Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/02

Madonna and Child

Is there a particular term for this representation of the Madonna and Child, with the representation of Jesus superimposed on Mary's chest? - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: en:Our Lady of the Sign. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: thank you, that term is totally new to me. - Jmabel ! talk

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Censored by lack of FOP

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus here, and a user who would really like to move forward. Can we please have an uninvolved admin close this? - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a tool for checking if your image was used on a Wikimedia project?

This is surely vanity, but I find it encouraging to see my uploads being used on Wikipedia and the like. I can go through Special:ListFiles and just check the description pages of each of my uploads, but it’s tedious! And it also shows me images that I added to Wikipedia myself, which is not as encouraging. Does anyone know of a tool that would aggregate this data? If not, is the “File usage on other wikis” list available by some API? I think I could hack together a tool, probably. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything: GLAMorous lets you track usage statistics by category and by user. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For apis you have prop=globalusage (keep in mind you can use that with generators) for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&generator=allimages&gaiuser=Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything&gaisort=timestamp&formatversion=2&prop=globalusage&gailimit=max&gulimit=max another option is toolforge wikireplicas contain an sql database with a globalimagelinks table, which you can query at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/ Bawolff (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Balancing Uploader Requests vs. Descriptive Filenames?

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What's your take on this file naming dilemma? When an original uploader requests to change a descriptive filename to a less meaningful one, should we prioritize COM:FR#FR1 (respect original uploader's request) or COM:FR#FR2 (avoiding meaningless names)? How do you balance respecting the uploader's wishes with maintaining clear, descriptive filenames? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the best approach in this situation. SimmeD (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimmeD: I think File:Ardea cinerea A7R04867 (51957702865).jpg is a good example of how a compromise was reached. The original uploader wishes the files to retain their original code, but Commons policy is pretty clear that the original file name File:A7R04867 (51957702865).jpg is in violation of our naming policies, regardless of how the uploader feels about them. The code can be appended to a name that complies with the naming policy, but it can't be the filename in its entirety. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimmeD: My usual approach as a filemover is that I will honour most criterion-1 requests, but will decline them if the new name would immediately be eligible for renaming under some other criterion. So in the example above, I decided that the inclusion of the species name was enough to mean that criterion 2 didn't apply and so I renamed the file as requested by the uploader. On the other hand, when the uploader asked for File:Hochhaus Wintergartenstrasse, Leipzig, 12-06-30 by ralfr 11.jpg to be renamed back to File:12-06-30-leipzig-by-ralfr-11.jpg I declined the request because the proposed name was so ambiguous that it could immediately be renamed again under criterion 2. --bjh21 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am too a filemover. And I even happened to decline COM:FR#FR1 requests when the uploader wanted to change the filename from one in Latin script to IIRC Kanji / Kana, as the latter can be read only by a minority of Wikimedians and potential re-users. So: "FR1" is, for me, never higher than other criteria (FR2 or FR3), and I often deliberately changed a FR1 requested name to something else, often adding a shot date, location or motif (scientific) name. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments. I'll take them to heart and think about them if a situation arises. SimmeD (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Renaming multiple files

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

65 file names contain the typo Trafala, which should be Tarfala. This includes all currently existing file names containing "Trafala," most of which begin "Valley between Trafala," with a few exceptions. The captions and descriptions have already been corrected. (Example 1, example 2.)

Do I simply request that they all be renamed one by one, or is there a way that's more convenient for file movers? I don't wanna clog the backlog with a bunch of individual requests unless it's necessary.

Sinigh (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a script for this and will correct the names the next days. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That is indeed a more convenient way. :) Thanks! Sinigh (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done all corrected now. GPSLeo (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-02

In January 2025, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 182 sysops.

• User:Ratekreel was elected (27/2/2) on 27 January.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Invicta (Airline) - not a straightforward rename problem?

Ok, so this will probably appear lame compared to the deep technical stuff normally discussed here, but it has all but done my head in, although I now feel I am winning the battle. I'll explain.

Is this Invicta Airways or Invicta International Airlines? You can have two guesses.

There are approximately 30 media items (photos) related to a lesser-known defunct UK airline that operated as Invicta. And around 20 categories and sub-categories more or less related to them and not much else. The problem arises because for half its life this airline operated as Invicta Airways Ltd, and for the other half it adopted a new legal identity as Invicta International Airlines Ltd. Both the main article on en:wikipedia, and here at Commons, have ended up in a muddle, with everything being labelled as International. I am attempting to put this right, but it is not a straightforward rename situation, because approximately half of the images are in the correct categories, whilst the other half need renaming, and new categories creating for them. I cannot imagine there is a bot for that, so I am slogging through the process on a one-by-one basis. Mostly it seems as if there are more categories than images.

An additional complication is that the front-end image selection requires a trained eye, most probably from an aviation geek such as myself, because the differences are subtle, to the extent that they have been overlooked for the past 12 years. For a start, the aircraft colour-schemes are all but identical. The aircraft owned by Invicta Airways are not marked Airways, and the ones that belong to the later airline are not marked Airline - that would just be too helpful LOL. And sometimes the same aircraft appear on both sides of the divide at different times. Nevertheless I have a crystal ball that takes me to the right place. What I do not possess is the skill-set to be 100% sure I am getting the re-categorisation process correct. In fact I am sure I am making a complete xyz$ of it, but I also feel I am making progress, slowly.

I believe it is only correct that I set the record straight somewhere (here, for instance), as to what I am trying to achieve, and invite comments. Meanwhile, I will observe that in this case, a picture really is worth a thousand words. WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader:

1. Yes it's a slog.
2. Normally, we make the older company a subcat of the newer company, and parallel that for subcats. Anything where we are in doubt stays in the category for the newer company.

Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel

Thankyou - that is most useful confirmation, as it is something I have been working towards already. WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:GLAM

It looks to me like Commons:GLAM and its subpages have barely been touched in years (unless we count vandalism and its reversion), and that much of the advice there falls short of being clear, comprehensive, and current. Anyone with experience in this area care to make a good pass through this and see what you can improve? - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Shāntián Tàiláng who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng. Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)