Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

August 24[edit]

The picture of the day[edit]

My understanding of how wikis treat nudity is generally that it is only included under circumstances where understanding content would be more difficult without the nudity. If this was just on someone's user page, sure, I say whatever.

But I went to the Main Page today and saw a topless female model on the very top of the page, clear in sight, huge image, I was pretty shocked. It would be different if someone specifically searched for this picture, or maybe an article about female breasts on Wikipedia, and found it that way. But when you have nudity shining bright on the front page of your site, don't you think that's a bit too much?! What about grade-school kids at school who search this site for educational usage, maybe to find free images for a project, and are greeted with this image? Some would immediately think "I didn't know this was a porn site!" If anything, something like this may scare lurkers away from the site more than it draws lurkers in.

Not to mention the fact that this is seemingly featured because of the quality of the picture being equivalent to the superficial attractiveness of the model.

I can't do anything. But I seriously recommend you take it off the front page. (I have an account, but chose to stay anonymous.) Anonymous945932894598 (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

100% agreed. This is tasteful nudity but there are millions of pieces of media here. No need for this on the front page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, thanks for the soft porn everyone. and edit warring to maimtain this in the queue. if you want to know why commons has a low reputation, and why english will not allow links, this would be why. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of curiosity: Are there any established guidelines/policy about this? Or, how does Commons/WP define what not to show, regarding nudity? 21:48, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
COM:NOTCENSORED GMGtalk 21:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
That merely says "we don't delete images just because they have naked people in them", not "artistic nudes with zero encyclopediac value belong on our front page." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't have a guideline against it, either. Anyone seriously upset about this should get involved in COM:POTD or propose a change in policy instead of objecting after everything is said and done. clpo13(talk) 22:27, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
absolutely not interested in that soul-crushing ego gratification process- the bias of the existing gatekeepers is quite clear, with no indication of willingness to change. not interested in another round of policy "let's make more rules to stop us from hurting ourselves" just stop. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it says Commons will not censor or remove media that users find objectionable or offensive (emphasis added). The "or" makes a big difference. GMGtalk 22:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It prompted this tweet from a British Library curator that I follow. Apart from that, did we get much of social media bump? Jheald (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Nudes don't often show up on the front page, but every time it happens, I have to wonder how many upset about it would be equally offended by Titian's Venus of Urbino or a similar piece of notable art? "Soft porn" indeed. clpo13(talk) 22:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It's almost as if that's a famous painting with known encyclopediac value or something. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It seems a lot like one side is saying "we shouldn't have these" and the other is saying "we have no policy that disallows them". The obvious answer would be to start a centralized discussion about whether these are appropriate, and change policy. GMGtalk 23:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm more interested in the opinion of the puritans who object to the nudity rather than the perceived lack of educational value. Yes, Venus of Urbino is an encyclopedic painting, but would those who are clutching their pearls over the referenced photo be just as disturbed by Titian's painting on the front page? Scratch that, I know they would. clpo13(talk) 23:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I hate to be a bit confrontational, but comments to this effect always crop up every time this issue is raised. It would be more useful if you could comment on the OP's specific criticisms than their lack or excess of morality. I agree with the OP that many internet users who navigate to Commons would probably be startled to see this image on the front page. The PotD is there to draw visitors in with the impressive quality of the photo displayed, but I think in this case the content probably causes this image to do the opposite for many visitors. BMacZero (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, I didn't see any comments in the FP discussion you linked that rejected the image because it contains nudity. Most of them are concerned with the quality of the digitization. BMacZero (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
OP's main concern seems to amount to "omg tits", but as I said earlier, if they don't want this to happen again (and really, it doesn't happen that often), they should get involved in discussions to change things. I understand the objections, and while I don't agree with them (and wonder what else people might want to keep off the main page because it might offend somebody somewhere), I'm open to participating in proposals to amend the existing guidelines in some way that minimizes the surprise to those unfamiliar with Commons.
Also, the comments on the FP discussion weren't all that bad, I admit, but LogX supported it [t]hough the picture is showing the sensational art and Amandajm complained about too many nudes making the Main Page look like Page 3. clpo13(talk) 00:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
I dunno. I'm not really even arguing that it's appropriate. I'm just arguing that there's no policy based reason to forbid it. Make a consensus based reason to forbid it and I'll argue the other side. GMGtalk 00:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
yeah, maybe we need a policy to stop making commons a laughing stock, and compared to the kavanaugh drama-fest among museum professionals. but i guess some think that is a feature not a bug. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 11:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo, COM:NOTCENSORED is a guideline on hosting media, not on what we as a community choose to display on the main page, or on other forums here. People who visit Commons have no control over what they see on the main page, and reasonable people would assume it is appropriately curated rather than chosen to shock or offend. There are situations where viewing such material in a public, work or school environment would result in personal attack, job loss, or even criminal prosecution. Dismissing these concerns as "puritans" or "omg tits" reflects a very narrow self centred world-view where the only valid position is that of a frat boy in his bedroom. Displaying such images on the main page demonstrates about as much maturity as getting a tattoo just to show your mum how independent-minded you are. Btw, the purpose of FPC is not to select images for the main page. That the main page team select their images from the FP pool is their choice, and they aren't obliged to select all images that get promoted. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". Quite a few people on Commons have yet to learn that lesson in life. -- Colin (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Umm...Colin, no offense, but the "omg tits" bit wasn't my comment. It was from clpo13. Mine is simply that the closest thing to a relevant policy is NOTCENSORED, and while a number of editors have expressed views similar to your own about the appropriateness of such content, there is as yet no consensus based reason to forbid it. If enough people feel strongly about it, then they should see such a broad consensus, and I'm happy to defer to it once achieved. GMGtalk 14:49, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
User:GreenMeansGo ah I didn't notice the other signature, so thought the whole paragraph was yours. Anyway, you replied that NOTCENSORED was relevant and it really really isn't. But should anyone create a VP discussion about what kinds of image we should show on the main page, you can bet there will be 100 "NOTCENSORED" votes from folk who haven't the first clue what censorship actually is. I don't suppose we can expect kids who get their news from Facebook to understand that the editors of a publication (such as the main page, or a newspaper) are only free when they can both chose what to include and what not to include. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I mean.. CENSOR is a policy that specifically applies to SCOPE. But NOTCENSORED is part of the guideline NOT, and not part of SCOPE. If NOTCENSORED applies to blurring genitalia within the context of a single image (also not an issue of keep/delete), I don't see an obvious reason why it would not equally apply to content hosted on galleries or on the main page, barring consensus against that interpretation. GMGtalk 15:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If we want to have a policy of not displaying NSFW media (assuming bosses and coworkers can include a mix of fundamentalists opposed to nudity and images of Mohammed) on the main page, a proposal for it should be on COM:VPP, not right here.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do these discussions always fall down to labelling people puritans and "fundamentalists opposed to nudity and images of Mohammed". Look, there is a difference between the perfectly legal right have a wank with your laptop in your bedroom and looking at the stuff with your trousers down and fist pumping away on the train. Most grown ups appreciate there is a time and a place and that freedom means giving people control over what they watch and when. By sticking sensitive images on the main page, you are actually removing people's freedoms, and saying "you will accept my values and my choices right now". That's quite oppressive. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, The laughing stock here are the people complaining when they see a woman's tit on Commons Main Page. Would a man's tit be OK? And who obviously never show up on POTD. Well, blame yourself... Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Something like File:'David' by Michelangelo JBU06.JPG?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:36, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, this isn't a "laughing" matter. We are only having this conversation because there are about three women on Commons, and this sort of thing does nothing to change that. If we had a good proportion of grown-up professional-minded female users, you'd all be slapped round the head with an "objectification" wet fish. Yann, your argument about participating at POTD is completely irrelevant and a rather lame way of reacting to criticism. -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
yes, commons is a cesspool, with no technical barriers to entry, just cultural ones. better to laugh than cry. but if you want to know why commons is a laughing stock: "Well, blame yourself... Regards," i take it, you agree there should be a code of conduct, and standard of practice? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Always the optimist. GMGtalk 17:40, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
no, just the realist of low expectations. you should expect periodic scandal, as this culture waves its "freedom" in the public's face. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

