↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

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

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]

Centralized discussion

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

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 18[edit]

Ellin Beltz removal of 'undelete at' categories[edit]

Hello, Has there been any concensus on stopping the use of Category:Undeletion requests? I believe that Ellin Beltz has unilaterally decided that DR cannot be categorised after it has been closed, which is clear nonsense if these categories are to remain useful (In many cases where you do not know which way the deletion request will go, it makes no sense to requrest undeletion). The user in question has reverted my addition of a category here, and then refused to undo their revert after I have asked them on their talk page. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, can somebody else please undo their revert and explain to the person that this is not appropriate. Thanks. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: I'm having trouble understanding that. Could you try rewording, possibly with the various actions (yours and Ellin's) in chronological order? Also, I don't understand what you mean by "DR cannot be categorised after it has been closed": DR is a process, not a file. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Of course, sorry for not expaining myself well. Here is the chronology: 1) There was a deletion request (the files were uploaded by me, but in this case it is not the point, I should have tripple checked before uploading). 2) Deletion request was closed as delete and files deleted. 3) I have specified undeletion at an unknown date, because I do not know when it is safe to undelete (I do so all the time, even on deletions of files that I do not upload). 4) My edit has been reverted. 5) I have asked the user to undo the revert. 6) I was told whatever. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, these categories clearly should be added, ideally by the closing admin but if not someone else can add it if they are so inclined. This is why we do not always follow the letter of what is stated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

−

(Cross-posted) @Ellin Beltz: This seems a bit bizarre. Obviously, it is perfectly normal to add an "undelete after..." category as part of the closure of a deletion on the basis of copyright, but it looks like the closing admin failed to do so. Of course such a categorization can still happen after closure. It is not as of User:Gone_Postal was somehow changing the discussion by commenting after it was closed. I'll give you time to respond, but unless there is something more going on than Gone_Postal says, I will revert your removal of the category (unless someone gets there first). - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I also agree that this edit makes no sense. "undelete after..." categories are made for categorizing deletion requests. Anybody should be able to do it at any point. --Jarekt (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think if one wishes something added or removed from a deletion nomination after it's closed, that the typical method is to talk to the closing administrator; not to ignore the note about not editing after closure and - editing after closure. If you wish to change this, please go ahead, but I think it would wipe out our usual practice. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: So you WANT to be bombarded with posts taking you to task for not having categorized DRs you closed? Good to know, but I think you're in the minority. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Bombarded is unlikely. This is the first time I've ever seen this. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Excuse me while I grab some ammo... — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What is the advantage to putting into a Category "Undelete at Unknown Date" for a group of PRP and copyvio images? Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Category:Undelete at an unknown date assists in categorizing more finely by actual freedom years based on author death years, publication years, and country copyright laws. For instance, the files on page Category:Undelete in 2021 and the files referred to in DRs in that category will enter the Public Domain on 1 January 2021, after which date (due to time zone differences) you and your colleagues may safely undelete them if they don't violate any other policies, guidelines, or procedures. Obviously, oos files should not be restored. Files deleted due to prp should be re-evaluated once the underlying alleged or possible copyright has expired. As a concrete example, it is a fair bet that the file in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Дистанция при COVID-19.webp was created in 2020, so please add Category:Undelete in 2141 to that DR. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 05:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: I randomly checked DRs in the Category:Undelete in 2021. Here are some examples where a category was added or changed after the close by someone else than the closing admin, and sometimes several years after the close: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. I didn't check, but I doubt all those users asked the closing admin if they could add or change a category in a closed DR. (Technically you could say that categories are not even part of the DR.) It seems to me that editing DR categories after the close is quite normal. -kyykaarme (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

being a sysop allows them to have certain extra tools (deletion, protection and blocking users). there's nothing special about it. with regard to editing after a DR is "closed", being a sysop doesnt make them more appropriate to edit that page.

sysops should stop thinking they have some sort of priveleges. no they dont. those extra tools are given to them for maintenance of the project only, not for them to have a monopoly on the project.--RZuo (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

29th of August update: Nothing has happened so far. I don't mind restoring it myself, although I would still appreciate it if an impartial user would. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 07:12, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- The issue has now been resolved. Thank you, everybody. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

'Taken on' template with city as location?[edit]

This and other similar edits were IP actions, so I don't have someone in particular to engage on this, but I thought we had an understanding that {{Taken on}} never should use a location more specific than a country; while I'd have no problem with "Germany" here, "Berlin" is too specific, and the removal of Category:April 2018 in Berlin is wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 14:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. If we already have Category:Dülmen photographs taken on 2020-08-08 or Category:Railway photographs taken on 2019-10-14, what shall come next? Maybe "Penis photographs taken on 2020-07-26"? Seriously, if someone is interested on photographs on specific topic taken at a certain timepoint, there should be a tool for that, where such a query based on categories and SD is possible. There is absolutely no need for such specific categories; there should only be a small number of categories at each file, otherwise the whole approach gets untransparent and unusable. --A.Savin 00:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there is a ton of this stuff: Category:Photographs of Berlin by date.

Opinions sought: Do I need to go through CfD to deal with this, or is this so clearcut I could just batch-edit with VisualFileChange? Or at least is there something less cumbersome than CfD, which can take an awfully long time to get consensus? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that categories with pictures by day are very rarely needed. Some exceptions could be categories that use place and date to identify unique event, like day 3 of an Olympic, demonstrations, 2020 Beirut explosion, etc. --Jarekt (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next 24 hours, I will feel free to do this with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh, how did I miss this discussion. This is something that I have been involved in for a while now. I personally do agree that categorising per day at the level smaller than a country should be done in only very specific situations, mainly when the territory is disputed (think Hong Kong, Crimea, etc). I do not think that there is anything particularly wrong with people attempting to do more subcategories, but this is a task that will never finish. We really need a different approach at dealing with categories over all. What often happens is that we have categories like "date in country", "month in region", and "year in city". All of them are suppose to be done by some sort of intersection tool, because all of them say the same thing: "This photo is made on this date in this place". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:10, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Gone Postal: I can't tell whether that is an objection or not, but I will hold off until you clarify. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  - I am honestly split on that, and we need more than just a few persons commenting on that to justify anything which can be considered community concensus. I personally really dislike the whole trend of categorising German cities like that, it makes me cringe and when I see that on a file I usually move on and do not enter that mess; but Commons does not exist for my benefit, and some people find this useful, and I recognise that. I must also recognise that, if we look at the numbers alone, then we do have enough photos of Berlin to justify using that as a location for taken on. I also think that if a user adds "Berlin photographs on date" whether through template or by hand, then they are more than justified in removing "Month in Berlin" per COM:OVERCAT, I do so when it comes to countries if I pay enough attention. In summary: I would not support deleting "city by date" categories, but do not ask me to create them myself. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    - @Gone Postal: That is still really wishy washy, but I will presume that 'I would not support deleting "city by date" categories' is an objection to my doing just that, and that I should not do this unilaterally.
    - In short: the splitters will win every time, however useless and even harmful the distinction. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
      - @Jmabel: I am sorry, I fail to see the harm, where is it? If somebody creates a circular category tree then I see harm, but in this case we weren't talking about that. If somebody creates categories for cities before those cities were established, then I see harm, but we weren't talking about that. I can imagine some other situations, which were also not discussed here. My understanding was that we talked about "photographs of Berlin on date" and similar, and that was what I have responded to, was I wrong? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
        The harm is that stuff gets scattered all over the place. In this case, for example, the small harm that if a photo is taken on a particular day in Berlin you have to look for it in a totally different place than what was taken that day in Hamburg, Munich, or even 10 meters outside of Berlin. In other cases, I find it much more harmful that African American lawyers get ghettoized away from other U.S. lawyers, or that female chemists from the United Kingdom are carved into a separate subcategory away from all other chemists from the United Kingdom. In the Berlin case, at least there are a lot of photos of Berlin, but when people break down photos of a smaller place by day -- sometimes even when people break down photos of a smaller place by year -- it makes for a lot of categories with 2 or 3 photos each, very hard to browse.
        
