of (specified on each photo):
  • Manchuria Railway Northern China Headquarters
    (1937–1938) with notes on the wrong side of each image.
  • 293 photos by Kuwabara Jitsuzō
    (ja) taken between 1907–1909.[1]
  • 252 photos by Kaizuka Shigeki
    taken in September 1936, a researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies.
  • Mizuno Kiyokazu
    and Hibino Takeo
    took images in December 1940, part of which included in this archive.[2]
  1. Kōshi yūki
    by Kuwabara Jitsuzō
    , Tōkyō : Kōbundō, 1942.
  2. Mizuno, Seiichi ; Hibino, Takeo. ::223 images from Sansei kosekishi
    (1956). Kyōto : Nakamura insatsu kabushiki kaisha shuppanbu. Series: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kenkyū hōkoku [Kyoto University Humanities Institute Reports].
--Omotecho (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 01Edit

OgreBot 2Edit

OgreBot 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This bot wipes source, date and author fields, resulting in files getting tagged for deletion:

In response, Magog the Ogre said "I've already explained this to you several times. Please stop contacting me about it." Actually not sure it's been more than once, Magog the Ogre has been contacted about the issue many times by many people. I had to search a bit and found the actual defense: it's in the FAQ for the bot.

Q: Why did the bot remove the date and author and/or source field from a file?
A: The license on the image page seems to indicate that a) the file was uploaded from a local wikiproject, and b) the uploader from there is not the author (despite what the bot transfer code says). This means that information about the original upload isn't relevant: so the bot has removed it. For example, some common such licenses are {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{PD-art}}. This is a pretty common edit; if you think it's made a mistake, let me know.

I don't see the wiping of these fields as helpful. We could add some sort of maintenance category to {{Transferred from}}, {{Original upload date}} and {{Original uploader}} or something or the bot could insert {{Unknown}} in some cases maybe, or simply add a "to be checked" category. Wiping fields just pushes files into categories that result in them getting tagged for deletion. Any ordinary user that would go around making edits like these would likely be blocked, I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. What OgreBot 2 does is technically correct.
The files moved via commonshelper already have a maintenance template {{BotMoveToCommons}}.
The problem is on the users who do not bother helping check the files, but keep tagging files for nsd, npd, etc. Look at File:Lyell 1840.jpg, All source information is still present. It requires review. Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this file should not be considered reliable and the file should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Once the review has been completed, this template should be removed. For details about this file, see below. Check now! And that's true. en:File:Lyell 1840.jpg is not deleted yet.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the bot has been performing this action for 7 years, and was community sanctioned to do so. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz' real contention is with a) the policy of deleting unsourced files and b) Jcb's practice of mass tagging any of these lazily transferred files (which is quite a few of them). I am quite sympathetic to both of these contentions, as I don't believe we should be deleting obviously public domain files, nor mass tagging files that obviously have a source but in the wrong field. But blaming the bot is just shooting the messenger here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Changing Jcb is not possible. That's been tried and all I got out of it was more spurious stalking allegations. Jcb is like a force of nature. While I will occasionally curse the wind, rain or blinding sun it doesn't mean I expect change because of my cursing. That's also why I didn't ping Jcb here. (also, I don't know for sure if he is the only admin doing this) Accepting forces of nature as a fact of life, the community (including your bot) will have to change to suit the way Jcb does things around here. Refusing to do so will ultimately damage the project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: again, I share your concerns. You are asking me to change the bot's behavior to leave intact incorrect information simply so that it doesn't run afoul of an administrator with a quick trigger finger. Surely some other solution can be found. Maybe someone should follow Jcb's edits? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Got the T-shirt. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And per this discussion, I stopped watching Jcb's talk page. So I surely can't go watching Jcb's edits. And based on my experience, I can't really recommend anyone to volunteer for that job. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Maybe you should?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre:, anyone else.. any takers? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I believe it is reasonable for users to make a good faith effort to correct issues for pseudo-speedy deletion tags which you place on a page. You still have the option to go through the formal DR process if you object to a removal. Alexis Jazz feels strongly about this so he is the best candidate, but this means he would be following your contributions. Can you agree to this on the provision that he doesn't compile lists about you in his userspace? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that I could agree with any way of being followed by this particular user, I think that should be clear. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: okay, now what? Btw, I doubt I would single-handedly even be capable of correcting everything. The sheer edit volume of unchecked VFC edits can't be matched by manual investigation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Misuse of VFC is indeed worrisome. As far as I can remember, User:Jcb deleted a file which I had left messages on its talk page waiting for others' opinions, and a file in DR that had had some discussions (towards keeping).--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to think about this one for a while before I responded.
@Jcb: as far as I am concerned, you are not acting in good faith. I tried to resolve this with your input, but you are unwilling. Therefore, in my role as a fellow administrator, I am providing a warning: if you impede Alexis Jazz from adding legitimate sources to a page, then you are a) acting against policy (removing a source) and b) directly acting against the spirit and goals of this project (attempting to get legitimate media deleted) and c) directly acting against the community's stated wishes that you cease and desist with such behavior. Therefore, if I see that you take any such action, I reserve the right to block your account. Please consider this a warning. You may consider that this is an unfair warning, since I own the bot referenced in this thread. But I do not consider this an issue with the bot: I consider this an issue with your behavior. Feel free to appeal my warning to the community.
@Alexis Jazz: Please feel free to follow Jcb's contributions and correct any source errors on the pages he edits. Please take care that you do not add spurious sources (e.g., "internet", "a book", "US government", "", etc.) and that you act in good faith and don't do anything stupid. If you act in good faith, and Jcb tries to stop you, I will deal with him as stated above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't interpret or accept this as an official warning that could e.g. be 'appealed'. This is a malicious attempt to threaten a colleague, with suggestive nonsense arguments. Please refrain from any next step in this harmful behaviour. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Jcb even took this to AN: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Threathening / disruptive behaviour by admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 08Edit