50 million[edit]

Just now. Congratulations! -- Tuválkin 11:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

\o/ Yann (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: 50 million uploaded files, while certainly significant, appears to include deleted or old versions of files. I will be more excited when {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} lists 50 million files and galleries (it currently stands at 49,658,443).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:26, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.: I was refering to {{NUMBEROFFILES}}, which seems to have hit 50 M for the first time around one hour ago. Does it include deleted files? I’d say it does not, or should not. Maybe file redirects are included? Not sure. As for {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}, I didn’t even consider it because it includes Commnos’ galleries, which are mostly garbage. -- Tuválkin 12:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
And which one is the 50 millionth one? That could be used for some PR stuff. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
This one, I (would like to) believe :) Poco2 17:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t think so: I noticed something like 50 000 162 when I started this thread, at 11:53 UTC, and this image was uploaded at 13:06 UTC. Of course deletions means that any given number is crossed several times upon uploading, but I think just before 11:53 UTC was when the 50M mark was crossed for the first time. -- Tuválkin 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
That's great! :D 50 million and counting!! -- Darwin Ahoy! 17:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Awesome! Congratulations everyone!! :D —Thanks for the fish! talkcontribs 17:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Oddly enough (as of writing this) Wikimedia Commons is still at 49,489,593 content pages, as I suppose that the vast majority of these are media files I'd like to know which ones are excluded? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I was thinking about that, too, since Jeff G. reported above 49 M and change. There should be one file page for each file counted with {{NUMBEROFFILES}} and yet we’re a few hundered thousand short: not only 50,175,502 minus 49,658,443 (516 348 as of this datestamp) but also minus the number of Galleries. I suspect it could be file page redirects counting as files, but a better opinion is sought. -- Tuválkin 18:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Let me plug in here this bit of wiki text I add to my uploads’ descriptions:

| other_fields={{Information_field |name=1st uploaded as the|value={{subst:formatnum:{{subst:#expr:{{subst:formatnum:{{subst:NUMBEROFFILES}}|R}}+1}}}}<sup>th</sup> file in Wikimedia Commons}}

-- Tuválkin 10:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Any clue for a likely candidate as nr 50M? (PR reasons) Vysotsky (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I really think it is important to celebrate an important milestone. 50 Million free images is a VERY important milestone. Is there anyone who can suggest a likely nr 50M? Otherwise I will take the leopard eating an antilope, suggested above, as an image "near to 50M". Vysotsky (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:History of the European Union by year[edit]

