Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:PUMP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/03.

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:

Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

January 18[edit]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony (Talk), Tuesday 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding undated comment was added at 10:19, 18 January 2022‎ (UTC)

February 21[edit]

The absurd redundancy of categories and structured data[edit]

Can I rant for a minute about how unfortunate it is that we have two separate, largely overlapping systems for describing our content? This comes from a place of occasionally trying to encourage friends to share some of their photos to Commons, and the thing they invariably say after checking it out is that the upload process is too long and complicated. They're used to services like Google Maps, which makes it extremely easy to upload photos since they want you to do it: just click on a place and upload your photo of it. Some things unavoidably make our process more complicated, such as the fact that we actually care about licensing, but asking people to add categories and then also structured data on top of that is just a self-inflicted wound. I'm not familiar with the history of how structured data got introduced (links welcome), but I wish it was done in a way that was integrated, e.g. adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188) because of the value of category's main topic (P301) at Category:Empire State Building (Q8412843). The structured data would be so much more comprehensive if we'd done that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am not sure if our systems are sophisticated enough to achieve this. There are cases where categories are added that are unrelated to what is depicted, such as date, location, creator and collection categories. Can system logic be written to correctly filter those many categories out of the depicts statement? If not, this suggestion will just be migrating our messy category structure into the structured data. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue has always been that we can't synchronise the data, nor mark things as "prominent" and "not prominent", for example a photograph of New York City where the Empire State Building is in the background could have a Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) tag of "Empire State Building" marked as "not prominent", but the complete lack of having a comprehensive system that takes the best of what came before it makes using Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) less useful than it could be. I think that as a system it has a lot of potential, but it's currently underutilised because of the fact that the legacy MediaWiki category system doesn't synchronise with the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) system. An automated system could mark all assigned categories as "prominent" structured data and then users could manually add "less prominent" tags such as minor things included in a photograph and other things where the inclusion wouldn't "overfill the category system". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: Whats wrong with just adding a cat such as Remote views of the Empire State Building or Empire State Building from Rockefeller Center? Broichmore (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188)" should never be assumed. Suppose the subject is, for example, an audio file which someone discusses the ESB. Or is a photograph of the view from the ESB. Or is a picture of a model of the ESB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is extremely fraught with danger to automatically give "depicts" structured data based on category. There is a huge amount of poorly categorized or miscategorized content already (almost no files in the top level of Category:United States depict the United States for instance, but rather miscategorized people who live there, or towns in the country). Also, many categories contain related files that do not depict the subject named by the category, for instance PDFs of works by an author, or pictures of the subject's, spouse, children, house, commemorative plaque, etc. that don't warrant devoted subcategories of their own. It would be helpful if some model uses categories as starting points for suggestions in various human-operated structured data games (e.g. asking a thinking human: "this file is in Category:X: does it depict X?"). Automation is only as good as the input, and when bots (or humans) add incorrect or impractically vague structured data it becomes twice as hard to remove/correct it (see the countless thousands of 100-year-old photographs with "inception" date being the date some dunce uploaded it to Commons, and some bot mindlessly copied to SDC). --Animalparty (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out this discussion? We seem to have surrendered the right of any user to edit commons successfully. Category:Gartenlaube (Magazine) for example has been made particularly tedious. As for structured data within commons, the majority of it seems to be detail on scanners, and cameras used in making the image; detail of no use whatsoever to the substance or significance of the image. I have seen no evidence those enhancemets or wikidata's take over of the project has in any way enhanced or improved search. Having said that I do find it useful for displaying profile data of an artist. As I alluded to, in my earlier query herein, we need to keep the project simple and accessible. Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it actually throws up more false positives in search, since it searches for aliases of items it has identified with the search term in addition to the string itself, and one of the purposes of aliases is to correct mistaken names for things. Arlo James Barnes 12:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that simply tying Wikidata to categories is not going to be helpful. I think what is really needed is simplifying the default upload wizard for new users, and providing hints for power users who are getting used to Commons and want to start doing more advanced things with it. aismallard (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 02[edit]

Could Commons host the Zelenskyy /Ukraine war video files?[edit]

Every day of the war Zelenskyy is posting ~7 minute videos to Facebook giving daily updates.

Who is interested or who would support some kind of effort to contact the Ukrainian government to ask for Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses so that we could host these videos on Commons, and translate subtitles?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing.

By the traffic and as usual, Wikipedia is probably the single most consulted media source for information on these topics in all languages.

