Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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/2024/03. 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 media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023) 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.

February 24

Huge amount of problematic name categories

The user @JuTa seems to have created dozens upon dozens of name categories for names that are not actual names, for example there are tons of categories for "compound" names which are really just a string of given names used by a single person ever, like Category:Johan Marie Jacques Hubert (given name) (and in some cases a couple of given names + a surname treated as a given name such as Category:Marie Therese Nordsletta (given name)), as well as creating surname categories for surnames + initials like Category:Y Goud (surname), and in the case of Category:Yashki(surname) (which I moved to Category:Yashki (surname) 3 years after it was created) I'm not even sure the person who wears it has it as a family name (I'm not overly familiar with how Indian names work). It seems to me like JaTu doesn't understand naming conventions of different cultures and many of the categories they have created are really problematic, but I don't know how to take care of all of them. StarTrekker (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

years-old open discussion: Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/08/Category:Robert Falcon (given name). RZuo (talk) 08:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RZuo said that «It seems to me like JaTu doesn't understand naming conventions of different cultures», and indeed is so; I would add that it’s not just JuTa, it’s most people who worked on the matter in Commons and whoever designed the Wikidata module that deals with anthroponyms. And while JuTa is not active anymore, the others are alive and kicking and I just gave up trying to fix the nonsense that plagues our categorization of Portuguese-language onomastics because every time I fixed one, 10 more would spring up. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s not only Portuguese, of course: That’s just the one I am most familiar with and on which my “expert” opinion is valued in a CdF. But it’s also Spanish, because it’s the similar to Portuguese, just the other way around plus the whole "y" business — which is the same as Catalan "i", except when it’s not. And all the patronymics — both Slavic and Icelandic, similar but not identical, each needing specific modelling. And the “swapped” anthroponyms with surname first: Hungarian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese…: Not really an oddball case that could be ignored. And yet it is ignored — indeed, anything that doesn’t follow the anglocentric Givenname+Surname paradigm (with the occasional nod to “middle initial”) gets completely confused in our categorization, thanks to clumsy editing and to Wikidata. (Oh, isn’t this a matter for U4C?…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

February 28

Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy: new note on authorizations liability

Hi, I have been following the discussion on the deletion of some images uploaded during Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy.

Wikimedia Italia asked Deborah De Angelis, a lawyer with specific expertise on copyright issues and Creative Commons licenses, to write a note on the liability of the authorizations used within the contest. You will find in the note two specific case studies, which I hope will help clarifying whether we should keep or not many images on Wikimedia Commons.

Please note that this memo is not legal advice to any person reading it and that I am not a lawyer and I am just sharing this document to facilitate a further discussion and informed decisions on this matter.

According to this memo written by De Angelis, who is also the drafter of the most recent authorization letter used by Wikimedia Italia, there would be no liability to host the images in question since these would be properly CC licensed.

Just as importantly, it suggests that the images are appropriately licensed and as a result, they would also be "free" for downstream re-users in the same way any other Creative Commons licensed material would be.

Since other platforms don't have this kind of blanket authorization from the government copyright holder, hosting these images on Commons presents a unique opportunity to "free" these images for all reusers on the Internet since once they are hosted on Wikimedia Commons with the authorization, the memo suggests that they are properly licensed as Creative Commons.

I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that if the Commons community did reconsider the policy and allow images with authorizations, it could open up opportunities to "free" works in other jurisdictions, not just in Italy. That could be a great opportunity to make Commons a place where many images restricted by panorama laws could be freed.

Paolo Casagrande (WMIT) (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@Paolo Casagrande (WMIT) are the authorizations also valid under U.S. law? Note that unlike in Italy, the U.S. does not automatically treat commissioned monuments as under PD-USgov. Many public memorials there are still under sculptors' copyrights. As Italy does not have formal FoP, any copyrighted sculptures there are also at mercy of U.S. law, which is much stricter. Commons recognizes the validity of Uruguay Round Agreements Act that restored U.S. copyrights to eligible foreign works. Not sure if U.S. courts will recognize the agreements between Wikimedia Italia and the Italian cities (communes), if ever one sculptor (or his heir) changes his mind and begins a lawsuit against Wikimedia using U.S. law and not Italian law. U.S. courts tend to side with sculptors than end-users. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, regarding "if the Commons community did reconsider the policy and allow images with authorizations, it could open up opportunities to free works in other jurisdictions, not just in Italy..." easy said than done. At least in two countries (Australia and Sweden), FoP exceptions for public monuments are under danger of being restricted to non-commercial (ping @Eric Luth (WMSE): for the Swedish situation). In Australia, the aborigine groups and some artists' societies are calling for Australian FoP for monuments to be revoked or restricted to non-commercial. Wikimedians in Estonia are having a hard time convincing their parliament to open up their public places to global reusers because their authors (mainly sculptors) are against public use of Estonian public spaces. Therefore, the Italian situation may not be the same as those in other countries, even in two countries where FoP for monuments are still recognized as of now.

