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 ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2022/01.

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:

 

Start a new discussion

Village pump in India. [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.

December 28[edit]

Why did this picture get deleted[edit]

Hi, Im wondering why this image was deleted. It has no copyright violations and I wouldnt have been able to upload it using upload wizard and using share image from flickr button because it would have told me it was copywritten? Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the file name File:Woody - Move It Shake It Parade - Disney World.jpg. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Infrogmation who deleted the image. FWIW it should not have been speedily deleted as COM:CSD#F3 specifically excludes images taken in a public place. However, the chances of it surviving a regular deletion request are slim, as it depicts a copyrighted character. COM:COSTUME generally draws the line at costumes that cover the entire body and face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: How was it kept wouldn’t it be considered a derivative work? I’m just confused how the one of woody is but not Elsa. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because the Woody costume covers the entire person, leaving no skin, whereas the Elsa costume is just the person and some clothing, so the "incidental" defense may apply (which is related to de minimis. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ok. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's help Rehman[edit]

Hi all; let's support our colleague Rehman, he is a great Commoner and Wikipedian, and currently is in a critical economic situation. Here you can support; any donation and sharing this campaign is highly appreciated. Regards --A.Savin 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 30[edit]

Expiry[edit]

Does anybody know when the copyright status of author Abbo E featured here expires? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Heesxiisolehh: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:ITALY.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started an entry for him E. Abbo No one seems to have a birth or death date, or know if he is Italian or British. Update his Wikidata if you find more. --RAN (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be Edmondo Abbo [1], aka Edmondo Abbo della Pina [2], born 1875. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy discussed here, in passing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the death of his wife, and added it to Familysearch. I also found a Edmondo Nicolò Vincenzo Antonio Abbo born on 8 December 1875 in Genoa, Genova, Italy which may be him, I am hoping to find an additional reference to confirm where he was born. I also posted in RAOGK if anyone can find more info. --RAN (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no death date. I found the death of his father and his wife. I wonder why people thought he may be British at VIAF? Are they conflating two people of did he die on a trip to England. I enjoy this type of collaboration. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 01[edit]

Happy new year!!![edit]

Is there any way to see the statistics for 2021 like how many files were uploaded and / or deleted, how many new users Vs. blocks and retirees, and how many edits were made, file depicts and file captions were added, and just general statistics about Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) for the previous year? Maybe having an annual January 1st (first) "Last year in data" would be a good idea. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is year of death not mentioned in Category of Cas Oorhuys?[edit]

I don't see a year of death in the categories of Cas Oorthuys' category? This info is included in Wikidata and in the info box of the Commons category. Is there an explanation why this data is not included in Commons from Wikidata in this case? Wouter (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been as there were several date of death statements and this despite that they had the same year.
As some of the ranks of statements with P569/P570 of the item were incorrect, I adjusted them and the year of death category appears. See d:Help:Ranking for details. --- Jura1 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For me, this is an incentive to check whether all data from Wikidata is properly entered in Commons. Wouter (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm what Jura1 suggested, this is normal behaviour for Wikidata and Commons. The Wikidata Infobox template on Commons sees two dates in Wikidata with the same rank and doesn't know which one to use for the category. If one date is marked as preferred rank on Wikidata, the template will retrieve the preferred date and ignore the rest. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a bot marking full dates as preferred rank, but it stopped running because the search took longer than the 1 minute computational limit for searches. If anyone has suggestions on how to get around the 1 minute limit, here is the place to discuss it. Several other error detection searches have come up against the limit and no longer run. One trick was to break the searches up into smaller parts and concatenate them, but now they too are at their computational limit. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A weakness of the ubiquitous {{Wikidata Infobox}} is that when Wikidata has multiple values for critical dates (e.g. when the true value or even a "best value" is unknown), even if they are all in the same year, the infobox fails to add a year category. There was a bot (perhaps still is) that removed pre-existing manually added year of death/birth categories simply because the info was in Wikidata. This doesn't seem to have been the case here, but when the Wikidata infobox fails, manual categories are called for, even if its a less precise category like Category:1910s births. --Animalparty (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain cutoff date reference, appearing on a Wikipedia Upload file wizard, needs to be changed from 1926 to 1927[edit]