As best as I can tell, Facebook is the most official outlet distributing the videos. While there are news outlets and individuals grabbing the videos and redistributing them, other than Facebook I am not seeing another way to access original copies. Also, to watch the videos in Facebook, an account is required. The Ukrainian government websites seem down all the time.

I know it is always complicated to ask for copyright to videos, but I am posting here to check community interest in making a request to the Ukrainian government for Wikimedia compatible licenses to host the videos in Wikimedia Commons. If they are here then we could coordinate subtitle translations. I think everyone is aware that Wikipedia is a major information outlet in war. I am not finding other places to access the original high quality video copies, and I think Wikipedia is a suitable host. New outlets run ads before the videos, usually cut them to be shorter than 7 minutes, dub the audio, create barriers to redistribution, and in general alter the videos and context of them.

If we made a request, ideally we could check the videos in advance for copyright issues beyond government permission. I think there is no music, other images, etc. in them. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine. The request might need to happen through Facebook, but other channels could help. I think the government only posts messages in Ukrainian, and they have no English language outlet. The request would need to be in Ukrainian. I think a short message is fine to see if they bite.

Nataliia is the chair of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and she is Ukrainian. She might be able to stand in to support this request, if asked, and if she chooses. Otherwise the request could come from the Wikimedia community.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally Yes without question and thanks for raising this. Herby talk thyme 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the government has no time to process your requests... Emojiwiki (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emojiwiki: The president and his communication team definitely have time and resources to produce and publish daily videos that are difficult to access. This really could be a situation where they have no trustworthy media partner and Wikimedia Commons could fulfill that role. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quite a lot of ukrainian gov websites were already ccby before the war, so they are definitely aware of this licensing and how it helps to propel their content. maybe they've just overlooked this for now. perhaps some public figures can relay this message to them more easily. i think could be a start. judging from his tweets about starlink, he seems to be in charge of most internet, communication stuff. RZuo (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: i just remembered, they are already cc on youtube: . please import if you can. RZuo (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)--RZuo (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should not host videos or photos of prisoners of war in custody, because of consent issues. See the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/11#Pictures of prisoners in custody. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 05[edit]

Possible copyright violation?[edit]

File:Examples of Scribner.png contains screenshots that are still protected by copyright laws, as far as I know. 2001:16B8:2EDD:5600:92C7:C779:E059:93DB 13:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the US and maybe other countries, if you read the text, it says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties." I'm from The Netherlands, so here it's copyrighted (70 years p.m.a.). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardkiwi: Greetings from Marburg, Hessen. It's still copyrighted in den USA, where character copyright exists. See this entry in deletion log, for example. I hereby also nominate File:Falling_Hare.webm for deletion. 2001:16B8:2EDD:5600:92C7:C779:E059:93DB 14:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Falling_Hare is in the public domain, see below for character copyright. --RAN (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Character copyright protection" covers any details of the character that are not depicted in the public domain works, but only appear in later works still under copyright. This only applies to making new movies or writing new stories using the characters. See the case involving Sherlock Holmes where mannerisms, costuming, and other habits depicted in later copyrighted works cannot be used in new fictional works. Showing stills from a public domain work is 100% proper, and the ones deleted are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. So, if the WB cartoons were not renewed, showing a still from them is proper and has nothing to do with "character copyright protection. To see if a cartoon was not renewed, check w:List_of_animated_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States. --RAN (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the section on character copyright that people keep misquoting to make it clearer. --RAN (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 07[edit]

When do copyrights of photos in old scientific articles expire ?[edit]

I am currently working on an article on the Namaqua Afrikaner sheep, for which currently no image is available either on flickr or Wikimedia Commons. But I have found an old article (1960) with photos in it ( The article was written by someone called Epstein and working at the time at the University of Jerusalem. The Journal in which this study is published is now called Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics and is based in Germany. If the pictures are still covered by the copyright, do you know to which I should adress my request for downloading these pictures on Wikimedia Common (the journal or the University). I guess the juridiction/laws concerning copyrights are not the same in Israel and Germany.