Luckily, a radical proposal to ignore all other countries' laws and only follow U.S law just to finally allow unfree architecture (Burj Khalifa, Louvre Pyramod etc., since the U.S. law allows architectural FoP anyway) was thumbed down by a representative of Wikimedia Foundation itself, and instead the representative will call the foundation to prioritize on FoP movements. Should that proposal pushed through, then perhaps all of Italian monuments allowed here under WMIT-city government agreements are deleted en masse, since these might be binding under Italian law but not under U.S. law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 The sculptor cannot "change its mind" IMO, since the copyright in this cases is of the public administration... When we don't have a waiver, for the works for which the URAA is relevant (post 1976), the term is 95 years and not 70pma... Otherwise with your line of reasoning we should always assume that in the US the copyright is of the author even when the customer has it, which seems a really awkward interpretation to me (that would mean that a foreign society or entity could not legally have a copyright in the US!)... Friniate (talk) 10:42, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

This legal guide for example explicitly talks about foreign works made for hire. It's only circumstantial, ok, but if it would be impossible in the US for a foreign society or entity to have a copyright on something, then the legal guide shouldn't take that possibility into account at all... Friniate (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Friniate your reasoning is only valid in the Italian context. I doubt that would hold water in U.S. courts. The Commons already experienced the brunt of the 2012 Oldenburg DMCA take downs, in which even images of sculptures in countries where FoP covers monuments were also deleted by WMF, using the U.S. law as the basis. The agreements are legal in the Italian law, but I doubt U.S. courts will honor such should sculptors file copyright claims. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I've looked further into the matter finding this. It seems that the agreements between the author and the buyer are indeed valid for the US law, but only for 35 years, after which the author can exercise his rights and have the copyright reverting back to him. An exception are of course works for hire in the US meaning (that means if the author was an employee, etc). What I'm wondering though is: what if (as it's the case with the WMI waivers) the society or the entity has renounced to its rights before the 35-y threshold (that means, in the period in which they are for sure the rightful copyright holder)? Isn't there a rule also in the US law that says that once in CC-BY-SA a work cannot have the copyright restored?

Note in any case that this entire matter wouldn't cover pre-1976 works for which the URAA doesn't apply (they were already in PD under the italian law at the URAA date), that are the vast majority of the works currently tagged with PD-ItalyGov, so please let's not talk about massive deletions for all these images or for the template itself. Friniate (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong, but the commons policy now despite the Oldenburg case allows to upload images of statues in the countries with FoP for scupltures like Germany, isn'it? So the WMF takes them down only if it comes a notice, but in the other cases not, am I wrong? EDIT: I see that we have even a template for this very category, Template:Not-free-US-FOP, currently used by 2031 images XD I think that we could create a similar template also for images of italian buildings built between 1976 and 1989 and that are covered by WLM-waivers Friniate (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: The authorizations are valid under U.S. law exactly as an authorization written by the copyright holder is. So, the answer is "yes", otherwise all permission written to COM:VRT wouldn't be acceptable.

The issue here is different. @Paolo Casagrande: WML is organized in this case by an external organization, acting outside from Commons' community. And, because of that, it encountered all the problems we well know. First of all, the permissions are not verifiable because the templates do not link to the relative text but to a general database. For me, these permissions are only acceptable if a link to the URL with the relative document is available for all images, and if this permission is verified by a trusted user, e.g. using {{Licensereview}}. Otherwise it stays something external of our project, verified by some unknown WMIT member with no connection whatsoever to Commons' community. There are other issues, due to the fact that the text of the permission wasn't double checked by community trusted users, i.e. Commons' admins or VRT agents; for me, the permission for the photos mustn't be restricted to the month of September only. Note: I trust Deborah De Angelis, but it's again a proof that WMIT considers itself outside of Commons' community, using our platform rather than contributing to it searching for a good understanding between the two communities. --Ruthven (msg) 20:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Ruthven for answering to @JWilz12345 doubts and thanks also to @Friniate for participating in the discussion. Although I can't speak on behalf of Wikimedia Italia on the whole, I think it is a strong statement to say that Wikimedia Italia wants to use Commons rather than contribute to it. Anyway, @Ruthven together with the team of Wikimedia Italia we will take into consideration your remarks on the process used in the past, in order to improve in the future. Thanks again for sharing your concerns. Paolo Casagrande (WMIT) (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Paolo Casagrande (WMIT)@Friniate@Ruthven perhaps in Italy, it seems relatively easy to obtain permissions, because the copyright holders are the Italian cities (as well as churches) themselves. This does not mean there is de facto FoP; it is an optimal measure to create templates that are not part of FoP template family and are directed towards the existence of authorizations, like two templates that i suggested in a past discussion ({{Italy-comune-authorization}} and {{Italy-diocesan-authorization}}). This filters the files into separate categories.