        As far as I can see, the splitters win every time unless we have firm rules saying, "don't split in this particular way." We move steadily toward narrower and narrower intersection categories with fewer and fewer photos in each category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
        @Jmabel: In that case I agree with you 100%, but I simply disagree that this is the way to go about it. I think that we should completely abandon intersection categories, they do cause many problems. I also want to add one that you have missed, often people make mistakes when setting up such categories. Photograph categories are titled in the way that makes it a photo of that place, but videos are from a place. So if a video of Chukotka is made from Alaska, then it is a video from the United States by date, but if we have a photo, then it is a photo of Russia by date. The problem with your approach is not in the goal, it is in the path towards it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
        @Gone Postal: I don't see how we could do away with intersection categories completely. Are you saying that we would not have categories like Category:Houses in Seattle or even Category:Houses in the United States? Not Category:Economy of France, just Category:Economy and Category:France? I'm not that much of a lumper! No such categories as battles in a particular war, politicians of a particular country? - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
        @Jmabel: I can see the point of some, when they are about the content. For example, we will have category for Donald Trump, even though one could arrive at that by intersecting "United States presidents", and "Trump family". Most content categories are an intersection of several subjects. That is why I have mentioned (but wasn't clear enough) that there is a differece between the category that describes the content, and the category that described the media itself. And those two proabably should not be intersected. So no "OGV videos of batteles in Afghanistan" or something like that. And no intersection within media categories, so no "OGV videos taken on [date] with [camera model]". ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
+1 to what Gone Postal wrote: intersection categories shouldn't be a thing at all. They only make systematical searching more difficult. Apart from that, categorization via templates breaks regular categorization workflows using HotCat, etc. Is should be handled with great care and only used when there is a clear advantage over regular categorization (which probably is the case for categorization by date). A template called {{Taken on}} categorizing by location is incredibly obscure and counter-intuitive. A terrible hack. If we want to categorize by location automatically, it should be done through the {{Location}} templates (simple geographical "point in polygon" intersection). --El Grafo (talk) 08:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- This is where we begin to disagree. I think that categorisation should be done with templates when possible, dates should becategorised with {{taken on}} and {{taken in}}, camera types should be added with {{taken with}}. Location should be done by templates like {{location}} or similar. Adding categories by hand should be done when this category is describing the subject depicted in the media, not describing the media itself. Otherwise there will always be fights. We have Category:Ogv videos, I used to put my OGV uploads there, then somebody came along and removed those categories, I didn't want to start a fight and let it go, but there is no agreement if we categorise by format or not. I would say make {{file format}} and put file format in there automatically, then have just one discussion which formats deserve their own categories, Category:JPEG images is probably useless, or maybe there is a good use for it, but today if we change our mind we have to do millions of edits flooding eveybody's watch list rather than editing a single template after discussion. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 09:55, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  Categories may be "hidden" inside templates, but only when the wider community is not going to have any legitimate reason to ever want to change them. For example the mass usage of attribution categories for credit templates, but never categories like species identification, which are highly likely to be refined or revised for specific photographs in the future. Per El Grafo, in general we do not want templates to be "hidden" inside templates, it makes it impossible to use standard tools like cat-a-lot to move files. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  - @Fæ: I do hear you on cat-a-lot, and recognise that this is a strong argument against what I am saying. My disagreement comes in that I think that the best reason for the categories inside templates is exactly for when the community may decide to mass-change, abandon, or introduce them later. I am going to use a silly example, please do not pick on it, I recognise how silly it is, but it is only an example. Let's say that tomorrow it will become important for the community whether the file is named JPEG, JPG, or JPE. So people will want to create a category "Files with extension JPEG/JPG/JPE". If we run a bot, that will start adding these categories, it will either flood recent changes list or will never actually finish. On the other hand if {{information}} would have a call to something like {{categorise by file type}} then it will be a matter of changing that one template, and then allowing the server to crunch through populating those categories without the need to edit 90% of all the uploaded files. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

And again[edit]

@J.-H. Janßen: re. Basically, I took a bunch of photographs of an event. All of these are mine, and all of them are of one festival -- actually, one day of one festival, because the other days were in different parts of town -- and they are already categorized as such in Category:HonkFest West 2015 in Georgetown. Now you make a new additional category and take all of them (well, not all of them: some arbitrary third of them or so) and stick each of them in completely redundant "Seattle photographs on date" category that conveys no information not conveyed by Category:HonkFest West 2015 in Georgetown. What possible use is this to anyone? - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

August 24[edit]

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

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

Privacy issues[edit]

Greetings everyone, I am writing this because I am concerned as to the consequences of publishing private information here in Wikimedia Commons. I came upon these photos which show government issued IDs and certificates clearly containing personal details of private individuals. What are the policies with regards to issues like this? Are storing photos like these generally OK?

-Howhontanozaz (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Such files must be deleted and oversighted. See Commons:Oversight. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

If the uploader is the only person affected, it's more a matter for discussion, especially if the information itself is of a type already public elsewhere. Separate from possibly privacy is scope, and there would be sufficient doubt about value to either delete or anonymise these as example pandemic related materials. @Judgefloro: is well established, and this may be something to amend with friendly discussion rather than using our Oversighter team time. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated to the images, I noticed that the license declaration says:

"Judge Florentino Floro, the owner, to repeat, Donor FlorentinoFloro of all these photos hereby donate gratuitously, freely and unconditionally Judge Floro all these photos to and for Wikimedia Commons, exclusively, for public use of the public domain, and again without any condition whatsoever"

The use of the word "exclusively" is at odds with a release into the public domain. Perhaps Judgefloro can clarify his intent? Mo Billings (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A couple of notes: Firstly if the person is a public figure, then it should be ok. For example, Donald Trump has releaced his birth certificate to prove that his father is not an orangutan video and I would support his birth certificate being on Commons, because it is essential to prove to everybody once and for all, that his mother was not impregnated by an orangutan, and also for educational purposes. Also when the private information is censorred, then it should be ok (my upload as an example). And of course, a person who uploads the image should be allowed to disclose their own personal information if they so chose. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: I agree with you with regards to public individuals and publicly available information, but I am mostly concerned of these specific photos being out in public. I googled the people named in the IDs and none of them are notable. In two photos, there are COVID-19 relief aid cards which I fear might be used by unscrupulous individuals to obtain monetary aid from the government. The information in those cards contain not just the name but the age, complete street address, birth date, occupation, and signature of someone who is clearly not the uploader (Judge Florentino Floro). It just takes one criminal to break into said individuals house and rob said citizen of his relief aid; or one scammer to forge the cards and commit identity theft. What recourse should be done with regards to this? A deletion request maybe? -Howhontanozaz (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

If you have concerns, putting that down as logically as possible, with reference to Photographs of identifiable people would be a helpful step. The VP is for general discussion, but nitty gritty specifics are best in a DR nomination and discussion. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any more, or any less information, than I would get from an online directory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

August 25[edit]

Not found in stash[edit]

Since a couple of days I get during upload errors like "Key "17psbqaiqg0w.ln53au.128310.jpg" not found in stash". Is something changed recently? Rudolphous (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

There are major unfixed bugs for medium to large uploads, ref Phab:T254459. Though the task was raised about PDFs, the same bugs appear to exist for other formats, so it may well be related to these (apparently permanent) WMF server known errors. --Fæ (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: Did you try User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js? Documentation is on the talk page. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 22:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The Wizard also uses chunked upload. Upload-Errors do happen with bigChunkedUpload also. Even if a file is "not found in stash" it might have been published. Just look for it. --C.Suthorn (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

August 27[edit]

What edits are on my watchlist and i cannot see them?[edit]

quickstaments batch 40628 and 40625 (still running) have edited thousends of the files on my watchlist during the night.

