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/2024/03.

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:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Picture of building, file renaming 10 years later when owner changes (as "obvious error") 39 11 Enhancing999 2024-03-17 09:30
2 Category:White women of the United States 12 7 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-03-19 04:48
3 Painting or sculpture? 6 5 Broichmore 2024-03-20 15:20
4 Category:People of the United States Department of State 8 5 Jeff G. 2024-03-23 13:08
5 Works named after protagonists 6 3 ReneeWrites 2024-03-17 17:28
6 Amateur drawings 18 10 2A02...E1FB:A555 2024-03-23 10:30
7 Camel? 6 5 Broichmore 2024-03-20 19:19
8 OpenRefine question 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2024-03-16 14:20
9 Category:Plushies, dolls or toys based on fictional characters 10 5 Jeff G. 2024-03-20 21:49
10 Cross-posting photos to stock image sites? 2 2 Omphalographer 2024-03-17 02:53
11 Inscription 11 6 HyperGaruda 2024-03-21 18:12
12 Sock tagging prior to blocking 1 1 Aafi 2024-03-18 14:14
13 Overlapping map categories 4 2 Kk.urban 2024-03-22 16:32
14 Category:Abusive people 3 3 Kk.urban 2024-03-22 16:32
15 Help with artist's signature 5 3 Broichmore 2024-03-23 04:44
16 Stools 3 3 El Grafo 2024-03-21 13:23
17 Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey 1 1 STei (WMF) 2024-03-21 10:42
18 Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese) 6 4 Miya 2024-03-23 05:13
19 Gps allowed in structured data 3 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-03-21 23:57
20 Photo challenge January results 1 1 Jarekt 2024-03-22 02:13
21 Steinsplitterbot FUBAR: How to remove images from the queue? 3 2 Milliped 2024-03-22 14:43
22 General categorization of old maps 2 2 Broichmore 2024-03-22 19:30
23 Uncategorized categories 1 1 Jmabel 2024-03-23 00:46
24 Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-03-23 12:08
25 The Bagel Effect 2 2 User-duck 2024-03-23 16:21
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [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.

March 02[edit]

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

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

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

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

What is the suggested course of action?