The seemingly-permissive situation in Italy does not mean it is applicable in other no-FoP countries. In most countries, copyright can only be transferred to the government by written stipulations, especially if the works are government-commissioned but the artists are not from the governments. Such Italy-like licensing arrangements are most likely to fail in France and Greece (two countries that opposed Wikimedia's FoP movement during the 2015 discussion at the EU Parliament). Perhaps there is a small share of successful VRTS contacts with artists or their heirs for a few monuments in Estonia and the United States, but majority of the copyrighted monuments in both countries are less likely to be hosted here within the lifetimes of many senior Commons admins here. There is substantial opposition in Estonia to Wikimedia movement, even if the government stakeholders there are in favor of a liberal FoP, since the authors' groups are against exposure of their monuments to Wikimedia Commons under free-culture licenses. Do not expect the same for Japan too: their non-commercial FoP for public monuments is likely to stay around, as there is some legal literature there stating that the public should not freely use things found in public, due to possible harm to sculptors' royalty rights (see Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Godzilla hibiya japan 2006 9.jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply that Italy has a de-facto FoP, I only wanted to stress that in other situations that are unchartered waters in terms of legal precedents and in which there is only an hypothetical claim by the author (hypothetical because the author may, or may not since there is no actual legal precedent on this specific issue, have the right to claim the copyright back to him in the US after 35 years, and he could exercise this right, but he could also not exercise it), we keep the images unless it comes a DMCA notice. By the way, according to the legal guide that I posted before, this hypothetical interpretation of the US copyright law may even be in contrast with the international treaties on copyright signed by the US. And letting aside the fact that AFAIK there is no legal precedent also on the possibility to revoke a CC-BY-SA license given by the (in that moment) rightful copyright holder.

I'm in favor of creating these templates, if they can clarify the issue. They should be used only for monuments built after 1976 (URAA-20y) though, since before that date all these images fall under Template:PD-ItalyGov. Friniate (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 it is true that in most countries copyright can only be transferred to the government by written stipulations, but it is also true that in most countries the artist automatically transfers the copyright for works made for hire. This is the case for these permissions coming from Comuni, Diocesi, and Italian "enti" in general. Ruthven (msg) 15:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

February 29

Create redirect for Genderqueer → Category:Genderqueer

Pansexuality is a redirect to Category:Pansexuality. I think that Genderqueer should be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okterakt (talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Okterakt (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to display a digital recreation of a statue?

I had a file that was deleted because some users believed it wasn't within scope because it only showed the digital recreation (thinking it was only fantasy). At least that's what I gather, since in the "Deletion Discussion" my questions were not answered.

How can I be able to present it in order to fall within scope and be accepted by Wikimedia guidelines?

I come here because my questions were NOT answered during the "Deletion Discussion". And I am not asking for the video to be undelete or reinstated.

The image in question is a digital recreation (a digital sculpture model if we want to be more technical) of what the indigenous statue Venus of Tamtoc would look like in real life. I made this work not only as an artist but also as an Anthropologist, so both expertise were used to show how this statue would realistically look.

The file was a seconds-long webm video, which showed a nude young woman moving.

What some users were quick to note were the following: 1) Nudity, 2) A fantasy woman, 3) A woman who would not resemble the statue, 4) lack of comparison, 5) not in scope or instructional.

One user noted that after consulting the statue it did resembled. So my first would be if I should upload a file which shows both the statue AND the recreation I did, both together. Perhaps even showing a comparison of sorts. And maybe even with text which explains the features and such (i.e. the scarifications shown by the original statue). If that's not instructional, I don't know what would be? But -- like I said -- I make this question so that I know if this type of file would fall within scope of Wikimedia.

My second question is... In case this did fall within scope, then would the image of the statue had to be free in Commons, or to what degree should it be in order for me to be able to include it in this file to be uploaded to Wikimedia? This particular part, to me, is a tricky one regarding Wikimedia guidelines. How would any of you proceed in such a case?

Perhaps I did not made the file instructional enough. Or more clearly showing the comparison in a visible manner. Although I did mention it in the description, some users still insisted in how a similarity would be hard to determine. And eventhough I am biased because it my own work, I also think there is also a bias from some users since it is not European art. For instance, I asked what if someone would upload a painted portrait of Joan of Arc. It would fall in scope because it is art and probably made by a specific artist using a specific tecnique during a specific time period. But how come this painted woman would not be considered a "fantasy woman". Again, during the "discussion" the user who requested the deletion (or other users for that matter) did NOT answered this and my other questions. This idea of a "fantasy woman" would be a dangerous precedent -- at least for non-European art that portrays non-European historical figures. No one knows how Joan of Arc looked like, or Emperor Charlemagne, and still we as a society accept art that portrays historical figures, like Christ or Moses, as being normal. But my file was deleted for being "fantasy woman".

I will not apply for undeletion. But if I keep uploading the digital recreation in a different manner (be that an image or a video) Wikimedia users may, again, delete it under the before mentioned premnices. So how to present this in a way that does fall in scope and be accepted by the Wiki community as a file that presents instructional or information. Is my idea of how to do it correct? And if there is absolutely no way the Wiki community will ever accept something like this, should we start nominating for deletion art that portrays historical figures?