I'm not at all used to copyrights requests / laws, so any answer will be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Braveheidi (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) PS : I can read German (should someone want to point to an information in German).[reply]

  • @Braveheidi: Those are certainly still in copyright. In both Germany and Israel, copyright is author's lifetime + 70 years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would mean that to use them you need the copyright owner's permission. I think that's what Braveheidi intended to do. The copyright might be with the photographer or the journal, and I suppose the article author would be the person most likely to know, and if the photograph was taken by them, they might be able to license the photo under a free licence. However, there seems to be a big risk that the work is orphaned, with nobody knowing who owns the copyright.
      The relevant jurisdictions are those of the first publication of the image and USA (as the servers are there). According to COM:Israel#Durations, copyright for certain works would have a shorter term, but long enough for the URAA to give protection in accordance with US durations (I assume the Israeli URAA date to be 1996), i.e 95 years after first publication. It seems South Africa has a 50 years term for photographs, but 1960+50 would still be after the URAA date. The photograph may of course have been published significantly earlier than the article, but it'd need to be from the 1940s to be old enough.
      I don't think fair use is relevant for this use of the photo, but I don't know the US fair use requirements. Otherwise that could be an option on some Wikipedias (including af and en, but not nl).
      LPfi (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply][edit]

For some reason, Dezoomify isn't working on this, and given my laptop is, honestly, pretty shit for this kind of work and yet the only thing I have, if someone could grab the full-resolution copy for me it'd be helpful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Have you read ?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: That explains the bug, but given the only browser that works on this laptop is (sigh) Microsoft Edge (the others make it slow down too much), the console editing is a little beyond me because the cookies aren't displaying in the same manner that the bug report mentions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I managed to upload it for you at File:Nathan Francis Mossell (1856-1946), M.D. 1882, portrait photograph by H.D. Carns & Co; Image ID 27593990.jpg by using the Chrome extension, and converting the resulting png file to jpg for sharpness with Windows Paint 10.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Thank you! I'll do a restoration of it to remove the damage, and we'll finally have a good image of him. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: You're welcome. Do you want the png for restoration purposes?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Honestly, with this image, I don't think it'll matter, and I'm half-way through it anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: Ok.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hello there, If I would like to ask someone with a copyrighted image they have taken if they could add their image to Wikipedia themselves so it isnt copyrighted what is a page I could link them to on how to do that if they are willing? — Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kaleeb18: Adding your copyrighted image to Wikipedia (or to Commons, the site on which you are writing) does not normally change whether it is copyrighted. It typically involves granting a free license that allows derivatives and commercial reuse, but that is not a waiver of copyright. In particular, if I have licensed an image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and someone reuses it without crediting me, they have violated my copyright.
  • To address what I think is your intent: typically, if the image in question is already on the web on a page obviously controlled by the copyright-holder, then the easiest thing for the copyright holder to do is to indicate on that page that they grant (for example) a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Then you, or anyone, can cite that page as a source and upload the image to Commons.
  • If for some reason that approach is not feasible, there is also the COM:VRT system, but that takes a lot more work by volunteers and, in my opinion, should be considered a second choice. Someone else may have other views on that, though. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •,_or_elsewhere - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 08[edit]

Happy Women's Day[edit]

ꯃꯩꯇꯩ ꯅꯨꯄꯤ.jpg

Hello Lady Wikimedians! I wish you a very happy women's day! Today, we celebrate your political, social, cultural and economic achievements around the world. Cheers! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haoreima, thank you. The same wishes to you. The theme of the day is #BrakeTheBias. A lot or work to do. Dear fellow Commonors, which bias do you see today, and can you help reduce it? I changed the image on the wikidata item d:Q901 (scientist) from File:Researcher looking through microscope.jpg into File:Researchers in laboratory.jpg. The same persons, different roles. Ellywa (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ellywa en:Medusa with the Head of Perseus & en:Perseus with the Head of Medusa 😁😁 Unfortunately, we don't have any image of en:Medusa with the Head of Perseus in Wikimedia Commons! --Haoreima (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered someone like File:Barbara_McClintock_(1902-1992)_shown_in_her_laboratory_in_1947.jpg for scientist? She's Nobel prize winning, after all. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Adam Cuerden, the answer is, the current and previous photo's are showing diversity in a broader sense. Ellywa (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense. I mean, there's certainly diverse people out there who also won Nobel Prizes - Chien-Shiung Wu, say. File:Chien-shiung Wu (1912-1997) C.jpg would be good. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Hubs Global Conversation[edit]


The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to the next event about "Regional and Thematic Hubs". The Wikimedia Movement is in the process of understanding what Regional and Thematic Hubs should be. Our workshop in November was a good start (read the report), but we're not finished yet.

Over the last weeks we conducted about 16 interviews with groups working on establishing a Hub in their context (see Hubs Dialogue). These interviews informed a report that will serve as a foundation for discussion on March 12. The report is planned to be published on March 9.

The event will take place on March 12, 13:00 to 16:00 UTC on Zoom. Interpretation will be provided in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese. Registration is open, and will close on March 10. Anyone interested in the topic is invited to join us. More information on the event on Meta-wiki.

