↓ 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:

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.
Have you read our FAQ?
For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For photograph requests, please post at Commons:Picture requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Indonesian laws on copyright (21 August 2020) Remove text from Commons:Rollback. (20 August 2020) Deprecate XCF file format (12 August 2020)
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.

August 24[edit]

Please move File:Peraturan_Presiden_Nomor_52_Tahun_2010.pdf into File:Peraturan_Presiden_Republik_Indonesia_Nomor_52_Tahun_2010.pdf. It's just a little bit mistake. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. --ghouston (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

Extracting old image from a website[edit]

Can anyone work out how to download this image (at the foot of the page; also others from the same book) to add to Commons, please? It is from 1876, so safely out of copyright. Right-click to save is disabled. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It looks like they use composite images created on the fly from tiles, so unless you can somehow get access to the tiles I think the only hope is a screen grab using PrtSc, or some programmed equivalent of that in a screenscraper. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Fæ as an expert in such matters. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This will work using standard tools if you follow User:Fæ/dezoomify. The tile links you need to find look like https://content.prlib.ru/fcgi-bin/iipsrv.fcgi?FIF=/var/data/scans/public/B5F0B1FF-A886-41DD-BEAA-DF7FEE6D60CF/9021018/9021321_doc1.tiff&JTL=3,7&CVT=JPEG in the inspector. Each page can be separately dezoomed using these links fed into the ophir dezoom page, which will stitch a single page PNG file in your browser, which you can then save. --Fæ (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: - many thanks! I tried it, but it didn't work for me; it's too complex for me to understand the workings to get round the problems. Would you be willing to give it a try, please? It is plates 15 (the one linked above), 16 and 17 that are of the most interest. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

This is what I do. Go to the view page in Chrome, toggle on the inspector option, go to the Network tab in the inspector, tap on the "+" on the image view to zoom in, instantly the URLs for tiles appear in the Network tab (starting "iipsrv.fcgi?"), right click on one to see the menu option to copy the URL, open another browser tab and go to the Dezoomify page, paste in the tile URL, click the button.

The image dezooms like magic, and I can "save image as..." locally and upload to Commons as normal.

File:Mongolia, the Tangut Country, and the Solitudes of Northern Tibet; Being a Narrative of Three Years' Travel in Eastern High Asia (plate XV).png

But as these take about 5 mins or longer each time depending on my connection, and there are valuable large content projects in my backlog, no, I'm not going to do these. Please follow the instructions and keep trying, it will work. --Fæ (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ: do we have strategies like that documented somewhere they could sanely be looked up, rather than people having to find them in archives of general discussion pages? - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Dezoomify, if you want to write a bit of an introduction on that page because my text is a bit technical, please do. --Fæ (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

If they have disabled right click, maybe they don't want people saving the image. Sardaka (talk) 07:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

They probably don't, but if it is in the public domain it is not their prerogative to stop us. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 22[edit]

Cat names: "playing" or "playing the"?[edit]

We have these two:

These should be merged, but into which one? And what about other analogous cats with and without "the"? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: How about Category:Banjos being played? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 07:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I don't think switching to passive voice would be an improvement. - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin:I'd say either is correct, but I'd probably go with Category:People playing the banjo as more colloquial. - Jmabel ! talk 14:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin, Jmabel: How about Category:Banjo performances? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We should aim for consistency in the subcats of Category:People playing musical instruments. There's a mixture, but I think there are more without 'the', so I'd go for Category:People playing banjo. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with Verbcatcher, there’s merit in Jeff G.’s and Jmabel’s suggestions: These however belong at an upper cat level, as a human player is not specified. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget to turn the unused one into a redirect for the populated one. That way a bot will move images if they are placed in the wrong category. --RAN (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this (what Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) said) cannot be overstressed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

September 24[edit]

Suggested tags confirm popup is annoying, how do I turn it off?[edit]

--So9q (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@So9q: At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo you can uncheck the boxes next to "Suggested tags for review" --William Graham (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was unclear. I mean the annoying confirmation JS-popup when trying to use the tool.--So9q (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello @So9q:. Thanks for clarifying that you were referring to the confirmation window that appears after you have selected tags. When we were first designing this feature, we got feedback that people wanted that additional step to be sure of their selections. Since then, we've had some other users like yourself say they don't like/need it. There's currently not a way to turn it off, but we're considering ways to make the experience better for everyone. RIsler (WMF) (talk) 21:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. A checkbox on the popup to tick "hide this in the future") would really help.--So9q (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 25[edit]

From than[edit]

1. Are boys different THAN girls or different FROM girls?

2. Is there a grammar questions page so I won't have to bother the grownups? Verdana Bold (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons isn't a grammar help site, but you could try [1]. --ghouston (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

They are all children, no need for binary stereotypes. --Fæ (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point!--So9q (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 26[edit]

Peculiar bug on "User contributions" page[edit]

