Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/03.

Please note:


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:


Search archives:


 
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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

March 10[edit]

Dark mode gadget[edit]

English Wikipedia has its own "dark mode" gadget. I think Commons needs the gadget as well. Shall it be similar to enwiki's, or how can the gadget be written specifically for Commons? --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The enwiki one is pretty contrasty. I've used mw:Skin:DarkVector before but it has lots of edge cases unaccounted for. Arlo James Barnes 12:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How did you use this skin on Wikimedia projects? I'd also like to, if I knew how to. Thanks! —‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode is a matter of taste and preferences. To shine a light on this discussion, I need to tell you folks that I really hate how Firefox is forcing dark mode upon me since updating my browser to Firefox 96. My advice would be to keep Wikipedia's door wide open for people who prefer to see black letters on white background. Anonymous, 10th of March 2022, 15h44 CET —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.173.160.29 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Nobody said that it was going to be mandatory, it would just be nice for some people if they had the option to enable it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stamps of Country and Country on stamps categories and their interplay[edit]

I believe that we should discuss this with the whole community, I am starting it here because starting it on a talk page on any single category guarantees that nobody will see it.

So, we have categories of stamps published in every country (and sometimes of former countries or other territories), the format of those categories is akin to Category:Stamps of Bulgaria. There is also a hierarchy of categories of different things shown on stamps, and obviously countries can also be displayed on the stamp, and that brings forth another intersection of a stamp and a country; the format of those categories is akin to Category:Bulgaria on stamps.

Now here is the potential conflict that brings me here. I have created the template {{stamps of country}}, which I have been applying to appropriate categories, and that template places Stamps of Country inside the Country on stamps, my argument is that at least the logo of the country, or the country name is displayed on the stamps. This is true for almost every country, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom (UPU has made that exception, since the first stamps was made in Britain). In parallel Kreuz und quer has been doing the opposite, placing Country on stamps inside Stamps of Country (example). I have reverted them a few times, but now I believe that it is possible that we'll begin some sort of revert war, and I would like to avoid that.

Hence, I am looking for some sort of community consensus on this categorisation. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Kreuz und quer: . Also @Ww2censor: since they have interest in stamp categories. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 05:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the wikiprojects, such as w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philately. I think there are some other language projects but don't know where they are located. Ww2censor (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i think it's better to have "Stamps of Country inside the Country on stamps", since i suppose there must have been countries shown on other countries' stamps, assuming Stamps of Country=stamps issued by country, rather than any stamp related to that country.--RZuo (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because we host files for all languages, here are the other countries I can find, besides the enwiki project, that will be affected by any decision we make:
Please make sure they are all notified appropriately. Ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gone Postal I agree that Stamps of Country makes more sense inside Country on stamps. My doing the opposite was simply out of a desire to link the two categories -- due to the vagaries of the English "of," I hadn't thought too much about hierarchy. But the way you and @RZuo describe it is more logical. I'm happy to change over my categorization if that's the consensus. Kreuz und quer (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gone Postal: I don't see why Stamps of Country would be placed inside Country on stamps or vice versa. Country on stamps makes me think the country is depicted on the stamp, not just shown as a word. Why would anyone want to sort stamps by the words they include? That doesn't seem like useful categorization. Also, such an arrangement makes the Country on stamps categories mostly just useless containers for Stamps of Country. Nosferattus (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Video2commons stopped working[edit]

Is there some solution on the horizon or is it just like the commonist: gone without replacement? Seems more people have the problem --> Commons talk:Video2commons#Is this software still maintained? ...Sicherlich talk 18:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed the same issue, I just assumed that the issue was at my end and that the videos were too big or something, it would be really good if the standard MediaWiki Upload Wizard could just accept .mp4 files. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: Sadly, mp4 is not yet free.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That the original format is not free is not a problem. What is a problem is that in 2022, after all these years and when there are already all the free bricks to do the job (FFmpeg), the Upload Wizard is still not able to accept all the possible and imaginable formats as input and to ensure itself the conversion to free and modern formats (like AV1). Uploading videos should be as easy as on any other platform. Okki (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can contribute to writing the AV ingestion pipeline ;) —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 11[edit]

