Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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:


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

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

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 01[edit]

How do I change the base text to talk about disputed identification in images?[edit]

See: Template:Disputed identification --RAN (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: How is that supposed to differ from {{Disputed}}?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That tag is for disputing the copyright! We have at least a dozen images where people believe that the person named in the title of the image is the wrong person, and others believe it is the right person. It is good to have them together with the same tag so that they can be looked at with new evidence in the future. We need to keep the images and discuss the evidence for and against, because other sites have copies our images, especially Alamy. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you looking for {{Fact disputed}}? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the closest, I think we should have a new tag for disputing the identification of a person, as opposed to the date or location. The bulk of the images in the old disputed category are old cars, and flora. I temporarily redirected the new one to the old one, but I would like a new category and a new tag just for potentially misidentified people. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a parameter for the type of dispute would work, adding it to a specific category but keeping the same template otherwise. We could easily get dozens of such templates (cars, flowers, fungi, flags, maps, ...), which would lead to problems e.g. keeping them all translated to all languages. There should be a discussion on what categories of disputes need their own subcategories etc., but I think it would be quite easy technically and much easier maintenance-wise. –LPfi (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps specific categories would do the trick, so experts can sort through the hundreds of images and see the category that they are experts in. --RAN (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 03[edit]

Problems finding the railway museum in Nuremberg[edit]

Nuremberg picture looking for a home category
Nuremberg picture looking for a home category

There is a railway museum in Nuremberg; kidseropuit.nl. I tried all manners of categories for acces but I cant find it. From Category:Nuremberg, Category:Rail vehicles in museums in Germany, Rail transport, Museums, transport in Nuremberg, etc, etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DB Museum Nürnberg - Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:Rail vehicles in the DB Museum Nürnberg to make it easier to find historic rail vehicles in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvordan lægger jeg et uploaded billede ind på en side?[edit]

Hej! Jeg har uploaded billeder, som jeg gerne vil have flyttet hen til en bestemt side: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig". Hvordan gør jeg det?

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels, billederne ligner fotografier af fotografier. Ret? Hvis det er tilfældet, skal vi have en tilladelse. --Achim55 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valnød: Bemærk venligst at Commons her er et internationalt projekt og at jeg løbende har flyttet dine billeder til de respektive kirkers kategorier (Det kræver lidt erfaring at finde disse kategorier). Hvad mener du med "Døbefont i Sydslesvig"? . Vi har så vidt jeg kan se ikke pt en sådan kategori. Dine billeder ser ud at være fotos af papirbilleder, er det korrekt? Bemærk at Commons i forvejen har billeder af en del af disse døbefonte.--Hjart (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Ja, billederne er fotografier af mine egne fotos, der er taget med film, før digitaliseringen. Når jeg uploader samtidig med, at jeg har siden, der hedder: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig" åben, er der nogen af billederne, der automatisk bliver lagt ind på siden, mens andre ikke gør. Det er dem, jeg gerne vil kunne overføre til siden. Jeg går ud fra, at jeg skal indsætte det enkelte billedes filnavn på siden, men der er kun søgefeltet, hvori jeg kan indsætte filnavnet? og det virker naturligvis ikke. Når jeg på Wikimedias Commons søger: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig", fremkommer pågældende side.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

Jeg har fundet følgende vejledning, men kan ikke få det til at virke:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydslesvig er nu den nordlige del af Slesvig-Holsten, så der finder vi kategorier som Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-- Achim55
Hej!
Ja, det er fine billeder. Jeg har imidlertid efter megen farten rundt i Sydslesvig for flere år siden taget billeder med film af samtlige romanske granitdøbefonte i Sydslesvig, som jeg gerne vil have lagt ud på nettet. Det ser ikke ud til, at der er andre, der har lagt en tilsvarende samling ud. Derfor har jeg affotograferet dem med digitalt kamera.
Mit spørgsmål er igen, hvordan lægger jeg billederne ind på en given side?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niels, der er ingen side Døbefont i Sydslesvig, hverken her eller på da:Døbefont i Sydslesvig, heller ikke "Døbefonte ...". Misfortolkede du søgeresultaterne som en side? --Achim55 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Det er på denne adresse, at jeg finder: Døbefont i Sydslesvig.
Venlig hilsen
Niels
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=D%C3%B8befont+i+Sydslesvig&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=S%C3%B8g+&type=image Valnød (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Det der er ikke som sådan en "side". Det er en søgning du har kørt og som har fundet nogle relevante billeder. Jeg vil anbefale at du kategoriserer dine billeder i Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein.--Hjart (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Svar til Hart!
Hej!
Tak for svaret. Det vil jeg prøve. Så håber jeg, at det kommer til at virke.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Nu har jeg prøvet at uploade endnu to billeder og under kategorier skrevet Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten, men billederne vises ikke på pågældende side?
Hvad skal jeg gøre?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Jeg retter lige: Jeg har uploadet to billeder og under kategorier skrevet: "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten", men billederne vises ikke på denne side.
Hvad skal jeg gøre?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels. Der er ingen kategori "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten" som du skrev på File:Havetoft kirke i Sydslesvig, granitdøbefont.jpg. Det skal du redigere som Achim55 beskrev ovenfor. Det skal være "Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein" på engelsk pga alle kategorier her på Commons bør have engelske navner. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!
Tak for hjælpen.
Det var lige den oplysning, jeg manglede.
Nu fungerer det.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veikk0.ma: 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]
@Veikk0.ma: 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]