Hi folks, this is Europe writing. We have this strange category Category:History of the European Union by year that includes images from far before the EC was founded. IMHO we should restrict the use of this category and its subcategories to a defined starting point (foundation of the EC, eventually one of its predecessors) and also restrict the images per country only after a country joined the EC (and needless to say: only till a country left the EC). other opinions? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Herzi Pinki, it should also be changed to other categories like this: Category:1942 in Yugoslavia, Category:1532 in the United States, Category:1908 in Austria (=> Category:1908 in Austria-Hungary), ... --GT1976 (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but leave {{category redirect}} behind, because many people accidentally place files there, so without the redirect it will be a constant battle against well intending contributors. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
sorry, Gone_Postal, I'm missing an idea where to redirect. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree basically with what User:Martin H. already said in 2010: The whole category and all its subcategories don't make sense as they are now, since the overwhelming majority of the media in there are not about the history of the European Union. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I read that discussion that was closed due to missing engagement (with the decision to delete those categories and keep them because of harmlessness), I agree that something has to be done also for the time a state is in the EC and the EC is in modus operandi. Two different points, while my primary pledge was to delete by-year categories for years there wasn't such a thing as EC, maybe we should reopen the CfD for the later years. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's two different points. However, a decision about the overall category might make a discussion about the pre-EU years obsolete, if for example it's decided to delete these categories alltogether. Anyway, I'm fine with either way of continuing. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 07:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree to do what Herzi Pinki proposed, regardless of there will be later - or not - decisions to other points, because of its not clear, if or when that will be. Many greetings --Wilhelm Zimmerling PAR (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Tool coord update[edit]

I updated my tool to display on a map the geolocated articles that are lacking image:
It allows to display the coordinates coming from different Wikipedia, but also from Wikidata.
It will directly retrieve information from the database, so it should always be up to date.
Old markers disappear after a few days.
To your cameras!
Myst (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand, you say Wikipedia and Wikidata, so you do not take it from Commons? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:28, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 12[edit]

Flickr images where the Wikimedia user is the Flickr user?[edit]

Occasionally, a Commons or Wikipedia user uploads an image here and they give a flickr URL for it. They clearly state here that they are one in the same with the flickr user, their username matches the flickr user name, etc, and they have completely convinced us that they are the same person. But whereas they picked a free license here, they uploaded it to flickr as "all rights reserved". Is there an SOP for how to handle such images? Do we simply not put a {{flickrreview}} template on it at all? --B (talk) 01:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Depending on the admin such files are either ignored or deleted as COM:NETCOPYVIO while waiting for OTRS. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
if they uploaded with a free license here, why review at all? just to drive up deletion totals? need to document why you might think the uploader is not the photographer - for that is your only deletion rationale, not some vindictive off wiki reason. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, we certainly shouldn't be deleting images where we are completely convinced in some fashion that the flickr user = the Wikipedian (OTRS, long-time established user, self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian, etc). It would be nice if there was something that we could use to indicate "yes, this flickr page doesn't match what is here, but we know because xyz that this uploader is the flickr user and so we don't care". --B (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
well, it is not that we don't care, it is we have a nuanced view of the messy reality of licenses on the web. you could put on a maintenance category "different license elsewhere on web," but i'm sure some would view that as a "license review" prod, just like contradictory exif. expecting one consistent license on each image is unrealistic. forcing uploaders to change licenses elsewhere, by deletion here is a vindictive way to "promote free culture", bound to be counter-productive. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@B: In case of "self-identifies on their flickr page as the Wikipedian" or OTRS, {{licensereview}} should work. But this supposed Flickr issue isn't a Flickr issue. For example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Blue winged leafbird.jpg. Trusted user with thousands of photos, upload tagged with PD-self in 2006 (when that was common and acceptable), yet we are looking at a DR. Because.. I don't have a fucking clue. We're looking at a DR. That's a fact. As I said, it depends on the admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
i have a clue: some here want to destroy what they cannot create; they do not play well with others, and are enabled; because no one wants to invest the emotional labor, to get a professional standard of practice; hence the perpetual clown car. we do not have a license quality improvement process, because some are incapable of collaboration. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 04:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: If someone just tags it as {{PD}} or {{GFDL}}, then there is no claim of authorship at all. We don't know if they are saying "I made this and proclaim it to be {PD, GFDL}", "I found this on some website which proclaims it to be {PD, GFDL}", or "everything on the internet is public domain, right?" But PD-self is an affirmative claim of authorship. Obviously that claim can be challenged if it seems unlikely (no EXIF data, lots of copyvios, professional-quality image and no other uploads, found elsewhere on the internet prior to it being uploaded here), but it is a claim of authorship that should be sufficient barring evidence to the contrary. So I don't understand this DR at all. --B (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Based on how I handle similar issues for Geograph images, I'd make the source {{own}}, remove any licence review template, and add a link to indicate that the same image is also available on Flickr. For Geograph we have {{also geograph}} for that last part: I don't know if an equivalent exists for Flickr. --bjh21 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

jpegcrop producing errors in imgs[edit]

Madagascan sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus), Vohimana reserve, Madagascar (cropped).jpg

I've been using jpegcrop for years, but recently I've found that when I crop an img, the cropped version does not display properly. I recently replaced the img on my user page, tried cropping it, and again there's a problem. (E.g. in the windows folder on my laptop, instead of a thumbnail of the img, as w the original, there's just a generic 'jpg' icon for the cropped version, and MaxView 2.8 displays a black screen if I open it.)

Just to see what would happen, I uploaded it to Commons anyway. (Linked here.) It displays fine in preview. I put it on my user page, and that displays fine as well, with it reduced in size. But if I click on it to see it in full res, I see an icon for a broken file. If instead I choose full-res under the preview options, I get the error message 'This image "[URL]" cannot be displayed because it contains errors.' (I'm using FF.) But any of the smaller versions display correctly.

