[[:Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/01]] is in [[:Category:Undelete in 2043]]; this is clearly wrong. But it can be quite hard to manually find which DR the category is coming from to mark it with noinclude. Is there any easy way to find which DR is including the category, out of the hundred on the DR archive page and the hundred in the category.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
[[:Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/06/01]] is in [[:Category:Undelete in 2043]]; this is clearly wrong. But it can be quite hard to manually find which DR the category is coming from to mark it with noinclude. Is there any easy way to find which DR is including the category, out of the hundred on the DR archive page and the hundred in the category.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
: I know one way, which is deleting parts of the page and previewing. Easy I suppose but it may take a while. <spoiler>it's [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Achelous and Hercules by Thomas Hart Benton.jpg]].</spoiler> [[User:Ghouston|--ghouston]] ([[User talk:Ghouston|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
: I know one way, which is deleting parts of the page and previewing. Easy I suppose but it may take a while. <spoiler>it's [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Achelous and Hercules by Thomas Hart Benton.jpg]].</spoiler> [[User:Ghouston|--ghouston]] ([[User talk:Ghouston|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
:There are numerous daily DR archives that are transcluding specific DRs in that category. Perhaps a bot should go through and mark all of the <tt>Category:Undelete in XXXX</tt> with <nowiki><noinclude></nowiki>? [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
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/2024/09.
Please note:
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.
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).
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:
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
July 01
Non-OTRS & -administrators' noticeboards, would there be consensus for it?
A while back Roy17 proposed using the page "Commons talk:License review" as a noticeboard for license reviewers and noted that the OTRS team has their own noticeboard.
To which I responded with:
"I actually proposed something like that here (for smaller screens), quoting it here for convenience.
Now I actually am pretty curious if having separate noticeboards for license reviewers, template editors, file movers, and other "Commonswiki Maintainers" would be a good idea and if I should later create a draft concept for it to post to the Proposals Village Pump. Now I understand that we already have an Administrators' noticeboard and that sysops already have the ability to review license, and while every sysop has the ability to review not all are interested in doing so and I imagine that many license reviewers check maintenance categories more than the would the AN for such issues. Plus such issues are often brought up here, the Copyright Village Pump, and the help desk and having a centralised place which all license reviewers can add to their watchlist would be a more clearcut solution.
I think a license reviewers' noticeboard would be useful. A file movers' noticeboard to discuss possibly controversial moves or ask questions about requested moves may also have some potential. Template editors would maybe prefer template talk pages combined with COM:VPT, but that's just a guess. - Alexis Jazzping plz09:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexis Jazz: good feedback, I think that if I were to propose this over at the proposals village pump that I would divide the sections in "Should there be a general maintenance noticeboard?" (so a non-OTRS, non-Sysop noticeboard), "Should there be a license reviewers' noticeboard?", and ""Should there be a template editors' noticeboard?" And then advise people to make an argument why there should be one or more pages, or maybe this would be best done to create a page "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard" with the subpages "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard/License reviewers" & "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard/File movers". There are many ways this could go, in case of the latter proposition other advanced rights would use the general maintenance noticeboard while license reviewers and file movers get their own dedicated noticeboards. I tend to want to discuss such things first before proposing anything, as my vision constantly changes and I like consulting those who would be patrolling these joticeboards daily. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... I mean, the role of the "non-administrator noticeboard" is kindof automatically assigned to "the generic forum": m:Wikimedia Forum on meta, project chat on data, Village pump pretty much everywhere else. Obviously, this is further divided on the multi-lingual projects into individual language generic forums, which further reduces the traffic on any one page. I'm not sure I see that the generic forums here on Commons are so highly trafficked that they need further subdivision. Currently the highest traffic unarchived day on this page is five threads, and multiple days saw no threads at all. I'm not even sure we really need all of the forum sub-divisions that we currently have. We could probably drop/merge Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism entirely, and it wouldn't really make any noticeable difference. GMGtalk13:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good argument, though I would expect that not all people with license review rights would watch this page or engage with it as often. As for the Administrators' noticeboards, vandalism requires more direct action while a block or a protection can also be requested of non-vandalising/non-vandalised users/pages. But dedicated noticeboards might be a better idea once the Wikimedia Commons community itself grows. That aside "Commons talk:License review" already serves as a de facto noticeboard and it is quite low traffic. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "License review" as a de facto noticeboard works fine. From what I've seen of where users post their question, we've already proliferated enough different places to post different issues that many users are unaware of the different places to post different things. - Jmabel ! talk16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The photo File:Kharput Greek-Orthodox refugees - C.D.Morris - National Geographic, Nov. 1925.jpg states in the filename and text description that the deportees in this pic are Greeks in the 1920s, but the Flickr file identifies them as Armenians and the film The Promise uses the photo to illustrate the Armenian genocide. I've seen other uses of this photo to represent the Armenian genocide.