When I click onto the "Edit count" link at the bottom of my user contributions page on Commons (i. e. on Special:Contributions/Robert_Flogaus-Faust), I get redirected to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec. The problem might be that the invalid link is to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia/Robert+Flogaus-Faust instead to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia/Robert_Flogaus-Faust or https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia/Robert%20Flogaus-Faust, both of which seem work nicely. I am not sure whether the problem is due to my browser (Firefox) or whether this is a general bug that occurs when user names contain a blank. With best regards --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have the same problem on Commons. The equivalent links on enwiki and wikidata work fine for me though, so it is something wrong with the implementation on Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

For comparison, my Commons link points to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/commons.wikimedia/From+Hill+To+Shore but my wikidata link points to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/www.wikidata.org/From_Hill_To_Shore and my enwiki link points to https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/From%20Hill%20To%20Shore

All three sites have a different method of representing spaces (+ _ and %20). From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, so this appears to be a bug specific to Commons. Does anyone know who is in charge of a possible bugfix or where the bug should be reported? Thanks again, --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Robert Flogaus-Faust, From Hill To Shore: That footer seems to come from MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer, so if you know what should be changed, an edit request on MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer will probably have good results. --bjh21 (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted my request on MediaWiki_talk:Sp-contributions-footer#Buggy_edit_counter_link. -- Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

September 27[edit]

Change license on logo[edit]

File:Allen Matkins Logo.png looks like it should be {{PD-textlogo}}. Currently it's marked as CC-BY-SA 3.0, but without other evidence that the original author wanted to give it that license, making me think the CC license was added in confusion. Could the current license template be removed and replaced, or is that bad practice? Thanks! Goldenshimmer (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Adamess as uploader. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting thing, when a potentially public domain file is distributed under a free licence. Normally I leave the licence be. The point is that in some countries there are laws like "sweat of the brow", which protect the work based on the difficulty that the person went through when creating it and not based on creativity of the outcome. Let's say that in order to make Allen Matkins logo somebody has sat there and edited the image pixel by pixel, that might qualify the work for copyright protection in those jurisdictions. We currently do not have "fall back" system in place, which would allow to say something like "This work is in public domain, but if that fails it is also released under a free licence". However, in this particular case it is even more difficult, since in order to accept CC-BY-SA 3.0 we need evidence that the original author really did mean to place it under that licence. And in this case I would remove the said licence, and replace the licence template with {{PD-textlogo}}, since that is actually a safer option. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Goldenshimmer (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Import new 1 mil. photographs from British Library[edit]

Has anyone started importing this treasure? See [2] --So9q (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fæ:--So9q (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thought this had already been done. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2013/12#British_Library_"Mechanical_Curator"_collection_--_update. --Fæ (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

September 28[edit]

Preserved in a museum[edit]

Good morning, dear all. I have a question whether I can upload an image of a book cover that is preserved in a museum (means uploading an image of a preserved book; however it was first published in 1967). The book is historically valuable as it first described a copper-plate inscription (inscripted between 905-935 CE). And thus a copy of it's "first edition" is kept in the museum along with the copper-plate. — Meghmollar2017 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

A book copyrighted in 1967 undergoes no change to its copyright status because a museum preserves a copy. - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I see! Thanks a lot. :D Meghmollar2017 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The cover of a book may not be eligible for a copyright if it is just text. --RAN (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I have uploaded the file on local wiki. Should it be moved to Commons? —Meghmollar2017 (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it eligible for copyright, the right side is text, the left is a rubbing of a copper plate from the 900s. I do not see the rubbing as eligible for a new copyright. I do not see it as a derivative work of art that would reset the copyright clock to 1967. --RAN (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Meghmollar2017: Go ahead and migrate it here and display it in the book entry. --RAN (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): "There was something wrong" while importing the file to Commons. Though I removed all the tags and added pd license, a message was shown that this non-free file (I don't know how it remained non-free after adding pd) could not be exported. I may have to upload it manually. Meghmollar2017 (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I would import the file into a photo editor like GIMP and change it to a *.png file and then upload it at Wikimedia Commons. It may compare the license to the existing copy. --RAN (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Identification of individuals[edit]

Looking at images of people at Bagram air base, Afghanistan, many people are identified by name. Seems a dubious practice to me. Should we preserve anonymity of individuals, especially people who are potentially unpopular, like American soldiers? Any guidelines? Sardaka (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There are no guidelines that directly address this. Instead courtesy removals of information have been done when requested. It is likely that most veterans are comfortable with photographs of them in service being a matter of public record, and in the sense of COM:IDENT, the photographs are often published by the military as public domain and at the time of publication there was no expectation of privacy.

Photographs which may (even retrospectively) demean identifiable people, may be anonymized or removed, depending on context. A deletion request should be avoided if by creating it, unnecessary attention is drawn to the information or nature of photograph. Alternative processes like email correspondence with trusted administrators, the Oversight email list, or confidential emails to OTRS, might be more suitable to assess what action is appropriate. Files which are in use on other projects are unlikely to be removed, even at the request of the subjects, unless the case is exceptional.

