Василиса▶ Я жду вашего обращения. Что Вы хотите узнать?
Commons:Village pump - Wikimedia Commons Commons:Village pumpFrom Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Shortcut

Shortcut : COM:VP

Community portal
Help desk Village pump
copyright proposals technical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism user problems blocks and protections
���� Village pumps for other languages
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/2021/01 .

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:

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 01[ edit ]Personality Rights Question[ edit ]

Hi, and a Good New Year to everyone.

I have a question about this Commons photo I just came across . To the best of my knowledge, the Amish will tolerate but do not exactly love having their pictures taken. So, while I do not question the copyright status of this file (the photographer seems to be identical with the original uploader), I do feel uncomfortable about the personality rights of the people in the picture. Would they have agreed to having their picture uploaded here and having it published in a world wide medium? Or are we doing this only because we can feel safe that they don't use this medium and will never find out? -- 13:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people . O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC) I think as the user has 60k edits on enwiki, we could trust that it was okay to take the photo. -- GPSLeo ( talk ) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Not sure what the identity of the user or the number of their edits has to do with it. Anyone can make mistakes, and a seasoned user with thousands of edits is not immune. Commons:Photographs of identifiable people seems to be the relevant site for this question, though it is, as far as I can tell, by no means clear on this. In the U.S., it seems to be o.k. to take and publish pictures of identifiable people in public places -- unless there are reasons like defamation or moral concerns etc. to prevent it. This may, strictly speaking, not be the case here, and legally the picture is probably not a problem.I personally would prefer to err on the side of respect for the personality rights and the moral values of the people in the picture. But I guess there can be different opinions on this. -- 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)P.S. As to the possibility of a seasoned user making mistakes: The most recent upload by this very user was this one which they uploaded as "own work". Seriously? To my eye at least this looks very much like a page scan from a book. -- 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Since the photographer likely did not speak to the people before the photo was taken without their permission, I'd like to know how the photographer confirmed that the people pictured are Amish and not Old Older Mennonites. - Themightyquill ( talk ) 09:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC) I don't know why you think the photographer "likely" did not ask beforehand, and why it seems not to cross your mind that they could have asked afterwards instead. To me it seems the family is undisturbed by the camera; perhaps the photographer is a friend. – LPfi ( talk ) 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC) That's why smart people invented such a thing as a model release. Without some sort of written consent, all speculation about them having been asked beforehand or afterwards or not at all is mere guesswork and totally useless. A CC license will enable almost any kind of use, to the best of my knowledge, even commercial. I do see personality rights infringed here if they didn't give their consent.And yes, of course the family looks "undisturbed by the camera". They probably weren't even aware of the fact that they were being photographed. The picture was taken at Niagara Falls, probably among crowds of people who were all taking pictures. How are you supposed to notice if someone in the crowd is taking a picture of you instead of the falls?Why don't we ask the uploader themselves? @ Gilabrand , could you enlighten us as to the circumstances this picture was taken in, and if you have some sort of consent for publication, written or at least oral, from the people in the picture? -- 14:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC) This deserves a personality rights tag to remind people that you can't, for example, use this in an advertisement, but (IANAL!) assuming it was on the U.S. side of the border, general publication of a photo like this should present no problems in terms of privacy law. In the U.S., there is no assumption of privacy in a public space. (I'm not sure about Canada.) Obviously, on just an ethical basis we should try to be reasonably respectful. I don't see any reason it is legally different from File:Bride & groom - West Queen Anne Walls - Seattle 02A.jpg , which I took. - Jmabel  ! talk 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)January 13[ edit ]Help needed for Alexander Altmann[ edit ]

Hi, Help needed to fix the Authority control for two different persons : Category:Alexander Altman (1878-1932) and Category:Alexander Altmann (1885-1950) . The first is sometimes spelt Altmann (with 2 n). Knowledge of Russian would be useful. Thanks, Yann ( talk ) 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Russian name is correct, if this is the question. Standard Romanization would be Altman, but he lived most of his life in France and presumably was spelled Altmann there.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 12:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC) @ Ymblanter : Thanks for the answer. Lockal claims here that they are one and the same. I could understand that there are uncertainities about the birth date, but how to explain that one died in 1932 and the other in 1950? And that one is born in Odessa, and the other one in Kiev? [1] seems to support this claim, but we have a precise date and place of death in France: September 14th, 1932, Nemours (77). It should be easy to get the death certificate. Regards, Yann ( talk ) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC) I see that both Russian and German Wikipedia (which refer to different Wikidata items) refer to the birthplace as Sobolivka. The death date is indeed unclear, but so far I do not see any sources for 1950 death.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Trump[ edit ]