Photo challenge April ResultsEdit

Beginning and end: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Title Beginning and end of a cheesecake Lots of beginning and ends but no full circle Staircase of the abandoned Central Hotel in Annan, Scotland (DSCF8956)
Author Sally V Kmtextor Trougnouf
Score 12 11 9
Prisons: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Title Kresty-Gefängnis in St. Petersburg am Ufer der Neva. Russland. Fort Boyard (fortification), Île-d'Aix, in Charente-Maritime (Fr) Bayreuth Correctional Facility
Author Kora27 Pierre André Leclercq Ermell
Score 19 17 14

Congratulations to Sally V, Kmtextor, Trougnouf, Kora27, Pierre André Leclercq and Ermell. --Jarekt (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed great pictures. But, as happened recently, we again have a horizontal scroll bar on the whole of VP, at perfectly ordinary screen resolutions. Why can the images not be displayed one above the other?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Secretly photographed women – personality rights?Edit

Hi there, Commons community. I'm a bit concerned about the personality rights of some people in pictures I stumbled upon. It's about the photos by this uploader, which are all about Taiwanese "school girls" or other young women. It seems clear to me that the majority of the pictured females were not aware that they were photographed right at that moment, and they don't seem to attend a public event or the like. That doesn't mean that the photographer didn't ask them afterwards whether it's okay to publish their picture – but what does Wikimedia do, to make sure he did? If I got this right, finally it's all about trusting the uploader. And I really ask myself, whether simple trust is enough in this case, where it seems that except from two pictures these were all secretly shot. Am I making a too big fuss about it or is there something I understood wrong? --King Rk (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't read Chinese, so I don't know what are the descriptions, but if these are not used pictures of non notable people, they are out of scope, and can be deleted for that reason. Just create a deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that might be a solution for some of the pictures, but not for all. For example it would make sense if an article about a school or university would feature a picture of a student in their particular uniform. --King Rk (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Those do seem to me a bit creepy.
What is the rule in Taiwan about photographing people in public places? In France, I know this is a no-no; in the U.S., being in public is implicitly consent to be photographed; I don't know about Taiwan. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
For an (I think) non-creepy example from the U.S.: File:Seattle - Cap Hill street basketball 01.jpg. I did not have explicit consent from the people in this photo. I relied entirely on the fact that if you are out in the street in the U.S., that is implicit consent to be photographed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate to use any of these pictures on an article about a school or university. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Though our entry about consent requirements in Taiwan seems a bit vague, I've filed several of these images for deletion:
--Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Túrelio, let's see what happens. --King Rk (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

June 11Edit

Incomplete uploads - issue apparently resolved, dealing with backlogEdit

Per phab:T190988, the issue causing broken cross-wiki uploads of files larger than 5MB seems to be resolved. There are still more than 6500 files in Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption), though. Many of these are usable and would be fine after some cropping, as only smaller, non-essential parts of the images are affected, for example in File:1308MANMariupol.jpg or File:CampusFørde.jpg (in the latter, a larger part is affected, but it's still usable and even in use in Norwegian Wikipedia in this defective form). Others are unsalvageable, such as File:Casinoneuchatelrotonde.jpg or File:AWO Ortsverein und Begegnungsstätte Dallmin alte Schule.jpg. Occasionally, the images seem to be out of scope anyway. Would you agree on dealing with the entries in the category in a step-by-step approach, as follows:

  • Review the images individually.
    • If in scope and useful without the missing portion, crop, remove maintenance category.
    • If apparently not in scope or not useful withouth the missing portion, file a regular deletion request - thus giving the uploader a chance to re-upload and/or explain why it is in scope.

