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 ↓
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/2022/03.

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 Cork, Ireland [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.

March 20[edit]

SVG file render incorrectly[edit]

In File:Electoral systems map.svg, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau are each assigned different colors, as can be seen in the static image preview generated by the commons system. However, in Firefox, when viewing the SVG file directly, all three places are being shown as having the same color of grey as Mainland China. Is there anything wrong with it? C933103 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rankedchoicevoter: Do you have any idea about it since you updated the file? C933103 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this seems to have happened with this upload by Geobica. The preview thumbnails may need to be updated though I don't know how that works. De728631 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The thumbnail is the correct version, the preview is not. @Geobica: any idea how to fix it? C933103 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diff of Geobica's change (SVG files are XML and are very similar to HTML). Each territory on the map is identified by one or more SVG classes, and the colours are specified using CSS according to these classes. Most territories have one class, but each subnational area (where we have this problem) has an additional class for its parent country. Using Hong Kong for example: both cn and hk. The problem is caused by this additional cn class, which is causing the CSS selector that colours China grey to also apply to Hong Kong.
  • Before Geobica's edit, this was not a problem because the selector for Hong Kong included both classes: The renderer gives higher priority to more specific selectors, so the correct colour was applied. Geobica's edit removed the class of the parent country from each selector for a subnational area ( became .hk). The blue .hk selector thus has the same specificity as the grey .cn selector. When selectors have the same specificity, the selector that appears last should apply.
  • In this case, .hk appears first in the CSS, so our browsers are correct in prioritizing .cn. The PNGs differ because they are rendered by librsvg, which is known to be fairly buggy. I will try re-adding the selectors; we shall see if the problem that Geobica was trying to fix returns.
  • A tip: you can interactively examine parts of a rendered SVG using your browser's developer tools, which work with an opened SVG just as they do with a web page.
  • — wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 07:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As suspected, now the PNGs are wrong. It seems Geobica was trying to avoid phab:T43423. I've reverted for now. There must be some established workaround—child selectors are very basic, and there are so many other derivatives of File:BlankMap-World.svg on Commons. — wqnvlz (talk · contribs) 07:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 24[edit]

Problem updating file[edit]

thumb which I uploaded, I did not crop properly. The image was created by screen capture on my iPad.

I have cropped it but cannot upload it as replacement. Get message file type does not match extension .png. If I save it to Dropbox I can change the extension, but I can't upload from Dropbox. What to do? Deisenbe (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In your preferences go to the gadgets tab and scroll down to “Interface: Editing and uploads” and tick “CropTool” and click save. You’ll be able to go to the image and crop it. Bidgee (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deisenbe: CropTool is always the preferred cropping method. Aside from being the most efficient method, more crucially it documents the change.
Sometimes you might want to overwrite an image with a new one, possibly one that you might have cropped elsewhere (on your desktop). It can happen that the image looks perfect, but is in fact corrupted and therefore unrecognisable (message file type does not match extension .png). A solution to that is to upload into GIMP and export it back as a refreshed file, png in this case.
You said If I save it to Dropbox I can change the extension, but I can't upload.... Changing the extension does not change the file type. There is only one exception to that rule and that's .jfif files, where you can manually change the extension to .jpg.
GIMP can convert any image to whatever extension you want.
As an aside Web sites prefer jpg as a format. The files are smaller, upload quicker, scale better than png, and crucially the quality of the image doesn’t noticeably degrade. Fatkun Batch download can (from source website to your desktop) automatically convert png's to .jpg. --Broichmore (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 26[edit]

Problem with upload of GeoJSON (<mapframe>: The JSON content is not valid GeoJSON+simplestyle. The first validation error is on the element "/0/query": "The property query is required".)[edit]

I try to update by replacing the GeoJSON code within the data key...

    "data": {

        ... GeoJSON ...


with new valid GeoJSON code, that can be visualized with any GeoJSON viewer, e.g.

But somehow the error message...

<mapframe>: The JSON content is not valid GeoJSON+simplestyle. The first validation error is on the element "/0/query": "The property query is required".


No clue what to do to fix it. Any ideas?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renek78 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 March 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

See the fifth level commoent by Terrafrost on w:User_talk:TerraFrost#Help_me!. He seemed to have used too. VScode fanboy (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't really help me. Thanks anyway. Renek78 (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was finally able to fix the problem. The error occured because property values, that expect a number as input, had quotation marks in them (e.g. "stroke-opacity": "1" instead of "stroke-opacity": 1. After removing the quotation marks the error message disappeared. --Renek78 (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defaultsort of churches[edit]

Four years ago, there was this discussion:

It's my belief that categories are there to assist users in finding media we host. So it should be a given that users should find media where they expect to. However, we seems to have inherited a system from en:WP of default sorting churches and pubs by location first, then name. So "St Bernard's church, Sometown" is defsorted so that it appears under "S" rather than "B" (obviously sorting under "St" is unhelpful because most would then sort under "S", which would be overwhelmed and thus useless). Similarly, "The King's Arms, Anytown" appears under "A" rather than where a user would expect to see it, i.e. under "K" (Again, "The" is redundant). There is one user who persists in perpetuating this error, as I see it, claiming that "it's the way it's always been done" is a taxonomically valid reason for the current system. So my proposal is this:

Churches and public houses in the United Kingdom should be sorted by name first, then location, except where the name is part of the category, in which case sorting by location is used..

I realise it may take some time to correct this error, but I don't see that as a reason for not doing it, as I'd prefer to get things right than confound our users, and I invite all to participate in a straw poll to determine consensus. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Who is the "one user"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I don't want to embarrass him by naming him, but I confirm he has been made aware of this proposal. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more contributions in the last two weeks- would someone kindly close this please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: ReaperDawn 12:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support by four people, in 2018
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As proposer. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because we already have Category:Churches in the United Kingdom by city which makes it possible to find what you are looking for if you only know the city. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The location isn't part of the name, for "The King's Arms, Anytown" it would be under "King's Arms" then under "Anytown" (such as here when the name of the topic is the same, we then go by location), since the "The" is not useful, the same with "St Bernard's church, Sometown" where the "St" is redundant it should be under "Bernard's", then "Sometown". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ReaperDawn 02:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link to original discussion: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/09# for UK churches and pubs --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Pubs and churches are two very different types of facilities.
  • Many churches are protected culural heritage.
  • Even on pubs, the preference of the name is doubtful, as the same pub may have had variuos names in its history.
  • On churches:
    • To understand the landscape of architecture,it is necessary to know the location of each single church.
    • In historic cities and towns, the churches form an ensemble. Some places have a cathedral, some churches were built for parishs, some for convents. It is useful to see in the list of a county, whiich place has how many historically important churches.
    • In some regions of England, most churches have one of oy six or seven requently used names.
    • Though, in some cases, the patron saint indicates something on the sponsor or on the economy of rthe parish, these relations are no strict rules.

