Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


October 23[edit]

Summary[edit]

Description

A photo of the address side of a Taiwanese postcard. The postcard was received by me (User:Hijiri88) on January 11, 2017, for contributions to Wikipedia Asian Month 2016. Not sure if it was for French or English Wikipedia, but still waiting on the the other one either way (another similar photo will be uploaded then). I am not legitimately sure of the copyright status of the words written on the card, but it's probably fair use to put this photo on my user page either way. (My personal information is blanked out, except for the first line of my address that I already revealed on-wiki here.)

Date
Source I took the photo
Author Wikimedia Taiwan (portions edited out with sub-text by User:Hijiri88)
Permission
(Reusing this file)

Evidence: Will be provided on request.

Other information

The following was entered into the boxes for "non-free" images because I was being super-careful but was not aware that filling in "User:Hijiri88" in the article-for-intended-use box would prevent me from uploading.

Wikimedia Taiwan (portions edited out by User:Hijiri88)

The photo is mine, but it contains text that was written to me by someone else. Not sure if that means it's copyrighted.

This will be used in my (Hijiri88's) user space as an illustration of contributions to Wikipedia Asian Month.

Umm... it is text alone. The non-text portion (the fact that it is a photograph) is mine.

I don't know. This almost certainly is not a non-free work. I only clicked that option to play it safe.

The only conceivable owner, if not me, is Wikimedia itself. I just don't know the copyright status of the non-public text included therein ("Hi, [...] 亞洲維基人愛你! Wikiedia Asian Loves you! [...] We appreciate your contribution in Wikimedia(sic) Asian Month in 2016.").

(But if someone thinks the postage stamp is not covered, that too can be blanked out.)

I only intend to use it on User:Hijiri88 and possibly User:Hijiri88/Articles I created or significantly contributed to, but nowhere outside my own user space.

How to search for photos taken with a certain camera model[edit]

I want to search for the photos taken with DSC-WX70 for example. Only a small part of such files are included in the Category:Taken with Sony DSC-WX70. The Metadata of the files is not included in the Wikimedia Commons backup, so I can't use AWB database scanner. Is there any way to search for such files - other than typing "DSC-WX70 site:commons.wikimedia.org" in Google - and to do it in a manner that can create a list with all such files? Thanks. -- Fructibus (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not ideal - but https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/23166 (Returning all of them was taking too long, so i set it to only return the first 200 alphabetically. Remove the LIMIT 200 to get all results.) Bawolff (talk) 08:50, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Thanks a lot, this is an awesome tool! It looks like it has a glitch when saving to a CSV file though - it will add extra double quotes, based on some strange criteria. For example in this list User:Fructibus/B - for example the position 379 - File:"(Antique_Building)_faceing_the_Iglesia_de_San_Francisco,_Centro_Histórico_de_Quito.JPG" - in reality the image is at File:(Antique Building) faceing the Iglesia de San Francisco, Centro Histórico de Quito.JPG. The next link (380) doesn't contain extra quotes. When saving in Wikitable format, the names are all ok. -- Fructibus (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
its because the filename contains a comma. If you parse the csv file with a proper csv parser it will remove the quotes. Bawolff (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Please be conservative about how far to go with metadata analysis or publishing it on-wiki. Though the data is public and accessible, we don't want to be seen to be deliberately tracking individuals, just because they did not know how to anonymize their camera EXIF data. Thanks -- (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Compared to putting everyone's photo on a map based on GPS data (which we do), getting a list of people who used a specific camera seems minor. Bawolff (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
When a camera category contains thousand and tens of thousands of photos (for example Category:Taken with Canon EOS 700D), I think it's a good idea to split them by user (for the top users only, of course), because each user has their own artistic touch and their own particular set of things they are shooting, so it makes it easier to find similar pictures with the ones you liked. I did that for myself first: Category:Taken by Fructibus with Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) - because the Category:Taken with Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) was monopolized by my photos - and the reader doesn't want to see only my work. A few days ago I got the idea to do the same thing for other cameras too, after finding a nice image taken with Olympus E-PL6. First, I have to categorize the all images taken with that camera, and then maybe split them by user. I have no interest whatsoever in doing other things like localizing users.
@Bawolff:: Is it possible to use this tool to search only inside a certain category? For example photos taken using DSC-WX70 from the Category:Buildings in Aranda de Duero. And how can I extract the author name too? I tried "Select img_name, user_name" but I get the error "Unknown column 'user_name' in 'field list'". Sorry to bother you with so many questions. -- Fructibus (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff: The fact that others do badly thought out stuff, is not a rationale for doing more stuff that can conceivably cause harm. I stand by my statement. For what I thought were obvious reasons, I have no intention of talking examples of exactly how we can cause harm on-wiki, and recommend others think twice about analysis that has unintended consequences and can be avoided. Thanks -- (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Fructibus, I would also caution against collating information about users without their permission. There are laws governing this in many countries. Your desire to sub-categorise the camera category in some way, just reflects how broken our Commons category system is. There really should be no need/desire to combine heterogeneous categories other than at query time. Also, unless a camera or lens is unusual, categorising images that way isn't particularly enlightening. A huge number of photos uploaded to Commons lack meaningful EXIF, so any such categories will also be hopelessly incomplete. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes it is enlightening. The readers who want to see the general quality of Samsung Galaxy A5, they want to see a variety of photos, made by various people, not to have their view monopolized by my photos with fruits and tools taken with that particular camera. But I think it would be very good to make a debate on this topic and to see more opinions. In any case, I haven't started yet such categorization (other than my photos) and I'm going to comply with your request. Many photos are missing the EXIF info but the majority have it, and for those it's probably useful to categorize by camera. -- Fructibus (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: After thinking more about it, I don't understand how Category:Taken by Fructibus with Samsung Galaxy A5 (2017) is any worse than Special:ListFiles/Fructibus. If one is illegal in a country, then the other should also be. I hope I'm not bothering with discussing too much about this topic. -- Fructibus (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer. See this for WMF's privacy policy. You can see they have to spell out what they collect. Your upload log is part of the data WMF collect and is public (and isn't quite the same as the set of photos you took). But when you combine data together: Fructibus took that photo + This photo was taken by a Samsung Galaxy A5 => Frutibus took these photos with a Samsung Galaxy A5, you start uncovering patterns like ownership, wealth, interests. Sythensis is the combining of separate data points to produce new information that wasn't apparent. When that gets personal, then there may be a problem. And it really isn't worth it for such trivia as what camera someone used (if you want to know the quality of photos of a camera, read a review). -- Colin (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: Thank you. But how about 100 or 200 years after? This question is a bit hilarious but I'm not trying to be ironic or to make fun at all: can such categories be made for an user that uploaded photos 100 years before? Or maybe the family members of the user should worry that exposing the camera models the user had can give clues about the wealth of the family? -- Fructibus (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fructibus: https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/23209 This would only be images directly in the category. Its possible to do subcategories to a certain depth, but the query gets complicated for that. Bawolff (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bawolff: That's an awesome query, thanks a lot! Do you know why the first script doesn't work for other camera models? It works for WX-60 or WX-80 but it doesn't work for WX-500 or WX-350. I just changed the name of the camera model. Those camera models exist, what am I doing wrong? -- Fructibus (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I found it, I think the %s:5 and %s:8 specify the length of the string to search. I'm running the query again now. Thanks. -- Fructibus (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Its because the metadata is stored as a serialized php blob, which is the worst format ever. Bawolff (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Localization of categories?[edit]