For the Wikipedia Upload File wizard, starting at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard the date for the first option listed under "This file is not my own work/The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" needs to be incremented by a year (now that we've started a new year) to read "First published in the United States before 1927".--Thomas H. White (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas H. White: This comes from MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us. Commons doesn't locally override it, so Commons uses the value from TranslateWiki. It has already been updated on TranslateWiki (see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us/en), but the updated translations haven't reached Commons yet (or EN wiki, etc.). I don't know the method by which translations at TranslateWiki reach Commons or how long it takes — I'll keep an eye on it and maybe temporarily insert a local override if it is still wrong after the Wednesday deployment to Commons. —RP88 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thomas H. White: There are tickets for this at phab:. If you need the specific ones, I can find them for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the base text to talk about disputed identification in images?[edit]

See: Template:Disputed identification --RAN (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: How is that supposed to differ from {{Disputed}}?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That tag is for disputing the copyright! We have at least a dozen images where people believe that the person named in the title of the image is the wrong person, and others believe it is the right person. It is good to have them together with the same tag so that they can be looked at with new evidence in the future. We need to keep the images and discuss the evidence for and against, because other sites have copies our images, especially Alamy. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you looking for {{Fact disputed}}? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the closest, I think we should have a new tag for disputing the identification of a person, as opposed to the date or location. The bulk of the images in the old disputed category are old cars, and flora. I temporarily redirected the new one to the old one, but I would like a new category and a new tag just for potentially misidentified people. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a parameter for the type of dispute would work, adding it to a specific category but keeping the same template otherwise. We could easily get dozens of such templates (cars, flowers, fungi, flags, maps, ...), which would lead to problems e.g. keeping them all translated to all languages. There should be a discussion on what categories of disputes need their own subcategories etc., but I think it would be quite easy technically and much easier maintenance-wise. –LPfi (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps specific categories would do the trick, so experts can sort through the hundreds of images and see the category that they are experts in. --RAN (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage[edit]

Hello there, Im trying to photomontage and I cant seem to figure it out. Im trying to replace one of the photos, the one with the bridge in it, in this picture File:Cincinnati Photomontage V1.jpg with my photo File:Cincinnati Ohio.jpg. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Hi, and welcome. You would have to download the montage, replace the bridge photo in it, upload another version with a new filename (and attribution for all the component photos) consistent with COM:OW, and then convince 10 projects to use it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and do you know what I can download or use to replace that one image. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kaleeb18: Note that you should not overwrite the existing montage unless you have a goahead from the person who created it; you should create a similar one of your own and upload under a distinct filename.
  • Assuming you are working on a typical computer with a typical browser, you should be able to right-click and get a choice of "save image as...". NOTE that you will want to go to the full-resolution version of the montage before downloading that (although you might want to start with some smaller size for your own image, if you are recapturing it from Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Im using a chromebook. but where do I go to do this editing like a website or something? Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Not sure what you mean by "where do I go to do this editing like a website or something?" You don't normally edit images on a website. You edit them with software like GIMP or Photoshop. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: What image editing software does a chromebook come with?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To butt in, Chromebooks are made to be very cheap online netbooks and they by default force users to use Chrome Canvas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Chrome Canvas is what I was looking for when I asked that question. Note I have no experience in editing pictures on a laptop/computer. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot photomontage on chrome canvas. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 22:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 02[edit]

Translation problem: what is 'debt' for ?[edit]

Hi all. I just get this landing page here after following redirections from UploadWizard's discussion page.

And that is my question: what is 'debt' for in 'Solve bugs & technical debt' of section 'Goals' ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does en:Technical debt/fr:Dette technique help? El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good - because 'debt' was a notion I ve never met before. Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page are broken[edit]

Hi all, the MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page, (i.e Funnel Metrics for Upload Wizard...) section 'More metrics' are all broken with following message. 

Dark mingle logo
Can not find page you are looking for.

Trying the server url gives us the following reason: 

MINGLE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
We've stopped supporting Mingle and have deleted all Mingle SaaS instances as of July 31, 2019.