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also create the upper category structures![edit]

Category:September 1985 in rail transport in Munich There is a template 'rail transport in Munich-year' but nothing beyond. The jjjj in rail transport in Bavaria categories dont exist. The problem is that there are no links between the jjjj in rail transport in Germany categories and the year rail transport in Munich. These files become invisible for wikipedians who want to reorganize the year rail categories. A top down method is absolutely essential. In this example I have added an emergency link to 1985 in rail transport in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I started filling in the jjjj in rail transport in Bavaria categories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is some strange problem with the Template:rail transport in Bavaria-year: The link to the next decade exists for 1950s and 1960s, but not for the 1970s. Check Category:Rail transport in Bavaria by year The link to the preceding decade is not present.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)


Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 09[edit]

File:Billy Bowlegs (Holata Micco, "Alligator Chief").jpg[edit]

Sorry to have so many questions and requests of late, but the colour profile on this seems to be getting switched by the thumbnailer, despite me using standard RGB, it looking fine at full size, and File:Billy Bowlegs (Holata Micco, "Alligator Chief").png showing up fine. Any ideas? Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What percentage of Commons images are "in use" in the Wiki Universe?[edit]

I keep seeing "not in use" as a deletion argument, so what percent of Commons images are actually "in use" in the Wiki Universe? Several years ago I did a computation on images of cats and dogs to find out what the percentage was. Does someone keep that statistic? --RAN (talk) 02:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I've made a very rough query on Quarry to count the in-use files: quarry:query/45140. That says that currently 25,938,928 files are in use out of (according to the Main Page) 81,206,569. That's 32%, which is so much more than I expected that I worry I've made a serious mistake... --bjh21 (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that include internal usages like (personal) galleries and nomination pages (QI, FP, VI)? --Magnus (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tsungam: I think so, yes. The globalimagelinks table seems to include links from use on commonswiki as well as from other sites. It doesn't include links, though, only usage, so deletion requests aren't included. --bjh21 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I've enhanced the query to ignore files that don't exist on Commons, and after thinking for half an hour it told me that there are 21,020,221 distinct files that actually exist on Commons and are in use elsewhere, or 26%. That's still much more than I expected, but I think my methodology is sound. --bjh21 (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an image is used in 15 Wikipedia pages, does that count as 1 or as 15 times? And images in Wikidata count as well? Wouter (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A single file used on 15 pages counts 1. That's what the distinct in the query is for. As far as I can see, Wikidata uses count. I'm using the table behind Special:GlobalUsage, so the results should match that. --bjh21 (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bjh21: Thanks, I think everyone is surprised. We are probably much lower in the categories for cats and dogs (and probably penis pictures too). I think I can quote "about 25%" when people ask me. Thank you again. You should probably add your methodology and the final number to some place in the Commons: space so it can be referred to by others, Commons:Village_pump archives is not optimal for refinding. You can save a link to your query there too. --RAN (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you include uses on user subpages? I have seen a lot of pages à la uploads by new users in August 2018, and new uploads of Somewherestan. If such maintenance pages are counted, the figure doesn't really tell about "use". –LPfi (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the good old days when Commonist was working all my pics had been automaticly added to a gallery (e.g. 2020) - so all my pics are "used", right? - well no, most aren't ...Sicherlich talk 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wouterhagens: I mean pages like User:Makele-90/recent uploads/Finland Proper/2019 October and User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2018 January 26 09:00. –LPfi (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LPfi: As mentioned above, I used the same table as Special:GlobalUsage, so if Special:GlobalUsage records a use, I counted it. I think this should include user pages (and user subpages) on Commons, but a lot of uses seem to be missing and I can't quite see a pattern in them. Anyway, I've added some extra conditions to exclude uses on Commons, uses on user pages (including user subpages) and uses on any talk page. The result is annoyingly similar to before: 20,170,397. --bjh21 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled proposal to rename Time Magazine categories[edit]

A discussion about changing the names of a series of categories has gotten hung up and needs some new input. It seems to be agreed that the categories should not start with "Time Magazine", but there's disagreement over whether the replacement should be "Time (magazine)" or "Time magazine". Because there's no consensus on one of those choices, we are stuck on the name that nobody likes. Please comment at Category talk:Time Magazine. There's also some discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Time Magazine and a related proposal on English Wikipedia at w:Talk:Time (magazine)#Proposed elimination of unneeded parenthesis in article title.