My experience of these actions is as an uploader of hundreds of thousands of DOD public domain photographs, a very small number of which were both later withdrawn by the DOD and had requested courtesy removals or anonymizing actions on Commons. We could refine IDENT, but it probably would not improve the current process.

Addendum With regard to Afghanistan specifically, refer to Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#Afghanistan. Depending on the context, photographs might be challenged on that country's more complex consent requirement, however this would not apply if the photographer was "authorized by the public authorities", as would be the case for DOD publication. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

September 29[edit]

Wiki of functions naming contest[edit]

Please help translate to your language.

Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Wikimedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki where the community can work together on a library of functions. The community can create new functions, read about them, discuss them, and share them. Some of these functions will be used to help create language-independent Wikipedia articles that can be displayed in any language, as part of the Abstract Wikipedia project. But functions will also be usable in many other situations.

There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with voting beginning on 29 September and 27 October. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on 8 December. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you! --Quiddity (WMF)

20:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

September 30[edit]

Rivers in Madagascar[edit]

I created Category:Tsaranoro reserve / Tsaranoro valley. This is a high valley just to the east of the Andringitra National Park. It is called the Tsaranoro valley. I suppose the river is called the 'Tsaranoro' river. But I cannot get any comfirmation on the maps for this or any source mentioning the local river name. The river flows into the Zomandao river a tributairy of the Mangoky river.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Tourist website: Tsara Camp lies in the Tsaranoro Valley with the Tsaranoro Mountain (800m) on one side and the giant mountain chains of Andringitra National Park on the other side.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

PS: The File:Mangoki drainage.png is confusing as the long tributary going south is the Ihosy river (a tributary of the Zomandao river) and not the Zomandao river itself.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser[edit]

A quick review of the archives (Commons talk:AutoWikiBrowser), does not provide a discussion showing that needing authorization to use AWB was a matter of formal consensus. This seems to have been established back in the early days, so the decision was probably down to a couple of power users thinking it was sensible. Considering the speeds possible with VFC and cat-a-lot, it's not clear why non-bot operators need authorization just for this, and whether it's worth discussing a new consensus about it. Could someone explain the history? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is a general purpose high speed editing tool, which can be used to make different types of changes, whereas VFC and cat-a-lot have more limited functions. Ruslik0 (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

VFC uses regular expressions. Regular expressions are Turing complete. That is an unusual type of "limited functions". --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Nice AI reference, though even Pywikibot command line instructions can be said to be Turing complete. However the question was about whether the existing consensus actually exists, or whether we might usefully revisit the difference.

One possible benefit of tidying this area up, would be refining our general tool & bot policies about the level or type of "authorization" needed for sophisticated mass edit or other mass change tools. For example, right now today, an editor with, say, a one month history, could freely make 1,000,000 wikidata related edits using tools recently made available, and they would not need any approvals and are not actually advised by any Commons policies.

Are we happy with AWB needing a special type of approval on its own, or should we have a more abstracted general set of rules that make it clearer that any tool like F2C that can upload 20,000 files in a day, or cat-a-lot that with slight browser macro jiggery-pokery could make 100,000 edits in a day, also need authorization if the size of changes are over an agreed limit?

--Fæ (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

What about QuickStatements (SDC)? This tool flooded my watchlist a number of times with more than 2000 edits within hours (+email notifications). Is there a consensus on that? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Live COVID-19 trend charts for UK data[edit]

Example live trends for Tyne and Wear region in lockdown.

Because it was difficult to see the latest COVID case data locally, some code to query the live UK Government data (data.gov.uk) and put the 7-day cumulative trend in charts has been put together. Some selected charts at Category:COVID-19 testing in the United Kingdom.

Interestingly, doing this has highlighted that other sources like the excellent NYTimes maps, lag the data releases at data.gov.uk by over 12 hours. Consequently, these trend charts are significantly ahead of most national publications. It also turns out that numbers being used by some of the press are relying on ONS population stats from the 2011 census, rather than using the most recent 2019 estimated populations of UK regions, which is what UK Gov (and hence SAGE) uses in their figures to determine political decisions like COVID lockdowns. This is not significant in terms of trend, but does matter when comparing an area at "90 cases / 100,000" against "120 cases / 100,000" in the light that the Government appears to be judging anywhere over 100 cases per 100,000 in the last 7 days may need emergency measures.