What do you think? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There was ocnsensus: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/04#A_new_procedure_for_incomplete_uploads. Since the bug is fixed sooner than expected, the bureaucratic steps in that proposal can be dropped.
I don't think DR is necessary. CSD F7 should be less work, but admins should give a slightly longer grace period, say 7 days, to these files. The uploader must be notified by a message on his/her user talk page. The message should contain instruction on how to overwrite a file.
It seems that lossless cropping is not possible for these corrupt files: , so they could only be cropped with the precise mode in CropTool. I hope someone with the technical knowledge can confirm it's not possible.--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I supported that proposal as well, but it seems now partly obsolete. I would prefer using an existing standard procedure that ensures a workflow as much as possible. Many of these uploaders are not very active on Commons or have not been active here after the upload at all (random example: User:Mquekel, only contributions two damaged uploads in February 2018). Roy17, what do you think - in cases where cropping seems to be sufficient (for example, in File:Aalscholver langs het water.jpg the bird is still completely in the picture), would you notify the users anyway or just do the cropping? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah right I forgot. They should be notified even if the photos can be cropped and kept. That's what we should do to respect the creators, but, if the community finds it too cumbersome, simply crop and keep without notifying is fine, since as you observed, most are new users and didnt even notice that files were broken.--Roy17 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi, Roy17: I created two templates: {{Incomplete upload}} and {{Incomplete upload notification}}. It is easy to tag all the 6514 files at Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption) with the first template and notify the uploaders with the second one by VisualFileChange.
After a month, volunteers can deal with the files (crop or delete).
See File:Wikipedia survey-Access Denied.png and User talk:4nn1l2test for test cases. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I think some photos can be cropped and kept without notifying the uploaders. They are the ones with only tiny corrupt portions that do not affect the subjects at all. For example, File:African Star Apple.jpg, File:Agfa Mortsel.jpg, File:Acquapole® Elastic Pole.jpg. Overwriting with an original and cropping do not make much difference.
@4nn1l2: thank you for creating the templates! If no one has objection, I think we can start notifying people.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a problem. Some users cropped the image but uploaded it as a new file. What should we do with these? History merging? Just delete the broken one? Or keep both, but remove the maintenance cat and insert a message telling users to use the cropped one?
Example: File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道.jpg vs File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道 (cropped).jpg
(This is not a very good example, because the original was transferred using commonshelper so there isnt a need to preserve the original uploader's contributions. There's also something strange: 15% of the original was cropped but the size went up to 5.09Mb.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 12Edit

Israel in 1375, or 1590?Edit

Israel came into existence in 1948, is it ok to have, or ?

We don't have a category of, say "History of the United States in 1375"; quite rightly so, as United States did not exist then. Then why do we have it for Israel?

I suggest we move all the early for the Ottoman Period into the later ones (1920–1948) should be sorted into

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  •   Oppose, in favor of renaming and recategorization of the categories under Category:Eretz Israel.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment, there is not an en.wp article about "Eretz Israel", (it is a redir to en:Land of Israel). Also, for those unknown with the name "Eretz Israel": I have virtually never seen it in academic literature, but it is often used by (right wing, or religious) Israelis, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      “Eretz Israel” is Hebrew (in English transcription) for the “Land of Israel”, as explained in the article you linked. And it has been used in both academic and non-academic literature, by right-wing, left-wing and whatever-wing, by religious and secular Jews as a geographical description of the region (before 1948 often as a synonyme to “Palestine”).--Shlomo (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If some of them are maps of the Biblical holy land (with territories of the twelve tribes and such), then they are not maps of the Ottoman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with AnonMoos. Before the Ottoman Empire, we've got the Category:Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), the Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem, several Islamic caliphates, the Byzantine Empire, the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Judea, Canaan (sorry, I got bored trying to link all related categories). The X-year map categories contain more anachronisms than just Israel though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: We don't have a category […] History of the United States in 1375… True, but we do have categories like Category:1590 maps of Iraq, Category:1540 maps of Pakistan, Category:1588 maps of Germany, Category:1588 maps of Italy, even Category:1843 maps of Washington (state) and MANY others like these. Do you suggest to reorganize them too?--Shlomo (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is very simple to understand. Commons:Project scope: "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all. It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." All countries have a history therefore history by year is the correct way to make media available to all. Commons does not comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. It serves wikipedia in all languages including Hebrew Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia. Removing the category 1375 maps of Israel and moving page Category:1375 maps of Israel to Category:1375 maps of Palestine It's even worse. -- Geagea (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Germany and Italy existed in 1588, just not as countries. I'd prefer to see Category:1375 maps of Mamluk Sultanate, but I think retrospective names are too useful to be deleted. In the one entry of 1375 maps of Israel, File:Abraham and Jehuda Cresques Catalan Atlas. Eastern Europe view from the south.F.jpg, it should be part of Category:1375 maps of Israel and Category:1375 maps of Palestine, as both exist in the modern world. Given the scale of the map, Mamluk Sultanate would be more accurate, but if you're going to include smaller modern regions, the smaller modern regions can use modern names.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
… existed, just not as countries. You can say the same about Israel. As for the rest, I don't opose keeping and using these categories, especially where they seem to be useful for the users. I just don't agree with efforts to delete all “anachronistic” categories containing the world “Israel” while keeping the other ones.--Shlomo (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you please maybe try to resolve this problem in one go? Then summarise the consensus into a guide and publish it somewhere like cat talk:Israel. I have no interest or knowledge in this problem, but I'd like to point out it's been brought up by Huldra just two months ago: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#"Category:Israel_by_year".--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite, then people seem happy to move things to Ottoman Empire or British mandate. Actually, [[Category:Eretz Israel]] is better than [[Category:Israel]]; at least with the first we don't connect it directly with a specific country existing today. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And why shouldn't we connect it with a specific country existing today? And why, if we shouldn't use those convenient associations, should we start with the most politically charged example? Why not move the Iraqi and Saudi Arabian categories first?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As I answered below: en:Palestine (region) Palestine for the region has been used all the time, and is still used by scholars, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all <year> maps of <anywhere> categories. They make the maps impossible to browse, by breaking them all up into tiny individual categories. Far better to only have "Old maps of <place>" categories -- subdivided geographically, to gather like with like, then with the category view ordered chronologically, to present maps of a similar age together. Jheald (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It may also be worth exploring how leading external sources categorise such maps. Here are the catalogue entries for a couple of such maps (1720, 1597) from the British Library: [9] [10]. They are each subject-categorised as Palestine -- Maps -- Early works to 1800 and Israel -- Maps -- Early works to 1800, these being the standard Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) strings for such items.
    On the word "Palestine", the Palestine Exploration Fund (founded 1865 and still very active) offers the following [11]: "The term 'Palestine' is a widely-attested Western and Near Eastern conventional name for the region that includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria. Its traditional area runs from Sidon on the coast, to Damascus inland, southwards to the Gulf of Aqaba, and then north-west to Raphia... The term 'Palestine' has over many centuries retained its relevance as an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region. It has no political associations when used by the Palestine Exploration Fund." Jheald (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It was very political around 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian specifically renamed the province of "Judaea" with the semi-obscure word "Palaestina" (i.e. Philistia, previously mainly referring to the south coastal plain area) for the intentional and malicious purpose of spiting the Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Palestine has been used about the region virtually all the time, see this GA on en:Palestine (region). "Israel", however, is associated with states; some 2000–3000 years ago, and one since 1948. The name "Israel", alone, was never used about the region, it was associated with a people, (ie Jews), Huldra (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the last state named "Israel" before modern times disappeared in 722 or 721 B.C., but a map of the Biblical holy land with territories of the 12 tribes and such could still be called a "map of Israel" regardless of which year it was made in. And "Palestine" also has some problems -- such as being completely anachronistic before about 135 A.D., and being used much more often by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area for several centuries before about 1900 A.D. (during that time it was basically an Exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Israel is frequently used about the region, and likewise, Palestine is associated with a nation and people in the modern world. And again, it seems problematic that Category:1375 maps of Saudi Arabia and Category:1375 maps of Libya are not an issue, but Category:1375 maps of Israel is. "Saudi Arabia" is a nation name first used for a nation created in 1935 referring to a particular ruling house established in 1744. Any rules here should be far more general than just Israel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14Edit

