Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/04.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

Village pump in Diepenheim, The Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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

March 26[edit]


A large number of images were recently removed from Category:Tongyong Pinyin. The issue has been discussed at several places, with the Help Desk discussion linking most of them [1] (archived). I would like to request a mass 'undo' of the removals by an admin- everything in Case 1, Case 2 and Case 3 is what I understand as an image legitimately included in the category. If this 'undo' action is unwarranted for some reason, I would like to argue that many of the removals are not justified on a case-by-case basis. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC) (Because it has been five days since I made this post and no response has yet been given, I want to clarify for anyone cleaning up the page that I would like to be personally pinged and notified before this is removed from village pump.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Geographyinitiative: Is there some one place that centralizes the discussion on this? I've seen it scattered all over the place. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey- It started on one talk page here [2] and I got no response there. Then I went to the Help Desk. I got some responses on the Help Desk page [3]- that's where the bulk of the discussion is at. I also added it at the Category Discussion desk, but it garnered little discussion. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Plea for Help As we approach the point when this discussion will be summarily deleted for lack of discussion, I want to say that we still need an authoritative judgment from the leaders of Wikimedia Commons made about these removal of these images from this category. I have come to the Village Pump because the issue will obviously lead to multiple retaliatory reverts if we don't come here because the positions between the editors on the different sides are irreconcilable and have already lead to a revert of a revert of a revert (see the history here: [4]). I am trying to protect everyone involved in the discussion from getting banned, getting into a rancorous discussion or getting into bad retaliatory-revert habits by bringing the discussion here so we can get an authoritative answer. Please help us. Thanks! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Tongyong Pinyin.--Jusjih (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Jusjih & others- if no response is given at Village Pump and this discussion is deleted without a decision, I plan to cease any participation in the argument to protect Kai from getting into trouble- if I kept going, I would do more second reverts and they would almost certainly be reverted as third reverts from that user. I am trying to learn to edit and discuss with a lighter hand- I want to avoid being rough on anybody. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

April 02[edit]

Human competing with machine[edit]

As most of you are aware, the only way images can be categorized is by human beings. The only way assigned cats can be confirmed as correct is by the human eye. There are still limitations on the accuracy of machine learning in that regard.

In short we need people to categorise images. If we had a problem it was people were inadequately catting items and therefore hiding them away from sight. Example taking an historical image (containing whatever) and assigning it to one cat only; say 1842 in Brooklyn.

However the growing sophistication of the system is railing against involvement by humans. It used to be, that every image displayed the cats assigned to it on its own individual page. So for a modern ship, all the relevant information could be readily seen in one place, without drilling down or up. I got shot down for complaining about important high level cats like, the owner museum or collection name or the Ships by name listing, being made into hidden cats. Then my concerns about cats being deleted, because they were to be found within wikidata was brushed aside.

Now I'm to discover a new way of hiding cats away from the main image. Not sure of how to describe this, but I'll have a go. I came across a modern ship's main cat. A bot had deleted, a cat telling me the ship had been built in Germany. It took a while for me to realize, that information was already attached as a cat to the IMO number cat. Every modern ship has a unique number assigned to it, that is the IMO hull number. There is a cat for this number, however not every IMO number cat has been catted to the shipyard name. Not every ship has had its IMO number added to it. Therefore if a shipyard name is missing on the main cat, you are obliged to look elsewhere (within the IMO cat) to ascertain if it has been assigned or not.

As a result to ascertain if a ship is fully catted, you now have to have at least 3 pages open to compare; 4 if you include Wikipedia.

Obviously Wikidata in future will in time include for the IMO number and or the yard name in future. Currently the Wikidata page's content is fairly skimpy, and not user friendly.

To properly cat a ship now is becoming far too complicated.

Never mind the old style problems that remain with us. Only recently I discovered images containing named ships, previously hidden away in a cat called Oil painting in country X by year only to discover the six files in it had been divided into oil paintings on canvas by year x (3) and oil paintings on board by year x (3). That's a different problem, one of OCD filing, where the question of by assigning this cat am I going to hide this file away from sight or not, and if I am, how am I going to rectify that is never asked.

