Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/02.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

 

Start a new discussion

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [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 spatnaik@wikimedia.org.

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony (Talk), Friday 12:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 29[edit]

Which German station in 1979?[edit]

Strasbourg German train 1979.jpg

It must be one of my earlist interrail trip where I reached Istanbul.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof possibly on your itinerary? It was a major train hub in West Germany until reunification, and the steel archs look like they might be those. You might be more successful asking directly in the German WP. The blue button "Stelle deine Frage" means "Ask your question", and people will be able to answer you in English. --Enyavar (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Karlsruhe Hbf
More probable: Karlsruhe Hauptbahnhof - No highrises in the background and the distinctive "nose" on top of the arches. --Raugeier (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Though in the recent Karlsruhe image, the arches have a glass front, not so in the 1979 image - were the glass fronts added later? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those class 181 locomotives were custom-built engines for cross-border service in France and Luxembourg. So I have a feeling that this was taken in Strasbourg rather than in Germany. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes, it very much looks like the Strasbourg station in that picture you link to. Given what you say about the locomotives, I think that this is most likely the correct answer for Smiley.toerist. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strasbourg seen from the south side
On the rigth side track, i think I see a French 'crocodile' between the rails. The bagage carriers also look French.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked for a rename.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OH I GO TO GERMAN STATION! 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 07[edit]

Transfer from Commons to a local Wikipedia[edit]

Hi! I’m familiar with importing images from a local Wikipedia to Commons, but I somehow cannot find how to do it the other way around. If an image has been mistakenly imported to Commons but does not have appropriate rights here (thinking of File:Logo Perpignan 2021.jpg right now), but would be acceptable on a local Wikipedia under fair use or similar (in that case fr:, which allows for logos of any complexity), how to transfer it there? Thanks! ~ nicolas (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nclm: as understand it, there is no automated transfer in that direction. You are hardly the first to ask for it, but I'm afraid you have to download and re-upload). - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they have been upladed to the local project, transferred to Commons and deleted here, the deleted version is still on the local project and can be restored there. If information has been added at Commons, you might want to add that manually to the file description page after the undeletion. –LPfi (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 10[edit]

Category:Retraction of my nomination for deletion of someone else's image[edit]

moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I nominated an image for deletion. I have decided to keep despite low resolution since the image quality was improved prior to my nomination while I was not aware and since it is up on someone's Wikipedia page and should stay there until hopefully a better one comes along. Also, there were questions about the motivations of a group of brutish editors including a brutish admin who decided they they made up the consensus and put the image up, but I am willing to put that issue aside. Thank you.Daltonsatom (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png

I closed the deletion discussion as keep. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process[edit]

moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Could someone guide me to understand why or by what process this creator template was deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creator:John_Gerrard_Keulemans&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks. Shyamal L. 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Hedwig in Washington, who deleted it. But it seems the explanation was pretty clear: "unused and unlikely to be used." - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Restored. It was indeed in use. The creator page was "hijacked" minutes before its deletion. Apparently a mistake. Strakhov (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Strakhov: thanks Shyamal L. 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 11[edit]

Copyright of SVG reproductions of traditional emblems[edit]

What are our rules on faithful reproductions of traditional logos that have been published a long time ago? For example I came across this coat of arms today:

The uploader claimed CC-BY-SA, presumably for sweat of the brow reproduction effort, but the shield has been in use for 300+ years so it must be out of copyright. Should it be changed to {{PD-old-100}}+{{PD-US-expired}}? Deryck Chan (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Please ping on reply, thanks!) Deryck Chan (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: Yes, please.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan:
The image should stay CC-BY-SA until that reproduction can be shown to be PD.
A coat of arms can be very old, but someone can draw a new version based on a blazon. The new version is not a "faithful reproduction" of something that is 300 years old. The new artist gets to choose how to draw birds and their talons.
Right now, we do not know how old this version of the CoA is. See https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Magdalene_College_(Cambridge_University) which shows a JPEG version of the arms as in the SVG and an older version on a Will's cigarette card. The JPEG was uploaded after the SVG was uploaded.
At this point, Rama may have drawn a new version of the CoA in 2009 and therefore holds the copyright.
If Rama just faithfully vectorized a previous work, then we would need to know if that previous work is PD before claiming the SVG is public domain.
Glrx (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of non-free derivatives of Mona Lisa, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box for quickly deciphering a logid[edit]

i made a box to jump from a given logid: Help:Log. it's essentially the same thing as Special:Redirect, but hopefully this new help page would be more accessible. RZuo (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 12[edit]