Although I am not offended myself, I wonder if using {{Motd/2021-01-19 (en)}} and {{Motd/2021-01-20 (en)}} as Media of the Day would be a good idea, given the current political climate in the United States. Richard 11:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, mild parody and not focused on recent events. Were these specifically about current US terrorist threats, there would be reason to reconsider if this were the time to have them on the front page. -- ( talk ) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)The timing of both, being the last 2 days of his presidency, appears designed primarily to needle and provoke a reaction. They will likely be ammo to inflame and harden conservatives' distrust and disdain of Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. While certainly many people will be glad when Trump leaves office, I see no overall net positive to posting these, other than making a few liberals smirk. --Animalparty ( talk ) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. Its net result will only be making angry people angrier. Richard 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Oddly, Commons:Media of the day does not tell how the images are chosen. Seemingly files are nominated at the talk page, but I could find no entry for these files, uploaded by the same user who put them into the templates for the day. Just vandalism? – LPfi ( talk ) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC) It's not odd. It's not watched much so some people just take it upon themselves and when it's problematic, people come here, we question the lack of review and it continues on. POTD has a lot more interest. I think it should be moved to weekly personally which make get enough eyes on stuff. -- Ricky81682 ( talk ) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)I also found File:ASSHOLE, Bigot, Liar and Pussy grabber Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant. Dump Donald Trump in 2020.webm ( {{Motd/2021-01-19}} ) and file File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm ( {{Motd/2021-01-20}} ) not that funny and totally not appropriate for out Main_Page . On and around US presidential inauguration, I think we should run positive US politics related videos or generic celebration videos. How about File:John F. Kennedy Inauguration Speech.ogv File:Barack Obama 2009 presidential inauguration.ogv File:Nagaoka Festival Fireworks 2017 Phoenix 20170803 (No audio version).webm -- Jarekt ( talk ) 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Should we forcibly rename the files? I do not think such names are appropriate.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 06:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Ok. The first one was already renamed, I renamed the other one. The file description was so offensive that I had to revision-delete it. I removed the autopatrol flag from the user, and warned them that one single instance of adding similar secriptions to files would result in a block. If there is any community process which results in featuring files with such descriptions at the main page, this process is badly broken.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 06:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC) This rename was unnecessary and does not meet COM:FR .Trump is famous for using the words "pussy" and "asshole", these are extremely well established in global press headlines. Removing exactly these words from filenames about Trump is to put personal tastes over fact. It would have been better to leave the uploader's choices in place. -- ( talk ) 12:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I am pretty sure WMF T&S would support me.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 12:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Wrong. WMF T&S would make no comment. If you think otherwise, you misunderstand their scope and legal responsibilities. Feel free to email them.Your actions in this case fail to meet the requirements of COM:FR . Please consider reverting your changes and removing your unnecessary and controversial "warning" to the uploader. Thanks -- ( talk ) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC) No. I am also not sure why do you call my warning "controversial" if you can not see the content which I revision-deleted.-- Ymblanter ( talk ) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC) At least I can see that content was removed (but not revdeleted) by user:Animalparty from one of the files and that this removed content was the exact description of the file at vimeo, from where it was imported. With the rename and the removed content, it is no longer possible to see what the file is about and it looks like some unremarkable comic video, while in fact it is a document with a meaning no longer identifiable at commons. Should it be also changed or deleted at vimeo, no one can still know what it is about. -- C.Suthorn ( talk ) 13:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)As the blanking of information given by the original artists at the source, appears to contravene the intention of COM:Not censored , I have added it to the description diff .If anyone wants to argue the case that the description text must be censored, I suggest creating a thread specifically for that, or maybe having an RFC to establish this file as a case to amend COM:Scope for files that appear to criticize or parody Donald Trump. -- ( talk ) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm , as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view . Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC) File renames do not require sysop rights.Opinions in this discussion (this is not a vote) relating to censorship of filenames do not carry more weight from those with sysop rights.If you disagree, a link to the relevant policy would be helpful. Thanks -- ( talk ) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I did not vote. I did exactly my administrator's job namely as an administrator, I fully endorse the strict application of our policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view concerning the change name that have been done in File:Carnival Trump burning.webm . And yes, you're right this is not a vote, neither a democraty, try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean. Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)And yes again, that is fully my (our) administrator's job, to apply and enforce our policies, included the one about "Neutral point of view" Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC) This is a discussion.Nobody asked you to do anything here in an administrator capacity.You are making clear threats ("try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean") where none is necessary or helpful, and appear to be imposing your will on everyone else using your sysop rights to do so. Many would call this bullying in order to by-pass civil discussion. Nobody has more weight in discussion because of the groups they are a member of.Behave yourself. -- ( talk ) 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC) I don't remember that I have to wait after you ask me something. You can discuss what you want, and in my first comment I just intended to discuss and to support the action of my colleague against your objection, that's all. But apparently that was not sufficient for you. Yes again, as user and as administrator I can say if I endorse an action (administrative or not) and yes I can say if I think that an action is in line or not within our policies, that is fully my right and my duty if I wish it. And yes it appears that this action is fully in line with our policy IMO. And, yes again, that is/will be my duty as administrator to enforce or to help to enforce this policy if I judge it necessary. I see not a single begining of abuse of administrative power or of threat in my attempt of discussion, while your answer had a tone much more questionable , because it does not go at all in the direction of an open discussion. Behave yourself you too. Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC) "Enforce", "I judge it", "my duty as administrator"This is not a discussion, with these words you saying you are the law. Reading the discussion before your interventions, nobody has dared to suggest that they would do anything against policy, there is nothing to "enforce" here, and nowhere has there been any request for an administrator to take any action. To be a sysop is to offer to help with a mop, not a gun.No doubt these powerful words of strength makes you feel good, so it's great for you to get all this out of your system.If you have anything positive or constructive to add to the discussion, any helpful suggestions, maybe you could focus on that rather than tangential ideas about "duty" or laying down "judgements" that will just close down discussion unnecessarily? Thanks -- ( talk ) 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC) I return to you the compliment "If you have" nothing "positive or constructive to add. (...) maybe you could focus on" other things. My point of view, my judgment about that topic if you prefer, were and stay the same: "As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm , as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view .", this comment is not at all unconstructive. You are more interested by controversy than about the destiny and name of this file, that is a fact. Luckilly we took care of this file and now that I placed it in my watchlist I will manage to do my duty, I mean to verify that nobody move it to a controversial name, and if necessary (I hope no of course) I will use of my administrator tool's (my duty gain!) to enforce our policy regarding this file. Thanks you for helping me to clarify the things. I look forward to your response, if either ther is one. Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)@ : You're saying that the rename to File:Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant.webm doesn't meet FR criterion 5 , which explicitly includes gratuitous vulgarity? panda kekok 9 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Replying to ping, but my opinion has been expressed clearly enough already TBH; this would be the wrong reasoning. Trump is explicitly notable for "pussy", "shithole countries" and calling Mexican immigrants "rapists". Defending his most venerable reputation by avoiding these vulgar words is not the intent of FR5.Reasoning that could and should be used to rename is that it matches the source title. Why folks seem to want to avoid that extremely obvious rationale and instead go on this crazy jag to foment an uprising, and in the process throw around threats of blocks, is beyond me. Keep it simple. -- ( talk ) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not sure why his usage of those vulgar words is a reason why the file shouldn't be renamed, but ok. The vulgar words on the filename is obviously directed towards Trump, not about his usage of those words. It seems nobody can change your mind here, so I'm not going to insist from now on. But I'm still of the opinion that the rename by 4nn1l2 Animalparty is perfectly within FR5, which includes gratuitous vulgarity, with "gratuitous" in this case meaning unnecessary. panda kekok 9 02:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC) While none of the renames were done by me, I think both of them were in line with COM:FR#FR5 . 4nn1l2 ( talk ) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Ah, I thought you were the one who renamed that. Corrected it now. :) panda kekok 9 05:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)While I will not comment on the points if a renaming was needed or allowed, I think that the chosen names are not ok. These are not vids of Donald Trump drinking deinfectant or Trump burning, these are Videos of ridiculing Donald Trump for proposing to drink desinfectant. The new names are missleading and therefore wrong. A missleading name choosen by the author is acceptable, but changing a name given by the author to a missleading name is not. -- C.Suthorn ( talk ) 05:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Oppose File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm on Template:Motd/2021-01-20 (en) . This is politicizing Commons. 4nn1l2 ( talk ) 03:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)I strongly oppose User:Jarekt 's proposal to deliberatly choose Videos that celebrate ("run positive US politics related videos") the US at the time of the inauguration of a new US president. Wikipedia and Commons was not made as an advert for a better world, but to showcase the World as it is. The anti-trump videos are about things that happened (albeit in a insulting way), but they are only a comment on the past. Painting Biden as a hero (comparing him with Kennedy or Obama) is actively taking sides. Wikipedia is for the whole world, it is for Chinese people (if the get the chance to take a view on wikipedia), it is for Russians and turkish or kurdish people. It is for people from islamic Sudan and christian South-Sudan. It is highly inadequate to showcase the US (that broke a number of treaties that are also of high significance to Wikipedia, open access, open software, human rights, ..) as a light tower of freedom on a day, that might turn out as a day of attempted coups by Trump supporters. (PS: the inaugurations of Kennedy and Obama are also an insult to Trump supporters, especially on a day four years after Trump was inaugureted, the president, who made America Great Again, who undid the things Obama and Kennedy did and who hosted the best inauguration ever) -- C.Suthorn ( talk ) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC) When people's have strong opinions, especially on live events, Jarekt's proposal, as you name it, makes sense as it is a good thing if we try not to put fire in a way or in the opposite ways. Without censorship, of course, our "Media (or Pictures) of the day"s must not become a platform for activists whatever their bias. Christian Ferrer ( talk ) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)I oppose unilaterally choosing controversial media as Media of the Day. If you think some controversial files should be featured, you should nominate them much before the day they are due, to give time for discussion, and explain why you think they are appropriate and good. I think also "positive" media are controversial, especially if they are chosen for that reason, and should likewise be discussed. It is too late to nominate controversial media for the 20th, but I really think Commons:Media of the day should explain the role of the feature, the expectations on it, and the procedure for nominating and choosing the files. – LPfi ( talk ) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Videos nominated month of even a year before they should been featured have not been discussed (probably because of the very small number of people who look after MOTD), videos who have been nominated a month before the date have been removed after they appeared on the main page. While it would be a good thing to actually discuss the videos, there are simply no users who actually do. -- C.Suthorn ( talk ) 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Look at all the rancor these proposed videos have incurred here, among a small group of geeks with the shared interest of curating educational content. Now imagine when the Daily Mail or The Daily Caller sees the videos and magnifies outrage to their audience. The wisest choice is to just show an innocuous video of rice being harvested, or how planets rotate, or a skateboarding monkey. While MOTD says nothing about quality or educational utility, I think it should emulate Commons:Picture of the day in presenting high quality, high value media likely to inform, inspire, and be reused, not crude (and not very funny) animation from essentially unknown cartoonists ( COM:PARTYPICS ?), or politically charged burnings in effigy. If choice A invites the potential for needlessly pissing off millions, and choice B does not, go with choice B. Save political videos for occasions where they can do more good than harm, like documenting government abuses of power, or teaching lessons more valuable than "here are some people who hate Trump". --Animalparty ( talk ) 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)  Doing… I replaced video for Template:Motd/2021-01-19 with File:SanSebastian.Flag of La Concha, 2012.webm which was one of the winners of the April 2018 Photo challenge , and unless there are better suggestions will replace this evening (in 6 hours) Template:Motd/2021-01-20 video with File:Nagaoka Festival Fireworks 2017 Phoenix 20170803 (No audio version).webm . -- Jarekt ( talk ) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)✓  Done both files replaced with neutral non-political non-US videos. @ Richard thank you for alerting us about this issue. -- Jarekt ( talk ) 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC) No problem. Thanks for replacing the videos. Richard 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)January 15[ edit ] Category:Aerial views of Menton [ edit ]