Summary, can we not go back to the old transparent system of cats on the one page? Broichmore (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This IMO system is not very appealing for me either, since it leads to categories just filled with numbers, like Category:Ships built at Sietas Werft. However, it's actually nothing new, and has been done this way in Commons for years. I'd say it's probably impossible to change at this point, since it's the status quo, and so much work has been put into it. --ghouston (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, introducing the IMO category is both a good thing (collecting instances of the same ship under different names) and an absolutely terrible thing. There is little consistency regarding which categories should go in the IMO category and the ship name category. To a degree, the same applies with the various aircraft/serial number/registration/construction code categories. Huntster (t @ c) 22:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: I can make no sense of "the growing sophistication of the system is railing against involvement by humans". "Railing" basically means "speaking angrily and at length". I don't see how "sophistication" can "rail". What are you trying to say here? - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
In fact, I'm having trouble making sense of most of this. Your issue seems to be with a policy decision about how COM:OVERCAT applies to using IMOs, which really has nothing to do with bot vs. human. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, wrong word, should have said adversely affecting rather than railing against perhaps. The point I was trying to make, was in summary: can we not go back to the old transparent system, of all the defining cats on one page? Instead of cats or datums being in multiple places? To review a ship (for example) we now need several pages open; the ship cat, the IMO cat, Wikidata, Wikipedia; and perhaps, others, like alternative ship's names for the same hull? Additionally with all of that we need to be aware of hidden cats. Complicated or what! Then of course there is a need for other web pages to be open for sourcing and referencing, something which was always, and always will be the case.
Even with an art picture, we are in competition with wikidata; holding the same info. In the future everything will have a Q number, a cat will have no defining cats, just a Q number. Hardly human friendly.
Still, for wikidata to work it need commons to feed it cats (datums), that's why its important all cats should be left intact and visible (not hidden) in commons on one page. Regarding hidden cats, I reckon against art images (containing historical image data I.E named individual, building or ship), as much as 5 percent are missing the Museum /collection category. Broichmore (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Fundamentally, we should use structured data and no other categories. However, making that transition would be incredibly difficult so we have a mess instead. Elli (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • One of the main problems with SDC and Wikidata is that its proponents often stress the “need” to eliminate the category system wholesale as a precondition to that shining future when so-called “structured data” (as if human created categorization was unstructured) will make all our dreams come true. That antagonistic stance was compounded early on with bouts of “bold action” where bots started to run around Commons scraping wikitext to feed Wikidata and then deleting that same wikitext, supposedly to avoid duplication of data (we still have thousands of categories showing wrong geolocation due to that). There have been some more or less successful attempts at stemming the tide (wikitext of old revisions is again accessible, e.g.), but the stated goals, as above, are clear: Commons (and possibly the whole of Wikimedia) «needs to», or «should», be remade as a database report and atomic edits made by humans to that database are to be casual, trivial, and gamified, discouraging “power users” and consistent work, and lionizing an elite of developers as the keyholders of the whole project. And that is of course the antithesis of the whole wiki movement. Adding on top of this the infantile 1970s notion that information retrieval is only a matter of raw search, not of breadcrumbing of indexed info, the even more puerile (1670s?) idea that reality is absolutely classifiable (as opposed to the fuzzy, tentative approach used in Commons categories — the above mentioned “mess”…), and the murky layers of how Wikidata is connected with the shipwrecked from Google’s Knol (before Big Data turned its crosshairs to more profitable endeavours) — and the whole picture is very bleak indeed. I could ask why can’t we all get along: You do SDC, we do cats, some of us do both and kumbaya, but that ship has long sailed away: These insistent calls for the death of manual categorization and wikitext, from both low rank fans and top brass alike, are as unsettling as they are embattling. -- Tuválkin 08:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Machines are dumb but efficient. Humans are smart but inefficient, which upsets some machines. --Animalparty (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the IMO element of this thread to a different page. Broichmore (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I sort of get the complaint here but there's enough images with no categories let alone though that undercategorized. Until we have better AI that can identify things like ships, the best bet is human vision to help. Maybe you want to request someone to create a list of images that are solely in a date in location category with nothing else. One of the reasons I think we should try to start some sort of projects thing is to have backlog better organized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • As somewhat a response to the long comment Tuválkin wrote above, I largely agree with that sentiment. Personally I am in favour of what is both the most efficient and the most accessible system and the whole drive to eliminate Wikimedia Commons categories isn't the best approach to do that (as far as I can tell). I am personally pro-Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons, but think that its heavy reliance on Wikidata is a major issue if Wikidata itself treats Wikimedia Commons as "the red-haired left-handed step-sister of Wikimedia websites", while it exists for providing structural need for Wikimedia websites, categories on Wikimedia Commons are excluded from this. If an image contains a picture of a Motorokia P-7554 smartphone (fictional example) and some admins on Wikipedia decide to "salt" the article about it or its manufacturer because "it only gets created by spammers" (as is unfortunately common for notable companies due to an overactive fear of paid editors or something) then the Wikimedia Commons image can only have a very unspecific "smartphones" file depict. Now, theoretically Wikidata has its own notability standards independent (and lower) than a Wikipedia's, but finding such data isn't immediately clear to everyone without much experience working with Wikidata and in practice people often take Wikipedia's "spam-hunting" efforts at face value. Combine that with the fact that other people simply don't want to emulate the already functional Wikimedia Commons category system in the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons software and you get two parallel identification systems that "cannot talk to each other". Personally I would like to see every Wikimedia Commons category on Wikidata and then users can add more information on Wikidata to be displayed on Wikimedia Commons through infoboxes, but in reality rather than utilising years of volunteer work in the new system, it wants to start from a much less developed point shooting itself in the foot. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Regarding the original post, the solution would be if alternative names for the same subject exists then these could be listed on Wikidata, then a bot could create redirects (this could also be utilised for creating categories in a different language or for synonyms), and a "common name" could be used for the main category. Diffusion is a necessary part to the category system as it's also difficult to find images if they are being "drowned" in "a sea of files". The best solution would probably be to technically tweak the visibility to improve searchability. For example "a show all" function where you can choose to see all files in a category and all of its sub-categories. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikidata is a different and seperate project, running in parallel with commons. I don't see a problem with commons retaining all of its original assigned categories, and the Wikidata infobox.
Both projects can carry the same data concurrently.
In actual fact, they will never be exactly the same, Wikidata is always in a catch up situation with commons.
We should revert all the deleted cats in commons, that is all the cats deleted and duplicated by by wikidata.
I feel Wikidata is of valuable use to search engines, including ours, but at the end of the day it's a scraper, and will never be user friendly to humans, and this will only get worse the more cats it takes from commons. Take (as an example) Category:Robert of Palatinate-Simmern, Duke of Cumberland. Then take a look at [it's wikidata page.]. I would say, that when all the cats are deleted from Rupert, and put solely into the Wikidata page, then that page will be so crowded that it will be unmanageable.
Why the Riupert cats name was changed is beyond me, but that a different topic.
That by the way is the point I'm trying to make here. We need to be in parallel and separate from Wikidata. Not replaced by it. Broichmore (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 05[edit]