Less than 1 in 4 persons in the world can understand basic English. So I develop an app that allows non-English speakers to upload pictures to Commons (with all of the necessary selfie/copyvio protections, yes).

The app lets them select categories for the uploaded picture, but unfortunately now these categories are all in English, so the users do not understand them, and more importantly the search bar does not return the right things, for instance typing "España" in my app's category search bar does not make the "Spain" category appear. Even more for languages with non-Latin alphabets (only 36% of the world population use the Latin alphabet).

Question: How to localize a category name?

My initial idea would be take the appropriate label from the category's Wikidata item, for instance "विकिपीडिया:श्रेणी" from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6741108. Is it a good idea? Is there any better thing to do? Or do you think anyone with interesting pictures must learn English first before they are able to categorize? Cheers! Syced (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

It's well known issue almost from the beginning of Commons. See Commons:Structured data for direction where Commons is moving. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: Not sure if I understood correctly what you meant, but the UploadWizard is translated in many many languages eg in Spanish (bar from the category selection, which is as Eugene said a long-standing issue). Jean-Fred (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric:Imagine that like most people on the planet you don't understand English, imagine for instance that you only know Spanish and have a good picture of a rare "gusano" (Spanish word for "worm"). Go to UploadWizard in Spanish, drop the file, write a Spanish name/description... and now you have to enter a category. Type "gusano": Nothing appears. Either give up or leave the media uncategorized. That's the problem. Syced (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
@Syced: Sure :) I guess I was unclear, I was not trying to minimize the issue of having English-only categories, but to be clear that except for the categories part (because it’s a Commons-wise issue), existing upload apps are translated. (It was a bit unclear from your first post − sorry for the confusion :) Jean-Fred (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
submit it on wishlist, as an upgrade to upload wizard, multi-language category using wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What's the edit speed limit for a regular user?[edit]

I was using the "Cat-a-lot" (super)gadget yesterday and I tried to add a category to 10,000 files. Usually the users categorize maximum 200 files at once (the maximum number of files listed in a category page), but the gadget has a new feature to add/remove categories to the files in a gallery. I was using this new feature (my gallery is at User:Fructibus/A), but after categorizing 1,900 files (at a speed of probably more than 1,000 files per minute), the gadget hanged. Then I tried it again in another browser, and it hanged at 3,400 count. Then I tried in another browser and it hanged at 8,600. I suppose it hanged because there is a limit for how many edits per second can a user make.

And then my question is: what is the edit speed limit for a regular user? Is it documented anywhere? Thanks. -- Fructibus (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

