Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place where dwellers discussed ideas for the improvement of their locale. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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

May 21[edit]

Checking for a deleted image[edit]

Hello, someone's got in touch with me after a recent editathon as one of the attendees uploaded an image which was deleted. I was hoping I might be able to take a look and work out if we have options such as sending a release through OTRS, but I'm struggling to find the deleted image. There isn't a notification on User talk:ArchAtlas and I can't spot anything in the user logs. Would deletion means it no longer shows up in the logs? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted images should show up but there is no sign of any contributions, deleted or otherwise, for ArchAtlas. Probably best to reupload it if it's his/er own work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The database shows they have no deleted images and have no contributions globally. They may have been using a different account. -- (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much both, I'll try to work out if it was a different account or if something happened that's been missed in relaying the story. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Richard Nevell (WMUK): Their filter log has entries related to an attempt to upload a file using the cross-wiki upload form on English Wikipedia to upload a file to Commons. The filter that they encountered prevents low-resolution uploads from newly registered users using that particular upload form. The reason for this filter rule is that such uploads overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright violations. If they did indeed personally create this photo, the expectation is that they should be able to provide a full-resolution version rather than the 1462×1927 pixel miniature version that they tried to upload. If it really is their own work, they can upload it directly here on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@LX: That's it! That's a very clever filter. Excellent, now I understand what happened it's going to be easier to help them out. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I think Special:AbuseFilter/153 requiring a minimum of 5MP might be too harsh. 3MP should be enough. A common resolution is 2048x1536, 3.15MP.--Roy17 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