It's relatively straight forward to add more regions to the script, it's a question of looking up the population estimates for each one, then revising the script. Once set up, it can refresh daily as long as it's of interest, without any more volunteer time invested. Ping me if these would be valuable, such as adding some more England regions officially entering lockdown. --Fæ (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality Images moderator?[edit]

I have a question/issue on Quality Images, is there a moderator? If not who do I talk to? Jim Evans (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Evans: Not as such. Have you brought your question to Commons talk:Quality images? At the very least, they should be able to direct you to the right place. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know such a place existed. Jim Evans (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about resolved. I have not received a response to my inquiry at Commons talk:Quality images Jim Evans (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Evans: At Commons talk:Quality images, try pinging people who have been active on Quality images. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I received no answer to my issue and now my image has been thrown away by a bot. Jim Evans (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Evans: When you say "thrown away" do you mean "deleted" or something else? I'm unaware of any circumstances where a bot may delete an image. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Movement Strategy - What Are Your Choices For Implementation[edit]

A repost from the talk page and apologies if this note has already reached you from other channels.

We are inviting everyone to participate in prioritization discussions and wanted to make sure the message reached the Commons community as well.

The Movement Strategy Design Group and Support Team are inviting you to organize virtual meetings with the Commons community before the end of October. The aim is for you to decide what ideas from the Movement Strategy recommendations respond to your needs and will have an impact in the movement. The recommendations are available in different formats and in many languages. There are 10 recommendations and close to 50 recommended changes and actions or initiatives. Not everything will be implemented. The aim of prioritization is to create an 18-month implementation plan to take some of the initiatives forward starting in 2021.

Prioritization is at the level of your community. Afterwards, we will come together in November to co-create the implementation plan. More information about November’s global events will be shared soon. For now and until the end of October, organize locally and share your priorities with us.

You can find guidance for the events, the simple reporting template, and other supporting materials here on Meta. You can share your results directly on Meta, by email, or by filling out this survey. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us if you have any questions or comments, strategy2030wikimedia.org

We would love to hear from you and will be hosting office hours to answer any questions you might have, Thursday October 1 at 14.00 UTC (Google Meet).

MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

MPourzaki (WMF), the proposed discussion formats are the formats of the corporate world, not the native formats of Wikimedia editors. Specifically: It seems like a bad time for a call to to hold workshops. Yes, we can do it virtually. But it raises the barrier to participation. The survey and the office hours are on Google. Doing this on Google extra attack surface for those with security concerns, it's worse privacy for everyone, and it's a conflict of interest for the WMF (since Google funds the WMF) and a loss of independence for the Wikimedia community. If some editors, like me, do not wish to participate via Google, it also biasses results. I note that sharing views from workshop groups is an on-wiki thing, while sharing views from individuals seems to be on-Google only. To use the language of the recommendations, the structure of this consultation seems not to provide for safety or inclusion. I think it would have been better to postpone any workshop-based consultation, and move all consultation off platforms provided by data brokers. HLHJ (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

* Hi HLHJ, I come from a volunteer movement background from the HIV world, so I don't know that much about corporate formats of things. Participation was discussed extensively by the movement-led design group and these workshops are supposed to be not complicated; casual conversations about what people want to work on next year, rather than a consultation on the recommendations. Workshop is just a name. They could be called events or calls. Many communities meet regularly, so incorporating a discussion item into an upcoming virtual meeting to discuss the recommendations wasn't imagined to be difficult. We shared weekly updates from the Design Group discussions and received great input on wiki that led to the creation of the events outline. There are many suggestions to address barriers to virtual participation that made their way into our guidance for getting prepared and for the global events - like making materials available after calls, immediately uploading minutes, leaving 48 hours for people to provide input, etc. Please take a look and let me know if we missed anything. This process is fully open and remains flexible. Google Forms is one of 3 options for providing priority preferences - along with on Wiki and email, no difference for individual and group views. Some people have specifically asked for a simple-to-follow survey to submit their priorities. We would prefer on wiki participation actually so everyone can see, but we have to make sure other options are provided. Whether on-wiki or Google, we are asking people to meet up however they like, discuss their priorities for implementation - what should we work on in 2021 - and to let us know the results of their discussions however they like: email, Wiki, or survey. Thank you so much for your interest and for providing the space and guidance below. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

For those wishing to discuss Wikimedia's future plan on-wiki[edit]

It has been said that this is the only place this consultation has been posted. I'm not sure this is the case; feel free to repost the links below elsewhere.

I think this is a call to discuss the prioritization of ten recommendations/goals, which have previously been critiqued. Doing this on the talk pages of the recommendation pages seems reasonable. So here they are:

Recommendations as a whole (discuss).

Individual recommendations:

I don't recall seeing the consultation on the recommendations, so they are new to me. The future of the community is an important question, and I share some of the concerns raised in the consultation about the sustainability and cost/benefit of funding trends, centralization of power, increases in bureaucracy, and paywalling enterprise-level access. There are some excellent ideas in the recommendations, but implementation is important. We need to get this right. If we get this wrong, then, in the worst-case scenario, the editing community may fork, with part of it setting up separately from the WMF; this would be seriously disruptive. I strongly encourage editors reading this to go comment. HLHJ (talk) 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this initiative HLHJ. You are spot on - there are many great ideas (close to 50) in the recommendations and implementing them can make a huge difference: with regards to policies, decision-making, funding for groups, movement growth, and better connectivity. That's why we really need input from as many communities and editors as possible. That is also why we are not thinking to review everything there is in the recommendations again, rather hear from people what they think we should all work on for 12-18 months starting January, 2021. Then reflect and re-evaluate. Not all ideas from the recommendations can be implemented, and definitely not in the first year, so please join the discussions. Information about the global events coming soon. Here are reports from our January 2020 consultation that helped finalize the recommendations. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