Therefore, to use the sorting as a vehicle of scientific information, the location ought to have the preference. --Ulamm (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Fortunately, in a lot of counties, the defaultsorts mainly use the preference of the location, actually.--Ulamm (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • If you are proposing to overturn the consensus from the original discussion to defaultsort by name, in favour of defaultsorting by location: I oppose this and support the original outcome. As is mentioned in the original discussion, grouping by location is done by using a super-category for that location (i.e. Category:Churches in [location]). Sorting by place rather than by the category's name goes against all indexing conventions we usually find in books and other works. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong: Typically, scientific books on architectural history have an index of places. For each place, the buildings, there, are listed by their names.--Ulamm (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the structure of the volume on Gelderland in the series Monumenten in Nederland:
Voorwoord – 7
Ten geleide – 8
Historie – 12
Stijl en verschijningsvorm –20
Materiaal en constructie – 33
Regio's – 40
Steden, dorpen, monumenten – 60
Beknopte literatuuropgave – 374
Verklaring van enige termen – 380
Topografisch register – 388
Register van personen – 394
Verantwoording van de afbeeldingen – 411
--Ulamm (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list you provided is the table of contents found at the beginning of a book, which is sorted according to page number. If you meant for use to look at the Topografisch register you emphasized, I have some bad news for you: places and buildings are all sorted alphabetically. For example: the building Aardhuis, Het (Hoog-Soeren) is found among entries starting with the letter "A", not under its location Hoog-Soeren further down the list. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You neglected the content of the list, Ive copied:
    • The main text is "Steden, dorpen, monumenten", page 80 –373.
      • In the text, for each place, buildings are grouped by types, and in each type, they are grouped aphabetically.
      • In the rating of a Commons category by location it is similar: Buildings are primarily rated by place, only buildings in the same place are rated by their names.
    • After the text, on page 388, there starts the topografisch register, the list of places.
Monumenten in Nederland is avalable as PDF, and therefore easy to copy.
  • Günther Binding, "MASSWERK", the most common German handbook on tracery, has after the text the "Bautenverzeichnis", that is index of buildings. Its first column is:
"Albi, Kath (i. e. Cathedral): 82, 84; Abb. 73, 99
Alençon, Notre-Dame: 104
Atlenberg, Zisterzienserkirche: 24, 169, 216, …
Amiens, Kath.: 23, 27, 44ff, …
Amiens, Saint.Germain: 101; Abb. 94
Annweiler, Pfarrkirche: 255; Abb.94
Auxerre, Kath.: 25, 29
Avignon, Papstgrab, 27, 97
Bacharach, Wernerkapelle: 264; 296
Bampton: 142
Barholme: 101
Barnack, St. John the Baptist: 144; Abb. 152
Bar-sur-Seine, Kirche: 103
Basel, Münster: 204, 354
Basel, Barfüßerkirche: 299; Abb.338
Basel, Predigerkirche: 217; Abb. 251
Basel, St. Peter: Abb. 394
Basel, St. Theodor in Kleinbasel: 287; Abb. 323
Bautzen, Dom: 349; Abb. 323
Bautzen, Nikolaikirche: 349."
Scanning it would cause a problem of copyright, I'm afraid.
--Ulamm (talk)+Ulamm (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we have reached an impasse. The Topografisch register supports sorting by name, the Bautenverzeichnis by location. Ignore the main text; categorisation is a navigational tool and the best "real life" examples to look at would be other navigational tools such as indexes. In any case, I strongly advise you to set up this proposal at the correct venue (Commons:Village pump/Proposals) and to also take into consideration Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/05#Defaultsort for UK buildings RFC, another inconclusive discussion on this subject. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topografisch register supports sorting by location, too, such as the main section of the volume, "Steden, dorpen, monumenten" does. Within each place (that is the lower level!), the monuments are sorted by kinds of building, and within each kind of building by name.
In large cities, the location is more specified, by sub-chapters for suburbs.
The volume could provide a register of churches by denominations (patron saints or the typical "Grote Kerk", "Broerenkerk", "Oude Kerk", "Nieuwe Kerk" that were chosen to overcome the totemist attitude of Catholic parishs to their patron saint.), but it does not.
The presently more common sorting within Commons categories, with preference of the location above the name, ha the same effect: Normally, onroerend objects are sorted by the places. If there is only one object by place, this provides a sure identification. Where there is more than one object (here church) in a place, they are sorted by their names.
The sorting preferred by that gang creates groups of sometimes more than 20 objects with the same name, that have to be sorted by their places. Therefore, you have almost as much sorting by place, as if you use this preferrently.
The difference is: The location of each building is scientifically relevant, and the better identificator, whereas the patron saint is nothing but a not very good identificator.--Ulamm (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For users who like groups of churches of the same denomination, the "Curches by patron saint"-categories ar eprovided.
  • In "Listed churches"-, "Curches by century"-, "Churches by architectural style"- and "Churches by shape"-categories, the sorting by denomination creates large groups of homonymous churches that on the lower level are sorted by location.
  • A sorting by location, in these kinds categories, creates only one sequence for mot villages churches. Where in one location there is more than one church in this category, this local group provides the information, that the churches in this place have some common properties, this information is provided without a complicated system of sub-categories.
  • The obvious priority of location (as upper level of sorting) above denomination in scientific printed books is denied by @HyperGaruda:
--Ulamm (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ulamm: May we assume that by "denomination" you mean "name", not religious denomination? Or are you suggesting yet another sorting criterion? - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In UK, most categories of church buildings are formed like "St Peter's Church, Littleton". This way, the denomination is the name of the patron saint.
    But, as I've mentioned, in the lemmata of most such categories, the location suffix is more specific (less homonymous) than the patron saint.
    And in real life, people say "the church", if they talk of the church of their own parish, and "Littleton church", if they talk of the church of a neighbouring village. In a city, they call the church of a neighbouring parish by its patron saint, of course. Ulamm (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2nd ∑: Actually, the churches of much more counties are sorted by location than by denomination. This has been done by active users, probably the majority of them. Therefore, the voting of four people in 2018 can't be called the decision of a representative majority. It has to be called the destructive initiative of a little gang.--Ulamm (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long conversation with Rod shortly before he died. One of his regrets was that he was unable to finish the work he'd started to apply the 2018 consensus mentioned above. I think he said he'd reached "D" in an alphabetic process. That is probably why "the churches of much more counties are sorted by location", and as he said in the quoted original text, "it may take some time, but thats no reason not to do it." So it's no surprise that the chaos in categories he hadn't yet reached from "E" onwards actually precede his work. But the consensus of those who took part in the 2018 discussion was never intended to be global, nor can it have been, and it was left for two weeks during which nobody added any opinion either way, and then closed. So, unless overturned, it remains consensus. It's alsovery unhelpful to describe a consensus as a "gang". If Rod had lived longer, perhaps he'd have tackled, but without much enthusiasm, the damage caused by Motacilla in sorting categories alphabetically rather than by their function. RIP, mate. Sadly missed 21:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