High speed lines Spain categories[edit]

I uploaded File:Parla HSL 2022 1.jpg to File:Parla HSL 2022 4.jpg. At this location there are in fact two high speed lines. One in use: Madrid - Sevilla and Madrid - Levant starting from the junction Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco just beyond. The other tracks are not yet in use and are the tracks of the Chamartin Atocha normal guage tunnel wich have separate tracks up until the Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco where the tracks continue to the Levant line. See for details in https://www.openrailwaymap.org/. Do we create a separate category for the Chamartin - tunnel - junction Bifurcación Torrejón de Velasco line? It can also be considered a prolongation of the Category:Madrid–Valladolid high-speed rail line. The line will probably be opening in 2022. es:Túneles ferroviarios Atocha-Chamartín Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that disambiguating in the category name is wise, because if you don't, you'll get a lot of miscategorisation. Perhaps with a "via"? Although if they rejoin for part of the route, it would be better to have subcategories, like "X rail line, Y to Z branch via W" for each option so the jointly used parts have a place to go. If the line's long, subcats are nice anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Madrid–Chamartin to bifurcation Torrejón de Velasco high-speed rail line, inclusive Madrid railtunnel. The will be practicaly no pictures of the railtunnel.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pew Research Center graphs[edit]

The Center provides you with a nonexclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, revocable, worldwide, and royalty-free license to access, copy, reproduce, cite, link, display, download, distribute, broadcast, transmit, publish, modify, create derivatives of, or otherwise exploit the survey datasets (other than American Trends Panel survey datasets, which are governed by their own terms and conditions) made available on this website (“Data”), provided that:

• any reproduction, display, distribution, broadcast, transmission, or publication of the Data is limited to excerpts and may not be reproduced, displayed, distributed, broadcast, transmitted, or published in full or substantially in full;

• all copies and excerpts of the Data display all copyright and other applicable notices to the extent such notices are contained in such Data; and

• you do not use the Data in any manner that implies, suggests, or could otherwise be perceived as attributing a particular policy or lobbying objective or opinion to the Center, or as a Center endorsement of a cause, candidate, issue, party, product, business, organization, religion or viewpoint. [1]

Now, at Category:Pew Research Center, we see a few graphs and tables. I am not good enough in copyright law to understand the text above correctly. So my question isː are those graphs and tables legally uploaded there? If soː let's expand that categoryǃ If notː delete those files ASAPǃ

Anyway, let's discuss. Regards,̃Jeff5102 (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff5102: That license doesn't appear compatible with COM:L. "Revocable" is a problem (licenses must be non-revocable), and the limitation on reuse in full also sounds like a problem. It looks like some of the existing media is licensed with a threshold of originality rationale, which does circumvent Pew's attempts to apply a more restrictive license (if it is correct), but could be debated. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Center provides you with a [...] license to [...] the survey datasets". I cannot find any indication above that the any graphs would be licensed. The first bullet seems to be about the same as the EU dataset protection (although there is an odd wording making it seem you cannot replicate your own work in full). Do datasets have any protection under US law? In what jurisdiction is this Pew research centre? –LPfi (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that if you use the data to create a derivative work, allowed under the licence, a revocation of the licence wouldn't affect that work, only your ability to create a similar work in the future. That is of course problematic for a database used for academic research, as you wouldn't be able to replicate your results with slightly modified methods, to show your results were robust, and neither could other people replicate them once the licence is globally revoked. Problematic, but not too uncommon (in a project I worked for, we paid for datasets to be used during five years, then to be destroyed unless the contract was renewed – and we were not allowed to share the data) – and mostly irrelevant for Commons. –LPfi (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 12[edit]

Authorship of a group of files[edit]

We have a problem with Category:Second Powell Expedition 1871-1872. Included in that collection are 827 images taken by John K. Hillers.