I have a question about how languages are used in categories. Category:Vue générale - Menton contains three files named "Aerial view of Menton" and one "Menton (aerial)". It also contains two files that should be in Category:Menton and one "Vue Mention" but not an "aerial". Is it ok to create a category for "Aerial views of Menton"? It seems to me the current cat name is confusing, considering its mixed contents. How should this be handled? Thank you, Krok6kola ( talk ) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aerial views of Menton would be entirely appropriate. - Jmabel  ! talk 19:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Category:Photographs of Seattle and its subcats provide a fairly good model, other than the arbitrary mix of "Seattle" and "Seattle, Washington". - Jmabel  ! talk 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Thank you, Krok6kola ( talk ) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)National Museum of Ireland images are CC by-sa[ edit ]

National Museum of Ireland's Publications Policy:

"Copyright of all images rests with the National Museum of Ireland unless otherwise stated. All National Museum of Ireland images are made available under Creative Commons BY-SA licence."

per a recent update to https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Terms-Conditions - Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm indebted to User:Smirkybec for bringing this to my attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC) Template:User at project/core [ edit ]

The Finnish part is now |fi = {{{5}}} projektissa {{{3}}} {{{2}}} , which generates "Jnovikov projektissa suomi Wikipedia", and that's very bad Finnish, the right form is "suomenkielinen Wikipedia" but I think that the template cannot generate it so "Wikipedia kielellä suomi" which is easier to execute is okay also. Ergo can someone who is able to edit the page mentioned in title of this topic change it to form |fi = {{{5}}} projektissa {{{2}}} kielellä {{{3}}} ? Jnovikov ( talk ) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jnovikov : Done; please check it's working as expected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Thanks. It seem to be working well. Jnovikov ( talk ) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Categorizing campaigns in regards to runningmatees[ edit ]

@ Prosfilaes : keeps removing Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920 from parent category Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920 . He believes it does not belong in either that, nor would it belong in Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt . Roosevelt was James M. Cox's vice presidential runningmate in 1920. The category featuring images of this campaign would not be findable from Roosevelt's category with Prosfilaes changes being made.

I makes sense to include the category for the campaign in "Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920", as this was something Roosvelt was a part of/did in the year 1920.

It is commons convention that we include vice presidential runningmates (or sub-categories that separate media related to them to the respective year they were on the ticket) as parent categories for presidential campaigns. It makes sense as the campaigns the categories contain media of are strongly related to the individuals who were the runningmate.

However, this is a convention that Prosfilaes believes is overturned because of a village pump discussion in which two or so editors said it did not make sense to them to include "Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920" in the parent category "Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1920" (BEFORE it was mentioned to any of them that Roosevelt was the runningmate, so it is possible that they simply did not know this context when they declared it did not make sense to them). On these weak grounds of comments by users lacking the full context (as Prosfilaes had neglected to provide them with the context that Roosevelt was Cox's runningmate), Prosfilaes took the initiative of declaring themselves there was a "consensus".

This is a widespread convention impacting possibly hundreds of categories, and it should not be overturned by weak so-called "consensus" from a discussion that did not properly even mention that the dynamic of the parent cat being the runningmate on the presidential ticket actually existed.

Another example of this convention being used is that Category:Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020 is sorted under the parent category Category:Kamala Harris in 2020 , as Harris was Biden’s running mate.

This convention is pretty much universally applied to the categories for campaigns of presidential nominees.

This convention has also been used for gubernatorial campaigns in which the lieutenant governor ran as a runningmate on the same ticket. For example, Category:J.B. Pritzker gubernatorial campaign, 2018 has been included in the parent category Juliana Stratton , as Stratton was Pritzker's runningmate.

Do editors believe that it makes sense to retain or overturn the convention of sorting categories for campaigns under the category for their runningmate?