Create {{Z symbol}} or not?[edit]

It looks like publicly using letter Z on e.g. posters can be more and more dangerous and criminal, should we consider showing it may face-to-face {{Nazi symbol}}-like issues, and then create a tag to let remote users know such issues?

See also en:Z (military symbol) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support A disclaimer to notify reusers of potential risks may be a good idea. We might include a hint though to use this only for the actual military symbols and not for apparently similar logos like File:Zurich Insurance Group Logo Horizontal.svg. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure not to apply it to File:The Mark of Zorro (1940 film poster).jpg or similar ;-) --Rosenzweig τ 15:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nobody has banned the Z symbol yet. Lithuania is considering banning it and others may follow, but any talk of adding a reuse warning is premature. Nosferattus (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read Z (military symbol)#States? De728631 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was wrong about that. Regardless, it looks like the context of the use is important in the jurisdictions that have banned it, so I would still be reluctant to create a generalized warning for the letter Z. Nosferattus (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, based on "Z (military symbol)#States" (as mentioned above), apparently Low Saxons and Bavarians using it can get up to 3 (three) freakin' years in prison. We should be warning people about this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is very unlikely that an image from Commons is going to be used in a way that would trigger a reaction from the police without your anticipating it when planning the use. If you show support for the Russian invasion in e.g. Germany without being a German citizen, you should understand that you may get yourself a problem (and check up on it), and if you are a German engaged in the conflict, you should know of the swastika laws and understand the issues with the Z without the help of Commons. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but must only be used for cases where the context is clear. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose using Z does not mean supporting Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would be OK with adding warning in the description of files in Category:2022 Russian Invasion vehicle markings that in some countries displaying those symbols might be illegal, but we do not need it on all the files displaying letter Z, like the ones below
I think {{Z symbol}} template is premature. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that any of the symbols above would be more likely to be shown in a way breaching the law than those images actually depicting the Russian symbol. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, for NYCS' Z service route, I contacted MTA by their online contact us form, that whether MTA is currently considering to change it to another alphabet (or e.g. the number 8). Likely I plan to ask Tokyo Metro and Kintetsu by the like way, to know that whether change the route marks of Hanzōmon Line (Q1376030) and Nishi-Shigi Cable Line (Q8140289) are currently considering (both are marked Z, see 1 2). However I'm having no idea if JR West is also considering it or not due to Fukuen Line (Q899394). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why context matters. We also do not add {{Nazi symbol}} to old Celtic objects with a victory rune or temples in India. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your talking about putting warnings against a letter of the alphabet??? An unwelcome precedent. Its not yet a symbol but just a hand daubed mark on a tank, and not any of the illustrations here. We don't need to do anything. I'm sure Germans know already what to do, without our help. --Broichmore (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only german, but also Czechia and Kazakhstan are banned Z. PS: Pennysylvania, the hometown state of US President Biden, is also considering to disallow showing "lonely Z" on public transport signs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support creation of such a disclaimer/warning-template. It should be used diligently, like the existing Nazi-symbol-template. Per recent legal-expert opinion[1], use of "Z" with the above described intention was already punishable in Germany per §140, no.2 Strafgesetzbuch (penal code) of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose can people in the free world please not fall for self-censorship so easily? for now i see no need to use a template to play up some countries' hysteria and paranoia. RZuo (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May be you don't understand the proposal. Nobody here asks for banning this symbol. This is about placing a warning for re-users that in some countries, such as in Germany, the use of this symbol (not simply the letter Z) is illegal and might be prosecuted. And thanks for attacking other sovereign countries. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: you clearly dont understand the proposal, as well as my reply. many countries have various laws banning display and use of all kinds of things, but commons dont need such templates to warn users of blasphemy, lèse-majesté and whatnot. why the obsession with european laws? and in this case, the absurdity of the laws affecting parts of the alphabet is in itself controversial.
on the other hand, this proposal is yet another attempt for mockery by this user.--RZuo (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo Even oneday the Benz got banned? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No Wikimedia project should ever have warning templates against letters of the alphabet. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply][edit]

IMO, some template similar to {{BArch-biased}} (e.g. {{}}) would be needed more for tagging new images (after 2022-02-24) from such as this (description uses biased term special operation instead of invasion/war). — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also to prevent from edits like this (using derrogatory term "Moskal"). This is a pure war propaganda. — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would be similar template applied to media from Ukrainian sources? Same for any media produced by military forces of any country. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support a template warning about war propaganda, but not all documents from are war propaganda. Yann (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit that it would apply probably only on majority of material uploaded after February 24th. — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Such tagging is definitely needed. --Sneeuwschaap (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it should be a template akin to the "xyz is sponsored by abc government" banner on youtube/twitter, rather than a template arbitrating on the content of the file and the page. it's impossible for commons to judge in every case what is biased and what isnt.
commons has a lot more propaganda contents, including but not limited to Category:Videos from China News Service (1516 videos already!!).--RZuo (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free people of a free world should make their own judgement. No warning templates for any reason. Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson Yep, we should deprecate such NCR symbols, as we don't really need NCRs, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an opinion about en:National Catholic Reporter Thuresson (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, in which case you think that I'm discussing the "National Catholic Reporter" or other hurr durr names that have acronym NCR? What I'm discussing is absolutely-than-god the Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Just a NCR tag, no hurts to any current users. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 29[edit]

Bizarre categories[edit]

We seem to have an epidemic of new categories. Of what possible value does Category:Number 33 on publications; and Category:Volume II publications have?

