Shortcut: COM:VP

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end	39	12	HLHJ	2024-11-11 03:01
2	Almost 400k files need license review	34	13	MGA73	2024-11-11 20:08
3	Obtuse bot created categories	25	10	Gzen92	2024-11-11 10:50
4	FYI	9	5	TheDJ	2024-11-11 09:43
5	New law in Costa Rica: "Public Domain of Information"	3	2	LuchoCR	2024-11-07 01:04
6	Moscow State University Herbarium	1	1	Yann	2024-11-05 15:36
7	{{TOO-US}}	4	4	Rosenzweig	2024-11-11 12:12
8	Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2	1	1	Kadı	2024-11-06 14:58
9	External link detection is now live on Commons	1	1	Sannita (WMF)	2024-11-06 16:36
10	AI generated and licensing	19	7	Belbury	2024-11-08 18:10
11	Invitation to the upcoming Commons Community Calls -- November 21, 2024	1	1	Sannita (WMF)	2024-11-08 10:33
12	Implicit dual-licensing	2	2	Omphalographer	2024-11-09 04:13
13	Please remove Category:Depreradovich family from Category:Zora Preradović	2	2	William Graham	2024-11-08 15:25
14	Template:CR cooldown	6	5	Jmabel	2024-11-09 18:34
15	Upload a new version	3	2	Jmabel	2024-11-08 23:04
16	Remove 1911 in Ternopil Oblast and 1911 establishments in Ukraine by region from Category:1911 establishments in Ternopil Oblast, and Category:Young people in Cuba from Category:Children in Cuba.	2	2	Jmabel	2024-11-09 18:40
17	About Category:Lakes in the canton of Zurich.	4	4	Broichmore	2024-11-10 14:54
18	2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation	8	6	GPSLeo	2024-11-09 21:18
19	"fire box" at Lean-tos and picnic sites in Sweden	1	1	Jmabel	2024-11-10 20:06
20	Rename of a PDF in transcription at Wikisource breaks Wikisource links	1	1	HLHJ	2024-11-10 17:12
21	Copy captions and alt texts from Wikisource?	2	1	HLHJ	2024-11-11 15:33
22	File from NASA remains in "PD-USGov missing SDC copyright status" category indefinitely	6	3	MGeog2022	2024-11-11 20:43
23	Commons mentioned in Hyperallergic	2	2	Herbert Ortner	2024-11-11 09:30
24	mail:commons-l	3	2	-revi	2024-11-11 07:21
25	Broken link for share-alike clause in Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0, Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0, ...	2	2	Multichill	2024-11-11 17:47
26	Unknown station and historic coaches in Denmark	2	2	Dannebrog Spy	2024-11-11 12:10
27	Copyright for street poster?	10	5	ReneeWrites	2024-11-11 23:39
28	Multilingual signature design	4	2	KimKelting	2024-11-12 07:37

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Costumed character files (14 October 2024) Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Definition of country (19 June 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) Was the closure of the deletion discussion concerning the current lede image for Philippe Pétain proper under Commons policy? (22 September 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day.

I've seen that many of the photos in Category:Tasnimnews review needed are already license reviewed. Is there any problems? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They were directly categorized --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhuyifei1999: Thanks, but should not the category be removed automatically by the time the image is reviewed and verified? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would work if Category:Tasnimnews review needed is categorized by some review template, just as Category:Flickr review needed is categorized by {{Flickreview}}. Tasnimnews unfortunately uses {{Licensereview}} and uses direct categorization via substitution. The reviewing script AFAIK only changes template tags, and not category tags. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that the current Tasnim template being used is {{subst:Tasnim/tasnim}} that automatically applies the correct Tasnim attribution license, the {{Licensereview}} template and also places the file in Category:Tasnimnews review needed. See Commons:Where is the license on various sites?#Tasnim. So manually removing the category seems like the only option unless someone knows how to modify the reviewing script. Ww2censor (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Could someone take a look at this category please? There are some files to be renamed. Thank you . – Rozmador ^[Contact]