SecretName101 ( talk ) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The last comment on that section said "that requires discussing things with people here rather than ignoring everyone with a drive-by comment and revert to get your way." So instead of continuing the last discussion, SecretName101 waited a month before reverting the category again. Note also they falsely accuse me of things I never did; I did not start the last discussion, nor even joined it, merely enforced what seemed to be a fairly clear consensus.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 05:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Has anyone considered compromising on {{Seealsocat}} ? - Jmabel  ! talk 08:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if you were not the one who started that conversation. @ Jmabel : had been. However, THEY knowingly left out a key dynamic of WHY the category was categorized that way. A consensus cannot be founded upon such incomplete information. And uniformed position is often the wrong position. SecretName101 ( talk ) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @ Jmabel properly.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is clear. Do we want to forbid this widespread convention, thereby making campaign categories UNFINDABLE from the categories belonging to runningmates or not? WHY we would forbid a convention that makes sense, and makes things easier to find, is beyond me. SecretName101 ( talk ) 15:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ SecretName101 : I don't think we should forbid this convention. Runningmates are important, as well as campaigns, and cats should link them.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC) @ SecretName101 : How exactly would my suggestion of using {{Seealsocat}} make runningmates unfindable? Alternatively, I'd have nothing against a subcat specifically for the vice-presidential candidacy and campaign which could be under both the person and year category and the category for the presidential campaign.@ Jeff G. , SecretName101 : The problem with SecretName101's approach is that typically only a small fraction of the pictures in the presidential campaign are pictures of the runningmate, so when those are no longer directly in the category for that person and year, you end up with it becoming quite hard to find those few images when you start from that person and year. - Jmabel  ! talk 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)@ Jmabel : Subcats specifically for the vice-presidential candidacy usually pose a problem because there is so much overlap, since they are part of the same campaign. That's why we tend to avoid creating such categories. I've only seen it done once or twice, and it was not really ideal to do it in that manner. It added little real advantage. And I don't see how your suggestion about seealsocat is preferable to the existing convention. Why change it to something less useful just because someone appears to disagree with it? I do not think that we don't compromise just for the sake of compromising. We seek to find the best solutions. SecretName101 ( talk ) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Also, to the argument that "few" pictures from a campaign are pictures of the runningmate, same often is the case of the presidential candidate themselves. Most images from Obama's 2008 campaign and Hillary's 2008 campaign appear to be of surrogates, supporters, and volunteers, not the presidential candidate themselves. SecretName101 ( talk ) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Is there a way to search within a "collection" or category?[ edit ]

Boston Public Library recently announced they were uploading 11,000+ images to Wikimedia commons . This is great! The collection is here . Is there a way I can search within this collection for specific items? I'm thinking of looking for words like "portrait," or other keyowrds. Things I tried....

using Google to search WC with the phrase "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" and the individual word "portrait"same thing with the WC site searchusing the advanced search to search for "portrait" within the category "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" ( example . this WILL work if I re-set the "Search in:" parameter to ALL but will not work if that setting is set to "default" and I am not sure why.)

So, I've found a hacky way to do this but I am wondering... is there an easier way? Thanks for any help or advice. Jessamyn ( talk ) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Jessamyn : Your last example seems like the way to do it, to me. The only reason it doesn't get any results as-is is because the File namespace is not included, and that's the one all the files are in. Corrected query: [2] . – BMacZero ( ���� ) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you, this will be helpful. Jessamyn ( talk ) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)January 16[ edit ]When was this painting done by Rudolf Alfred Höger?[ edit ] This file

This file btw. If there any other places to ask, let me know! Tetizeraz . Send me a ✉️  ! 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this was August 1916. Wouter ( talk ) 20:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Wouterhagens can I add a reference to the file like I did? Tetizeraz . Send me a ✉️  ! 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC) That link may change within a year. Why not the articles in Wikipedia (see the long list at the bottom of the page of the image) such as the English WP . Wouter ( talk ) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)On the page of the image is also the date given with a link to "7/8 The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century, by David Reynolds". Wouter ( talk ) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestion Wouterhagens , I added the reference to wiki-en instead of the Commons page. Cheers Tetizeraz . Send me a ✉️  ! 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC) I also added it to Close combat on the Doberdo (Q104878729) -- Jarekt ( talk ) 23:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Can I add the property "country of origin" in Structured commons data on files?[ edit ] Tetizeraz

Tetizeraz . Send me a ✉️  ! 20:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that you could get a more likely answer from more specific talk pages Commons_talk:Structured_data or Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Location . In any case i would say that if you ask and then nobody answers then likely answer is yes, you can try it out as there is no correct answer for the question. -- Zache ( talk ) 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)January 17[ edit ]Eternal categorisation loop[ edit ]

I was about to recategorise File:Non-official language speakers density ZA.svg from Category:Unidentified maps to Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa , when I realised it was already in there. It is just a hidden category. Now the problem: removing [Category:Unidentified maps] will trigger a bot to tag it as uncategorised, because there are no non-hidden categories. If we then add the only correct but hidden category, we're back where we started. How to fix this? -- HyperGaruda ( talk ) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ FogueraC : Why did you hide Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa in this edit ?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC) I imagine that I did it because Category:Superseded and Category:Superseded maps are also hidden. But thinking this better, I would say that files in Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa are not exactly superseded, but old. They use the data from the 2001 census, instead of the 2011 census. Maybe the solution could be to change the name of the category to Category:Linguistic maps of South Africa to 2001 (like Category:Linguistic maps of Switzerland to 2011 ), and it should not be hidden. We could also delete Category:Superseded linguistic maps , because the unique file that would still be there is not superseded, it just has a vector version available.-- FogueraC ( talk ) 20:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)January 18[ edit ]Can someone fix this odd upload error?[ edit ]