I have no chance to find out what other edits to the files on my watch list that are "File:", "page edit", "latest revision", "non minor", "experienced user" and "human" have been done since yesterday. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: If you choose Hide my edits from the watchlist in your preferences --> watchlist, you will not see them. Hope that answers your question. :-) Lotje (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it neither helps or answers my "question". It is not a question, it is a complaint. There have been more than 2000 edits by a single "experienced", "human" account and more edits by the "experienced" "human" owner of the account, all of these edits are "file", "page edit", latest revision", "non minor", and if i filter out my own edits, it doesn't change anything. I have no way to see, if other "experienced" "human" editors (or the editor in question) made more latest revision non minor page edits to files on my watch list, that are either tagged quickstatements or have no tag at all. I have complained about this more than once and the only suitable way to go on would be to disable edits of SDC until this and other known problems are finally solved. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I’ve had the same problem: Even though I have have &hideWikibase=1 in my habitual watchlist check url for years now (because I found out after a while that almost zero of those edits are useful for me to be notified about), SchlurcherBot’s and BotMultichill’s edits that are tagged with «Changed an entity:» are somehow not considered to be Wikibase edits and keep flooding mine and C.Suthorn’s watchlists — and likely many other users’. That should be changed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn, Tuvalkin: I think the two of you are talking about two different problems. SchlurcherBot's edits (e.g. Special:Diff/444173294, like BotMultichill's, seem to be correctly tagged as bot edits, so they disappear if you ask the watchlist to only show humans. JarektBot, on the other hand, is making edits like Special:Diff/443905085, which aren't tagged as bot edits. The latter seems to me the more serious problem: anyone making hundreds of edits per minute for hours at a time really should be setting the bot flag on them. Personally, I don't think "my software is inadequate" is an adequate excuse for disruptive behaviour and Jarekt should not run the bot until it can be made to behave properly. --bjh21 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for pissing people off with my edits but I just discovered that {{OTRS accreditation}} was adding files with no OTRS permission to Category:Items with OTRS permission confirmed and I added Wikimedia OTRS ticket number (P6305) to too many files, so I was reverting some of P6305 additions. Issue with my bot edits not being marked as bot edits while using standard tools is tracked at phabricator:T247433, and I would love for it to get fixed. In the mean time adding

$(document).ready($('.mw-special-Watchlist .mw-changeslist-line .mw-userlink[href="/wiki/User:JarektBot"]').parent().parent().css("display", "none"));

to your common.js should hide my bot's edits. --Jarekt (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding something to a .js file does not help. The javascript is executed on the client side (the web browser). But the server side (commons:watchlist) does send no more than 1000 entries to the browser (it might be upgraded to 2000). If there are more than 1000 (2000) edits since you last checked your watchlist, than the .js will simply show an empty page on the browser. The OTRS batch is an example of this happening, but it happens again and again. The quickstatements tool never inserts a bot flag, it should do always, but that would still not help as more than one user can run quickstatements within the same timeframe (time between you check your watchlist). With 63M files on commons and hundreds of SDC tags that can be set, unset and modified over and over again (with and without tools like quickstatements) this is a problem getting worse until solved. If there was a watchlist filter to exclude edits by named users, that would do. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A question regarding pornographic content[edit]

I am Ulf Larsen, and I have contributed to Wikipedia since 2004. I am mainly active on Wikipedia in Bokmål, but I have also uploaded some files here on Wikimedia Commons. I am also an exhibitionist and amateur porn model, and a while ago I thought that some of my pictures (possibly later on also video) could be of interest for Wikimedia Commons. I have so far uploaded close to one hundred pictures, of me nude, with various females.

Several of these have now been tagged for deletion for various reasons. As I have written in my comments to the proposals for deletion, I consider myself on the side of the Wikimedia Community, and thus will not argue against that some (or all) of these pictures are deleted, see the statement below that I have given on the deletion requests:

"I am not going to argue for keep or delete, as I leave it up to the community here on Wikimedia Commons to decide if they shall be kept or not. Regarding consent, the various models I have paid to be with me in amateur porn has all agreed to have the pics and videos uploaded by me on the Internet. Regarding my former girlfriend, I have just a few days ago specifically asked her if she agreed to have the category "Prostitutes and customers", and she was fine with that. Regarding amateur porn in general, I do of course respect it if a decision is made to remove such media from Wikimedia Commons, but I believe then that one would have to discuss professional pornography. And if both of them are unfit for presentation here, what about other media that may be disturbing for some viewer (nude people, dead people, pictures of war). I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004, and I will continue to contribute, regardless if some or all of my amateur pornographic pictures are removed. As an exhibitionist, amateur porn model I do however believe that this also is a part of what should be of interest for a project that: "is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to everyone, in their own language." - a direct quote from Commons:Welcome."

In short, I would find it useful if this issue is solved once and for all, and not by some contributor, being against pornography, tagging my contributions for deletion. So again, if the community decides that such content is not of interest, I do of course respect that, same goes if some of it, with specified terms, is not accepted by Wikimedia Commons. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ulflarsen: Independent of anything about keeping or deleting images: certainly the category "Prostitutes and customers" requires some sort of verifiability beyond just your assertion, because of the enormous potential for libel. If she is OK with being described that way, it would be very helpful to put her in communication with the OTRS team to clarify that.

I have to get to some work right now, so I don't have time to elaborate further. I'm guessing that you've been here enough that you understand how that process would work, but if not then say so and I or someone else can explain.

Also, FWIW, nudity or sexual content is not, in itself, a reason for deletion from Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel:: Regarding the pictures with my ex-girlfriend, with category "Prostitutes and customers", I have specifically asked her if she is ok with that, and she has agreed to adding it. For her, her being a prostitute is part of her identity. I can advice her how she confirm that with a mail to the OTRS team. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I also think all your files are in scope as we do not have so much in these field. But as it is a critical topic you should send the agreement of every sex worker and model to the OTRS team. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed all such images from the "Prostitutes..." category, and removed that adjective from the descriptions, per our policy on biographies of living people. I've also removed pornography-related categories from Category:Ulf Larsen, which do not apply to one of the images (of identifiable individuals) in it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me what is being claimed here. Was this the photographer's girlfriend at the time of the photoshoot? Or was this a former girlfriend who was at that time a prostitute? In any case, people who pose for pornographic images are generally called models or performers, not prostitutes. Sex worker is a more general term which could include both pornographic performers and prostitutes. Mo Billings (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ulflarsen: User:Mo Billings's questions here are reasonable. Can you answer them? - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the nominator isn't aware of the Streisand Effect. Images no one would have noticed now have over 500 page views, some over 1,000. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Pigsonthewing:: While uploading the various pictures I tried to add the categories I found fitting, but as I am mostly on Wikipedia in Bokmål I follow the advice that I get here regarding it. So removing - or adding - various categories, is fine with me.