A problem similar to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/05#Problem_of_Chinese_surnames. Naomi can be a Hebrew or a Japanese given name. Should we separate them into different categories?--Roy17 (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. How would you propose to separate them in cases where the person is neither Jewish nor Japanese? Category:Jan (given name) is apparently a Catalan, Dutch, Czech, North Germanic, German, Afrikaans, Swedish, Belarusian, Polish, English, and Slovene name. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The names are being distinguished by scripts; Catalan, Dutch, Czech, North Germanic etc., all use the Latin alphabet and the name is identical. The problem occurs when names in other scripts can be transcribed to Latin in multiple ways. However, the problem of which variant of the name to use for a particular person can be tricky, and it has been discussed on Wikidata. I think the only conclusion is that if their name is published in a particular script, that's the version that should be used. Potentially, they may be associated with multiple variants if the person is well known internationally or has published works in multiple scripts. --ghouston (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: The world is multilingual but Commons categories prefers English (or Latin alphabet). John, Johan, Ivan, Evan, etc. have the same origin, but are treated separately. Then perhaps names that do not even have the same origin, like the Hebrew and Japanese Naomi, should be distinguished?
I'd say it's actually a flaw in wikidata's design to handle given names. People in the west mostly use established names, but names in East Asia are basically a combination of characters which offer far more varieties. Consequently, most Chinese and Japanese people's wikidata items do not have a given name (P735). The full name could only be stored in name in native language (P1559).
Mixing names that have different origins is fundamentally wrong. I find it absurd, but it's not a burning issue that needs immediate response. If Commons does decide they should be separated, category names could be Naomi (Japanese given name), Naomi (Hebrew-origin given name).--Roy17 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, what would be the benefit of separating them? I could list tens of given names with the same Romanization but with completely different origins from different cultures. Take w:Mona (name) for example. Next time I see my cousin Mona, I should ask her if her name is of Persian origin or of Arabic origin! 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Things go into the same category because they share that quality. A Japanese Naomi and a Hebrew Naomi have nothing in common except the romanisation. Otherwise, why not just put everything from London, England and London, Ontario into the same category?--Roy17 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Cities can be neatly distinguished by their geography. The first London is in the UK, the second one in Canada.
But this is not the case for many given names. Linguists disagree on the origin of names frequently.
Going into such details is beyond the scope of Commons, a media repository. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Naomi Taniguchi is a Japanese man. Category:Naomi Watts is an English woman. They do not have the same given name. Distinguished as neatly as the geography of the two Londons. Japanese Naomi is pronounced as nah-o-mi. How absurd it is to find Japanese people in a subcat of Category:Hebrew-language feminine given names.
On the other hand, Sean, Seán, Shawn and Shaun are the same name, pronounced the same, but spelled differently, and so categorised separately.--Roy17 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/351596184 will solve the problem of finding a Japanese man in the Naomi category. That finding is as absurd as finding Category:Senkaku Islands as a subcat of Category:Islands of China. (In my opinion, not absurd at all.)
Suppose we could solve the problem of Naomi neatly enough. What would we do about various other given names with many peculiarities? We should consider consistency. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: your edit suggests to me that you have no serious intention in resolving this problem. The Naomi from Naomi Taniguchi the admiral is romanisation of 尚真. Naomi could also be (quite often) feminine Japanese names. It is not comparable to a disputed territory either: nothing is controversial about the names. Naomi is a feminine name of Hebrew origin, but also happens to be romanisation of many Japanese names.
Adding that category is technically wrong. For most Naomis in the world, their names are never both Naomi and なおみ at the same time. In other words, it might be a case for disambiguation.
Your question is exactly the one I asked. What should we do with these names? It's never been brought up. Names categories on Commons are pretty recent introduction. On most wikis I've visited, people are not categorised by names at all. Only a handful like Chinese, Vietnamese, Cantonese wikis group people by surnames.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
But London, Ontario and London, England are both English city names. w:London_(disambiguation) lumps them together with a dozen other cities named London, presumably all of English origin, but doesn't worry about where the names came from. Category:Naomi Taniguchi and Category:Naomi Watts are separate categories. Any category uniting Naomis isn't doing so because that's an important useful shared feature; it's an arbitrary name. It's because someone apparently finds it helpful to be able to look up Naomi Watts via Category:Naomi (given name), and splitting that category wouldn't help that at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
London is just an example. Category:Kochi, Kerala/Category:Kochi, Kochi and en:Salem are examples from different cultures.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
And en:w:Salem is another good example; it seems possible that all of them are of the same origin. India seems unlikely, but Muslims could have named the city after Jerusalem or the Brits could have named it. The en.wp articles don't seem to mention it. And what use is it to separate them based on whether the name originates in Hebrew or some further east culture?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you grew up in the U.S. and are of a certain age, this irresistibly reminds you of Love of Chair and its perpetual question, "What about Naomi?" SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think that the issue is whether we should start looking at people named "Naomi" in England or the United States and try to distinguish them based on where their ancestors came from (which would be crazy), but whether somebody named "なおみ" and somebody named "נעמי" should be grouped with these Naomis or not. --ghouston (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Suppose Commons uses another language instead of English predominantly. Commons categories are supposed to be universal, i.e. choice of languages should not affect the outcome. That is true for most categories we have. However, in this case of Naomi for example, Naomi and なおみ would not be in the same category. They would be transliterated differently because their pronunciation is not the same. Now they are grouped together merely because they are spelled the same way in Latin alphabet.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I would bet that's not true for a far larger number of categories then you think; colors, to name just one thing, don't get lumped together the same way in every language or culture. And these categories are extraordinary in that they are explicitly arbitrary; there's no real property binding two people named Naomi together. If there's any value in these categories, it's reduced by splitting different origins of the name Naomi out. I don't see any problem with having a category Category:なおみ (given name), but I do object to removing people with the name "Naomi" from the category Naomi (given name).
If you're concerned about names that would be transliterated differently because their pronunciation is not the same, Naomi might be transliterated any number of different ways, depending on what language is original, what language is target (even for the same script), how the name was originally pronounced, and what standard is used. It seems to be digging into a huge mess, with no advantage but the theoretical. I'd be happy with solutions that have practical advantages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: if you insist on benefits, any benefit you find in disambiguating other objects like the aforementioned places applies to distinguishing these names. When someone wants to find out Japanese people named Naomi, the current category is not very helpful because it is filled with lots of other people, for example.
However, as I have said multiple times in this thread, mixing entirely different names is first and foremost factually false. It goes against the Selectivity principle--We should not classify items which are related to different subjects in the same category. The category name should be unambiguous and not homonymous.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is the best way to split that category; if someone wants to find Japanese people named Naomi, they should find Japanese people named a variant of נעמי.
It goes against the selectivity principle to categorize people by given name, period. There is nothing connecting any set of Jacks, Jills or Naomis besides random choice of the parents. But once we combine a bunch of Jacks together, there's no reason we should combine a bunch of Naomis together; we're not breaking that rule any more. Either we should delete these categories altogether, or keep them as a practical exception.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Then there's Naomi Osaka, a Japanese woman,just to confuse things... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Wikidata has Jean (Q4160311) and Jean (Q7521081) since 2013. Yet everything is put into Category:Jean (given name). Should it be this way?--Roy17 (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Linus Pauling, a mirror[edit]