October 01[edit]

File:Poster, GNR. 'Skegness is So Bracing' by John Hassall.jpg[edit]

The original site appears to be able to be zoomed in a LOT more, but doesn't use zoomify or any of the standard ones that can be easily undone. Anyone have a ready way to go to https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co228471/skegness-is-so-bracing-poster zoom in all the way, and grab it? I'll quite happily restore it if someone can do it; I really don't think my laptop is a suitable tool for the purpose, though. Just, please don't change anything (like the colours) besides assembling it; I have some tricks that work well for that purpose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It uses IIIF, so following COM:Dezoomify does work, just plug in a tile URI.

File:Poster, GNR. 'Skegness is So Bracing' by John Hassall.png.

--Fæ (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Fæ! Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

mirrored images[edit]

Paris, Rue Lepic

This image is mirrored; just see the licence plate, and the shops on the other side of the road. How can we fix this? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

You can download the image, flip it using some external program, and then re-upload it. Ruslik0 (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded a corrected version Virtual-Pano (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The current version looks like a mirror image here. What am I missing? Aditya (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a banner, and we are looking at the back of it. --ghouston (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

This one is flipped too: File:Bejaarde vrouwen voor een winkel met vlees en pluimvee in de Rue Lepic, Bestanddeelnr 254-0427.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the issue has been addressed. Note that in cases where both the mirrored ("flopped") and original have been uploaded as separate files, the flopped can be placed in Category:Flopped images. --Animalparty (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Rendering bug at 30px exactly[edit]

Hi there, I meet a strange bug. One of my images is not rendering at the EXACT 30px dimension: .

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/夕-order.gif/30px-夕-order.gif

12px	27px	28px	29px	30px	31px	64px	128px	300px

Do you see it ? (if not it's my web browser's issue)
Is this a known bug ? Yug (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

The bug have been here for at least 7 days. Yug (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not just you. I see it as well. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: It appears that there was a problem during the generation of that thumbnail which caused it to be invalid. I was not able to reproduce the problem locally, and purging the file description page caused a new thumbnail to be generated. All thumbnails for the file now show properly. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@AntiCompositeNumber: thank you for solving this issue ! Thank to 〠 as well for the confirmation. Yug (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Modern bra plunge.jpg[edit]

Is it possible to delete my two edits? My attempts at improving the file was pretty useless. Aditya (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir:

Done. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Thanks. But, I was not looking for a revert (I have reverted already). I was looking for a way to delete them (I am sure useless uploads can be deleted from the list of past versions). Aditya (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Sorry. Only Admins can hide uploads; you can best reach them for that purpose on COM:AN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: Understood. Okay. Aditya (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir:

Done. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Super thanks for cleaning up my misadventures. Aditya (talk) 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

CommonsHelper not working[edit]

CommonsHelper has been disordered since yesterday. Could anybody please fix this? --トトト (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@トトト: Can't help, but that's a good opportunity to give the new FileImporter a try. It's been a while since I've used it last, but I remember it working like a charm! --El Grafo (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 02[edit]

Category:Charcoal clamps <-> Category:Charcoal piles[edit]

There is something strange going on with the categories Charcoal clamps and Charcoal clamps:

Category:Charcoal piles has a redirect to Charcoal clamps, but all the subcategories begin with Charcoal piles
The Category:Charcoal clamps in the Netherlands just had a redirect to Category:Charcoal piles in the Netherlands because of "Harmonization with other country cats", but all the media are still in Category:Charcoal clamps in the Netherlands.

@E4024: What is the master plan? Is this work in progress? JopkeB (talk) 02:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I did not understand everything you said, especially about the "master plan". If you are worrying about the files in the renamed cat, a bot moves them to the new cat. I rename cats everyday and the files come afterwards. Of course if anyone does not want to wait for the bot can do that also manually. Dank je wel. --E4024 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Marcus Cyron as last editor of each. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've done this following a request. I'm absolutely not into this. If there would be a better structure - fine by me! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: can you clarify your intention here? You seem to have asked for the move. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, Jmabel. A charcoal pile is a pile of charcoal (organic material roasted to drive off impurities until it's almost pure carbon). A charcoal clamp is a structure for making charcoal. It's a stack of assorted materials, carefully structured and built to heat the organic materials hot enough to carbonize them (convert them to charcoal) without oxidizing all the carbon (which would produce a pile of ash). Here's a colourful amateur account of building one. Category:Charcoal kilns are, specifically, permanent structures for making charcoal (a metal or stone or brick structure, something like that). "Charcoal pile" seems to be used by native speakers of German to mean "charcoal clamp". I think this is because in German a charcoal clamp is "Kohlenmeiler"."Meiler" does not translate well, but means "pile" in the specific sense of "atomic pile". Charcoal-making is still a big historical-recreation thing in Germany and most of our pictures seem to come from there (in English-speaking countries it was stigmatized and seems to have largely died out). So I think this is a translation error caused by over-reliance on dictionaries. HLHJ (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