I updated jpegcrop (2015 to current 2017 version), and it's still happening, so presumably not a bug on their end. The moth is quite a large img, but it happens w small ones too. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Thanks Kwamikagami (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

  • No, but just confirming that it also thumbnails correcty for me, but the full-res says it's broken. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Huh. Just playing around, I tried viewing it at reduced size in MaxView, to see if I'd get the behaviour here, but still a black screen. (I needed to use finger commands on the touch pad, because the scaling menu was greyed out.) Then at 200% and it displayed correctly. Then the scaling menu started working, and I can now view it at any scale. Closed it, tried opening again, black screen, now can't get it to display again.
    • jpegcrop is such a simple program that I can't imagine what I could be doing differently than what I used to do when I used to get it to work. Kwamikagami (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Kwamikagami: File a bug. It is probably due to some metadata issue, because otherwise the data itself would be lost and could not be recoverable by resizing. But after a quick look with a hex editor, I am unable to find the exact problem. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Do you mean at I don't see anyplace to file a bug. But I did find an email address. I'll try that. [Nope, address no longer good.]
        • Or did you mean here at Commons? Kwamikagami (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • The problem appears to be with jpegcrop and not with Commons, so you'd need to contact them. Btw, running the file through exiftran -i -a -g also fixes it. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Also, when I open your file with GPicView I get the error "Suspension is not allowed here", but I have no idea what it means… what is being suspended? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
            • Thanks. Submitted my info and your comments on their contact page, but that doesn't seem to be working either, just stalling out. Kwamikagami (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Maybe it's abandonware? I use jpegtran for such things it can losslessly rotate and nearlosslessly crop (it doesn't lose quality on the parts you are not cropping out). Maybe you can give that a try. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:58, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe. I messaged IJG at, so maybe they'll have something to say. The fact that jpegcrop was updated for 2 years after the problem occurred suggests that it isn't just an abandonware problem. I'll take a look at jpegtran, thanks. Kwamikagami (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

JFTR it behaves similarly on my iMac. Clicking the “Original file” link gets me a solid black image in Safari. The downloaded file shows a correct icon on my desktop, but Preview displays the image as mostly black, with what looks like a couple of weirdly fractured text-windows (not Mac-like, with dark grey title bars) near the right-hand side. Neither Photoshop nor GIMP will open it, saying respectively “Could not complete your request because reading arithmetic coded JPEG files is not implemented” and “Sorry, there are legal restrictions on arithmetic coding.” I’ve seen the former message from Photoshop before (IIRC from a JPEG 2000 image created by a panorama-stitcher), but in that case GIMP had no problem opening it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Major change on how fieldescription pages will work[edit]

Hi, FYI: The Foundation is planning a major change in how the filedesciption pages will work (as far i know wikitext will be replaced with some wikibase stuff). See Commons talk:Structured_data#Necessary_changes_to_how_viewing_and_using_old_file_page_revisions_functions. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Where do you read that the wikitext will disappear? As far as I understand, this is really just about how old revisions are being displayed. You can still edit the current version of the wikitext as usual, you just won't be able to go back to an old version and click on "edit" there any more. --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
What El Grafo said. The WMF isn't changing anything about file descriptions. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Template generating broken Category name?[edit]

I just now detected this problem: in Category:Ruth Ozeki a redlink category appears: Category:Ruth (given name)(given name). This as-yet uncreated category has been populated with 192 (!) pages. There also exists a properly named category, Category:Ruth (given name), populated with 203 pages. I suspect the misnamed category is generated and populated by the Template:Wikidata infobox or something similar, because I've just started seeing it (I've returned to editing in the Commons after a long break). I sincerely hope this is a glitch that can be fixed at its source and won't require manual intervention! Kindly advise how to proceed. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Deborahjay: This was because you changed the label on Wikidata from "Ruth" to "Ruth (given name)". I've undone that and the category Category:Ruth (given name) should be added correctly now. In general, the disambiguation (the part in brackets in categories here) should be in the description field, not the label of the Wikidata item. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Peel:, thank you - I'll see about following through in Wikidata by adding the statement P1889 ("different from"). It seems from your explanation that my difficulty is a lack of familiarity with identical labels being differentiated in their description fields (e.g. multiple items for the label Ruth). -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

October 13[edit]

Retouched files[edit]

This was uploaded without the original. Yeah, thanks.

I'm thinking about a proposal to require users to upload images (that they didn't create) before retouching along with their retouch work. This wouldn't apply to own work, so a photographer wouldn't be forced to upload raw images.

