Administrators' Noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

This project page in other languages:

Shortcut
COM:VP

Commons discussion pages (index)

Commons Help desk
Community-wide general discussion
- Copyright
- Proposals
Graphics and photography discussion
- Image improvement
- Photography critiques
Categories for discussion
Deletion requests
OTRS noticeboard
Translators' noticeboard
Work requests for bots

Welcome to the Village pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 3 days may be archived.

Please note

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 a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Have you read the FAQ?
For changing the name of a file see Commons:File renaming.
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).
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

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For photograph requests, please post at Commons:Picture requests.

Search archives

Start a new discussion

Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
RFC on Hosting files for 3D models. (28 October 2014)
Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch

Oldies[edit]

Easiest way to get quality images from PDF files?[edit]

I obtained File:PunjabmapJDCunninghamHistoryoftheSikhs.png from PDF p. 35/203 of http://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/19965/UBC_1976_A8%20L34.pdf?sequence=1 - I thought the resolution at 100% would be sufficient, but after I uploaded the file I zoomed in more and found that the resolution is of a much higher quality than I thought.

I could stitch together pieces of the map in paint via Print screen but that seems like a hassle. What is the best way to get the quality image of this PD map? WhisperToMe (talk) 06:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Try the pdfimages command-line program in the xpdf package. It doesn't always give convenient results, but it's the way to go beyond screen-dumping to access the original images emebedded within the PDF file... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, I like the program Nitro PDF. It has a function to pull all images out of a PDF file at full resolution, and you can choose the output format (jpg, png, etc). Good if you're like me and have no ability to use command line stuff. Ping me if you need help using it. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It would help to know what operating system you use. In Linux, the most common PDF reader, Evince, simply lets you right-click on an image and save it. In this case, it produced a 3240×2272 pixel 5.6 MB PNG which could be optimised down to 5.5 MB. There is also an abundance of command-line tools for extracting images from PDF documents, perhaps most notably the aforementioned pdfimages.

Gimp can also open pages from a PDF as an image at the resolution you specify. This is not quite the same as extracting the images. It provides no guidance on the ideal resolution for a given image, and it essentially renders the whole page before converting everything to an image. In other words, it's quite similar to the screenshot approach. —LX (talk, contribs) 15:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

True, but if you can match the resolution of the embedded image, you won’t lose a significant amount of detail—colour fidelity might be more of a problem. Some PDF readers can tell you the resolution; for documents created using typical “print quality“ settings, 300 ppi is probably the best guess. (Caveat: where the originals are between 300 & 450 ppi they’re often not downsampled to the 300 target, and moreover black-and-white “linework” images, one bit deep, are often kept at 1200 ppi or more.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, thank you so much for the feedback! I have Windows 8, but I plan to get Linux soon. Anyhow... @Huntster: I tried using Nitro Reader but the PDF file is asking for a password (I need a password to have it converted) and I don't have the password WhisperToMe (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That’s because the PDF has been specially protected by the creators, to prevent modification or extraction of content. However, not all PDF editors honour such restrictions. I was able to extract the page with Inkscape, saving it as an unprotected file, which was accessible to my usual workflow: open in Acrobat, pass image to Photoshop (I imagine Nitro PDF and the GIMP would make a similar pair but open-source) … in this case then cropping and converting to grey, then saving as a PNG (6 Mpx in 3 MB). I wonder if a better version could be found, though, considering the scan is a little crooked, has pronounced JPEG artifacts, and of course has lost its colouring (see legend, bottom left). If not, though, WhisperToMe, I’d be happy to upload the file I extracted, which is at least an improvement on the present version in terms of clarity.