Is there a tool for this: getting categories from a linked article[edit]

Hello -- I mainly do work on English Wikipedia but lately I've been slowly uploading some public domain portraits from the Library of Congress. I am using the upload wizard which I like just fine. However, I find adding categories to be cumbersome and I was wondering if there is a tool that can say "Import the categories from the article about this person" in some way, if not upon uploading, then at a later time? Here's an example image. The article has 13 categories. It would be neat if there were a way to view these all and select which ones would also apply to the image (often, most of them). I didn't want to look into doing this if such a tool existed already. Thanks for any help or pointers. Jessamyn (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: After uploading, you could paste the enwiki cats in, preview, and eliminate the redlinks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Oh nice, that actually works pretty well, I didn't know that most of them would port over. Thank you. Jessamyn (talk) 23:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jessamyn: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jessamyn: See also Category:Benjamin Le Fevre, and note that a vast trove of images from the Library have already been transferred to Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thanks for the pointer. Looks like there is an image I uploaded and then you uploaded a larger higher quality image (hooray). All the ones I've been uploading, save a few, weren't already uploaded afaict. Jessamyn (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

April 07[edit]

Is FormWizard installed on Commons?[edit]

Hi all

How do I find out if FormWizard is installed on Commons? If it isn't what is the process of requesting it is installed? I'd really love to use it for some documentation I'm working on, its proved really useful when I've used it on Wikidata and English Wikipedia previously.


John Cummings (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @John Cummings: We have very few wiki pages as such, so I doubt it. I'd suggest just copying & stripping down an existing page of similar nature (whether on Commons or elsewhere) as a template. - Jmabel ! talk 14:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Jmabel do you know if there is a page where I can which extensions are installed? I've looked at using a template and I don't think it will work for what I want to do. John Cummings (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • Clueless. Any developers here who would have such a list? - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
        Installed extensions are here - Special:Version rubin16 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks very much Rubin16, looks like its not currently installed, do you know what the process is of requesting it is installed? Not sure if this makes a difference but its a WMF maintained extension already installed on several Wikimedia projects. John Cummings (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
          You can propose it somewhere on Commons:Village pump/Proposals, then, if consensus exists, file a request to Phabricator. rubin16 (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Google image searches for "free" images[edit]

Google image search used to let us restrict searches to "free" images, and now no longer provides this option.

On the initial search results page google returned for an image search, google allowed users to tune their search by usage rights. For several years the usage rights included restricting searches solely to images we consider "free".

This was a very useful option for those of us who upload free images here. This option seemed to work quite well.

Sometime recently that useful feature has been deprecated, giving users fewer choices - just three choices in fact: "all", "creative commons licenses" and "commercial and other licenses". The option to request only images that were free was removed with zero publicity.

Does anyone know why?

Does anyone use image searches from another search provider that can restrict image searches to "free" images?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Magical filename twins ![edit]

Hi folks ! Can you explain how we can have 2 different files under the same filenames Face-grin expert.svg !
When I do [CTRL+F] on my browser, the filenames appears to be the same character.

Wiki Gallery displaying files and their filenames Screenshot of what I see on my Ubuntu 20.10, notice the filenames
MediaWiki bug on 龜-kaishu filenames.png

There is a trick, yes. But I don't know where it plays out !
Hint: When you edit this section and use the magnifying glass to search or replace, they are 2 distinct characters.
Something is playing with me !

Leave your name below if you want to be pinged for when someone find the culprid. Yug (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think your browser is the culprit, I see different characters. --Anneyh (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Yug: File:⿔-kaishu.svg, File:龜-kaishu.svg -- they are different -- but maybe the font you are using shows them same in serif?
Acagastya (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Yes, images are differents. But my computer shows same filenames (glyphs) and... when I search with CTRL+F, they are the same for my Chrome as well. They are unicode duplicata I guess, but there is also a layer on Commons or Chrome which see them as identical codepoint. Weird. Yug (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Yug: -- does the monospace font also show them same? Focus on the text: File:⿔-kaishu.svg, File:龜-kaishu.svg -- they are different for me image link.
Acagastya (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see different characters as well. Does this belong in technical? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ricky81682, Acagastya: Fascinating ! I am on mobile now and i see clearly different characters indeed. Must be an Ubuntu 20+Chrome 89 issue then. Thank to you two for the hints Face-smile.svg Yug (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Yug: Either way, it may be worth mentioning as a bug at meta. It's a very very minor issue for us but could be a horrendous annoyance on another site. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
        • @Ricky81682: These issues are real for those who can read these characters as the meaning is different (I cannot). A guidance could be given to users on how to solve this (for the relevant language). In case those characters are Chinese characters that are used in Japanese, it is known for some years already. --Anneyh (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
          • There isn't really much we can do about the fact that a particular font uses the same glyph for two different codepoints. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
            • But are the images being swapped? The text could be an issue but if I use one image, does it screw it up on the server side or just as rendered by the computer? I'm guessing the later because that's minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
              • I added a screenshot of what I see on my computer. It's indeed a font non following proper Unicode glyph. Unicode CJK characters have had several corrections along the years (I submited one), but some fonts predate these correction. The best thing to do is to use recent fonts. Or to fund open fonts projects.
                @Ricky81682: Also, yes, I think the uploaded may have walked blind, and the images may need to be swaped. I will report to the relevant project (Commons:ACC) to assess that. Yug (talk) 12:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
⿔ is Radical 213, which is used for dictionary catalog only. 龜 is the real kanji people use in written text.
kanji-literate users will recognise that most of these en:Template:Kangxi radicals are identical to kanjis, but each of them was given a unique unicode.--RZuo (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
@Tomchen1989:. Yug (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Polyptych of Volterra by Alvaro Pirez d'Évora[edit]