If I understand the various comments above correct, the pictures are accepted as within that Wikimedia Commons could contain. I assume then that also video of the same would be accepted if I upload it. If so, I will within the coming weeks upload some more similar pictures and video. Ulflarsen (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

It would probably be a good idea with these to get model releases and send them to permissions-commons

wikimedia.org. Also, probably the {{Personality rights}} tag would be a good idea on uploads like this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Mo Billings:: At the time of shooting she was my ex-girlfriend and a prostitute, so I added the category in good faith, and after checking with her. My intention by adding the category was to give an honest description of the situation depicted, and that is the same for her.

When it comes to model releases I can only get that from my ex-girlfriend, although I have made very clear for the other models that all content will be released on the web. If any problem regarding it arise it will anyway be me that will have to take it, and I am very easy to find, as I live in Norway and contribute under my full real name. But if the Wikimedia Commons community wish so, I can arrange for a model statement from my ex-girlfriend, and then the other pictures can be deleted. Ulflarsen (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave these be, but others may disagree. Please, in future shoots, try to get a model release. That will presumably prevent deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel:: I will try to get model release for future shoots, and within the next week I guess my ex. will manage to mail her statement agreeing in the upload of the pictures of her and me here. If others decide on removing the other pictures - the ones I have uploaded now where I no longer have contact with the models - then I accept that. Again, as only a minor contributor to Wikimedia Commons I try to follow the rules and adhere to them. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Mo Billings, Pigsonthewing:: As I am setting up an email to my ex-girlfriend to explain what needs to be done, I have tried to find a model release template, but I can not find one. If there are any templates, I would be happy to receive that. I tried to use part of the template for copyright, but I am not sure if that covers all that is needed. I would also be useful if this could be a general release, so she does not have to mail OTRS every time I upload more material. Ulflarsen (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ulflarsen: Just something like "I am the model in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ulf_Larsen_and_ex-girlfriend_01.jpg and other similar pictures by Ulflarsen. I am of legal age, and I freely consent to the free-licensing and distribution of this photograph and others he has taken (or will take) of me, and to the use of the term 'prostitute' with reference to myself." If you anticipate anything else that might be at issue, you might expand on that. OTRS can then presumably get back to her if they have any questions. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about model releases, but that sounds very reasonable to me. Mo Billings (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for answers. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 28[edit]

need more opinions in DR[edit]

User:Prompri author of a file filed this DR: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anime eyes & red happy mouth with teeth.jpg requesting deletion of graphic artwork he no longer likes or wants to be associated with his nickname. There is nothing in Commons:Deletion_policy that would justify such deletion, but I seek more opinions on the subject. Should we delete or keep? --Jarekt (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

associated with nickname doesnt matter, i dont wish it to be here in wiki, please. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_policy#Privacy

this file isnt used in any article, and isnt important for the community. its a G7 request. we can delete any self uploaded images from other sites. wikipedia's rules is confusing me. im really scared(might be banned suddenly for confusion) and confused, what to do and not to. i always assume good faith. Prompri (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

In the DR discussion this user has shown gross incompetence and issued legal threats. Why is the matter still being dicussed? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
See also COM:AN/B#Prompri. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

User with the most number of uploads[edit]

Hello. This is a WLE-related question. I want to find the user with the most number of uploads, based on a raw list of filenames which I have (i.e. the top 100 rated files). These files are all in the main parent category Category:Images from Wiki Loves Earth 2020 in Sri Lanka (together with lots of other files). Is there a tool that can do this? Pinging User:AnastasiaPetrova (WMUA). Many thanks for any help. Cheers, Reh man 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You would need to make the list public on-wiki for most tools to work on it.

A pywikibot query gives the following top ten for the parent cat, though someone could probably write a bit of SQL to do this.

103 A.Savin
85 Nisal Senanayaka
83 Kasuna
80 Dbulathwatta
64 Rizzey Rhazes
50 Lasitha sandeepa
49 Dinith Tharindu Hettiarachchi
46 Madugrero
46 Malitha Daminda

--Fæ (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Fæ. The list of files are actually this and this lists combined (total ~100). Would you be able to help me by running another pywikibot query for those please? I know I should have provided the links before. Many thanks in advance! Reh man 18:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Using the 30 + 70 files and sorting by names for first edits gives:

--Fæ (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, Fæ. Cheers, Reh man 03:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

How to treat unused redirects[edit]

In this case, with template redirects - but it may concern as well other redirects. This is not a delete discussion but the plea for an answer.
And my question does not concern redirects that are anyway useful, e.g. abbreviations (e.g. {{Vva}} for {{Vector version available}}.
It happens often that a user, when trying to transclude a template but writes the name with typos, instead of correcting the typos to the correct name prefers to create a new redirect. There are numerous examples and we have templates with many redirects, and often a part of them is not in use. Look for an illustrative example at the flood of fifteen redirects, which caused also a DR Diskussion some years ago.
It seems to be an accepted custom (?), or a usual strategy in commons, to delete categories after a while of emptyness.
To me, it seems always good to tidy up and to get clear of obsolete entries that are useless ballast in the commons. When the special and personal redirect of a user has only a single transclusion, or very few ones, the link[s] can be changed and the now idle redirect is prone to deletion. When such a template redirect keeps hanging around may be somebody will sooner or later use it – otherwise it will "rot in peace".
I collected the facts because I want an answer. Please do not tell me "You can do like you think" or "Everybody may see it as in mood".
I am asking for a consensus, an opinion of others, how Commons strategy should treat unused template redirects. I start with my opinion

Delete Unused redirects are obsolete and nothing than an avoidable ballast -- sarang♥사랑 08:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
What are you defining as an "unused redirect" and a "used redirect"? From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I thought if there was a redirect that if someone put a file in the empty redirect category, eventually a housekeeping bot would move it. So, not sure there is a problem here to solve. --Fæ (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: This appears to be about redirects in templatespace, rather than categoryspace, — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I did misread it. --Fæ (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I agree with your point that cat redirects are designed to show as unused most of the time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete per nom, via DR with notice. But be careful, some templates are designed to be substed, so substed use of the redirects will show as unused. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Delete, if you really want to. If there are unused, and unlikley to ever be useful, redirects in templatespace (and I'd class mispellings that are likley to be made again as useful here), then I see no problem in sending them to DR and deleting them. But I really can't see it as very important myself, and given the closure of deletion requests is rather backlogged already, I wouldn't really encourage going out of your way to delete them. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 14:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Some of the unused redirects can be useful. Many files transferred from other projects come with local templates that mostly overlap with our templates. Than the proper approach would be to import them as-is, with foreign templates redirecting to local ones and than replace one with the other, possibly after readjusting input arguments. Than after replacement those template redirects are unused until the next upload. We should not delete such redirects. --Jarekt (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: Unused redirect: primary I can check the transclusion count; and secundary I can estimate by the name of the redirect. Third, when a "personal" redirect is only used once, or very few times by one user, I can carefully change the transclusions and then the redirect is unused, so tidying up can start.

I do not intend to delete everything I dislike - but sometimes tidying up with useless and unused objects might be an advantage.

@Jeff G.: Category redirects: This is another thing, and sure more difficult. I restrict on the rather easy point of unused template redirects. Like the more than thousand obsolete templates

Thank you for the hint about substed; when a template is substed it is not needed any more by that usage? Anyway, deletions can be undone when later comes up that a need exists. And I will be very careful with DR!

@Jarekt: Foreign: Thank you for the hint! I think that I can estimate such cases. I remember the troubles one year ago with the French template "M" for "Modèle", when I needed the letter "M" for the template "Module" - for a long time an existence check looked whether it meant a template or a module...