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

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

Namen sind Schall und Rauch. Names are quite meaningless. Edit wars on file names do not enhance the project. As long as the description and categorization and usage is correct, everything is fine. Just my 2 cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to tbe community POV, see Commons:File renaming. Obviously, file description has the same error. "InfraGO" didn't exist in 2012, but only in 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Files names are very important. They should describe the file contents as well as make it findable and properly indexed in search engines, mainly the WMC search engine. I think this is too much a detailed issue to be discussed here. I don't know why you haven't proposed a file-title change with your rationale. I think it could stay as is if the file-title was correct at the time it was taken. The information about when it was taken should be well-visible in the file-description. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ich halte das für ein ein sehr grundsätzliches Problem. In allen WMF-Projekten können alle Seiten von allen beliebig hin und her verschoben werden. Ausnahmen sind nur wenn ein Account noch sehr unerfahren ist, wenn ein Account dieses Recht individuell entzogen bekommen hat und wenn eine bestimmte Seite individuell gegen Verschieben geschützt ist. Nur Commons hat ein spezielles User-Recht für das Verschieben von Seiten, das der eine Teil der User hat und der andere nicht. Und das bezieht sich dann auch nicht auf alle Seiten, sondern einzig und allein auf den Namensraum "File:". Das ist eine bedeutende Abweichung vom gesamten sonstigen Brauch bei WMF-Projekten und ich gehe daher davon aus, dass das nicht so ist, weil mal ein Developer eine alberne Wette gegen einen anderen Developer verloren hat, oder weil einige hier glauben, das wäre sowas wie ein wirksamer Regentanz gegen die Dürre in der Sahara.
Ich gehe davon aus, dass es deshalb hier "Filemover" gibt und andere Accounts, die dieses Recht nicht haben, weil das Verschieben eines Files mit einer besonderen Verantwortung verbunden ist. Dass also die Filemover besonders verantwortungsvolle Leute sind, die in der Lage sind alle einschlägigen Regeln zu kennen und jederzeit zu beachten und die, wenn eine ihrer Entscheidungen in Frage gestellt wird, ohne weiteres diese Entscheidung selbst überprüfen, ggf overrulen und auf jeden Fall erklären. Das alles scheint hier nicht der Fall gewesen zu sein und es sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass in so einem Fall, der Filemover von Admins oder anderen Filemovern um eine Stellungnahme gebeten wird und wenn in einer vernünftigen Zeit keine plausible Erklärung erfolgt, das Filemover-Recht entzogen wird. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wo hast du den Antragsteller kontaktiert? Auf User talk:Mpns sehe ich keine Diskussion. Aus welchen Gründen siehst du den Grund Nummer 3 hier gegeben? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Das stimmt so nicht. Auf meiner Diskussion erfolgte darüber ein ausgiebiger Austausch, auch User:Mpns hat sich dabei ausführlich geäußert. Das Verschieben von Dateien hat immer mit großer Sorgfalt zu tun, weshalb ich dem Antrag sehr wohl sehr detailliert vor dem Verschieben nachgegangen bin. Dabei gehört natürlich dazu, den Sachverhalt einzuordnen, diesen abzuwägen und natürlich zu überprüfen. Das Verschiebekriterium 3 ("misidentified objects") sah ich als erfüllt: das Unternehmen, das das Gebäude beherbergt, gibt es so nicht mehr, es heißt nun anders; das Gebäude selbst sieht heute genauso aus wie damals und davor - zumindest von diesem Blickwinkel aus. Dies kann einfach - wie vor dem Verschieben geschehen - mit Google Street View verifiziert werden. In der Fotobeschreibung wird diesem Umstand Rechnung getragen und auf DB InfraGO eingegangen. Dem Verschieben steht gemäß Commons:FRNOT nichts entgegen. Mosbatho (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mir fehlt jedes Verständnis dafür, warum @Enhancing999 hier ein solches Fass aufmacht. Inhaltlich sehe ich hier auf seiner Seite keinerlei wirklichen Argumente. Was ich zu dem Fall zu sagen habe, habe ich auf der BD von @Mosbatho bereits dazu geäußert und werde mich hier nicht weiter durch diese Aktion von Enhancing belästigen lassen. Sorry, aber das geht mir eindeutig zu Weit! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 14:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
criterion 3 is, "To correct obvious errors..."
was there an error in the original filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
no.
so the move was improper.
on the contrary, is there an error in the current filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
yes. there's no "InfraGO" on "9.1.2012". RZuo (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your Problems in here? Does the picture show an building of DB Netz? No, it shows a building of DB InfraGO!!!
Why should the filename containing DB Netz so should be right? Only, cause the picture was taken 2012? It couldn't be the correct name. ...
A filename containing DB Netz isn't correct scince the company never exists anymore. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn doesnt exist either. just redirect it to Category:Deutsche Bahn.
does File:01. Saalfeld Bahnhof - DR Deutsche Reichsbahn. (5993111605).jpg show a building of Reichsbahn? no, it shows Category:Bahnhof Saalfeld (Saale) operated by Category:DB Station&Service.
how about that? RZuo (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the age of 3 or 4 years my parents told me: you couldn't and mustn't excuse your mistakes by other people mistakes. Or, often used at german wikipedia: "Es gibt kein gleiches Recht im Unrecht".
Without looking at Saalfeld: If the station today looks similar like shown at the picture the name could be false.
But now i'm leaving this kindergarten. do what you want.... mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
File:Stahlschwelle Thyssen, 1927.jpg
there's no more "Firma Thyssen" but only ThyssenKrupp in 2022. why do you keep a mistake on your filename? RZuo (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oha, jetzt fangen wir an, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen? Die besagte Stahlschwelle wurde ausschließlich von Thyssen Krupp produziert. Es gibt kein Nachfolgeunternehmen, welches genau diese Schwelle mit dieser Inschrift produziert hat. Also ist es auch heute noch eine Schwelle von ThyssenKrupp. Wenn jetzt die Firma Hösch die Schwelle überarbeitet hätte und aus der Aufschrift "Thyssen" eine neue Aufschrift "Hoesch" gemacht hätte, dann würde dein (in meinen Augen lächerlicher) Vergleich nicht so hinken, wie er es so macht.
Außerdem hatte @Mosbatho mit dieser Bearbeitung eine in meinen Augen sehr gute Lösung gefunden: Das Bild zeigt den heutigen Haupteingang der Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO, zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Bildes war dort noch die DB Netz AG untergebracht, wie man mittlerweile in der Bildbeschreibung lesen kann.
Alles in allem: Ich halte diese Diskussion hier für absolut lächerlich und an jedem sinnvollen Argument gegen eine Umbenennung vorbei geführt. Vor allem merkt hier scheinbar keiner, wie lächerlich eure Argumentation ist.
Aber ich sagte auch: Macht damit doch, was ihr wollt. Und, auch auf die Gefahr, hier auf Commons für solch eine Bemerkung sanktioniert zu werden: Ich komme mir vor, wie im Kindergarten und verliere durch solch lächerliche Aktionen immer mehr die Lust, mich hier konstruktiv zu beteiligen! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nochmal dazu: Es IST (heute) der Haupteingang der DB InfraGO - gleichgültig, wann das Bild aufgenommen wurde. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nach diesem Prinzip müssten wir auch alles in Category:Reichsluftfahrtministerium in Bundesministerium der Finanzen umbenennen. Fotos sollten das so benannt werden wie das was sie zeigen. Wurde etwas umbenannt wird das Foto nicht umbenannt, es zeigt ja einen historischen Stand von etwas. Wir schmeißen auch nicht das Bundeskanzlerin aus dem Titel von Fotos von Merkel aus der Zeit wo sie Bundeskanzlerin war weil sie jetzt keine Bundeskanzlerin mehr ist. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fotografiere ich heute den Haupteingang noch einmal, aus gleicher Perspektive und mit gleichem Ausschnitt und lade dann das neue Foto als "Haupteingang InfraGO" hoch, wäre demnach der richtige Weg - trotz der entstehenden bildlichen Redundanz?
Vielleicht haben wir hier alle den falschen Ansatz. Das Bild sollte vielleicht noch ein weiteres mal umbenannt werden in "Haupteingang Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4" mit der Bildbeschreibung "2012, bei Entstehen des Bildes, Betriebszentrale der DB Netz AG, heute Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO"?
Dann wäre in meinen Augen alles Stimmig. Und das ich die Umbennenung nicht in genau dieser Form beantragt hatte, dass (!) lasse ich auch zu meinem ursprünglichen Antrag als angemessene Kritik gelten.
Wobei ich aber Bleibe: Das Bild als "Haupteingang der DB Netz AG" zu benennen, ist aus heutiger Sicht vollkommen falsch. Letztendlich stellt das Bild ja auch kein Unternehmen sondern ein Gebäude dar - insofern wäre ja (nach meiner vorstehenden Betrachtung) der ursprüngliche Dateiname ebenfalls falsch gewesen.
Um noch die Parallele zum Bahnhof Saalfeld (siehe oben) zu ziehen: Ein Bild aus der DR-Zeit stellt genauso den Bahnhof dar, wie ein Bild aus heutiger Zeit. Die Datei darf dann auch nur "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr xyz" heißen, dann aber gerne in der Beschreibung darauf verweisen, dass es zur Zeit der DR aufgenommen wurde. Ein anderes Bild "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr 2024" müsste dann in der Beschreibung als "Ein Bahnhof der zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme durch die DB InfraGO betrieben wurde" ausgewiesen werden. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ob das obige Bild tatsächlich eine DR-Liegenschaft zeigt, sollte erst einmal geklärt werden. Oftmals waren Bahnhöfen der DR Gebäude anderer VEBs angegliedert, z.B. der Logistik, die nicht mit der DR in Verbindung standen. Msb (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3AFile_renaming&oldid=857801315#Revisionism
i had made a similar post about this. too many filemovers do not pay enough attention to these problems. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, I had assumed it was a mere error and the filemover would fix it fairly quickly when I first brought it up, but apparently the requestor's intent is shared. Anyways, I don't think it concerns the requestor much as it's really an issue of the filemover renaming other contributors uploads inappropriately. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. I request you to stop your harrassment. Msb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enhancing999 is not harassing you. All discussion contributions of Enhancing999 are in an appropriate manor. GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Auch für mich sieht dies hier nach einer persönlichen Fehde aus, in die ich nur zufällig hineingeraten bin. Ich kann mir zwar den Hintergrund dazu nicht erklären, habe aber ganz klar genau diesen Eindruck. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bis dato hatte ich keine Interaktionen mit diesem Benutzer - just for the records. Msb (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosbatho&oldid=858485598#Rewriting_history?
User:Mosbatho should be removed as filemover. s/he's tone deaf about the wrong rename despite the long discussion on the user talk page and here, and is now accusing critics of harassment. RZuo (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone is quite rude and you keep focussing on stating accusations instead of finding solutions and a clear Modus vivendi for such cases. Msb (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks such as "s/he's tone deaf". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
basically when db rebrands again or another company moves in to that building probably in less than 30 years (db netz was founded in 2007) i expect to see User:Mpns come and ask for a rename of his then erroneous filename again and User:Mosbatho will just do it again. who knows? maybe it's tomorrow. RZuo (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not do that file move again due to this discussion. I now see that there is a broad consensus that name updates of older photographs of buildings are not obvious errors. Msb (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a request at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Mosbatho_(remove_right). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Mpns:
  1. you are probably right (now) about what the best name would be, but…
  2. the original name was fine, and should not have been changed.
  3. the current name is fine, and should not be changed.
We should keep filenames stable when possible. We should not be changing good names to get better names. It should not have been moved before, but it also should not be moved now. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: so you think the images in the category mentioned above could have been named "German Finance ministry building"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enhancing999:
  1. It would be odd to capitalize "Finance" but not "Minstry".
  2. I think that given that we have subcats for Category:Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus that would be a bit odd.
  3. I don't see anything in the case currently at hand rising to the level of difference between a use of the building by the Nazis and by the Bundesrepublik. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a ministry of the same country. I don't recall categorization having an impact on filenames. Did you just make that up?
Similar to the name for the file you supported, if you look in google streetview, it may still look the same. In both cases, the filename wouldn't be appropriate given the time the photos were taken. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 09[edit]