@Oursana: Is it acceptable have a text in German language like the one at this category? Greetings, GualdimG (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

  • That's an awful lot of text for a Commons category. I've at least marked it with {{De}}. Someone with better German may want to edit it down. - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't read German, but a copyvio detector suggests that this text has been copied from a university thesis. (comparison) (likely source, mostly pages 160–161) The text is a probable copyright violation and it should be replaced with a brief specification of the artist, type of artwork and location. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Idea: explicitly disallow nudity uploading from otherwise non-contributors[edit]

COM:NOPENIS is a decent guideline that allows for the deletion of a lot of nudity uploaded, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Many nudes, which may be educational, still have potential consent issues. Therefore, I would suggest a blanket ban on uploading nudity by users who have few other global contributions (and are therefore not a part of the community). This is not an RfC, I'd like to gather some thoughts before formalizing this as a policy. This would allow us to deal with potential consent issues much better, as well as deleting many nudes of iffy educational value much less controversially. (ping Mo Billings as someone potentially interested) Elli (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I do support this, as I don't see a purpose in allowing everyone to give us their nudes. If you've made global contributions, no big deal, but if you're trying to troll the commons? yeah no. stop with that. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. There are perfectly good contributors where this is all they do. Conversely, there are contributors in other subject matter areas who do nothing but copyvios. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jmabel. Besides, proposals belong at COM:VPP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal, I wanted some thoughts first. Elli (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand the reasoning behind this proposal, but I think it is both too broad and not broad enough. The issue here is really that Commons makes little or no attempt to enforce what COM:PEOPLE says about consent. Uploaders are not informed about consent concerns like they are for copyright concerns. Just as with copyright violations, I would expect to see more uploads from new users that have consent issues, but, just as with copyright violations, having a history of uploads does not mean that users are not going to upload problematic images. I think that a lack of edits on Commons or other Wikimedia projects is one factor in evaluating uploads, but it isn't a sure sign that the uploads have consent issues even if they involve nudity or sexuality. We should be more clear in what we expect from uploaders, especially where it involves images of identifiable people. It would be helpful if more experienced users added Template:Consent to their own uploads so less experienced users got used to seeing it. Mo Billings (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware of that template. Maybe adding it to the upload wizard would be a good idea? Elli (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
-- (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to make it seem like I am responsible for other editors actions here? I didn't propose this - Elli did. I didn't propose the consent checkbox - Masem did. I don't think either of those proposals are very well thought out and I don't support them. I am concerned about consent issues here on Commons. We can disagree about it, but please stop harassing me like this by making me look like some kind of ringleader. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I have posted this exactly once. I am not intending to forum shop, nor was I intending to start an RfC or a vote, as I explicitly mentioned. I simply wanted to gather the community's thoughts here. It's clear that this is something that would not be popular - which is fine - but your response, here and elsewhere, was been entirely over-the-top and unnecessary. Elli (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It is an inescapable fact that that the Mo Billings account was pinged in the opening paragraph of this thread. That ping makes this thread directly connected to the existing pattern of forum shopping. It is also an inescapable fact that as the opener of this thread, your account is also active on the English Wikipedia discussion, but those 4 posts there were not mentioned here. Highlighting the facts that forum shopping and cross-wiki lobbying exists and these connecting patterns is not "over the top", they are facts. -- (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I pinged Mo Billings because we had discussed this particularly, including him leaving a message on my talk. I'm not here to defend Mo Billings' behavior - I think it was inappropriate - but you are conflating us (and did so again at the recent deletion you opened). Elli (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please stay aware of the obvious pattern that has developed over a matter of days, whether fully intentional or not. No doubt you agree there are now too many related threads created about this in a very short time, which is far more likely to create opposition rather than positive discussion. -- (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
For sure, I thought taking this discussion to enwiki, and to the WMF (in a way - certainly not the Commons community) before the community first, was a bad idea. Elli (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is an excellent idea and I would fully support it.
However I can't see any way to implement it. We're unlikely to add AI cock-spotting to the upload wizard. So how would this see new uploads as "acceptable" or "not acceptable"? I would see an ineffective implementation as worse than none. One thing worse than an unwanted dickpic is the same thing, but free-ranging and uncategorised or named. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Solution looking for a problem. Also the consent box thing sort of makes this moot - Of course anyone can tick a box and still upload it anyway but nudity here as far as I know has never been a problem - There's just a few bad apples in the bunch. People photograph all sorts of things and we shouldn't disallow one "genre" of uploaders because of a few problems here and there. –Davey2010Talk 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Davey2010 Here you say "nudity here as far as I know has never been a problem" but elsewhere you just said "apparently there were child porn issues here years ago". How do you reconcile those two statements? Mo Billings (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. I assumed CP was no longer uploaded here (because I was under the impression if it was then one way or another it would appear on some noticeboard somewhere because this is Commons and everything ends up at a noticeboard here.... bit like EN really). It's also dawned on me I !voted delete on a potential revenge porn image so it was indeed wrong of me to say "nudity's never been a problem" when it obviously has. I still don't believe there is a problem atleast not a problem big enough to warrant this sort of action. As I said above there's just a few bad apples out there nothing we cannot handle. –Davey2010Talk 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is your account's 326 edit to Commons. Yesterday the same account was canvassing on this topic at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales, and on that project, the account has yet to reach 700 edits. Cross-wiki lobbying, insisting on WMF board level attention, the uploading of a deliberately disruptive self created "Donald Trump watching porn image", and targeting long term contributors for personal argument, is unusual behaviour for a new account created 13 months ago and with a total global edit count of 1,000. I'm sure that others can reach their own conclusions as to whether this strange new account behaviour is of concern. -- (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're accusing me of something, but what is it exactly? I started a discussion on Mr Wales' talk page about a 2011 WMF board resolution, since he is a member of the board. I was unaware of that resolution until someone here mentioned it in a discussion (I don't remember who). How is that "canvassing"? How is that discussion in any way a problem? Which long term contributors am I "targeting" for personal arguments? You mean Audioboss and their copyright violations? I make no apologies for calling them out on their proven falsehoods. This is a discussion started by another user (not me) to gauge support for something. If you don;t support it, that's fine. I don't either. But why are you cluttering up the discussion with these kinds of baseless accusations? What is your goal? Why all the focus on me? What have I done to upset you so much? Mo Billings (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no good reason for this. But there is an other topic: Spam on these file pages. So I would support semi protecting all pages in these field. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure I've noticed this as an issue. Do you have some examples of spamming of nudity files? -- (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
With some outreach we can find contributors to fill that gap. Needs the good angle tho. Yug (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the above seems to have no logic at all. How is child porn relevant to a discussion about new users being able to upload nude images? Obviously no one is allowed to upload child porn. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mo Billings has been locked as a sockpuppet. -- (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense. "This would allow us to deal with potential consent issues much better, as well as deleting many nudes of iffy educational value much less controversially." I would suspect that people who would want to use their nudes for educational purposes on Wikimedia Commons would probably not want their other works linked with their account, I can see a high quality contributor making an undisclosed second account to upload a nude to use at a Wikipedia article or to illustrate something (in an educational sense), this would essentially force users to "out" themselves. Content should never be judged by the uploaded but by the content itself, even a broken clock is wrong twice a day and a good clock can be a minute behind. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 08[edit]