Maria Alvarez Tubau is not the only victim. Compare File:Sudheer at South-Indian-International-Movie-Awards-6.jpg (in case of red link) with the original. This is not how you remove a watermark. I've also seen historical paintings being color-adjusted without a retouch template or the original being uploaded. You'd never find out unless you visit the source. Assuming the source is still available. If the source disappears, we'll think for the rest of our lives that some historical figure was painted like a Smurf. Some exceptions would be needed, own work and editing an image to remove derivative works before uploading here for example should always be allowed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I do not know how I feel about requiring it. In general contributions should be encouraged, making them intentionally harder makes first contributions less and less likely. I see quite a few individuals here who contribute in good faith and then get speedy-deleted/warned/shouted-at because they have violated some policy agreement that they were not even aware of. But when it comes to suggestions, I would actually go further and suggest that even in cases of DW a person uploads entire work, then crops with overwrite and then files a Deletion Request for the first version. The laws on what is and what is not DW change, and copyrights expire, so in the end we will be able to undelete that version, but not if it has disappeared. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Good points. In this case, users shouldn't be shouted at, just informed. Only if they downright refuse to upload the unprocessed image would they be shouted at. For DW, technically I agree, but I fear it will put additional strain on admins for cases that often may not even be relevant. File:Kuno Becker y Verónica Jaspeado hablan sobre "Cars 3".jpg for example, the full background is DW but we're not even interested in that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Logo with wrong licence[edit]


About File:TM2_Canyon_-_Logo.png :

This logo had a wrong licence. This is not a Free Art License, but a "classic" video game logo. This logo has been released by Ubisoft at E3 2011 and it has been shown on a french video gamle website june 7, 2011 [1]. The file have been uploaded the same day here at Commons website.

I think the texture logo is above threshold of originality. And copyright olders are Nadeo/Ubisoft (game developper/game publisher).

Cab someone start a deletion request ? I'm sorry i have got no time at all to do this.

Regards --Archimëa (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pressing 'Nominate for deletion' link on the right when viewing the image actually takes less time than leaving a comment here explaining that you do not have time to do that. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Don't you think if you did it would have took even less time to write this. funny. I don't see any deletion button.
So now, do what you want with this thing. I did the job. I don't contribute anymore to Commons project, other than upload files i need. And if it's all you can do or answer, it's all good, keep this file, i don't care with this. --Archimëa (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this file. If you do not see a link "Nominate for deletion" then you can take the time to learn how to use your browser. Go to any page on Commons, press Ctrl+F (on most browsers) and type "Nominate for deletion", the browser will actually find it for you. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 06:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


I am requesting this to be moved to Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (internal) as this is for internal wikis. What if it's used on an external site without overwriting allowed? Then Template:Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external) may be better, even if it's used as the background-image property in w:Cascading Style Sheets. Keep in mind, though, that the creators of sites that embed these images from the subdomain might have to be contacted so the creators of the sites know that every time they add a new image to the site, they might have to add the template to the associated page. 20:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, Why not just create {{please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version (external)}} right now? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 20:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't want the page deleted and this IP address warned. 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support creation of such a template. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 07:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass cache purging[edit]

As part of a CfD where I changed a license template used in ~30,000 pages, I'm looking to purge the cache of all images in a category (to see what remains in the former category). Is there any automated way to purge the cache of all images in a category? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: One could null-edit them with AWB using a bot account, or touch them with   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

October 14[edit]

Language names[edit]

When I use {{language}} as follows:

{{language|fr}} & {{language|en}}

inside the {{Book}} template for File:Orphée aux Enfers (Chicago 1868).djvu, I get

French & english

but I should get

French & English

because the word "English" is always capitalized in English. Using {{language|en|en}} does not correct the problem. But when I use the same template structure here, I get

French & English

as would be expected. What is the {{Book}} template doing to interfere with the capitalization? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

nota bene: I already have requested help in getting the Google notice stripped from the file. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
  • You should not actually have to use {{language}}, as it is already called by the language parameter in {{book}}; a simple |language=fr is enough. However, the way the parameter is encoded, prevents defining multiple languages. Someone already brought up the issue with multilanguage books on the template TP in 2016, but has not received any reply since. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:03, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Bleach works/Bleacheries[edit]

Is there any intentional difference between Category:Bleach works and Category:Bleacheries? If so, what is it? - Jmabel ! talk 02:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Ies, Marcbela, Verne Equinox:. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Looking at the description of File:Ogden Mill, Newhey - - 372272.jpg and the wiktionary entry for bleachworks, I'd say that bleachworks produce bleach, while bleacheries do the bleaching (of textile). On a second thought, scrap that. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jmabel. When I made Category:Bleacheries I probably didn't detected the already existing Category:Bleach works. Or maybe I got fooled by its somewhat misleading categories. As far as I see the content of both categories is same (with the exception of a quarry). I think they can be merged. -- Ies (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have a strong sense of which would be the preferred term? I never heard "bleacheries" before. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Acc. to Wiktionary a bleachery (plural bleacheries) is a place or an establishment where bleaching is done. And here is a reference: en:Fall River Bleachery.

Apologies for the accidental revert. To complicate things a bit further, there is also Category:Bleachfields for the pre-chemical bleaching industry. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

And is that definition of a bleachery in any way different from a bleach works? Because that is exactly how I would have defined that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
There seems no difference between them. However, online and in my books I can't find any definition of "bleach work" and hardly any reference for it. "Bleachery" seems the commonly used term and "bleach work" just a locally preferred synonym for it. Anyhow, both categories contain images of establishments where bleaching is done and therefore should be merged. In my opinion the content of Category:Bleach works should be moved to Category:Bleacheries. Any reasoned objections? -- Ies (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
In expressions of the form a (commodity) works, “works” is invariably plural; here it’s a mainly-UK term for a factory. So I’m not surprised it couldn’t be found in the singular, and it might not appear at all in American sources.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine with that; the only downside is the loss of parallel wording to Category:Dye works. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 15[edit]

Delete template cannot be seen while logged in[edit]