For more information, the deletion "discussion" was made here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm

Thanks in advance. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• The one file that was kept File:Venus de Tamtoc 1.png is not very accurate, in the image the right breast is covered by a hand but in the original statue the breast is bare: File:Venus de Tamtoc.JPG. --RAN (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

March 01

Mixture of photographs / pictures from different eras / different buildings

Hi. I was viewing pictures from the UK House of Commons. The category mixes photographs from the current House of Commons, as it was rebuilt under Churchill's premiership, with those of pre-WWII, and even those from the early XIXth century before the fire that destroyed most of the Palace of Westminster. Shouldn't these eras be separated? David.Monniaux (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@David.Monniaux: This is a sort of thing we sometimes do, and sometimes don't. Feel free to break it down into subcategories, but if you do then please provide enough description for each cat so that it should be moderately straightforward for editors to find the correct category and expect to put some time into category maintenance here over the course of years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

If it's a different room, I'd consider splitting it. What isn't really helpful in there are the crops of photos in that category where the chamber isn't visible (sample). Enhancing999 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

March 02

Picture of building, file renaming 10 years later when owner changes (as "obvious error")

If the tenant or the owner of building changes after the photo was taken, this isn't an "obvious error" in the filename. So the rename at [1] doesn't meet our criteria for "obvious errors".

An obvious error would be be a typo in the name, but this isn't the case.

I brought this to the attention of the renaming user (User_talk:Mosbatho#Rewriting_history?), but they don't want to revert it, even they don't seem to check themselves if it is an "obvious error".

What is the suggested course of action?

• Request a rename in the opposite direction and
• ask file renaming rights to be removed from the user's account?

Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Namen sind Schall und Rauch. Names are quite meaningless. Edit wars on file names do not enhance the project. As long as the description and categorization and usage is correct, everything is fine. Just my 2 cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to tbe community POV, see Commons:File renaming. Obviously, file description has the same error. "InfraGO" didn't exist in 2012, but only in 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Files names are very important. They should describe the file contents as well as make it findable and properly indexed in search engines, mainly the WMC search engine. I think this is too much a detailed issue to be discussed here. I don't know why you haven't proposed a file-title change with your rationale. I think it could stay as is if the file-title was correct at the time it was taken. The information about when it was taken should be well-visible in the file-description. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ich halte das für ein ein sehr grundsätzliches Problem. In allen WMF-Projekten können alle Seiten von allen beliebig hin und her verschoben werden. Ausnahmen sind nur wenn ein Account noch sehr unerfahren ist, wenn ein Account dieses Recht individuell entzogen bekommen hat und wenn eine bestimmte Seite individuell gegen Verschieben geschützt ist. Nur Commons hat ein spezielles User-Recht für das Verschieben von Seiten, das der eine Teil der User hat und der andere nicht. Und das bezieht sich dann auch nicht auf alle Seiten, sondern einzig und allein auf den Namensraum "File:". Das ist eine bedeutende Abweichung vom gesamten sonstigen Brauch bei WMF-Projekten und ich gehe daher davon aus, dass das nicht so ist, weil mal ein Developer eine alberne Wette gegen einen anderen Developer verloren hat, oder weil einige hier glauben, das wäre sowas wie ein wirksamer Regentanz gegen die Dürre in der Sahara.

Ich gehe davon aus, dass es deshalb hier "Filemover" gibt und andere Accounts, die dieses Recht nicht haben, weil das Verschieben eines Files mit einer besonderen Verantwortung verbunden ist. Dass also die Filemover besonders verantwortungsvolle Leute sind, die in der Lage sind alle einschlägigen Regeln zu kennen und jederzeit zu beachten und die, wenn eine ihrer Entscheidungen in Frage gestellt wird, ohne weiteres diese Entscheidung selbst überprüfen, ggf overrulen und auf jeden Fall erklären. Das alles scheint hier nicht der Fall gewesen zu sein und es sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass in so einem Fall, der Filemover von Admins oder anderen Filemovern um eine Stellungnahme gebeten wird und wenn in einer vernünftigen Zeit keine plausible Erklärung erfolgt, das Filemover-Recht entzogen wird. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Wo hast du den Antragsteller kontaktiert? Auf User talk:Mpns sehe ich keine Diskussion. Aus welchen Gründen siehst du den Grund Nummer 3 hier gegeben? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Das stimmt so nicht. Auf meiner Diskussion erfolgte darüber ein ausgiebiger Austausch, auch User:Mpns hat sich dabei ausführlich geäußert. Das Verschieben von Dateien hat immer mit großer Sorgfalt zu tun, weshalb ich dem Antrag sehr wohl sehr detailliert vor dem Verschieben nachgegangen bin. Dabei gehört natürlich dazu, den Sachverhalt einzuordnen, diesen abzuwägen und natürlich zu überprüfen. Das Verschiebekriterium 3 ("misidentified objects") sah ich als erfüllt: das Unternehmen, das das Gebäude beherbergt, gibt es so nicht mehr, es heißt nun anders; das Gebäude selbst sieht heute genauso aus wie damals und davor - zumindest von diesem Blickwinkel aus. Dies kann einfach - wie vor dem Verschieben geschehen - mit Google Street View verifiziert werden. In der Fotobeschreibung wird diesem Umstand Rechnung getragen und auf DB InfraGO eingegangen. Dem Verschieben steht gemäß Commons:FRNOT nichts entgegen. Mosbatho (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mir fehlt jedes Verständnis dafür, warum @Enhancing999 hier ein solches Fass aufmacht. Inhaltlich sehe ich hier auf seiner Seite keinerlei wirklichen Argumente. Was ich zu dem Fall zu sagen habe, habe ich auf der BD von @Mosbatho bereits dazu geäußert und werde mich hier nicht weiter durch diese Aktion von Enhancing belästigen lassen. Sorry, aber das geht mir eindeutig zu Weit! mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 14:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

criterion 3 is, "To correct obvious errors..."

was there an error in the original filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?

no.

so the move was improper.

on the contrary, is there an error in the current filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?

yes. there's no "InfraGO" on "9.1.2012". RZuo (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your Problems in here? Does the picture show an building of DB Netz? No, it shows a building of DB InfraGO!!!