Categorization of Côte d'Ivoire[edit]

Since the nation of Côte d'Ivoire has formally requested of the UN and of any other international organization that it should be referred to by its French name, shouldn't we reorganize categories such as Category:SVG locator maps of Ivory Coast (location map scheme) (which would move to Category:SVG locator maps of Côte d’Ivoire (location map scheme))? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urhixidur (talk • contribs) 17:16, 8 April 2021‎ (UTC)

@Urhixidur: I think so. See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. How many categories are there to do? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Also don't delete any categories, just redirect them. Regarding the Ivory Coast, this request was done in 1986 and the common name in English remains th "Ivory Coast". But as Wikimedia Commons is an interlingual website using French if it's something the government wishes might be a better choice. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
So just move the categories and cleanup the redirects? That seems less chaotic than I imagined. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
We use the most common name in English for the category name and that's "Ivory Coast". Good indication of this is that the article on the English Wikipedia is called en:Ivory Coast and not en:Côte d'Ivoire. If at some point in the future "Côte d'Ivoire" becomes the more common name, you can propose a rename at Commons:Categories for discussion. Currently that doesn't seem the case. So no, you can't just move these categories. Multichill (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 09[edit]

Will there be permission to upload such an image?[edit]

Hello everyone from Wikimedia Commons. I noticed that this ResaearchGate image has a license of this type: CC BY 4.0. I'm asking here if uploading is possible before doing it (or before someone does it for me, with the respective text below the image). I am here asking for an error not to occur if i uploading an unwanted image here. I know the permissible licenses, but it seems to me almost a miracle that such a text and this photo have such a license in a scientific publication, Thanks. I will return here later. Mário NET (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It's fine. You can upload the images, the charts and the text (PDF?). -- (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mário NET: Yes you may upload the images here. Please note that ResearchGate is not the source or creator, merely a repository with a copy of a journal article. The original article may have higher quality images, and it verifies that the content may be freely used with attribution under CC BY 4.0. --Animalparty (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll start. It was good to have spoken here because I was not going to upload it straight from the article. Mário NET (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
It is already published, with all categories of each species. Mário NET (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April 10[edit]

How can I recover the old fashion list of search results WITH descriptions?[edit]

Until yesterday I get a long list of search results with small pictures, their names and some other details. Today I only get pictures, without descriptions, after a search. I would like to restore the old fashion mode, I tried to adjust my preferences but I did not succeed. How can I restore my preferences to the old fashion mode with a list AND discriptions? JopkeB (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Should Commons allow some non-commercial or non-free photos if reason is copyright law?[edit]

Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy all content on a wiki project should "meet the terms of the Definition of Free Cultural Works specific to licenses, as can be found at version 1.0."