See m:Wikimedia Forum#Wikimuseum; if I get it right, it would be a kind of gallery page with at least one larger thumbnail and an explanatory text (somewhat different from a normal image caption). --pegasovagante (✉) 16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pegasovagante thank you!--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The homepage of the the scientific journal Contributions to Zoology states "Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." This link is in Category:Media from Contributions to Zoology, but individual articles (online in HTML or PDF form) do not seem to state this license. Assuming that the articles themselves are under CC-BY-3.0, it might be useful to develop a custom template that can be added, similar to {{PLOS}} or {{ZooKeys-License}}, to aid in more readily verifying permission. Or, is there a generic template that allows particular URLs be added? Or should I (and future uploaders) simply copy the license statement/url into the Permission fields? There are many open access journals in which the license may not be readily apparent, and so a plethora of tailored templates may be less than ideal. Thoughts? --Animalparty (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: You are welcome to make such a template.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 08:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the category move rate limit different when using the API instead of the web interface? Manually I'm restricted to about 2/minute, but pywikibot can do it at 8/minute. Jc86035 (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: What categories do you want to move so quickly, and why?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: There's a large number of BSicon categories, which are being gradually being moved from titles beginning Category:Icons for (railway|motorway|canal) descriptions/ to titles beginning Category:BSicon/(railway|road|water)/. It could probably have been done all at once but there are a lot of places where the titles should be changed in other ways or categories should be to be deleted. Jc86035 (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AshFriday has an agenda: remove smut from Wiki. He/she stated it on his/her own user page. He/she advanced a series of deletion requests for NSFW photos. Is this even remotely acceptable? As far as I know, Wiki is not censored, this is not the Sunday school. At least on English Wikipedia, w:WP:ACTIVISTs aren't welcome. So, AshFriday has admitted his/her intention of violating enwiki policies, which he/she has to obey per the Terms of Use of the Wikimedia Foundation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is cross-posted from COM:AN/U. Should keep things in one place. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had posted here first, then I had realized the problem with en.wiki policies. Sorry for cross-posting. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As with any file collection, (kittens, sunsets, contemporary abstract paintings by unknown artists, unknown people, etc.) it is not a bad idea to occasionally trim the collection to remove unusable files. We do have Template:Nopenis and Template:Nobreasts templates for a reason. Porn images are especially delicate as people have much stronger opinions about them. So I would invite people to look at DR's by AshFriday and evaluate their merit. However, if the images are good quality, are found to be useful and their copyrights and authorship seems valid than please vote in DR to  Keep them. --Jarekt (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For Wiki Science Competition I am using Montage, and as a results I have to prepare the evaluation of films and videos separately, since they cannot be uploaded to Montage which is designed for specific format of photos and images such as jpg, tiff, pdf and so on. (as far as i have understood, but I am newbie :D).

For certain categories, I can spot the leftover files manually, but when they are a bunch files out of 800-1400 this becomes more complicated, and I want to double check I am not missing anything.

So which one is the best tool, in your experience, to list all the files that are videos (or, in general, a specific format) in a given category? Maybe it is something very simpe but I never did it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:CirrusSearch#filetype --Fæ (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but if I write "filetype:video incategory:Images from Wiki Science Competition 2017 in Italy" in the Special Search bar I get no results, I guess is one of those pages that you have read twice with care finding the exact spot that you need to make it work in a huge amount of details.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing some quotation marks. Try this: Special:Search/filetype:video incategory:"Images from Wiki Science Competition 2017 in Italy" --bjh21 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! And it confirmed my manual search, so no problem to address. thanks bjh21, also Fæ.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