I'm not active on Commons, so if I'm taking the wrong path, please let me know. Thank you, SchreiberBike (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have everyone agree to a coin toss, both are equally correct. --RAN (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help me find more info on this photographer[edit]

His name is in the bottom left corner. See: File:El presidente del Ecuador, Isidro Ayora Cueva, en 1929.jpg. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

es:Carlos Rivadeneira Cruz? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Amazing detective work, you got it. I found more details on him, he was in the US in 1918 working at Underwood and Underwood and had to register for the draft twice, so I found his birthdate. --RAN (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Display included R script[edit]


I made File:Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean concentration FR.svg and its translations (see Other versions). All plots are generated from a single R script. I included the source code as a template Template:Other_versions/Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.R on all the translated pages but only The source code of this SVG is valid and This chart was created with R are displayed and not the R code. That's weird because it worked a few weeks ago.

  • Has Mediawiki changed the way it displays this file ?
  • Does my method of including a shared file is wrong ?

Thanks for your advices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oeneis (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oeneis (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oeneis, that is because User:Sarang removed support for parameter "code" from Template:Created with R. Sarang Template:Created with R still says that "Wherever possible, please include the source code, using the parameter code=", what is the current recommended way of including the source code, and what is the plan for migrating files using parameter "code" to whatever is the new syntax? --Jarekt alt (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Jarekt alt, I'll see what @Sarang will say.
Oeneis (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oeneis: Sorry about the troubles, I did not expect that the source code display was used this way. Its coding was spread over more than twenty "Created with"-templates, and now it is centralized and at only one position which bears more advantages. But unfortunately usages as at that file do not function any more, sorry. I tried to restore the source code display in the Mauna Loa file, and will try to repair the other ones.
When you want to use it that way, it will be possible by directly transcluding the Template:Created with code, as I made as an example with Other versions/Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean concentration.R but that is a less recommended method - there will not occur any automatic categorization, as for the Mauna Loa file. -- sarang사랑 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the better method is to have the R + validation with each file, but not everwhere the complete code; a link to the file which shows the code might be better, as is done now in Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean concentration.svg with the option 'external'. -- sarang사랑 16:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply @Sarang, I'll look into your propositions. Thanks for fixing. Oeneis (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting pi-wp logo change[edit]

The text on File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-pi.svg says, "विकिपीङिया एका निंमुलेना सद्दकोसो " which translates to "Wikipiria a free dictionary " which is absolutely wrong. Someone please change this to "विकिपीडिया एका निंमुलेना निखिलकोसो " for the (close to) correct translation. Thanks! —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 15:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also change File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-pi.png accordingly. Thanks! —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 15:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Islamic state}}[edit]

Should we add the de facto Afghan national flag (read: Taliban flag) to the template? Also is Category:National flag of Afghanistan for the tricolor flag or the Taliban flag? I feel like they should not all be in the same category for obvious reasons. --Trade (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Islamic state}} redirects to the very generic {{Terrorism symbol}}, so I don't see the need to include the Taliban flag there. As to Category:National flag of Afghanistan, I think we could create a subcategory Category:National flag of Afghanistan (2004-2021) or similar ones in Historical flags of Afghanistan and move the Taliban flag to the national flag category to underline the current use of that symbol rather than the old tricolor. De728631 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 10[edit]

Photo challenge January results[edit]

Multiculturalism: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Des femmes, des hommes, des musulmans, des chrétiens.jpg Canadian First Nations girl, costume with integrated Hello Kitty earrings.jpg Fiori di glicine.jpg
Title Woman, Men, Muslims, Christians Canadian First Nations girl
in traditional costume with integrated
earrings of worldwide
Japanese brand "Hello Kitty"
Fiori di glicine
Author Celeda Marc-Lautenbacher Repuli
Score 22 11 10
Big equipment: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Liebherr LRB 355 Hölzla-20160628-RM-105526.jpg Schaufelradbagger Ferropolis pls.jpg Schaufelradbagger̠Welzow2.jpg
Title Liebherr LRB 355 pile
driving and drilling rig
Discarded bucket-wheel excavator
from open-cast lignite mining
Schaufelrad eines Baggers
im Braunkohletagebau Welzow
Author Ermell Lusi Lindwurm Staubi59
Score 30 21 15

Congratulations to Celeda, Marc-Lautenbacher, Repuli, Ermell, Lusi Lindwurm and Staubi59. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode gadget[edit]

English Wikipedia has its own "dark mode" gadget. I think Commons needs the gadget as well. Shall it be similar to enwiki's, or how can the gadget be written specifically for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki one is pretty contrasty. I've used mw:Skin:DarkVector before but it has lots of edge cases unaccounted for. Arlo James Barnes 12:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode is a matter of taste and preferences. To shine a light on this discussion, I need to tell you folks that I really hate how Firefox is forcing dark mode upon me since updating my browser to Firefox 96. My advice would be to keep Wikipedia's door wide open for people who prefer to see black letters on white background. Anonymous, 10th of March 2022, 15h44 CET —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that it was going to be mandatory, it would just be nice for some people if they had the option to enable it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps of Country and Country on stamps categories and their interplay[edit]

I believe that we should discuss this with the whole community, I am starting it here because starting it on a talk page on any single category guarantees that nobody will see it.