All project except Commons may adopt an EDP and allow non-free content if it meets some requirements.

I have always liked the idea of Commons hostning free files only. But there are cases where it is a "pain in the a..". The 2 things that I find most annoying is

  1. Stuff that is PD in its home country but not PD in the US because of URAA.
  2. Lack of Freedom of Panorama.

So far we have deleted many photos because one of the 2 reasons. And we have to do so as long as the resolution is as it is.

I would like to ask if we should propose a change of of the policy so Commons can allow semi-free photos. And if yes what would we like to host?

Some would perhaps argue that IF we are discussing to host semi-free stuff then what about stuff that is free in the US only?

Personally I think we should reject ALL photos where it is the copyright holder that set restrictions on the photo. So no GFDL and no "NC" and no "ND" and no <whatever will make it impossible to use the photo freely>. And of course NO "fair use".

But I would be willing to accept photos where the restrictions are set by the law. So if a country have FOP but for non-commercial use only then we could perhaps host it. Or if the photo is PD in the US or the home country but not in both.

I'm sure there have been discussions before. I tried to search but did not find any recent - sorry if I missed them. So if someone knows of a recent discussion I would be happy for a link.

I would like to hear comments on that topic. --MGA73 (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer is and will be an hard no to that one. The Licencing policy is an decision by the WMF, more specifically the Board of directors of the WMF. It is not up to the community to decide any amendments to it. Like the policy itself says "It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by [...] local policies of any Wikimedia project. " Even wikis with an EDP can not host files that are only free in the US, but not the country of origin. Media that is PD in the country of origin, but not the US would never be allowed, even the board can not do that, since the primary servers are located in the USA, they are required to follow laws in the USA. Requests to bypass this policy in one way or another have been requested before, both here and on meta, enough times that it deserves an entry in Commons:FAQ at this point. I do not see the point of linking to those, as nothing can be changed in any of these discussions to make them work. All of those are a moot point right from the start and this one is no different.--Snaevar (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Snaevar: Thank you for your comment. I know and that WMF decide the policy and that is why I wrote "I would like to ask if we should propose a change of of the policy".
I once asked on meta (here and here) if we could get some clear answers about what wikis could do but I got no final answer. So if we could add it to a FAQ somewhere it would be great.
If all hosting a copyrighted photo is illegal then what about the deleted files? They are still hosted on the servers. Also I guess that many people upload copyrighted stuff to Facebook and Flickr non-stop and as far as I know it is only deleted if they get a take down notice. If the stuff is PD in the home country then I would guess that the amount of take down notices would be limited. So I guess there are options if board is willing to modify the policy a bit. --MGA73 (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
How do you expect the WMF to be able to allow "Stuff that is PD in its home country but not PD in the US because of URAA", or anything that violates copyright in the USA? When they receive a take-down request for something like that, would they refuse it on the grounds that it's against their policy? What if there's a follow-up lawsuit and a court demands it be taken down? --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ghouston: as I said I doubt there will be many take down notices because of that but IF they get a take down notice they can just delete the file. Just like today if someone upload a photo taken by someone else and claim own work. The point is that the photo is PD so it can be used on websites all over the world (except the US). --MGA73 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
WMF allow fair use so we do have a lot of copyrighted stuff hosted allready. And as I said there are also deleted files stored. They are not visible for all users but only admins etc. But they are hosted and visible for some. I even think some wikis host files that is PD abroad only and just add a "Do not move to Commons" on the files. Those wikis are on the same server? --MGA73 (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair use is part of US copyright law, there isn't any legal issue with it if it's used correctly. Perhaps it can't really be used in a general-purpose repository like Commons. The "deleted" files can perhaps also be stored under fair use provisions, if they aren't being made available to the public. If the WMF is still going to be deleting files if they get a take-down notice, then it's exactly the same situation that we already have. --ghouston (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thank you for your comments. I really appriciate it. Now we delete files if a user find a file that is PD abroad but not in the US. We do that because we know about URAA and we have users that look for that. If policy changes those files will only be deleted if the copyright holder send a take down notice. In Denmark a simple photo is copyrighted for 50 years per {{PD-Denmark50}} and I bet that if I upload 1.000 photos older than 51 years from 1.000 different photographers the chance that someone will send a take down notice is very small. Because most people do not know about URAA. (And many people do not even know about the danish copyright law.) Many photos are visible on websites on museums and local archives because everyone think/know that the copyrght have expired. So the question is if there are any legal ways to keep photos untill we get a take down notice. I do not know US law good enough to know if it is a problem to keep it untill you get a take down notice. I think that Facebook and Flickr and probably a lot of other websited host copyrighted stuff. As far as I know here are special rules for websites that allow users to upload stuff compared to if the staff upload the stuff.
What about the other part of my suggestion? Host files of FOP for non-commercial purpose? Do you think that would be legal? --MGA73 (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Commons volunteers don't have any obligation to delete anything. There's already a consensus not to delete photos of artworks that are permitted by FoP in some country, even though they wouldn't be permitted in the USA, and it's argued that the legal situation hasn't been established for certain. In theory, Commons volunteers could also decide not to delete files that were free in large part so the world, e.g., life + 70 year countries, but which weren't free in the USA. There would be two problems with that 1) if you start putting "not free in the USA" templates on files, would that damage the WMF's legal position under the DMCA, that it didn't know it was hosting copyright violations uploaded by some user? 2) take-down requests are also supposed to cause some kind of "strike" against a user, and users may end up banned if too many of their uploads were taken down. --ghouston (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I suppose point 1 can be avoided by removing the need for a US copyright statement, so that the template would just say where the file is free, not where it's still copyrighted. That happens already if a file is free in the USA, it's not generally pointed out if it's still copyrighted elsewhere. Point 2 may be risked by some users if such take-downs aren't often received. --ghouston (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point about the "Not free in the USA". But what if there is a "This file may not be free in the USA" (depending on if there is any possible way that it could be free in the USA if it was published in the USA without formal copyright notices etc.). If there is a chance that it could be free in some situations then we and WMF could still argue that we do not KNOW that it is a copyvio (we just have not been able to prove that it is not). But I see your point about the users. That would force/motivate some to create sock puppets for uploading files that may not be PD in the US. We can of course block the accounts and just decide not to look for the main account.
As for FOP the problem is that in some countris FOP is allowed but only for non-commercial purposes. So Commons would have to add a template saying "No FOP for Commercial use". Allowing it on Commons would make it possible to host the files and use it on all wikis. But it would ofcourse violate the main purpose about "free for all". --MGA73 (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