More eyes requested for claims about alleged microstateEdit

I would appreciate some geographer's eyes on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Paraduin.png. The assertion is basically than someone's house and a bit of land is a "microstate" with it's own flag, however I have find no independent sources and there is no Wikipedia article. As far as I can work out, based on the absence of non-self published websites, the flag is a bit of fan-fiction and fails to meet Scope. If someone can provide meaningful sources otherwise, that would be great.

Thanks -- (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You are now forumshopping for what already is a frivolous request. Just accept that you can't always have things your way and move on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Micronations are almost always just self-proclaimed "countries" and none are ever recognised, even the most widely known micronations are unrecognised States so I fail to see how Paraduin is different because it has no Wikipedia article. Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it should be disqualified from being on Wikimedia Commons. In fact even Wikipedia says as much about micronations see "Micronations, sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects, are small, self-proclaimed entities that claim to be independent sovereign states but which are not acknowledged as such by any recognised sovereign state, or by any supranational organization. They should not be confused with microstates, which are recognised independent states of a small size, nor should they be confused with unrecognised states, which may have legitimate claim to sovereign state status.[1]:5" (source). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd say all these files related to self proclaimed ideas should be put under cat:user page images. The creators are merely using wikimedias and Commons for self promotion just like NorthFace does, so I think Fæ has a valid point and is not forumshopping.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF partial bans and Wikimedia CommonsEdit

In light of a recent partial ban on the English language Wikipedia in the form of w:en:User:Fram (Fram) being banned by the WMF for a year and 2 (two) days and the enormous backlash it received, it might be wise to adopt a local policy regarding "WMF bans". WMF partial bans have been applied to both the German and English language Wikipedia's and I see no reason why it wouldn't be applied to Wikimedia Commons anytime soon.

Though I can see the need for WMF partial bans as users being bullied by prominent members of the community can receive a boomerang to the face if they try to report these people to the community and admins with long-term civility issues are basically immune from scrutiny, the WMF has chosen to not handle their banning strategy in a transparent way, and unlike bans placed by members of the community which in theory would be able to be appealed, WMF bans cannot be appealed, ever.

Although I don't think that we can stop the WMF from issuing partial bans (and this could be a good thing as it will prevent them from globally banning people who are productive elsewhere), we could regulate these. First of all I suggest creating a list of WMF partially banned users somewhere, including a local one here at "Commons:List of WMF banned Commons users" and create a log of which users were previously banned with their expiration dates.