Why should the filename containing DB Netz so should be right? Only, cause the picture was taken 2012? It couldn't be the correct name. ...

A filename containing DB Netz isn't correct scince the company never exists anymore. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn doesnt exist either. just redirect it to Category:Deutsche Bahn.

does File:01. Saalfeld Bahnhof - DR Deutsche Reichsbahn. (5993111605).jpg show a building of Reichsbahn? no, it shows Category:Bahnhof Saalfeld (Saale) operated by Category:DB Station&Service.

how about that? RZuo (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

At the age of 3 or 4 years my parents told me: you couldn't and mustn't excuse your mistakes by other people mistakes. Or, often used at german wikipedia: "Es gibt kein gleiches Recht im Unrecht".

Without looking at Saalfeld: If the station today looks similar like shown at the picture the name could be false.

But now i'm leaving this kindergarten. do what you want.... mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 16:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Stahlschwelle Thyssen, 1927.jpg

there's no more "Firma Thyssen" but only ThyssenKrupp in 2022. why do you keep a mistake on your filename? RZuo (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oha, jetzt fangen wir an, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen? Die besagte Stahlschwelle wurde ausschließlich von Thyssen Krupp produziert. Es gibt kein Nachfolgeunternehmen, welches genau diese Schwelle mit dieser Inschrift produziert hat. Also ist es auch heute noch eine Schwelle von ThyssenKrupp. Wenn jetzt die Firma Hösch die Schwelle überarbeitet hätte und aus der Aufschrift "Thyssen" eine neue Aufschrift "Hoesch" gemacht hätte, dann würde dein (in meinen Augen lächerlicher) Vergleich nicht so hinken, wie er es so macht.

Außerdem hatte @Mosbatho mit dieser Bearbeitung eine in meinen Augen sehr gute Lösung gefunden: Das Bild zeigt den heutigen Haupteingang der Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO, zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Bildes war dort noch die DB Netz AG untergebracht, wie man mittlerweile in der Bildbeschreibung lesen kann.

Alles in allem: Ich halte diese Diskussion hier für absolut lächerlich und an jedem sinnvollen Argument gegen eine Umbenennung vorbei geführt. Vor allem merkt hier scheinbar keiner, wie lächerlich eure Argumentation ist.

Aber ich sagte auch: Macht damit doch, was ihr wollt. Und, auch auf die Gefahr, hier auf Commons für solch eine Bemerkung sanktioniert zu werden: Ich komme mir vor, wie im Kindergarten und verliere durch solch lächerliche Aktionen immer mehr die Lust, mich hier konstruktiv zu beteiligen! mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nochmal dazu: Es IST (heute) der Haupteingang der DB InfraGO - gleichgültig, wann das Bild aufgenommen wurde. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 18:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Nach diesem Prinzip müssten wir auch alles in Category:Reichsluftfahrtministerium in Bundesministerium der Finanzen umbenennen. Fotos sollten das so benannt werden wie das was sie zeigen. Wurde etwas umbenannt wird das Foto nicht umbenannt, es zeigt ja einen historischen Stand von etwas. Wir schmeißen auch nicht das Bundeskanzlerin aus dem Titel von Fotos von Merkel aus der Zeit wo sie Bundeskanzlerin war weil sie jetzt keine Bundeskanzlerin mehr ist. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Fotografiere ich heute den Haupteingang noch einmal, aus gleicher Perspektive und mit gleichem Ausschnitt und lade dann das neue Foto als "Haupteingang InfraGO" hoch, wäre demnach der richtige Weg - trotz der entstehenden bildlichen Redundanz?

Vielleicht haben wir hier alle den falschen Ansatz. Das Bild sollte vielleicht noch ein weiteres mal umbenannt werden in "Haupteingang Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4" mit der Bildbeschreibung "2012, bei Entstehen des Bildes, Betriebszentrale der DB Netz AG, heute Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO"?

Dann wäre in meinen Augen alles Stimmig. Und das ich die Umbennenung nicht in genau dieser Form beantragt hatte, dass (!) lasse ich auch zu meinem ursprünglichen Antrag als angemessene Kritik gelten.

Wobei ich aber Bleibe: Das Bild als "Haupteingang der DB Netz AG" zu benennen, ist aus heutiger Sicht vollkommen falsch. Letztendlich stellt das Bild ja auch kein Unternehmen sondern ein Gebäude dar - insofern wäre ja (nach meiner vorstehenden Betrachtung) der ursprüngliche Dateiname ebenfalls falsch gewesen.