Mixed up coordinates of two pictures, corrected it, but now there is a discrepancy with SDC[edit]

I just found out that I mixed up the coordinates for File:Groene Hartpad between Alphen aan den Rijn and Aarlanderveen.jpg and File:Groene Hartpad view of The Hague from Zoetermeer.jpg. I have swapped them; now they are correct. But now I get a message that there is a discrepancy between the coordinates and the ones stored in SDC. (Which is, of course, correct.) What should I do now? MartinD (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy paste the coordinates from the template into the structured data field. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could also remove the SDC data completely. Probably a bot will eventually restore it, but it may take weeks or months. You also should watch out if the picture is used in any Wikidata items or in templates that now have the old coordinates.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll give it a try. I don't think these pictures are used in templates. They are merely illustrations of a Dutch hiking route. MartinD (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It worked, thanks a lot! MartinD (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:

"

Definitions

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 longe 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 "
tiener
" and "
puber
" 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]

January 05[edit]

Urdu Translation (Cat-a-lot)[edit]

Please add Urdu transltaion of this toll. Translation is here >User:Obaid Raza/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/ur.Obaid Raza (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing…, a few fixes still to be done. --Achim55 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Achim Please see now, I fixed it.Obaid Raza (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Many thanks! --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kan jeg omdøbe billedets tekst?[edit]

Hej! Jeg har lagt billeder ind på nedennævnte side, men vil gerne have filens navn på nogle af billederne omdøbt, så kirkens navn står først, og at der desuden kommer til at stå granitdøbefont og ikke kun døbefont. 1)Kan jeg selv omdøbe filen? 2)Er der en anden, der kan og vil omdøbe den? 3)Kan jeg slette filen og derefter lægge den ind igen med et nyt navn?

Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels, gå til filsiden (for eksempel File:Aventoft kirkes døbefont.jpg) og tryk Shift-Alt-m . Så kan du tilføje et bedre filnavn. En anden vil derefter omdøbe denne fil. --Achim55 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Tak for hjælpen. Det fungerer.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dotted line does not appear in SVG[edit]

Hello, I have a problem with Libre Draw. On my screen, I see in my drawing dotted (dashed) lines as I drawed them. But when I convert it to SVG and upload it to Commons, the dotted lines appear as normal, continous lines. How can I solve this? Ziko (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edu.gov.ru[edit]

Moin Moin together, this template has a parser error. Can someone tell me, how i could fix it? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template:Edu.gov.ru/en. You should follow Help:Autotranslate in setting up the autotranslation. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 06[edit]

Between building[edit]

Hamburg between building.jpg

Anyone knows anything about this strange buiding and its function?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an office building with a triangular floor plan, wedged in between two other buildings: [1]. Goes into Category:Steckelhörn 11. --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 6 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. --157.25.186.137 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. --157.25.187.217 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth to mention that Portuguese Wikipedia also has very positive experiences in this area. --157.25.187.217 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). --157.25.187.217 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 make 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. --157.25.187.217 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]

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]

Hello!

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]

Copyright on a photography from Louvre Museum[edit]

I uploaded a better version of this file File:AphroditeHeadKaufmannCl010277188.jpg, but I realize that this version, with free access on Louvre museum's web site, is in fact under copyright (for the photography, metadata : © 2000 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Hervé Lewandowski). I reverted the page to the previous version, but I donnot know how to request for deletion of only an upload. There is no indication for the source of the preceeding version of 2019 (it cannot be the "own work" indicated), clearly it is the same photography, but with a lower resolution, so perhaps free copyright because of that ? Proz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thank you ! Proz (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coins of China[edit]

Should this tag's year be updated to "before 1972" on this category page here: [2] This tag:

Copyright red.svg
Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies which designed before 1972.
Photographs of currencies used in China can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on design of currency 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 designed year + 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]

ImageNotes[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. --77.50.104.110 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]

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]

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]