Category:White women of the United States[edit]

Kinda amazing this cat only have two people in it Trade (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting category tree created two days ago by an IP user. Is any of it useful? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what makes someone"white" i suppose Trade (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been wanting to create a cat for White people of Mexico, especially after an interesting debate was brought up in the Wikipedia article (where they were cleaning the over abundance of images in the article). But I’ve been sitting on it for months now. Is it OK to do it? Especially when the Wikipedia article argues the actual article is not the place to fill it up with photos of examples. The same would apply for Black people of Mexico. But since you brought up a similar case, would like to hear opinions before creating it. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally opposed to "white people" categories. There is no good definition of who is and is not "white", and we normally use ethnic designations only for people who actively so identify. I'll admit that as a Jew born in the U.S. in 1954, I have an interesting angle on this. My grandparents, born circa 1900, were certainly not counted as white in their childhood and youth. That inclusion was borderline for me growing up (there were still many organizations and neighborhoods in the U.S. that excluded Jews on an essentially racial basis; even as late as when I started college in 1972, many leading universities had anti-Jewish quotas); at this point, Jewish Americans (at least the Ashkenazim) are counted as "white" (an inclusion I personally find uncomfortable, but it certainly does grant me the proverbial "white privilege"). But you can't look at a picture of some unknown person in an uncertain context and say that they are "white" in any sense other than phenotype, and even there it can be problematic (light-skinned Arabs in France, for example, or dark-skinned Spaniards in the U.S.).
It's fine if we can call someone "European" or "European American" or something more specific like "Romanian American", but "white" is problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have plenty of photos describing subjects as "White Americans" so a category doesn't seem like a huge stretch Trade (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got to agree with Jmabel here. It's not really clear what qualifies someone as a "white person" or not and the designation is rather transitory to begin with. "European" or "European American" seems fine though and I'd probably support the category (or similar ones) in countries where "white people" (or anyone else with a different skin color) are the minority. It just seems weird and pointless to have categories for white people in America when they are around 71% of the population. It's not like there are similar categories either. For instance neither Category:Black women of Africa or Category:Russian women of Russia exist. So what's so special about "white people" or "white women" in the United States that they deserve a special category based on skin color when we don't have them for other groups or countries? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read again what I wrote. “a cat of White people of Mexico”. :P I didn’t say anything about the United States. I even mentioned also the intention of mine of a cat for Black people of Mexico. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas: My comment had nothing to do with you. The original category was literally called "White women of the United States" though, which is why I brought it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia learned many painful lessons about categorizing people by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Along the way, Wikipedia was severely pilloried by the media on multiple occasions, e.g. [2]. I hope we don't make the same mistakes that English Wikipedia made. My suggestion would be to basically emulate English Wikipedia's current guidelines, which are much better polished at this point: en:Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#EGRS. One suggestion that is relevant to the specific discussion here: "Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics), with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless these characteristics are relevant to that topic." This seems like sensible guidance. Nosferattus (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I remember there use to be a real problem in Wikipedia of users categorizing people based on their religion or some other characteristics when it either wasn't notable or couldn't be verified. Anyway, Commons should probably stay away from doing the same and only add such categories when they are clearly relevant and verifiable. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone a while ago was creating "flat lists" that created a category that contained all the people in the subcategories. It was very useful if you did not know the gender or ethnicity or religion of the person and just wanted to find a name without looking in each subcategory. --RAN (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

Painting or sculpture?[edit]

Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wood carvings? Wouter (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: An interesting artwork. Is there any indication of the original creator or the time period it was made? If not, we would need to check compliance with COM:FOP Austria - probably the key point of those rules will be around permanence. Is this engraving always in "The Shakespeare Pub"? From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never have been there before, so I cant say if was there permenantly. It looks like any painting hanging on the wal and suppose it could easily be moved elsewhere. I do not have any information about the artwork. I suppose it is locally produced. I could be old. The scene depicted looks 19th century or older. One figure is using a sword. Maybe ask an Austrian art expert? Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such carved pictures may be based on old paintings but usually they are modern day productions, mostly tourist kitsch sold at souvenir shops all over the Alps. Another popular version are decorative plates like those [3]. The creators are barely known and in most cases the works are not old enough for PD. Herbert Ortner (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been sculpted therefore its a sculpture. A painting is composed of brush marks. This is elementary. -Broichmore (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 13[edit]

Category:People of the United States Department of State[edit]

under Category:People of the United States Department of State are

what's the difference? any example of a person who belongs to only 1 of the 2 cats? RZuo (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on US government structures but "Diplomats" would only cover those empowered to represent their government when speaking to another country. "Officials" would include people in support functions that keep the department running but who don't have direct interaction with foreign governments. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. like the auditor within the department is not a diplomat.
but is it correct to assume that all Diplomats of the United States‎ are officials of the DOS? so Diplomats of the United States‎ should be a subcat of Officials of the United States Department of State‎? RZuo (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, while it is true that all U.S. diplomats are U.S. officials, not all U.S. diplomats are officials of the Department of State. A classic example is a U.S. military attaché attached to a diplomatic mission. They are U.S. diplomats, however they are usually serving U.S. military officers under the Department of Defense instead of officials of the U.S. Department of State. Another example would be the Indian agents who represented the U.S. to the sovereign American Indian tribes in the 18th-19th century. They were originally officials of the Department of War and later the Department of the Interior. —RP88 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that case Diplomats of the United States‎ should be removed from Category:People of the United States Department of State?
i also just remember the United States Special Envoys, which may or may not be under the DOS? RZuo (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Diplomats of the United States‎ is fine in Category:People of the United States Department of State. Being a subcategory is not a strict "is-a" relationship. Categories are meant as an aid for people trying to find things, not as an abstract exercise in ontology, and this is a likely path someone would follow in trying to find something. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then i'll put Diplomats of the United States‎ under officials of DOS. RZuo (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what people with the titles President, Vice President, and First Lady in the US have done can qualify as diplomacy, should those titles also be categorized in this way?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Works named after protagonists[edit]

When it comes to works named after their protagonist which should have priority when it comes to category titles? Should the category name "Duke Nukem" be reserved for the protagonist of the video game series or the video game series itself? Same with Harry Potter, Johnny Bravo, Serious Sam and similar. --Trade (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that when someone hears "Harry Potter" that person is thinking of the media franchise at large more than the specific character. I'd be inclined to make the media franchise the standard and have a category of "[x] (character)" for the fictional character. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo? Trade (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reckon the same. Particularly since in those cases, there is an actual piece of media called that thing. (I don't think there is a thing that is called "Harry Potter", but I could be wrong.) I think if you say "I like Johnny Bravo", someone will think you mean that you like the program, not the character nine times out of 10. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wager if someone were search for "cosplay of Harry Potter/Duke Nukem/Johnny Bravo" they would be looking for the character itself, not just any character from the work Trade (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. Harry Potter is such a broad category with so many items that its main category on Commons refers to the Harry Potter franchise (and it'll redirect to that). Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo on the other hand are tiny categories where this distinction isn't needed yet. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Amateur drawings[edit]

Is it fine to upload amateur drawings like these?

In my opinion, the terrible quality of these works not only doesn't help illustrate the content, but in some cases may offend the person who is depicted in such a way. --Quick1984 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some reason the artist is notable (possibly not related to their art), these would seem to me to be out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, I'm afraid some would comment in use = in scope when nominated. --Quick1984 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into that and these are in use solely through edits by two people, User:Hibrideacus (uploader) and User:MHM55, adding the images to Wikidata. Wikidata has then automatically used them in multiple language Wikipedias through the use of Infobox templates. Yes, COM:INUSE is a valid argument but the apparent use on multiple projects is very misleading. If there was consensus to remove each image from a single Wikidata page, they would no longer be in use. Commons should not make that judgement on behalf of Wikidata, so I'll initiate a discussion at Wikidata to see if they can reach consensus separate to any considerations of deletion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Check of consensus for use of amateur drawings on items about living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) While we can assume good faith by the uploader/creator, these are all amateur depictions of living people. As a bare minimum, we should be considering the moral issues presented in COM:DIGNITY, COM:PHOTOCONSENT (as far as these two sections can be applied to art rather than photography) and WMF resolution on biographies of living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my side, it is only a matter of emptying the Category:Les sans images, and harmonizing with the many other portraits made for other women. I understand your point and clearly there should be a kind of decision on the opportunity of sharing those works. I'm happy if other Wikipedians take on and make the necessary changes. For the future, I don't want to judge on the quality of images, therefore we need a kind of procedure… I may stop to add the portraits in Wikidata – but then it will be for all pictures. MHM (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHM55: At this point we have usage by two editors and concerns from three editors. I wouldn't say there is a clear consensus yet to rule either way on whether use of these images is right or wrong. Your choice of future editing is up to you, but I wouldn't let this single discussion influence you too much. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if the drawings of famous people are made by not notable artist, then such stuff should be deleted. And if we have real images of such famous people (drawed by notable artist!), then drawings to be replaced by real images (e.g. in Wikidata or in enwiki). I also know that in etwiki there was a related project, see Category:Tartupedia images from Tartu Art School project. Also notifying @Kruusamägi Estopedist1 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to demand that drawings of famous people have to be made by notable artists. One does not need to be a notable artist to produce excellent quality. Or should we also delete all photos from Commons, that are not made by people who themselves are not notable photographers?
We should expect that some quality standards are met to keep the images, let alone to use them in articles, but if a person is clearly recognizable from the image and the image does not have obvious problems, then it is perfectly fine.
It someone deletes those Tartupedia images or even removes them from articles, then that person should be permanently banned from editing. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]
High enough quality drawings are welcome, regardless of who drew them. Drawings by famous people are welcome, regardless of our opinion of their quality. Bad drawings by non-notable people are not welcome. These are poor drawings by non-notable people. And, no, the people are basically not recognizable from these drawings. Compare the portrait of Sevidzem Ernestine Leikeki to any picture of her you can find online. The image is somewhere in the range from useless to insulting. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Leikeki is identifiably (if poorly) based on a pre-existing image, to the point that it might be considered copyvio. I'll file a DR. DS (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Edon is, I'm very confident, based on an image from a BBC interview. I would not be surprised if all of the uploader's handmade illustrations are identifiably based on specific pre-existing images (although I'm not confident enough of that to launch a blanket DR). DS (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FWIW: I've done similar things myself (better, I hope), but would not put them on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is where common sense would be invaluable. Yes, we need some amateur art examples. We probably have more than enough already. Unfortunately for every Picasso there are a trillion clueless idiots with no artistic skills whatever. IMO, unless there is a notable justification for amateur picture such as these, they should not be uploaded. I cant actually disagree with Jmabel's earlier comments.
Before uploading an image ask yourelf the question, who (other than your mother) would want to use this image to illustrate anything. -Broichmore (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons shall be no host for private drawings. Providing personal pieces of art is basically a good thing but Commons is the wrong place for it. Commons hosts only files that are realistically useful for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:A542:7EF5:7069:64F5 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "private drawings", these are images drawn specifically for the purpose to illustrate Wikipedia BECAUSE overly strict regulations prohibit the illustration with actual photographs. So, photos of person X are under copyright. Photos of public statues of person X are under copyright. Photos of high-quality and photorealistic public graffiti about person X are under copyright. The article about person X cannot be illustrated in Wikipedia, but every blog and newspaper have hundreds of images in their archives, to illustrate their content. Only Wikipedia may not use any illustrations of people who lived in the 20th century.
SURELY, an artistically skilled editor can be allowed to create a drawing of the person, and upload a copyright-free digital copy for the purpose of finally help out "Les sans images". The images were created for the educational purpose. ... But User:DragonflySixtyseven also states a valid concern: if an actual photograph (automatically under copyright) is identified as the possible original of the artist's drawing, this means that the artist must cede all rights of the image he drew, to the previous photographer - even if the artist claims that the photo was not even used! The face of a person, for some reason, just looks similar in art and on photos! May the artist look at six or sixty photos and make their own interpretation, not using either? Presumably also no (the law usually says 'yes' by the way, but after all, we're trying to create impossible standards for Commons, so PCP means no). So nobody DARE to provide a qualitative good or even semi-realistic artwork (like US court sketchers draw): any kind of quality must automatically be assumed to be AI-generated. Because AI-artwork? Big No for copyright reasons again: neither artist nor AI may illustrate WP.
Only real idealists still create artwork under this kind of conditions. Kudos to the creators of the example images: please DO refine your artistic skills, but also please continue.
User:Broichmore's rule-of-thumb advice to these idealists is reasonable though: Have a second (and a third) opinion, before uploading. --Enyavar (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sure, as long as artistically skilled is taken seriously and that it is a type art that involves accurate representation. If you are non-notable, we don't want your cubist rendition.
  2. Go out and take some photos of notable people. Most notable people often appear in public. I don't even mostly photograph people, but I've done a fair share of this. - Jmabel ! talk 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first point is the problem! I totally agree with you! Also your second point is absolutely striking. There shall be certain rules for drawings! 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:8597:CF9F:E1FB:A555 10:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camel?[edit]

Would people agree that that sculpture here (center-left) is intended to represent a camel? - Jmabel ! talk 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lion (look at the paw) --MHM (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a turtle. Wouter (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like there is enough ambiguity that I should not caption it in this respect unless there is an expert opinion to be had somewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That are lions, probably made around 1700, or later, and given to the church by (rich) visitors. Oak wood, painted thick. (if I'm right) - Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said Gargoyles, and leave it at that, but wikipedia wants to include a water spout in the definition! Perhaps a Grotesque (architecture), or as the ancients would call it just a beast. -Broichmore (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRefine question[edit]

I have a question about OpenRefine. Is there a better place to ask than Commons talk:OpenRefine#Adding files to a category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plushies, dolls or toys based on fictional characters[edit]

Could i get some feedback on this modeling? Trade (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the need for three different topics in one category? It's super redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see a need for further splitting Trade (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a figurine (made of plastic) like https://www.pokemon.cn/goods/plush-toys/230414160049_copy.html and a stuffed animal like https://www.reddit.com/r/90s_kid/comments/wjbajj/jumbo_pikachu_plush_1999/ should be in different categories. RZuo (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They already are? Trade (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dolls and plushies are toys. A category name like "Plushies, dolls or toys" kind of makes it seem like they aren't. And really, why stop there? We could endlessly create "X, Y, or Z" categories once we allow for them. But personally, I don't think we should. -Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are we supposed to do with the subcategories then? Trade (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: What's wrong with ReneeWrites suggestion? That's what I'd do if it were me. Just have separate categories for toys, dolls, or plushies, depending on which one it is. It's not like there isn't Category:Toys and Category:Dolls already either. So I don't see what the issue is. Otherwise you risk someone putting an image of a normal toy based on a fictional character in this category when the category is a child of Category:Dolls, which you'd have to agree wouldn't follow policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plushies are a type of doll, and dolls are a type of toy. It should be named either "Toys", "Dolls" or "Plushies based on fictional characters". The subcategories themselves are fine, possible copyright issues they invite notwithstanding. See COM:CATPRI for Commons category naming guidelines - this one violates most of them. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: I've nominated the cats for discussion and tagged the files as copyvios per COM:TOYS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-posting photos to stock image sites?[edit]

I'm wondering if anyone here cross-posts photos they've uploaded here to stock image sites? I'm thinking about doing so for some of my photos, both to increase their usage (since I guess the sites have different audiences than Commons), and to recover some of the costs of my photography equipment and photo expeditions. I don't think there's any conflict with the CC licensing, provided that the stock image sites are non-exclusive ones (which excludes some sites). I'd be interested in any experience people have with this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, please leave a note on the file pages so that the files aren't misidentified as copyvios of the stock photos in the future. Omphalographer (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17[edit]

Inscription[edit]

Can anyone work out the inscription here? (You will certainly have to click through, not legible in thumbnail.) Seems to be a mix of Old Catalan, maybe some Castillian, and Latin (e.g. "TRASLADA HIC"), using quite a few abbreviations (e.g. "ANO DNI" for "Anno Domini"; "MOASTIO" for "Monasterio") and some unusual forms of certain letters (e.g. "OLZE?O" where "?" represents a letter I can't decipher). Way beyond me in language terms. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: If nothing else, this page about the monastery has a contact link at the bottom. Maybe they could/would help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps someone decipher this, given that the photo was taken in the Chapter House of the Monastery of Pedralbes, I combined that information with one of the names that appears in the inscription and found Pedralbes Monastery, chapter house which mentions "The chapter house contains the tomb of the first abbess, Sobriana d'Olzet, as well as those of nine other early abbesses and some noblewomen who lived in the convent." —RP88 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical medieval Latin with LOTS of abbreviations and sigla. I had a try, but there quite some gaps I am not sure about:

VII K(A)L(ENDA)S MAII AN(N)O D(OMI)NI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT¿S?
VEN(ER)ABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLIZETO Q' D(E)
MO(N)AST(ER)IO S(AN)C(T)I ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCH(ENO)N(A) AD MONAST(ER)IU(M)
IST()D TRA(N)SLATA FUIT C()A P(O)P(U)LATIO(N)IS EI(US)DE(M) DIE ...
S(AN)C(T)E C(RU)CIS ANN(O) D(OMINI) M CCC XX VII Q()Q(UE) EAD()... DUE P()S()ETIB(US)
EXC(E)LL(E)NTIS(IMM)IS D(OMI)NO REGE IACOBO & D(OMI)NA REGINA
ELICSE(N)D(A) EIUS CO(N)SORTE I() P()M()A AB()AM) D()CI TE
NOBII EL(E)CTA EXTITIT & CONF()MTA CUM A(L)IA RE.....

The first part is about Sobriana d'Olzet, who died on 25 April (=7th calends of May) 1336. If I am not mistaken, it then continues to say her remains were transferred from the monstery of St. Anthony to the current one. Then something about king James II (Iacob) of Aragon and his wife Elisenda and then it becomes rather illegible. It almost feels like the creator ran out of space :D --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned here I think as Soberana? : https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Saportella —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisenda_of_Montcada as Sobirana d’Olzet. And this is about here I think https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadessa_Olzet so wikidata:Q19289368 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent findings, these really help understanding the inscription! So she switched monasteries while alive, not after passing away; my bad... With the context in mind, my reading of the inscription is thus:
Inscription Unabbreviated Translation

VII KLS MAII ANO DNI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT
VENABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLZETO Q D
MOASTIO SCI ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCHN AD MONASTIU
ISTD TRASLATA FUIT CA PPLATIOIS EIDE DIE IVETIOIS
SCE CCIS ANN D M CCC XX VII QQ³ EADE DIE PSETIB
EXCLLNTISIS DNO REGE IACOBO Z DDA REGINA
ELICSED EIUS COSORTE I PMA ABAM DCI CE
NOBII ELCTA EXTITIT Z 9FMTA C AIA REQESCAT I PACE AM

VII kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit
venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto quae de
Monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium
istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem Die Inventionis
Sanctae Crucis Anno Domini MCCCXXVII quoque eadem die praesentibus
excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina
Elicsenda eius consorte in primam abatissam dicti ce-
nobii electa extitit & conformata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.