It might also be wise to force them to be more transparent and warn users on-wiki or force the WMF Office account to create a mail template to leave on users’ talk pages.

I also suggest that unless the reason for a ban would require an Oversighter (or “Oversighter equivalent”) revision deleting statements that the WMF should notify the community about the allegations and openly allow input from the entire community by posting it either to the village pump or a dedicated page (such a "Commons:WMF partial bans/Discussion"). This is not to say that we can veto any WMF, but that if WMF office bans are a last resort, then we, as the community, should be able to address these issues internally and that the WMF office should only take action if this cannot be resolved by the community. Also if an editing restriction is more desirable than this should be able to be discussed.

Note that I am not starting this discussion here to import any drama from any other Wikimedia website, I am simply seeking to open a preventative discussion to make sure that if “a high profile user” would ever be WMF banned from Wikimedia Commons that we would have a system in place to make sure that no drama will arise from this issue. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely fine to have a category, although a permanent listing there might be considered unwise for those that have "served their time". The exact nature of such a category could be discussed. Fine to ask them to leave a template on the user talk page, although we cannot force them to do anything. Absolutely not fine to require the WMF to post allegations publicly. "Requiring" them to do so would be like requiring a fish to breathe air. It simply isn't workable and they won't do it. It is their standard operating procedures to not disclose such information and to treat all of it as private. That is their prerogative.

The WMF is allowed to do what they wish to enforce the Terms of Use as they see fit. They are the ones that created them and they are the ones that the global community has entrusted to enforce them. Bans placed by the WMF have multiple levels of sign off and are not used unless absolutely necessary. They aren't banning people just for the hell of it. The farce that has become the Fram situation was because of a step of apparent mercy by the WMF. Mercy in the fact that they were partially banned and not globally locked with the key thrown into the nearest volcano like what has been done in the past. Unless we want to mandate our own community to start enforcing the Terms of Use I personally think we should allow the WMF to continue to do what they deem necessary to uphold the terms everyone of us agrees to every time we hit "Publish changes". --Majora (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I disagree, if I understand the proposal correctly (adding users banned elsewhere to a Commons category). I can't see why a project-specific ban (by the community or by the WMF) that isn't applicable to Commons should lead to the creation of a category here. Such matters don't concern Wikimedia Commons as a project. If the WMF (globally or partially on Commons) issues a ban that affects Commons, it's a different story. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it was my reading of that sentence that the category would apply to WMF bans that apply specifically to Commons. Commons users banned elsewhere are definitely irrelevant. We have quite a few good standing members of this community that have been indef blocked/banned on other projects. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: the right place would be meta, but I doubt meta will be safe for that, so a local copy wouldn't hurt. According to User talk:Fram#Seeing as you're not banned here the ultimate reason for the ban was [12]. Welp. If that's reason for the WMF to ban someone for a year, I'm done for. And Jcb blocked a WMF employee, it's a miracle he's still around considering what Fram was (according to Fram) banned for.
If the accused agrees to have the reason for the ban made public (which Fram has no problem with), the WMF should release all they can to clarify their reasons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I would personally take Fram's word with a grain of salt. The WMF said that they reviewed many instances of issues and I believe them. Again, such office actions are signed off on by multiple people so they would need to convince multiple people that office action is a) warranted and b) necessary. I can't imagine incivility like what you linked to, while a problem for the long term health of the community, would rise to the level of having multiple people agree that a ban is necessary by itself if there was not plenty of other reasons to cause alarm.