Portrait of Linus Pauling's appears to be a mirror image: on Brittanica where Linus Pauling, c. 1954. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (cph 3b24095) he is facing to his left. Both this one and theirs are noted to be sourced from Library of Congress. --Omotecho (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

True [1]. However, I suggest to just rename the image, because "LTR languages" need him to look at the center of page. Of course, the flipped image is misleading (defective tooth in his right or left?), but that is up to the projects if they want to use the original image or the one which seems more appropriate for them. We should upload the original image as well and link them together. "RTL languages" may safely benefit from using the original image. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I added it to the category Category:Flopped images of persons, which has some guidance on usage, although in the absence of text or obvious asymmetric features, it's often hard to determine the original orientation (negatives may be inadvertantly flopped). I think that in any language it's extremely misguided to use a flopped (mirrored) image just to face the text. "Because it looks good" is a poor excuse for misrepresenting reality. --Animalparty (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
thumb|Teeth and eyebrows I think the current version we have, Pauling facing viewer's left/his right might be correct by comparing to this image. And I agree with Animalparty. Flipping images for text orientation is factually false and absurd.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I just found another one . I cant really tell which is correct.--Roy17 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: Don't trust Britannica blindly on this. I can't remember the article right now (hopefully it'll come back to me), but some time ago I found an image there that made it clear they don't always do proper research and may well be trusting Commons/Wikipedia. In this case, trust LoC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: It was probably File:Musa textilis - Manila Hemp - desc-flower.jpg. Still shows on - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the your crisp response, and great to see the LOC image, Roy17. Yes, it’s quite hard to tell whether the Linus Pauling.jpg image is flopped or not, and no, Brittanica is not perfect for sourcing images afaik, appreciate Alexis Jazz taking time to find the wrong Manila hemp image. That said, what options do we have and choose? My bet is no.2, what are yours? Or forget the case could be the answer...
  1. keep this image without adding a note that we don’t know whether it’s flopped or not?
  2. Or weblink to LOC in image description and add a note there is a consequence ?
  3. Or delete mention about LOC in the image description?
As far as an encyclopedia goes, the original image should not be flopped according to ltr or rtl text if I may suggest, it’s risky because it gives false message/sample that you could do the same with any, copyrighted images as well. Well, as I give up to research further, Oregon State U has Pauling’s images : Human ears are better physical feature than teeth to ID as Germany had filed ear shots for permanent non-German passport residents in the ‘60s; sorry not enough samples to compare and match with LOC image/Commons’. --Omotecho (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: I just noticed it was sourced from LOC to dewp and moved here, and there had been several revisions. I guess the LOC version is correct. It seems pretty common some people like to flip portraits. If that is true, I would suggest we delete and redirect the wrong version to the LOC original.
The answer to our puzzle might lie in de:Datei:Pauling.jpg and de:Datei Diskussion:Pauling.jpg. @Gestumblindi, JuTa: could you please help check these two pages to confirm if the image had been flipped? Thank you!--Roy17 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't view the old versions of this file itself as an admin on German Wikipedia (no "Dateiversionen"), only file descriptions; I know that some very old files can't be viewed/restored by admins - not sure what the cut-off date is, but as this was deleted locally in 2006, it's presumably too old. The file descriptions don't say anything about flipping. The discussion page only contained a question regarding the image's PD status. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Now I actually found something interesting in the file descriptions. The source given was - and interestingly there the preview image is "flipped"? But if you click it for full size, he looks to the other side! Gestumblindi (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I realised that too. My suggestion is to keep both versions and inter-link them in other versions, which Animalparty has done. The correct orientation remains unresolved.--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