A carefully-constructed educational crossection through a living-history charcoal clamp, pre-lighting.
A charcoal clamp in use
An abandoned charcoal kiln
Charcoal kilns in use
Charcoal piles

The English Wikipedia:Charcoal pile article was translated wholesale from the German. It is separate from Wikipedia:Charcoal clamp, which is a redirect to a section of the "Charcoal" article. I think the "charcoal pile" article should be renamed "charcoal clamp", but the redirect makes that complicated. If anyone knows the procedure and can do this neatly, I'd be grateful. HLHJ (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: That's a lot of information, and even interesting, but it doesn't answer how this should be structured.

Should either Category:Charcoal clamps or Category:Charcoal piles be a redirect to the other, or should they be two separate categories? It seems to me that perhaps Category:Charcoal clamps should be a subcategory of Category:Charcoal piles.
May I presume that whatever is correct for Category:Charcoal clamps and Category:Charcoal piles is analogously correct for all categories Category:Charcoal clamps in X and Category:Charcoal piles in X, insofar as they exist?
Right now on en-wiki, en:charcoal pile appears to be what you are describing as a charcoal clamp and en:charcoal clamp is a redirect to en:charcoal#Production methods, which at a quick read appears to cover the same topic as the separate article en:charcoal pile, and to go into more depth, as well as covering some other material. With the proviso that we at Commons cannot make decisions for en-wiki, it would seem to me that the thing to do there is:
- Get rid of the redirect at en:charcoal clamp.
- Move en:charcoal pile to en:charcoal clamp, leaving a redirect.
- Refactor material out of en:charcoal#Production methods to en:charcoal clamp, adding Template:Further at the top of en:charcoal#Production methods, pointing to en:charcoal clamp.

- Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Jmabel. I would not be opposed to having a category "Charcoal piles", analogous to Category:Woodpiles or Category:Coal piles. I do not think it should be a sub- or super-category of Category:Charcoal clamps; they should both be subcats of Category:Charcoal (the "clamps" article indirectly via Category:Charcoal burning). Yes, I think you would be right to presume that the same goes for "Charcoal clamps in X". If I can just delete the WP redirect and go from there, I will do that. I mentioned the WP translation as I think it has guided people naming categories here. HLHJ (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: Can you make deletions on WP, or would you need someone to do it (I'm an admin there, so I can).

May I suggest that if you want to move things around on en-wiki, first make a suggestion to do this at en:Talk:Charcoal and say that if no one objects within a week you'll go ahead with this? - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I see only admins can delete pages, and I am not an admin, so yes, I would very much appreciate someone to do it :). I have templated Talk:Charcoal, pinged a couple of people who had discussed the topic there, and templated the "Charcoal pile" article and its talk page. I hope this will succeed in notifying anyone who is interested. The article has been called "charcoal pile" since 2015, so it could certainly wait another week to see if anyone has better thoughts. HLHJ (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm only too happy to see that a simple move of mine (without even knowing what clamp meant) began a fruitful discussion not only here but also in EN:WP and may cause some useful changes. (Within parentheses: I hope my recent observations about EN:WP article Bedros Kapamajian expressed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Armenians protesting in front of the Peace Tower of the Canadian Parliament.jpg may also bring about some positive changes or "corrections/correctness" at that article that had incredibly been tried to get deleted (!) by some nationalist POV warrior in that Wikipedia... Life is long and there is always time to show those who make charcoal are not bad people because they seem to have a black face, superficially. They only try to bring warmth to our living rooms. :) E4024 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

@HLHJ: can you provide sources for the difference you've given between 'charcoal pile' and 'charcoal clamp'? You're certainly right that dictionaries do translate Kohlenmeiler as charcoal pile, but so do English book sources such as The Digital atlas of Traditional Agricultural Practices and Food Processing by Cappers which show photographs that look remarkably like the ones in the article. So not a mistranslation, but two terms being used for the same object. Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata: Backs of postcards[edit]

It seems that certain Wikidata properties need to set in the Commons.

see discussion in: Backs_of_postcards. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Private certificates[edit]

A user uploaded private certificates 1 2. Are those within project scope? As far as the article goes that they are being used for, I don't believe that that is going to last for very long. --217.239.10.247 23:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Done Nuked and blocked as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 03[edit]

General exclusion of e-mail notifications for bot changes: Bots cause a lot of e-mails[edit]

since a few weeks I get up to 100 emails daily. The emails inform me that the bots "BotMultichillT" & "SchlurcherBot" have added structured data. This is a useful action but my inbox is filling up. I have published about 2000 pictures on Wikimedia Commons and I get notified about their changes by e-mail. I have set myself: "Preferences, Edit watchlist, Hide bot edits from the watchlist". This is not the setting that prevents this.