How to move Category:Demographics of Hyōgo prefecture from Category:Hyogo prefecture to Category:Hyōgo prefecture? It must be a change of Template:DemographicsJapanPrefecture or any subtemplate. I wasnt able to find it. Any help would be nice. Thx. --JuTa 19:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list of prefecture names is at {{Prefjp/name}}; there are a few others where O-macron is apparently being forced to plain O. BTW I notice another problem with the DJP template, something wrong with the language switch (which I don’t understand well enough to fix). My preferred language is Canadian English, and I see a red Template:En-ca where I would expect some sort of description.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JuTa: looks like more tricks will be needed to get the template to display File:Map of Japan with highlight on 28 Hyogo prefecture.svg, or maybe create a redirect to that file including the O-macron in the name. Right now it just shows a red 100px, indicating a broken file link.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I moved it now to File:Map of Japan with highlight on 28 Hyōgo prefecture.svg, but that didn't help either. --JuTa 01:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's got to do something with the number in front of the prefecture name, which is not called by the current (sub-)template for some reason. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So {{DemographicsJapanPrefecture}} seems to call {{Prefectures of Japan2}} which in turn tries to call {{Prefjp/code}} when deciding on the map. However, the latter template gives me a 500 error when I try to get to its source code. Anyone got more luck? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: Special:Export/Template:Prefjp/code. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Incnis Mrsi: thanks. Prefjp/code apparently needs macron-less versions to work properly. I have restored the original code that was needed to properly call sub-templates and the like, but now we are back to the template-mediated (mis)categorisation which is due to a recent category move. I would not be surprised if many more templates broke down because of Gryffindor's page moves to macron-containing category titles, especially those about the prefectures. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This problem affects most (if not all) uploads related to natural monuments (WLE) and cultural heritage (WLM). File descriptions are taken automatically from the monument list using the &description= field in the upload link. Recently, the upload wizard fails to recognize this field and provides an empty file description. The description will only appear when the campaign= field is removed from the upload link. Here is an example: this link will not add any file description, whereas this one, with the "campaign=wlm-ru" removed, adds the correct description. However, it misses all essential features that the upload campaign provides.

This should be fixed ASAP. Otherwise, hundreds and thousands of images without file descriptions will be uploaded to Commons, because people frequently use the upload links for natural monuments and cultural heritage even outside of the Wiki Loves competitions.

@LilyOfTheWest, Effeietsanders. Also tracked at Phabricator:T184380 (to no avail). --Alexander (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexander: Even though the bug was filed back in January, for some reason it never got tagged as an UploadWizard bug, so no one who works on the UploadWizard ever saw it. I added the UploadWizard tag today, so hopefully someone will at least see it now. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsirlin: P.S. - You might want to change your sig so you don't miss pings :) Kaldari (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year!!!

New user @Greg Herman: has uploaded some files -without any EXIF- and says he's the author but he's on the pics (if I believe each desc/title) and they don't look like selfies. Is he really the author or just the subject? If he's the subject don't we need some OTRS from the photographer(s) of these images? May some one explain him the rules (with a native US english language ) on his TP?

Thanks. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 00:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llann Wé²:  Done.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 00:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jeff G.: LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 00:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Llann Wé²: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to do it?

Thanks. Evrik (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just making sure, you do know the images on Commons can be used on all wikis without moving? --Palosirkka (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Palosirkka: Yes. There is an image on commons that is fair use, and not free. If it's possible to transfer it without deleting and re-uploading, I'd like to know the process. Evrik (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was wondering if there is some way to get rid of useless file history, such as at File:Fendt-828-Vario.jpg#filehistory? There are 2 useless images that seem over 80 megabytes or so. --Palosirkka (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case-by-case would do best. Some or many file histories have verifiable information, like ones uploaded by We hope. See ones from Category:Lucille Ball and Category:I Love Lucy, like File:Lucy desi 1957.JPG and File:I Love Lucy Cast.JPG. George Ho (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC) On second thought, let's not encourage. George Ho (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete them? --bjh21 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1. If storage space is what you're after, the usual comment on that from the server people is "don't worry about that". Note that files and file versions that are "deleted" by a Commons admin in the usual way are never truly deleted from the system, so it won't free up any storage space anyway. --El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In fact, since the file is not removed from the server, merely 'hidden' by marking as deleted (which if you think about it has to be the case, or undeletions could never happen) - by 'deleting' you actually use a small amount more server space to store the details of the deletion transaction in the database. This is pretty much true for any action - server space used increases with each transaction recorded. -- Begoon 12:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Category:Videos of concentration camps are some films, of which the file names start with Westerbork 1944. I found out there are better resolution versions of the same films available on a different website: https://openbeelden.nl/media/958723/Westerbork_Acte_1_HD.en Those files have a Public Domain Mark 1.0 license. Any thoughts on the possibility to upload these files? Should they be a newly created file upload? I am inclined to answer with yes, because of the different sources. Should they also be uploaded under a PD-old-auto|1944 license, like the files already available on Commons? --oSeveno (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case it should be PD-old-auto|1945, as that's when the author died. I've fixed that for the existing files, also adding the appropriate Creator: template. --El Grafo (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@OSeveno: Public Domain Mark 1.0 is a mark, not a license. We do not accept it as a license per its absence at COM:L. Per Template:Flickr-public domain mark/doc, "Unlike CC0 or the other Creative Commons licenses, the Public Domain Mark is not a legal instrument; there is no accompanying legal code or agreement. Instead, the Public Domain Mark is a tool that allows anyone to mark a work that they believe to be free of known copyright restrictions. However, it does not say why the image is in public domain".   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. PD-old-auto|1945 seems the right license. --oSeveno (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you do this, add the new source, but don't lose the old one if that gives clearer evidence as to why this is public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 16:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should I upload the musical scores of Donald Knuth's musical composition Fantasia Apocalyptica, the scores made by Donald Knuth himself in PDF format? They are distributed under a free license, the only question is if they fit Commons's educational scope.