For general advice, I’d stress the importance of using a tool that can extract the actual image data from the PDF, to minimize loss of quality & detail. Then save it in an un- or losslessly compressed format (i.e. not JPEG) before doing any further work on it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: Thank you so much! Is there a similar/better quality in these versions of the book on the Internet Archive? https://archive.org/details/cunninghamshisto00cunnuoft and https://archive.org/details/historyofthesikh025030mbp (1918 revised edition) WhisperToMe (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not AFAICT. The first is a full-colour scan, but seems to lack maps. The second includes a high-resolution linework version of the map (evidently a redrawing), but IMO it’s visually inferior to the one from the Lal thesis, particularly when viewed at less than full resolution, and it’s missing a narrow vertical strip in the middle (presumably from the binding).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 06:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: Ok. Is it alright if you upload what you have? (The redrawing may be nice too anyway even though it has a defect) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479: Found the new version. Thank you so much! WhisperToMe (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone should feel free to start a page Commons:PDF by summarizing the above. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, since no one else did it, I'll start one. Others should feel free to improve it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Page is at Commons:Extracting images from PDF. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Background colors[edit]

At and under our Category:Images by color of background, some items are said to be on a given background, while others with a given background. With one exception, this seems to be random — e.g.:

cat with black background.

spider on white background.

Regardless of the best word, the main problem here is inconsistency, and the same approach for identical situations should always be followed. I call for general renaming in order to achieve such sought consistency, and I favour "on" against "with" for its clearer meaning — and also for this exception. Opinions? -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The affected categories would be:

-- Tuválkin ✉ 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

on and with background[edit]

In some cases, the background is part of a design, which is in toto the subject of the category, namely images themselves: Those should not be changed from "with", of course. A special case would be paintings (o.s.l.t.) hanging on walls, where two backgrounds can be considered: The background the painting is on and the background the painting depicts (“with”):

Here we have:

Crab on green background
Painting with green background
Painting on white(ish) background

-- Tuválkin ✉ 00:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd hate on if with already exists, or vice versa, but both variants are okay. I don't know how I'd pick what, it could depend on the size of the object or the relevance of the background. DEnglish en-3 alert, Be..anyone (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Both seem correct depending on context. For example, that cat has a black background (the photo is of a cat with a black background), whereas the spider is actually on a white background (it is physically on a white card); the cat is on a ledge, not a black anything, it is in front of a black background. So, if I had to pick one, I would pick with, as it indicates a connection or accompaniment, whereas on (generally) suggests a physical connection. I don't see why both can't stay side by side with Template:See also indicating that there is more related media in another category, or another term such as against a be used. ColonialGrid (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Should any standardization be implemented, I favor the more general "with" versus the more specific "on", in order to accommodate both possibilities. As long as the main subject (animal, plant, food, etc) is placed against a (completely or predominantly) solid color background (regardless of whether that color is a wall, a sheet of paper, the ground, a cropped/photoshopped background, etc.), "with" can easily accommodate the image, obviating discussions about the color the subject is physically resting on. Should a substantialy subset of "with" images be more appropriately "on", then the category "on" could potentially be nested under "with", but I think it's preferable just to have one category versus two. I don't think a third term such as "against a" needs implementation at this time, as that would only further complicate the issue. Animalparty (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark this thread as sufficient and give it a go. I avoid implementing taxonomic changes, before you know it you have spent 3 years rearranging your brickabrack. --Fæ (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

December 25[edit]

Christmas crossword[edit]

EFF Crossword Puzzle 2014: The Year in Copyright News

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has published this (copyright related) crossword which you can play online at http://thedod.github.io/eff-crossword-2014/. It makes a nice break from feeding yourself with Christmas treats. Happy holidays everyone. Fæ (talk) 16:57, 25 December 2014‎

No thumbnails from pdf files? Like File:WorldAviation.198409.BackCover.pdf[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator (?)
Task T72734

I recently uploaded two PDF files, but they are not thumbnailing correctly. The main thumbnail has this error:

Error generating thumbnail

There have been too many recent failed attempts (4 or more) to render this thumbnail. Please try again later.

All other thumbnails mention:

Error generating thumbnail

Error creating thumbnail: convert: no decode delegate for this image format `/tmp/magick-Q7mDp41v' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_7542ce3e507e-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.