A side question: I (as a non-native English speaker) have never come across "flopping" as a technical term for mirroring or flipping vertically an image. There is an article in English Wikipedia which seems to establish that this is the term that should be used, but the article's sourcing is sparse (and broken), and other people have questioned it on the discussion page in the past. Maybe it was a case of trying to establish something via Wikipedia? As the article was created in 2006, it's of course hard to say now, 13 years later, who has started using "flopped" based on that Wikipedia article by now... Gestumblindi (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: It's good to be wary about the undue influence of Wikipedia on popularizing terms (as well as perpetuating copyright violations), but "flopped image", referring to an image mirrored on its vertical axis, has been used in graphic arts since at least the 1980s, e.g. [2],[3], [4]. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Animalparty (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that's why i was referring to the sparse sourcing of Wikipedia's article, which probably should be improved, then. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting subject, and I agree with Gestumblindi as another non-native: flip-flop is a footware to me; talking with photo archivist in the US, it is a jargon and the term survives today as in Chandler, Daniel, and Rod Munday. 2016. flopped image. Oxford University Press. (url-access=subscription); in the US graphic arts/photo industry: Birchfield, Stan. 2018. Image processing and analysis, but as old as Griffith, P. C. 1987. (NASA contractor report, NASA CR-181382.) But in Japan, the term Flop or flip-flop applies from electronic circuits to Algebraic Geometry. --Omotecho (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The term flip-flop is centuries old, long predating electronics, though it has become more common since the mid-20th century. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Gestumblindi -- I've now added some relevant material to the Flopped image Wikipedia article. If Kate Winslet knows the word "flopping", then it can't be all that esoteric... SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
@AnonMoos: Rather anecdotal, but funny and an example of usage, yes, thanks :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

Confusion over Periodic Table[edit]

I would like to recategorise the media on the Periodic Table. At the moment, it is laid out in such a way that out of date periodic tables are jumbled in with the current version. It would be great to clearly delineate these to ensure that people use the correct one when they reuse them. I'm happy to do it, I'm just not sure if there is a precendent for how it should be done? Based on the periodic table from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, the most recent version is 1st December 2018, so I'd propose to have pre- and post- 1st December 2018 categories? Eolaíocht (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Periodic tables that don't extend into the former "uuX" range are not really dated (though also not comprehensive). AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
They aren't, but this is why I was proposing just to have pre- and post- 1st December 2018 categories, rather than dating them all. It will hopefully mean that people are more likely to use the latest version if they are seeking a periodic table to download for their own use. I worry that people may reuse any of the others without realising they are inaccurate. Eolaíocht (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
They're not "inaccurate" in the sense of erroneous; they just use temporary names (later replaced with permanent ones). It might be better to have a maintenance category "Periodic charts which do not show permanent names of the heaviest elements" or whatever (similar to Category:Maps needing South Sudan political boundaries), so people know which images need updating... AnonMoos (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with that. If you take a look here there are quite a few that have blanks where there should be elements such as the top three images below. There are also quite a few that have particular classifications, such as lots of versions of Mendeleev's periodic table and the two periodic tables at the very bottom. Happy to have a maintenance category to help clear it up.
elements discovered by atomic layer deposition
atomic radii of elements
Eolaíocht (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest to create a sub category Outdated versions of Periodic table or similar and move all older versions into it. — Speravir – 02:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: I like the concept of that suggestion, but the name Outdated versions of the periodic table would be more appropriate.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeff. Did I mention that my first language is not English? ;-)
BTW, perhaps better to ping Eolaíocht. — Speravir – 23:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

Global ban proposal for the photographer Christian Michelides[edit]

Currently under discussion on meta:Requests for comment/Global ban for Meister_und_Margarita.

Commons hosts numerous Michelides’s photos, but many are uploaded by other user(s), that is, not Michelides’s socks. See more details on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard #RfC – Global ban for Meister und Margarita. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Just wearing a Commons hat, it is worth highlighting that the vote on meta is heading to refuse a global ban.
The Commons block is unclear to me, their talk page history is a mess and the block rationale does not lay out specific case evidence. From what I can see others were not helping MuM's behaviour by bringing up issues from other wikis where they were already blocked. Should MuM ever wish to contribute here and avoid discussing issues from other wikis, there appears to be reasonable grounds to accept an unblock. -- (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Unclear? You know that I detest “civility” bigotry and nitpicking, but in this case a brand-new Michelides’s sock—IMHO a sock, I see characteristic editing patterns—attacked the user JD and hence Majora blocked it together with other accounts. A legitimate administrative actions on all counts. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It was obviously spillover from a German war where Michelides committed IP and named socks into the combat over some minuscule pretext. As for “contributing here”, not has as much merit as one could think because Donna Gedenk uploads Michelides’s stuff independently of his sock ring. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata infobox issue[edit]

Preface this with I could just be missing something here...