Closures by involved parties[edit]

I thought about proposing disallowing involved parties from closing a discussion (of any kind). Indeed, I can't think of any other proposal yet on closures by involved editors or admins. For example, someone who voted in a DR discussion or a UDR discussion closed a DR discussion, which may have divided opinions. What can be done about involved closures? George Ho (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick, you are beating a dead horse. Yann (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's name on image[edit]

I recall reading a Commons guideline that an image annotated with the creator's name is not allowed for some purposes. Would appreciate if someone can point me to the relevant guideline/policy. --Tagooty (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Commons:Watermarks Regards --A.Savin 14:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: Face-smile.svg Thank you. This is exactly what I am looking for. Tagooty (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 13[edit]

no subjects[edit]

I have featured picture is File:Highway interchange at night (35517755855) (cropped).jpg at the 16/4/2022. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I reverted your edit on the file page. --Achim55 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I make my files Picture of the day?[edit]

Hi, I want to know how I make my files picture of the day. Can users do that, or does the site do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopperPeachesCoconut2022 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 03:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PopperPeachesCoconut2022: Please see Commons:Picture of the day. First of all your files need to be promoted to featured pictures which sets quite a high threshold of quality. Once you have a featured picture, you may add it to the upcoming list of pictured of the day. On another note, please sign your contributions to message boards and talk pages like this by typing four tilde characters ~~~~. This is required per our rules and it will automatically add your username and a timestamp for reference. De728631 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DELETEING A FILE: Mudchute pig 3.ogg[edit]

Okay ok sound is too low please upload Mudchute pig 3 low pitch.ogg. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, File:Mudchute pig 2.ogg is even lower, so I think renaming those files would make no sense. De728631 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo challenge December results[edit]

Fences: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image Winter Fence on Mt.Rigi.jpg Fenced-off land on Last Dollar Mountain, with a view toward Lizard Head Wilderness, Colorado, USA.jpg Winter Impression from Bavaria near Miesbach.jpg
Title Winter on Mt.Rigi in Central Switzerland Fenced-off land on Last Dollar Mountain, with a
view toward Lizard Head Wilderness, Colorado, USA		 Winter Impression from Bavaria near Miesbach
Author GabrielleMerk Semiautonomous Mölchlein
Score 20 16 12
Cities at dusk and dawn: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image View of Kirtipur and hills and mountains from Jalpa Devi Temple, Chobhar, Kathmandu.jpg Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 HDR panorama.jpg Вид на Екатеринбург с панорамной площадки небоскрёба «Высоцкий».jpg
Title View of Kirtipur and hills
and mountains at dawn		 Midtown Manhattan at dusk Blue hour in Yekaterinburg.
Author Shadow Ayush King of Hearts The Cosmonaut
Score 22 14 13

Congratulations to GabrielleMerk, Semiautonomous, Mölchlein, Shadow Ayush, King of Hearts and The Cosmonaut. -- Jarekt (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added overflow:auto for newer Desktop look. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 14[edit]

DELETEING A FILE: Nipple-blanching.jpg[edit]

This pictures from adult content.. I don't know Bomis-movies I don't know called X-rating? Please upload Nipple-blanching blurred.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44c8:4409:30cf:4c7:20ce:628d:e493 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense. Commons is not censored. --Achim55 (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WTF Commons is not censored? or censored. 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It means we don't delete such images just because somebody might find them offensive. As long as they can be used for educational purposes, we keep even explicit images of nudity. De728631 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK THIS FILE IS Parental Advisory label.svg. 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some images with wrong name/category[edit]

Hi

The following images are named and categorized to be in Farsta, Stockholm. However, it's wrong, they're from Täby, a suburb of Stockholm. Number 1 and 2 are from Grindtorp, Täby, and number 3 is from Näsbydal, Täby.