MAKEKA has been nominated for deletion: Commons:Deletion requests/MAKEKA. While I am logged in, I cannot see the nomination page, but when I log out, I can see it. I tested it in both Firefox and Chrome as well as with a brand new account. Any ideas? 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Wikimedia parser broke. Reparsing solved it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Do we have a policy specifically prohibiting sockpuppetry? I can't find anything; there's no link at Commons:SPI, for example, and that page has a note saying It is forbidden to use multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Such accounts will be blocked. Seems to me that it would help to have something of a sockpuppetry policy, even if it's as simple as saying "en:WP:SOCK is now our sockpuppetry policy" or making the two-sentence note on COM:SPI the entire policy. It's a common-sense concept, at least for anyone familiar with other WMF projects, so I don't think we ought to put effort into writing a policy, but since many other projects have policies on the subject, it would be helpful to designate something as our equivalent. Nyttend (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry, by definition, is the use of multiple undisclosed accounts in an abusive way. Indeed, alternative accounts are not disallowed; sockpuppetry is the abusive use of alternative/multiple accounts. The SPI quote alone is a prohibition and COM:BLOCK has the explicit reason "Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions." Sockpuppetry is not allowed by policy (COM:BLOCK), and that has been, and is, the current practice. What about the current handling of socks needs to be changed? What actual problem needs to be resolved here? Эlcobbola talk 22:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
gosh, what a wonderful idea to just import tl;dr policy from english, and the english drama. if you are serious, start a Commons:Village pump/Proposals. but i do not think you have a consensus. not broken = don't fix. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:41, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-42[edit]

22:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

October 16[edit]

How to convince others to licence without non-commercial?[edit]

When trying to obtain photos on a platform, answering a query as to why Wiki has to reject licences including non-commericial, I wrote: "Wikipedia has been forced to create strict policies on licences by court cases it has lost, that made Wikipedia responsible for misuse by third parties. I do not know the details. It tries to convince users with objections against its ban on non-commercial use conditions with this cartoon:"

The unexpected response was: "Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Now all we need to know is what "inexpensive" means in terms of books and CDs, and how many billion copies they will sell ..."

I'm unsure how to do this properly. Perhaps someone has got some advice. Thank you in advance. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Non-commercial licenses prevent reuse in most cases. A blog with advertising, a book sold in a bookshop, a documentary on TV, etc., all these require a commercial license, even if the primary objective of the publication is educational. So practically, a license which allows reuse for commercial purpose is needed in almost every case. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
That cartoon is really dire and should be deleted. There is some info on what "non commercial" means at CC FAQ and CC FAQ Mix and Defining Noncommercial and NonCommercial interpretation. I don't think court cases are a factor at all. The point of Wikipedia and Commons are to be "free content" projects where the work (text, image, video, etc) can be freely reused by anyone for any purpose. As Yann notes, a surprising number of situations are commercial-use. I think that as a photographer you have to ask what you are trying to achieve with your photography. If you are trying to make a living from it, by selling images, then the images you feel have commercial value should of course not be given away with a free licence. Perhaps still there are images you've made that you don't see yourself making money from but have sufficient educational value that Wikipedia or others might find them useful. But an awful lot of photographers do it as a hobby and are not dependent on selling images to pay their mortgage. I say then that if you are not planning to make money from your photo, what harm does it do if someone else does? Far better to let others use and enjoy your photos for the biggest audience. And normal "(c) All rights reserved" means your photos cannot be used by anyone else for 70 years after you die. So unless you become a famous wealthy photographer with lawyers to manage your estate when dead, all you've done is ensure virtually nobody will use and enjoy your photos till the next century! Which is such a waste. Lastly, having a CC licence doesn't eliminate the chance of being paid for your work. There are companies who may want to use your image in a way that they don't want to have to provide even minimal attribution and licence details, and are willing to pay. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
"Ah: so it is OK for wiki to make a small profit from our pictures, by selling them cheap. Technically yes. But as a non-profit, Wikimedia Foundation is they're legally obligated to spend any profit fully to support their stated purpose by, for instance, purchasing access deals from pay-to-read journals for some elite class of editors, updating and maintaining their servers, hiring lawyers to sort out the sort of legal jumbles that arise in such a huge co-operation of volunteers (and vandals) from the world over, hiring developers to maintain and improve the software the sites operate on, etc etc.
More importantly, trying to sell any content or media published in Wikimedia Foundation projects--like Commons photos or Wikipedia articles--is like selling salt water by the sea. A lesson in supply and demand. The supply is endless and available for free for anyone that can access the Net. To create demand you'd really have to add value--like hard cover books for people who really, really dislike reading on screens. Not much of a market potential there if you ask me. Releasing any rights on intellectual property is irrevocable, so Wikimedia Foundation cannot restrict the licensing on their published content--they don't own it, it's free now and forever--they're just providing some sites and systems people can use to find them. Even if the Foundation was put down tomorrow and the sites went permanently down--anyone would be free to publish the stuff on mirror sites. As a matter of fact, there already are multiple sites that mirror Wikipedia letter-to-letter.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that non-commercial licensed media cannot be used in things like educational pamphlets, print-outs for workshops or courses, USB drive books or any other knowledge distribution if the publisher needs to accept any sort of payment from distributors or end users to help cover costs or prevent the Free Stuff Syndrome. Not just here where Internet is pm everywhere and charities to help out disadvantaged people have plenty of wealth around them to ask donations from. But in developing countries where conflict, remoteness, extreme wealth disparity, political issues, and sparser infrastructure can make spreading of knowledge a real challenge and demand stuff like print materials, fuel, fees... By releasing without non-commercial, the media can be used by the locals to educate their neighbors and countrymen without restricting their options for supporting the operation financially. --Pitke (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
i would not waste time trying to convince; rather, work with the willing. i am sympathetic to the use of NC, when you have re-users not attributing SA images, and sending collection letters to photographers who donate images to the public domain, but you are not going to convince people whose pecuniary interest is to collect fees. we lost that battle. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Community policy for 3D object uploads (request from WMF Legal)[edit]


We at Foundation Legal would like to request that the community make a policy regarding 3D files, in particular addressing how weapons and other people’s inventions might be handled, and perhaps more generally addressing what types of files you all would accept of these file formats.