I've noticed the maps that show up on Commons category pages via the Wikidata infobox template don't match up with the maps or coordinates shown on the corresponding Wikidata page. I'm quite sure I'm missing something stupid because I can't even figure out where the infobox is sourcing it's coordinates for its map... Example:

What am I missing here. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I should look harder before asking, looks like it may be related to rounding? Still not quite understanding. Template_talk:Wikidata_Infobox#bad_coordinates EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
RexxS & Jarekt may be able to help then, looking at about 0.4 miles of inaccuracy in the pin? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: The coordinates for Four Seasons Hotel & Private Residences, One Dalton Street (Q19878281) are stored on Wikidata with a precision given as 0.012154285277058 of a degree. That's around 0.012 x 70 miles or over 0.8 miles. So it should be hardly surprising that the pin may be 0.4 miles out. The way the rounding algorithm works in WikidataIB has the effect of dividing the surface into a grid whose dimensions are roughly equal to the precision. An object can then only be placed at an intersection of those grid lines. If somebody can work out where the building is to a better precision than within ± 1500 yards, then they could edit Four Seasons Hotel & Private Residences, One Dalton Street (Q19878281) to use a more sensible precision, which will immediately locate the pin on the map to within that precision of the given coordinates. For reference, 1 arcsecond (the unit used in Wikidata for precision) is around 34 yards N-S or 26 yards E-W in Boston. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@RexxS: While I still don 't understand why Wikidata maps and Commons maps insist on using different logic for locating their pins, I've made the correction and it looks right now thanks. Someone had manually overridden the precision on Wikidata unfortunately. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@EoRdE6: Because I wrote general-purpose code to retrieve numerical coordinates from Wikidata, I had to observe the precision, otherwise we would end up with nonsense like Mount Everest (Q513) having coordinates of longitude = 86.925277777778; latitude = 27.988055555556. That last decimal place means we have a precision of about 100 nanometres for the position of a mountain. You can't locate a blade of grass with that precision. So I round the numbers using the stored precision to get values like this:
  • {{#invoke:WikidataIB |getValue |ps=1 |P625 |qid=Q513 |format=dec}} → 27.9881°N 86.9253°E
Of course if all someone is going to do with the data is use it to show a pin on a map, they can ignore the stored precision completely because nobody sees the nonsensically over-precise numbers they're working with, but I don't have that luxury. The result is that these infoboxes show up where the precision stored on Wikidata is wrong, and somebody (like you) fixes it. Thank you. A lot of re-users of the information on Wikidata just got a much more sensible estimate for where that building is. --RexxS (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just so yo know, the coordinates entered into this Wikidata entry back in 2017 (42°20'44"N 71°04'42"W instead of 42°20'45"N 71°05'02"W) were incorrect to begin with. No matter how much precision you add, if the latitude and longitude themselves are wrong, the pin will be at the wrong place anyway. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

May 29[edit]

No editing for up to 30 minutes on June 19[edit]

Hi everyone, unfortunately, due to a hardware problem (phab:T213664) Commons will be read-only for up to 30 minutes (we're aiming for less) on June 19, while we're fixing this issue. This will happen between 05:00 AM and 05:30 AM (UTC). The wiki will still be readable and showing all files, but we can't upload new files or make any edits during this time. Feel free to ping me here if you've got any questions.

Do you want to put up a sitenotice regarding this on June 19? Or do you want me to fix something? /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

They try to make me go to rehab, I say no no no.. A banner at the top of every page (preferably some time before the db is locked so nobody starts working on an edit they won't be able to submit) would be helpful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:41, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

May 30[edit]

Slideshow of pictures in subcategory[edit]

How is it possible to make slideshow of all pictures in Category:Umgebinde? Is it possible zu play them random? Regards, Conny (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC).

@Conny: Please see Help:Gadget-GallerySlideshow, but beware it doesn't randomize.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 09:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What about subcategories? Regards, Conny (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC).
@Conny: You can do the same in each subcategory, or establish Umgebinde (flat list).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:08, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you. Sounds not very practical. In my opinion is the presentation of our works most important to spread. Anyone knows, there is a phabricator ticket for this? Regards, Conny (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC).
  • @Conny: Devs in that phab ticket discussion thread will ask — what should be done about subcat depth? Maybe you thought of that? (Take a look at the FastCCI tool, maybe, too.) -- Tuválkin 21:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it possible to generate a List of all pictures of an category and their subcategories? So I can make presentation to a gallery :) . Thank you for help, Conny (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC).