I found this link, which talks about "purging", but I do not know how to do that.

The other one is File:WorldAviation.MiddleTwoPages.ICAORegions.pdf

Someone has a clue? Thanks in advance!

6th Common Sense (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I created Cat:PDF Files perhaps you could put files in an appropriate category there Thanks WayneRay (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

WayneRay, thx. I can add them there, but that wouldn't solve the problem or would it? 6th Common Sense (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

When I tested File:WorldAviation.MiddleTwoPages.ICAORegions.pdf on my own computer, it worked, but ghostscript took a really long time to render it. I think the image is just taking longer than allowed to display on Wikimedia servers, and that may be the problem. Bawolff (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; they do indeed open correctly. It's only the thumbnails which are not displayed correctly on Wikimedia. I should maybe try to optimize and upload them again now that I have Adobe Acrobat Pro (instead of Paperport and PageManager). Is there any standard way to replace the same files? Or do I go through standard upload procedure? 6th Common Sense (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the PDF seems to be just a ‘wrapper’ for scans of the original document, I’d recommend extracting the images and uploading them as PNGs (under new names, as one format can’t be uploaded over another). The restricted colour palette in the images should make for fairly small files with no loss of quality—and the servers are unlikely to have any trouble rendering them. (Ideally the two-page spread would be stitched back together.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This problem looks like phab:T72734#764455 - I've added a comment in the bug tracker. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

December 27[edit]

Naming standard for categories for individual airliners ?[edit]

There appears to be a (de-facto ?) standard for names for categories of individual commercial aircraft : ABCDE (aircraft) where ABCDE is the civilian registration. Unfortunately, these codes are often re-used, with the consequences that ABCDE may apply to multiple aircraft over the years, and also that the same aircraft at another period of its existence may be registered as e.g. VWXYZ. Hence we get images of obviously different aircraft in the same category (e.g. Category:C-GMWJ (aircraft) and images of the same aircraft in separate categories. Hence this naming convention is really unworkable - only something unique like the aircraft's construction serial number gives a robust category naming scheme. Is there any task group that deals with these issues ? With Commons now being swamped with aircraft photos from many spotter's groups we need a robust standard before it gets out of hand. Rcbutcher (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe checking up the way the a similar problem was dealt with for ships would be a good idea: Category:Ships by IMO number. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Currently, the workaround is to move to something like ABCDE (Airbus A320) if there are several aircraft per registration. That works quite well I think. The number of cases where this applies is relatively low. The construction serial number is not really an option for categorization because it is often not known or at least difficult to find out. The reason why registrations are a good idea for categorization is that they are always visible on the aircraft. I don't think the current system is a problem, really. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? As far as I understood callsigns, they apply to the airframe itself - whichever livery it is found in. The example you gave, is the same plane with different colours. 6th Common Sense (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The only difference I can see is that winglets have been fitted in the most recent photo. --ghouston (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Some websites, such as [1] say it was built in 2006, which would imply that the photos from 2001 do show a different aircraft. --ghouston (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitely different aircraft - early 737 with original low-bypass engines under wings versus later model with forward-mounted high-bypass engines. Tail is also different. This re-using and re-registering seems to occur often enough that a naming convention needs to addreess it. Rcbutcher (talk) 05:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep. All correct. Callsigns can indeed change over the course of a plane's life. Sorry for the confusion. 6th Common Sense (talk) 09:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What I’ve done in the past is create a disambiguation page. But that may not be the best approach: see C-GGWJ (aircraft), where it seems a couple of files have been put there by an infobox, despite having only their disambiguated category visible in the wikitext.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a decent solution, but the template would need to be modified so that it doesn't add the category. Commons:Categories even says "Topical categories shouldn't be included through templates", although that isn't generally followed. Using a system like the "Ships by IMO number" seems like overkill unless duplicates are quite frequent, and it would also require that the unique ID number is easily obtained for any particular aircraft. --ghouston (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

In the case I mention, this would give us Category:C-GMWJ (Boeing 737-200) and Category:C-GMWJ (Boeing 737-700). However, it doesn't solve the problem of what the 737-200 was reregistered as (N751AA). I suspect there are huge numbers of old aircraft still flying and being photographed with minor airlines that lived under differtent registrations with major airlines... some aircraft exist for 30+ years and get traded around. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

One could install cats with old registrations as subcat to the current/last registration if there are images available. Otherwise older registrations should be mentioned in the category desription. --Denniss (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Subcategories would work. Although I'm curious about these serial numbers now. So the older C-GMWJ has a serial number of 21771 assigned by Boeing. Is this a Boeing unique number, or just unique to 737s, or 737-200s? How would you construct a category name from it? --ghouston (talk) 03:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Other examples regarding this issue: Category:Re-used aircraft registrations. MKFI (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to think Rcbutcher has a good point. Check out this list [2] to see how often registrations can change. Airbus aircraft seem to be often given a temporary registration for delivery, in addition to any assigned afterwards. One aircraft, for example, has been registered as F-WWIF, 9H-ABP, A6-ABY, TS-INK, N101LF and 9Q-CCA. --ghouston (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is how to show categories as just tags that apply to a particular photo only at the time it was made, not to an immutable attribute of the photo subject. In archival terms, we have a series : all photos taken during the life of an airplane/ship etc. We have entities/tags linked to that series over time e.g. construction number, registration, location, owner, which apply only to a particular date range. I.e. GN-XYZ applies only to photos within certain date range. Folks are doing this correctly by linking the civilian registration (as a category) to individual photos. The failure is in also using this category as the "name" of the series, as its parent category. The name of the series has to be unique, and the fdolks at Ships have made a start here. I started to apply this on heritage & museum warplanes, where the airplane first had a unique airframe number, possibly several civilian registrations, possibly fake military serials, then a static seat in a museum and maybe more museums. Hence I tried Category:Hawker hurricane (F12345) as the parent, with subcategories for its appearance as a civilian warbird Category:(ABCDEF (aircraft), and a final subcategory as Category:Hawker Hurricane at ABC Museum and if it moved Hawker Hurricane YYZ). I encountered problems getting this accepted, I think partly because I implemented it using category redirects to the parent category rather than an actual parent/child structure in order to simplify the structure - folks say they want to see all the photos in a single page, without using special tools to accomplish this. Hence we really need a simple category-flattening tool to meet people's "simple view" needs when the subject has a complex hisdtory. Folks also told me I couldn't create a category for a single image even though logic warranted it. The key is that each photo should be on only one of these categories. But I can see that it's a total pedantic pain and in the real world is way too complex to survive. We need somethging more intuitive and usable. Rcbutcher (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

See here Category:EI-ETL (aircraft) for an example of how aircraft being shunted about is handled. Problem is, only link is in comments, not in Category structure. I maintain the categories here shopuld share a comment parent with a unique key such as cn/serial number: 0954 (but obviously needs further coding to make it unique !). Rcbutcher (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Category talk:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls[edit]

Hi all,

I was working a bit with fixing duplicate arguments in template calls. Mainly removing those from templates and other pages which are included a lot to take out the big issues. Doing that I came across a few templates which were a bit too complicated for me but which are used quite heavily (thousands of categories). The templates I suspect to cause these issues can be found at Category talk:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Mainly it's Template:For (or one of the connected templates) which is used in Template:Place and Template:Place by decade. Another issue is with Template:Navbox subgroup and another big template is Template:Sisterwikis. Could somebody with a bit more template-working knowledge look at these and see if they can find the errors?

Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think I've got a fix for Template talk:Sisterwikis, but that would need verification as I'm not that good with templates. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the remaining templates are so complex and unreadable that they are mostly unmaintainable. They should be moved to Lua. --Jarekt (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 28[edit]

Language links[edit]

Hello everybody. Perhaps this is not the correct place to post it and English is not my mother language, but here we go anyway. ;) Inside every page here in Commons we are able to add links to related to Wikipedia pages, just in the same place we are used to do dealing with interwikis under Wikipedia. Take, for example the Heinrich Harder one and you all will know what I am talking about. But... despite the example given, there is a lot of pages here that are just "Category" ones, and I, personally, think that theres not much reason to keep and deal both Heinrich Harder and Category:Heinrich Harder, eg. So, my doubt is: is it correct to add Wikipedia article links to "Category pages" here in Commons, or we must add "Wikipedia Category pages" to the "Commons Category pages"? Second question: why dont we use just "Category pages" here? Regards, Sturm (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you search the Village Pump archives? I vaguely remember multiple discussions. -- Rillke^(q?) 04:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Sturm, the short answer is: Yes, Commons’ categories should link to regular wikipedia pages in any language, for a useful, productive result, in more than 99,9% of the cases. Telling you the reasons for the current implementation in the way I feel adequate to express it would properly get me blocked for a week due to insults to our esteemed colllegues who are working in the Wikidata project, so you better inform yourself and form your own opinion by browing the past discussions Rillke refers. -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay to upload images with logos?[edit]

Hi, I just found some images of people in burkina Faso but I see that the uploading account Institut Olvido (which is also the same name as what seems to be a charity) has posted their logo on all of the images. Is there any policy about this kind of thing?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The logo is, at worst, a minor issue. Just add {{watermark}}. But are these images either in the public domain or free-licensed? If not, we can't have them on Commons. See Commons:Scope. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, Thanks Jmabel!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Renaming meta-categories?[edit]

Looks like a bad move, this one: «moved page Category:Arecaceae by country to Category:Arecaceae in countries» (Pinging Steinsplitter) -- Tuválkin ✉ 15:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that looks totally wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This category move was requested by Jacklee (diff). --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging @Jacklee: - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Just following the prevailing pattern at "Category:Flora by order by country", which wasn't established by me. If you think the correct format is "XYZ by country" then all the subcategories need to be renamed. I've no objection if you wish to do so. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Deprecation of tags and attributes for compatibility with HTML5[edit]

The HTML5 standard released about 2 months ago and our web page is expressed in HTML5. To comply the new web standard, we have to fix and maintain many templates in accordance with the HTML5. You can find the list of obsolete tags and attributes here. I think cellpadding and cellspacing attributes for table are most used attributes which is now obsolete and deprecated. Expected problems while fixing are, fixing all templates would cause massive load for server, and in case of custom templates in user pages, it may be offensive to their owners. Any ideas? – Kwj2772 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There are various perfectly harmless obsolete tags and attributes, e.g., if you check chapter 10 you'll find that browsers of course are supposed to and will forever render the "obsolete" <tt> like the "valid" <kbd>, because billions of web pages expecting this exist. And the shorter tag wins in any UI not designed by committee.

I'd never use this crappy standard unless I'd need one of its new features (not counting the redefinition of "URL" in violence of a full Internet standard, or the charming "ASCII is Latin-1 is windows-1252" approach to reality, or keeping the horrible <u> while deprecating the fine <tt> with a rationale supporting the opposite.) Sadly MediaWiki didn't adopt the XHTML variant, but it used "tidy". Is that still the case? If yes folks can type <tt> if they want (also in templates and scribunto), and it will be rendered as <kbd> to get the important valid or at least valid with warnings stamp.

Some really obsolete hacks, e.g., abusing <font id="foo" /> to get an anchor when only this element was allowed, could be replaced by a bot (outside of templates, scripts, and system messages, otherwise it needs a manual intervention/review.) Fixing all align= (etc.) could be a good idea, if it comes with CSS saying something else, or a bad idea, where it's required for ancient browsers, XHTML basic agents, or similar. Above all the output must be valid. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we still use html tidy. Mostly to ensure that people have closed their tags (Often especially a problem with tables). Personally I wouldn't worry too much about html5 - by all means use current best practise's when creating new things. But using <tt> isn't going to hurt anyone, and really shouldn't be a user concern imo. It all works (Although font tag is evil..). Bawolff (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the overall majority of our templates are created using Copy & Paste from existing templates. Therefore applying current best practise's to the most known templates could pay off in the end. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Rillke, fix Infoboxes and top 10-50 Most Transcluded Pages and the rest should follow. --Jarekt (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

December 29[edit]

USAID Tanzania[edit]

Hi. I am familiar with the Federal US Government's general copyright policy i.e. unless otherwise stated, it is mostly in the public domain. I want to use some images from USAID's Tanzanian Flickr stream but unfortunately they are uploaded as "All Rights Reserved" https://www.flickr.com/photos/usaidtanzania/15861945818/ Can I therefore use an image from this photostream using this template: Template:PD-USGov-USAID that allows me to upload it? Thank you. Ali Fazal (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki[edit]

Request to admin. Please create these messages [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8][9]. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You might try Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 13:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Дагиров Умар (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 01[edit]

Raname polish air event[edit]

Look this category Category:Małopolski Piknik Lotniczy. What do you think? Need rename this for english? Małopolski Air Picnic. Another air event in Poland Category:Góraszka Air Picnic already with english language.

There also exsist Dutch airshow Category:Open Dagen Luchtmacht and call Luchtmachtdagen in dutch lang.

Johnny Rotten (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Check out COM:REDCAT, if you are confident that your English version is okay, if there aren't too many affected files and sub-categories, and if there's not a snowball's chance in hell that this could be controversial just do it yourself. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Piet Mondriaan Victory Boogie-Woogie, bought by the NL government at the end of the Dutch Florin (Guilder) and at the introduction of the Euro.

Kandinsky and Mondrian[edit]

Happy new year to you all! Yesterday, when I visited the wonderful exposition of Mark Rothko's work in The Hague, I came across Victory Boogie-Woogie by Piet Mondriaan. Just like another modernist abstract painter, Wassily Kandinsky, Mondriaan died in 1944, so I think the work of both important painters may be uploaded on Commons. I am not aware how and where to start, but I would love to help. Is somebody operating a bot to realize this? A lot of work of these famous painters is available on the internet. One work of Mondriaan I found in the Google Art Project. Elly (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year see Category:Undeleted in 2015, many of the files we had to previously delete, including many by Mondriann and Kandinsky, that have now been undeleted.--KTo288 (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a step in the good direction :-). but now all the rest.... Thanks, Elly (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There are some photos uploaded to the English and other Wikipedias; these can be transferred to Commons right now. Otherwise, just upload what you like and, even better, try to use already uploaded files -in Wikipedia articles, or, best of all, write dedicated articles about specific paintings. For oeuvres of Mondriaan, Kandinsky, and Munk it should be pretty easy to find sources for every canvas.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

January 02[edit]

Commons:Village pump

Contents

Oldies[edit]

Easiest way to get quality images from PDF files?[edit]

Background colors[edit]

on and with background[edit]

December 25[edit]

Christmas crossword[edit]

No thumbnails from pdf files? Like File:WorldAviation.198409.BackCover.pdf[edit]

December 27[edit]

Naming standard for categories for individual airliners ?[edit]

Category talk:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls[edit]

December 28[edit]

Language links[edit]

Is it okay to upload images with logos?[edit]

Renaming meta-categories?[edit]

Deprecation of tags and attributes for compatibility with HTML5[edit]

December 29[edit]

USAID Tanzania[edit]

MediaWiki[edit]

January 01[edit]

Raname polish air event[edit]

Kandinsky and Mondrian[edit]

January 02[edit]

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigate

Participate

Tools

In Wikipedia