Only the old versions of File:Savannah Portland NewYork City Blocks.svg are updated, and it's probably been long enough to not be a delay since it's failed to update for longer than it took for me to notice the good version showing up in the old versions. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk ) 02:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Sagittarian Milky Way : It looks good to me. Please see COM:FAQ#PURGE .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC) I'm still seeing the bad 2014 version after pressing the purge button I got from appending the URL with something. Only the thumbnails of versions from earlier tonight are good. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk ) 03:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @ Sagittarian Milky Way : I'm seeing 6 blocks of Manhattan NYC (264' center-to-center spacing in the North-South dimension, 1/20th of a mile) in all offered thumbnails on multiple browsers on multiple devices on (virtually) multiple coasts.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Which is really weird as I purged by button and now rebooted the phone and still see 3 blocks except in the previous version and the one before that. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk ) 03:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @ Sagittarian Milky Way , Jeff G. : PURGE clears any cached data on the Commons server (typically, this is the text content of the page and not any of the images, I believe), but your web browser also has a cache of images it has downloaded that might need to be cleared if the server's image changes. You can clear that cache with a force refresh (Ctrl+F5 or Shift+F5 in most browsers). It will eventually expire on its own, but might take days or weeks depending on how things are configured. – BMacZero ( ���� ) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @ Sagittarian Milky Way : You may also have some sort of miserly system between your phone and the real Internet that has it's own cache to provide a faster user experience without downloading too much.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Weird, incognito mode works for me but not refreshing or pasting the URL into normal mode and then going there. But I'm now convinced that only people who've accessed this image in the last few weeks might possibly be affected. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk ) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Confusion between 2 artists[ edit ]

On the Wikimedia Commons page for William Oliver Williams ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:William_Oliver_Williams ) there is a miscategorised landscape painting by William Oliver (1804-1853). On the page for this painting ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Oliver_(1804-53)_-_A_View_of_Remagen_-_RCIN_403657_-_Royal_Collection.jpg) the Summary gives details for William Oliver (1823-1901). I edited the Licensing section but could not edit the Summary. Could someone help to sort out the error? The source of the confusion between the 2 artists is indicated in the article William Oliver (artist ) BFP1 ( talk ) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC) BFP1 ( talk ) 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

✓  Done @ BFP1 : For some artworks, the data is on Wikidata and can be accessed from the Wikidata-logo.svg next to the title, or the pencil icon next to the data. – BMacZero ( ���� ) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Thanks BMacZero#top|����] BFP1 ( talk ) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)On further consideration, although the details of the landscape by William Oliver (1804-1853) are now correct, the painting should be deleted from an entry about the artist William Oliver Williams/William Oliver (1823-1901). To not to do so will perpetuate the confusion between the 2 artists BFP1 ( talk ) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)File not displaying correctly[ edit ]

Hello - I've just uploaded the file File:Thomas Phillips - Belfast (1685).png , and it doesn't seem to be displaying correctly. Zacwill ( talk ) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the image and when I try a lower resolution I get the message "Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem.". Wouter ( talk ) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)@ Zacwill : Doesn't work for me either, and even full-res looks broken. Could you try bringing your file into GIMP, Photoshop, or whatever and save and upload again? - Jmabel  ! talk 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Opening it with identify gives identify: IDAT: CRC error `Thomas_Phillips_-_Belfast_(1685).png' @ error/png.c/MagickPNGErrorHandler/1715.. This means that there is corruption somewhere in the image data. If the original image opens fine on your computer, try re-uploading it. -- AntiCompositeNumber ( talk ) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC) @ Wouterhagens , Jmabel , AntiCompositeNumber : I've reuploaded the image and it seems to be alright now. Thanks for your help. Zacwill ( talk ) 23:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Universal Code of Conduct consultation has started![ edit ]

Dear Commoners,

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global behavior guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct , often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a draft policy (available in many languages). We are currently in the second phase of the consultation. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. We want to hear from the community on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so.

The discussion is taking place here: Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation . We encourage you to express your opinion publicly. However, if you want to share your opinion privately, you can do so by emailing me as well.

Please let us know how you feel about the current UCoC draft. Share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC, even if you are a newcomer. Tell us, what is important for you to make your stay more pleasant and safe. If you are an experienced user, let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users. Wikimedia projects are governed by all of you, regardless of where you come from, your involvement, or how new or experienced you are. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Thank you!

Wikitanvir (WMF)

Wikitanvir (WMF) ( talk ) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Licencing of WWII images[ edit ]

Mainly I'm asking for Category:Organisationsbuch der NSDAP (1936) .
All images in there are licenced under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} . In my opinion this is the wrong licence because who would have released it under this licence? Adolf Hitler himself? I would say {{PD-old-70}} would be better. Or is there any template I'm not aware of that fits better for this situation?
I'm not only asking for this category but also for some images I found on the web on some russian page. Old images of Vienna shortly after the Red Army has captured it. The authors are unknown and I would say they are PD-old and would use the same template. Any other ideas on that?
Ping @ Wolfmann : so that he is part of this discussion.
-- D-Kuru ( talk ) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Any problems issues with United States 2021 Capitol Storming uploads?[ edit ]

Is there any public conversation about problems related to uploading images from this recent event?

en:2021 storming of the United States Capitol d:Q104705419#sitelinks-wikipedia

I am not interested in private or sensitive conversation, if any exists. I am curious if Commons identified any issues. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you be specific at all? The Commons category Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol links to the category via d:Q104720996 . -- Ricky81682 ( talk ) 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC) User:Bluerasberry I would love to find more photographs we could upload with valid licenses, but it seems like someone already uploaded all flickr had to offer. Is this the kind of trouble you had in mind? -- Jarekt ( talk ) 02:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Troubles that I had in mind include the following: informal takedown requestsusing the photos for harassmentpolice / government investigation messagesharassment of wiki editors for uploading themconversation around photos depicting an alleged crimediscussion about violencediscussion about censorship@ Jarekt : thanks for being 100% Commons minded and assuming that I meant copyright problems or access to upload technology, this is why Commons works so well@ Ricky81682 : Thanks for sharing the main Commons page. There is not much conversation there right now, but yes, Category talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol is a place where discussion could have happened.I think that Commons as usual is just doing media archiving, and in Commons this is an event to document as any other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Eng equal for an Arabic term[ edit ]