Therefore I would like to suggest a general exclusion of e-mail disadvantages for bot changes (see also here) --Molgreen (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Support There is never a "good" reason for bots to spam users. The responses to this problem that the burden is on the user to block email from random bot accounts is exactly the opposite of how current policy should be implemented. The burden is on the bot operator and consequently the systems they rely on, to ensure that bot actions do not "accidentally" spam users indiscriminately with potentially millions of automated emails and notifications. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Neutral, I get between 900~1200 e-mails a day from two particular bots adding Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) information, while I applaud Schlurcher and Multichill{T} for their hard work in doing this and having programmed their bots for this, I keep having to take the time to properly archive these e-mails. I actually wanted to complain about this months ago, but hoped that the bots would be done (as I saw the fitst one operate alphabetically), but no, this hasn't stopped, in fact it keeps expanding. But some bot actions is also important to keep an eye on, so I'm not absolutely sure if I don't want to receive these e-mails. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment The bots do not "spam" anyone. Currently, if you wish to get notification emails for each edit, then you also get notification emails for bot edits. This is logical and a problem of your preferences and the choices that can be made there. If you check "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" then you have got this problem. So there should be an option not to receive mail for bot edits in the user profile. I assume that this requires some programming. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, no. This is spam. That may not be the intent, but is is the effect. In the watchlist, we let users filter out bots because we realize that most users don't want to see highly repetitive notices of purely mechanical changes. The only difference here is that getting them as actual emails is more annoying. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment Still, that is nothing that can be fixed by disallowing bots to send mails, because they don't. This is a problem with the choices that can be made in the preferences. Banning or limiting bot edits would be an alternative, but this is nothing I could support. Sadly, requesting email notifications about edits is currently not useful for users with long watchlists because of this problem. It may get better when most old files have got structured data from the bots. Anyway, I certainly support excluding bot edits from email notifications or at least addition of this option to the preferences. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello, it has already been suggested that you would like a notification. How about if you can get a summary of the tank activity once a day or switch it off.--Vielen Dank und Grüße Woelle ffm (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually you all are really lucky! 100 mails in a day? More than once I already got more than 2000 notifications in less than 24 hours. I no longer get many emails: Only the first edit generates an email, an I have stopped to click on my on files unless they have been edited by anyone else than schlurcerbot or botmultichill. However: the watchlist shows no more than 1000 entries and even by employing a number of stored filters (very time consuming even with saved filters) i can still not be sure, that i will every edit relevant to me. And this is not going to stop: about a billion single edits will be needed to make SDC a useful feature. Obviously there is a community consensus not to create the SDC with database updates by the developers in the background but by individual edits by users. The two bots doing this for some month now are probably only the begining. To make things worth: the Quickstatements tool that can be used by anyone does NEVER flag edits as bot, even if the user is a bot. SNAFU @RIsler (WMF): --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I already asked for help with my preferences in the bot-help. (Sometimes more than 600 mails in one night. I uploaded more than 17,000 images, most ships.) But nothing of the suggestions did the work. I stopped asking there, the discussion is now archived already. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Eurabia Flag.svg[edit]

Am I right about this? If I'm wrong, I'd like to know now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: If it's in use in a Wikipedia article, it is in scope even if we think it is crap/hate speech/etc. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Only briefly examined the sources where it's in use. I failed to find one source that used the flag design this shows. To delete this ghastly flag from Commons as a possibly damaging anti-educational user created fiction, that rationale to remove the image from Wikipedia needs to be made on the one article where it's used. BRD means that you could safely remove the image, then raise a talk page discussion about it being original research not supported by the sources. Maybe someone can manage to point to a reliable source that does show it is a real thing, at that point, okay it has "educational" value. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

CropTool[edit]

Upright in the tool, but not in the output

something is wrong since yesterday. Images turn 270°! --Mateus2019 (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Mateus2019: looks normal to me. Yug (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

And to me. Perhaps you have a caching problem. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Fruit or something else?[edit]

Ik looks like fruit but I have never seen fruits in three roots.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

"three" => "tree" or were you meaning to say something else?
Maybe tubers? - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Upload project for Städel Art Museum[edit]

Städel Museum batch upload project page (also written as Staedel and officially Städelsches Kunstinstitut und Städtische Galerie)

Good news everyone!

The Staedel Museum recently made the excellent decision to release all their research quality photographs of their collection on a free CC-BY-SA license. After Pigsonthewing requested it, we have been busy uploading the collection, however the files are large PNG images, and upload links appear to only work from an active browser window, so will take a long time to complete (plus it's running on ancient kit, which means halting the upload when I need to videoconference). There are 22,000 photographs to upload and if the current rate of around 8 per hour is the average, this will take around 3 months before we finish uploading them. Never mind, during the pandemic slow projects are fine!