The scores and meta-information about the piece are found on Knuth's homepage. That page explicitly says that the music is put into public domain as per the Creative Commons CC0 waiver.

I'm asking now because the work was premiered yesterday, on Donald Knuth's birthday. Donald Knuth is notable as a writer, but wasn't yet notable as a composer. He says so too: “In short, Fantasia Apocalyptica is far more extensive than anything else that I've ever attempted to write. I have, however, spent thousands of hours playing the works of other composers, hopefully learning a thing or two in the process.” The work is so new that it's hard for me to guess how famous it would become.

– b_jonas 17:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the description page, seems worth importing into commons. Platonides (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria for Commons are, in general, lower than for Wikipedia. Even ephemera and curiosa are likely to be in scope, if they pertain to notable people. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback so far. I'll probably upload the scores then, unless someone else does it faster. – b_jonas 00:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

might want to upload to internet archive as a pdf first; we can transcribe using the score extention, see also s:Wikisource:Sheet music Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can; I certainly won't transcribe them. Why is uploading to archive.org useful though, if we can upload to Commons? – b_jonas 12:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

because internet archive is a professional library and archive that will not delete five years later. and it used to convert to dejavu, and there are tools that put on the book template for good metadata for wikidata. one day we are going to get serious about score transcription, no reason for it not to be open for PD scores. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the sheet music under Category:Sheet music for Fantasia Apocalyptica. – b_jonas 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is unusual as there is no bus pantograf but a loading arm coming down to the vehicle. Is the category 'Charging overhead lines' correct or should it be set to some other category?Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to change a valued image, but I don't know how to do it. Will anyone help me? Images are below:

• 
  Current valued image
• 
  Image that I would like to nominate

Thanks, Tournasol7 (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, you should ask in this talk page, a regular of the VI project will answer you very probably. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the practice when someone creates a derivative work of a freely licensed image but fails to identify the original image and attaches a different license that is incompatible with the original. I've seen this happen a variety of times, but I'm not sure how it is usually handled. In the most recent examples File:Nuclear power history.svg is clearly inspired by (though not identical to) File:Nuclear Power History.png. The original was licensed GFDL / CC-BY-SA, while the subsequent image (by User:Delphi234) was licensed CC-0 and gives no mention of the prior work. Dragons flight (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragons flight: Tag it, as I have.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose deleting for lack of source / bad license is a possible outcome. Really though, I'd rather see that the source and license information was fixed. I could presumably add the prior source information myself, but I'm less sure about fixing the license issue unless Delphi234 updates it to match one (or both) of the previous copyleft notices. Dragons flight (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragons flight: The templates I left were designed to get the uploaders to fix their own mess.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone following this, the follow-up is apparently over here. Dragons flight (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Graphic Arts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: , I presume there is no "bulk download" option? Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]