This kind of thing is of no use to any researcher IMO. It certainly takes up a lot of work, from valuable contributors, that could be better used elewhere. What does the community think, do you agree they are superfluous? --Broichmore (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hear Ricky81682 about the use cases they have been thinking about. –LPfi (talk) 12:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because it feels good and satisfies a compulsion? --Animalparty (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: I'm afraid that what seemed a good idea is in fact an illusion. Cats concerning numbers might be useful, if you were chinese and wanted images that include the lucky number 8.

There are cat of images with numbers in them which are used as deep research aids for identifying unidentified ships, as an example. Ships with a certain pennant or hull number, or Ships with 3 funnels, or Four-masted ships. Or combinations of these. Others on the list would be fishing boats, or even very early car number plates?

For numbering of periodicals and books it's another matter. They are best served in the metadata of an image.
COM:C assumes we're going to be sensible about creating cats, it implies that you'll associate a single subject with a given category. Volume numbers in themselves are qualifiers not subjects, but White shirts can be.
It is essential that every file can be found by browsing the category structure. . Every cat should fully enable this mandate.
Cats are used to ID images or files, The user wants to search for Volume 2, of Harper's magazine. That's served by best by Volume 2 being in the data cell. In the Harper's tree is Harper's magazine, Volume 2. The User has no use in sifting through every volume 2 ever purchased. The latter means nothing, when its not defined.
Harper's Weekly, Volume 4 is valuable, and a search criteria. Volume 4 in itself, and by itself, is entirely useless.
Catting should always be able represent defining characteristics. --Broichmore (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then propose their deletion. I really don't see the difference of keeping track of every work with a particular number or the number on every object or the number 12 on various books and magazines but this is so "bizarre" to be problematic. As I said, people had and have been categorizing them by the numeral for years so I consolidated the publications into a subcategory. Diffusing them back up seems to be exactly the same thing to me unless you don't want them under the numerals and that's a broader discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: As you cant see the difference. I have revised my description (above), in an effort to be more understandable.
Ask yourself the question, what client is served by this category, Category:Number 33 on publications? What question does it answer? How does it aid research in any way? Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: It helps answer "I see 'Vol. 33' on the spine or cover of a book in this photo or video, but the other text is obscured. Which book might it be?". That could help analysis in case of a kidnapping.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore I see your point but I don't know why this particular set of categories has to fit that specific criteria. I don't see Category:Number 33 on vehicle registration plates as early car number plates but every car plate with the number 33 on it. You point out that the greater categorization with numbers could be problematic (or an illusion of a good idea) but don't actually want to propose the mass elimination of larger categories. Admitting that the category exists and for whatever reason you are not disputing the category, would you agree that every periodical with volume or issue number 33 would belong within Category:Number 33 on objects? If you don't think so, I don't know how to make you see that people were categorizing things that way (in particular under the numeral categories) other than the fact that many images were categorized that way. As I said, propose it for deletion if you feel like you have an argument. You seem to have a criteria of how Commons should be organized (or a defined 'client' you expect to use it), complain about one set of categories that do not fit that criteria, ignore the fact that larger sets of the parent categories also do not fit your criteria and then ignore the larger hidden point that your client criteria isn't actually a concern of anyone here. If you want to propose a more specific criteria for the mandate and then propose the mass deletion of categories that all fail that mandate, that's fine. If you want to propose the deletion of these categories for failing that mandate, fine, but that this point I don't see your interpretation of this mandate anything other than your personal annoyance at this very specific categorization. Why not propose a Commons:Category scheme Texts like we have at Commons:Category scheme People and propose to use language, date, subject-matter or other criteria with volume/issue # be eliminated? It would resolve this much more simply without getting into the larger images issues and without us going in circles. I suspect you don't actually want a resolution on these matters, just to lecture about how things should be organized here. I am more than happy to start the category scheme discussion to actually have some movement on this topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 30[edit]

render "use" in svg; make use of "href"[edit]

An upload of Synthese_von_Diazepam_nach_Leo_Sternbach.svg revealed that the use of an "href" parameter even in a "use" tag is ignored by our renderer even when pointing to a position in the same file. I'd appreciate very much if we could start publishing svg files with links into WP. We can link to any site in the world from within WP. Why is svg judged so much more dangerous that we don't allow client side rendering and then do not even support the use tag which necessarily is dependent on href param? --Vollbracht (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re File:Synthese_von_Diazepam_nach_Leo_Sternbach.svg
The file version you linked is SVG 2.0; MediaWiki uses SVG 1.1.
In SVG 1.1, href means nothing. The correct attribute is xlink:href, and the xlink namespace must be declared.
Glrx (talk) 04:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Logos of Government Ministries of India[edit]

User Swapnil1101 (talk · contribs) has uploaded a dozens of logos of different ministries of India as Own work. {{GODL-India}} does not cover official logos and as such it won't apply. Would these be considered as copyright violations? If not, which tag should be placed on them? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Taggers (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once i will complete uploading, I will change license to "This logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and is therefore in the public domain " Swapnil1101 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Emblem of India" is in Public Domain and Text LOGO (The New York Times, Microsoft) don't violate copyright. So this license will be suitable. Swapnil1101 (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See license of Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Defence based on license of New_Zealand Government.Swapnil1101 (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is Template:Insignia ok? VScode fanboy (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Swapnil1101 Why don't you upload them with the license you actually think it falls under rather than picking whatever works for now and leaving a mess? You claim that File:Flag House of Commons.svg is in the public domain and claim that it is based on something in the public domain but en:File:Flag of the UK House of Commons.png is not. It makes zero sense that the png version is copyrighted but the svg one is not. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I already did it. After i uploaded all Indian ministries logo, i change there license
House of commons.svg is not a derivative of commons.png. I created the SVG flag from scratch with proper color code and alignment using inspiration from this image . Swapnil1101 (talk) 11:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why I am deleting my account[edit]

Hi everyone, Several of my files were deleted at once, without warning. Usual stuff some people will say, but please read this.