Sampler
Watercolour of Schnittblumen including a "flaming parrot", 1770
High resolution image of Torgauer Altar, 1509
Watercolour of gastropacha quercifolia butterfly, 1679
Tramway sketch, 1926
Red chalk depiction of Joseph of Nazareth, 1500
Ehringsdorf village lane, 1893
Fairy tale depiction of a baby riding on a raven over Tauber Valley, 1885

You can help with making use of the extremely high quality fine art images by:

Using them in Wikipedia and replacing usage of lower quality versions
Categorizing images by content, time period, art styles. The only categorization at the moment is by 'medium' like whether it's a drawing or a painting
Adding more language translations and expanding the descriptions. Currently most photographs have descriptions in German and English, but these are brief and for the most notable artworks there's a lot more that could be usefully added, with some artworks notable enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles

Reminder, this is a slow upload process, so it's a good project to return to and chip away at finding new images to classify and use. To see a list of images with the most recently uploaded at the top, try this search and check the project page linked above for more search examples. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Städel added a cc-by-sa license to files that are actually public domain (because of the age of the works). As far as I know, there are no works included in this "cc permission granted" files, that still have copyright. Part of the Städel exhibition is "Das rote Flugzeug" by Franz Radziwill. It is probably not part of the cc-published files?! Or the reverse case: File:Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein - Goethe in der roemischen Campagna.jpg - This painting is part of the exhibition of the Städel. It actually is the first painting that everyone sees after entering the museum. It has been on commons as public domain (used 170 times + more uses of different file versions), but can now be replaced with the Städel's cc-licensed version! Does Commons really want to participate in this action of the Städel to magical craete a copyright to public domain images? @Ralf Roletschek: --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Irgendjemand meinte, so wäre es noch klarer als wenn man nur PD dranschreibt. Ich sehe das als Schutzrechtsberühmung und somit unwirksam an. Dieses "Städel museum has released this image as CC BY-SA 4.0." geht auch überhaupt nicht, weil es keinen Urheberrechtsinhaber gibt. Nur dieser Inhaber kann eine Lizenz vergeben, das Museum nicht. Es ist ja eigentlich eine schöne Sache nur warum wird nicht vorher gefragt, wie das aussehen darf? --Ralf Roletschek 12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Because it's a housekeeping improvement issue as while most photographs could be swapped to public domain statements, some should not, and that volunteer decision can only happen one file at a time. We've worked on this for 2 weeks, getting it underway is important for volunteers to see some results. Coincidentally the Staedel today retweeted the announcement about the project, so they are aware of it and are happy to see the uploads happening; thanks to their free release, we (Commons volunteers) do not need to negotiate credits and licensing in advance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Refer to Städel_museum#Copyright. Note that the collection includes some photographs of statues, yet to be uploaded, for example this Traurige Frau. --Fæ (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification about the blocking/ban policy[edit]

Hey, so I've hardly ever popped over from Wikipedia to the commons before, but I'm curious about the ban policy.

The reason I asked is because I noticed that User:Katyusha701 was vandalising the File:Flag of Armenia.svg, and on their talk page here there is only a warning about their editing. The thing is, on the English wikipedia, they've been identified as a sockpuppet and banned [3].

Is there a way to see a list of all wikipedias and wikimedia sites that a user is blocked from? And do bans from language wikipedias "carry over" to wikimedia commons as well?

Egroeg5 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

The policies are described in Commons:Blocking policy and w:en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The user's Commons contributions page indicates that they have been blocked on Commons. This was after the block on English Wikipedia, so a global ban was not imposed. To see a user's account status on all projects click on the 'CentralAuth' link at the bottom of the Commons contributions page, which goes here. The corresponding link on the Wikipedia contributions page is labelled 'accounts'. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

In general, Wikipedia policies have no bearing at Commons, and blocks do not carry over. That said, disruptive behaviour on the sister sites is often used as evidence against good faith; the threshold of blocking somebody who has been a vandal on Wikipedia is low. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October 05[edit]

Question about photo[edit]

Hi, I happened to come across an article that includes this photo, which, to my personal taste as an amateur photographer, is dreadfully cropped with a dreadfully artificial-looking background. O.k., maybe that's just me, and I guess it's better to have any sort of a picture than not to have one at all.

However, I have been wondering about something else: This crop makes it virtually impossible to run it through a Google picture search to check for copyright issues. As there have been a couple of other issues with the article on the German WP, I thought I might have a quick look - but I find that I can't. --87.150.10.143 11:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Far more of an issue: User:Zografos 07 has now overwritten repeatedly, uploading three completely different photos as successive "versions" of File:Marek Maria Karol Babi.JPG all claimed as own work (I will assume good faith on that) and all without changing the supposed date of the photo, even though they do not particularly appear to have been taken at the same time and were uploaded as much as 3-1/2 years apart. - 15:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump