Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations 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/2025/09. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
September 02
Creating a searchable list of my Commons uploads
I have uploaded hundreds of photos during the past 15 years. Sometimes I want to check on one. Scrolling through pages of them to find the right one is a pain. Other than selecting a page, copying and pasting into, say, Microsoft Word, is there a solution that allows, at least, searching of the file names? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- @SCHolar44: "Hundreds" should be pretty easy (says someone with about 70,000). You can easily create a user category, use Vfc or Cat-a-lot (once) on your uploads list to put them all in that category, and then use "incategory" in future searches to search within that category. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Another option is to search for
InsertFileNameOrSearchTermsHere "Author SCHolar44". It however only works for files of which you indicated you are the author (it basically looks up the Author field of the Information/Summary box). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC) - only filenames:
- with thumbnails
- RoyZuo (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- And if you want to get just full list of files to copy paste you can use Quarry: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/96868 . If you need a thumbnails from filelist you can create user page with
<gallery> image1.jpg image2.jpg image3.jpg ... </gallery>
- It is manual work, but best i could figure out. --Zache (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- Additionally, Commons:SPARQL query service is great for finding and organizing your images. For example, it's possible to make a list of the filenames of all your images to download and search with any editor. The queries I use the most are in User:Pere_prlpz#Consultes and those should be easy to adapt for anybody else.
- The only drawback is that the photographer needs to be identified in the metadata, but there are some bots doing that and they work fine most of the time - sometimes they miss a few files. Pere prlpz (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your advice, Jmabel, HyperGaruda, RoyZuo, Zache and Pere prlpz! They are very interesting alternatives. Zache's gave me precisely what I needed and already it's saving me much time. Brilliant! :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Unidentified vs. unideintifiable locations
.jpg)
From time to time, I work my way through Category:Unidentified locations in the United Kingdom and its subcategories, and identify the locations of those I can.
However, some of the images, like the one above, are never going to be geo-located. Should the be recategorised to the highest knowable level (in this case, "Category:Edinburgh", or put into something like "Category:Unidentifiable locations in Edinburgh.
I'm sure the same issue occurs in other parts of the world, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing I've been working on the unidentified locations categories too, and this thought also crossed my mind. The trouble is, every image is possibly locatable. For example, I've just added coordinates to the thistles image you linked, which I managed to figure out through a combination of looking at the Flickr user's other images from the same day and dumb luck of plonking myself down on Street View right next to it (I was trying to get the same perspective as one of their other images and noticed the stonework was similar). Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- The idea of categories for unidentified images has always seemed oxymoronic to me. Most of the time they are just used as dumps for images people can't be bothered to better categorize so the parent cat can be empty. The whole idea of the category system is nonsensical and half baked though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- For images like your example, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the "unidentified locations..." category, or replace it with a category for the approximate location. It's neat that Sam Walton was able to find an exact location for this one, but it isn't something we should expect to do for every image. Precise locations only really matter for photos which depict individually notable places, objects, or events. Omphalographer (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Here's the problem, though. You don't want to clog up Category:Edinburgh with the detritus of dozens (or hundreds) of images where all we know about their location is that they are in Edinburgh.
- I've dealt with this extensively for Category:Seattle. Over time I've been able to give at least approximate locations (e.g. neighborhood) to literally thousands of images that were in that category. At the same time, there have been a thousand or so where I couldn't do that. We don't want to lose the relationship to Seattle, but surely we do not want to throw all of what is in Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington directly into Category:Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Precisely. I don't mean throwing images directly into location categories, but placing them into location-based categories appropriate to their content, e.g. "plants in Edinburgh" or what-have-you. And yes - distinguishing between files with unknown locations which are knowable and significant, and ones whose location is unknowable or irrelevant, is important. We don't need to locate every photo just for the sake of doing it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- The issue I tried to raise here is the difference between "Images needing more precise location" and "Images that cannot be located more precisely". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that it is a potentially useful distinction. Though as Samwalton9 evidences above, sometimes you can have the surprise of precisely locating something where you never would have imagined it was possible. I've certainly had that happen now and then. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
images people can't be bothered to better categorize
- I do understand Adamant was targeting mostly the uploaders, in this quote from above. If a contributor adds regularly to Commons, they definitely should do this work by themselves. But there are still those who don't know how things are properly categorized in the first place. That is why it often falls to a voluntary user group, "categorizers", who sort images in the right category. However, in this line of work I often come across images that I feel I should really not "be bothered" about much. But I can still push them in the right direction, like "unidentified plants", "unidentified politicians of India", etc., based on the obvious image content.- There ARE experts among the categorizers who specialize in biology or who can read Hindi: Why should I spend 10-30 minutes to educate myself enough to "properly" categorize an image down to the final correct category, when I can easily push it in the right direction, by assigning an "unidentified" category, and continue with 10-30 more files in quick succession?
- So I say that "unidentified" categories are necessary for maintenance purposes. For truly unidentifiable locations, I would not object to a category like "unidentifiable locations", where the really tough nuts can be placed. With those thistles in Edinburgh, I think they are a good addition to "Nature of Edinburgh"... but if we had no clue where in the world they are, I also think it should be okay to just categorize them in the biological category and ignore the issue of location. --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Enyavar: Uploaders sure. I was mainly thinking of something like Category:Unidentified logos where we know what 99% of the logos are of (because their logos obviously), a lot of them are already in other sub-categories of the parent, but people just dump images there because they don't want the main category to be filled with images (even though it is already). I'd 100% say in that case it's just pure laziness because people don't want to bother actually putting the images anywhere else. I'd say a category for "unidentified logos" is oxymoronic though because it's inherent to a logo to know what it's a logo of.
- For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- Like the category contains File:A. Zerega's Sons, Inc. logo 01.png. We know that's a logo for A. Zerega's Sons. Yeah, maybe we don't know exactly what type of business it is, the country it's located in, or whatever. But so what? That doesn't make it "unidentified" and it would have taken 10 seconds to do a Google search and find out more information about the business so it could be put in a better category instead of just dumping it a meaningless category and calling it good there.
- You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- This was about geographic locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
"images people can't be bothered to better categorize"
—There are also:- Newbies who don't know how we categorise
- People with photos that they know will be of use to us, but they genuinely don't know where they took them (maybe it was thirty or more years ago...)
- People pulling in photos from Flickr, US Government sites, etc., where the location is not clearly identified.
- I have seen examples of all of these in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Ah I see, thanks for that :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- @PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
September 05
How to handle transitive image extractions?
It's a bit difficult to explain with words, so let me provide an example.
Suppose I want to have this portrait from the book File:Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).pdf.
It comes from Page 9 of that PDF. Logically speaking, I would have to extract an image from that PDF first before cropping into the relevant parts.
My concern is, should I upload that extracted image to Commons before cropping (File:Page 9 of Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).jpg) and if so, how should I handle using the Template:Extracted from and Template:Image extracted templates? Or does that overcomplicate things and I should just upload the cropped version?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkinslow (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- You certainly can upload just the cropped image, but other people might find the uncropped version useful so if you upload it as well it makes things easier for others later. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- If the uncropped image doesn't have additional value (such as this case), my usual method is to upload the uncropped version and then overwrite it with the cropped version. That way the uncropped version is available in the file history, but it doesn't have its own file page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
- +1 to Pi.1415926535. That is also my usual approach when I'm uploading modified version of a photo I took, as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
September 06
Check categories template
This doesnt seem to be working properly. If I change any other categories as well as clicking to check I get a message "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." But that is not what happens. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Have you by any chance edited the "captions" of the file before editing the categories? I always get the above message after editing the captions. Nakonana (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, any structural data. I always reload the page and then add the category. Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
- No I'm just editting categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
September 07
"AjaxMassDelete"
Is there still such a thing as AjaxMassDelete distinct from VisualFileChange (VFC)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- I believe they are the same thing. Even the help page for VFC says "formerly sometimes known as AMD". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, lol, sorry then. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- @DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Digging through the page history, it seems AjaxMassDelete was originally created as a mass-deletion version of AjaxQuickDelete. Eventually, Rillke (the creator) added more features to the gadget, and renamed it to “VisualFileChange” (see diff [1]). So, I think it’s accurate to say “VisualFileChange, formerly sometimes known as AjaxMassDelete”, as it is the creator who rename the gadget. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good work all. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Commons 21st anniversary
Commons is 21 years old, so some sweets for the Occasion! EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Happy birthday to Commons! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
A user or a bot is deleting a category for mexican food
I don't know if this behavior is correct. It's erasing the Category:Cuisine of Mexico category from many images. It seems to me that having that category, or the food category from a state in Mexico, helps people find that image. But I don't know if what it's doing is correct.
this is the record of changes:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:9101:8232:2C72:EB:5C25:6C87
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffermejia (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- One of the reasons I hate dealing with IP edits: no edit summaries and no way to discuss edits that may or may not have a reasonable rationale.
- If categories for specific foods are present, and those trace up the hierarchy to Category:Cuisine of Mexico, this may be fine. For example, File:Burrito Hermosillo.jpg => Category:Burritos => Category:Traditional food of Mexico => Category:Food of Mexico => Category:Cuisine of Mexico, so it's as reasonable to remove Category:Cuisine of Mexico from that file as it would be to remove Category:Food.
- Someone might want to look at these and see if some are problematic, but on the basis of the above, I suspect they won't be. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- These generally look like good changes - in some edits like Special:Diff/1082293476, the IP is replacing Category:Cuisine of Mexico with a more specific category; in others like Special:Diff/1082301758, they're removing the category when it's redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have both these categories?
Is it necessary to have both Category:Portland, Dorset and Category:Isle of Portland? The former is said to be a civil parish, and the latter a tied island, but in practice it is hard to know which category to use for any given image. If we look at, say, Category:Isle of Wight, this combines "island, county and unitary authority area", i.e. both geographical and administrative, into one category. Should the same be done with Portland? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
- Combine them No useful difference. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
September 08
reverse Flickrwashing
Have a question about what's basically the opposite of "Flickrwashing". This image is an official U.S. Navy photo - and it says as much in the image description! - but it's also listed as "All rights reserved". Given this is a goverment image, and is stated as such, it's PD-Navy. Is there anything I should do when uploading it to indicate that the "All rights reserved" on Flickr is invalid due to this? - The Bushranger (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Media that is PD allows anybody to do whatever they want with it, even declaring that they own rights when it's not the case. Of course, other people are free to ignore such a statement... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Obviously, there are statutes that define a legal meaning of the term "fraud," but not every lie is a crime.
- In the U.S. (unlike France) there is no law against falsely claiming that a public domain work is your own. There is no law even against having someone pay you for the right to use it: in fact people sell good prints of PD photos all the time, often with no attribution to the known original photographer, but with the name of the individual or company (looking at you, Alamy) that is selling it. As far as I know, they could even put a © symbol on it without breaking any law. What would presumably be illegal is demanding payment from someone who used or reproduced the photo (e.g. in a book), basing your case on a false claim that you own the copyright, though even that would be a tough case to pursue without enough of a pattern of such shakedowns to show it was intentional. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger No, nothing special you need to do, just use an appropriate PD tag when uploading, and don't include a {{Flickrreview}} tag. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- You could also rely upon the original publication: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6400067 Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: if you happen to involve yourself again with imagery from the US military, I think taht you can safely assume that Flickr is only a secondary source for (older) images. They should most often be available through official archives, which will provide the most extensive description possible. In the past days, I used https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc.html and https://catalog.archives.gov/ to search; there may be other addresses. In case you need it, I suggest asking on a EN-WP reference desk, there should be people more knowledgeable than me about these matters. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt
At Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt the following text was removed: "Per the permission ticket from the French Ministère de la Culture, these works have been released into the public domain by their current copyright holders, Studio Harcourt and the French government. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so both Studio Harcourt and the French government grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." can someone read the VRT permission ticket to confirm if this is true or not? See: File:AndreDeGelas-1942-Harcourt.png for instance, which references the VRT ticket. Some of the images also have {{Studio Harcourt / French government}} See: File:Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg. If the text is incorrect, what is the rationale for us keeping them? RAN (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig: and/or @Yann: I think they were involved in previous discussions around the photographs? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is so much debate already in the archives, one only needs to read it. There is no VRT ticket from any French ministry about the Harcourt photos. There is a ticket from a Harcourt employee (about something else) with an offhand remark claiming that the Harcourt photos which were bought by the French state are in the public domain for some reason. I gave a summary at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Photos in Édith Piaf article. tl;dr: The files were kept because a posse from fr.wp (sent there by canvassing at fr.wp) created so much ruckus in the deletion requests that no admin wanted to decide them, and Krd finally closed them when they were the oldest DRs still open. Not based on the merits of the case, but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- BTW, said ticket is usually referenced with the {{VRT info}} template. So not a permission, but additional information documented in the ticket. User:Ruthven mass-added these templates to the files last year. Which was a bad idea I think because people keep confusing them with VRT permission templates. --Rosenzweig τ 16:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
- The passage in the category page was removed because it contained a falsehood. It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it. The VRT ticket from the new Harcourt Studio is public knowledge, it was quoted initially by the contributor who had requested it ((1), (2)) and in other discussions since then. It was written by someone who at that time was spokesperson for the collection of the new Harcourt Studio and who had previously worked in the French government service in charge of the government collection. Some Commons users insist that they know better than her. They might, or not. The file "Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg" currently has a VRT permission template apparently added mistakenly by the non-VRT uploader, who should probably have used a VRT info template. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
"It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it."
—Why not get it (semi-)protected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
September 09
If-then categorization in by-year template
Looking at Template:USA-churchphotoyear, it looks like (a year ago) somebody tried to add an if-then parameter to the categories it adds when used, so that if there's a "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" category for that year, it sorts "Category:Churches in the United States photographed in year" under it, but if there is not, it categorizes in "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year". The thing is, this isn't working; it's categorizing categories using the template into both parent categories (see for instance Category:Buildings in the United States photographed in 2025, which has Category:Churches in the United States photographed in 2025 both as a direct subcategory and as a subcategory of Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in 2025). I'm not sure what's causing this to not work (or if this sort of thing can even work at all?) so if somebody with more knowledge can take a look at this? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Kreuz und quer: Since their the one who added the code (personally, I'd just delete it if they don't respond). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger I fixed the template, the template was checking if "Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" exist, when it supposed to check if "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year". This means the template always categorize the pages into "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year" no matter what.
- The reason the church category also has the religious building category as a parent category is because it was added manually (not through the template, see edit where I removed it [2]). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- ...and I feel silly for not having noticed that now. Thanks for the fix! - The Bushranger (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Everyone -- good catch and thanks for the fix! Kreuz und quer (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
Finally resolving this cfd
This cfd Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha has been going for 20 months. I really want to try to resolve it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
September 10
Desysop of A.Savin for 1 year
A.Savin has been desysopped for 1 year after the passed U4C Motion. After 1 year, they may reapply by an election/RfA on Commons. We thank A.Savin for their service. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Videos of Recent murders/ violence
So the recent stabbing on the charlotte light rail has been posted to commons as cctv footage I don’t know what it contains but i do know it does show the woman being murdered unsure if it was blurred or not. I could see blood in thumbnails. I get it within policy but the video being posted of a woman’s death is cruel and i think its not really uh aligning with the purpose of commons im just wondering if others have an opinion Cyberwolf (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've watched at least one of the videos and it didn't show the actual murder. It only showed the build up (both people entering the train and sitting down) and the situation afterwards (the guy walking through the train with blood dripping from the knife as he was walking). Does this address your concerns? There's also another thread regarding those videos that is particularly asking whether the editing of the videos would make them copyright protected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#c-Rjjiii-20250909071500-CCTV_and_Iryna_Zarutska_footage_(public_domain_question). Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are other versions of the CCTV here that is uncensored and pretty much showed the whole thing. So, I don’t advise anyone to watch it. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
How do i block my myselg
im self deteriorating right now can i please be blocked Cyberwolf (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)