  • 1972 Stockolm (Täby1).jpg
  • 1972 Stockolm (Täby2).jpg
  • 1972 Stockolm (Täby3).jpg

Also here:

213.50.243.196 13:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Gouwenaar as photographer & uploader. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction. I digitized the photos in 2015, more than 40 years after I took them. It probably went wrong then in my memory. I will correct it. Gouwenaar (talk) 16:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 15[edit]

Restructure Template:PD-New Zealand?[edit]

I thought about adding information about copyright of typographical arrangements of NZ published editions. However, if I add another {{{#}}} into Template:PD-New Zealand/layout, that would leave other language versions with a blank {{{#}}} since I don't know how to translate the planned addition into other languages. Perhaps someone here will rewrite the source into something similar to that of Template:PD-Australia and its subpages? George Ho (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason behind the naming schemes[edit]

of these two cat trees Category:Animals (not Fauna) and Category:Flora (not Plants)? and the cat tree flora is not consistent. there're many cats with names "plants in/of xyz". RZuo (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are inefficient machines, and category renaming discussions can last for several years. --Animalparty (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i plan to create new categories using the name "Plants" if no objection is raised.--RZuo (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Plants does exist with numerous subcategories. De728631 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The old version of a cropped file[edit]

Plan u.jpg

This is a cropped version of the old version. It would be usefull to find out wich Dutch train station this is.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the original uploader nl:Gebruiker:Koffiekopje~nlwiki has been inactive for several years, so we may need to figure this out without their help. De728631 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Rights[edit]

The people in this picture quite obviously had no issues being photographed naked. That's all fine, I am not prudish. What makes me wonder is something else: Does being o.k. with being photographed mean being o.k. with having one's nude picture published on the worldwide internet?

The uploader seems to be a non-verified (has been asked to do that on the English WP since 2014) account of the nudist association they belong to, and no specific name of a photographer is given. This seems a bit of an unclear legal situation for more reasons than one: If the photographer is some third party, this might well also be copyvio.

Does the "personality rights warning" on the image balance out all those issues? To me, that feels more like a disclaimer: "Don't blame me, I told you that this is illegal." If that's the case, the illegal part, IMO, is uploading and keeping the image in the first place, not linking it to some WP article. --2003:C0:8F03:D300:5586:A29C:75EB:DBA8 23:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The personality rights warning does nothing but notifies reusers. The issue is whether the image was uploaded against what was believed was common understanding on how to handle it. It is very likely that there is an understanding among the FYN members about photography, probably even a written code, and the people posing trusted the photographer and anyone who got a copy to respect that code. I don't think we should second guess what that code involves (and whether this photo was a special case). They have similar images on their web site, so I don't think we need to worry. –LPfi (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the possibility of copyvio: I think we have no less reason to trust this uploader than any other of our users, and I understand if the members (including the photographers) don't want to have their names in public. If the account has been uploading images since 2014, they probably are authorised to do so. –LPfi (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 16[edit]

On moving file request declination[edit]

Hey, I have a question about person's names' capitalizations in the files' names. Is it fair if a filemover declined the request on renaming the file because of "does not comply with renaming guidelines, files shouldn’t be renamed just because it’s not correctly capitalized" and "~, incorrect capitalization isn’t the same as misspelling"? I'm not trying to please English langauge above Russian, written in Latin script, but imho if the person's name and/or surname in the file's name written without capitalization, it's a typo that should be fixed.

For example, if the file would be named like this: File:Francois holland et emmanuel macron meeting in UNESCO.jpg, and then requested its renaming into this: File:Francois Holland et Emmanuel Macron meeting in UNESCO.jpg, aren't these the typos, but not incorrect request for the capitalizaion?

Original file I was requesting the rename was File:Anatoli malkin.ogg, where the surname "Malkin" with respect to the person should be written from the "M".