(OT) @SandraF (WMF): You were asking in the chat for examples of how Commons users use tools. The above is worth noting, both the scale of what is being attempted in a fairly routine way, and the speed (1,000 files per second) at which users are accustomed to it executing. I was recently re-categorising 2500 files, and impressed that batches of 200 (of the kind Fructibus mentions) could be modified effectively instantaneously. This can be compared with QuickStatements on Wikidata, which is currently throttled to about 20 edits per user per second. If one was having to rely on QS operating at a similar rate to provide the corresponding back-end for adding or changing topic-tags for Structured Data, it would make for a process that would be rather more painful, and rather less engaging. Jheald (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Fructibus: It's just a guess, but the limit might be how much memory each browser makes readily available for a javascript tool. It's a completely different tool, but I find QuickStatements on Wikidata chokes, if I give it more than about 8000 edits to make in one batch. Jheald (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: - It chokes even at the throttled rate of 20 edits per second? There is no throttling done server-side (I mean on the server you make edits - WikiData in this case, because QuickStatements is also a server-based tool) in order to limit the speed of the user's editing? -- Fructibus (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I think QS is throttled client-side by agreement with Magnus. But it's possible that that is all the per-user load the server ppl want to have to accommodate. Changing a category is just a single line in a single SQL table -> very fast. Making an edit on Wikidata I think is rather more involved. But the reason QS falls over, I think, is that it can no longer handle that amount of data client-side. Which might be very similar to what you are experiencing with CatALot. Jheald (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Server side limits are 8 edits/min for logged out or non autoconfirmed users. I dont believe there are any limits on autoconfirmed users for editing. Making an edit on wikidata is a comparable amount of work as making a category change on commons except wikidata also has to purge all usages in client wikis. Bawolff (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff: Indeed, today I've found that the gadget hangs because of some browser limitation even when there is no edit on the server, so there was no server-side limitation. -- Fructibus (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff: 8 edits/min? Yann (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
From line 7762 of InitialiseSettings.php (Which basically copies line 5679 of includes/DefaultSettings.php)
'wgRateLimits' => [
        'default' => [
// ...
                'edit' => [
                        // 8 ed./min per each non-autoconfirmed, or group thereof from same IP
                        'ip' => [ 8, 60 ],
                        'newbie' => [ 8, 60 ],
                ],

Bawolff (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Is File:In Gupteshwor Cave.jpg a Quality Image?[edit]

Could someone verify this edit and revert it if it's not true? --jdx Re: 15:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

See Commons:Quality images candidates and if you click "What links here" you'll find Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 07 2017. - Offnfopt(talk) 15:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I didn't even think about this method. Face-smile.svg Anyway, it's a legit change. --jdx Re: 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
You can also see it in the right corner (top of the page) the quality image logo. :) Lotje (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Flag creation help[edit]

uploaded image

I would like to upload an incel flag with different shades of grey (https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1TEUA_enGB728GB728&biw=1366&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=AGQYWqifKubWgAbtpIjACA&q=incel+flag+&oq=incel+flag+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30k1.154881.156558.0.156801.13.13.0.0.0.0.88.918.12.12.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.1.85....0.7hgbcGeoswI) but im not sure if any on google image are free. Alternative suggestions are welcome too. 92.2.67.111 18:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  • The image being on Google just means they found it somewhere on the web and are reporting it in a search result so Google is completely irrelevant to the matter.
  • A simple pattern of equally sized vertical bars in various shades of gray is too simple to copyright, so you can create such an image and upload it as PD-ineligible. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Im completely amateur (never created a flag before) Could you help me create a flag? 92.2.67.111 03:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Given that it is below the level of complexity for copyright eligibility, it doesn't matter whether you create it yourself or copy it frome elsewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 05:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

92.2.67.111 -- I uploaded a minimal SVG as File:Incel flag.svg. The more usual place to ask is Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. Of course, you couldn't upload any kind of image until you log into an account here... AnonMoos (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

November 25[edit]

Purging all SVG renders[edit]

Would it be possible to automatically purge the rendering of every SVG file on Commons? There is some inconsistent rendering as well as coloration differences on newer versions of Firefox due to changes to librsvg, and it would be nice for older files to be rendered consistently. Jc86035 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

You should ask on Phabricator:. Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Fmje-12.jpg[edit]

During the past few weeks (starting at October 14, 2017) the file description of File:Fmje-12.jpg was subject of multiple changes – see the version history of this file. Temporarily I tried to fix single changes.

Now I give up. I'm confused by the multiple changes and I can not recognize what I could improve. Maybe other users can see what might be appropriate.

--Hasenläufer 14:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hasenläufer: Yeah, some time ago I noticed that something strange is going on there when I was patrolling recent changes. Anyway, I semi-protected the file for two months in order to get rid of those anonymous fu..."warriors". Feel free to clean the file description page. --jdx Re: 15:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: Thanks you for your attention and the protection! I'm not involved in the topic contentwise. In the past, I have tried to formally correct the file description. I can not and no longer want to contribute to this topic, because I'm unable to decide which content change is appropriate or not. Unfortunately I have no idea how we should proceed with this topic. There may not be anyone here who can rate the content changes. Do you have any other idea what can be done? --Hasenläufer 15:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate my concerns a bit more: The main subject of interest of the file description of File:Fmje-12.jpg is: Who is the author of this logo? The multiple changes of the file description are confusing. Up to now, I couldn't detect a comprehensible and trustable statement, who might be the author of the logo. Anonymous contributions didn't help to clarify this question. --Hasenläufer 16:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

@Hasenläufer, Jdx: I think a split may be appropriate here, the images are that different from one another.   — Jeff G. ツ 22:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Is the license even valid? The URL on the upload seems to be a Japanese advert. --ghouston (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the owner of the domain changed. --Hasenläufer 19:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Using archive.org gives [1] which seems to give authorisation, in Spanish. I'm not sure how to establish that fmje.org is the copyright holder. --ghouston (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
@Ghouston: Thanks of providing us the link to archive.org! I added it at the "new, old file" File:Logo of 12th World Festival of Youth and Students.png. --Hasenläufer 19:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for your hint! Yes, you're right, the two files should be splitted. I did so. --Hasenläufer 19:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
@Hasenläufer: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ 19:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

November 26[edit]

Huge backlog dating back almost a decade 😰[edit]

Hello 👋🏻 everyone,

Currently at Commons:Batch uploading there are batch requests dating all the way to October 17th, 2013 which is a huge backlog (even the OTRS backlog is less than 90 days), currently there a list of scripters with only 8 🎱 (or maybe 9?) members, in fact some requests like Commons:Batch uploading/Peter Parker's Lam Qua Paintings Collection have not even received any feedback in years (this one is from February 1st, 2015).