The problem is examplified by, for example, this image record; within it three photographers are listed as Author.

Powell used three consecutive photographers on this 1871 expedition; Elias Olcott Beaman, James Fennemore, and John K. Hillers. Three people cannot take one photograph.

Each of the 827 images in particular has buried in it text the following statement: "Series: Photographs taken by John K. Hillers during the Powell Survey and other Geological Surveys, compiled ca. 1879 - ca. 1900" obviously indicating that the photographer is John K. Hillers.

If someone sufficiently thick and doesnt study the files before using cat-a-lot, they are going to add on false attribution to others than Hilliers.

Solution is for a bot to edit the Author field down to Hillers, by deleting the other two.

Anyone willing to do that? --Broichmore (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Powell used three consecutive photographers on this 1871 expedition"? Are images by those photographers elsewhere? Can we trust "Photographs taken by John K. Hillers during [...]", or is it possible that the text was put on the records without research on who the actual photographer was? Is it thinkable that the other photographs are mentioned because they might be the real one? Do you have knowledge other than that stated in the file description? –LPfi (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: LPfi (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Four photographers were on the expedition; two of them acting as assistants. In practical terms three were consecutively principals. Several diaries were kept, and the expedition mapped. I know, from a distance, that some of the plates had numbers, initials or names scratched on them. Photographs in the various collections have annotated notes made on the backs of them. Each image obviously has a definite location, and presumably can be dated with some degree of accuracy. I can't vouch for the accuracy of whatever record labelling we have. I don’t know if a comprehensive study has been made and by whom. --Broichmore (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 14[edit]

Likely image copyright violation?[edit]

See 'File:David P. Bloom.jpg'. [2] I can see no evidence that the uploader is in a position to upload it under any license. The source cited is an EBay listing of a copy of an 1988 'wire press photo' supposedly from 'a closed newspaper'. The (unnamed) newspaper may possibly be closed, but that doesn't mean that nobody owns the copyright, I'd have thought? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright doesn’t end when the business closes for good, much like copyright doesn’t end when a person (creator) dies, only after a set term after death. I think it should be deleted per COM:PCP (though might need to go through DR). Bidgee (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license is correct, the Associated Press never added the copyright symbol to the copy they distributed to the various news outlets. They rarely did for any of their images, their photographers around the world could generate up to 1,000 images a day, and the expense of copyrighting could never be justified. Even some of their most iconic images that were copyrighted were never renewed. This image is the copy they sent to USA Today using their Laser Photo service, a high resolution fax-like machine. We host over 10,000 news service images. I have removed "glossy Press Photos from a closed newspaper" which is incorrect, it comes from USA Today, which is still active, but someone kept several images that worked at USA Today and sold them on eBay. I buy them from time to time, mostly older ones that are actual photographic prints. --RAN (talk) 13:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the copyright symbol isn't required for something to have copyright protection, and the lack of such a symbol doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't understand that part of the argument here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ZimZalaBim: In that era in the U.S., an overt notice of copyright was required. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You needed to register a copyright by sending a copy to the copyright office up until 1977, you still had to have a visible copyright symbol up until March 1, 1989, after that everything was automatic, the act of creation generated an automatic copyright, but people still send in copies to the copyright office to certify a date of creation, should there ever be another person claiming authorship. You still see litigation around music creation where there are multiple collaborators and you need documentation of your contributions if you want a portion of the lucrative publication rights. --RAN (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 15[edit]

Category:Christophe de Coulanges[edit]

Category:Christophe de Coulanges It says "no wikidata", there is one which it doesn't find. --Io Herodotus (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Io Herodotus: no one had linked it to Commons, which doesn't happen magically. I'll take care of it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the image to the Wikidata entry, the final step. --RAN (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leadership Development Working Group: Apply to join! (14 March to 10 April 2022)[edit]

Hello everyone,

Thank you to everyone who participated in the feedback period for the Leadership Development Working Group initiative. A summary of the feedback can be found on Meta-wiki. This feedback will be shared with the working group to inform their work. The application period to join the Working Group is now open and will close on April 10, 2022. Please review the information about the working group, share with community members who might be interested, and apply here if you are interested.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong License" tags placed on many files from a 2014 Wikipedia Cooperative Project with the State Archive of Posnan (Poland)[edit]

Here [3] is an example file tagged with a "wrong license" tag by a recently blocked user. This file is dated in the 17th century and is Public Domain. The file has a "Public Domain" tag already. There are many more files that appear to be appropriately tagged as Public Domain, however these have the same tags by this same User. Should I revert these tags on all these files, which I am willing to do, if that the correct action? Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I asked the same question a few months ago, when you see an obviously defective tag, you can remove the tag, including speedy delete tags. However, once nominated for normal deletion, and image has to go through the deletion process. --RAN (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I will remove the obviously defective tags. Thank you, Ooligan (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could also ask the user who inserted the tags about why he did that. He is currently blocked here, but seems to be based at the Polish Wikisource project. --Rosenzweig τ 09:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was because the license is not correct. The files are scans of old book and so they are public domain and not just declared CC0 Zero. The correct "license" would be {{PD-scan}}. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo - I see that the CC0 Zero license was used on these files from a 2014 cooperative project. Would the PD-scan license apply to Public Domain photos? I changed a few licenses to the PD-Poland. Is that ok or is PD-scan more accurate? Thanks, Ooligan (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what the copyright rules for scans in Poland where in 2014. In Germany it was not clear that scans of PD material are always public domain. This changed with the EU copyright directive. So maybe using CC0 for those files in 2014 was a good way to make this clear. But now this is not needed anymore. I think using {{PD-scan}} only would be fine, because I am not sure if the Poland the law in the template covers includes the Poland of the 17th century. GPSLeo (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig - The currently blocked User could have just changed the CC0 license to PD-Poland, PD-scan or another appropriate license on each of the dozens of files they tagged for having a "wrong license." That action would have been more efficient, would have corrected the issue immediately and would not require other Users do the work. That same User could have asked this page or another User for help in determining the correct license on all those files tagged as having the wrong license. I did not know they were still active at Polish Wikisource. I made a few changes, but decided to let them make the remaining file changes after the block has expired. I do want to thank you for encouraging communication. -- Ooligan (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Mandarin people[edit]

William Alexander - A Mandarin - 6738.jpg

Do we have a category for Mandarin people/ people in Mandarin costume, like the above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mandarin (bureaucrat)? --Rosenzweig τ 11:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also Category:People wearing mandarin squares. --Rosenzweig τ 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 18[edit]

Request for Deletion in languages other than English- is there a policy or process?[edit]

Is there a policy or process about Request for Deletion's being in languages other than English? I asked the requester to provide a translation, if they can. Is there a translation tool I could use? I would like to comment on the discussion but I do not know the language.[4] Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that Commons is an international project. It doesn't mention deletion requests or namespace but applies there for sure. Multilingual description is welcomed but not required. There are administrators covering a lot of major languages, so this is not a problem. Often there is the opposite issue; an uploader who doesn't know English not knowing what the deletion request is about and how to fix the issue. For both cases https://translate.google.com/ works fine. TFerenczy (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: Slightly to my surprise, the language policy doesn't explicitly cover this, but I'd expect people to write in a language they feel comfortable in, and for readers to translate as necessary. Google Translate isn't perfect, but it's usually good enough to understand discussions on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking to see if Commons policy applied to my question. Could you provide a link to this language policy? Thank you, Ooligan (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21 added ping. Ooligan (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: TFerenczy provided one above: Commons:Language policy --bjh21 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: I translated it from Russian for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Thank you for the translation. Is there a translation tool on any Wikimedia projects? Again, thank you and Bjh21 for your help. Ooligan (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what about those languages not available in Google Translate? Haoreima (talk) 05:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: You're welcome. Sorry, I don't know of such a tool.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although you may use any language, if your language is very rare, I'd recommend translating it yourself or asking somebody else (use Category:user xxx, where xxx is the language code) to translate it to some bigger language. I'd also hope people not to use Skolt Sámi for an Indonesian image or Niuean for one from Peru. –LPfi (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i made a proposal to emphasise commons is multilingual: special:permalink/642118115#Commons:Language_policy_and_Commons:Talk_page_guidelines.--RZuo (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 19[edit]