Um noch die Parallele zum Bahnhof Saalfeld (siehe oben) zu ziehen: Ein Bild aus der DR-Zeit stellt genauso den Bahnhof dar, wie ein Bild aus heutiger Zeit. Die Datei darf dann auch nur "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr xyz" heißen, dann aber gerne in der Beschreibung darauf verweisen, dass es zur Zeit der DR aufgenommen wurde. Ein anderes Bild "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr 2024" müsste dann in der Beschreibung als "Ein Bahnhof der zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme durch die DB InfraGO betrieben wurde" ausgewiesen werden. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 18:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ob das obige Bild tatsächlich eine DR-Liegenschaft zeigt, sollte erst einmal geklärt werden. Oftmals waren Bahnhöfen der DR Gebäude anderer VEBs angegliedert, z.B. der Logistik, die nicht mit der DR in Verbindung standen. Msb (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3AFile_renaming&oldid=857801315#Revisionism

i had made a similar post about this. too many filemovers do not pay enough attention to these problems. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Initially, I had assumed it was a mere error and the filemover would fix it fairly quickly when I first brought it up, but apparently the requestor's intent is shared. Anyways, I don't think it concerns the requestor much as it's really an issue of the filemover renaming other contributors uploads inappropriately. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. I request you to stop your harrassment. Msb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Enhancing999 is not harassing you. All discussion contributions of Enhancing999 are in an appropriate manor. GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Auch für mich sieht dies hier nach einer persönlichen Fehde aus, in die ich nur zufällig hineingeraten bin. Ich kann mir zwar den Hintergrund dazu nicht erklären, habe aber ganz klar genau diesen Eindruck. mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 18:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Bis dato hatte ich keine Interaktionen mit diesem Benutzer - just for the records. Msb (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosbatho&oldid=858485598#Rewriting_history?

User:Mosbatho should be removed as filemover. s/he's tone deaf about the wrong rename despite the long discussion on the user talk page and here, and is now accusing critics of harassment. RZuo (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Your tone is quite rude and you keep focussing on stating accusations instead of finding solutions and a clear Modus vivendi for such cases. Msb (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

basically when db rebrands again or another company moves in to that building probably in less than 30 years (db netz was founded in 2007) i expect to see User:Mpns come and ask for a rename of his then erroneous filename again and User:Mosbatho will just do it again. who knows? maybe it's tomorrow. RZuo (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I would not do that file move again due to this discussion. I now see that there is a broad consensus that name updates of older photographs of buildings are not obvious errors. Msb (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a request at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Mosbatho_(remove_right). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion has led me to realize that both the original filename "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" and the filename that emerged from my renaming request "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" are incorrect.

Essentially, in my view, the file should be renamed once again to "Frankfurt am Main - Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4 - Haupteingang - 9.1.2012.jpg," and the file properties should indicate that until December 27, 2023, it housed the "Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz," and since the rebranding, it has been home to the "Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO."

This, in my eyes, would be the only correct naming, as it does justice to both states, i.e., the historical condition (DB Netz) and the current situation (DB InfraGO). Furthermore, the filename would still be applicable even if a company named "Welcome-2-World" were housed there the day after tomorrow.

The insistence on adhering to rulesets while accepting content errors, as is the case here, is, to me, in no way understandable, nor is it constructive or beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. (Translation by ChatGPT). --mfG - Martin ^{(Rede gerne mit mir)} 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mpns:

1. you are probably right (now) about what the best name would be, but…
2. the original name was fine, and should not have been changed.
3. the current name is fine, and should not be changed.

We should keep filenames stable when possible. We should not be changing good names to get better names. It should not have been moved before, but it also should not be moved now. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: so you think the images in the category mentioned above could have been named "German Finance ministry building"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999:

1. It would be odd to capitalize "Finance" but not "Minstry".
2. I think that given that we have subcats for Category:Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus that would be a bit odd.
3. I don't see anything in the case currently at hand rising to the level of difference between a use of the building by the Nazis and by the Bundesrepublik. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a ministry of the same country. I don't recall categorization having an impact on filenames. Did you just make that up?

Similar to the name for the file you supported, if you look in google streetview, it may still look the same. In both cases, the filename wouldn't be appropriate given the time the photos were taken. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Benjamin Franklin

Category:Benjamin Franklin has got 93 categories (24 of them red, some America-related, some United-States related). Wonder if this is the leading category in the Has-most-categories-competition? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The categories seem to be taken from the English-language Wikipedia. This isn't a bad strategy as they tend to have generally more detailed category trees for people than the Wikimedia Commons, when making those red links blue it's probably also important to connect them with the right Wikidata item. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A lot of those categories seem unlikely to be relevant to Commons, though. For instance, Category:84-year-old deaths, Category:English-language spelling reform advocates, and Category:Respiratory disease deaths in Pennsylvania are all focused on categorizing Franklin as a person, not categorizing the media files associated with him. Commons categories don't need to describe every property of an entity; that's what we have Wikidata and Wikipedia for. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

+ 2 to that. Categories shouldn't take up a whole screen and a lot them should just be deleted. Especially the ones mentioned by Omphalographer. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