Can someone realign them ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency and similar cases[edit]

I found a user called ""Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency", now blocked (for smaller screens), which purports to be the marketing account for a company named Growzillas. Now I actually can't find a single logged action to this account's name so I'm assuming that it was blocked for "spamming" on the basis of its username. My issue with this practice is that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot here.

Companies often hire top photographers and top graphic designers who can create high quality images, often stock images. There is a clear lack of stock images and if companies would refrain from uploading things that are only meant to make investors happy there might be a mutual benefit from having corporate accounts around, namely if they are VTRS confirmed they can upload collections from their archives or stock photography of their products, in many cases lots of products make "mundane" things that are copyrighted and no free image exists of.

I just wonder how we can maximise the amount of high quality stock images of things we can expand, I just don't think that our current conduct of immediately deleting anything even remotely promotional is a good model, for example a couple of months ago a Vietnamese cinematic company released behind the scenes images of a film production to the Wikimedia Commons and Vietnamese Wikipedians attempted multiple times to have those images deleted because they were seen as "spam" at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, but here local admins saw them as having educational value. Having photographs or even 3D designs of modern copyrighted things actually donated by the corporations that sell them might be better than blanket banning any company, in fact we should probably welcome such open displays of a corporate conflict of interest (COI) over an undeclared one that goes under the radar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account was blocked because it created a spammy userpage. Ruslik (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 03[edit]

Problems finding the railway museum in Nuremberg[edit]

Nuremberg picture looking for a home category
Nuremberg picture looking for a home category

There is a railway museum in Nuremberg; kidseropuit.nl. I tried all manners of categories for acces but I cant find it. From Category:Nuremberg, Category:Rail vehicles in museums in Germany, Rail transport, Museums, transport in Nuremberg, etc, etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DB Museum Nürnberg - Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:Rail vehicles in the DB Museum Nürnberg to make it easier to find historic rail vehicles in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "descrption" field of file is required[edit]

Usually the "caption" field can play the role of description, and it is used more commonly. So I don't think "description" should be required. --SolidBlock (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SolidBlock: No, actually the description field is probably the much more used. Caption is "structured data" and probably over time will become quite useful, but most Commons users are a lot more focused on wikitext than structured data. Obviously for many photos the two can be identical, but look at something like File:Lowman Building and Lowman & Hanford, ca 1909 (MOHAI 5990).jpg. You wouldn't want all that in a caption. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvordan lægger jeg et uploaded billede ind på en side?[edit]

Hej! Jeg har uploaded billeder, som jeg gerne vil have flyttet hen til en bestemt side: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig". Hvordan gør jeg det?

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels, billederne ligner fotografier af fotografier. Ret? Hvis det er tilfældet, skal vi have en tilladelse. --Achim55 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valnød: Bemærk venligst at Commons her er et internationalt projekt og at jeg løbende har flyttet dine billeder til de respektive kirkers kategorier (Det kræver lidt erfaring at finde disse kategorier). Hvad mener du med "Døbefont i Sydslesvig"? . Vi har så vidt jeg kan se ikke pt en sådan kategori. Dine billeder ser ud at være fotos af papirbilleder, er det korrekt? Bemærk at Commons i forvejen har billeder af en del af disse døbefonte.--Hjart (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Ja, billederne er fotografier af mine egne fotos, der er taget med film, før digitaliseringen. Når jeg uploader samtidig med, at jeg har siden, der hedder: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig" åben, er der nogen af billederne, der automatisk bliver lagt ind på siden, mens andre ikke gør. Det er dem, jeg gerne vil kunne overføre til siden. Jeg går ud fra, at jeg skal indsætte det enkelte billedes filnavn på siden, men der er kun søgefeltet, hvori jeg kan indsætte filnavnet? og det virker naturligvis ikke. Når jeg på Wikimedias Commons søger: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig", fremkommer pågældende side.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

Jeg har fundet følgende vejledning, men kan ikke få det til at virke:

  • Billedbeskrivelse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydslesvig er nu den nordlige del af Slesvig-Holsten, så der finder vi kategorier som Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-- Achim55
Hej!
Ja, det er fine billeder. Jeg har imidlertid efter megen farten rundt i Sydslesvig for flere år siden taget billeder med film af samtlige romanske granitdøbefonte i Sydslesvig, som jeg gerne vil have lagt ud på nettet. Det ser ikke ud til, at der er andre, der har lagt en tilsvarende samling ud. Derfor har jeg affotograferet dem med digitalt kamera.
Mit spørgsmål er igen, hvordan lægger jeg billederne ind på en given side?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Niels, der er ingen side Døbefont i Sydslesvig, hverken her eller på da:Døbefont i Sydslesvig, heller ikke "Døbefonte ...". Misfortolkede du søgeresultaterne som en side? --Achim55 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Det er på denne adresse, at jeg finder: Døbefont i Sydslesvig.
Venlig hilsen
Niels
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=D%C3%B8befont+i+Sydslesvig&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=S%C3%B8g+&type=image Valnød (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Det der er ikke som sådan en "side". Det er en søgning du har kørt og som har fundet nogle relevante billeder. Jeg vil anbefale at du kategoriserer dine billeder i Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein.--Hjart (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Svar til Hart!
Hej!
Tak for svaret. Det vil jeg prøve. Så håber jeg, at det kommer til at virke.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Nu har jeg prøvet at uploade endnu to billeder og under kategorier skrevet Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten, men billederne vises ikke på pågældende side?
Hvad skal jeg gøre?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Jeg retter lige: Jeg har uploadet to billeder og under kategorier skrevet: "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten", men billederne vises ikke på denne side.
Hvad skal jeg gøre?
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels. Der er ingen kategori "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten" som du skrev på File:Havetoft kirke i Sydslesvig, granitdøbefont.jpg. Det skal du redigere som Achim55 beskrev ovenfor. Det skal være "Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein" på engelsk pga alle kategorier her på Commons bør have engelske navner. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!
Tak for hjælpen.
Det var lige den oplysning, jeg manglede.
Nu fungerer det.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata-based category redlinks being auto-added[edit]

A number of PDFs and DjVu files have been automatically included in redlink categories, the links to which seem to be based on Wikidata item statements of these files. See:

Can someone track down the source of this? Most likely it's some template used by the Book template.

I'm not sure if there's a policy about doing something like this, but IMO these are low quality categories. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veikk0.ma: that would be me! Please ignore the mess while we're cleaning up and remodeling. Will remove them soon. Multichill (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 04[edit]

Mixed up coordinates of two pictures, corrected it, but now there is a discrepancy with SDC[edit]

I just found out that I mixed up the coordinates for File:Groene Hartpad between Alphen aan den Rijn and Aarlanderveen.jpg and File:Groene Hartpad view of The Hague from Zoetermeer.jpg. I have swapped them; now they are correct. But now I get a message that there is a discrepancy between the coordinates and the ones stored in SDC. (Which is, of course, correct.) What should I do now? MartinD (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy paste the coordinates from the template into the structured data field. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could also remove the SDC data completely. Probably a bot will eventually restore it, but it may take weeks or months. You also should watch out if the picture is used in any Wikidata items or in templates that now have the old coordinates.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll give it a try. I don't think these pictures are used in templates. They are merely illustrations of a Dutch hiking route. MartinD (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It worked, thanks a lot! MartinD (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism in category definitions[edit]

System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/12/Category:Old women by country.
System-search.svgSee also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women.

On Category:Old men , Category:Old women and subcategories, we have, for example:

"

Definitions

1. Babies (female) (birth – 24 months)
2. Girls (2–12 (puberty))
3. Adolescent girls (13–17 years)
4. Women (18– )
5. Young women (18-39 years)
6. Middle-aged women (40-59 years)
7. Old women (60+ years)

Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology)."

The designation of anyone 60 or over as "old" strikes me as ageist. The cited source no longe says whatever it once may have done about such age-bands.

There are BLP issues in categorising people in such a manner; and doubly so if it is done by a subjective assessment of their appearance, rather than a known DoB.