Thank you all for your contribution, now I see a consensus that with some care deletions can be recommended. -- sarang♥사랑 09:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sarang: People, bots, scripts, and files which will eventually be undeleted will continue to use redirected templates for centuries to come, we need them for backward compatibility. For substed redirected templates, consider the fate of {{subst:please don't edit this line (new rfcu case)}} (used in setting up an RFCU page). Consider also {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} (good luck getting people to stop copying file description pages from Wikipedia). Actually, any redirected template that would lead to deletion could give you and !voters a false sense of non-use because AFAIK you can't see the uses in deleted files & pages. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Images of XX with annotations‎[edit]

Category:Images with annotations is a tracking cat set by {{ImageNote}}, but some users created subcats and manually added them to files. Are these subcats really useful? The worst problem is of course they are manually added, so there's no guarantee the cats are correct.--RZuo (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Useless. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
While I can see limited use, this should be done with community discussion only. It should be populated as a tree or not at all. I would support something akin to Images with annotations in [language]. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- By language would be useful. Category:Images with 10+ annotations, which I presume is auto-populated, is useful. But I'm talking about things like 13 photos in Category:Mountains of Alberta (annotated)‎. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Category:Images with 10+ annotations contains a lot of images that don't have a single valid annotation. Probably all with the word cropped in the filename. -- Andreas Stiasny (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

Some information about the Siphonariidae family of molluscs[edit]

Hello to Wikimedia Commons members. Recently I started to write about mollusks of the family Siphonariidae in the Wikipedia of my native language. I started to put some links from iNaturalist, but one of these links was like CC-BY until I opened the copyright link of the image and noticed that in that location was placed CC-BY-NC (now I will open all licenses, after repairing this one error on that page). I also noticed something. The World Register of Marine Species page retreated in one of the nomenclatures. I would rather warn you here than modify the terminology that is not still valid on Wikimedia Commons. Mário NET (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Mário NET: Thanks for the warning. It's good to be aware that on iNaturalist, individual photos may have different copyright licenses than the observation itself. And in the case of Category:Siphonaria_obliquata, it appears that renaming may be warranted (Benhamina obliquata currently redirects, a situation that may warrant reversing), but in general there is no guarantee, nor mandate, that Commons follows the taxonomy of WoRMS for any taxon, as just as in taxonomy, stability and clarity is desirable, and categories should only be moved/renamed if arguments to do so are compelling (and WoRMS has its share of errors, incongruencies, and oddities, especially in obscure taxa). Sometimes in the face of conflicting taxonomies, we have to pick just one: it should be the most widely used and agreed upon name, even if it's not the one used in the most recent publication. --Animalparty (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for the reply. My next move will be the creation of the article of this mollusc family on Wikipedia of my country language. Mário NET (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

My categories "Spiral staircases" are being deleted. Why?[edit]

My categories are being deleted. Why? There are all sorts of categories for stairs, but not for staircases.

@Krok6kola: A.Savin moved most to "stairs" instead of "staircases" without redirects or explanations, and deleted at least one as empty. It is safest for you to populate a category BEFORE creation. I think there can be both, "stairs" for one or more individual stairs and "staircases" for entire sets of stairs forming staircases from top to bottom. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: They WERE populated. A.Savin reverted me 19 times today, emptied the categories I made. I NEVER create a category without populating it. Never. A.Savin has reverted me 19 times today without any discussion. Krok6kola (talk) 03:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: But why is this even an issue when other create empty categorys: Category:Places in Pakistan by city (empty now) is created so more familiar Pakistan categories will disappear under this, like "Ports and Harbors in Pakistan that is already hard to find. Who would think to look under "Places". In my opinion this is like Category:Activities in Pakistan To me "Education in Pakistan" and "Sports in Pakistan" should be easy to find, but now users need to know the administrative unit everything is under, and in sports the type of sport, even if as a westerner some of the sports have unfamiliar names. Should not important topics be easy to find? Must one know the administrative units of the 190 or so countries in the world to find anything? Or be willing to click through many categories to look? And many categories are encapsulated in several child categories to click through to get to the actual images. Sorry to complain, but it is so frustrating. Krok6kola (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Please follow the steps at Commons:Dispute resolution. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: No point. A.Savin tried to get me blocked a week or so ago #Krok6kola after I reported him there per advice from the Help Desk and the few who posted trashed me without bothering to look into it. You described me as "making a mess" of categories and not understanding OVERCAT which isn't true. I defended myself and no one bothered to respond to me and it went no where of course. No one has ever apologized to me when I turn out to be right over contested issues.

I got an email from Wikimedia Commons wanting to interview me because I am so productive, but in reality I am not valued here. It's hopeless. I just have to learn I am bottom of the barrow. Thanks for answering though. Kindest regards, Krok6kola (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)@Jeff G.:@Jmabel: (I lost my edit in the conflict)

A user posted on my talkpage this last night:

Today I found a revert on my watch list on the File:Castle spiral staircase.jpg I wondered why the (now empty) category Category:Spiral staircases in France has been removed in favour of Category:Spiral stairs in France. I honestly would have searched for a staircase category and not a stairs category. So you are right! I don't know what the problem is. But I find categorisation at Commons highly irritating. Usually it's overcategorisation that irritates me: picture taken on this and that day in the canton of bla with this and that camera by virgins born under the sign of pisces. But sometimes there are categories like "Interiors of churches" where a foreigner like me would have searched for "church interiors" every time I have taken a picture of a church interior, I search for this stupid category. Maybe this is some kind of limbo, where we get punished for any beaurocratic qualities we might show in real life.--Stanzilla (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

This the way I feel also. When I was told twice to go to report my problems to Admin user problems, I said I would be demolished there and I was. No one responded to, or even probably read my explanations there, and A.Savin wanted to block me, saying I was as damaging as User:INeverCry and he got some support from pinged Admins who did not bother to evaluate the reality. I know I would be demolished at "Dispute Resolution" because I do not ping any supporting Admins as I have none. I've been on the Commons four years and only in the last several months have I had contacts with Admins, so there is no supporting Admins for me to ping. Maybe Wikicommons is the place to go? Or be interviewed as requested and see if I can get help or explanations? I am at a loss. Krok6kola (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

[6] --A.Savin 13:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Why did you make that edit? In doing so, you created a circular category. Kindle cease and desist from creating circular categories. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Why are you moving categories including Category:Spiral staircases in Turkey, Category:Spiral staircases in Syria, Category:Spiral staircases in Finland, and Category:Spiral staircases in Scotland‎‎ without redirects or explanations? Redirects are needed in most cases for backward compatibility, and explanations are needed for accountability and transparency. Why are you emptying and deleting categories including Category:Spiral staircases in Germany, Category:Spiral staircases in the United States, and Category:Spiral staircases in Switzerland without explanations? "spiral staircase" is a legitimate English lemma and noun, and plural "spiral staircases" exist as architectural forms, and have done so for centuries. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The categories were created not as a special case of "spiral stairs", but as parallel categories (duplicates) to the same subject. For example, the content of Category:Spiral staircases in Germany was [[Category:Spiral staircases]][[Category:Architectural elements in Germany]]. Besides, staircase means the room where the stairs are built in, and the room cannot be spiral. Only the stairs itself. --A.Savin 14:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: Where did you find such a definition? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at English WP, where staircase is just a redirect to stairs. --A.Savin 16:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I don't think staircase is the room or space where stairs are built. I think the term for that is stairwell. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not English native, so I have to rely on what English Wikipedia writes; and from what I understood, staircase is synonymous for stairwell. --A.Savin 03:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment The elephant in the room is that these things, whatever else they are, are helical rather than spiral. A spiral is a plane figure and such a staircase would not get you from one level of a building to another. But it's not like me to cause trouble. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: You seem to have a friend at d:Q12513. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat verbatim what I wrote on Krok6kola's talk page:

When this started Category:Spiral staircases was a redirect. User:Krok6kola, if you had looked at its history you would have seen that I had created it -- 12 years ago -- and then promptly turned it into a redirect because (when I started categorizing) I discovered we already had Category:Spiral stairs. I am absolutely certain that you are aware I am still an active user: this is hardly the first time we have interacted, including under your prior account name. Mightn't you have started a CFD and pinged me and also the half dozen or so people who had edited Category:Spiral stairs and attempted to reach some sort of consensus on a preferred name rather than unilaterally making changes this size? I happen to prefer Category:Spiral staircases, but this was clearly a change against consensus and also a creation of two basically indistiguishable categories.
If you edit against consensus, you should expect the frustration of having your work undone.

Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat verbatim what I replied to Jmabel on my talkpage.

@Jmabel: I was unaware of the history of this category, as the history has no useful information. And I don't see where "consensus" was reached for your category. Is the consensus that you started it twelve years ago? As with others, it seems like opinion. I have had categories I created redirected, often in ways that I did not like, but I thought this was a collaborative project and accepted the redirects as accepting the opinion of another.
If an opinion of one is "consensus" then should I get upset when categories I created are redirected and demand a consensus be reached? This has been happening regularly in the last month as a user new to the categories of Pakistan has changed everything, creating new categories with vague names making common categories hard to find. I posted on the Village Pump about this, but as usual my questions get no helpful response.
I don't know how consensus is reached on the Commons. I know there is no point in starting a "Categories for discussion" as the ones I have started or commented on just languish forever with no consensus reached. And I know there is no point in posting at the Village pump as my questions are ignored. Where was your category discussed and consensus reached?
In my own history it is always A.Savin who reverts me, deletes my categories and I assumed (this time wrongly) that it was the usual harassment from him that I regularly receive with no explanation. And why did he empty and delete all my other categories (20 of them) that I was working on, that you had nothing to do with starting?
As I have said before, I have not had any problems with Admins in my four years here, until the last few months, so I have not learned the proper ways of dealing with harassment. A.Savin has never explained his reversions, emptying categories and deletions, including the ones in question here, and I just have to learn from experience. All I have learned is not do to any categorization of his photos as that it always trouble within minutes.
User:Auntof6, a very admired person on the Commons, is one of the many that used the category "staircases" within a few minutes of its creation.
As you can read in the post above, there are others that have trouble with the Commons way of dealing with categories and appreciated the categories of "Spiral staircase" and quickly used them. A great many images use the words "spiral staircase" as it is very common in the real world. Thank you very much for responding. Kind regards, Krok6kola (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, the images I categorized were either named "spiral staircase" in their file name or were described as a "spiral staircase" in the file description. Do those here not consider what the real world calls and describes images? Is it not by the real world name that people (on the Commons and elsewhere) will use in looking for categories and images? Krok6kola (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this from 2 and a half years ago will be able to cut through all the drama. We can have category hierarchy, there is no problem with it. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Gone Postal: Why should "spiral stairs" be used for "spiral staircase"? Why not use the common architectural term "Spiral staircase" for a spiral staircase? Krok6kola (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not start arguments when none exist. I would suggest the following hierarchy of categories:

Category:Stairs

Category:Stairs by country

Category:Staircases by country

Category:Stairways by country

Category:Staircases

Category:Staircases by country

Category:Stairways

Category:Stairways by country

Category:Stair steps

In this way a file can be placed inside Category:Staircases in Germany, that cat can be inside Category:Staircases by country and Category:Stairs in Germany. No file would be placed inside Category:Stairs and Category:Staircases at the same time, unless there are dismantled stairs that lay on a staircase. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest we move this discussion to Category talk:Spiral stairs where in the future it will be easier to find that random village pump discussion (but make a link there of this discussion here) or just continue here but make a reference there at the end. I suggest people not refer to things as "my categories" if they want others to not think there is just personal egos at work. If multiple people disagree with you, you don't have a consensus to do it. Is the issue splitting the category alone or all the various subcategories by country? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: That discussion at Category talk:Spiral stairs is a few comments about geometry that concluded in 2018. It was not addressing spiral staircases at all. Krok6kola (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I repeated my remarks in a second place because Krok6kola started a discussion in a second place. He then chose to put a wall of text in both places. I've already responded to the wall of text on his talk page and will not repeat myself here except to say that the right way forward is a CFD of Category:Spiral stairs with a proposal to move it to Category:Spiral staircases. I would actually support that move, but one user should not unilaterally rename a decade-plus-old category in which many people have worked, much less create a parallel, synonymous category. - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

- Support The move of the discussion. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

wiki loves illustrators[edit]

Wikimedia foundation could organize a contest for illustrations. What do you think about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumefrst35400 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 29 August 2020‎ (UTC)

@Guillaumefrst35400: All contests are organized by volunteers, none are organized by the Wikimedia Foundation. The WMF does support a lot of contests.

So if you have an idea for a contest, get some people involved and start organizing. That's also how we started Wiki Loves Monuments. Multichill (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Moving away from PD-self[edit]

{{PD-self}} is a relic from the past that first seems to be introduced in 2004 so it predates {{Cc-zero}} by about 4 years. PD-self is a home brew release/license template that doesn't have a strong legal basis like CC0. It's also less interoperable. I would like to slowly move away from using this template for new uploads. So probably start with:

Ask people currently using it to switch {{PD-self}} to {{Self|cc-zero}}
Ask people if they want their existing uploads switched from {{PD-self}} to {{Self|cc-zero}}. A bot can help with that. I've done it in the past for people usually with a permalink in the edit summary to where the user agreed.
Removing PD-self as a standard option from our upload forms (not sure if and where it is currently configured)