Either by adding all images to a flat category like Jeff suggested or by creating a gallery page, e.g. Upper Lusatian house (at least this is the term in enwiki). See a slideshow with Example images gallery in Special:PermaLink/352672609. — Speravir – 20:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Arrgh. I see now, you meant automatic creation. — Speravir – 20:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


I think File:Nyssa_sylvatica_4zz.jpg resembles Asimina triloba more than Nyssa sylvatica. I notice from User talk:David Stang that a significant number of this user's photos have been deleted. I don't edit here much but I thought I'd flag this. The leaves aren't even in focus for what it's worth. It seems like it could be deleted to me. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Usage Terms E-mail and web site Domain Change[edit]

Images I've uploaded in the past include an e-mail address and web site in the metadata e.g. My difficulty is that my domain is. .eu domain, I live in the UK and eurID/European Commission have stated they intend to revoke .eu domain names held by UK residents with 2 months notice when the UK leaves the EU (subject to any transition agreements).:This I've registered a new domain name and moved my web site to it (redirects in place for the moment).

Is there any way I can globally change this metadata (or get the metadata changed)?

Changing domain name is not something I wanted to do but circumstances made it necessary. Would only apply to already uploaded images as future uploads would have new domain information.

Many thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PsamatheM (talk • contribs) 30 May 2019‎ 19:25 (UTC) (UTC)
@PsamatheM: COM:VFC is a tool that should make this change pretty easy. Ask back if you need more help with it. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I misunderstood, sorry! I don't know of a tool to make batch metadata changes. I might be able to help with a custom script if nobody else knows of an existing way to do it. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Try ExifTool (download link). It shouldn't be too difficult to write a script calling ExifTool to affect a batch of files. You'll have to download the files and re-upload them, though. clpo13(talk) 20:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I presume you are referring to the EXIF data. As far as I know, there is no way to change EXIF data (or anything else internal to a file) once that file is uploaded; if nothing else, even if there is some way to handle that on the server it has to constitute a new upload (just like cropping with CropTool). It looks like you have a little under 600 files here so, depending on your connection speed, it might be practical to upload new versions in the conventional manner one can overwrite a file.
  • Does anyone know of a server-side tool for this, analogous to CropTool? - Jmabel ! talk 20:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks to everybody. It's not a massive issue, just a bit messy having contact info that probably wont work at some point in the not too distant future. I've loads more to upload so better spend the time uploading new stuff than being fussy about such details in existing stuff. I can easily correct it for new uploads (they are held in and exported from Lightroom so easy to change). Thanks PsamatheM (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

華北交通アーカイブ (North China Transportation Company Archives)[edit]

Kyoto University has recently released under CC-BY-4.0 the 華北交通アーカイブ, archives of 40k photos taken by North China Transportation Company (and others). (More info: [5][6].) Quality is pretty good. So far a handful has been transferred by a user. I wonder if someone would like to get in touch with the Uni to arrange for a systematic upload here. Or, if someone wants to unilaterally upload the entire collection.--Roy17 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Looks worth uploading, even if metadata is not always present. Syced (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

June 01[edit]

OgreBot 2[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree. What OgreBot 2 does is technically correct.
The files moved via commonshelper already have a maintenance template {{BotMoveToCommons}}.
The problem is on the users who do not bother helping check the files, but keep tagging files for nsd, npd, etc. Look at File:Lyell 1840.jpg, All source information is still present. It requires review. Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this file should not be considered reliable and the file should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Once the review has been completed, this template should be removed. For details about this file, see below. Check now! And that's true. en:File:Lyell 1840.jpg is not deleted yet.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the bot has been performing this action for 7 years, and was community sanctioned to do so. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz' real contention is with a) the policy of deleting unsourced files and b) Jcb's practice of mass tagging any of these lazily transferred files (which is quite a few of them). I am quite sympathetic to both of these contentions, as I don't believe we should be deleting obviously public domain files, nor mass tagging files that obviously have a source but in the wrong field. But blaming the bot is just shooting the messenger here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Changing Jcb is not possible. That's been tried and all I got out of it was more spurious stalking allegations. Jcb is like a force of nature. While I will occasionally curse the wind, rain or blinding sun it doesn't mean I expect change because of my cursing. That's also why I didn't ping Jcb here. (also, I don't know for sure if he is the only admin doing this) Accepting forces of nature as a fact of life, the community (including your bot) will have to change to suit the way Jcb does things around here. Refusing to do so will ultimately damage the project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: again, I share your concerns. You are asking me to change the bot's behavior to leave intact incorrect information simply so that it doesn't run afoul of an administrator with a quick trigger finger. Surely some other solution can be found. Maybe someone should follow Jcb's edits? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Got the T-shirt. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And per this discussion, I stopped watching Jcb's talk page. So I surely can't go watching Jcb's edits. And based on my experience, I can't really recommend anyone to volunteer for that job. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Maybe you should?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