As for the accused being ok with the complaint being made public, that is rather irrelevant and pretty predicable behavior in my mind. Of course they would be ok with it. In true cases of harassment the accused would want the accuser to be forced to make a public statement. Especially if the accused is a long standing member of the community with lots of backers that would immediately come to their defense regardless of the circumstance. This is very very common and the whole idea behind the enwiki essay, en:WP:UNBLOCKABLES. By forcing a public statement the accuser is opening themselves up to further abuse so, naturally, they would not take the chance or bother to even start such an inquiry. Simple human psychology to not want to put yourself in situations that would cause further distress. The accused being open to such public notice is not what any organization hoping to stop such abuse should care about. In true cases of harassment, it is the accuser that matters and if the accuser doesn't care then they wouldn't be contacting the WMF to begin with. While I can't say for sure why the WMF has certain SOPs, I can speculate that this is why their SOP is to keep such information private. Since by disclosing it the accuser would simply be subject to further problems that the original contact was supposed to stop. --Majora (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that they have looked into more than one complaint. A little more trust in the WMF's procedures is warranted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: It's quite possible Fram would present the case a bit more rosy than it actually is. However, I think it's not in their best interest to outright lie about anything. If they are caught, community support would instantly vanish. If the diffs that Fram linked are really all there is, WMF could indeed not really say anything due to privacy concerns. But, if that's true, the ban itself is completely abhorrent and should be lifted. If there is more, WMF could simply state there was a substantial amount of other evidence that led to their decision. That would clear the air somewhat. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no special need to pre-empt the discussion at the English Wikipedia. Those that are prepared to research the case can give views on the Arbcom request that is still open, including views about how better to work with WMF T&S, not just with regard to partial bans.
A key difference between Commons and the English Wikipedia is that we have no equivalent to Arbcom. This means there is no obvious equivalent to the points of contact that currently have regular reviews and alerts about T&S cases that impact this project. A useful later proposal, once this specific case has reached a resolution, might be for this community to ask whether Bureaucrats, Oversighters, or (not specifically Commons) Stewards, should have a better relationship or insight for T&S cases where the case itself of claimed targeted harassment, privacy, criminal content etc., has significant evidence based on Wikimedia Commons. My intuition is that the elected Commons Oversighters should have an open invite to join T&S briefings or updates on proposed an recent necessary actions, in a similar way to how Arbcom may be respected by T&S as volunteer colleagues and representative stakeholders; in effect this may already happen on an irregular or less formal basis.
So, let's revisit in a month or two when more concrete local proposals might be sensible to discuss. -- (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Fæ, stewards are not only aware of all WMF bans but are told why the ban is in place. They are already the unofficial point(s) of contact between the WMF and the global community at large. Obviously they cannot discuss the rationale behind such things without the WMF's go ahead (which they will not give) but from what I've been told by various stewards they are aware of the precise reasoning already. As you said though, whether or not we want to ask the WMF to extend that courtesy to certain Commons functionaries on matters relevant to Commons is a topic for later. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of past private statements from Stewards, but the future improvement for Commons I'm painting is to define official POCs, who may then provide reassurance in public that the case evidence makes sense to them or that they have made objections on behalf of the community, such as asking for further review or escalation. At the current time I have no sense that 'Stewards' who may or may not be given access to case information, are acting as our representatives, it has the more disturbing feeling of being an informal super-friends network, more interested in protecting the status quo than a mechanism for credible governance. -- (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Majora and Fae. The storm over on en:wp consists users "talking out of their ass", as the Americans would say, on a remarkable scale. They know very little and might possibly continue to know very little and eventually have to just "deal with it". Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia is worth reading. I don't support the creation of a manually edited list of currently locally banned users or "a log of which users were previously banned with their expiration dates". Sounds to me like a defamation/vandalism magnet. We already have status indicating if a user is blocked and a block log that is automatically maintained. -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure there's much point in any of this taking place anywhere. Office actions are not subject to community oversight. The most we could realistically do is politely ask them to comply with customs we adopt locally, which as far as I understand, they've already indicated they do not intend to do. Other than that, we can bluster a lot amongst ourselves in a way that might be personally therapeutic, but isn't actually going to accomplish much of anything (if anything at all). Last I checked, that sums up most of the discussion taking place on the English Wikipedia thus far. GMGtalk 18:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 16Edit

Name of the categoryEdit

The question to native English speakers. Check the name of this Category:Photos of localities of settlements with blast furnaces in the background. Is it correct in terms of the English language? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blast furnace chip worker: It is gramatically correct but why "of localities of settlements"? That excludes some places. If the important factor re blast furnaces is they they are in the background, I would just go for Category:Distant views of blast furnaces, for which we have several precedents. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker, Rodhullandemu: That works for me, or Category:Blast furnaces (background).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we have more often used "Remote views" than "Distant views". - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 17Edit

Structured Data - qualifiers for depicts statements coming this weekEdit

The Structured Data on Commons team plans to release the first version of qualifiers for depicts statements this week. The team has been testing the feature with the community for a month, and are ready to turn it on for Commons on Thursday, 20 June, between 11:00-12:00 UTC. Adding qualifiers allows users to further develop depicts statements. For example, depicts: house cat can be extended into depicts: house cat[color:black]. You will be able to find qualifiers in the "Structured data" tab on the file page, or in the "Add data" tab in the UploadWizard. This version has a drop-down menu to select qualifiers; an update in the near future will replace the drop-down with an auto-suggest box.

I'll keep the community posted when qualifiers go live on Thursday, after the team makes sure everything is configured and working as expected. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 18Edit

Ideas for assessing copyright for mass upload of German Colonial Society archives 1860s−1930sEdit

NearEMPTiness highlighted the scanning of around 50,000 photographs which has been put online by Frankfurt University for the public benefit at, this essay has a useful academic summary. I am considering getting on with a mass upload, which will preserve the catalogue data for future categorization, but effectively kicking this off as a speedy mass upload with minimal filtering or automatic categorization cleverness.

However, though these are old (and interesting) photographs, the scans have been done as a means to preserve the endangered original prints and negatives, not because they are automatically public domain by age. Does anyone have an idea for an easy acid test(s) I can apply pre-upload to skip photographs which are definitely not public domain. My gut feeling after an initial review is to put aside copyright and mark these as no copyright known, however there may be good reasons to filter on specific date and named photographer constraints. If there needs to be a longer review, I can happily park this as a batch upload project for a couple of months, or just move on to other things. -- (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleting unmaintained galleries?Edit

I keep coming across galleries that haven't had any new media files added to them for years, and only have one or two photos in them. For example, [13], which I've now redirected to Category:Ralph Albert Blakelock, last had an image added to it in 2008, and only contained 2 photos of the ~80 we currently have in the category + subcategories.