Personally I think 🤔 that Wikimedia Commons or some of its people should try to convince more people to become batch uploaders, I’ve seen Wikimedia projects with backlogs but I’ve never seen a backlog that goes back as far as that of Wikimedia Commons’ Batch uploading. So this post is mostly a shoutout to anyone who is potentially interested in joining as maybe some people aren’t aware as to how big the backlog is. If someone doesn't know which tools they could use there’s Commonist and the VicuñaUploader among others, I personally can’t join the uploaders because I'm on a wireless telephone 📞 which suck for uploading 😅, and I hope that there are plenty of volunteers here who would like to tackle this 9 (nine) year old backlog.

I can't wait for the day that there’s no to little backlog there are the archives are full while the requests are nearly empty, but in its current state very few requests get completed and it would be a shame to archive them solely because they were unanswered.

Sent from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

you would have to recruit a team to close the backlogs, and better yet, design processes that do not have backlogs. give people who want to do mass uploads, easy to use tools, i.e. Pattypan. use of work boards to get work done requires a functional friendly community. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: What are you doing to promote "a functional friendly community"?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
i'm collaborating with the friendly people. turns out they are all off-wiki, i.e. smithsonian, only show up here to get work done. and organizing for some culture change by hostile takeover, i've basically given up on this community becoming friendly on its own. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I take that as an insult to those of us on-wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
you realize how many new uploaders are greeted by a talk page wall of deletion notifications? when there is not even a teahouse to answer questions, and there is a widespread history of admin misbehavior. world class librarians know this place as a "cultural buzzsaw"; that is a fact. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, actually the first thing new users see is a welcome message with some handy links, I do agree that "a type of teahouse" would greatly benefit Wikimedia Commons but the help desk seems to be filling in for this at the time, not sure how practically different they are. Though I am an inclusionist on any other wiki, Wikimedia Commons should be weary about copyright © as it could take the whole project down, but yes, I can agree that the templates might look a bit unpersonal. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Still, anyone willing to help with this backlog? Last time I checked any registered user (who isn't exclusively on mobile) can help with batch uploads. Face-wink.svg 😉 --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
for example, a recent friendly welcome here User talk:Rashkeqamar. sorry no - not working the backlogs of others' broken processes. i have plenty of work to do helping friendly people, like SoaP and Rosie. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I was involved in several batch uploads, and every time it is a huge undertaking to preserve most of the metadata and display it in a form which is accessible to widest range of users through internationalization (i18n), to properly categorize your uploads, and possibly to add new uploads to correct wikidata items or wikipedia articles. We have a few users that specialize in this task (User:Fæ comes to mind), but it is a steep learning curve. May be we should rewrite introduction to Commons:Batch uploading to say that in most cases people should do their own uploads. They can propose uploads at Commons:Batch uploading but in the end the most likely path to get mass upload done is to learn how to use tools which are available to most users. --Jarekt (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Mobile access/Mobile upload needing check[edit]

Unrelated, but Commons:Mobile access/Mobile upload needing check ✅ is also listed as a Wikimedia Commons backlog but hasn't been updated since 2014 and most checks seem to be from 2015 (with none more recent), is this backlog or is it already pretty much done? Neglect seems to be a huge problem here. Or maybe if I bring attention ⚠ to it here someone with enough free time ⌚ on their hands would want to “finish 🏁” this list as well. 😉 Face-wink.svg --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

yes, the control issues of admin corps, (i.e. mp3; or mobile) means they reserve the right to review everything, but cannot actually do the work, resulting in growing numbers of growing backlogs. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there a "File reviewer" class of users that can do this? The backlog doesn't seem too great and someone with enough spare time on their hands might complete this within a week, plus I've seen plenty of IP's review files as well. --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 10:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Super Tiny Website Logos in SVG[edit]

Some of these icons - those that fall below the threshold of originality - may be if use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Openstreetmap uploads[edit]

There is a great template {{Openstreetmap}} that does everything I need.

{{OpenStreetMap |name=hierboven}} fills out all the metadata in every section for a map snippet cropped from an OSM.

All you need to do is add the Categories. It can just about be used with Commons Upload Wizard if you paste it in the information field, as can be seen here. This is less than satisfactory, as my creative effort was minimal and I need to add the wrong license to pass onto details page. The code I want it enter should be


== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Openstreetmap|name=Justus van Effen komplex}}
{{Location|51.915918|4.430625}}

[[Category:Justus van Effencomplex (Rotterdam)]]
[[Category:OpenStreetMap maps of the Netherlands]]


and not


== {{int:filedesc}} ==

{{Information
|description={{en|1={{Openstreetmap|name=Justus van Effen komplex}}}}
|date=2017-11-26
|source={{own}}
|author=[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]]
|permission=
|other versions=
}}
{{Location|51.915918|4.430625}}

== {{int:license-header}} ==

{{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}

[[Category:Justus van Effencomplex (Rotterdam)]]
[[Category:OpenStreetMap maps of the Netherlands]]