Uploads of STL files were turned on early in 2018. Right now, 3D files make up a small number of uploads, so we think this is a good time to address some of the issues that these files can present proactively, rather than waiting for a problem to occur. The thing that made us think about this topic is the recent news about the Defense Distributed case in which the owner of plans for a 3D gun has been making heavy efforts to try and get them online. The STL format probably isn’t great for this, but we don’t know what sorts of things someone might try to upload. Even lower resolution files could have information for making some types of weapons or perhaps certain parts of weapons that do not require high resolution imagery that are prohibited by law, or for making objects covered by someone else’s patent.

The Defense Distributed case might also lead lawmakers in the United States to introduce new bills about 3D printed weapons. There’s a chance this will lead to further restrictions on the types of content platforms like Wikimedia can host. The recent passage of FOSTA (amending CDA 230) and general interest in additional internet regulations in the United States also make this possibility more likely. A proactive policy on Commons would be a good way to show how user-driven content policies can address problems online much faster and better than legislation.

We think it would save the Foundation and the community some significant headache to address this now before a problem occurs. This is because the issues with 3D files fall into a narrow category of intellectual property and criminal laws that are not covered by either the DMCA or Section 230, which could mean that if a problem occurs, the Foundation would have to intervene (or even turn off the feature in a particularly bad situation) before a community policy could be made.

We’ve offered some information and background on our wikilegal page about 3D files that might be helpful, and are appreciative of any review you’re all able to do in this area.

-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Could someone provide a link to the previous discussion about this issue? Thanks -- (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
To some extent Commons already has a policy, namely Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. That policy already acknowledges while, in general, Commons considers non-copyright restrictions to not be grounds for deletion of works from Commons, certain works will nonetheless be illegal for Commons to host. A very brief mention of patents is already at that page, but no specific mention of 3D printing of the objects depicted in 3D files possibly infringing on patents and definitely no mention of 3D printable weapons. It seems reasonable that we should, at the very least:
  1. Add a mention of 3D printable weapons to Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#Non-copyright_restrictions_that_directly_affect_Commons.
  2. Add new non-copyright restriction tags for 3D files depicting objects that if they were 3D printed might be considered patent infringement or weapons manufacturing. The tags might perhaps be {{3D Patented}} (along the lines of {{Trademarked}}) and {{3D Weapon}} (along the lines of {{Personality rights}}).
This would allow us to begin to track such files and respond to evolving Commons policy for 3D files (or, if necessary, respond to changes in US law in this area). We should be careful to word any policy in this area to be confined to 3D file types, as freely licensed photos and illustrations depicting patented objects or weapons are very unlikely to be subject to the same restrictions. It sounds like the WMF is encouraging Commons to do more than this (i.e. craft an explicit policy along the lines of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people), but I think we should at least start with the two items I mention above (assuming there aren't any objections to recognizing that 3D files might be subject to new forms of non-copyright restriction not currently mentioned in Commons policy). —RP88 (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Photos of Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Washington Kennedy[edit]

Is there any supervisor of volunteers with whom I can discuss these photos? As I have stated repeatedly, I am the sole heir of the Kennedy Estate, and as such, the owner of the copyrights of these photos. Anne Gamble Kennedy and Matthew Kennedy are deceased, and their photos date back to the 1940s. I have submitted their Last Will and Testament as proof.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nina07011960 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Nina07011960: You can write to; however, I remind you that the subject of a photo does not normally hold a copyright, the photographer does. - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
    • i see youhave uploaded a fair use image on english wikipedia here [6], you may have to do the same for your other image [7]. a transfer such as fairusebot could work, but that would require a helpful admin. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Appropriate method of requesting edits to the live MOTD[edit]

Today's MOTD had an ungrammatical caption. I proposed an edit request at Template_talk:Motd/2018-10-16_(en), since Talk:Main Page suggests going to the equivalent page for a POTD problem, but it took about 10 hours for the request to be noticed by an administrator. Given that this sort of error should ideally be fixed significantly faster, what is the correct course of action for reporting an error with MOTD, and could something suitable be stated in the header of Talk:Main Page? GKFXtalk 22:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Just post such requests on COM:AN. Or here. IMO this is the fastest way. --jdx Re: 22:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 17[edit]

File:Manji swastika symbol with idols in Kyoto Japan.jpg[edit]

This file contains the mirrored Nazi symbol, and the number of tiles in it is also an abbreviation for the year, in which the bad part of German history begins, but there is no warning for users in Germany. -- 05:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading the cultural context. Rama (talk) 06:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
And should Category:Swastikas be added to Category:Kennzeichen verfassungswidriger Organisationen? I know, that the use of such files can sometimes cause criminal persecution. -- 06:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
There may be some sort of issue with German (or other European) laws here, but certainly in the Japanese context there is approximately zero chance that this has any relation to Nazism. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Moving image dropdown problem?[edit]