Thanks a lot for your opinions in advance, — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says "Files should NOT be renamed [...] because the filename is not correctly capitalized." Lowercase and odd capitalisation is quite common for filenames, and Commons has the oddity of capitalising the first character (if a letter), so this is an ordinary lowercase filename with the Commons modification. Names should of course be correctly capitalised in descriptions etc., but changing the filename causes some interruption, which should be avoided. The file was uploaded seven years ago. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for detailed explanation! So it seems a bug... It's sad, because all other files from that project have the same name pattern Name_Surname_voice.. I read the guidelines, but I was thinking that the typo in the personal name has more priority beyond the rule of not doing re-capitalization. Ok, I'll deal with that. Thanks! — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pacha Tchernof: Since each file can be sorted in the category however people want, it does not actually make a significant difference how the file is named. Although the files in Category:Echo of Moscow voice samples are organized alphabetically by file name, that is actually their first name and someone could (although I would not find it that helpful) go to each file and have it resorted by last name or even by date. That is why the file name isn't terribly important enough for minor renamings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

I just noticed this deletion without much discussion - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Millon_stamp.jpg - interestingly there are hundreds of images of the same kind which are accepted on commons, including another copy of that same stamp that was deleted! Is this the normal way of operation, where the closing admin does not need to provide any summary and rationale for making a decision? Shyamal L. 10:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The file was nominated and you accepted the nomination with the phrase, "very well." If there is no disagreement over the file being deleted, there is no issue to summarise. If you had objected to the deletion, that would have required more thought and other editors may have jumped in to comment to give their views. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So nobody thought of looking or citing at French / Algerian laws to actually examine "if that is the case"? I imagine that admins would need to point out why 100s of other similar images are not deleted in obvious negation of the claim made by the one who raised the request. I would imagine that this should be done even if nobody bothered to counter the claim - at least for other admins to see. Shyamal L. 16:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are all volunteers here, even the admins. The deletion case load for admins is huge, with your example from 8 months ago only now being closed. If a case has been open for 8 months, no one has contested the reason for deletion and the uploader (I am guessing you were the uploader based on your phrasing in the discussion) has supported deletion, why should the admin waste more time investigating the case? There is still 7 months more work for them to do.
If you now think the deletion was incorrect, you can make a case at the undeletion board. If you want a second opinion first, you can ask for advice at the Copyright board. If deletion was the correct answer, it may trigger the deletion of some or all of the other images you identified. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be behavioural guidelines at a minimum. I do understand admin loads, being an admin on en.wiki, this one is simply unacceptable, to claim that it is (or should be) the norm is even more so. Shyamal L. 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone reading it should have been able to see that the deletion was in obvious contradiction of the text of the PD-Algeria template. Ability to read and demonstrate due diligence in reading what is written should be a minimum requirement for admins. Shyamal L. 02:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have two routes to proceed here. Get a second opinion on the copyright situation or start an undeletion discussion. If you are going to start accusing the closing admin of a failure to read or show diligence in their activities, you should have pinged the admin so that they could respond. @Rubin16: In case you wish to comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the argument that when other files do exist at the same time, this particular one should be kept. Commons is a big project: it is highly likely that volunteers haven't covered all possible copyright issues at any time. Anyone is free to nominate the whole category and to discuss it. In terms of the nomination itself: if you don't agree, you could have pinged me for more explanations or open a thread on COM:UDR. The basic idea for deletion was that French Algeria is different to Algeria and it was stated in the nomination that they are different and Algeria copyright template couldn't be applied. I have looked through COM:Algeria and especially COM:CUR Algeria with the similar case for banknotes: "This does not apply to the banknotes and coins issued by the Banque de l'Algérie, the banking authority during French rule (until 1958), because it was not an official body of the current Algerian state. Copyright status of this currency is currently undetermined.". For me, stamps are also a similar instrument of payment as money is, that's why I agreed with the nomination and closed it with deletion. rubin16 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Admins (at least on the language wikis) need to point to policy at all times while taking closing decisions. I now see that you were clearly unsure of the rules but went ahead merely on the claims of the nominator who did not even provide date of death of the claimed artist even. You found that the status for currency is undetermined - in that case one would err on the side of caution by not deleting and closing as no consensus. As simple as that instead being so defensive. Shyamal L. 05:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The cautionary concept on Commons is different from what you assume - COM:PCP rubin16 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is overused. IMO we should use the most favourable law when two or more possbilities exist. Usually it is admitted that the new state is the successor of whatever law existed before independence, unless otherwise specified. At least that's the case for India. So unless there is a clear rule saying that French law should be applied here, we should use the most favourable between French and Algerian laws. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Values for Wikimedia Deutschland[edit]