I need English equal of an Arabic word for categorizing, It's Kishwaniyah or in Persian Kafshadri , an office in mosques or shrines which keeps the shoes of the pilgrims and worshippers. Like File:Samarra, first decade of Safar month, Nov 2016 06.jpg -- Ruwaym ( talk ) 21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not unlike Category:Cloakrooms , in terms of parent categorization, I’d say- -- Tuválkin 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)@ Tuvalkin : I found Category:Shoe racks , Same thing. but turned to "office" in islamic shrines or big huge mosques. -- Ruwaym ( talk ) 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Well spotted. It ocurred to me that places like public bowling alleys or skating rinks also have this kind of facility, and therefore should share some parent categorization. Likewise, for this new category, some parent categorization should be also shared by existing categories such as Category:Minarets . -- Tuválkin 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)January 19[ edit ]Dead lock[ edit ] Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook - decided 3 month ago Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates - open

Neither has template NoFacebook been undeleted, nor has DR/nofbtemplates been decided. -- C.Suthorn ( talk ) 09:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about the legitimacy of some images[ edit ]

I want to complain about some images that I have uploaded and that have been deleted. I have not even been listened to when I stated my reasons . I still defend my position and I think that deleting them is an unfair act, but nobody listened to me and you directly deleted my work. Is this the way we work here? I know there are laws that regulate copyright, but why do they apply them only to me? For example, this image was not deleted, why? Also this one . Why so arbitrary.-- El Mono Español ( talk ) 11:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for every deletion or its rationale, etc. but your argument here is flawed: just because we can't practically know who the author is of a piece, it doesn't follow that the piece is in the public domain. Would you argue that since Primary Colors was anonymous that it would be okay to host this entire novel here? Of course not: someone (or some organization in the case of corporate ownership of works) still created this and if it meets a sufficient threshold of originality, then it is subject to copyright and license restrictions. In the case of File:Acid ist fertig, Tanith, Rok.jpg , this may not be sufficiently original: I could see an argument for that. If you disagree, then you would have a valid claim for a deletion discussion. In the case of File:Flyers UA.jpg , the uploader claims to have the copyright and is releasing it under a free license. Again, this is definitely a debatable position (and the work clearly has many original elements to it), so you could also start a deletion discussion for that if you believe that the uploader's claim is fraudulent. — Justin ( ko a vf ) T C M ☯ 12:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)January 20[ edit ]Duplicated cat subtree[ edit ]

We have these two:

Category:Road signs by alphabetical order Category:Road signs by letter

and all their respective offspring, which seem to be a duplication. I’m happy with neither names schemes, as both include words that should be pluralized: e.g. Category:Letter AB on road signs (should be "letter s "), and Category:AB (on road sign) (should be "sign s "). Any ideas on how to proceeded? -- Tuválkin 02:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say redirect the least popular (or most recently created) categories to the other, also it's best to add plural names. Redirects are probably the best solution, as category names sometimes differ (think of the "of Canada" Vs. "in Canada", despite meaning completely different things). In general Wikimedia Commons under-utilises redirects as they could exactly prevent such confusion from occurring again. -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 ( No Fake News ���� ) ( WikiProject Numismatics ����) ( Articles ���� ) 09:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC) You’re 100% right about redirects, Donald Trung . -- Tuválkin 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)I’ll try to revamp the whole thing making ise of {{Letterson}} . -- Tuválkin 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Missing file[ edit ]

Can someone shed light on what happened to File:Antigovernment protest in Slovenia (2020-06-12).jpg ? I uploaded it myself (own work) and it used to be there, but then user Gpkp moved it, and now the file is no longer attached to the description page. — Yerpo Eh? 12:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a race condition. The script for moving files and cleaning up after moving isn't so good at handling concurrent changes. TommyG ( talk ) 13:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)January 21[ edit ]Superhigh resolution scans of PD artwork[ edit ] A digitally composed 93,205 x 108,565 pixel image

A digitally composed 93,205 x 108,565 pixel image of File:Meisje met de parel.jpg (Girl with a Pearl Earring) is now available. The question though that as this was done in Europe is this a freely available image, given that there is clearly more work than a simple mechanic scan of the 2D artwork involved. -- Masem ( talk ) 17:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No matter the amount of work that went into the scanning, as the goal was to faithfully reproduce the original, the work does not generate new copyright. It is the Wikimedia Foundation's official position that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". -- Wcam ( talk ) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)If there are any doubts, then it would be better for someone outside of the EU to upload it. When the photograph is carefully taking extreme high resolution, and carefully lit, images of deep cracks in the paintwork, and those cracks are the focus of the individual shot not the "painting", this can be argued to no longer be a faithful 2D representation but a 3D representation of the object. It is the uploading person that is at legal risk, not the WMF. -- ( talk ) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I think there is a technical issue. I do not think it is possible to get these image below 4GiB without strong lossy compression or downscaling. -- GPSLeo ( talk ) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)While I'm not planning to upload this, what I'm reading is that a closeup section (not one of the ones with 3D added to it) should qualify as PD still, which could be useful as illustrating Vermeer's style, for example. -- Masem ( talk ) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)January 22[ edit ]Unexpected 180 degree rotation[ edit ] The photo Veritas router plane flips upside down when clicked on where is it used in articles w:Plane (tool) and w:Router plane . This only happens when displayed by the w:Wikipedia:Media Viewer . Comfr

