Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Village Pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01.

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:

A village pump in Burkina Faso [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.

December 28[edit]

Let's help Rehman[edit]

Hi all; let's support our colleague Rehman, he is a great Commoner and Wikipedian, and currently is in a critical economic situation. Here you can support; any donation and sharing this campaign is highly appreciated. Regards --A.Savin 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 03[edit]

Wikidata-based category redlinks being auto-added[edit]

A number of PDFs and DjVu files have been automatically included in redlink categories, the links to which seem to be based on Wikidata item statements of these files. See:

Can someone track down the source of this? Most likely it's some template used by the Book template.

I'm not sure if there's a policy about doing something like this, but IMO these are low quality categories. -- (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] that would be me! Please ignore the mess while we're cleaning up and remodeling. Will remove them soon. Multichill (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply] These tracking categories have been removed. It will probably take some time for them all to empty out again. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 04[edit]

Ageism in category definitions[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country.
System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women.

On Category:Old men , Category:Old women and subcategories, we have, for example:



1. Babies (female) (birth – 24 months)
2. Girls (2–12 (puberty))
3. Adolescent girls (13–17 years)
4. Women (18– )
5. Young women (18-39 years)
6. Middle-aged women (40-59 years)
7. Old women (60+ years)

Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology)."

The designation of anyone 60 or over as "old" strikes me as ageist. The cited source no longer says whatever it once may have done about such age-bands.

There are BLP issues in categorising people in such a manner; and doubly so if it is done by a subjective assessment of their appearance, rather than a known DOB.

[In resolving the matter, the repeated text should be templated]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any policy or guideline applicable for Commons that can handle this possible matter. The closest I can think are COM:IDENT and COM:CAT. Also, the BLP issue is something that Wikipedians should handle, and meta:Living persons is now redirected to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why you think this is a matter or Wikipedians; many of the images in these categories are not used on any Wikipedia. Commons users are bound by both Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (from which: "Defamation: Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category.")) and, more forcefully, by this Wikimedia Foundation resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Good point, and COM:BLP redirects to COM:IDENT. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeas, this whole classification is wrong. Unless we know exactly when the picture was taken, and the date of birth of the person, these categories should not be used. Yann (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These definitions are also cultural, I have seen Dutch textbooks use "Baby (birth - 18 months), Peuter (18 months to 3 years), Kleuter (3 years to 6 years), Etc." (They also used "tiener (12-17)" and "Adolescent (18-21)" while I have also read Dutch definitions like "Baby (birth to 12 months), Dreumes (12 months to 24 months), Peuter (slightly different dates than before), Etc." Age groups are largely cultural and as society changes I wouldn't be surprised if adolescences gets pushed back to 20~25 years in the future and if human longevity can be extended then 80 (eighty) might be considered the minimum age for "old" in the future and for a 4 (four) year old a 12 (twelve) year old is incredibly old to them. So not only are all these terms cultural and can differ significantly within the same culture, but whatever can be seen as "young" or "old" is subjective. I am not against these categories, but I can see how they can be confusing to people as different cultures maintain different concepts of age groups. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the Dutch-language Wikipedia article "Adolescentie": "
De leeftijden die beschouwd worden als onderdeel van de adolescentie, verschillen per cultuur. In de Verenigde Staten beschouwt men adolescentie als beginnend rond de leeftijd van 13 jaar en het duurt tot ongeveer 24 jaar. De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie daarentegen definieert adolescentie als de periode van iemands leven tussen de het 10e en 20e levensjaar. De Van Dale stelt dat een adolescent een jongere is van ca. 15 tot 20 jaar.
" Which acknowledges this difference, from what an older Dutch friend told me the term "
" and "
" were historically used in the Netherlands but thanks to Americanisation (or perceived Americanisation) the term "adolescent" is used for the entire age range, which according to Wikipedia is being pushed by Dutch child psychologists. There appears to be no singular definition for many age ranges, and most of the above examples are just for the European Netherlands, let alone if one would include other cultures. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from convinced that we should be labelling a 60-year old, even one known to be that age, as "old". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue that we are labelling, for example, images of people drinking alcohol as "adolescents", and therefore under 18, apparently based solely on visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all photos of alcohol-drinking people need to conform to the ludicrous notion that one needs to be older than 18 to be able to do so (while driving motor vehicles at 16 and killing civilians abroad at 17 is A-OK). I had my first beer at 14, thanksverymuch — I didn’t care for it and it was legal there and then, but am I under arrest now? Tl;dr: what do you even mean? -- Tuválkin 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 07[edit]

Banning IP edits in general[edit]

In the last time I did a lot of patrolling. I checked the edits of IP users and my experiences are showing to me that we have a huge problem with accidental edits and a lot of spam. The most IP edits are okay, but only because of some people doing things like mass categorization with many hundred edits as IPs. When banning IPs I think we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users", they just would create accounts for them.

The time we need to check and revert so many edits is much more then the good contributions added to commons. With the time saved we can check the edits of new users and contact them to help. This is much more important for getting new contributor then the ability to edit without an account.

With this introduction I want to start a discussion on this for later creation of a proposal with all details, like which namespaces should be protected. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A key problem with this is that many editors start out by making IP edits before creating an account. If I had needed to create an account before experimenting with Wikimedia projects, I would never have participated at all. By closing the project to named accounts only, we are likely to intensify the reduction in active editors in the long term. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think moth users start with uploading their own photos where an account is already required. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a great idea, especially that movements in this direction can be observed on other wikis, some of them even have already banned IPs. It is exactly like you have said – a small number of IP editors make tons of good edits, while tons of IP editors make a few crappy "test edits" (or just pure vandalism). These good IP editors, if forced to create accounts, could be later granted "autopatrol", what would reduce amount of work for patrollers. And of course getting rid of vandals and ordinary morons would reduce amount of work for everyone and the time saved could be spent on more productive activities here. Anyway, I think that editing of structured data (including file captions) should be banned immediately for IPs. It is very hard to find a good SDC related edit made by an IP. -- 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If IP users are an especially big issue with Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC)-related edits then making an edit filter that disallows from making such edits is a better solution than just blanket banning them / y'all from all editing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with the premise that most good IP edits are from mass categorization, In the past 2 weeks I have noticed One IP Categorize various Churches in London and another IP Categorize Streets in Southwark neither of these were or could have been done by mass categorization. The last time I noticed a Spammer was more than 2 years ago, their edits were easy and took seconds to undo. I can say I would not have started or persisted with editing If there had been a requirement to register. I find that your assumptions that "we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users"" "moth users start with uploading their own photos" to be unsupported by credible evidence, such as statistics or even personal observations. I have sometimes used IP edits when I am away from my home PC and can't use the PC at hand to log in, inability to do this would mean I don't do those edits and would have put me of the project in the beginning. As for mistakes. I make them, admins make them we all make them if we are here long enough. Not a big problem and certainly not as big a concern as problem admins such as Blackcat who has a history of admin tool abuse. Having to log in or register does not deter abuse or unwise edits. Finally it would be a big step to losing our open approachable status/vibe and a step on a journey to being a small clique of people making irrelevant edits that no one is looking at or engaging with. Oxyman (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your idealistic views clearly show that you have zero counter vandalism exprience. Just use RTRC, let's say for a month, and I assure you will change your mind about IP editors. -- 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth to mention that Portuguese Wikipedia also has very positive experiences in this area. -- 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Oxyman. Being welcoming to newcomers is one of the most important aspects of a collaborative, free culture project. At the same time, wikis need a significant pool of good faith contributors that can push the equilibrium toward quality. In my view, we should only change our IP policy when it is absolutely necessary for maintaining the quality of the project, not merely out of convenience.  Mysterymanblue  17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure IP editors will not help to "push the equilibrium toward quality". No way. Let's face it, an average internet user is an idiot. I do not think any Wikimedia project needs them. Projects need committed people, at least committed enough to create an account. IMO we need quality over quantity (what is exactly opposite to WMF's views). -- 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mostly because this is directly in response to the new privacy measures being taken by WMF Legal. People check IP edits if they can't immediately see where they're from and people will check Masked IP edits. Wikimedia websites should be as open as possible to new users and these websites are some of the last bastions on the internet where unregistered users are still allowed. If Masked IP users cause more vandalism than we have today then it would makes sense, but since this new feature hasn't been implemented anywhere it is reasonable to not change anything until after we see if the new IP masking will cause more vandalism or not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, another WMF's nonsense. Instead of banning IP editors (what would "magically" solve many problems) they are wasting man-hours, i.e. money. Anyway, requirement to create an account has nothing to do with openness. -- 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone other than me find it ironic that other than the original proposer, the main proponent here of banning IP editors is an IP editor? - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the world's largest book burning campaign was conducted by a librarian (Mao Zedong) and the genocide of the intellectuals and basically anyone who can read was done by a school teacher (Pol Pot), so the world is full of irony. While I agree that they do have strong arguments, I am still inclined to disagree with them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as GPSLeo concedes, "most IP edits are okay", and the assumption banning IPs I think we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users", they just would create accounts for them is just, that, an assumption. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The little they contribute is not worth the trouble they cause to the community & reusers, in my experience, due to the high rate of vandalism (and a huge security & privacy issue for more than 20 years which finally and thankfully is being addressed by WMF). Should never have been allowed in first place.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. IP editing is a design flaw. -- 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the original proposer GPSLeo themselves conceded, "most IP edits are okay", and they don't contribute exactly "little". There are, as GPSLeo says, "some people doing things like mass categorization with many hundred edits as IPs", which are fine - GPSLeo just assumes that these people would create an account, but I wouldn't count on that. A blanket ban on IP edits without actual research first that robustly shows that IP contributors are doing more harm than good here on Commons (other projects might have other experiences), and this also in comparison to registered accounts (of which many are throwaway accounts doing lots of rubbish edits/uploads, too!), is out of the question IMHO. We shouldn't go by a "IPs are evil" gut feeling here but base our decisions on hard facts. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are an admin, but have zero experience in patrolling of recent changes. You just assume that "IPs are good". No, they aren't. Just use RTRC for some time and see for yourself. -- 19:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite a lot of experience in deletion requests (though my level of activity varies, granted), and in my experience, IP contributors often bring very reasonable arguments in deletion discussions, for keeping as well as for deleting files, and I wouldn't like to miss them. It's interesting to discuss this with an IP contributor, by the way ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons will still be the free educational media repository that anyone can edit, but they need to register to do it. I agree with the IP above that we need quality over quantity. In defence of Gestumblindi, I'd like to note though that I rarely click the "mark as patrolled" button when I check new files or recent edits. So that log might not be indicative of one's experience with IP vandalism. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's very bad. There are not enough active patrollers while clicking on that link costs you virtually nothing. -- 20:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO, the ratio of good v. bad edits for IP is very low. As De728631 says above, it is better to focus on quality rather than quantity. Creating an account is very easy, and it is not an obstacle for users willing to contribute positively. Yann (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, for such decisions, we don't really need "IMO's" here but actual, tangible data - i.e. though I have a different perception of IP contributors from my experience (mainly in deletion discussions), that doesn't mean that I am right, and if a true statistical evaluation of IP contributions proves that they do more harm than good in comparison to registered accounts, I will readily change my opinion. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't have detailed numbers , my facts are based on 18 years of activity on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mine too ;-) (nearly - my first Commons edit was on 18 November 2004, so two months after you). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this a joke? If so it's in very poor taste. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 21:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Apart from the arguments presented (we need real stats), we have a different situation than e.g. the Wikipedias. Over there you can have a small community of contributors and other people will just read. Here we should serve also authors, copyright owners and reusers. Those should be able to comment without searching for an e-mail address or registering an account. I know about myself, that when commenting on anything requires registering a user name, I just don't comment. Even here, it is not clear what one is committing to when clicking "create account", and there is no telling whether the process will be easy or not. –LPfi (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Authors and copyright holders who publish here directly have to have an account here anyway. Others, who publish in other places (e.g. Flickr) have to contact VRT in order to their comment have any meaning. And you are right. Commons and especially Wikidata are different. They serve as repositories for wikipedias, wictionaries, etc., therefore they should not allow "anonymous" morons to easily vandalize these projects. -- 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of them that published elsewhere and don't have accounts here, and there is no need to go via VRT to point out that the work elsewhere on the internet is attributed to a named person, not the pseudonym that uploaded it as "own work", or to add details on what a photo is about (I don't think VRT should be burdened with such requests). These persons do not need to know about VRT and other procedures, and banning IP editing means they cannot even ask for advice (you could limit them to certain namespaces, but the right place to ask might not be obvious to them). –LPfi (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How and where can they ask for advice if they "do not need to know about VRT and other procedures"? On a random page? Face-smile.svg What basically means that their request will go down the drain. Anyway, they can create an account. Only usernane and password must be provided, no other data, even an email address, is required. BTW, I think that email address should be obligatory – it would make LTA's life harder if they were forced to create a new email address for each sockpuppet. -- 10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a random page, but a relevant page. If they see a deficiency in the file description, editing that page would not be far fetched. From that page there are links, some of which (ultimately) leads to pages such as the village pump and help desk, and the file description has links to users with talk pages, perhaps to a deletion request. File talk pages may not be well patrolled (are they?), but comments might be seen by people interested in the specific file. Those are all pages that a random visitor should be able to leave comments on. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it is how it should be in every Wikimedia project by default. Wostr (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Hulged (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should keep in mind that the culture in Commons is different from say, Wikipedia. In the latter, "anyone can edit". We don't have an equivalent of that here. The main way of contributing to Commons, which is uploading, already requires you to register an account first. So the argument that we would be missing out on many good contributions by unregistered users is questionable.

    So I think we should restrict IP editing further. How much should we restrict? For the minimum we should at the very least disallow structured data edits from IPs, as most of the vandalism and test edits I see come from captions and marking a property as "prominent" even though that's not how it works. For the maximum, we disallow every namespace except Commons and discussion pages. That way it should significantly reduce vandalism on our files and galleries, while still being open to IP feedback. pandakekok9 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I also noticed something: most of the vandalism came from mobile. Perhaps we can do a trial first where we disable editing in mobile via CSS or edit filter? That way we could see if there's improvement or not. Those who want to continue editing unregistered can always go to the desktop version anyway. Seems like a good compromise to me. pandakekok9 11:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I exclusively edit on mobile, the mobile interface is already horrible to work with and deliberately handicapped, making it even worse to use is not the solution because forcing people to exclusively use the "Desktop view" will make a lot of tasks more difficult for a lot of people. Unless you mean exclusively ban mobile edits by non-registered users, in any case this anti-mobile discrimination has got to stop. Furthermore, "anyone can edit" and "Ignore are rules" and all the other "Wikipedian" things are also a part of "the pillars of the Wikimedia Commons", this just means that the software is open to everyone to make improvements, IP editors at the English-language Wikipedia already cannot create new articles or upload and "ignore all rules" never meant "ignore all laws" and Wikipedia's hunt down copyright violations as much as the Wikimedia Commons, these policies exist to be open to anyone for improvements. You don't need to register an account to fix categories, fix a license, or nominate a file for deletion and I have seen IP editors do all those things with good faith here. You don't want a copyright violation to fly under the radar simply because the person who notices doesn't want to register an account. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why people choose to use devices which by design are total crap for uses such as editing a wiki. Do not expect a good software on a crappy basis. Although people are strange – I know a person who prefers to watch movies/Youtube on a 5" smartphone than on a 50" TV. Face-smile.svg -- 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is something you can say in Poland, this is something you can say in places like Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania... But not something that would translate well in most of Asia and Africa, for many Indians and Pakistanis mobile telephones are their only ways of accessing the internet. The only reason why the editing experience for mobile sucks is because rather than just using "a mini-desktop editing interface" (which already exists, try opening a new section in mobile (although it used to be better a few years ago as the WMF is actively sabotaging mobile users), but for whatever reason the WMF sees mobile users only as consumers, meaning that the only people that would want to edit are the vandals or the very dedicated, as the interface doesn't allow for casual editing without constant frustrations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you look at contributions from mobile IP ranges from India, Pakistan and generally south Asia and north Africa, you will see that there are not many useful edits. And they are produced not by vandals but by ordinary morons with smartphones who don't know what they're doing. Anyway, you can connect a desktop or laptop to a smartphone through an USB cable or WiFi and use USB or WiFi tethering – the smartphone acts as a modem in this setup. This way you can avoid to use crappy mobile user interface. -- 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to (whom I assume is) Jdx, well, you can still upload via the mobile app (although it's a crappy interface that only allows a single upload at a time and purports that the Commonswiki only owns own works, so maybe it's not the best example), but in general Mobile users cannot see categories unless they're signed in, they cannot see talk pages, they only see the files, the reason why vandals are overrepresented among the mobile IP editors is simple, good edits are being actively disincentivised by the software itself. The issue isn't with the people, the issue is with the software. If you only access this website through a mobile browser and never register an account you won't even know talk pages and categories and the like exist, nor can you nominate bad files for deletion, so the fact that the only people that make edits are vandals make sense, the issue is the WMF actively discouraging good edits by mobile users. If the "Mobile" interface changes into a miniature version of the "Desktop view" interface today you'd see the percentage of mobile IP edits being identified as vandalism decline in a couple of months. Humans work with incentives and if you take away the incentives to do good things only bad things will happen. The WMF sabotages the mobile interface, not the vandals, they are simply a product of this disregard for mobile editors. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you mean exclusively ban mobile edits by non-registered users That's obviously what I meant. I don't support restricting mobile edits from registered users; that would be overkill. pandakekok9 02:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Account creation is easy enough and is more private. As others have said, IP editing was a bad idea from the outset. But I doubt this will ever happen.
That said, most problem edits here on Commons seem to come from a handful of accounts, not the IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Banning IP edits: can we have some numbers, please?[edit]

Mobile/web uploads in 2014: that was crap and we could prove it

In the comments above I see a lot of opinions based on hypotheses and personal experience. While it's good the hear what's going on "in the trenches", I don't think that this is a decision that should be made on what in the end would be a collaborative gut feeling. When we decided to ban "mobile/web" uploads in 2014, we had good reasons to do so, because Lupo and others had done the research. One basic question we should ask before making any decision is, in my opinion: What is the actual ratio of good vs. bad edits made by IPs, and how does that compare to registered users? "Good" and "bad" are to be defined, but a simple starting point could be looking at the revert ratio. That shouldn't be too difficult to extract that from the database, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El Grafo: Thanks, that's exactly what I am saying, too. The statistics added below are a start, but there is no comparison to registered users yet. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I did some statistics with the data from the API querying with "recentchanges". The edits are between 2021-12-15 13:40 and 2022-01-14 13:42. There are little inconsistencies for unknown reasons.

All IPs IPs with >100 edits IPs with 10-100 edits IPs with 2-9 edits IPs with 1 edit IP edits mobile
IPs in group 7378 85 449 2299 4545 3803
Edits 54983 29975 13304 7359 4545 7889
% of IP edits 100% 54.5% 24.2% 13.4% 8.3% 14.3%
Unchecked edits 50874 28252 12530 6858 4230 5550
Unchecked edits % 92.5% 94.3% 94.2% 93.2% 93.1% 70.4%
Checked edits (Revert + Patrol) 4109 1723 774 501 315 2339
Checked edits % in group 7.5% 5.7% 5.8% 6.8% 6.9% 29.6%
Patrolled edits 1845 528 211 130 51 673
Patrolled edits % in group 3.4% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.1% 8.5%
Reverted edits 2264 1195 563 371 264 1666
Reverted edits % in group 4.1% 4% 4.2% 5% 5.8% 21.1%
Reverted edits % of checked in group 55.1% 69.4% 72.7% 74.1% 83.8% 71.2%

I also want to have a look at mobile edits, I am a working on this. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added mobile data not divided by edit count. Mean edit count for all IPs 7.5 and 2.1 for IPs edited mobile. The median is 1 for both cases. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So overall, we have 55% garbage from IPs among on 7.5% patrolled/checked edits only? Wow, this is even worse than I thought. It also means we have probably around 25,000 bad edits nobody checked. --Yann (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to assume that edits that aren't explicitly patrolled are all bad. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody assumes this. Yann assumes that "only" 55% of unpatrolled edits are bad. Face-smile.svg -- 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, I expected something like 80%. Face-smile.svg @GPSLeo: It would be more transparent if you posted queries/scripts used to create the table. -- 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the API script and some of the analyze functions to User:GPSLeo/stats-tools --GPSLeo (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many selfies are allowed?[edit]

Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)

However, I understand that it is allowed to upload selfies for the purpose of decorating user pages on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

How many selfies are allowed?

And if you upload a selfie, what category do you set it to?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I'd say the number of personal images to decorate one's user page would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For exmple if you are active on many projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikipedia etc), then maybe more personal pictures would be okay, whereas if you're only active on one wiki then it probably isn't justified to have 10 out-of-scope pictures for decoration. Regarding categorization I'd say just marking all personal pictures with {{User page image}} below the {{Information}} template is enough.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to run into a "limit" for this. It's more about people who do contribute never having had more than anyone thought was reasonable, and the ones that raise an issue are from people who just didn't use any project for more than uploading them and trying to use their user page as a CV or band advert. And yet this second group also seemed to want a vast number of awful photos to try and illustrate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)" is probably not the most accurate way to phrase this. There are many situations where a person is close enough to some topic discussed on some Wikimedia Project that would make their selfie reasonably useful for an educational purpose. Remember that there is no "notability" standard for Commons and we inherently include a lot more content than other Wikimedia projects.
I know of one administrator who has uploaded many, many personal photos of the food they eat, the kind of thing many people post to Instagram along with their selfies. If we're going off of their uploads of personal photos, I would guess the allotment should be in the hundreds.  Mysterymanblue  17:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised how many foods are not represented on the Wikimedia Commons, there are many Wikipedia articles about random pieces of food from a country that are not covered here at all, probably because people have the idea that "Uploading photographs of food is for Instagrammers", we should probably only use the term "personal image" when an image really has no realistic educational value, a selfie of a person in a traditional costume that isn't represented anywhere else on the Wikimedia Commons is in scope. Just click "random" on a Wikipedia and see how many articles lack any images, even if they're about a subject that is very common like a brand of a chain of stores with thousands of locations visited by millions of people every day, in fact such an image may have already been deleted as "promotional" and "spam" before. Limiting selfies is a good idea, but it's also wise not to be overzealous in deleting them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Before nominating an image for deletion or deleting it, think "do we have a use for this?" regardless of it being a selfie, a family album photo or promotional content. User selfies are allowed even if they are useless, other selfies need to have an educational use, and many have. The main problem is that random selfies are too badly described to be useful.
For promotional images, I'd say that if they have been used elsewhere in serious marketing, they are in scope, and we do not have too many. E.g. Advertisements in the Netherlands has next to no contemporary content, and Advertisements in the Netherlands by year and by decade end in the 1960s. This is of course mostly for copyright reasons, but if some company or established party lets us have their promotional material under a free licence, that is a valuable contribution.
LPfi (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of a quality image (and rightfully so) that if it were uploaded by a new user it would most likely have been tagged with a speedy deletion tag as an "unused personal image".
The definition of "educational" is subjective, this doesn't just extend to advertisements (an issue I brought up last week) but to basically anything the person doing the patrolling might not have any interest in. A couple of years ago I uploaded files of a nationally active organisation in the Netherlands and first a logo image was nominated for deletion and then the deleting admin wanted to empty the entire category as "out of scope", despite multiple users pointing out to them how these images could be used and I eventually writing a piece on Wikipedia about this article (which I rather have not done as I didn't want to give the organisation more attention as it promotes pseudoscience) and the original file was undeleted but because the discussion was controversial it was closed as "no concensus". What is and isn't "notable" enough for the Wikimedia Commons (despite having no notability policies and guidelines) depends on the beholder, even being mentioned in a Wikipedia article isn't enough for some users. My largest issue with hunting selfies is that we don't always know if the person is notable or not, a cricket player famous in India might not be known to a Mexican file patroller and all they see is "a personal image", this is why deletion requests are generally better than speedy deletion templates as at least there is a chance that someone knowledgeable about the subject will come across it.
Accounts like the "Swiss National Library" were simply lucky that no anti-shared account admin was patrolling when they registered (even though shared accounts aren't against the rules here, many admins still act as if they are), what can and can't be considered "educational" is always difficult to tell, I know nothing about Maram Pitti and currently there are no images of it at the English-language Wikipedia, but if someone would upload images of a game of it and a Polish or Hungarian patroller sees it they might think that someone is just uploading personal images of a game they played.
What would be interesting is if a Wikimedian would upload a selfie of themselves every year to show how they age and how their style changes over the years, but it would be problematic if hundreds of people did this... At least, I can imagine it being so, although I think that we already have a different policy for Wikimedian at Wikimedia-related events as I have found many images of random Wikimedians at some "community" event.
A couple of years ago I tried to save a selfie uploaded by a woman I would ascribe Poe's Law to (as in I couldn't tell if I were dealing with a low competency user or a troll, but assuming good faith I assumed she was the former), she uploaded a number photographs of herself in a United States military uniform with an award she won, as she was a Non-Hispanic African-American female and basically all other depictions of people with that award were Non-Hispanic White-American males I argued that her inclusion would be different, or at least "representative" of a different demographic but most were still against the images' inclusion simply because it was a new user uploading selfies in ALL-CAPS and seemingly unaware that the Wikimedia Commons wasn't Twitter. I can't remember if the images were kept or not or what the award was she won, but selfies are always a difficult subject because it's difficult to tell when a selfie crosses the vague line between "educational" and "non-educational". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines regarding file redirects to a different filetype[edit]


I found File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png and Com:Deletion requests/File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png which made me curious. I've always thought that there isn't a problem with keeping both vector and raster versions of a file. This raster was deleted and redirected to the vector version. Is this according to guidelines? I couldn't find any answer on Com:File redirects nor on Help:File redirect. Pinging @Missvain: as deleting admin.Jonteemil (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: per COM:REDUNDANT, redundant or low-quality files only get deleted on a case-by-case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good editor / organizer for Wikimedia?[edit]

I've been pretty active lately uploading images and reorganizing them (categories, etc.) where nnecessary. Now I've been doing all of this manually via the website; adding categories; or editing the source text to apply multiple edits; that kind of thing. But I think I heard/read one time that there are tools to more easily move multiple images for instance. Is that true and does anyone have experience working with it? If so I'd like to know more, because that would be great for some jobs... Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VisualFileChange (see under Preferences | Gadgets) can do a lot, but it's not the friendliest. Please ask me if I can help with anything specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the description of that tool it's not exactly what I was looking for, but I'll let you know if I decide to use it and need any help! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RagingR2: Check also Help:Cat-a-lot and Help:HotCat. I remember what it was for me to work categorization without these and other stuff such as Help:VFC and MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js: It got suddenly so much better! -- Tuválkin 13:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sounds great. I have enabled it but even though I emptied my browser cache I don't see it appearing on category pages yet. Maybe I am doing something wrong... I'll try again later. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RagingR2: You may need to close and reopen your browser the first time. You will also need to enable java script for Wikimedia Commons if you use a script blocker like "No Script." Cat-a-lot should appear as a tiny icon in the bottom right of your browser screen on categories and search result pages; it is often easy to miss. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THanks, it works now! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coins of China[edit]

Should this tag's year be updated to "before 1972" on this category page here: [1] This tag:

Copyright red.svg
Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies which were designed before 1972.
Photographs of currencies used in China can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on the design has expired, because terms of use of China forbids the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies. The copyright term in China for currencies is the year of designed + 50 years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/China#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.
Money Coin Icon.svg

Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify? Ruslik (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this was a caching issue. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg S-Bahn station[edit]

Wich stations? Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 1.jpg
I suspect Stellingen, as the only S3 station ending with 'en' on the station sign.
@Smiley.toerist: In the second photo, where did you see the -en ending? The sign next to the clock is a timetable announcement displaying the departure time to Neugraben, but it is not the name of the local station. As to the first pic, I don't know either. The sign above the benches is just an advertisement for some cemetery gardeners. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After playing with contrast and brightness, I found also that the sign on the very left edge of the second image says "Süßwaren" (sweets), so that's just a shop and not the station sign either. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See those blue brick walls and what seems to be a railyard in photo 2? Looks like an older version of Elbgaustraße. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was also thinking about some stations in the northwest area. It might also be Eidelstedt. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
where in Hamburg?

January 08[edit]

"Homes for wayward girls": category?[edit]

Do we have a category for what used to be known as a "home for wayward girls" (usually meaning young, unmarried and pregnant, sometimes broader than that)? Examples: Category:Home of the Good Shepherd, File:Lebanon Home, ca 1920 (MOHAI 1096).jpg, File:Group on porch of Florence Crittenton Home, Seattle, circa 1900 (MOHAI 8844).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Ireland, there's Category:Magdalene asylum. --Rosenzweig τ 02:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which has as its only parent category Category:Religious scandals. As far as I know, the three I've given as examples do not have scandals associated! (In the case of the Home of the Good Shepherd, I'm quite sure of that; it lasted until 1973, and I know several women who passed through it, all of whom are more positive than not about the nuns who ran it.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo challenge November results[edit]

Top views of vehicles: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Taxi Driver IMG 3871-Edit-Edit.jpg Nissan Sunny with cats.jpg Bamberg MD Kanal Sportboot-20210603-RM-154723.jpg
Title Taxi Driver pull car to the
front line to pick up passengers
An old Nissan Sunny with
cats taking a rest on it.
Sport boat below Bamberg
lock in MD canal
Author Mojtabagolestani97 Annatsach Ermell
Score 37 17 14
Hedges: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Bailleul sur le vieux chemin de Lille.jpg Alfreton-Snow-Hedges.jpg Hedge in winter.jpg
Title Hedges protecting on the
Vieux chemin de Lille.- Bailleul (Fr)
Landscape with hedges in the snow
near Alfreton, Derbyshire, England
Snow-covered hedge
Author Pierre André Leclercq Kmtextor Sudzie
Score 18 16 13

Congratulations to Mojtabagolestani97, Annatsach, Ermell, Pierre André Leclercq, Kmtextor and Sudzie. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @Jarekt. This is good news that makes me glad. Happy new year 2022 Pierre André (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for merging[edit]

Hello all, while working on Wikidata I discovered some pairs of categories which might be candidates for merging. They however all need a human eye, some may be two different people with similar birth and death dates.

If you'd like, you can move these to a different place where it's easier to track those which have already been fixed. Cheers,--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, to anyone who picks these requests up, it is probably better to redirect than to delete, as many category names will likely be searched for by others and if you use HotCat the software automatically categorises the file in the correct category (plus a bot automatically re-categorises files in redirected categories). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some cases fixed, mostly with redirects. Exceptions were non-English category names and over-specific disambiguations that are not needed. --Marsupium (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests default action[edit]

What happens to Deletion requests that get no response? Is the final action deletion or kept? How long are they kept open before final action is taken with no responses? --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are open until they are decided; Commons suffers from a shortage of good admins, that's why it may take a while --Isderion (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin makes a judgement call. If the case is obvious and the admin agrees with the nominator's argument (usualy citing breach of law, policy or precedent), they will delete. Like many Wikimedia projects, we have a shortage of admins and there is a backlog of deletion cases. For cases that aren't clear cut, the admins will wait till the case gets to the end of the backlog, when other users may jump in and comment. The current backlog is up to May 2021. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the hard work of admins like Ellywa, the backlog is now actually up to June 2021!  Mysterymanblue  23:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Face-blush.svg And like Rosenzweig, and perhaps more, as I do not check all efforts, but I had a friendly DR-edit conflict with admin Rosenzweig with the DR's from May 2021. Ellywa (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 09[edit]


I'm not seeing the ImageNotes at File:Seattle - Pedestrians outside Bon Marche, 1951 (51765882752).jpg, nor do I seem to be able to add more. Does anyone know what is going on? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Help:Image-Annotator? If so, I'll have to leave it to others to reply as I have never used it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I use it a lot on old Seattle photos from the Municipal Archive. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at the image again. The ImageNotes still weren't showing up but then I clicked the image to enlarge it. When I clicked back into the main image screen, the ImageNotes suddenly appeared. It may have been a caching issue. Can you check if it is working for you now? From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see all twelve notes. Tested on two different browsers. -- 03:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I can see them, too, but it took some time for them to show up, after lots of JavaScript loaded.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it must be some sort of caching or timeout issue. Still not working for me. I hope to remember to get back to it in a few days & see if it works again, there were still more notes I was planning to add. (Other images with annotation work fine for me, and of course I did try a hard refresh of the page on my browser, which accomplished nothing.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted military building photo[edit]

I remember that I posted a photo of a Brazilian Navy headquarters in January 2016. Looking for that photo today, I realized that it was deleted and they didn't notify me. Are there any Wikimedia Commons rules that prohibit photos of military buildings? That photo was in a public place, not in a restricted area. I want to get it back or give some good explanation, please. --Porto Neto (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Porto Neto: Hi, and welcome. I don't see any record of any of your uploads in January 2016 having been deleted. What was the filename?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I don't remember but probably "Sede da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or "Prédio da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: --Porto Neto (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Porto Neto: looking at you deleted contributions (admins only), the most recent deleted files you edited are the ones listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Porto Neto from 2015. You can see all your uploads. Unless it got oversighted (which I doubt), you either didn't upload the photo here or you used another account. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I probably separated the photo to upload at the time but I ended up forgetting to upload that one. Unfortunately I no longer have the photo. Thank you, @Multichill: . --Porto Neto (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is back![edit]

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need language links under templates?[edit]

If this sounds interesting, consider reading MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js#Do we still need language links under templates?. Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 10[edit]

How to download a full resolution image hidden behind a canvas?[edit]

Hello, I'd like to download the full version of this. I remember there is a tool for that which I can't find. Does anybody know where to find it? Commons:Download tools doesn't help here. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: Please see User:Fæ/dezoomify, which works with that URL directly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That worked, image is now at File:La rue Chérif Pacha (ruines).png. :-) --Marsupium (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marsupium: For pictures, JPEG is better. I completed the license {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marsupium: You're welcome! The reason any png photo here will look fuzzy when scaled down is due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: Thanks for your improvements of the file page! I wasn't sure if 1889 is the death year … now we've done the same research at the same time it seems.
Yann, Jeff G., the 130 MB PNG is what I got by using Looking deeper into it now, I've noticed, the AUC Collections use IIIF with the respective full res file at Is it worth to upload the JPEG and delete the PNG? --Marsupium (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can have both. PNG is better for archiving purpose. Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy written?[edit]

Is this file:Shami and Kumar.png copy written? I would assume so. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a source is given, but there's no indication at that source of the claimed free licence. I've tagged it for deletion as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Thanks, but please notify the uploader when you tag a file as a copyvio.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When did that become a policy? Isn't this why we run 'bots? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I just want to make this clear. That is my IP address and somehow I wasn’t signed in when I made that question. Just saying that so I am not accused of sock puppetry. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get rid of that account? Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: I replaced that signature for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jeff G.: ! Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: You're welcome. I moved your reply per COM:TALK.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: "the uploader should be informed of the impending deletion" has been a part of COM:DP exactly since this edit 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC), and mostly since this misspelled edit 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC), both 15+ years ago.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Deletion policy#Overview of procedures (and 2006 is the same), that's regular deletions via {{Delete}} and COM:DR though, not speedies as copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Ok, then. "copy the displayed {{Copyvionote}} template to the end of the uploader's talk page to notify them" has been a part of that same policy exactly since this edit 14:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC), and mostly since this edit 12:26, 29 March 2018, as derived from the Admin-supported consensus archived at Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1#Clearer instructions for the copyvio template.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2022[edit]

Community Wishlist Survey Lamp.svg

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional flag, real issues[edit]

There is a file called "File:Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg", it is of a flag of which no historical sources attribute it to be the flag of the Nguyễn Dynasty. The image is educational and it's in scope, but I thought that might it be wiser to request for it to be deleted for a week at the Wikimedia Commons and then only restore it on articles discussing its existence as it is essentially an unsourced myth anywhere else. And with how little evidence actually exist about its usage during the Nguyễn Dynasty and the only actual contemporary source confirming its existence pointing to it being half a century older than its purported use and claiming it as the flag of the Revival Lê Dynasty, I think that it's safe to say that there is no historical basis for this flag ever being associated with the Nguyễn government or its Emperors. I really like this flag, it has a beautiful design, but as far as I can tell it's 100% (one-hundred percent) fiction to attribute it to any Nguyễn Lord or Emperor.