So, we have categories of stamps published in every country (and sometimes of former countries or other territories), the format of those categories is akin to Category:Stamps of Bulgaria. There is also a hierarchy of categories of different things shown on stamps, and obviously countries can also be displayed on the stamp, and that brings forth another intersection of a stamp and a country; the format of those categories is akin to Category:Bulgaria on stamps.

Now here is the potential conflict that brings me here. I have created the template {{stamps of country}}, which I have been applying to appropriate categories, and that template places Stamps of Country inside the Country on stamps, my argument is that at least the logo of the country, or the country name is displayed on the stamps. This is true for almost every country, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom (UPU has made that exception, since the first stamps was made in Britain). In parallel Kreuz und quer has been doing the opposite, placing Country on stamps inside Stamps of Country (example). I have reverted them a few times, but now I believe that it is possible that we'll begin some sort of revert war, and I would like to avoid that.

Hence, I am looking for some sort of community consensus on this categorisation. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Kreuz und quer: . Also @Ww2censor: since they have interest in stamp categories. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the wikiprojects, such as w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. I think there are some other language projects but don't know where they are located. Ww2censor (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think it's better to have "Stamps of Country inside the Country on stamps", since i suppose there must have been countries shown on other countries' stamps, assuming Stamps of Country=stamps issued by country, rather than any stamp related to that country.--RZuo (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because we host files for all languages, here are the other countries I can find, besides the enwiki project, that will be affected by any decision we make:
Please make sure they are all notified appropriately. Ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gone Postal I agree that Stamps of Country makes more sense inside Country on stamps. My doing the opposite was simply out of a desire to link the two categories -- due to the vagaries of the English "of," I hadn't thought too much about hierarchy. But the way you and @RZuo describe it is more logical. I'm happy to change over my categorization if that's the consensus. Kreuz und quer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures needed to clarify confusing regional speed limits in Belgium[edit]

Europeans would expect that general speed limits would be the same for the whole of Belgium, just like they are for every other European country, right? Well, that's wrong. Confusingly, Belgium has moved the responsibility to set speed limits from a national level to the regional district authorities. Following that, Flanders has decided to go on it's own in 2017, as they changed their out-of-town speed limit to 70 km/h.

Flanders used to have a general out-of-town speed limit of 90 km/h, but Flanders is so densely populated and planning has been so messy (from a Dutch perspective), that you are never ever really out of town in many places in Flanders. No wonder that before 2017 the 70 km/h signs were all over the place. After 2017, all these 70 km/h signs were scrapped and only a few roads, in very thinly populated areas of Flanders, got 90 km/h signs as an exception.

Wallonia decided to keep their general out-of-town speed limit at 90 km/h. Flanders had to set up new speed limit information signs at borders at every border crossing, both with the Netherlands and Wallonia. French speaking Wallonia took a French turn and has left a lot of old speed limit information signs for the whole of Belgium in place, especially on the border to Germany.

I have spend too many hours to educate anyone reading German that Belgium now has impossibly complicated speed limit laws, differing by region. I figured we need pictures with that at Wikimedia Commons! I did find the speed limit information sign for the whole of Belgium in both Dutch and French, as well as the new sign for Flanders only, but can someone please help out with a picture of the Wallonia speed limits information sign?

File:Flemish speed limits border.svg

File:Belgian speed limits border 2.svg

File:Belgian speed limits border 3.svg

File:Wallonia speed limits border sign.svg ???

Anonymous says thank you! :-) 10th of March 2022, 16u04 CET —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links:
Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wallonia is 50-90-120, but I don't have an image. :-) Only this link to a picture for Wallonia: Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main page showing yesterday's POTD and MOTD for logged-out users[edit]

i found a perculiar problem. when i use chrome and visit main page right now (UTC 1600!), it shows me yesterday's stuff if i'm not logged in. it shows today's stuff if i'm logged-in. when i use firefox, it's correct for both logged in and out.

i'm quite certain i didnt visit the main page on chrome yesterday, so it's probably not my browser's cache.--RZuo (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video2commons stopped working[edit]