So is there a better way? Do we need to change the licensing page on Upload Wizard to include Openstreet map? Do we need to change t|Openstreet map to overwrite the unwelcome Wizard additions? --ClemRutter (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@ClemRutter: You seem to know what you're doing, why not use the experienced version?   — Jeff G. ツ 00:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
yes the upload wizard team is resistant to adding more templates, (although you could add it to the 2017 wishlist) in the meantime, we can use old uploader one at a time, or commons:pattypan for multiples. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes that is the solution. Have a look at File:OSM Hundred of Hoo Academy.png to see the result. Is the metadata sufficient in your opinion- I am happy with it. Adding a map to 10 000 or so school articles is a significant benefit to the project and a task that we can use in training sessions with new editors. I intend to write this up as a tutorial sheet, and add a help paragraph to multiple pages, maybe a template would be appropriate?. @Slowking4: I do like the idea of adding this to the 2017 wishlist (wherever that may be), simplicity is so important. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: It would be nice to include the bounding box for the map into OSM template data, if you're adding these systematically. Jheald (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes- I was thinking of that. Stage one was to get this working, stage two was to document it using very simple language, stage three was to implement and explain bounding boxed and stage four extensions I haven't discovered yet. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
wishlist window has closed - m:2017_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Multimedia_and_Commons; but maybe this one m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Multimedia and Commons/Improve UploadWizard campaigns -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: The page looks good, except I don't like the exposed underscores in "Hundred_of_Hoo_Academy".   — Jeff G. ツ 12:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have added a note to Template:OpenStreetMap/doc‎. @Jeff G.: That was careless but so easy to fix. Done. ClemRutter (talk) 13:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

November 27[edit]

Copyright question: This file has 2 copyright notices, which one is correct?[edit]

[[2]] The photo itself states, "All Rights reserved Arron's Planet" and on the photo's source page references Creative Commons 3.0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A ri gi bod (talk • contribs)

  • The Panoramio page from which it comes clearly says "Attribution-Share Alike", so the contradiction is there on Panoramio. The page there belongs to "Aaron Zhu" and the watermark refers to "Aaron's Planet" so this is presumably a single person contradicting himself, not some sort of copyright washing. I checked a few more of his photos and they all seem to have this same issue. Someone might want to work out a way to get hold of him to sort this out. - Jmabel ! talk 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Don't think we have to contact Aaron Zhu. He did not upload them but a bot. What Zhu did do was make them irrevocably Attribution Share Alike. But they have unacceptable water marks for use here on WC. Currently the watermarks constituent spam. So simply delete them and all other bot uploads originating from him, even though they are very good. P.g.champion (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
note: not really a "Promotional watermarks, which go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website", but rather a "Visible watermarks are discouraged, as they detract from the usability of a work." which is merely discouraged. perhaps you would care to revise the "proposed" policy before deletion? and this photographer's work from 2008 is watermarked, but not 2011. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:35, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
It's quite common to use "all rights reserved" alongside a more permissive license. For instance, the standard licence notice on BSD source code begins "Copyright (c) [dates] The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved." I've always assumed that the explicit release of certain rights overrides the generic reservation.
As for the watermarks, those really aren't obtrusive enough to take the picture out of scope. At least on the image above, they could easily be cropped out to leave a thoroughly useful image. --bjh21 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

MP3 Extended uploaders user group created[edit]

There's been lots of talk about support for uploading MP3's over the last few months. :) We discussed approaches, held an RFC on which user groups should be initially allowed to upload, and defined the qualifications for the new user group.

The result is the creation of a new user group called "MP3 uploaders". Currently there is an Abuse Filter running on Commons (192) that should prevent anyone from uploading mp3s unless they are an administrator or in the "MP3 uploaders" user group. If someone wants to be added to the MP3 uploaders user group, they can apply at Commons:Requests_for_rights#MP3_uploader.

Now we're ready to take a big step forward and enable the upload of MP3s to Commons. This will be enabled on November 28th. Thanks to everyone who's worked with us on this and we look forward to seeing what the Commons community does with support for this "new" file format. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We had to delay the deployment slightly in order to make sure all of the transcoding pieces are in place. MP3 uploading is now scheduled to be turned on for Commons at 20:00 UTC, Wednesday, November 29. Kaldari (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: I noticed you crated an abusefilter, not a fan because we had problems with the condition limit in the past. I also think the group should be renamed as proposed on AN. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Currently, Commons is only using about 280 conditions per edit (the limit is 1000), so there's no danger of hitting the limit any time soon. In fact, I'm surprised that Commons' use of AbuseFilter is so limited. Most wikis are above 500. Regarding the user group name, I don't really have any opinion on that. I'm happy to set it to whatever the community wants. Do you have a specific suggestion? Kaldari (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Oh, i am surprised :) (btw, the limit on commons is 2000, where you see the usage stats?). I think "Trusted uploaded" or so would be perfect, so we can exempt users in that group from copyvio filters, we can (maybe later) add uplaodbyurl to that group, etc. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Abuse Filter dashboard. I like "Trusted uploaders" fine, but you and George Ho don't agree on it, and so far the two of you seem to be the only people who care. If the two of you can come up with a name that is agreeable, I'll be happy to change it. FWIW, George only objected to the "trusted" part. He wasn't opposed to creating a broader group. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF), Kaldari, Steinsplitter: How about simply "Uploaders"?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
We are already uploaders, right? ;) George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Yes, those of us with accounts in confirmed, autoconfirmed, and sysop groups are allowed to upload, but we don't have a specific user group named in our honor. Do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) No synonym of "trusted" would do for me either, especially by reading definitions and meanings, like Wiktionary's or Merriam-Webster's. George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: Same question for you, do you like any synonyms of "trusted" for this purpose?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:41, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, i don' really care if "trusted" or a other word (which one?) is used. I am not a native speaker so it is better to let the native speakers judge. But it don't think "soud uploader" because so we can't use it for non-sound related stuff if needed (such as uplaod-by-url tool later). Best--Steinsplitter (talk) 07:20, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