Wikimedia Deutschland is engaging in a dialogue of values and inviting the community to contribute its perspective

Where do you want to go?

In the fall and winter of 2021 and in the spring of 2022, Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) will deal with the values of the chapter. In a process that will run until March 2022, a framework of values is to be developed that sets out the central guiding principles for WMDE as an organization.

In this Dialogue on organizational values by WMDE, a proposal has been developed over many discussions, on which the Commonists and the Wikimedia-Commons-community as a global group in some exchange with WMDE is asked for its perspective on the proposal talk page.

The texts describing the values should be generally valid and abstract. Different stakeholders such as members, communities, or the employees should be able to identify with them. At the same time, however, the values will only be binding for the work of Wikimedia Deutschland, i.e. the office and the board.

This value framework should reflect the identity of Wikimedia Deutschland. It should be a support for the board and the employees of WMDE in strategic decisions or difficult questions and help to communicate well what is important for WMDE.

In doing so, the proposal was not started from scratch, but built on many materials that are already there. In addition, important foundations have been laid in workshops and processes over the past few years. Now it is up to the community to decide whether the proposed values are a good fit for WMDE as an organization and how they could be implemented in practice. The WMDE Board will then decide on the final values framework in April 2022 and present it to the WMDE General Assembly in May.

The team is happy about every participation, also via mail, if you don't like to express your thoughts online.

Thank you for reading and best regards, Christoph Jackel (WMDE) (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 17[edit]

Images from BIPM.org[edit]

Are pictures from BIPM.org uploadable to Wikimedia Commons? The copyright is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. https://www.bipm.org/en/copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC) I want to upload some pictures of atomic clocks and don't want to infringe on copyrights.[reply]

@ScientistBuilder: Yes, CC-BY-3.0 is an acceptable license for Commons. Just be sure that the page with the image itself doesn't identify any additional restrictions. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 18[edit]

No license vs. possibly incorrect license redux[edit]

If editors see an image tagged for speedy deletion with no license when the nominator is actually challenging the existing license, or thinks there is a more suitable license, can the speedy tag be removed since no license is a false statement? Or must it go through the standard speedy challenge process? I was told previously that defective speedy nominations do not have to go through the speedy challenge process, but I want to confirm it. --RAN (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The question to ask is: is there an actual issue with the file? If there's obviously no issue at all, it may be OK to just remove the tag (I guess). If there's a different issue than the tag suggests, do what needs to be done to (start the appropriate procedures to) resolve the issue. If there's a "possibly incorrect license", the appropriate procedure is a regular DR. --El Grafo (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would move it to a regular DR, even if I start it with "X posted this as no license but there is a license here and I disagree with them claiming there is a license issue but clearly a speedy nomination seems incorrect." Leave it out of the speedy nomination section, lets everyone have a better chance to review it, lets the person who misidentified the problem have a chance to explain in more detail and if there was actually no license, an admin could speedy it again. Then again I'm a nut for process and the backlogs here are terrible enough but at the minimum, if I just removed the tag I would add a ping in the edit summary so the person who tagged the wrong issue does the DR if they want. Is there a file you are seeing this with? Is there a category of images with a possible license issue that could use further discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you call these things ribbon balls?[edit]

the red balls

is this specific kind of balls also found in the west, or is it a chinese/asian thing only? and what do you call it? in chinese it's 花球/繡球. it's not only featured in ribbon-cutting ceremonies. another common usage is in some kind of traditional chinese weddings the bridegroom would wear it in front of the chest.--RZuo (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask the same question at multiple venues. There is already a discussion at the Help desk. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=630594502"