It came to my attention because more recently some people have started inserting it into different articles. I found the original propagation of this myth, I think that user "Editorfree1011" probably just took the unsourced claims by user "Ngockhanh6bnt" at face value and inserted them into the English-language Wikipedia. Usually user "Lệ Xuân" would have reverted it but she's less active lately. This issue is systemic and can't be blamed on one user anymore, but we need that file to debunk it. I still think that my "Commons cleanse" idea might be the easiest solution.

Note that this flag is educationally valuable and at a Wikipedia page that debunks it's historicity the file should be used, but it shouldn't be used elsewhere. The thing is, Vietnamese-language Wikipedia admins have tried to delete it here, but the issue with deleting it here and then restoring it to be manually inserted into relevant articles is that it would essentially be the Wikimedia Commons dictating which free educationally useful content other Wikimedia websites are allowed to use. Which is why I wanted to open up a village pump discussion about it. User "Greenknight dv" thinks that this might be a good idea.

Note that I'm not advocating for it to stay deleted, only for a sort of "cleanse" where it would be removed from pages where it spreads misinformation and we'd then manually restore it where it actually does serve an educational purpose. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in scope, then keep it. It's obviously valuable to make the description accurate or even to warn about obvious fallacies, but it's not Commons' role to second-guess other projects, nor are we particularly equipped to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only way to resolve media being used improperly in other projects is to post on the talk pages of said projects. The reality is that sometimes, misleading or even outright false associations will be made between media posted here and what is included in other wikis (including, of course, wikis that are unrelated to the WMF but use Commons content). As long as we locally have accurate information and descriptive file names, that's all that we can do here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to add "fictional" to the filename. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Koavf's / Justin's proposal, I actually posted a proposal in the proposals village pump to have a bot leave talk page messages on files where such an issue was raised (similar to files that are being up for deletion now), there seemed to be consensus for it. But the only way to actually have a global bot that operates like that is through the Community Tech Wishlist which I am unable to submit anything to. If a "new" user (as in a user with not much edits locally) randomly starts removing a file and leaves a message in another language then it's very likely that they'll get blocked and as I don't want to be globally banned I wouldn't go around removing a fictional flag just for encyclopedic integrity. Unfortunately we don't have a system that alerts users that a file is disputed (which would also bring more conversation here from diverse perspectives who have access to different sources). But yeah, I think that requesting it to be renamed might be better as its current name is highly misleading and a jihad against fictional and proposed flags isn't a good idea as many are in scope for other reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 11[edit]

Satellite images of New Zealand[edit]

Hi all - I note that several hundred images in Category:Satellite pictures of New Zealand are simply titled in the form (e.g.,) File:ISS016-E-14445 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg. I'd like to start identifying some of the locations and changing the titles accordingly, but I'd first like to know whether I should keep some of the ISS catalogue information in the titles. If so, what would be a good format for the titles? I'd like to keep them consistent if possible. Here are several options:

  1. File:ISS016-E-14445 - View of New Plymouth from the northwest.jpg
  2. File:ISS view of New Plymouth from the northwest (016-E-14445).jpg
  3. File:New Plymouth from the northwest (ISS016-E-14445).jpg

Which would be best - or is there a yet better alternative? Personally, I prefer option 3, as it indexes alphabetically by what the view is of. Grutness (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a crazy thought, but would it be possible to use the object location in a map as, whereby the images are indicated as red dots. With the cursor you can go to such a point that gives then a very short description. By clicking you can get the satellite image. Wouter (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably beyond my capabilities. I edit a lot on En:Wi but my skills on Commons are pretty limited. If I can rename the files with actual locations, though, it'll be easier for someone with more nous on Commons to do that later. Grutness (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with choice 3. And you probably should keep the redirects, because some of these are likely to be referenced from outside of the WMF sites. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: your renames are not in line with the principle of file renaming that files shouldn't be renamed unless something is wrong. Renaming just to improve file names like you did at File:ISS014-E-13796 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg shouldn't be done. Multichill (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: I think that this falls within criterion 2, specifically "The only piece of meaningful information is a broad location, such as a city, province, or country". "North Island of New Zealand" covers half a country. @Grutness: I'd go for the first or third of your options so as to keep the whole catalogue number together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjh21 (talk • contribs)
@Multichill and Bjh21: That's exactly the reason why I want to do this. It's pointless having 1000 images simply saying they're of half the country when they're clearly of a specific location, and it's no help to people who want to use the files if they have to trawl through all of them to find a particular image. Criterion 2 seems to apply to this task. It's analogous to having a photo of the a specific street in Liverpool with the title "England". Grutness (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data on Commons: references for files' metadata are now live[edit]

Hello everybody! A small, yet important change is coming to Structured Data on Commons: users are now able to add references to a file’s metadata.

References were always a part of the project, but until now they weren’t visible to end users, nor was there an interface to add them. This has been fixed with the current update.

References for Structured Data on Commons will work exactly like they work on Wikidata: you can use URLs or items for reference; adding, removing and changing references will share the same experience of doing it on Wikidata; and there will be no limit to the number of references that can be added.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): I'm testing the references features (which is great, btw) but still find a lot of Wikibase warnings (check this example). Is this the expected behavior? Thanks —Ismael Olea (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Olea thank you for noticing me. I'll pass this bug to the dev team, and they will investigate the problem. I guess something should be fixed, since from a Wikidatan point of view, it shouldn't behave like that. I'll keep you posted asap. ~~~~ Sannita (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open[edit]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

There are two confirmed questions that will be asked during this Call for Feedback:

  1. What is the best way to ensure more diverse representation among elected candidates? The Board of Trustees noted the importance of selecting candidates who represent the full diversity of the Wikimedia movement. The current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Europe.
  2. What are the expectations for the candidates during the election? Board candidates have traditionally completed applications and answered community questions. How can an election provide appropriate insight into candidates while also appreciating candidates’ status as volunteers?

There is one additional question that may be presented during the Call about selection processes. This question is still under discussion, but the Board wanted to give insight into the confirmed questions as soon as possible. Hopefully if an additional question is going to be asked, it will be ready during the first week of the Call for Feedback.

Join the conversation.