Of course this is all on a voluntary basis. I don't want to force people. At some point in the future the usage for new uploads might have dropped that much that we can consider deprecating it for new uploads like we did with {{GFDL}}. What do you think? Multichill (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd support this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Personally I am a sucker for old style of doing it, the simplicity, the joy of actually trying to release the work into public domain, right now I only release my audio recordings of people saying words like that... but I feel like a rebel when I do. Perhaps a good idea would be to add a parameter of a fall-back licence to {{PD-self}}, that would add "If that is not legally possible, the following licence applies". I would be willing to add {{WTFPL}} as a fallback. However, I Support removing PD-self from the list of suggested licence to new users. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 02:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Support I think that we should deprecate {{PD-self}} for new uploads, just like we did with {{GFDL}}. {{Cc-zero}} is a better tool. I can also help with bot runs to change templates if someone want to. --Jarekt (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Strong oppose On any deprecation. The reason why I would support this proposal is exactly how level-headed it is, this is not a time to push through an attempt to force people into a particular pet licence. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 05:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Limited Support. I think {{PD-self}} is still a perfectly legally valid way to release something into the public domain with fallback, but we should steer people towards {{Cc-zero}} whenever possible. So my view is: PD-self should not be selectable as a default option in any upload form, but if someone for whatever reason uploads it under PD-self anyways we will accept it as a valid license. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Support discouraging it's use, removing from default license lists etc, with uploaders encouraged to use CC0. Oppose starting replacing licenses, unless the user has actually asked for this to take place. If a user really doesn't want to use CC0 for whatever reason, pd self should still remain an acceptable license, just one that's hidden away from new users. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 09:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Alex Noble "replacing licenses, unless the user has actually asked for this to take place" is a horrible idea and was not part of this proposal. --Jarekt (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This was more in response to the similarities to GFDL that were raised. I'm just thinking of when WTFPL was deleted, with everything moved to the GPL (which was, admittedly, undone the day after). ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 16:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Support and Oppose, same as Alex Noble. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Neutral While CC0 is perhaps more thorough than PD-self, I want to feel like I'm throwing stuff into the public domain, not under a PD-like license. Bear in mind that I live in the U.S. and I have that option, even if others don't. Maybe it's just that CC0 as a name sounds more like CC-BY but without the BY to me than it sounds like a waiver. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Brainulator9 Yes short and readable text like PD-self is more satisfying than legalese language of CC-zero, but this is meant to be a legal document where someone paid attention to every possible situation. --Jarekt (talk) 16:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{WTFPL}} ?? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 16:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  - I think the right way to think about things is this: COM:PCP requires us to reject images with a relatively high (say, higher than 1-2%) chance of being non-free, and allows us to accept images if the chance of being non-free is within that threshold. Making up numbers for the sake of argument, perhaps {{PDMark-owner}} has a 1% chance of not truly being a free license, {{PD-self}} and {{WTFPL}} each have a 0.3% chance, and {{Cc-zero}} has a 0.1% chance. (Obviously I use probabilities very loosely here simply to provide a numerical comparison, because probabilities are really more appropriate for discussing whether we believe an uploader's claim of "own work" than for discussing the freeness of licenses, but both are components of PCP.) All things equal, we should prefer the license with the lowest chance of being non-free and recommend it to anyone who is not sure on the choice of license. At the same time, we should continue to accept licenses which fall within the PCP threshold (as determined by community consensus), even if they have a higher chance of being non-free than the ideal choice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    - Once CC0 will be the default, you will start having photos of the television screen uploaded under that licence. Therefore, those probabilities are not very useful, they will always be towards whatever licence is not the easiest for a new uploader to make a mistake on. Today the most copyvios here are CC-BY-SA 4.0. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
      - Yes, I included a disclaimer for that. What I mean is the probability that a picture guaranteed to have been released by its creator (obviously it's impossible to know for certain, but just suppose for the sake of argument) under a particular license is nonetheless non-free, because of problems inherent to the license itself. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Freedom of panorama in the Philippines[edit]

Hello. I just came here for some casual browsing and noticed that there are many fotos of philippine buildings and sculptures that are supposed to be for fair use only. I have knowledge on the so-called freedom of panorama, and the section at the philippines only allows photos of old sculptures and even buildings that date before 1972. Your policies state that fair use is not allowed. But i can see numerous fotos hosted here includinh:

Category:EDSA Shrine. - The creator, Manosa just died last year or 2019. Category:GMA Network Center - the builder seems to be still alive. Based on my google searches. Category:Pinaglabanan Shrine - if this is non releted to architecture why was it hosted here despite from 1973?

I can see other violations but I will leave the decision to other editors. Anyway this is just my concern. Hope the venue I entered is correct in addressing such concerns of fotos of philippine copyrighted works and structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.109.24 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 August 2020‎ (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. As a starter I have created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of the EDSA Shrine and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:EDSA Shrine. De728631 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. thanks for the person who noticed my convern on fop. In reality i ask someone on fb to comment about the fop matter, and he said that "Wikimedia Commons does not allow fair use because it varies from country to country- this is for sure to avoid possible conflicts and confusion. That’s just it, their house, their rules. Philippine govt or courts cannot impose our fair use doctrine to Wikimedia because there’s no law prohibiting them not to." So it seems that philippine fair use doesnt apply to commons. And a glance at the copyright rukes by terriroty page of the philippines shows buildings completed before november 1972 are allowable. Yet like my concern earlier gma building seems new.

Also please check the gallery section of wikipedia article EDSA shrine. In particular the - - File:EDSA Shrine Commemorative Marker for EDSA Dos.jpg - File:EDSA Shrine Detail.jpg - File:EDSA Shrine Stations of the Cross.jpg

The main foto there is ok since it complues fair use which is only restricted to enwiki and not internationally.

Also please check the Category:Buildings in Makati City and its component categories.

Lots of modern blgs there. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.71.226.183 (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2020‎ (UTC)

Kindly see COM:FU. Pinging @De728631 as original responder. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

- Thank you Jeff G. This will be my last reply. Please check thoroughly tge various categories of Philippine-related buildings and sculptures. I can see numerous potos of modrrn post 1972 bldgs. Ans also some recnt looking sculptures.

Examples:

- Category:TriNoma - post 1972 bldg

- Category:The United Methodist Church (Porac, Pampanga) - seems new

- Category:National Shrine of The Divine Mercy, Philippines

- Category:Saint Peter's Chapel (Tibag, Pulilan, Bulacan)

- Category:Rizal Monument, Naga City

- Category:Divine Mercy Shrine (San Manuel, Tarlac City)

- Category:Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental)

- Category:Caloocan City Hall Building (A. de Jesus 8th-9th Streets, Barangay 103, Zone 9, District II, Grace Park East) - this is very very recent.

- Category:Mandaluyong City Hall

- Category:Batasang Pambansa complex - this is way after 1972!

- Category:Mother Ignacia Healing Center (RVM, Barangay 171, Bagumbong, Zone 15, Caloocan City)

- Category:Pasig City Halls of Justice

- Category:East Avenue Medical Center

- Category:Philippine International Convention Center - this is 1976 and not 1971 or before!

- Category:Sofitel Philippine Plaza - i dont believe this is 1971 or before based on the structure itself

- Category:Manila Film Center - 1982 not 1972

- Category:Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex - some scukptures

- Category:Pablo Ocampo Monument (Malate, Manila)

- Category:Fernando Poe Jr. monument in Roxas Boulevard, Ermita, Manila

- Category:Juan Luna Monument in Ermita, Manila

- All inc churches - Category:Iglesia Ni Cristo churches in the Philippines - seems that tge architect only died recently according to wikipedia

- Category:Kartilya ng Katipunan “The Life and Heroism of Gat Andres Bonifacio” Monument and Mural (Mehan Garden, Ermita, Manila)

- Category:Paul P. Harris Monument (Rotary Club of the Philippines, Ermita, Manila)

There are many many more potos, of post 1972 bldgs and new sculptures. Most of them with author field "judgefloro". Please check thoroughly several other categories. As long as those are 'sculptures' and 'bldgs that are built and completed after 1972' as said in your policy page on philippines, they are NOT ok. Thank you.