What about "extended uploaders"? Or even sound uploader? Artix Kreiger (talk)

@Artix Kreiger: Given that there are now and will be interesting in-scope files in various formats whose patents have expired and will expire, I wanted to future-proof the name of the class of users so it can be repurposed later for the next great format. "extended uploaders" fits that bill but is a little long for my liking; "sound uploaders", not so much.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
"Sound uploader" seems fitting; so is "extended uploader". However, both should be separate user rights as they potentially have different purposes. "Extended uploader" reminds me of "extended confirmed" at en.WP. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Is that reminder a good or bad thing?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Not a bad thing. I don't mind "extended uploader" as long as it's separate from "sound uploader". George Ho (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
extended uploader sounds reasonable. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, I'll change it to "Extended uploaders" then. Kaldari (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've added Image-reviewers to the groups allowed to upload MP3s, as we appear to have consensus for this in the previous thread. I also created MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-mp3, which will appear when an MP3 upload is rejected by the filter. Guanaco (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Not been on much so had no idea this was even taking place - If I've read this right "Extender uploader" goes beyond just MP3's (?) which if that's correct then I think "Extender Uploader" sounds perfect, I know my comment at this point is redundant but figured I'd chip in anyway, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 01:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-48[edit]

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

November 29[edit]

Transwiki of lua modules[edit]

Can someone help me how to use Commons lua modules in my wikipedia? I just tried {{#invoke:Commons:Countries/Africa}} but failed parsing says "Script error: You must specify a function to call". Thanks. --Mdmahir (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mdmahir: That didn't work in your post, either, so I nowiki'd it. Different projects may use different lua modules, or no lua at all. What are you trying to achieve, where is that, and where does it work successfully?   — Jeff G. ツ 03:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Module:Countries/Africa is commons module i want to use in english wiki (for example). I thought commons can be used for common modules used across all wikis (by passing language code as arguments?). I have created my own module in english/Tamil wiki and don't want to copy the same source code in multiple wiki. -- Mdmahir (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
@Mdmahir: If we could use modules like that, we wouldn't need Template:Convert/Transwiki guide.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2017 uploaded files[edit]

Hi. In Commons_talk:Wiki_Science_Competition_2017#Guidelines_for_the_workflow I tried to discuss some points. Probably national organizers are fine with their specific systems but I will be mainly in charge to all the internationally uploaded files for all countries without jury. I would like to agree on some standard with the community if possible. For example the name for the category of disqaulifed files.

The second level jurors are mostly expert wikimedians, we will try our best to leave it in order, I am sure the status of the files (titles, categories) will be better than in 2015 (I am also doing my best to improve some backlog there).--Alexmar983 (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

name of Nuvola sovereign state flags[edit]

In Category:Nuvola sovereign state flags both adjective and noun are used, this is quite chaotic and time consuming when someone has to use different flags. Maybe we could agree on a standard.

I was fixing the wrong adjective in a flag name (Chilian instead of Chilean) and I though the noun was better because it is usually shorter and slightly less independent than the language, I am not even sure if sometimes an adjective is widely used for some minor or recent countries, but on a closer look I see than the majority of flags uses the adjective. Even when it is potentially ambiguous (Nuvola Chinese flag.svg). Also, sometimes categories names and flag names are different (see UK or Italy), and the upper level of the trees uses as with many other things the style category:flags of NOUN. So there is a global lack of coherence even on a "vertical" and not just "horizontal" direction.

So what should we do? can we agree on something after so many years? Am I the first person who noticed that?--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Break time[edit]

Do we have a category for this? Break time, pauses etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Sure, yes. Country of location is a good categorization criteria for most photos. However both photos are subcategorized in multiple categories that refer to their countries (Belgium and Czechia), so I’m not sure what you mean. -- Tuválkin 18:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

First in Space![edit]

The spoken voice of astronaut Paolo Nespoli, in English
The spoken voice of astronaut Paolo Nespoli, in Italian

The first content made specifically for Wikipedia & Wikimedia Commons, in space!

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/11/29/astronaut-spoken-voice/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work.
Anyone looking for the most recent space images, will want to know there is a daily 'slurp' of the latest ESA CC-BY-SA images to Commons. See ESA batch upload project for details. -- (talk) 12:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Community Wishlist 2017 voting[edit]

Hey, just so you don't miss it – the voting for the m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey has started now. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Become a Tech Ambassador today[edit]

Hello. Please help translate to your language. Thank you! Do you have a passion for technology? Do you enjoy supporting this community in things like figuring out software changes and communicating with the developers, or maybe you would consider doing it, but you don't know where to start?

The Community Liaisons team at the Wikimedia Foundation is looking for active tech ambassadors in this community. We would like to help make this volunteer role an attractive and low-barrier contribution path in our movement. You can add your name to the table on Meta, or you can let me know about someone else who should really, really be in that list.