They cause a problem as they tend to have priority in links from Wikipedias, so they can be what readers first see of Commons contents about a topic (and they also get priority in links from Wikidata, often necessitating the creation of a new item for the topic, but that's more of a technical issue).

I'm thinking about putting forward a proposal to bulk-delete these if an image hasn't been added to them for X years (and possibly if they contain less than Y media files), and would appreciate some input into what X and Y should be before I do so. Perhaps over 3 years and less than 5 files? Any comments? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I support anything that tamps down on this frankly outdated thing. Personally I'd love to see all galleries go away. Huntster (t @ c) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Against it. Flagging them for review rather than deletion would be a better step, at least then a human brain has to make a decision. -- (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@: Is there a way to flag them for review? If no-one's added anything to them for years, would anyone be interested in reviewing them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I can think of at least 3 technically different ways to create a backlog for reviews, and don't feel it useful to recommend a specific solution, it's not like designing a NI border where solutions are fantastical. If there is interest in experimenting with a "gallery delete or update" backlog, it makes sense to create an initial 100 matches for discussion. -- (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Something like Commons:Deletion requests/Toyokuni? (3 images out of hundreds, unchanged since 2007.) Or are you thinking about a category or separate process? I'll see if I can code up something to generate a sample set, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think galleries have enormous potential and have been horribly under-utilized. I put a ton of work into some gallery pages, such as Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest or Places of worship in Seattle. Those two in particular are extremely useful for identifying poorly identified images that come in. We need more of this, not less. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not a news website, and galleries do not have to be up to date. (Disclaimer: I personally find galleries annoying and never use them, however I do see their potential) Galleries generally contain the best or most illustrative images from a category and are more easy to navigate than categories for finding high quality images. I don't think that we should delete galleries if they are simply not being updated, if a gallery exists of a monument building that has burned down then it is realistic that no new images of it will be uploaded and its gallery could go unedited for years, also if in general no new images will be uploaded of a subject then it wouldn't make sense to change the associated gallery. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the best solution is to change the Wikipedia and Wikidata link to the Category instead of the Gallery if the gallery is not fully implemented. I like to see portraits arranged chronologically and be separated from documents in the galleries. I agree it is annoying to see only a few images in the gallery when more are available. RAN (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That solution is ad-hoc and can only be accomplished on Wikipedia. Anyone attempting it should leave a good Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is Wikidata where it must occur. Several of us Commoners who are also involved there have tried (and failed) to get them to more systematically favor Categories over Galleries where both exist. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Agree, this seems to be trying to solve an issue that is one for Wikidata to agree on rather than Commons. If a gallery is a outdated or not very good, it still is not actually a problem for Wikimedia Commons readers and contributors per se. -- (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sample setsEdit

@: asked for a sample set of 100 galleries, so I've written some code that looks through 100 random galleries. I've only coded up counting the number of files in each gallery at the moment, it's going to be more complex to look at when the last file was added. The first sample set is at [14] - I've created separate lists for galleries containing 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 images (nominally marked as 'bad'), with galleries with more than 5 images under 'good'. (Older versions of the page were while I was testing the code). Comments on this sample set would be welcome - particularly if there are good files listed as 'bad' and vice versa! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded the code to also look through the history to see when the last time a file was added/removed to a gallery. The revised list is at [15] - galleries that last had a file added/removed in 2015 or earlier are in bold. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the example of George Edward Grey, it hasn't been touched for years, but I still don't see why anyone would want to delete it. All of these are a subjective curation, some may be claimed to be unhelpfully out of date, but many others will still be okay untouched as a snapshot of curated images even in another 20 years. Whatever is being solved here, does not seem to necessarily require a mass deletion campaign. -- (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It's funny you should choose that one - because it wasn't in Category:George Grey, no one had noticed that George Grey also existed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template to describe colors used in an imageEdit

  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --—⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there was a template, which generated something like the following:


and it was intended to be included on the pages of files which have a small number of main colors, like simple icons and logos. And now I can't find this template. Is there such a template, or am I remembering it incorrectly? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tbc, maybe? --El Grafo (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, El Grafo! That's the one. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19Edit