What format to upload an image in[edit]

I'm going to upload an image onto Commons. All of the copyright checks out, insofar as it was created and published in 1870, and its author died in 1899, (Source: making it undoubtedly in the public domain.

However, as it's a fairly detailed image (a panoramic sketch of an entire town) and the viewer's experience relies on that level of detail, I wanted to know how I should upload it without being completely unreasonable. As an example, the LOC has available a 154.7 MB TIFF, but I'm not sure a file of that size would be acceptable. Any pointers? Maybe convert it into a bitmap or a PNG? I don't want to compromise any of the detail in the image, but I don't imagine people will appreciate having to download a 155 MB file just to view it. TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Jmabel! I'll get to work uploading the TIFF. As it turns out, the Library of Congress has almost 200 works by Ruger of the same style, and I see surprisingly little of that work on Commons (none of which ostensibly have the original image quality), so that could be a fantastic (if excruciating) project which could benefit a great many Wikipedia articles. In fact, it seems like he was especially prolific in the Midwest. TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Automated uploads high resolution images from the Library of Congress collection has been done in the past, see Category:Images from the Library of Congress. One of these uploaders might be willing to upload this set for you too. Multichill (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Multichill: I'll see if I can get in touch with someone who's done one of these mass-uploads like , as I think these could be a fantastic asset to almost 200 articles (or more, given the LOC hosts over 1500 panoramic maps from miscellaneous artists). In the meantime, I'm having trouble just uploading one of these]], unfortunately. For some reason, the Upload Wizard hasn't been working, stating "This file did not pass file verification" and sometimes another message I neglected to write down about the server and expected time. The file as downloaded from the LOC uses the extension .tif, though I also changed it to .tiff just to see if that would somehow solve the problem. Attempting to upload another TIFF from the LOC (this one: returns the same error. TheTechnician27 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
        • You probably want to give User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js a try. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @Multichill: I went ahead and installed it. All of the chunks returned "Chunks uploaded", but the last three lines read: "Assembling chunks"; "Still waiting for server to rebuild uploaded file"; "FAILED: stashfailed: This file did not pass file verification". I'm going to give it another shot changing one minor thing, and it's currently uploading, but I think the Upload Wizard may not have been at fault here, since it can also upload in chunks and returned a very similar error message. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Actually, I just noticed that the error is "stashfailed" and that there's an option for "use stash and async", so I'm going to try disabling that and see if this works. Update: "FAILED: stashfailed: Chunked upload is already completed, check status for details." I guess I'll try clearing the upload stash and seeing if that resolves it. Basically just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks at this point. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
For large images, JPGs look better than TIFFs on Wikipedia articles, even though they are lossy, which is why it's good to have both versions. See also Commons:File types. The LOC often hosts JPGs at a smaller maximum resolution than TIFF counterparts, so I use free online image converters like Online Convert to convert TIF to JPG (or desktop software for large files). --Animalparty (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Definitely. I just wanted to make sure there was an original quality version up on Commons as well. However, I'm going to do what Odysseus1479 seemed to do when they ran into a similar issue and, as you noted, just upload the high-quality jpeg from the LOC as that'll work best for Wikipedia. Then I'll worry about the TIFF later. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 11[edit]


When uploading images of Pelargonium triste, I wanted to add vernacular names is different languages. Where Afrikaans (Kaneeltjie or Rooiwortel) is one of the choices given, Khoi (wit n/eitjie) is not. How do I deal with that? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: You can add vernacular names and descriptions to your files in any language you choose. If you want to add vernacular names to Category:Pelargonium triste, you can use {{VN}}: see for instance Category:Taxidea taxus. --Animalparty (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

Line numbering coming soon to all wikis[edit]