Indeed the text is as what was said on the talk page (page 537 is p. 62/196 of the PDF file), and (page 557 is page 82/196) -- however this doesn't say that the population in the picture directly was Greek nor Armenians, simply that they were "Christians". I know the user said that a Greek book identified the people in the photo as Greek instead of Armenian, but the original document just calls them Christians. Apparently this march took place after the fall of Mehmed VI (identified in the text as "Mohammed VI") in 1922. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of what later publications claim, the railway cars feature the Greek inscription ΣΠΑΠ, which stands for the Piraeus-Athens-Peloponnese Railways. So the photo was definitely taken in Greece, and is likely from 1922/23. Constantine ✍ 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced or unreviewed flickr photos from other wikis
insource:/[Ff]lickr/ insource:/\{[Tt]ransferred/ -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by trusted users" -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR" -incategory:"Items with OTRS permission confirmed"
Try searching this or an alternative of your choice, you will find 1000+ photos. Some of these do have unclear copyright. To correct them, admins on the source projects need to be involved.--Roy17 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Narrowing it down further: insource:/[Ff]lickr/ insource:/\{[Tt]ransferr/ -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by trusted users" -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR" -incategory:"Items with OTRS permission confirmed" -incategory:"Extracted images" -"own work"
The idea is, identify all files from other wikis (I use /\{[Tt]ransferr/), find flickr-sourced ones in them, and filter out acceptable ones. So my method wouldnt find unreviewed files that have {{Transferred from}} removed. Please share if you have better methods.
Is there concensus, that on distribution maps of biological species, national borders should be added or left out? I notice a user is removing borders from many maps.--Roy17 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly someone should not upload a map with borders over someone else's map without borders, nor vice versa. Use a different filename. This is pretty basic COM:OVERWRITE stuff. - Jmabel ! talk22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Colonias_europea_en_América_siglo_XVI-XVIII.png should not have been reverted. The borders on it are actually inaccurate because the map depicts an era before they existed. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Nuclear football
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.
The takedown can be read here.
Are you Hungarian? Do you speak Hungarian? Is this rude?
Aranka Hegyi
Hello, I uploaded this picture some months ago and I named it based on Google translates take on the title of the photo. I checked her name in the translator and it was saying one of them, "Hegyi" translates as "Mountain". But ever since I uploaded it I've needed to ask a Hungarian, she was a large lady who was almost never seen without a waist tightening device... So if her name is not actually Mountain, she might not have appreciated it. However, if her name was Mountain... she probably would have preferred it to show, right? I mean then it would be her persona, the mountain of a woman, right? ~ R.T.G11:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Standard seems to have two meanings, standing support called a standard, and emblem called a standard. Standards are associated with en:standard-bearer, and standard-bearers in religious processions may have led to name standard for the religious objects of the type File:St. Laurence's Church, Lurgashall 80.jpg which is a hamp and horizontal rod (the wooden part as you say) carrying a religious emblem (the cloth). Those are at commons mostly categorised religious standards and, especially when actually used in processions, processional standards. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Street names (part 2)
This is a follow-up to the previous discussion which indicated that "Streetname, City" or "City streetname" should be the approach to follow for the naming of categories. The next question would be how to name a street which runs through various suburban areas? In London, we have the appropriately-named "London Road" (A23) which runs south from Streatham through Norbury, Thornton Heath and Broad Green to West Croydon. I had thought that the approach would be "London Road, [area]". However, we have Category:London Road, Croydon, Thornton Heath to which Category:London Road, Croydon is now redirected. I have doubts over whether this is the correct approach as it means that images from West Croydon/Streatham etc will be placed under Thornton Heath which is a different area. Any views? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that it is the self same road, not two roads or more. There is no recognised border for areas of London Like there is for London Boroughs, so an image of somewhere between two areas will get randomly assigned to whatever area, or as was the case here not categorised at all. We need a single top category per street for the Category hierarchy to make any sense. It was being listed in the category structure as separate streets which was misleading. Of course once a single category has been assigned to a single street further subcategories can be created. But there will always be issues about the borders of undefined areas. Oxyman (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is is only me seeing this video upside down? It was uploaded in 2014, it had no new uploads, and I made 12 of the 15 edits in its history — yet I never noticed before it was like this. What’s (litterally) up? -- Tuválkin✉✇14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --4nn1l2 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Licence reviewer recall?