Among those, I loaded a file under French gvt open licence, which is clearly designed to be suitable for use in CC projects like Commons.

Another one : I loaded a picture I took with my camera, showing a simple wall of bricks (to illustrate local brick style). Can I consider myself to be the rights owner for a picture of a stupid wall that I took myself ? Apparently no, my file was deleted.

Thinking about it, the problem in those 2 examples is not that the files are not suitable for Commons, the problem is a wrong choice of license when uploading. Instead of advising the newcomer about the mistake, instead of pointing out a solution, instead of talking and trying to help, the only action from experienced users is an automatic "your file was deleted, too bad...". Truth is the license system in Commons is a real maze. Instead of deleting people's work without notice, I think it would be better to spend time to create good tutorials, or a simple page with simple explanations about the most common cases. For example : I upload my own picture of everyday's life=pick up license#1, I upload my own picture of a piece of art in a museum=pick up license#2, I upload my best buddy picture of his dog=pick up license#3, etc. I have read tons of material on Commons. The more I read, the more confused i got. For instance, about "Fair use", there is a couple of pages with a lot of prattle but very little useful information. I don't give a damn about Spanish, English or Dutch wikipedia, I just wanna know if Commons allows it or not. One clear sentence would be enough.

I agreed after discussion that some of the files I uploaded were to be removed, I did a mistake but this does not mean all my work is garbage... Why delete all of my files with the exact same argument ? They don't come from the same source, it is easy to check... But apparently nobody did, most users on Commons are like robots. Moreover those files don't belong to the same thematic, they have nothing in common except they were uploaded by the same user : me. Do I need to stress that hounding and harassment [[2]] are forbidden on wiki projects ? 

Farewell my dear bots, Enjoy your time deleting other people's work

PS: I would like to thank Skopien, we disagreed on many points but he was the only one that takes time to talk, understand and explain. Obviously, I do not thank Ellywa, Elcobbola, Yann... --Desman31 (talk) 14:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Desman31: Why do you want a special treatment? Your files were deleted for good reasons, as they were copyright violations. Yann (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters anymore, but regarding Fair Use, it does not get much clearer than the big red warning saying "Fair use" media files are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons at the start of COM:FAIRUSE. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one point where I agree with the departing user is that there is a lack of good tutorials and helpful help pages on licensing. Just as an example, let's say I find a photograph that fulfills the requirement for "PD-old for Ethiopian photographies". So, I can quickly slap the clearly wrong license on the image (indiscriminate "pd-old"); or spend an hour looking for the correct template and likely give up trying; or I don't bother with a license which leaves a chance that the image will be deleted by a different random patroller.
On substance on the bemoaned fair use - yeah that is just not possible here on Commons and Yann/Garuda covered it. Enyavar (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem about clear instructions, stems from the fact that there are so many "typical cases" and many of them are full of pitfalls: picture of everyday's life could involve personality rights issues, the piece of art can be old enough to be allowed depending on its history, your buddy's photo needs VRT permission, for which there are many different cases etc. The graphic shown at the Upload Wizard's start page covers the simple cases, anything beyond that at least may be complicated. We have indeed done our best to provide clear guidance, but it is hard to do that properly.
The robot-like behaviour comes from the fact that there are many more uploaders that don't understand copyright than there are experienced users around to educate them. We just need to get rid of those copyright violations without spending too much time on each. If a user makes several mistakes, the probability that the next upload claimed as "own work" would in fact be in the public domain is too small for an admin to start a discussion or making the needed research themself.
LPfi (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and Vimeo importer[edit]

Hi there,

I've been working with Peertube a bit the last few days, and have found the project has extremely easy to use import features. When the user supplies the URL of video site, the software will grab:

  • the video file
  • subtitle files
  • title and description
  • license information
  • first published date

This information is gathered using yt-downloader and yt-dl, well known open source tools that parse a great variety of video sites, several of which support open content licensing other than Vimeo and YT.

It strikes me that WM Commons could use this tool for video imports, just as the Flickr tool does now. It could be restricted to registered users or some other group if necessary. I wondered if this has been considered? I upload a lot of video content and it is very cumbersome currently to manually import the same information. --JimKillock (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We already have such a tool: Video2Commons. Yann (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see! Well that is a very good thing - perhaps it needs a bit more advertising, for instance on the upload page, would be helpful. --JimKillock (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 31[edit]

Category redirect when posible[edit]

The reason I write are categories Category:Communist Party of Spain and Category:Partido Comunista de España.

The second one was deleted as it was in Spanish, and all files carried to the first one, that is in English. First of all, the moving of the files is totally correct.

What I object is to the deleting of the Spanish version. I have recreated it as a Category Redirect. There is a reason for it.

Firstly, take into account that not everybody speaks English. Some people do not speak or understand a single word of the English language. I'm thinking, for instance, about people who have pictures of un mitin de Vicente Furriol, allá en 1932, people that most likely speak only Spanish and with a proud Buñolero accent. So leaving such a route open for such people to find the proper category is necessary.

Secondly, while Communist Party of Spain is a sensible translation of Partido Comunista de España, it has to be taken into account the existance of other parties with very simmilar names. There are categories for PCE (m-l), for UCE, for PCPE and some others. Someone not finding a Partido Comunista de España category could use another one as the best substitute available.

I think that leaving a Category Redirect helps some people while it doesn't harm anybody. This argument -in my humble opinion- would also work for many other category names.

B25es (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Commons:Rename a category#Deleting the old category says:
"In cases where it's likely that a new user might try to use the old category by accident, it's best to retain it as a redirect. This might include alternatives that are equally valid or synonyms; older and outdated terms; translations; or some other correct expectable name for the category. In such cases, the old category should be marked permanently with a {{Category redirect}} template."
(my bolding).
LPfi (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 01[edit]

png and jpg vs. svg[edit]

Someone wrote a great essay about why we should save the png/jpg file when we convert something to an svg file. They pointed out that the conversion, or redrawing, can lead to subtle changes, like changes in color and we need the original for comparison. Does anyone know where it is, I can longer find it, and I want to link to it from my user page. --RAN (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading something like that after following some links from category:SVG Simplified, but I can't remember where precisely; perhaps @Sarang: knows? Anyway, many rsvg bugs have been patched over the years, so some of those complaints may be less valid now. Arlo James Barnes 15:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 02[edit]

Hide email address[edit]

If I create an account with my email address, will the email be publicly visible? My email address can be traced to my real name quite easily, so I don't want it public. -- 17:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even if someone uses your user page to send you an email (a facility which you can also disable), they will not see your address, until and unless you reply to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore other years[edit]


The 2020 pages of Wiki Loves Folklore gives access to other years, but 2021 and 2022 do not.

Old versions also gave access to the meta page.

Could someone correct it if needed ?

Thanks in advance. SGlad (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating a template[edit]

Hola. I'm trying to make a template for the municipalities of Cantabria similar to Template:Autonomous communities of Spain, but I can't get it to work.

If someone can take a look at it and tell me what's wrong that would be great.

The template is thisː Template:Municipalities of Cantabria And I have tried it in the articlesː Santander, Torrelavega y las cateroríasː Category:Torrelavega, Category:Santander. Juenti el toju (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the second part. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 03[edit]

How should I upload new emojis?[edit]

Twemoji is a CC-licensed emoji font developed by Twitter. Previous versions have been uploaded to Commons in Category:Twitter Emoji. But version 14 has recently been released, so there are 487 emojis that aren't in Commons yet. I'd like to upload the latest version, but I'm unsure of what the best way of doing it is.

  • Should I do what's been done in the past, and upload all emojis when a new version comes out? If I do it this way, there would be a lot of duplicates from previous versions, so that seems pretty wasteful, but at least there would be consistency.
    • This would also let me use a new file naming scheme. I've been wanting to change the filename format to something like File:Twemoji14 😀.svg instead of the currently used File:Twemoji12 1f600.svg. It would be much easier this way since you could just type the emoji instead of looking up its codepoint.
  • Should I only upload new emojis? This would prevent duplicates, but would cause a lot of problems when actually trying to use these files because you would have to look up what version the emoji you want to use is from.
  • An in-between solution would be to upload all of them once under a common naming scheme, and then in future versions only upload new ones.
    • This new naming scheme would be something like File:Twemoji 😀.svg. This filename does not reference any particular version, so it would work for any version going forward.
    • A drawback of this approach is that if an emoji is not new but is changed, you would have to overwrite the old version.

What do you guys think is the best approach? Saucy (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of typo[edit]

Is it possible to correct the spelling of the first word of the title of the following uploaded image to Wikimedia by adding an s after the second letter? My apologies for being a nuisance. Hopefully it will not be too difficult to correct as presumably typos do occur occasionally.

'Dicussing strategy'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1932' (lower right).jpg BFP1 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done :-) Lotje (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I could not understand the recommended way of fixing things BFP1 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I did not explain it well enough, but the word should be 'Discussing' not 'Dicsussing'. BFP1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning when the personality rights tag is relevant...[edit]

A {{Personality rights}} tag was added with this edit.

WMF projects are a learning experience, for all of us. There may be some obvious reason why this tag would be useful, here.

But it was not obvious, to me, so I asked for an explanation at File talk:Ingrid Vanderveldt speaks at Dawson College - cropped.jpg#Could you please explain.... I pointed out that Ms Vanderveldt was invited to give that talk, by members of the US State Department, who arranged for a photographer to snap pictures, of that talk. I questioned whether that left any doubt that she had consented to having pictures taken.

I pinged the person who placed the tag. They didn't return to explain their tag. I don't think they are going to do so.

Am I free to remove this tag?

When is this tag actually useful and relevant? It is scary, alarming, with its warning that re-users may be legally required to contact the original photographers, and get them to confirm the people depicted signed a legal release. However, it directs people to Commons:Country specific consent requirements, which seems to say very few countries provide protection to having one's picture re-used.

Singapore and the Netherlands are two of the countries that have legislation that may require a release. Okay, when does that legislation apply?

  1. Does it apply if the image was snapped in one of those countries?
  2. Does it apply to any image taken by a citizen of Singapore, or the Netherlands, even if they took it somewhere else?
  3. Does it apply to all images used on the Dutch wikipedia?
  4. Does it apply whenever a person living in Singapore or the Netherlands adds a picture to a wikipedia, even if it is not the Dutch wikipedia?

If these are the only kinds of conditions where the tag is relevant, then it seems to me it should be used very sparingly. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geo Swan: Really, personality rights apply to every picture of an identifiable person. In the U.S., personality rights for a public figure mostly come does to limits on using the image in a way that implies them making an endorsement of some sort. Theoretically, we could add that template to pretty much any picture of a person; in practice, we tend to add it where there might be a valid concern that the picture would be misused. But there is no implication that the picture was inappropriately taken. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-using images of people, in ways that implies they endorse positions, or products, they do not actually endorse? I think we all understand this is (1) intellectually dishonest; (2) disrespectful; and (3) a bad idea, that could expose the dishonest re-user to legal retaliation. Honestly, isn't this something (1) every potential re-user should already understand; (2) something it is pointless to warn people about, because people dishonest enough to pull this stunt will ignore those warnings? Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Geo Swan: You'd think so, but I've definitely run into people in jobs where they certainly should know better who don't understand the difference between copyright on the one hand, and other intellectual property rights on the other, and who think that the CC-BY or similar license means they can use the picture absolutely any way they want to. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Over here, a tourist bureau took a photo of a person ice-fishing on a lake and published it in their brochure. Distance was long enough that the person wasn't directly identifiable, but the court decided that people who know him would recognise him from the context, and judged they had used his image for promotion without his permission. They had to pay damages. The photo could equally well have been found at Commons. –LPfi (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There was another case (I don't remember whether the idea was dismissed or whether it went to court), where a party in their campaign was to use an image of a crowd, to illustrate something innocent, like togetherness or whatever. That was also deemed illegal. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @LPfi: do you think your examples undermine the idea this tag is helpful or useful?

            Over on, WP:NOT tells everyone that project is not intended as a source of legal advice. It seems to me the apparent unpredictability of your court allowing an unidentifiable ice-fisherman to sue for damages exposes the futility of commons offering legal advice. Geo Swan (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            We are not giving legal advice. We only warn reusers that they should not use images of identifiable people without checking up on the issues. I think my examples show situations, where somebody might think it is a good idea to use a file from Commons, when they rather should pay for one that comes with a release. These images are still useful in many contexts. Thus I think we should have the warning. I also want the warning on photos I have taken, to relieve me from some liability would somebody abuse them. And I don't think "our court" is unpredictable: if you want persons in images to use for promotion, get their permission! LPfi (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @LPfi: , I don't think tagging your own images provides you with one iota of extra protection from legal liability. If your use of an image, here, is legal, and properly licensed, I am sure you have no liability if it is subsequently used illegally. And, ff you fell for a flickr-washing, or otherwise uploaded an image that wasn't properly licensed, how do you see a {{Personality rights}} tag protecting you? Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              I have licensed my photos for use by others. If they think I have licensed them for any use (which would mean I have got a legal release), then I may be partly culpable. If their thinking so is deemed reasonable, that would mean I have misled them. LPfi (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jmabel: , Here are the first twenty images that transclude {{Personality rights}}. I told the individuals who placed those tags I'd appreciate them explaining themselves, as those images include images of Patrick Stewart, George W. Bush, Mariah Carey, four guys playing cards, and some other completely innocuous images... [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

          Two of those images are of groups of happy children. Yes, I know there are contributors who worry over pedophiles, out there, who might mis-use even completely innocuous pictures of children. But is a personality rights tag an effective response to that?

          The remaining images are of fetish models. Clarification please. Would it be your position that images of fetish models are the kinds of images "where there might be a valid concern", based on the theory that some fetish models are likely victims, not willing participants? But is a personality rights tag an effective response to that?

          What about Ingrid Vanderveldt, the woman in the image that triggered my question. I really can't see her as an individual whose image would trigger a particular concern. Do you?

          The Patrick Stewart image was tagged by an anonymous contributor who added personality rights tags to about one hundreds images of Star Trek actors, and other celebrities, in July and August of 2009. That is not all they did. They also added half a dozen FOP tags. I am concerned this IP contributor was a block evader, who used other IP addresses to frivolously add the tag to thousands of images. Geo Swan (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Please remove your questioning the tags. The tag is there to remind reusers that images of people may not be used without proper consideration. It is OK to use them to illustrate e.g. education in Afghanistan, but it is not necessarily OK to crop out a face and use it in some fun collage. A high-profile politician must accept some less nice use of his image, but there is a line also for them. If there is an identifiable person in an image and you are not the photographer or uploader, leave those tags alone. If it was placed there by the uploader, leave it there also for that fisherman seen at a distance – he was still the main subject of the photo. LPfi (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I am one of person mentioned above by Geo Swan. I also agree with LPfi: please remove your questioning the tags. Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to question whether the tag is routinely being applied meaningfully. @Yann: , Jmabel assured me the tag was applied selectively, only to images of particular concern. You applied it to the two images of Mariah Carey that I put first in the gallery, below. I remain curious as to why you thought this tag was relevant there.
Applying this tag non-selectively, to every image of every one of the ten million or more images we have of individuals is an absolutely terrible idea. It would be annoying to readers. It would be a pointless waste of time, for those applying the tag. And, most importantly, it would strongly erode the utility of the project's image pages.
People naturally tune out stuff that wastes their time, or doesn't make sense...
When I was an undergrad, 40 years ago, computer users used command line interfaces, not the pointy-clicky interfaces popular today. My day-job required me to use a big, stupid IBM CMS command line interface. Off-the-clock I used a UNIX shell. Habit got in my way. I routinely tried to invoke a program from one system, while using the other system. I noticed I was far from the only one. I wrote a UNIX program, kind of like busybox, and I linked to it using the name of every CMS program. When invoked it would look up the name it was invoked under, and advise the user, "Argv0 is a CMS program, but you are on UNIX. Try mumble instead." - where mumble was the roughly equivalent UNIX program. It would then call a program that printed the synopsis section of the manual for that program.
I thought this was a good idea, until I saw Dave actually use it. I saw Dave type in the name of a CMS program. I saw my program tell him that wouldn't work, because he was using UNIX, and telling him the alternate program to use. Then, because it was only a PDP-11/34, there was a pause as the synopsis program was invoked.
I thought this was going to be my moment of triumph. I thought I would see Dave follow the instructions produced by the synopsis program, and successfully invoke the program he really needed.
Instead he turned to me, and said, "Geo, how do I invoke the mumble program?" And when I pointed to the synopsis, on the screen, he said, "Oh that. It seemed cryptic, and not useful, the first time I saw it. So I always just tune it out."
We should not encourage this warning to be applied to every image...
And adding the vaguely alarming, yet cryptic, {{Personality rights}} tag to every single image of an individual or individual(s) would have the same deeply negative value here. It would be an annoying aspect of every page, which experienced readers would soon learn to ignore.
Annoying stuff people ignore is not just a waste of time. Our information pages contain important information. And I suggest it is bad for the project for it to be obfuscated by alarming stuff our readers will ultimately ignore, because it is cryptic.
To the extent this tag has utility, it would only have that utility if it were used rarely and selectively, on images of particular concern.
From the first twenty transclusions of {{Personality rights}}
Raymond explained he only added it to images he uploaded, but he added it to every one - a different justification than Jmabel's selective application to only images of particular concern.
Palosirkka justified putting the tag on the image of men playing cards because he thought they were (1) drinking, and (2) gambling - activities some people disapprove of. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan I do not add it to everyone. Normally to my own images depicting peope only. Raymond 05:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The personality rights template is correct in its warning on most images that include identifiable people. If it is too scary, then we need to tone it down (in appearance, wording or whatever). Perhaps the licensing templates should be smaller also (I have never understood why they need to be so dominating). Where do you think the template is needed? Would we need a separate template for those cases? –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your statement that only two countries seem to have legislation that may require a release. In the table, every one of the fifty countries have such legislation. The release is needed only in some cases, which is why these photographs are useful on Commons also without a release. I also do not see from where you got that you'd be "legally required" to contact the original photographers, and get them to confirm the people depicted signed a legal release. I for one don't have people sign such releases when I take photos. I hope reusers will respect privacy rights even if they use my photos in a jurisdiction where that is not required. –LPfi (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Personality rights}} is not legal advice at all. It can not, as international laws on what you may or may not do with someone else's photograph differ vastly. It's pretty much the opposite of legal advice – a disclaimer telling the average Joe on the internet: "When we say that this file is OK to be used for any purpose, we mean that from a copyright perspective. When it comes to figuring out your national personality rights laws, you're on your own."
The second purpose of the template is to signal to any professional media person "Sorry, we we don't do model releases". (Model releases are absolutely essential for publishing pictures of people in some parts of the industry and completely irrelevant in other parts. The Wikipedia article is pretty bad, here is some more useful information. The closest thing to a model release we have is {{Consent}}.
We have a bunch of similar templates that give re-users a heads up like "This file is fine in terms of copyright, but there are other aspects that may make it illegal for you to use. Check your local laws." {{Currency}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Nazi symbol}} are some examples. I know, en.wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers, but we do, and so do many other projects.
What the template admittedly fails to communicate clearly, is who it is talking to when it says "you". It is not immediately clear that this message is addressed at potential re-users, not the photographer or uploader. That should probably be rectified. Other than that, it should in my opinion be added to any image containing an identifiable person. --El Grafo (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I agree completely with El Grafo above. Noting to add. Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 04[edit]

rename file[edit]

Ineed to replace incorrect file name. How to do?

Add "{{rename|new filename|3|reason}}" to the file description page. The parameter "3" is for "obvious errors" (see Template:File renaming reasons/i18n) and "reason" is whatever rationale you have for the name needing to be corrected. –LPfi (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is a new upload of yours, you can use "1" (original uploader’s request) instead of "3". –LPfi (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan f:  : check if you have the "Move" button ( click "More", upper right, on the right of "View", "Edit" and "History"). Move = rename. Pueblo89 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry LPfi if you got a notification for a call from here, had tagged you a {{notif|LPfi}} after reading the history page wrongly. oops. Pueblo89 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. In fact it got me to try the move entry (in another place and differently named for me, but easy to find), and it is much more helpful than the raw template (which annoyingly doesn't have the reason numbers on its documentation page). I will advice people to use this in the future. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a VERY SPECIAL THANKS to the "rename file" person / people[edit]

I am On. My. Arse. Whoever has just this minute (or nearly, time for me to find this here page and to write this) renamed the 31 files that I have uploaded these last few days, has floored me. This is about the maps in here : Category:Atlas mineralogique - Guettard 1780, where I realized only about 1/2 hr ago that I should have indicated their numbers (doh) in the title, so that they would be found a lot more easily according to the general map - with numbered map outlines - which is the last one I found in the book i was copying from (my one and only excuse, weak) - duly numbered 0. I was on semi-automatic renaming for the whole series, so going sort of fast; someone of the renaming team picked up half-way and it was all I could do to keep ahead (so that the dude would not go to another job before I could finish). Now it's all tidy and in order, easy finding. Very very grateful, esp. as I thought I'd have to wait a few days. I don't know where nor how to give a big medal but that one sure deserves it. Brilliant. THANK YOU, whoever. Pueblo89 (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:Wieralee, and probably my mention of them here will get their attention, but if you want to thank them more directly you can to to their user talk page or I believe that it you look in the history for any given file, you can "thank" for any given edit. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry re: an apparently deleted file[edit]

While browsing a category, I noticed this photo was missing. After a little bit of digging, it appears it was deleted but I couldn't find anything in the logs. Was there a specific reason why it was deleted or are we continuing to indulge every deletionist with a wild hair up their butt?RadioKAOS (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS: Hi, and welcome. File:30th Reunion. (7569089518).jpg was deleted as one result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images by umnak.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 05[edit]

Commons:Placing images[edit]

After Dcoetzee was banned, the page hasn't been updated; I think it's a nice counterpart to COM:REUSE but could use some improvement (illustrations/diagrams maybe?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlo Barnes (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 April 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

Commons, free licence and "All Rights Reserved"[edit]

I saw that File:Жовна зелена (Picus viridis).jpg is marked in the EXIF info as "All Rights Reserved © Sergey Ryzhkov". Despite all the other licence tags, it's status as FP or any other signs that this or any other files by the uploader may is or is not a copyright violation I wonder if a file uploaded to Commons should have such a claim in the EXIF info.
I could understand if it's just the camera's default setting and that exactly this copyright mark is put into every image and is never changed by the used software. However, all files on Commons have to be available under a free licence. There is no chance to upload even a part of an image that stays on here as just "All rights reserved". Unlike with CC NC and ND licences, there is no option for a file to bee freely licenced as well as being "All rights reserved". Also looking toward sharing content outside of Commons and Wikipedia such an entry could hinder it's use - which is (at least as far as I recall) exactly what Wikipedia and Commons were not created for. For an external use, it also could make licencing unclear in the future.
An example how I handle this part: Many and all my recent files are tagged with "Licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 licence by D-Kuru from Wikimedia Commons. See for detailed information about the licence."
@Ryzhkov Sergey: Can you please drop a line where this entry comes from and what your ideas on this topic are?
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I would guess I'd say that it is indeed simply the camera settings and it might be that it's standard that it adds "All rights reserved ©" regardless of what the author wants, this license gets added before upload, so when someone uploads they waive all (or some) of their rights, in this case the EXIF data then simply illustrates the historical license prior to upload. I don't think that this EXIF data is problematic if re-users can be made aware that the license in the EXIF data might differ from the reported license above, perhaps we can update the standard notice at "Metadata". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 06[edit]

East Asian curios[edit]

Interior of G H Ando's Japanese dry goods store, Seattle, circa 1892 (MOHAI 10938).jpg

Is there an appropriate category or categories for a shop like this on in Seattle selling East Asian curios? This one is from the 1890s, but shops like this were pretty common into the late 20th Century, and there are still some now. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]