File to be replaced[edit]

Hi... This file, File:Verne - L'Agence Thompson and C°, Hetzel, 1907.djvu needs to be replaced with the new File:Verne - L'Agence Thompson and C°, Hetzel, 1907 (replacement).djvu as it was impossible to it directly, the new file being bigger than 100mb. Anyone with the access could do it please? I can only rename, not replace an existing file. Thanks a lot. This file is required in a monthly project on Wikisource this month. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: this file has a new OCR that has been fixed, as the previous OCR was impossible to work with on Wikisource.

June 03[edit]

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project[edit]

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

  • This is very good news! Interesting implications for Commons, too! -- Tuválkin 17:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would Symbol support vote.svg Support , but I'm not allowed to vote, you can point to this diff as a form of support if you want. Also, this would take a lot of spam away from Wikipedia as many academics think that Wikipedia is the place to publish their papers and then see it deleted, I've also seen the same happen here on Wikimedia Commons with a Peruvian university. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Also of particular relevance to commons, there have been a few experiments in peer reviewing images (or image sets), which could be similarly complementary to the featured image process.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Upload date in filename?[edit]

Me and a friend are developing a program to upload pictures to Commons, and we are thinking of including a date as part of the filename. Example:

Rubus ulmifolius flower - Lyon, France - 20190603.jpg

My friend suggest using the current date (when we upload the picture). I suggest using the date at which the picture was taken, taken from the EXIF.

Can you settle our argument? Thanks! Syced (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Date the picture was taken is more useful. It could be uploaded anytime, but that says nothing about the picture itself. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I firmly agree with Alexis. Typically, no one but you cares when you uploaded it to this site. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that the date that the actual photograph was taken is more important and should be preferable when used in the title, the date of publication can still be important. Some works (depending on the jurisdiction) enter the public domain based on the date that it was published rather than the date that it was produced. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback! No question that both dates are important to keep track of, but which one should we put in the filename? My personal opinion is that naming a picture I took 3 years ago "Obama 2019-06-04.jpg" is incredibly misleading, as people who read the wikicode or download the picture will inevitably believe that pic was taken in 2019. Or should we abandon the idea of appending a date, and just append meaningless numbers (2, 3, 4, etc) like the Upload Wizard currently does? I believe it is not ideal either, consider for instance "Historical house in München at address Katzenstraße 2" or "Aix airfield with landing Cessna 2", it is not clear whether "2" is part of the street name/plane model or just a meaningless identifier. Maybe the best solution could be a clearly meaningless identifier, for example "Aix airfield with landing Cessna (ID9852935)"? Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I would agree if anything, include the date the image is taken. Publication information is only useful for clerical reasons, and is present in the automatically-generated upload data anyways, whereas the subject (including, if relevant, when taken), is general information that may be useful for anyone wanting to use it. While the point is made above about copyright and publication, assuming publication is still relevant for newly created works (there has been a near-universal move away from publication to an author-death-date system), anything published on the Commons must already be under an open license. So of the two, only the date of the photo would be potentially useful (or at least not cause for confusion).Morgan Riley (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above, the date the photograph was taken should be in the file name (that's how I do it myself too), if you took a picture in 1991 of a restaurant which closed in 1992 and then upload it in 2019 it would be extremely misleading to add the upload date in the title, plus the date of publication is always used on the file page itself, so there is no need to include it twice, especially since the file name should be descriptive of what is photographed and not of when it was published (unless you're talking about books and the like because then the publication is more important but this doesn't apply to photographs). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 04[edit]

Iverson Granderson[edit]

I'm completely confused. I would like to upload a genealogy book about my great-grandfather "Iverson Granderson - First Class 'Colored' Boy, Union Navy (1863-1865) by Jeanette Braxton Secret Thank you,