I stumbled upon a reviewer's work. He had reviewed a handful of his own uploads. Other than that, he did very few reviews. IMHO, these reasonably amount to removal of his reviewer right. Should this be posted on COM:ANU or dealt with directly from here?--Roy17 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roy17: many LRs (and even admins) are/were unaware of the "don't license your own stuff" rule. I made several aware myself.. Removal of LR is rare unheard of, I think. At least this was by no means reason for removal, I'll be surprised if your case is. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of User:Wilfredor's reviewer right
Finally the queue for review is sorted chronologically. I was checking what the longest-waiting files were, and found a bunch in the queue because they had been reviewed by User:Wilfredor, aka The Photographer, and reverted by User:Majora: 13 files.
On the other hand, I could find only 8 files reviewed by him (in random order): 1234.
Four more are suspicious in a way. All 3 accounts are globally locked. Wilfredor and these accounts edited the files within a few minutes.
For the reasons that Wilfredor has reviewed his own uploads (13 counts), and he has rarely used the right (8 counts), I propose his reviewer right be removed.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been great to ask me to do the job of reviewer instead of asking to withdraw the rights. However, I totally agree, due to this demand now I have no will to do this work, please, immediately remove this flag. thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, VP is not the appropriate venue to raise such issues. Please take it to COM:LRR or COM:ANU. Secondly, has anybody talked to User:Wilfredor to stop reviewing their own uploads on their talk page? If so, have they continued to review their own uploads? Thirdly, 3 globally locked account. So what? Is User:Roy17 insinuating those accounts belong to User:Wilfreddor? If so, where is the concrete evidence? Why has not the main account been blocked/locked? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
VP is the most general forum, so yes it is appropriate for matters that have no formal procedures. LRR is requests for licence reviewer. Nine remaining files reviewed by Wilfredor were done way before Majora reverted his bad reviews in Sep 2018. Why those accounts were blocked (within a few hours, Mriyarules within 18 min) could only be answered by WMFOffice. How Wilfredor managed to edit these short-lived accounts' files within a few minutes is beyond me.
The facts are, out of 22 reviews we could find, Wilfredor made 13 (more than half) own reviews, another 4 related to globally locked accounts and 1 dummy, even though the reviewed files look OK and Wilfredor himself was not affected by WMFOffice action.
No, VP is not the right venue just because another was not considered. Above are a series of allegations about manipulative use of sock puppets, but missing is the necessary links to SPI cases. To put evidence of illegitimate accounts, first go to COM:SPI, before it begins to look like you are using megaphone tactics on other noticeboards. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You got up on the wrong side of the bed perhaps? WMFOffice never replies anywhere (they make a statement sometimes, but never reply to anyone), if they did reply anywhere they wouldn't start with "hey" and if they did they wouldn't bother talking about videos of planes, and if they did they wouldn't disclose information like this, and if they did their signature link wouldn't go to my talk page, and if it did they wouldn't sign with "Definitely not WMFOffice". I didn't imply to actually be WMFOffice, I just poked some fun at their secrecy. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was clear where this proposal was headed, so I closed it. However, "previously published" is a widely accepted practice but not codified in policy anywhere. I fail to see how that is good practice. Shouldn't we publish this unwritten (okay, it's on OTRS, but that's no policy or even guideline) rule? - Alexis Jazzping plz07:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019 WINNERS are .... 1st place prize goes to the image Playing in the Nuba Mountains by Marco Gualazzini taken in South Sudan. 2nd Prize goes to Peekaboo by Summer Kamal taken in Egypt. 3rd prize goes to Teenagers in street by Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed (also from Egypt). The prize for Women in Sport goes to Girls fighting by Yvonne Youmbi from Cameroon. Finally, the prize for capturing a traditional form of play goes to Horses by Sofiane Mohammed Amri in Algeria. Congratulations to all the prize winners and all participants :)
A Google search gives this with the drescription "Peter Svedbergs "Äng" vägg i hallen med transportmöjligheter norrut.". So the artist is probably Peter Svedberg, but not the one on the Swedish Wikipedia (born in 1644). Wouter (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's in Sweden. The Swedish freedom of panorama situation is complicated, but even if it would be applicable to online publication, this work of art doesn't seem to be depicted at an "outdoor location"? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new Category:Kungsträdgården Metro station (artwork) for the many artworks of the Kungsträdgården station. There are more public underground spaces in Sweden with artwork. I think we should wait until some takes issue with this or the legal issues are clarified. We are in Europe, not the hostile legal jungle of the US.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
July 13
New filter(s)
