Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
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.

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:


 
A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


January 04[edit]

Category:Ogg sound files[edit]

It seems that Category:Ogg sound files and all of its sub-categories are being removed, after a deletion proposal that had no discussion whatsoever. Was this proposal announced anywhere else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Probably not besides Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/11/Category:Ogg sound files. Categories for discussion tends to be a wasteland of stale discussions, some dating back to 2013. I don't think people commonly watch categories themselves. --Animalparty (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
So are these deletions legitimate? it seems not, to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
While I'd not in favour of intersecting filetype categories with content categories, I don't think Category:Ogg sound files should have been deleted. I do pay attention to CfDs, but I somehow missed this one. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

January 10[edit]

Category:Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752[edit]

One of the pictures where body parts are visible

This category with news photos about the plane crash in Iran contains several pictures where human remains and blood are recognizable, maybe they are candidates for speedy deletion? Behanzane (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

COM:NOTCENSORED. --A.Savin 17:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
At the end of that paragraph: "However, the statement "Commons is not censored" is not a valid argument for keeping a file that falls outside the normal permitted Commons scope." I think this pictures are certainly falling outside this "not cencored" definition. Behanzane (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
How would such a picture be "outside the normal permitted Commons scope"? It is a picture related to an obviously encyclopedic topic. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
This are pictures of human remains of people who died at his accident. Not pictures where you have to zoom in to recognize something, but very clear close-ups of the various body parts. Behanzane (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
First, it's not an accident but a crime. Second, pictures of human body parts are still notable (we have categories for that), and especially if the pictures are related to a notable event. So please stop wasting community's time, it's useless and unwelcome. --A.Savin 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Behanzane: Yes, it is clear that is what it is a picture of. How is that out of scope?
@A.Savin: I hope that your remark that it was a "crime" is just an off-topic statement of your own opinion, rather than something that you think is Commons' business and that such a category would be relevant. As far as I can tell from pretty much all sides, it does not appear that the Revolutionary Guard deliberately targeted a civilian airliner, but that this was the result of hair-trigger stupidity, pretty much exactly what happened when the U.S. shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988. As far as I know, we have no categories referring to that as a criminal act. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Not sure what you want from me, as Negligent homicide is by all means a crime, even if only one is killed. --A.Savin 08:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
For your information (not for the faint-hearted): Category:Human corpses. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge December results[edit]

Weather vanes: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Maritime weather vane at the east coast of the island Bornholm, Denmark.jpg Weather vane at Woodman Point, November 2019.jpg Sainghin-en-Mélantois, Girouette.jpg
Title Maritime weather vane at the east coast
of the island Bornholm, Denmark
Woodman Point, Western Australia Weather vane witch in
Sainghin-en-Mélantois Nord (Fr)
Author ThomasLendt Calistemon Pierre André Leclercq
Score 22 16 13
Long Exposures: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Ellerberg 1274451.jpg Le rapide del torrente.jpg Funkturm Arsenal Blitze.jpg
Title Long-term exposure at the Ellerberg
in Franconian Switzerland
Torrente in Val di Mello. Le rapide Blitze beim Funkturm
Author Ermell 66colpi Linie29
Score 27 15 15
Eye Care: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 2
Image Throughmyeyes.jpg Applying saline solution to a dog's eye.jpg Slit lamp and binocular microscope.jpg
Title Through my eyes. Applying saline solution to a dog's eye Slit lamp and
binocular microscope
Author Roumpf Tulumnes OKJaguar
Score 13 12 12

Congratulations to ThomasLendt, Calistemon, Pierre André Leclercq, Roumpf, Tulumnes, OKJaguar, Ermell, 66colpi and Linie29. -- Colin (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg Thank you. Colin. Happy new year 2020 to you and every animators of "Photo Challenge". Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

January 11[edit]

Edit notices on full protected pages state page is semi protected[edit]

I've just noticed that on pages with full protection, the edit notice states the page is semi protected and can be edited by autoconfirmed users. See Commons:Welcome, Commons:Oversight etc.

Is this something that could be changed?

~~ OxonAlex - talk 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I see the correct notice although my case may not be relevant as I can edit protected pages. Ruslik (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfree file autoprotected: can't nominate[edit]

Hi all. I saw File:Sultan Haitham Swearing In.jpg, wanted to nominate it (can't believe this is own work, looks rather like a sverrnshot), but can't as it's autoprotected. The reason: it is included on the main page of the French Wikipedia. So... how can we solve this? Trijnsteltalk 21:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Looks like it has been nominated for speedy deletion. Uploader has a history of uploading copyvios & having them deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

January 12[edit]

Featured videos[edit]

Hello.

I've discovered yesterday this page : [1].

It's very interesting.

Regards.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Bird's-eye representation: is this a "map"?[edit]

Lake Union, Union Bay and Lake Washington, looking north, ca 1912 (SEATTLE 2006).jpg

I've placed File:Lake Union, Union Bay and Lake Washington, looking north, ca 1912 (SEATTLE 2006).jpg in Category:Incorrect maps. It's not exactly a map, but I don't see any other more appropriate category. Any suggestions? (See description on the file page if you are interested in what is inaccurate about it.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

What about starting at Category:Aerial photographs? Wouter (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Category:Bird's eye view maps of the United States I think is what you are looking for. Jheald (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I have Category:Bird's-eye view on it; I think that's more accurate than calling it a "map". Perhaps I didn't express my question clearly: my problem is with whether I can improve on Category:Incorrect maps. We need to somehow mark it as not being an accurate reflection of any reality, but we don't seem to have a category that covers this for something that is more an artist's rendition than a map. & I'm not sure this is really in any sense an "aerial," I think you could get a position not far from this (insofar as it reflects the physical geography at all) from somewhere on north Capitol Hill. - 21:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I would definitely categorize it as a birds-eye map, inaccuracies and all. Perhaps Category:Artist's impressions and/or Category:Architectural visualisation drawings as well? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
It's certainly not an architectural visualisation drawing (it's not even an architectural drawing) but I think Category:Maps of proposed entities may be on the mark. - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 13[edit]

Museums in Paris release 100.000 scans of CC0 images[edit]

This might be of any interest. (Source; link) Veverve (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See also http://www.parismusees.paris.fr/fr/actualite/open-content-plus-de-100-000-oeuvres-des-collections-des-musees-de-la-ville-de-paris-en . It's a partnership with Wikimedia France and they're working on getting the content on Commons too. Multichill (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal[edit]

Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Propose 6 month interaction ban

Raising notification here as this would benefit from a wider consensus than would be expected from the readership of the admin noticeboard. The proposed interaction ban involves the behaviour of an administrator, so opinions and scrutiny from non-administrators would be beneficial to assess community consensus.

Thanks -- (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

John Laing Archive[edit]

Historic England and the John Laing Trust have today launched (announcement) an online archive of pictures of buildings and construction works by John Laing.

As usual, there is no sign of an open licence, but some of the images are from 1948/1949 and by anonymous photographers (example}.

Can we upload them, or are going to hit a "first publication" issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Interestingly, some of the images (like this one) are Crown Copyright which expires after 50 years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Category redirect[edit]

I have created Category:Géza Kádas with the name as in the English WP. The native form of this personal name is Kádas Géza. Therefore I created a category redirect Category:Kádas Géza following the info on Category:Category redirects. There is mentioned “Use {{category redirect|correct category name (without the "Category:" prefix)}} to put categories here.”. I checked a few but they contained the Category prefix as for example {{Category redirect|Category:Digit 0 in heraldry}} The problem I have is that on Category:Géza Kádas the empty category Kádas Géza is mentioned. Wouter (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A null edit solved the problem. Ruslik (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Wouter (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

January 14[edit]

Neue Strategy Liaison für deutsche Sprache[edit]

(This text aims to raise awareness for the final phases of the Wikimedia Strategy 2030 in german language)

WM2030.png

Anfang 2017 begann, mit Auslaufen der alten Strategie, die Feststellung des Bedarfs und die Entwicklung einer neuen Strategie für die Wikimedia-Bewegung bis 2030. Jetzt, nachdem viele Einzelpersonen und Arbeitsgruppen Vorschläge erarbeitet haben, die immer wieder durch Feedbackrunden überarbeitet wurden, werde ich euch nächste Woche darum bitten, die finalen Vorschläge für die Strategie Wikimedia 2030 durchzuschauen und zu diskutieren. Meine Rolle in dem Prozess, der bis Juni andauert, wird es sein, eure Rückmeldungen zu sammeln und weiterzugeben, Chancen und Risiken sollen aus euren Antworten sprechen. Außerdem bin ich jederzeit für Hinweise und Fragen verfügbar, von „was ist überhaupt eine Strategie“ bis zu „wie wird mich das im Fotografieren und Veröffentlichen von Dateien beeinflussen“. Jedenfalls freue ich mich schon auf euch und wünsche mir eine fruchtbare Diskussion. Weitere Infos wird es hier sowie auf Meta und Wikipedia:Wikimedia2030 geben.--CJackel (WMF) (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Species Determination[edit]

Hello Village pump. I believe the scientific identity of this image and this image is wrong. I believed the link information when downloading, but the specimen originates from the Pacific Ocean. For those who do not understand, there are two similar species: in the Atlantic Ocean is M. zebra; in the Pacific Ocean the species is M. cervinetta. If the collection data is correct, the species is wrong. Mário NET (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If you're confident that your new identification is correct, you can use the "Edit" link at the top of each page and replace the species name wherever it appears. You'll also need to edit the captions and the depicts (P180) information on the "Structured data" tab. Finally, you can request that the file be renamed using the "Move" link in the "More" menu. If you're not confident about the new identification, you could remove mention of the precise species and just categorise it under Category:Macrocypraea. --bjh21 (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I can do that. Mário NET (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Check out Commons:Bots/Requests/EatchaBot 2 and find. Problems with the bot's edits[edit]

Hi Everyone,

I am identifying languages used in the file description, but we do not have enough humans to check the edits (I am checking them using third party APIs) but humans are required to check them no matter what I do. If you think you found something wrong just drop a line on the BRFA page. If you think it's working fine, you may drop something too. Thanks for reading this message. -- Eatcha (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Creative Commons book[edit]

Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians.pdf

Creative Commons have published a new book: "Creative Commons for Educators and Librarians" (which is openly available under a CC by licence!). A number of other formats are freely avaialble, and hard copies can be purchased. It will be very useful in outreach work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"Speedy keep" frivolous requests for deletion?[edit]

Does policy provide any way for this to be done?

To wit, a file that I uploaded was recently proposed for deletion with a rationale that, according to the EXIF data, it was created by "PolyView" and thus it's unlikely to be my own work. I did indeed take the photograph myself, and as any Google search would tell you, PolyView is a shareware photo editing program which in this case I used to adjust its brightness, contrast, color saturation etc. levels before upload.

Furthermore, the user who requested deletion has been warned repeatedly, as documented on his talk page (example, example, example, and there are likely quite a few more; I didn't go back very far into his archives) about proposing content for deletion for spurious reasons.

I feel that this RfD is a waste of admins' time, and that there's no valid reason why we should need to wait seven days to close discussion on it when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. Please advise.

Also, my apologies if I've placed this on the wrong page, and please move if necessary.

-- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Andre Carrotflower: There's nothing to stop an admin closing the request early, but non-admin closes are only permitted if everyone agrees that the request was mistaken, which I don't think is the case here. --bjh21 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. Thoughtless nomination lacking even basic due diligence. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Thank you, I appreciate your attending to this. I wonder if you or another admin might be willing to also close the discussions for File:Lunar Eclipse 2017-08-07.jpg and File:PumpkinTower.jpg, which were RfD'd for the same spurious reason. -- Andre Carrotflower (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
@Andre Carrotflower: ✓ Done File:Lunar Eclipse 2017-08-07.jpg but File:PumpkinTower.jpg is my own image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Not only that, but the EXIF actually says "PolyView® Version 4.45 by Polybytes". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

January 15[edit]

Flickr2Commons appears to be broken[edit]

meta:Talk:Flickr2Commons#Although I authorise through OAuth Uploader, Flickr2Commons does not allow me to use it. Anyone know whom to get hold of? - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The iasue is reported, at the above page, to be solved, but for future reference: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/flickr2commons/issues?status=new&status=open Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Duplicates[edit]

Sometimes the same picture can be uploaded twice accidentaly (but with different ligth and colours settings):

The older uploaded version is the better version (in my opinion).Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I have an solution with renames with the suffix '.orig'. The files will be together.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
If you want one of these deleted & turned into a redirect, we can do that. Otherwise, just link them with {{Other version}}. Or if you want one renamed, use {{Rename}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Problem solved: I use my own link 'other version' with a thumb image of the other version. example: File:Lage Zwaluwe stoptrein in sneeuw.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see the small edit I made on these, introducing the normal template. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of an 1885 photo in an article[edit]

I purchased the second of the stock photos from the firm (Alamy) indicated in the following reference.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-french-painter-paul-lon-jazet-in-his-paris-studio-photograph-by-edmond-113154839.html

It was originally photographed around 1885.Can I insert it into an existing Wikipedia article on Paul Leon Jazet? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey BFP1. Since the photograph is by Edmond Bénard who died in 1907, his work would have entered the public domain in 1977. You can upload it here on Commons using {{PD-old}} for the licensing.
On a side note, sites like Alamy and Getty Images are pretty notorious for trying to charge people for public domain images. I would recommend caution before purchasing historic images from them in the future. In essence, you just paid for an image that is free. GMGtalk 15:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks GMGtalk BFP1BFP1 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you explain how to carry out the upload process, is it via the Upload Wizard? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@BFP1: Yep. You can just use the upload Wizard. If you want I can look at it and tidy it up after you upload it. GMGtalk 19:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I have now uploaded File:Paul-Léon Jazet in his Paris studio (c1885).jpg Is the upload OK? When I reply do I need to always add BFP1 and the 4 tildes? BFP1BFP1 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@BFP1: Looks good to me. I did a few tweaks here and there. GMGtalk 20:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)~~Many thanks. BFP1BFP1 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@BFP1: And, just so you know, when you sign a post you only need to type 4 tildes. Your user name will be included automatically along with the date and time. Otherwise your user name will be duplicated, as seen in your previous posts. It's the same as in Wikipedia. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 06:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Thanks -AnimalpartyBFP1 (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I have uploaded some of my own photos to Commons, as PD, and now Alamy offer them for sale. Guess what proportion of the income they pass on to me? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

January 17[edit]

Template LOC-pchrom[edit]

AscenseurViergedelagarde.jpg
The use of the Swiss licensing template is confusing as this is not an image of Switzerland, but of France. I have added an PD-France licence.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As far as I remember, in the context of copyright the country a photograph was taken in matters not so much as the country where it was originally published? I'm more confused by the statement "Reproduction by Photoglob AG, Zürich, Switzerland or Detroit Publishing Company, Detroit, Michigan" in the source section - the given source does not mention Photoglob/Zürich at all, only Detroit Publisheng ... --El Grafo (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As a slight tangent, where we see examples like this cable railway of the colours being visibly played around with compared to the original archive, these are not valid digital restorations but are damaging the archive original. The image has been restored to the same colour palette as exists at the Library of Congress original. If someone wants to play around with faking colours and "enhancing" images based on their personal tastes, they should always create a separate file and make it clear in the description and the filename that this is not original. -- (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

After further review of how the template is used, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:LOC-pchrom has been raised. -- (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Correctly representing, but not promoting, "racial theories" used in Nordicism and Nazism[edit]

Photograph of a Swedish woman currently incorrectly and offensively promoted on Commons as being of "Nordic race A" as if this were a factual description. Sourced from Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN

It is proposed that categories, filenames and media descriptions must always distinguish "racial" theories such as Nordicism which views the "Nordic race" as an endangered and superior racial group as accurately being debunked archaic theories. Especially where photographs of people are being used, this must be given sufficient context or warnings in the description and categorization so that there is no doubt that the person is being misrepresented in the original outdated source by the "racial" language and terms being used.

Examples of recently created "racial" categories on Commons were raised yesterday at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Scientific racism as categories on Commons (e.g. "Cromagnoid race", "Nordic race" and "Lapponoid race" categories), which highlights that Commons has no clear guideline or consensus on how best correctly to represent this media on Commons. By blithely using the terminology that might be used at outdated sources of media like the Meyers Blitz-Lexikon or the Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN to create categories or filenames, this risks misusing Commons to promote racist theories used by white supremacists and other groups for race hate. Categories such as Category:Meyers Blitz-Lexikon exist without needing to create sub-categories using the meaningless or anti-educational "racial" terminology.

With an effective guideline accepted on Commons, it will be easier to request similar guidelines to be implemented on Wikidata.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. -- (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Why not just just name categories like "Person where X says the person would belong to race Z"? --GPSLeo (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no evidence that we need sub-categories around this offensive 'racial' language, the numbers of files are exceedingly small so the source publication title is sufficient. With regard to "X says", this would be an excuse to create categories like "People Trump has called 'a bad person'" because some external source was once published saying these things, when Commons categories should be about understandable repeatable factual qualification rather than defamation or abusive terms. Right now, despite having a host of categories based on offensively 'racial' terminology from it, we don't even have a category for Encyklopedia Powszechna. There are fewer than 100 such relevant files so these images would hardly be lost if put in such a parent category. Keep in mind, these terms cannot be used outside of reference to the source publication. If a contributor were to start adding "Nordic race" to the descriptions of photographs of people generally, they would be considered a vandal. -- (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
If there are just one or two pictures then there should be a category like "Picture used by X to explain his race theory" and the description should contain more information. But this information is definitely important. I think there are frequent people looking for these images to explain these racist theories to show that they are bullshit. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this proposal is setting a guideline for accuracy, not deletion or obscuration.
It is important that we gain a reasonable consensus on this. I know the subject puts folks off from writing anything or putting in a !vote, but we need a guideline to avoid having a "racial categories" discussion again just simply to move or delete categories or filenames like "Nordic race", which actually damage this project's educational value by reading as if we support 1930's style racist theories. -- (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between a picture of some racist stuff from centuries ago, and the implementation of anti-scientific, right-extremist, white-supremacist bullshit like those categories here. Those cats are have no real purpose, they could as well be sorted just under the categorie of the book they were taken from, if necessary with sub-cats for chapters or such. They should have no place in real scientific cats, if there ain't some top-cat "Debunkt racist bullshit" (perhaps in more polite words). There is no "Nordic Race", so there should no be any category with that name. If somehow necessary (which I can't think about any real purpose for), it should be named something along Category:Files about the false racist concept of... or such. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Categories like "Nordic Race" have no place on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The source that the picture was scanned from is not the defining category here. For example (I checked just one picture) File:01975 Lapponoid race L.jpg was originally credited to w:Herman Bernhard Lundborg taken in 1930. Lundborg was the leading race biologist and eugenist in Sweden in the 1920s. In Poland it was also used as an example by w:Jan Czekanowski in his book Człowiek, jego rasy i życie (google translation: Man, his race and life) in 1939 (Lviv school?) and pl:Bronisław Jasicki, and pl:Paweł Sikora (antropolog) in book Zarys antropologii in 1962 (Krakow school?). (source: https://antropologia-fizyczna.pl ; I can't read the Polish language so I used Google translate). So even if stay just in Sweden and Poland there are least three distinct uses for demonstrating the Lapponoid race which would be noteworthy in Wikipedia or Wikidata as they can be sourced as historical (superseded) scientific theories. For Commons the image was scanned from the Polish dictionary (w:Wielka Encyklopedia Powszechna PWN) which used it thirty or forty years after first publication. There is clearly information that should be told to the user via using categorization and description etc so the historical context would be clear and for doing this the solution will be more complex than flattening the categories to category:this is deprecated racistic shit. --Zache (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons should not be sorting people by race. While it is entirely in line with Commons' purpose to preserve these images and make them freely available for reuse, the project should not in any way buy into the unscientific theory of humans being divided into races. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, Commons should not be sorting people by race but where we are dealing with historical examples like this Commons should not be obfuscating what the intent was at that time. They were sorting people by race. No matter what we think of these theories and practices now, they were widely accepted at the time. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Let's look at this objectively for a moment, from what I can see within "Category:Nordic race A" is that most of the category includes contemporary literature on the subject, if "File:01975 0022 Nordic race A (Swedish women).jpg" is actually used as an example of a member of "Nordic race A" in the Polish encyclopedia it's from then it's actually correctly categorised. I am not a fan of the fact that homeopathy exists today, but "" should not be deleted because of my emotions. Context is very important and if the woman was actually used in that Polish encyclopedia in that way then the categorisation (no matter how offensive it is to is modern civilised people) is still technically correct. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 18[edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore[edit]

WLL Subtitled Logo (transparent).svg

Hello Folks,

Wiki Loves Love is back again in 2020 iteration as Wiki Loves Folklore from 1 February, 2020 - 29 February, 2020. Join us to celebrate the local cultural heritage of your region with the theme of folklore in the international photography contest at Wikimedia Commons. Images, videos and audios representing different forms of folk cultures and new forms of heritage that haven’t otherwise been documented so far are welcome submissions in Wiki Loves Folklore. Learn more about the contest at Meta-Wiki and Commons.

Kind regards,
Wiki Loves Folklore International Team
— Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk)
sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Identify American President[edit]

Who is the rightmost person

Please identify the rightmost person who should be a US president. Is he Jimmy Carter? I am categorizing the file, and I want to know if I should add it to Category:Caricatures of Jimmy Carter. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The logic says it's Carter. --jdx Re: 20:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
    Yup. GMGtalk 22:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

January 19[edit]