Please, do not assume that you are not "fit", that you lack the skills, or the experience etc. If you have doubts, questions, etc., let's chat. Thank you for your attention! --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

November 30[edit]

Permission[edit]

Am i permitted to upload the following image to wikimedia commons? https://iori-komei.deviantart.com/art/Second-Largest-Religion-by-Country-2013-407960138 79.67.72.227 02:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The license in there is not compatible with Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0). See Commons:Licensing#Well-known_licenses. Also, that image is watermarked; you would need to PM the creator to use the unwatermarked image (which is highly unlikely given the fact this is from 2013). theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Is that image even still up to date if it's from 2013? And in cases as this I would say that sources might be important as the reliability of the reports can be disputed (such as the fact that not every country uses the same methodology to collect information). --Donald Trung (Talk 💬) ("The Chinese Coin Troll" 👿) (Articles 📚) 12:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The license may not be true[edit]

These two images were uploaded under a US PD no notice license, but when I was watching the source, the trailer of the film, it clearly was written at 2:00, "Copyrighted 1957 by 20th Century Fox Film Corporation". Is this alright? Aditya (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Clcx: Why is this PD?   — Jeff G. ツ 18:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Arguably it uses the word "Copyrighted" as opposed to the valid notice of ©, Copyright, or Copr, so the notice is defective. I doubt this would hold up in court. Guanaco (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
US copyrights from that era (until 1963) also required renewal, which may not have happened. Ought to be checked, anyway, and the applicable specific licence tag substituted for the no-notice. (It seems absurd to me that copyrighted could be held not to convey the same meaning & intent as copyright in that context, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Does the image from the trailer appear in the movie? The movie Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? (1957) was registered (LP93212) with the U.S. copyright office on 26 July 1957 and renewed (RE0000237380) on 28 February 1985. —RP88 (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@RP88: As I understand it, under U.S. copyright law at that time, even if in one place (e.g. the film itself) they put out the material with a proper copyright notice, it lost copyright protection if in another place (e.g. a trailer) they put it out without one. Kind of dumb, but often to the advantage of those who want to use material on a PD basis. But I wouldn't want to rely legally on a possibly defective copyright notice. - Jmabel ! talk 03:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
With regards to whether the notice in the trailer was defective, I don't think the notice was defective. In Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, Section 2204.4(C) "Variants for the Word “Copyright”, the U.S. copyright office says "A misspelled or variant form of the word 'Copyright' or the abbreviation 'copr.' may be accepted if it is clear that the term is intended to be 'copyright.'" One of the acceptable variants they mention as an example is "Copyrighted". —RP88 (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

MP3 uploading is now live[edit]


(audio) Chopin - Waltz in E minor, B. 56
Performed by Olga Gurevich
Problems listening to the file? See Commons:Sound.



Admins, image reviewers, and extended uploaders (previously called MP3 uploaders) can now upload MP3 files to Commons. Also, all newly uploaded ogg vorbis files will automatically have MP3 versions created via transcoding (similar to what happens with video files).

If the community decides they want to open this up to more users, it's controllable via an abuse filter. I created a proposal at the Community Wishlist Survey to build an audio/video review tool for Commons to help automatically identify copyright violations and flag them for human review. Such a tool will probably be needed before opening up MP3 uploading to all users. If you want to support this proposal, please go to Meta and vote for it.

Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

::@Kaldari:, the abuse filter needs updating. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Never mind. Artix Kreiger (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

December 01[edit]

All pages which starts with "("[edit]

Hello.Please remove "(" from all files which starts with "(" and the reason is "Non-controversial maintenance and bug fixes, including fixing double extensions, invalid or incorrect extensions, character handling problems, and other similar technical issues.".Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2:This seems like a bad idea. It would, for instance, involve removing the (correct) '(' character from the start of a bunch of chemical names like File:(+)-Perillyl alcohol.svg. Can you explain what you're trying to achieve? --bjh21 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21:I mean the unnecessary false brackets ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: So which files have unnecessary false brackets? Presumably not all files whose names start with '('? --bjh21 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21: All the files in the list.See also Category:Photos from Panoramio ID 5065123 and Category:Images by Auoob farabi with watermarks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

{{On Wikidata}}[edit]

Hi, I'm writing here to get a broader audience than on the template's discussion page. Reason is this starting edit war with User:NeverDoING: see [6].

The documentation of {{On Wikidata}} says: This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Adding the Commons category (P373) to the wikidata item (Q20675724 (Q20675724)) is sufficient to get all the interwiki links created automatically. It works like a charm, no need to add {{On Wikidata}}, which obviously does not add information to the category (the link to the WD item is in the left menu anyhow). So why is there a need to additionally add a redundant {{On Wikidata}} with the item's own Wikidata-id (if so, could be also defaulted to own id)?

Can we clarify on the template documentation page, when to use and when not to use {{On Wikidata}}?