Hi all, should Commons implement a new filter where it forbids IPs and new users from adding a caption if they content of their caption is a language. I.e. English, español, francais, etc. won't be allowed in the caption table at all if the revision user is an IP or a new users. Also, probably implement one that forbids input of emojis into the page. Can't seem to find a filter that does these stuff. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hornstrandir1: Fixed your link. Kazakhstan is considered to be partially situated in Europe. However the larger part of the country is within Asia. At the moment, the Category:Volcanism of Kazakhstan is not in Category:Volcanism of Europe by country. As you can see, other categories of countries with parts in both Europe and Asia are in the European category and the respective Asian one (Russia, Turkey). This is useful, especially if there are volcanoes in both the European and Asian parts of a country. You added the Template:Countries of Europe. This template shows all European or partially European territories, therefore all the countries including Kazakhstan are listed at the top. There are different ways in which you may use the template but as far as I can see none where you can exclude countries (which wouldn't be a good idea anyway I think). So I'd say leave it like this or don't use the template. Cookies4ever (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: The infobox had run out of permitted CPU time (10 seconds), so it became unpredictable. The cause was the number of founded by (P112) statements in United Nations (Q1065), all of which point to country items that are themselves very large. I've limited this to a max of 20 now, and that's sped up the runtime significantly (~2.5 seconds), so the error messages and categories no longer appear in the category. Pinging @RexxS: for awareness, but I suspect this is a performance issue on the Wikidata side of things rather than in WikidataIB. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it «run out of permitted CPU time», of course, due to an excessive number of P112 in Q1065. That’s simple and obvious and any newbie can understand it, unlike wikitext syntax, which was a devious ploy by jealous geeks to keep control of the projects in their perfid hands. So glad that Wikidata is here to give everyone a chance to make meaningful edits without needing to worry about any of that geek stuff. Yay. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"a devious ploy by jealous geeks to keep control of the projects in their perfid hands"? Sure, you made my day. I don't know what you smoke, but it is a good one. ;oD Yann (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddaido: wrote some doubts about my editing (User_talk:Morio#Please stop) and I'm somewhat confused. For example, this edit [1] which the user Eddaido did after my edit is an 'overcat' based on the Commons' "Over-categorization" policy (Commons:Categories#Over-categorization), in my interpretation. If this my interpretation is wrong, I need to change my editing policy. Therefore, to make sure, I would like to ask other editors' opinions. thanks,--Morio (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Your point about possible ambiguity is reasonable (not rare to have multiple same or very similar models). About that, I try to edit after identifying the individuals, through confirmation of appearance of each and confirmation of the collection lists of the museums. Though I still don't understand well what made @Eddaido: feel the edit was a problem, I will be more careful to continue editing according to the Commons' policy.--Morio (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Multichill! That video would be more interesting if it interviews the staff and talks about the VR game and the burgeoning industry. Instead it just looks like a stealth videotape of someone trying out VR porn game, without any meaningful info, and is too shaky.
I joined Commons rather recently. Seeing MOTD for the first time, I believed it's another great window for people around the world to see varied fascinating moments of life. Personally I try to find stuff about science or from the lesser known parts (especially in East Asia) for MOTD. I'd rather put things up for discussion if I feel they may be too boring or not suitable. Sadly some other users seem to take advantage of the freedom to list files and have no regard for quality.--Roy17 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can not delete the media of the day site without discussion. Just replace the file and description with an other and then explain why on the talk page. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have created the Category:Musical groups on ships. This is a missing element in the Category:Musical groups by location. I did some searching in de ferry ships from Stockholm, but there must be many more music artist working on ships. (Ferries and cruise ships) Maybe there needs to be a separate category for single artist on ships or more generaly performers on ships. I am thinking of magicians, dancers and other non-musicians. Help filling these categories is needed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, uploading Fram to commons would certainly be a technically novel way to prove a point to the WMF. How could he release his personality rights, though? ;) The Land (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous daily DR archives that are transcluding specific DRs in that category. Perhaps a bot should go through and mark all of the Category:Undelete in XXXX with <noinclude>? Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Done most were reverted by Prosfilaes.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
eda.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --4nn1l2 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC) 
Oppose First of all, VP is not the appropriate venue to raise such issues. Please take it to COM:LRR or COM:ANU. Secondly, has anybody talked to User:Wilfredor to stop reviewing their own uploads on their talk page? If so, have they continued to review their own uploads? Thirdly, 3 globally locked account. So what? Is User:Roy17 insinuating those accounts belong to User:Wilfreddor? If so, where is the concrete evidence? Why has not the main account been blocked/locked? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A1950_Checker_taxicab_%2834340430700%29_%28cropped%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=357981738&oldid=357981454){kind=link}