Jeanette Braxton Secret
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbraxtonsecret (talk • contribs) 4 June 2019 03:11 (UTC) (UTC)
  • @Jbraxtonsecret: I hate to say it but: yes, you are confused. Commons is a media repository, mainly photos and other images, also sound files and videos. It is not a place to upload a book.
  • Possibly this content might be welcome at WikiBooks (; I honestly don't know that project well enough to know, but you might try there. You might ask at If not there, my guess is that you will have to do this somewhere outside of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • We are also the source material for things like Wikibooks and Wikisource, so it might well be welcomed here. People always forget the secondary uses of Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: What's this then? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe this is within scope. Still, in general, we don't usually welcome contemporary self-published books or books by vanity presses and, to the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong) Heritage Books is a vanity press (from their site: "The usual conditions are… that the author guarantees to purchase a predetermined number of copies of the work on a non-royalty basis.")
      • If it is within scope, we'd need a release under an appropriate license. @Jbraxtonsecret: are you planning to release this under {{cc-by-sa}}, or some other license? Whatever free license is used, we'd need you either to go through the process described at COM:OTRS or to post on a web site or page obviously under your control that you grant the license. This is because we have no other way to verify that the Jbraxtonsecret account here is really you, rather than someone else using your name. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Images to rescale[edit]


Due to a misunderstanding with the museum where the photographs were taken, I would need all images in category Category:Wik-nic at MAHG, 19 August 2018 to be resized to a maximum resolution of 1200×1200. Is there a bot susceptible of doing that?

Sorry for cross-posting from Graphics, and thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: That sounds like it'll involve a loss of quality. Were the images upscaled from that resolution at some point (in which case we should reupload the originals), or is this to honor some terms with the museum about the maximum resolution of images? – BMacZero (🗩) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@BMacZero: not upscaled. I checked. @Rama: you are the photographer, so you have the rights to the photographs. The artworks are thousands of years old, they were never protected by copyright to begin with. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the answers.
The idea would be to downscale the images to honour a request from the museum. This would indeed, and regrettably, cause a loss of quality.
The museum gave us exceptional permission to use a tripod, in exchange for a right to decide when and how the images would be published. We were recently authorised to publish, after almost a year, but a misunderstanding led me to believe that the maximum resolution was very permissive. Sadly, it not only was it not the case, but I became aware of the 1200×1200 maximum resolution only after uploading some 270 images. I understand that from a strictly legal point of view we could simply deny their request, but it would not help our relationship with the Museum. A regrettable occurrence, to be sure. Rama (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: such a shame..
I guess your safest bet is to request G7 at COM:AN for the unused images. (according to 34 images are in use) More than 7 days after upload this won't be possible anymore. Overwrite+revdel is probably more work than just reuploading anyways. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: maybe you can ask User:DatBot's, en:User:Theo's Little Bot's or zh:User:Wcam-bot's operators to help you resize using a bot.--Roy17 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes :/ Hopefully the culture will evolve.
@Roy17: Thank you, I will ask there. I would like to avoid doing this by hand, especially for a task of such a nature. Thank you very much and good continuation! Rama (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

'Template:Superseded' - Usage Question[edit]

I have a question about Template:Superseded, the successor to 'Template:Obsolete' according to the page. When editing some logo files that all belonged to one company, one older logos the company stopped using was marked with 'Template:Obsolete' linking to the newest logo; and I'm trying to determine if that's the correct use of the template and it's successor, since reading the page, it more appears to be for improvements on file quality and type, and not something like a logo being replaced by a newer logo. I wondered if anyone here could clarify it's usage, and maybe suggest clarifying that on the page for the template.--The Navigators (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Navigators: old official versions of logos are not to be deleted. We keep them for historical reference. While {{superseded}} doesn't have to result in deletion, it sometimes does and is indeed incorrect use of the template. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: - Okay, I'll remove the template from the file. I would suggest we make that clearer/overtly stated on the template page, since nothing there clearly stated this, at least that I noticed.--The Navigators (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

My submissions were removed from their category[edit]

Hello! Years ago my contributed images were removed from their category. Can I put them back? They're photos of horse meat on sale. Thanks! - Nawulf (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was blind. Now I see them in the right category. Sorry! - Nawulf (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

June 05[edit]

"illustrations of ghost stories" category[edit]

I am thinking of creating a category "Illustrations of ghost stories" because it seems like it would be interesting while not exactly overlapping with existing categories. There are some great ghost story illustrations out there that work hard to creat a spooky atmosphere without depicting a ghost (for instance I think The Lake at Yssbrooke.png is outstanding); thus not belonging in Category:Ghosts. The existing Category:Ghost stories is used for a variety of things but almost never for illustrations; so maybe it should have a subcategory "Illustrations of..." Do folks agree that this would be a non-redundant category, and if so, what should it be a sub- and super-category of? Levana Taylor (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)