Well, this looks like a lot of work that needs to be checked step by step. By the way, I don't see anything copyrightable in File:EDSA Shrine Commemorative Marker for EDSA Dos.jpg and other such lists. The design appears to be too simple. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I now just registered. Ill try to search for those categories and photos, and nominate relevant red-flag photos for deletion. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

AFTER reading some basics on commons editing methods i will now start nominating some for deletions ----

@Mrcl lxmna: Hi, and welcome. How did you learn to use VFC so quickly? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

hello jeff g. I studied about the procedure on how to select photos needing scruntiny. Read about the two methods, the nominate for deletion anf the so called Visual file change. The bominate delete is there, while the visual file change is not. But still your help page with this contains a button to try, saying try the visual file change button. And it seemed easy. Wait, am i right in inserting user name which is four linear characters? ====

One problem is that i must enter characters to comply with the so called captcha. ====

This is found at the helpage of visual file change as tgis wiki calls. "Step 0: How to Install

"""Just try it without installing"""

To install it:"

section break[edit]

@Mrcl lxmna: please stop the "reckless" nominations for deletion on such Philippines photos. Some of the photos nominated comply with either Commons:De minimis and/or low TOO that has been applied for some cases like mall buildings. DM can apply at File:Meralco Avenue.jpg (as a normal and average street view, photo courtesy of User:RioHondo), and Commons:TOO can apply at this photo of 588 retail store in Pulilan photographed by me. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

My reply, ok. If there is the so called de minimos or what you claim accidental inclusion of buildings and sculptures. You claim the level.of originality for mall structures but i guess thats your speculation. i will just continue some more deletion requests. Copyrights of architects engineer designers and sculptors must be respected! ----

@Mrcl lxmna: Pls stop. You are just making speculations about no FoP with no evidence. Exec8 has opened a new discussion at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright regarding FoP. In the foregoing, I might request all deletion requests involving PHL structure photos (including two deletion requests made by me [but not in my will]) on hold pending the renewed discussion at the said forum. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

To other editors including admins: can anyone clean up several photos at Category:Iglesia Ni Cristo churches in the Philippines? The user just made malformed DR's in some photos pointing to an obsolete DR unrelated or irrelevant to those photos. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Their usage of Help:VisualFileChange seems not conducive to the already-heated situation on Commons:FOP Philippines. 14:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I respect ur decision. Mrcl lxmna (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I browsed thru Commons:Philippines FOP cases/deleted and found numerous potos of structures incl malls deleted. The attempt to save moa potos by p199 failed which means your rationales are not widely accepted. I will continue to req deletions of ALL of your erring potos Mrcl lxmna (talk) 03:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Concerning your complaint on inc photos ive now fixed it. Now the photos arevlisted there. ----

That stupid rate limit and captcha arrrgh Mrcl lxmna (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages and good afternoon from hereat Bulacan, Philippines; by way of Reply please allow me to state that a) I was granted permission by the Tourism Offices and b) I talked to the lawyers and legal officers of the Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL both under Category:Ricardo R. Blancaflor and Category:Intellectual Property Center IP PHL and his successor Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) as evidenced by i) Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro and ii) Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and iii) Letter to Director Blancaflor Receipt; sad to say there is no Ruling, Directive or any Reply on my FOP request for Definitive Ruling due to the fact that the matter is very Grey under Philippine Jurisprudence and no Appellate or Lower Court ruling has been issued on any justiciable controvery ever; what I hold are verbal but authoritative opinions of both the Lawyers of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines and the Tourism Authority offices; IN FINE: I respectfully submit that until now, since the passage of Copyright Law in the Philippines, Wikipedia article on it teaches that there are only 2 Supreme Court cases on the Law and nothing has been ruled on any justiciable controversy by any party hence Directress Josephine Rima-Santiago could not and has not issued any Reply to my or Our Letters for Legal Ruling; as a Regional Trial Court Judge and Ateneo Lawyer Alumni, please allow me to state that in the Phillippines which also follows the USA Jurisprudence from Federal Rules, photography regarding FOP alleged prohibitions cannot and would not be curtailed until the Supreme Court or the Intellectual Property Center would issue a Ruling or Circular on the matter of prohibition; I hesitate to say that is a real grey area, for if there is no penal law, on the specific matter of FOP, then no punishment could be born; with all these, I respectfully submit to the sound discretion of Commons as I remain very truly yours Judgefloro (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Judgefloro: the matter has been raised at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Philippines#Application of recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions on mere allegations of copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

YouTube -change of license[edit]

I like {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, to indicate Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked -despite a change of license on Flickr. Is there also a {{YouTube-change-of-license}}? Vysotsky (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: I don't know of one for YouTube specifically, but there is the more general {{Change-of-license}}. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

September 01[edit]

Art in Transit photographs[edit]

Hello. It came to my attention that my photograph of this 2D artowork may violate copyright laws in my country. So do I put this up for deletion? I may also request a look through for other related photographs, photographs of artworks in the Singapore MRT network:

Additionally there are other official map images violating copyright:

--ZKang123 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

These seem to be images that you know are copyright problems. You can add {{copyvio}} to any of them for an admin to delete them. If any are doubtful, for example if someone might justify the copyrighted images being sufficiently small or not the 'focus' of the photograph, then they should be raised for deletion discussion by using the toolbar deletion request link to the left of your screen. Refer to derivative works. --Fæ (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You can nominate them for COM:DR. For me at least, {{Copyvio}} should not be used for COM:FOP cases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

User:Studio Harcourt[edit]

Dear all,

I have identified that this user has uploaded a large number of pictures of celebrities. The pictures are indeed very interesting, but they include systematically a logo of his / her studio. Do we really want to authorize not-so-hidden advertising on Commons ? Thanks for your opinion. Poppy (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Poppy: These types of watermarks are permitted on Commons, though discouraged. See Commons:Watermarks. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

They are no different from any other historic studio images we host from the Library of Congress. See for example Bachrach Studio: File:Gen. Peyton March LOC 27255142246.jpg. It insures they get properly attributed, and you can always crop out the watermark and save a new version, if it is going to be the one displayed in the infobox. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

September 03[edit]

Gynecomastia image isn't what it implies[edit]

The image at File:Gynecomastia001.jpg is highly unlikely to be what the filename implies it is, that is, enlarged breast tissue in a male. (Actual gynecomastia doesn't look like that; web search will provide plenty of images.) Just the filename itslef was enough for it to be used on an article at en-wiki (w:Cleavage (breasts)), but I've removed it from the article. Imho, the image should simply be deleted from Commons, as there's no sourcing to verify that it is what it claims to be; although the tricky part is, it doesn't actually claim to be anything, since there is no description. I'd delete it as misleading, if there is such a category. Mathglot (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

You should nominate it for deletion. Ruslik0 (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Don't use the image to illustrate a male in the encyclopaedia, as there is nothing gender specific visible except the breasts, but before you nominate for deletion read this en:Sexual_dimorphism#Humans, and maybe watch this ->[7]. ~ R.T.G 11:21, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

stuck in translation[edit]

Hi, I just deleted Template:PD-Unicode by Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-Unicode. There are still some links from (translated) Commons-pages to it - see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-Unicode like Commons:Copyright tags/General public domain/de. I cannot remove that template from these pages, they are translated and I an currently lost how to do it. Some help of an translation admin would be appreciated. Thx. --Ju Ta 14:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Done As a translation admin you should have marked the "master page" for translation. All dependant pages would have been updated automatically. --jdx ^Re: 14:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

September 04[edit]

Personality rights and labeling[edit]

Is the name and caption given to File:02019 1209 (2) Nationalist attack on an LGBT equality march in Rzeszów.jpg acceptable per COM:PEOPLE? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

These "good people" are offensively using Nazi salutes and waiving nationalist flags at an LGBT event. They chose to do this in public while standing in front of a huge number of riot police and press photographers. There's no chance that the photograph or its accurate description (that has no names in it) will cause them any damage or distress considering they wanted to be photographed and published. --Fæ (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

How can I find out who blanked my user page?[edit]

And how can I have them disciplined?

I worked on that page for years, even though I haven't updated it in recent years.

And would somebody please bring it back from the dead? Verdana Bold (talk) 07:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Verdana Bold: As far as I can see, you never had a user page on Commos (but I'm not an admin, might be missing something). Are you maybe looking for en:User:Verdana Bold? --El Grafo (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

FYI, if your user page is set up on meta, then that page gets used on every other project where you do not have a specific existing page. That may be a better option than creating a separate page on Commons. Refer to m:Global user pages. --Fæ (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump

Contents