Comfr ( talk ) 02:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Comfr : Please try it now, keeping in mind COM:CACHE .   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Jeff G. now it's upside down all the time … -- El Grafo ( talk ) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Joshua Wood / Count of Reutern hoax?[ edit ] Charles Wood, 2nd Earl of Halifax COA.png

I think there may be some hoaxing going on with these subjects. Is this a real coat of arms? Its uploader "The Hon Joshua Wood", User:JinxAndTonic is blocked. Other uploads are questionable. There's also a lot of text on Category:Counts of Reutern which may be a hoax. There's a related Facebook page at https://facebook.com/countvonreutern/ which may be a hoax. There's a category Category:Josh Wood which may be full of photoshopped images, uploaded by User:Redxonard . The IMDB biography at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3954183/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm may also be a hoax. Or is there anything real here? --ghouston ( talk ) 05:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from " https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=527591168 " Categories : Commons maintenance Commons community Navigation menuPersonal toolsNot logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Project page Discussion VariantsViews View Edit Add topic History MoreSearch
Navigate Main page Welcome Community portal Village pump Help center Participate Upload file Recent changes Latest files Random file Contact us Tools What links here Related changes Special pages Permanent link Page information Wikidata item Print/export Create a book Download as PDF Printable version In other projects MediaWiki Meta-Wiki Wikispecies Wikibooks Wikidata Wikinews Wikipedia Wikiquote Wikisource Wikiversity Wikivoyage Wiktionary In Wikipedia Аҧсшәа Acèh Адыгабзэ Afrikaans Akan Alemannisch አማርኛ Aragonés Ænglisc العربية ܐܪܡܝܐ مصرى ������� Asturianu Atikamekw Aymar aru تۆرکجه Башҡортса Basa Bali Boarisch Žemaitėška Български ������� Banjar Bamanankan ����� ������� ������������� ������� Brezhoneg Bosanski ᨅᨔ ᨕᨘᨁᨗ Català Chavacano de Zamboanga Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ Нохчийн Cebuano ᏣᎳᎩ Tsetsêhestâhese کوردی Corsu Nēhiyawēwin / ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ Qırımtatarca Čeština Kaszëbsczi Чӑвашла Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Thuɔŋjäŋ Zazaki Dolnoserbski ������ Ελληνικά Emiliàn e rumagnòl English Esperanto Español Eesti Euskara Estremeñu فارسی Fulfulde Suomi Võro Føroyskt Français Arpetan Nordfriisk Furlan Frysk Gaeilge 贛語 Gàidhlig Galego گیلکی Avañe'ẽ ������ ������ / Gõychi Konknni Bahasa Hulontalo ������������������������ ������� 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî Hawaiʻi עברית ������ Hrvatski Hornjoserbsce Kreyòl ayisyen Magyar Հայերեն Արեւմտահայերէն Interlingua Bahasa Indonesia Interlingue Igbo Iñupiak Ilokano Ido Íslenska Italiano ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut 日本語 Patois La .lojban. Jawa ქართული Taqbaylit Gĩkũyũ Қазақша Kalaallisut ភាសាខ្មែរ ����� 한국어 Къарачай-малкъар ����� / کٲشُر Ripoarisch Kurdî Kernowek Кыргызча Latina Ladino Lëtzebuergesch Лакку Лезги Lingua Franca Nova Luganda Limburgs Ladin Lumbaart Lingála ��� Lietuvių Latgaļu Latviešu Madhurâ ������ Basa Banyumasan Malagasy Māori Minangkabau Македонски ������ Монгол ����� Bahasa Melayu Malti Mirandés မြန်မာဘာသာ مازِرونی Dorerin Naoero Nāhuatl Napulitano Plattdüütsch Nedersaksies ������ Nederlands Norsk nynorsk Norsk Novial ߒߞߏ Diné bizaad Chi-Chewa Occitan ����� Ирон ������ Picard Deitsch Pälzisch Norfuk / Pitkern Polski Piemontèis Ποντιακά پښتو Português Rumantsch Romani čhib Kirundi Română Armãneashti Русский Русиньскый ��������� Саха тыла Sardu Sicilianu Scots سنڌي Davvisámegiella Sängö Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး ����� Simple English Slovenčina Slovenščina Gagana Samoa Anarâškielâ ChiShona Soomaaliga Shqip Српски / srpski Sranantongo SiSwati Sesotho Sunda Svenska Kiswahili Ślůnski ����� ���� ������ Tetun Тоҷикӣ ��� Tagalog Türkçe Татарча/tatarça ChiTumbuka Twi ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche Українська اردو Oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча Vèneto Tiếng Việt West-Vlams Volapük Walon Winaray Wolof 吴语 ייִדיש Yorùbá Zeêuws 中文 文言 Bân-lâm-gú 粵語 IsiZulu Edit links This page was last edited on 22 January 2021, at 06:24.Files are available under licenses specified on their description page. All structured data from the file and property namespaces is available under the Creative Commons CC0 License ; all unstructured text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy . Privacy policy About Wikimedia Commons Disclaimers Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
© 2014-2021 ЯВИКС - все права защищены.
Наши контакты