Disk with NeverDoING: [7], no answer until now. Pinging @Jean-Frédéric, ŠJů: as the main authors of the template. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Herzi Pinki: The template {{On Wikidata}} was created before several newer function and possibilities. However, there remain several types of situations where the template can be still useful.
Not every Commons page has its own corresponding Wikidata item page. Most of Commons categories are related to a specific item, they are counterparts of Wikipedia articles. However, if the corresponding Wikidata item page is linked with the Commons gallery page, it cannot be linked concurrently with the Commons category pages of identical item. Generally, to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard (and the gallery page is preferred to be linked with the Wikidata item page). That's one of reasons why some Commons category pages have not a direct link to Wikidata item via Wikidata interwikis. Similarly, if the Commons category page is linked with the Wikipedia category page, it cannot be linked directly with the Wikipedia article page and its Wikidata item page. As accurately says the documentation "This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so)."
The newer template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} is more sophisticated and is even able to extract interwikis using category's main topic (P301) and topic's main category (P910) from the sister item page of the identical item. {{On Wikidata}} includes this template which enables to utilize both possibilities.
The template {{On Wikidata}} can be removed as duplicate (and replaced with {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) from those pages which are directly linked with a corresponding Wikidata item. However, in such cases, the change is needless because both the templates work identically. In other cases, {{On Wikidata}} needs to be kept. --ŠJů (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů:, confuses me even more. What about my example? Is {{On Wikidata}} necessary or not? And why? We have a minor church, Commons category (P373) is set and we have a simple single page on WP - single item on WD - single commons category - relationship. It is rather unlikely that we will get a category for the church on WP side or a gallery for the church on Commons side (and if things change, we can change using {{On Wikidata}} too, in general we do use a quite iterative approach in the wikiverse). Setting Commons category (P373) on the WD item will allow to navigate from the WP article to the Commonscat (through the left menu, no need to add explicit Template:Commonscat) and allow to navigate from the commonscat to the articles in various languages. Not sure that I even understand what an interproject link is. I consider this to be one of the blocks at the end of an WD item: Wikipedia, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, ... and Wikivoyage and Other Websites (or excluding Other Websites?), you can set the commonslink under Other Websites but that is not necessary, Commons category (P373) is sufficient. In my example IMHO the negation of (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so) applies (means: an interproject link at WD **can** be used) and there is no need to add neither {{On Wikidata}} nor {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}. If this is not true, than there is a consistency constraint that **all** commons categories **must have** either {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (your last paragraph says so). This should be done by correct implementation, but we hope to achieve consistency in the long term by uncoordinated millions of user edits?
Just another remark to {{On Wikidata}} vs. {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}: the later does not need an explicit item identifier, which is less error prone than the first.
The other way round: If 'to link Commons categories directly to "article" items is considered as non-standard holds, is my usage of Commons category (P373) in Q20675724 (Q20675724) violating rules? (That's my standard proceeding). best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: Regarding the edit war at Category:Saint John the Baptist Church (Sankt Johann in der Haide), the template {{On Wikidata}} is not needed there for now, but it is also not needed to remove the template. There is not probable (but also not impossible for the future) that that specific church will have its own category at any Wikipedia project - some other church can have its own category. Should such category appear sometime, the template {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} can extract interwikis from both linked Wikidata pages. I wish that Commons pages have this function implemented defaultly, without adding these templates. But it has not. That's why it can be better to have {{On Wikidata}} or {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} at every page. Then we need not to prophesy which item has a chance to have sometime it's own Wikipedia category somewhere and which item hasn't.
I personally always supported the Commons-category - Wikipedia-article connection and opposed the gallery - article connection (however Commons-category - Wikipedia-category relation should be preferred to Commons-category - Wikipedia-article relation). Regrettably, designers of Wikidata (as I know) were mostly of the contrary opinion, even though galleries are of quite different character than articles. I have even a fear that some aggressive proponent of that opinion will erase the category-article connections all at once by a bot and destroy a lot of useful work of others.
Regrettably, all these problems were caused by ill-considered conception of Wikidata project which doesn't follow it's own principle that one item should have just one item page in Wikidata. IMHO one item page should link both together - article pages of the item as well as category pages of the item. Both the mentioned templates and P373, P301 and P910 properties are only surrogates which should reduce and compensate the basal defect. As soon as the problem is solved sometime, all the properties and templates can be transformed to interwiki links. Regrettably, such a progress is not in sight. --ŠJů (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů: Thanks a lot for your explanation and for your (fruitless) efforts to get it right. Still {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} should be preferred / replaced by bot, as it does not need the magic number already defined somewhere else. Alternatively {{On Wikidata}} should work without parameter set. Can you please change the documentation of {{On Wikidata}} accordingly, as deprecated in favour of {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} and that every commons category should have a {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} (despite: when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). Maybe the later can be also achieved by a bot? best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think you're wrong about Commons category (P373) being sufficient to make interwiki links appear on Commons. Take Chad Brook (Q44198284) as an example. It has a sitelink to en:Chad Brook and a Commons category (P373) link to Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham. But on Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham no link to Wikipedia or Wikidata appears. In your example, Q20675724 (Q20675724), by contrast, there's a sitelink to Commons and a Commons category (P373) link, and I think it's the sitelink that causes the interwiki links on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21:, you are right. Usually I did link from the commons category to the appropriate WP article (via the adding-interlanguage-links feature in the menu) which creates a situation as in Q20675724 (Q20675724) and I always cared for that constraint. (I tried and reverted it also on your Category:Chad Brook, Birmingham). But doing so, creates the navigational links I mentioned above. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Herzi Pinki: I think, the quoted sentence from the documentation is still as accurate as was originally. This template is intended to be used to link to the related Wikidata entry (when an interproject link at Wikidata cannot be used so). This condition applies especially to the case when the interproject link to Commons on the Wikidata item page is occupied by the gallery page, and that's why the Commons category pages cannot by associated with the Wikidata item. And analogously, if we would prefer links to the Commons category, the template can apply to the gallery pages. Btw., the two templates ({{On Wikidata}} and {{Interwiki from Wikidata}}) should be merged, and should be usable in both ways - with a parameter (Q item code) (if the item page is not associated by Wikidata interwiki) and without a parameter. --ŠJů (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

December 02[edit]