On the 7th calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away
the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from
the Monastery of Saint Anthony of the City of Barcelona to this monastery
because of the same people. On the Day of the Finding of the
True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327] - also the same day that were present
the most excellent lord King James & lady Queen
Elisenda, his consort - [Subirana] was elected and formed first abbess of said
convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen.

--HyperGaruda (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda and Jmabel: This is really excellent work, HyperGaruda. I agree with almost all of your readings and your general interpretation. I do, however, have a few small changes to suggest, which I think improve the text and translation:
  • The phrase causa populationis eiusdem means, I think, "for the purpose of populating it" (i.e., to provide the first group of nuns to inhabit it). The word populatio, like other Latin words ending in -atio, is an abstract noun denoting an action; its usual meaning in classical Latin is "looting, plundering" (from the verb populari), but it can also mean "peopling" or "causing to inhabit", and that's pretty clearly the sense here. The monastery at Pedralbas was entirely new and it needed to be "peopled", which is why Sobirana and her colleagues were brought there from the monastery of St. Anthony.
  • I would not punctuate between this phrase and the date that follows, since this date (3 May 1327) was both the date of the dedication of the new monastery and the date of the arrival of the first residents (i.e., the date on which Sobirana translata fuit).
  • The abbreviation QQᴈ, which you expand as quoque, should, I think, be expanded as quaeque, parallel with the quae in the first line and referring again to Sobirana. This is the subject of the verb extitit in the last line.
  • The abbreviated word 9FMTA, which you expand as conformata, I would expand as confirmata.
With these points in mind, here is my slightly revised text and suggested translation:
VII Kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto, quae de monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem die inventionis Sanctae Crucis anno Domini MCCCXXVII, quaeque eadem die, praesentibus excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina Elicsenda eius consorte, in primam abatissam dicti cenobii electa extitit et confirmata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.
"On the 7th day before the calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from the monastery of Saint Anthony of the city of Barcelona to this monastery for the purpose of populating it on the day of the discovery of the True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327], and who on the same day, in the presence of their excellencies the lord King James and lady Queen Elisenda his consort, was elected and confirmed the first abbess of said convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen."
— Crawdad Blues (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crawdad Blues: sounds to me like you know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to edit & improve on the photo description. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda did all the heavy lifting. I just walked through the house after he was done and straightened a couple of picture frames. Crawdad Blues (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Crawdad Blues, those were indeed points I had second thoughts about. It makes much more sense now! --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 18[edit]

Sock tagging prior to blocking[edit]

Hello, your input is welcome at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tagging suspected accounts prior to blocking. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 19[edit]

Overlapping map categories[edit]

In many Wikipedia articles about US cities, there is a image in the infobox containing two maps: one highlighting the city within the county, and one highlighting the county within the state. Many of these are in Category:Maps of Incorporated and Unincorporated areas by county in the United States. But many are not. For example, many of the images in subcats of Category:Locator maps of cities in California are in the same style. We ought to have a consistent classification system for these images, but this will require mass categorization changes. Kk.urban (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should also have a category for dot maps, another common style, such as File:CAMap-doton-Durham.png and File:MAMap-doton-Springfield.PNG. Kk.urban (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Agreed, we ought to have a category for similar map styles, once there is a sufficient mass of files that use the same style which is different from some other style. --Enyavar (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is someone willing to help move these categories? Kk.urban (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 20[edit]

Category:Abusive people[edit]

I dont feel like Trolls should be placed in the same category as the people who commited the biggest act of cruelty in human history for obvious reasons. Any complaints if i remove the cat? Trade (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that should be a category at all. "Abusive" is a subjective term which could apply to anything from war criminals to people who cheat at Monopoly; most of the subcategories are already better categorized e.g. under Category:Criminals by crime.
As it stands, though, I'd agree that it should be removed. Most of the category, as it exists right now, revolves around morally abhorrent behavior; Internet trolling doesn't seem to fit in. Omphalographer (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's a bit strange to say that anyone with two spouses is automatically abusive. Kk.urban (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Help with artist's signature[edit]

Can anyone make out the signature of the artist in these two engravings:

The name is probably French, and it looks as if it may be printed in reverse (if the artist signed from left to right on the metal plate, the signature will run from right to left in the print). I've looked at it both ways, and I just can't figure it out. I don't need it to determine copyright status — the engravings were both published in 1876 and so are certainly PD — but I like to give credit where it's due, and I hate using the {{unknown engraver}} tag when the engraver clearly is known and the signature is right there staring me in the face. (No attribution in the text of the publication itself, as far as I can see.)

Any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Choliamb (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Choliamb: It's in mirror writing, and appears to be "Bosteyon. S." - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jmabel. Bosteyon was actually one of the various Bo[---]on combinations that I searched for, but I was unable to find any trace of an engraver with that name. I agree that it seems like the most likely reading, and I've added it to the image pages. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's Bosreyon. That S suffix is more likely to be short for Sculptor, than a christian name initial. - Broichmore (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think this plate, offers further proof of that. Broichmore (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stools[edit]

In the Category:Stools there two files wich dont belong there: File:Cholera patient rice water stool.jpg File:Cholera patient stool.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: Perhaps put two files in a new Category:Stools (medical). We could also disambiguate Category:Stools and put most of the content in a new Category:Stools (furniture), but that seems like overkill.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Category:Human feces for now, as I'm not sure this fits into Category:Stool tests. Maybe better reserve that for actual tests and create Category:Stool samples for this poop in tubes. El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hello everyone, there is new information concerning the redesign of the Community Wishlist Survey.

Firstly, in case you missed them earlier, the updates we have provided so far are:

Update 1: Early decisions on the future of the Wishlist.

Update 2: Introducing Jack Wheeler the new Community Tech Manager, also responsible for redesigning the Wishlist.

Update 3: How we can define a "wish".

Currently, we have two newer updates:

Update 4: Since we are planning on keeping the Wishlist open all year and also looking at how the community have participated in vetting/refining wishes, should wishes be editable?

Update 5: We have shared a preview of the new Wishlist.

Please have a look at any of the updates that interest you, particularly Update 4 and 5.

To keep the conversation in one place, please leave your feedback on the central talk page for all the updates (preferably). However, you can leave comments under this post too.