[In resolving the matter, the repeated text should be templated]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any policy or guideline applicable for Commons that can handle this possible matter. The closest I can think are COM:IDENT and COM:CAT. Also, the BLP issue is something that Wikipedians should handle, and meta:Living persons is now redirected to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why you think this is a matter or Wikipedians; many of the images in these categories are not used on any Wikipedia. Commons users are bound by both Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (from which: "Defamation: Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category.")) and, more forcefully, by this Wikimedia Foundation resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...Good point, and COM:BLP redirects to COM:IDENT. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeas, this whole classification is wrong. Unless we know exactly when the picture was taken, and the date of birth of the person, these categories should not be used. Yann (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These definitions are also cultural, I have seen Dutch textbooks use "Baby (birth - 18 months), Peuter (18 months to 3 years), Kleuter (3 years to 6 years), Etc." (They also used "tiener (12-17)" and "Adolescent (18-21)" while I have also read Dutch definitions like "Baby (birth to 12 months), Dreumes (12 months to 24 months), Peuter (slightly different dates than before), Etc." Age groups are largely cultural and as society changes I wouldn't be surprised if adolescences gets pushed back to 20~25 years in the future and if human longevity can be extended then 80 (eighty) might be considered the minimum age for "old" in the future and for a 4 (four) year old a 12 (twelve) year old is incredibly old to them. So not only are all these terms cultural and can differ significantly within the same culture, but whatever can be seen as "young" or "old" is subjective. I am not against these categories, but I can see how they can be confusing to people as different cultures maintain different concepts of age groups. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the Dutch-language Wikipedia article "Adolescentie": "
De leeftijden die beschouwd worden als onderdeel van de adolescentie, verschillen per cultuur. In de Verenigde Staten beschouwt men adolescentie als beginnend rond de leeftijd van 13 jaar en het duurt tot ongeveer 24 jaar. De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie daarentegen definieert adolescentie als de periode van iemands leven tussen de het 10e en 20e levensjaar. De Van Dale stelt dat een adolescent een jongere is van ca. 15 tot 20 jaar.
" Which acknowledges this difference, from what an older Dutch friend told me the term "
tiener
" and "
puber
" were historically used in the Netherlands but thanks to Americanisation (or perceived Americanisation) the term "adolescent" is used for the entire age range, which according to Wikipedia is being pushed by Dutch child psychologists. There appears to be no singular definition for many age ranges, and most of the above examples are just for the European Netherlands, let alone if one would include other cultures. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm far from convinced that we should be labelling a 60-year old, even one known to be that age, as "old". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue that we are labelling, for example, images of people drinking alcohol as "adolescents", and therefore under 18, apparently based solely on visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 05[edit]

Urdu Translation (Cat-a-lot)[edit]

Please add Urdu transltaion of this toll. Translation is here >User:Obaid Raza/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/ur.Obaid Raza (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing…, a few fixes still to be done. --Achim55 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Achim Please see now, I fixed it.Obaid Raza (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. Many thanks! --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kan jeg omdøbe billedets tekst?[edit]

Hej! Jeg har lagt billeder ind på nedennævnte side, men vil gerne have filens navn på nogle af billederne omdøbt, så kirkens navn står først, og at der desuden kommer til at stå granitdøbefont og ikke kun døbefont. 1)Kan jeg selv omdøbe filen? 2)Er der en anden, der kan og vil omdøbe den? 3)Kan jeg slette filen og derefter lægge den ind igen med et nyt navn?

Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels, gå til filsiden (for eksempel File:Aventoft kirkes døbefont.jpg) og tryk Shift-Alt-m . Så kan du tilføje et bedre filnavn. En anden vil derefter omdøbe denne fil. --Achim55 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hej!
Tak for hjælpen. Det fungerer.
Venlig hilsen
Niels Valnød (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dotted line does not appear in SVG[edit]

Hello, I have a problem with Libre Draw. On my screen, I see in my drawing dotted (dashed) lines as I drawed them. But when I convert it to SVG and upload it to Commons, the dotted lines appear as normal, continous lines. How can I solve this? Ziko (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edu.gov.ru[edit]