March 03

License for Wikipedia

Is there a license that is used on Commons but may not be used in certain wikipedias?2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:997E:DB0E:63D3:1323 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Yes, we have many licenses backed by VRT permission that may not be copied except by a VRT Agent. Our well-known licenses should have analogs on the Wikipedias. Is there some license you want to use on certain Wikipedias that you can't find there? Wikidata should be able to help you look. Please be specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Your question is not clear, but you don't need a specific license for Wikipedia if a file is available on Commons. Except a few exceptions (see COM:VPC#Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries), any file on Commons can be used on any Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, some wikipedias do not accept some licenses on commons, but it is rare. for example, Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht, so Template:PD-Italy ist verboten. --96.94.213.161 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:William Richardson

Category:William Richardson and the Wikidata entry appear to be a conflation of two or more people with the same name. An engraver from the 1700s and an author of books and a man from the 1860s. I will move the images of the 1860s man to Category:William Alexander Richardson, can someone look at the other entries and see if they are for the same person or split them into new categories and create a new Wikidata entry for them? RAN (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• I also removed "President of the Ashford Chamber of Commerce" from the entry for the illustrator. I fixed some of the errors by splitting off William Alexander Richardson, but I think what remains may still be a conflation. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

March 04

Replacement of File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg

I am OperationSakura6144. I need to replace File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg with my rectified vector version[2]. I tried to do that via "Upload a new version of this file" method but it continuously warns me "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding.". What info should I give in the description, so that it would freely let me upload my desired version? I am waiting for your answers. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/290. The proposal to "Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights" was accepted with many supports and one weak oppose 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC). After an implementation problem in phab:T345896 and testing, Special:AbuseFilter/290 went live with the Disallow action 09:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC). Please read MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting. You may request COM:AP at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits); having that should allow you to overwrite. You may also request an exception for a particular file at COM:OWR. You may ask an Admin to merge your file into File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg at COM:HMS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 08:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Convenience links: File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg, File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture.svg

File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg[3] is being used in Vietnamese wikipedia page navboxes as a flag of Kumamoto Prefecture instead of File:Flag of Kumamoto. Prefecture.svg[4]. I would like you all to replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project can choose for themselves which images to use. If they want to use the jpg instead of the svg, that is up to them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg depicts the flag of Kuma village in Kumamoto, not the Kumamoto Prefecture. I want File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg to be replaced with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture or any vector image or symbols that represents Kumamoto Prefecture, I want nothing than that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to change which image is used on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you can edit there. Even if they are currently just plain wrong, that is not Commons' affair. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Free speech to text tool?

i wanna put up some videos for com:motd, but i'm too lazy to transcribe them. is there a free stt tool for mandarin chinese that i can feed the commons videos in? RZuo (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category for people moving / travelling

i'm looking for a parent category of Category:People crossing borders, supposedly a category for people travelling in general? does one already exist? if not, is Category:People moving good enough for this? RZuo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Travellers? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

there will be problems similar to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:People swimming.

these "-ers" categories are often used for certain people, regardless of what the actual content is.

whereas "people doing something" is meant for people engaged in that activity.--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to delete my files.

I need to delete these files: File:Flag of Mashiki, Kumamoto.png[5] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.png[6] File:Flag of Minamioguni, Kumamoto.png[7] File:Flag of Nankan, Kumamoto.png[8] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg[9]

I have nominated for their deletions, but I don't think it can help me in this situation. Please, somebody delete those files for me or suggest a way so that I get free from this mess. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. Please allow the DRs to run their course per COM:DR, and use internal links. If you are in a hurry to delete your own recent uploads, you may use {{G7}} per COM:CSD#G7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 09:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

My preceding reply was rolled back by Orchi. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Likely just an inadvertent misclick. Files have already been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

.....thank you very much Túrelio for the explanation of my unintentional mistake. Excuse me please. Orchi (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

March 05

I need to replace File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg.

I've just created File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg. It needs to be used in place of File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG. If you're reading this, please replace File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG with File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg in all Wikipedia pages.

Also, to mention, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms after this for a while and start my business here after that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• @OperationSakura6144: By "It needs to be used in place of", do you mean in one or more Wikipedia articles? Presumably, you can edit these as readily as anyone else (and take your own responsibility for edits that might be controversial rather than asking someone else to make them for you). - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

No bot rotating images

some days ago User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot malfunctioned and has been shut down since then. its source code https://github.com/toollabs/Rotatebot . :/ --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, just one page section above, the WMF is very busy with “U4C” and other assorted makework. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well clearly, U4C is much more important than the mundane problems we're facing here. (Or not ...) --Rosenzweig τ 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

March 06

The Great Proof of Existence.