Cannot upload a pictureEdit

Hi everyone. I tried many times to upload a large picture. It loads and then I get processing, it hangs and eventually, I get Error $1 without any other explanation. Yesterday, I uploaded a picture without problems. I wonder what is going on. The picture got edited with GIMP. Could it be an issue ? The file name is 92650028.jpg. Thanks. Malosse (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I find this quite often. Uploading could be fast and fine, so no problem there, then it hangs around for queued/processing for a very long time, and then gives an (unknown $1) failed upload error, which is erroneous as the file has already uploaded. This appears not to be a fault of the person uploading, but of a real failing in the Commons processing system, something I've never found on other and more popular and well-known repositories with much higher rate of file uploads, such as Flickr. You can check how uploads are generally progressing by clicking and refreshing on 'Latest uploads' in the left side panel... you will probably find that there is a slow uptake of files where typically it should be swift processing for very many files (at the moment of writing this, it's an inadequate 8 files per minute).
I understand your frustration, and this common fail of Wikimedia Commons certainly doesn't enhance the project, which, it has to be said, is a Cinderella of repositories... you don't believe this?... watch people's eyes glaze over when you tell them where your particular picture might be accessed. I suggest you retry your upload after a few hours. You could try uploading your files to 'Flickr' (free up to 1000), '500px', etc., with the same creative commons licence, and a Commons bot (or even manually by you), could eventually bring them over to Commons. The advantage of this is that after transfer to Commons your files will be higher up the Google image rankings... those only on Commons are pretty low ranked and invisible unless taken up by other web sites. Acabashi (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I never experienced that kind of error when uploading to Commons (or any other kind, pretty much), but then again I use Special:Upload (or some times Vicuña or FX Derivatives), not that wizard thing. -- Tuválkin 22:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It uploaded today. It would be nice to have a clearer error message. Malosse (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


Is it just me, or these last few days there have been much more pageloading timeouts than usual? Every 2nd or 3rd page I open needs to be refreshed repeatedly to display in full and properly, often things like Cat-a-lot or Hotcat do not show, some times it's the notifications, too, some times even the CSS. Very annoying. -- Tuválkin 22:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting the same. Hohum (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have this too, as well as increased time taking to upload a file using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, some pages randomly crash (mobile-only), and sometimes I've been experiencing display issues. This has all mostly been the last couple of weeks and the issues seem to come and go. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, me too.--Vulphere 09:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
See phab:T226048 No "me too" comments there please. :) See mw:Phabricator/Help how to get involved; see mw:How to report a bug how to report technical issues. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 20Edit

Size of Commons?Edit

I'd like to get a rough idea how many bytes are in Commons. There are about 54 million uploaded files. Would 2MB be a reasonable estimate average size for each? That would be 108 terabytes. -- GreenC (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Also, remember that all prior versions and deleted files are here as well. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Qualifiers for depicts are now availableEdit

Qualifiers in depicts statements is now available on file pages and in the UploadWizard. The option to add, edit, and remove qualifiers appears when editing structured data.

With this feature, depicts statements can be fully described. A statement that may have been previously limited, such as depicts: house cat, can now be stated as depicts: house cat [color:black]</black>.

There are a few known issues found in testing that are being worked on that were not significant enough to block release. Fixes should be in place soon.

The qualifiers chosen for this first release are qualifiers for depicts on Wikidata (as set by the property constraints) plus a couple of others being tested. Hard constraints prohibiting other qualifiers from being entered are not in place, as they are not in place on Wikidata. This first version of qualifiers does not show a warning if the qualifier is outside the constraints as it does on Wikidata, and a warning on Commons is something the team is willing to look into if the community would like.

Additionally, the dropdown menu suggestions when entering a qualifier are limited in the first “depicts only” release. In the near future, as we release support for all statements, qualifiers will use auto-suggest boxes and the list of returned suggestions will have much wider coverage and range.

Lastly, this first version of the feature does not display qualifier text as links to their associated Wikidata properties, but links will be present in a later release.

The development team looks forward to seeing the use of qualifiers in statements, and welcomes any comments or questions about the feature at Commons talk:Structured data. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We should probably add to Commons:Depicts to list the qualifiers at d:Property:P180#P2302 and describe how they should be used / what they mean (eg the difference between applies to part (P518) and depicted part (P5961)
Also, per EugeneZelenko here, it may be worth starting to list what qualifiers may particularly valuable to consider for different sorts of subjects.
The results from the following query may be useful, It identifies the most common qualifiers currently used on depicts (P180) statements on Wikidata, with the top 10 classes of items that each one is used on, with a sample item for each use. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Category names that use a hyphenEdit

This Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses drew my attention to categories created by a supposedly Hong Kong user. It is almost impossible to reach him/her because s/he creates new accounts to upload files and create categories from time to time, but it is easy to identify him/her. S/he always names files in a mix of English and Chinese, over-categorises them and creates some categories in the format of XYZ - generic terms, e.g. Citybus Route 10 - Buses, Category:Kings Wing Plaza - Restaurants. See Limsd Parrk Yuewai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter logblock user for a recent example.

Such naming does not obey our rules, so they should be changed to for example Buses of Citybus Route 10.

However, some of these categories seem to be over-categorisation to me. For Category:Citybus Route 10, do we need separate categories for a few photos of the signs, the buses themselves, etc.? Another example, Category:Baishizhou station - Signs, Signs of Baishizhou station if renamed. Do we need a standalone category for signs of a particular metro station? I think we should just put the photo in the cat of the station and the cat of Signs in that city/district.

I did some searches to see how many such categories exist. category: intitle:/- Signs/ has 295 results.

This led me to try searching category: intitle:/(- ).*/. The result is 3656 hits! They are created by different users, but many have the same problem and should be renamed.--Roy17 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)