On behalf of Community Tech, STei (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese)[edit]

Can someone interpret the inscription here? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the text as "佐々木藤五郎之墓", "Sasaki Tōgorō no haka", in English "Togoro Sasaki's grave". —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I think there are a few possible readings of the name here. The family name could be read as Sasaki, Ishida or Niikura. The personal name could be read either as Togoro or Fujigoro. Someone better at Japanese than me may be able to advise that a particular combination is more likely. However, a fairly trustworthy online translation tool (Deepl) only offers "Sasaki" as a translation for the family name but can't decide whether it is "Togoro" or "Fujigoro." Without additional context, it may be misleading to settle on a particular translation.
@RP88: How certain are you with your reading here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely over my skis, both with the transcription of the kanji and the translation. Perhaps it's my ignorance showing, but I'm pretty sure the family name is Sasaki, I don't think Ishida is at all likely. Assuming Sasaki as the family name, you're correct that 藤五郎 is ambiguous — it could be Fujigorō instead of Tōgorō. Honestly, when trying to decide between the two, I used Nazkuke Pon and familiarity with Koike Tōgorō (小池藤五郎) to select the later as more likely. —RP88 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative name readings come from WWWJDIC.[4] WWWJDIC includes a substantial names database, so will give you both common and uncommon readings of names. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 佐々木 as a family name is almost always "Sasaki". 藤五郎 as a man's name is perhaps more than 90% "Togoro" (ex.[5]) (sometimes spelled as "Tougorou" or "Tōgorō").--miya (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification on the name and pointing out that interesting link. The grave under discussion is in the Lake View Cemetery in Seattle. Seattle is in King County, Washington. So, with a little searching:
Looking at other images of the section of Lake View Cemetery in which this gavestone is located, it appears the graves nearby are all from the turn of the century. It seems plausible that this gravestone might be for the Togoro Sasaki who died sometime late 1906/early 1907 whose body was found in Puget Sound on 22 January 1907 near the Great Northern docks in Seattle. —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gps allowed in structured data[edit]

Can we change it so that gps coordinates are allowed in structured data? It is set to only allow in a Wikidata entry, but we have many more locatatable images in Commons than have photo entries in Wikidata. See: File:Guests at a 1925 breakfast party for Langston Hughes, hosted by Regina Andrews (then Anderson) and Ethel Nance (then Ray) at 580 St. Nicholas Avenue.jpg RAN (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, the coordinate types relevant to photos are coordinates of the point of view (P1259) (camera location) and/or coordinates of depicted place (P9149) (location of the depicted subject). Considering these two types, I assume the generic coordinate location coordinate location (P625) is too unspecific for use with photos. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Photo challenge January results[edit]

Silos: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Garfield Grain Elevator and
Silos Garfield Washington USA		 Feed silos in Hirschbrunn
near Burgebrach		 Silos of the Hannoversche Portland
-Cementfabrik (abondened in 1986)
Author DaveGinOly Ermell Hgrobe
Score 19 13 8
Masks: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Narrentag 2024 -
Elzacher Schuttig		 Kirchseoner Perchtenlauf
- old winter parade
tradition in Bavaria.
Mask of type "Klaubauf"		 Taken in Dublin, march 2014
Author Rainer Halama Würmchen-vom-Mölchlein Oncewerecolours
Score 13 13 10

Congratulations to DaveGinOly, Ermell, Hgrobe, Rainer Halama, Würmchen and Oncewerecolours. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steinsplitterbot FUBAR: How to remove images from the queue?[edit]

Hi there, it appears the rotatebot, Steinsplitterbot, is in an indefinitely broken state. I have manually rotated a file and reuploaded it, but it appears it is still in the queue and I'm afraid that if Steinsplitterbot might get resuscitated, it will rotate again. How do I remove it from the queue? Milliped (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milliped: Just edit the description ("Edit" link at the top of the page in the default interface) and remove the {{rotate|270}} from the top. --bjh21 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Milliped (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General categorization of old maps[edit]

Hi, "old maps" is a topic with a huge range, both in extent of locations and spans of time. There are various categorization models, here a few examples from "Old maps of cities in France":

  • "Maps of Provins": All (20) maps of the city are in the same cat~, no subcat~. Only 4 of these maps would be classified as "old" (current year minus 70).
  • "Old maps of Nice": All (56) old maps are sitting in one cat~, which is a subcat~ of "Maps of...".
  • "Old maps of Marseille" (by-century): There are five subcat~s, each holdings multiple maps from 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century.
  • "Old maps of Paris" (by-century, then by-decade): Yes, Paris is actually more complicated than that, but if you want to find a map from a specific timeframe, you can use by decade; each of the decade-categories is also sorted inside the by-century cat~s. This is also the sorting scheme for London: First by-century, then by-decade".
  • "Old maps of Brest" (by-century, then by-year): Most years are not covered, there is no by-decade middle structure, and resulting cat~s are very small.

But, this first thing is just the timespan in which a map was originally created. The second thing is the geographical location and extent: If I can very accurately date a map of the region of Lorraine to 1819... in which category does it belong? Is "19th-century maps of Lorraine|1819" okay? Once there are enough maps, we move it into "1810s maps of Lorraine|1819", as detailed above. But we could ALSO place the Lorraine-map simultaneously in 1819 maps of France! Here I see a problem: How many users are expecting maps of Lorraine in a "maps of France" cat~? What I would expect in that category, is real maps of France (in total, or at least large parts), not regional maps or city-maps. A savvy person who searches a map of France might look up in 1810s maps of France, where they can find 1 map of whole France there. Clicking through all the by-year sub-cat~s, I find another 15 supra-regional maps from the 1810s, and also three that were made in the 2010s - but mostly maps that (in my opinion) don't really belong there. All the other maps and plans (of cities, or regions, of forests, of rivulets, of castles) should in my opinion get categorized in their own old-maps-tree: "17th-century maps of Brest". "1830s maps of Lorraine". "Old maps of Forêt du Bois". "Old maps of Château Noblesse". These cat~s should then in turn get nested into the larger geographical units: "Old maps of château de Brest" within "Old maps of Brest" within "Old maps of Bretagne" within "Old maps of France".

If you categorize strictly by-year and also strictly by-location, you are rewarded with something like "Old maps of Werbach" (a small town in Germany: maps were categorized by-location, by-century, by-decade, by-year), to the point where single maps are placed in the single by-year cat~ in the single by-decade cat~ of a by-century cat~. Right now, Werbach has 25 old maps, they could have been organized in a single "Old maps of Werbach" cat~. Instead, they are organized in at least 32 cat~s, and yes that means more categories than files which have to be organized.

So, how should we organize the "Old maps" here in Commons? People who like to have their structure first, would probably prefer all places to be organized like Werbach - from the most-mapped cities in the world like London, New York and Paris (by-year could possibly make sense there), down to maps of Peruvian and Mongolian hamlets. There are some advantages: there are many other by-year cat~structures that make a LOT of sense to meticulously arrange by-year, so by-year-maps are fitting in there just nicely. Also, it apparently helps with our search function? Other people have been rejecting that, and argue with usability first, to allow comfortable browsing within the categories. Someone who browses through the categories may spot errors more easily. Oh right - I have not yet written about errors and fuzzy data, which very often lead to miscategorizations.