Is there some solution on the horizon or is it just like the commonist: gone without replacement? Seems more people have the problem --> Commons talk:Video2commons#Is this software still maintained? ...Sicherlich talk 18:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed the same issue, I just assumed that the issue was at my end and that the videos were too big or something, it would be really good if the standard MediaWiki Upload Wizard could just accept .mp4 files. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: Sadly, mp4 is not yet free.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the original format is not free is not a problem. What is a problem is that in 2022, after all these years and when there are already all the free bricks to do the job (FFmpeg), the Upload Wizard is still not able to accept all the possible and imaginable formats as input and to ensure itself the conversion to free and modern formats (like AV1). Uploading videos should be as easy as on any other platform. Okki (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can contribute to writing the AV ingestion pipeline ;) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

High speed lines Spain categories[edit]

I uploaded File:Parla HSL 2022 1.jpg to File:Parla HSL 2022 4.jpg. At this location there are in fact two high speed lines. One in use: Madrid - Sevilla and Madrid - Levant starting from the junction Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco just beyond. The other tracks are not yet in use and are the tracks of the Chamartin Atocha normal guage tunnel wich have separate up until the Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco where the tracks continue to the Levant line. See for details in Do we create a separate category for the Chamartin - tunnel - junction Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco line? It can also be considered a prolongation of the Category:Madrid–Valladolid high-speed rail line. The line will probably be opening in 2022. es:Túneles ferroviarios Atocha-Chamartín Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that disambiguating in the category name is wise, because if you don't, you'll get a lot of miscategorisation. Perhaps with a "via"? Although if they rejoin for part of the route, it would be better to have subcategories, like "X rail line, Y to Z branch via W" for each option so the jointly used parts have a place to go. If the line's long, subcats are nice anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Research Center graphs[edit]

The Center provides you with a nonexclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, revocable, worldwide, and royalty-free license to access, copy, reproduce, cite, link, display, download, distribute, broadcast, transmit, publish, modify, create derivatives of, or otherwise exploit the survey datasets (other than American Trends Panel survey datasets, which are governed by their own terms and conditions) made available on this website (“Data”), provided that:

• any reproduction, display, distribution, broadcast, transmission, or publication of the Data is limited to excerpts and may not be reproduced, displayed, distributed, broadcast, transmitted, or published in full or substantially in full;

• all copies and excerpts of the Data display all copyright and other applicable notices to the extent such notices are contained in such Data; and

• you do not use the Data in any manner that implies, suggests, or could otherwise be perceived as attributing a particular policy or lobbying objective or opinion to the Center, or as a Center endorsement of a cause, candidate, issue, party, product, business, organization, religion or viewpoint. [1]

Now, at Category:Pew Research Center, we see a few graphs and tables. I am not good enough in copyright law to understand the text above correctly. So my question isː are those graphs and tables legally uploaded there? If soː let's expand that categoryǃ If notː delete those files ASAPǃ

Anyway, let's discuss. Regards,̃Jeff5102 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: That license doesn't appear compatible with COM:L. "Revocable" is a problem (licenses must be non-revocable), and the limitation on reuse in full also sounds like a problem. It looks like some of the existing media is licensed with a threshold of originality rationale, which does circumvent Pew's attempts to apply a more restrictive license (if it is correct), but could be debated. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

Authorship of a group of files[edit]

We have a problem with Category:Second Powell Expedition 1871-1872. Included in that collection are 827 images taken by John K. Hillers.

The problem is examplified by, for example, this image record; within it three photographers are listed as Author.

Powell used three consecutive photographers on this 1871 expedition; Elias Olcott Beaman, James Fennemore, and John K. Hillers. Three people cannot take one photograph.

Each of the 827 images in particular has buried in it text the following statement: "Series: Photographs taken by John K. Hillers during the Powell Survey and other Geological Surveys, compiled ca. 1879 - ca. 1900" obviously indicating that the photographer is John K. Hillers.

If someone sufficiently thick and doesnt study the files before using cat-a-lot, they are going to add on false attribution to others than Hilliers.

Solution is for a bot to edit the Author field down to Hillers, by deleting the other two.