Movement Strategy and Governance Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 12[edit]

What is the "daily category" of a file?[edit]

Hello. Could anybody tell me what is the "daily category" of a file? Sometimes, I see a message like this one, in capital letters:


Thank you very much in advance for your answer: 2A02:A03F:6480:9E00:25EA:3A97:BFCF:6BD8

File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg[edit]

At File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg the image is showing up in the George W. Stigleman category and the Photographs by George W. Stigleman category, it may just be a caching issue, can someone else peek and see if they see both categories. When I edit the categories, I only see Photographs_by. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , I see it too. From what I can tell the category "George W. Stigleman" can't be edited out, so a template is likely causing its inclusion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ːː Looks like Creator:George W. Stigleman Sr. is adding this category. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category from the Creator page. I believe the cat is not needed on the Creator page; his Creator page links the category without it via Wikidata. Glrx (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of the category issue from Creator templates, thanks! I created the category problem when I created the template, only because I have seen it in other examples. --RAN (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki system malfunctioning?[edit]

Category moving edits of a certain file are not being reflected, i.e. realized. The file doesn't appear in the new category, but continue to stay in the old category. This is frustrating. --トトト (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @トトト: Given that you rolled it back, it's pretty hard for anyone else to check on whether it was just a caching issue. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 13[edit]

New tool for coloring the world map[edit]

I'm moving to her the pose below from Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Tool for coloring the world map:
"I've created a python code that makes effortless to color the world map. Feel free to check it out:[2]--Mikey641 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)"[reply]

Look like usfull tool. -- Geagea (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Update Wikimedia Commons' default markup for 'Use this image' Inbox[edit]

I have raised a ticket to change the default text component of the markup snippet generated by our "use this image" links, on file pages, so that it will use the structured data caption, where available, instead of repeating the file name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alsdorf steam activity[edit]

Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 2.jpg

I scanned several 1986 slides of a working steam locomotive at Anna coke plant by Alsdorf. (Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 1.jpg to Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 6.jpg). The location is close to Category:Bahnhof Alsdorf-Annapark but clearly an other subject. Some new categories are needed for the 'Coke plant', the industrial rail operator and locomotive type.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not used files by user[edit]

Is there a tool or a gadget to list all files uploaded by X that are not used on any page in any project? Wostr (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wostr: Can you give some context as to why you would want that? I'm guessing that only about 10% of all images on Commons are "used" in this sense within WMF projects. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jmabel: I have over thousand files uploaded, some of them were meant to be a replacement for files (a few thousands) that are going to be proposed for deletion. I can easily see all files uploaded by me using Special:ListFiles and in the same way files of a banned user (most of them will be proposed for deletion). However, I can't – other than manually – check which files uploaded by me are already in place, which are still not used, and which files of this banned user need to be redrawn and replaced by correct ones. Wostr (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are files being deleted solely as the uploads of a banned user? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the reason for deletion, but that discussion is not about those files. Wostr (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 14[edit]

Scan the world[edit]

Hello. A series of 3D images have been uploaded to Commons in the .stl format. While they seem to be freely licensed, the description associated with these files seems a bit promotional. Let me quote it for you:
This object is part of "Scan The World". Scan the World is a non-profit initiative introduced by MyMiniFactory, through which we are creating a digital archive of fully 3D printable sculptures, artworks and landmarks from across the globe for the public to access for free. Scan the World is an open source, community effort, if you have interesting items around you and would like to contribute, email to find out how you can help.
While the "Scan the World" initiative may be non-profit, MyMiniFactory certainly is not.
As you probably don't know what I am talking about, here is an example File:Burj Khalifa.stl. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say that moderate self-promotion is not nearly as problematic as the lack of an actual description and any categories that aren't simply about themselves and the technical nature of the file.
  • I would not discourage them from uploading, but I would feel perfectly free to overwrite the so-called description. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, but "they" (being the company) are not doing the uploads. User:RuleTheWiki is uploading them and then adding them to Wikipedia articles. It was severe enough that it was brought to WP:COIN. I brought it here as it is obviously outside the purview of a Wikipedia noticeboard. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(You didn't mention the Wikipedia issue in your original post.) Wikipedia has far more concern with conflict of interest than we do on Commons. Basically, if the image is useful, we don't generally care if it's somewhat self-promotional. The uploader, especially someone uploading third-party work, doesn't have real "ownership" over the description, especially if the description as originally given is not useful. I believe the licenser actually could put a statement like that as part of the required attribution, but it appears they haven't, so we can just overwrite it with a useful description. The problem isn't with the files themselves, it's with the description, right? - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, Jmabel, it is the description which is visible when a thumb of these 3D images is clicked (and it's necessary to click to get the 3D experience). If I had to guess, it was mainly the email address bleeding through that got it reported to COIN. I have already told the uploader they are not obligated to copy the source's description. And at the very least it should describe the file and not be a generic text. Thanks you so much for your feedback. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a concession to @AndyTheGrump i have rectified the description for all files that i have uploaded. RuleTheWiki (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RuleTheWiki: Thanks for updating the description. However, at least File:Burj Khalifa.stl has an unrelated but important issue: it is not compatible with COM:L. The source provided at the file description page only leads to this user/project page. Had it been correctly pointing to [3], it would have been immediately clear that it is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 rather than CC-BY-SA 4.0. That means commercial use is not allowed, which means that per our own rules it's not allowed on Commons. Any chance they can change the license at Because otherwise we'd have to delete it ... --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to ask @Jonathanbeck because apparently they're the person behind 'Scan The World' and their uploaded objects are under CC-BY-SA, I'm not sure if that's the correct license or the one listed on their user page on MyMiniFactory is the correct one. RuleTheWiki (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can an image with extraordinary aspect ratio appear on the front page as Picture Of The Day?[edit]

Chinese scroll showing Hajj pilgrimage routes

Posting here because Commons talk:Picture of the day is low traffic and my question there was never answered. This scroll image passed Featured Picture review last year. I'd like to be able to include it in Picture Of The Day, not least because it relates to the Hajj, which is an important topic for Muslims, who make up a quarter of the world's population. Because the aspect ratio of this image means it is not legible on the front page in its original form, I took the step that has been used in the past for FPs on English Wikipedia and extracted part of the image to act as a preview on the front page. That scheduled image was reverted since the extract did not have Featured status. This I can understand, but the question remains of how this distinctive, time-relevant Featured Image can appear as Picture of the Day. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 15[edit]