Off topic

I have developed a truly grand proof which proves why the universe exists unfortunately the character limit of this page is too small to write it all down. I do have the answer though. The answer is that the universe is an infinite recursion cycle of infinite universes. There is no start or end. Each universe generates more universes.(I leave this as an exercise to the reader to prove.). But what about the first universe? Thats the thing. Time does not move like it does outside of our universe. The space-time is not the same. And the properties are not the same. So. the first universe can also be the TREE(42)'th one since space-time beyond space-time is something called super-space-time. It is undefinable in any human interpretable way. So order is disorder and vice verca. But what caused the generation process of recursion to start? It is very simple. The being of nothing implies the generation of everything. Now this is a difficult proof I also leave as an exercise to the reader. Regards, ZebraCancer99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraCancer99 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Unfortunately the deadline for submission of Nobel Prize nominations has been 5 weeks ago. --Achim55 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC) @ZebraCancer99: How is this relevant to Wikimedia Commons? Whose cosmology are you espousing, Douglas Adams, Lowell Cunningham, DC Comics, or Marvel Comics?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help to understand how to upload images on wikipedia.

I am a new member of wikipedia since 2 days, I made one post but I can't figure out how to upload an image. I've searched, did the official wiki tutorial but nothing works. It keeps saying that the image doesn't corresponde to the termes and conditions of wikipedia, even tho what I tried to post was normall images with nothing wrong on them. Not even text. I also have a bit of truble with tasks like naming the pages and basic things I have to do. Potassium12 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Potassium12: I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, since you are talking about "Wikipedia" (whereas this is Wikimedia Commons where you are asking), but the normal tool for beginners to upload images here on Commons is Special:UploadWizard. You can also have a look at Commons:First steps. If you need further help, could you please say (1) is the image in question your own work? (2) If so, does it include any visible, copyrighted work by anyone else (e.g. a a painting on a wall)? (3) If it is not your own work, whose work is it and where did it come from? (4) Regardless of whether the work is your own or someone else's, what country is the work from? - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Potassium12: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload png images as a new user, and Special:AbuseFilter/154 by trying to upload content that has appeared elsewhere as a new user. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. The following applies to each image. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, but if you were not the original image designer or photographer, that person may need to post permission on their official website or social media, or send it via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Also, it will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so you may want to upload a jpg or svg version, too. If you can't get compliant licenses, the images may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid filter 153. Who is the copyright holder for the "mod named I HATE FLESH"? Once you have uploaded, you may follow en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: «Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web.» What!!??… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

«You may want to upload a jpg» You gotta stop this nonsense, now, and go through Image File Formats 101 a bit more. You should start here. This is terrible, terrible advice. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I just checked Special:AbuseFilter/153: It indeed favours JPEG images over PNG images of the same size. This its utter nonsense: Example: A new user sees this great map in a random webpage and it’s in PNG format because it was exported from SIG or was (gasp!) drawn by hand. So, if this user tries to upload it, it’s held back (and rightly so, but just because new users have no business uploading files, anyway), but if this user saves that PNG as a JPEG file, which completely distroys the reuse potential of said great map, then it’s all peachy and the copyright issue will be spotted much later. With the added issue that the PNG original and the JPEG in Commons will not be the same pixel pattern and therefore not able to be trapped by TinEye or similar tool.

Special:AbuseFilter/153 should be re-evaluated and suspended for now, and Commons should finally develop a culture that is less photography-centered.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

March 07

New team proposal

In the page Wikipedia/2.0, in the section “SVG logos” I noticed that the Wikipedia logos in various languages are a bit different each others, like blurry puzzle logo or not perfectly centered words, or different fonts usage, and tons of other minimal differencies. My proposal is to suggest to create a new team that rebuild all Wikipedia logos following the rules of the page https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wikimedia_trademarks//Word_mark_creation and takes care of guarantee uniformity.

This new team could be named "Wikipedia logo uniformity protection team".

It is a good proposal? --2001:B07:6442:8903:5E2:5AE6:8707:E742 10:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Special shapes categories

Sometimes there are some remarkable shapes in nature. Are there categories for it?

• 
• 
• 

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe under category:Pareidolias? Or maybe (deep) under category:Unusual? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Unusually shaped trees is perfect.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To whom it may concern, I think we should differ the trees on wether they are shaped like this naturally (as if this is taxon's speciality) or if such curves were man-made for easier shaping in ie. sled making process. A09 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Does a whole book belong here

@BahYajé e Y4guarEtã: This file contains the entire Portuguese translation (130 pages) of the 9th edition of the SI Brochure. Does such a file belong here, or should it be moved to Wikisource, but the cover page be kept in Commons? Martinvl (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinvl: We already have thousands of books on Commons. No problem for hosting books in the public domain or under a free license. Yann (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed?

A lot of images in Category:Green SVG padlock icons should belong to the Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - Green icons‎ subcategory, which perhaps should also be split into subcategories depending on the icon, but I digress. Any idea how one could automatically move-a-lot? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: see Help:Gadget-HotCat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have that. However, AFAIK that only works on one page at a time. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

March 08

Copyright question on image of exterior art work in Denmark

Hello Village Pump:

I am considering uploading an image that includes within the frame an exterior art installation - “Your rainbow panorama” by Ólafur Eliasson at the ARoS Aarhus Art Museum in Denmark. It is similar to a category of such images.

I have been reading about freedom of panorama for Denmark in Wikipedia and a statement on photography at the ARoS site.

It is still not clear to me if I can upload this image under CC 4.0. Can you advise? --GRDN711 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't get a satisfactory answer here, you might do better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 09:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama considered such photos to be acceptable. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)