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Now this is some good news! Thank you to everybody who made this happen! -- Tuválkin 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thank you!--Vulphere 03:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

User contributions to check[edit]

Please, control contributios made by PeterParaguay. All are copyvios, easy to check. I can not do it, because I am a new user and the filters dont allow me to do it. Thanks. --Aama223 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aama223: All uploads are subject to deletion, thanks for the report.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Video Upload Issues[edit]

Spent much of the afternoon trying to upload a video. Uploading a webm file through the standard "Upload file" link (left sidebar). Each time all goes through fine, complete the "Describe" page and "publish" then wait an age and eventually get a "Internal error: Server failed to publish temporary file." with a "Retry" button below/right. Retry, wait an age and same happens, and again. So remove download, upload again (20 mins), go through it all again and get same result, etc. I've uploaded the .webm file to [] 615 MB (the .mp4 versions on my own website are lower quality) - don't bother uploading it as I'm prefer it be flagged as my name (for license/attribution/etc.). I feel I'm pretty committed and keep trying but/and after the video transcode issues (mentioned before) I can see a lot of contributors just giving up and not bothering to contribute to the project.PsamatheM (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Got there in the end after so many retries. Video issues need addressing if people are to be encouraged to release media through Commons.PsamatheM (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Next time you get that issue, follow the instructions at [5]. There are several bugs where users with ADSL connections can't upload to wikimedia commons.--Snaevar (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Snaevar:the upload went fine (so connectivity OK), entry of description (captions, categories, etc.) fine but the "publish" stage after Description took an age then reported Internal Server Error so connectivity still OK. The linked instructions look more like connectivity issues or am I missing something?PsamatheM (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I uploaded a cropped to 20M video, and after it was published uploaded the full video with the version upload function (this version upload also shows the progress of the individual chunks, the assembling of the chunks and the progress of the publishing). --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot from TV[edit]

Hi. I started a deletion request because I found a TV screenshot, but the uploader says this is not valid because I am an anonymous user and even he blanked the request and made a move: Commons:Deletion requests of unregistered user. Is this correct? Thanks. -- 20:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • You are perfectly entitled to make a deletion request as an anonymous user, unless you are evading a block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Is there still consensus for the MP4 ban?[edit]

Sometime ago I saw a village pump discussion here talking about improving video uploading to Wikimedia Commons (I can't find it as the website is "basically broken" for me on my mobile device at the moment, hoping that the next MediaWiki software update will fix it), in it a user (as far as my memory is accurate) pointed out that an old ban on MP4-format files on Wikimedia Commons may no longer have consensus as people today aren't as much for "open-source purity" as they were a decade ago citing that PDF files are now allowed on Wikimedia Commons. So before making this a proposal, is it likely that Wikimedia Commons might start allowing MP4 files? And are there still copyright © issues with this format? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No, actually there was a new conseus for limited MP4 uploads. The developers where asked to implement that in phab:T258540. That new conseus is linked in the bug.--Snaevar (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW other wikis based on the MW software play MP4 perfectly well (or at least, play in the not great user interface). Once implemented we should encourage campaigns like wiki loves to have users uploading short mp4s. -- (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
PDF is now "open", no? It's an ISO standard, and royalty-free. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Video Upload[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to find out how I can upload a long video with a duration of 1hr or more on wikimedia commons. I struggle to do that, as result of this I have to cut the videos and make it shorter to upload on wikimedia commons. I will be glad if the community show or teach me the best way to upload a long video on wikimedia commons. Thanks. Jwale2 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2: Hi, and welcome. You could try using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (documentation is on the talk page).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, but this is too technical and I don't really understand, can I get something simpler. Jwale2 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a hard limit of 4GiB (4,294,967,295 bytes) for all types of files. Apart from that, any upload method will work, or not. With a good and fast internet connection the upload wizard will upload a 4GiB file, with a not so good internet connection all upload methods may fail. You can try external upload tools like Commonist, Vicuna, pywikibot, pattypan, ... If all else fails you can ask for a server upload at phabricator. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Photo challenge February results[edit]

Bridges: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Harbourbridge Sydney.jpg Devil's bridge (lo sciaccianoci).jpg Australia sydney.jpg
Title Harbourbridge bei Nacht Devil's bridge (lo sciaccianoci) Harbour Bridge, Sydney
Author Sadarama Repuli Ddgfoto
Score 13 11 11
Wind: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Reiher im Starkwind.jpg Windy Wedding.jpg Südengland.jpg
Title "verdammt windig hier oben" Windy Wedding Baumreihe an einer Straße in Südengland
Author Sadarama Paulhaberstroh DEspel
Score 37 25 11

Congratulations to Sadarama (twice!), Repuli, Ddgfoto, Paulhaberstroh and DEspel. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Native American tribal governments[edit]

I've been looking for, and failing to find, categories relating to Native American tribal governments and their offices. Examples of images for which this would be useful: File:Bay Center, WA - Chinook Tribal Office 01.jpg, File:Carnation WA - Snoqualmie Tribe office.jpg, File:Swinomish Tribal Police Department 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons UCoC consultation summary is now available[edit]

Dear Commoners,

Thank you for your participation in the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement consultation on Wikimedia Commons. The summary of the consultation is now available on Commons and Meta-Wiki. Thank you for your help and enthusiasm to keep our community safe and joyful for everyone! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)