Moin Moin together, this template has a parser error. Can someone tell me, how i could fix it? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template:Edu.gov.ru/en. You should follow Help:Autotranslate in setting up the autotranslation. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 06[edit]

Between building[edit]

Hamburg between building.jpg

Anyone knows anything about this strange buiding and its function?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an office building with a triangular floor plan, wedged in between two other buildings: [3]. Goes into Category:Steckelhörn 11. --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 07[edit]

Banning IP edits in general[edit]

In the last time I did a lot of patrolling. I checked the edits of IP users and my experiences are showing to me that we have a huge problem with accidental edits and a lot of spam. The most IP edits are okay, but only because of some people doing things like mass categorization with many hundred edits as IPs. When banning IPs I think we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users", they just would create accounts for them.

The time we need to check and revert so many edits is much more then the good contributions added to commons. With the time saved we can check the edits of new users and contact them to help. This is much more important for getting new contributor then the ability to edit without an account.

With this introduction I want to start a discussion on this for later creation of a proposal with all details, like which namespaces should be protected. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A key problem with this is that many editors start out by making IP edits before creating an account. If I had needed to create an account before experimenting with Wikimedia projects, I would never have participated at all. By closing the project to named accounts only, we are likely to intensify the reduction in active editors in the long term. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think moth users start with uploading their own photos where an account is already required. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a great idea, especially that movements in this direction can be observed on other wikis, some of them even have already banned IPs. It is exactly like you have said – a small number of IP editors make tons of good edits, while tons of IP editors make a few crappy "test edits" (or just pure vandalism). These good IP editors, if forced to create accounts, could be later granted "autopatrol", what would reduce amount of work for patrollers. And of course getting rid of vandals and ordinary morons would reduce amount of work for everyone and the time saved could be spent on more productive activities here. Anyway, I think that editing of structured data (including file captions) should be banned immediately for IPs. It is very hard to find a good SDC related edit made by an IP. --157.25.186.137 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with the premise that most good IP edits are from mass categorization, In the past 2 weeks I have noticed One IP Categorize various Churches in London and another IP Categorize Streets in Southwark neither of these were or could have been done by mass categorization. The last time I noticed a Spammer was more than 2 years ago, their edits were easy and took seconds to undo. I can say I would not have started or persisted with editing If there had been a requirement to register. I find that your assumptions that "we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users"" "moth users start with uploading their own photos" to be unsupported by credible evidence, such as statistics or even personal observations. I have sometimes used IP edits when I am away from my home PC and can't use the PC at hand to log in, inability to do this would mean I don't do those edits and would have put me of the project in the beginning. As for mistakes. I make them, admins make them we all make them if we are here long enough. Not a big problem and certainly not as big a concern as problem admins such as Blackcat who has a history of admin tool abuse. Having to log in or register does not deter abuse or unwise edits. Finally it would be a big step to losing our open approachable status/vibe and a step on a journey to being a small clique of people making irrelevant edits that no one is looking at or engaging with. Oxyman (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your idealistic views clearly show that you have zero counter vandalism exprience. Just use RTRC, let's say for a month, and I assure you will change your mind about IP editors. --157.25.187.217 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many selfies are allowed?[edit]

Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)

However, I understand that it is allowed to upload selfies for the purpose of decorating user pages on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

How many selfies are allowed?

And if you upload a selfie, what category do you set it to?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I'd say the number of personal images to decorate one's user page would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For exmple if you are active on many projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikipedia etc), then maybe more personal pictures would be okay, whereas if you're only active on one wiki then it probably isn't justified to have 10 out-of-scope pictures for decoration. Regarding categorization I'd say just marking all personal pictures with {{User page image}} below the {{Information}} template is enough.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines regarding file redirects to a different filetype[edit]

Hello!

I found File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png and Com:Deletion requests/File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png which made me curious. I've always thought that there isn't a problem with keeping both vector and raster versions of a file. This raster was deleted and redirected to the vector version. Is this according to guidelines? I couldn't find any answer on Com:File redirects nor on Help:File redirect. Pinging @Missvain: as deleting admin.Jonteemil (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=619900462"