Please comment[edit]

I want to nominate a picture for Quality Image status. And it's this:

COLOURFUL FOLIAGE OF AUTUMN.jpg

. But since I am new to such experience, I can't fully digest all the rules and regulations laid out in the policy and guideline pages. In short, could anyone (experienced on this) please comment if it's eligible for it or not? Haoreima (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Commons Upload Tool for Mac - Sunflower[edit]

Hey folks, I'm pleased to announce that the first (beta) version of my new upload tool for macOS, Sunflower, is now available! If you have a Mac, please try it out and let me know what you think :) Just a heads up: Sunflower does require a later version of macOS (12.2 Monterey or newer). -FASTILY 06:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Consensus?[edit]

Hello. Does WCommons have a page equivalent to en:Wikipedia:Consensus concerning cases where disagreements arise? I found no such things at Commons:Policies and guidelines. If a WCommons equivalent does not exist, I think it definitely should, if not as a policy at least as a recommendation. Veverve (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say that, without (as far as I know) a formal policy, we tend to operate roughly along those lines, with the caveat that because of Commons' nature as a media repository, much larger areas of Commons are the work of single individuals than is typically the case for Wikipedia in any major language. Also, the fact that the COM:Precautionary principle is itself something for which we have consensus often overrides what might otherwise appear to be a consensus about what would be desirable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: do you think I should create the WCommons article myself? Veverve (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Veverve: You could write something, but it wouldn't automatically be policy, it would just be your own statement. To drive it toward being formal policy, you'd have to build a more formal consensus, I presume at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 20[edit]

exposition trains[edit]

Is there a category for these type of trains?

Lille Flandres 2022 1.jpg

,

Lille Flandres 2022 2.jpg

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe somewhere under Category:Repurposed rail vehicles.--RZuo (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
mmhh, stil in use as rail vehicle, but not for passenger transport.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SVG file render incorrectly[edit]

In File:Electoral systems map.svg, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau are each assigned different colors, as can be seen in the static image preview generated by the commons system. However, in Firefox, when viewing the SVG file directly, all three places are being shown as having the same color of grey as Mainland China. Is there anything wrong with it? C933103 (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rankedchoicevoter: Do you have any idea about it since you updated the file? C933103 (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Join the Community Resilience and Sustainability Conversation Hour with Maggie Dennis[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

The Community Resilience and Sustainability team at the Wikimedia Foundation is hosting a conversation hour led by its Vice President Maggie Dennis.

Topics within scope for this call include Movement Strategy, Board Governance, Trust and Safety, the Universal Code of Conduct, Community Development, and Human Rights. Come with your questions and feedback, and let's talk! You can also send us your questions in advance.

The meeting will be on 24 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC (check your local time).

You can read details on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 22[edit]

Santali WP does not link properly[edit]

When I check where a file is used, sometimes I find it linked to an article on Santali WP. But when I follow the link, the page doesn't exist. If I click to create it, it doesn't say that it's been deleted. An example is File:Idioma_azerí.png, which supposedly appears on the page sat:ᱢᱩᱬᱩᱛ:ᱟᱡᱟᱨᱵᱟᱭᱡᱟᱱᱤ ᱯᱟᱹᱨᱥᱤ. If I remove the prefix ᱢᱩᱬᱩᱛ, then I find the article with the file. But this prefix doesn't always appear: sometimes the Commons link takes me to the article. Kwamikagami (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]