Anyone willing to do that? --Broichmore (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Powell used three consecutive photographers on this 1871 expedition"? Are images by those photographers elsewhere? Can we trust "Photographs taken by John K. Hillers during [...]", or is it possible that the text was put on the records without research on who the actual photographer was? Is it thinkable that the other photographs are mentioned because they might be the real one? Do you have knowledge other than that stated in the file description? –LPfi (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 13[edit]

Translation vandalism[edit]

For the last week or so, the "Read" button next to "Edit" have been showing "Kenkan" for me, when using British English language. I found on Translation wiki that someone had tried to cleanup the vandalism, but it seems incomplete, as it still lingers. I wasn't able to find any kind of Village pump or appropriate place to ask on Translation wiki, so am trying here, in case someone here knows what needs to be done to fix it. TommyG (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TommyG, the translations were updated back to "View". But it might take some time to show up on wiki. In the meantime, you can request an administrator to create MediaWiki:View-view/en-gb with View as it's content to show the changes immediately. Thanks. Startus (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, for the explanation. As long as it's actually fixed, I'm happy to just wait it out. Just wanted to double check that a fix would eventually percolate up to us :-) TommyG (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14[edit]

Likely image copyright violation?[edit]

See 'File:David P. Bloom.jpg'. [2] I can see no evidence that the uploader is in a position to upload it under any license. The source cited is an EBay listing of a copy of an 1988 'wire press photo' supposedly from 'a closed newspaper'. The (unnamed) newspaper may possibly be closed, but that doesn't mean that nobody owns the copyright, I'd have thought? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn’t end when the business closes for good, much like copyright doesn’t end when a person (creator) dies, only after a set term after death. I think it should be deleted per COM:PCP (though might need to go through DR). Bidgee (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license is correct, the Associated Press never added the copyright symbol to the copy they distributed to the various news outlets. They never did for any of their images. This is the copy they sent to USA today using their Laser Photo service, a high resolution fax-like machine. We host over 10,000 news service images. I have removed "glossy Press Photos from a closed newspaper" which is incorrect, it comes from USA today which is still active, but someone kept several images that worked at USA today and sold them on eBay. --RAN (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends tomorrow[edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

International photographic contest Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 ends on 15th March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. This is the last chance of the year to upload images about local folk culture, festival, cuisine, costume, folklore etc on Wikimedia Commons. Watch out our social media handles for regular updates and declaration of Winners.

(Facebook , Twitter , Instagram)

The writing competition Feminism and Folklore will run till 31st of March 2022 23:59:59 UTC. Write about your local folk tradition, women, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, folk games, folk cuisine, folk wear, folklore, and tradition, including ballads, folktales, fairy tales, legends, traditional song and dance, folk plays, games, seasonal events, calendar customs, folk arts, folk religion, mythology etc. on your local Wikipedia. Check if your local Wikipedia is participating

A special competition called Wiki Loves Falles is organised in Spain and the world during 15th March 2022 till 15th April 2022 to document local folk culture and Falles in Valencia, Spain. Learn more about it on Catalan Wikipedia project page.

We look forward for your immense co-operation.

Thanks Wiki Loves Folklore international Team MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What software can I use to create interactive graphics using data from Wikidata and Commons Data: files?[edit]

Hi all

I'm working with a couple of organisations who are keen to share their data with Wikimedia projects and I'm currently working with them on licensing.

My question is what templates, modules etc can I use to create interactive graphics like these? I know I've seen them before on Wikipedia but can't find any examples to try and reverse engineer.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John See Template:Graph:Lines. See and example at Commons:Photo_challenge/themes#Graph. --Jarekt alt (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We need more admins[edit]

Hi, I just noticed that there are now less than 200 admins on Commons. That's a decline, and a low number not seen for a long time. We are severely understaffed, i.e. compared to the English Wikipedia, which is around the same traffic than Commons, but with five times more admins (Also around 80 active admins here against 457 on En WP, rough calculation). We have a huge backlog, and we need more admins. Any idea how to improve that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who needs more admins? More specialty rights are needed, including ones whose duties admins barely have time with. Right? --George Ho (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that it is highly time to revive Alexis Jazz' "General Maintainer" user right proposal, we could actually experiment with our situation to have more user groups rather than blindly adopting the English-language Wikipedia's strategy as a "one-size-fits-all" model. The diffusion of user rights from the admin model would also make it a less prestigious rank for hat collectors that only want to collect user rights to go after it. We could probably create a couple of "admin lite" user rights to make the pressure on the current admins less and to reduce the future need for a minimum numbers of admins to maintain the project. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Jazz's "general maintainer" proposal failed to gain consensus. As I'm sure, any re-proposal of it would also fail. I'm thinking a straight-forward, simple user right proposal without too many duties, and I believe there's nothing wrong with a one-duty user right... right? BTW, unsold on the "admin lite" thing. Furthermore, any proposal to create separate right to perform delete duties won't gain consensus anytime soon, but I wish it had. George Ho (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 15[edit]

Category:Christophe de Coulanges[edit]

Category:Christophe de Coulanges It says "no wikidata", there is one which it doesn't find. --Io Herodotus (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]