  • The publication year of most old maps is not the year the map was made. Crews of geographs made measurements for years and decades, and usually this can be found in the work descriptions: "...études en France les années 1751-1761, publiées 1765..." --> Is this a 1765 map? Is it even a 1760s map? Is it both a 1760s and 1750s map? Is it too unclear, and has to be placed as a 18th-century map?
  • Maps were in print for decades: Original from 1595, still in print 1633 (the underlying map data was collected until 1587...). Again, is that a 1633 map, is it a 17th-century map, is it a 16th-century map?
  • take a 19th-century reprint of 16th-century map: I'd say it is still a 16th-century map, but I have seen arguments for either and both.
  • Then again, many maps from less famous cartographers cannot be dated precisely at all: sometimes we can't even pinpoint the exact century a map was produced.

As a result: Yes of course, we should still try to date the maps on Commons as exactly as possible, but that is first of all a task for the description (dates are a must there!) and for structured data.

So, my own first experiences were with the structured approaches: I found lots and lots of the most tiny cat~s, and added uncategorized "old maps" into by-year. I was never comfortable with it, but saw it as inevitable for correct sorting, until this village-pump thread. It was an epiphany, to see other editors tell me: Maps of <location> by <year> categories should be burned with fire. - everything finer than "by century" should go - Let's not make more narrow category trees... Or in a CfD thread, I got: classic case of excess fineness undermining the usefulness of the category tree, so there was an advocate for by-decade cat~s, like I am today.

Since that time, my own approach in sorting the old maps, was to sort them as "old maps of location" first, then break down "old" into "by-century" cat~s as needed, and then into "by-decade" as needed. Where these cat~s didn't exist, I created them. Only in the rarest of all cases is there such an abundance of maps in a by-decade cat~, that one should think about further splits. But those make more sense to go by title (by-work): 1880s in London has 39 files directly in the cat~, and about 150 files in four related subcat~s. - In the same while, I have also been at work to dissolve excessively tiny by-year categories. When encountering by-year-cat~s with just a handful of maps, I move the contents up to the by-decade level (or to a different geographical location level), and then nominate the by-year category for speedy-Del. At least some by-year-cat~s make sense, so I'm not axing at them blindly; and all my work is manual and slow. I am still believing that my actions (with regards to by-year cat~s) over the last year should have been uncontroversial and appropriate. Yet, I got notice that despite my own firm beliefs, @GPSLeo: thinks that recategorizing content in the way I do, appears to be lacking broader community approval. So here we go.

Another note: The first of the by-year-cat~s were created around 2016, and then the big mass-creation of by-year-cat~s started in 2018. I don't know how much community approval there was in favor of mass-creation of the by-year cat~s, so if someone remembers particular threads, I would be thankful. I think that some of the "by-year"-advocates include: @Themightyquill: , @AnRo0002: , @An Errant Knight: , @Skim127: , @Triplec85: I do hope that my portrayal of what I am calling "structuralism" here, was fair? Did I miss potential benefits?

This is all a lot to take in, but I'm here to ask: structure first or usability first? Where should we strike the balance, both in granularity by-year, as well as in granularity by-location?
Thanks, --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you hint, usability is the answer. Going beyond that, can only be justified, if we have so many items the human brain can’t cope with it, and I doubt that's really the case here. Search functions are the appropriate mechanism for getting the kind of granularity wished for here.
Usability comes from seeing items within a minimum amount of categories (pages), rather than single files buried in sub categories where they can't be seen without drilling down. -Broichmore (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23[edit]

Uncategorized categories[edit]

Just a reminder that after a few of us got Special:UncategorizedCategories almost to zero, it has been slowly growing again. I, for one, am way too busy with other stuff the next 5 weeks or so to have any significant time to put into it (besides "real life", I'm backlogged about 1500 pictures to describe and upload), so it would be really good if someone else would give this a few hours. Ideally this would be an admin (so they can delete empty categories) but anyone else can mark those for deletion, as described at {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates[edit]

There are various ways that coordinates appear on Commons, mainly in "Template:location", "Template:object location", "Template:Wikidata infobox". Likely it's determined in various ways and on also changes based on the maps being used.

It seems to me that the default zoom is always way too far. Before tying to figure out more of the technical details, I just want to check if it's not just an impression of mine. What do you think? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagel Effect[edit]

Hello, I am Rorth. I would like to create an article about the "Bagel Effect", a term coined by the internet to describe temporal and multiversal events sparked by a seemingly inconsequential action, for example, throwing a bagel at a nameless goon's head, which sparks a series of events that lead to him becoming a vengeful dimensional threat.

Would this make for an article in line with your purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorth Onno (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorth Onno: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a site responsible for storing images and other files that meet our scope. We don't host articles here, you may want to ask your question on one of the language versions of Wikipedia. As you asked your question in English, I'll direct you to a useful page on the English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Articles for creation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Commons[edit]

I have read Commons:Project scope and Commons:What Commons is not. My questions are:

  1. Is Wikimedia an archive for historical images from other archives?
    • I have seen many categories that are comprised entirely of images uploaded in bulk from such sources. Not very useful when searching for images.
  2. Are these images considered / treated the same as others?
  3. Can (or should) these images be modified: cropping backgrounds, small rotations, color correction, etc.?
  4. Do these modifictions require a new version be created?
    • I have repeatedly read Commons:Overwriting existing files since it changes often. But what is considered minor and major is personal judgement. Examples are great but not a substitute for specifics.

User-duck (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Commons readily accepts PD and appropriately-licensed images from other archives. I'm sorry if you personally do not find it useful to have this content screened by us for copyright compliance, categorized usefully (which, in my experience few archives do) and very often curated much more carefully than in the original archive (see for example User:Jmabel/Final draft of talk for WikiConference North America). I imagine there is no content here that is of use to every user. The fact that you are not the relevant user for this content does not make it useless.
  • These images are treated basically the same as others. Derivative works are welcome, but content from GLAMs should almost never be overwritten, except possibly cropping excessive borders, and even that is a judgement call. Think of this as being along the same lines as that you typically shouldn't alter the work of another Commons user without their consent: the GLAM is in no position to monitor your edits to the image and revert if they disagree, so upload your derivative work under a different filename. This is particularly important on older images, where the way a particular individual chose to print a negative may be significant. (See, for example, File:Aftermath of Seattle fire of June 6, 1889, showing remains of Dexter Horton & Co bank, 1st Ave S and S Washington St, with John (CURTIS 2104).jpg, where we have different versions where people presumably printing from the same negative made different choices.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we often bring together (in a category) images from numerous archives. Since most archives only post what they physically own, there are few places on the web that do this. This often results in finding inconsistencies in claims made by various archives. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Redacted}} source[edit]

Is this allowed under Commons policy? Trade (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images?[edit]

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images? For example, I find this inappropriate. If it were on my user talk page, probably I would simply delete it, but I realize I don't "own" the talk page of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their edits, they are just looking for a reaction. I have reverted them and I don't think it is worth wasting any more time on them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=862906253"