I tried to move an image today but when clicking 'select a reason' the dropdown did not appear... it just repeated 'select a reason' highlighted in blue. I experimented with a couple of other files but the same thing happened. Is there an anomaly or is it just me!? (I tried purging and re-loading). Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 11:02, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There are two "move" options. The first one is just to move the image. There is no any dropdown menu for selecting the reason. The second "move" option is actually to request a move but not to move anything and it has a dropdown menu for selecting the reason. (It works fine for me.) I suppose that you are asking about the latter as you are not a filemover? Ruslik (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes the second method. I tried it a few times during the day, with the same result but not after about 18:00 (UTC). However, I just tried it again and whatever was wrong... it's fine now. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Commonshelper doesn't work[edit]

Doesn't seem to work. Is it just me? Does Magnus Manske maintain this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It ded. GMGtalk 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
We screwed. Magnus rarely responds to anything. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I concur that it appears to be dead and that Magnus is responsible for it. I filed a ticket at   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Eventually all tools will die this way. Sadly so will we, but let's not think about that too much. -- (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Collective account for technical edits[edit]

It may be a trivial question, but I can't find the answer in the policy pages. Is it allowed to have a user account that is not linked to a single person but belongs to a group of people? Specifically, there is a group of people organizing Wiki Loves Monuments in a given country, and they would like to have a joint account for making technical edits related to this competition (sort and categorize photos, greet new participants, etc.) Such an account won't be used for uploads, policy discussions, and similar activities. This will be stated clearly on the user page. Would it be fine, or not? --Alexander (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I believe the answer is "technically no", it's forbidden by the TOU, but Commons has allowed them occasionally anyway. GMGtalk 16:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything in policy to forbid it, either in the wmf:Terms of Use or in Commons:Username policy. Policy on other Wikimedia sites varies, so for instance such an account couldn't be used on English Wikipedia because en:Wikipedia:Username policy forbids sharing of accounts. --bjh21 (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The TOU states You are responsible for safeguarding your own password and should never disclose it to any third party. Presumably, any shared account would also have a shared password. Therefore TOU violation. GMGtalk 17:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I admit that I hadn't spotted that rule, but it doesn't prevent shared accounts. Even if "you" in the TOU can't be plural, one could use OAuth to grant API access, or have a proxy that handled authentication, or simply have one person log in multiple browser profiles with "Keep me logged in" ticked. On the other hand, I agree with Fæ below that this is probably not a good idea even if it's permitted. --bjh21 (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Avoid it please. It's easy enough to set up a series of grouped accounts like "Alan (WLF 2018)", "Alice (WLF 2018)" and "retire" the special purpose accounts when you are done with them. If something goes wrong, such as one user appearing to disrupt the project, then there is no individual accountability for the actions taken by a multi-user account. Putting aside the non-accountability in a sockpuppetry case, it becomes impossible to, say, mass revert damage without mass reverting similar changes (or uploads) in the same period from other users. -- (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

General upload frustration[edit]

I know no one will care, but I still just need to express my frustration after carefully picking the best available photos from a large bunch (horrible lighting and lousy camera, but I can't do much about that, it's either that or nothing), then trying to carefully document a series of photos during the upload so all the main information would be in the description, in the filename, and categories (which of the seven musicians standing in a row is which?) - only to get an error message that the file names are too long and no, they can't be automatically shortened, I can't get a chance to rename them, nah, all my work is just scrapped and will have to start over because someone who wrote the uploader didn't give a jimmy about the other people's work. Well, I'll try to recall which ones I chose, throw in some general description and shut the browser because, honestly, if no one else cares, neither will I. I know Commons is hopelessly broken, so why do I keep coming back? I have no idea. --Ehitaja (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming to care, but what upload method did you use? Both the Upload Wizard and the old Upload form seem to fail gracefully when presented with a stupidly long filename, preserving all the other data I've entered. --bjh21 (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
With further testing, I've found that the Upload Wizard fails slightly messily if I actually try to submit an image with a 250-character filename. I can click "Back" and then "Next" and all my metadata are still there, but there's no indication that some of my files were uploaded successfully. I'll see if I can work out where to report this. --bjh21 (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I've reported this as a bug (phab:T207336). --bjh21 (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
TBH, it would be sensible if the standard upload wizard gave a warning to users when they are trying to enter more than, say, 5 or 6 images that they may want to save their work in small batches. Browser failures are common and can be very frustrating, let alone unpredictable server failures etc. Alternatively, the wizard might provide a helpful link to COM:Upload tools so that newbies are aware that other methods exist. -- (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

October 18[edit]

Commons images on without attribution[edit]

There are lots of Commons images without attribution on

In the past this kind of thing has led to deletion requests, because someone thought that the Commons image is stolen from the image collector (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Manny Pacquiao weigh-in.jpg). There is some danger that this might lead to premature deletions. So if there is a way to list this site as untrustworty, I hope someone will do this. Probably no one has time to deal with the copyright violations, but who knows. Here is a rant I found about the page: See also: Commons talk:How Alamy is stealing your images Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 00:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • The only person who can pursue a copyright claim is the copyright holder.
  • If you like, though, you can use {{published}} on the relevant file talk page and indicate illegal reuse. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
@Watchduck, thanks for notifying. --Túrelio (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic images containing Nazi swastikas[edit]

Why has {{Swastika}} been removed from File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-F051620-0043, Hitler, Göring und v. Schirach auf Obersalzberg.jpg, but not from File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-12078, Adolf Hitler und Anton Franzen.jpg? -- 07:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)