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 ↓
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/2021/12.

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 Burkina Faso [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.

December 13[edit]

Street art vs Graffiti[edit]

I was trying to clean up the cat Graffiti in London when I noticed there is significant overlap between these two categories, at first i thought it was a case of duplication that has made it's way down the whole local cat structure, but en:wiki has two separate articles for the two concepts. I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two concepts in practice when it comes to categorisation Category:Street art describes it as "Street art is a subset of Public art which denotes unsanctioned artwork in the public space." Category:Graffiti states "This category is for graffiti- and street-art." One of the main differences between the two concepts is public perception, seems too subjective for a category structure. So what is the best way to categorise a spray painted picture on a wall? Oxyman (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO the description needs a fix. Street art is legal, Graffiti is not. Yann (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the whole difference? As a quick search seems to indicate that street art is often illegal while I have seen a lot of legal graffiti. Graffiti just seems to mean "street paintings" while street art is a whole larger category that includes other forms of street art. At least that is what I suspect based on how "Straatkunst" and "Graffiti" are used in Dutch. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old time graffiti
  • I understand the confusion and I wonder if there is a clear difference today. Artists like Category:Banksy are considered "graffiti artists" and "street artists". "Graffiti" was considered defacement in the past and something to be painted over, but now some of it is seen as "politic protest" and "public art". Krok6kola (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, graffiti can be considered "art" (even long ago). There are no doubt various different definitions of "street art". Here on Commons, we make an important distinction between *authorized* (legal) v/s *unauthorized* (illegal), because Commons has to be concerned with complying with copyright laws. In countries without Freedom of Panorama for public murals and similar works (the United States being an important example of such a country), the artist retains copyright to their work... *unless* it was placed illegally, making it "graffiti". -- 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

December 16[edit]

Open licensed images relating to AI[edit]

Better Images of AI launches a free stock image library of more realistic images of artificial intelligence

Maybe somebody can harvest suitably licensed images from the above project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pigsonthewing: Is there any particular reason to believe the project includes any suitably licensed images? - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The project prominently displays Wikimedia compatible Creative Commons licenses on the works, like Quantified Human by Alan Warburton. As a Wikimedian I also am a bit skeptical because there are two works in most of these images: the photos and the artistic remixing. Typically designers are not photographers, so we need copyright licenses for both the work and the media which the work is remixing. It is odd that there is no credit to photographers for these. I suppose it would be prudent to write to the artists and ask them about the copyright of the photos, and whether they just licensed them from elsewhere, because photographers do not get credit. These are valuable images which would make good illustrations to popular Wikipedia articles which are hard to illustrate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the bona fides of both the organisations and individual artists involved, I see no reason to doubt their copyright and licence statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a lot for the lead on this Andy. Wikipedia's concept and understanding of copyright is unlike that which is found elsewhere, and I think asking is helpful before being hasty. I wrote to one of the artists to ask both about the copyright of photo versus remixed work, and I also asked about the explanatory text copyright since the CC license does not purport to cover that at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't Wikipedia. I don't think our understanding of copyright is very different from any other valid understanding of it. I'm not proposing that we import any "explanatory text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems very unlikely that the BBC would be commissioning artists to create stock artwork for others to use without performing due diligence on the copyrights. (And even if the underlying photos weren't by the artists, it seems that the images are adequately transformative in most cases to qualify them as original works rather than derivative works, although I'm not a copyright lawyer.) Nosferattus (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banana / Plant / Flask images by Max Gruber, at the very least, are almost certainly OK. It looks like he arranged the still lifes and photographed them. -- King of ♥ 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing: I uploaded the first one if you want to license review it: File:Alan Warburton - Quantified Human.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 18[edit]

Creating Wikidata items for all categories[edit]

Hi all. We're about half way through the process of linking Commons categories with Wikidata items - we now have 3.6 million categories displaying the multilingual infobox. I would like to see this increased so that all Commons categories are linked with Wikidata items and use the infobox. This means creating new Wikidata items for the categories where there aren't potential matches with existing Wikidata items.

I've started an RfC about this at:

Please comment there if you're interested in this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For all categories I am not sure, but at least for all people, places, and objects who have a category on Commons, certainly. We have very specific categories for which I don't see the point of having a WD item (e.g. Category:Black and white photographs of California in the 1990s). Yann (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann: If you didn't know English, a multilingual infobox would be useful in that example. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moin Moin, i'm not sure, because many people have a category and then under the main category categories for example by year. I don't know if they need an own Infobox? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multilingual category names could become created with structured data and the Lexemens on Wikidata. Wikidataitems are not made for translations of every page title on Commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Crazy1880: "by year" makes no sense, as I've said for a long time, see for example Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Liam Wyatt by year. But if it must exist, let's at least describe it multilingually, so that those that don't know English can perhaps understand what is going on?
@GPSLeo: Please, go ahead and implement multilingual category names via structured data and lexemes. You will find this to be a very difficult task. But in the long term, you are probably right - but in the short term, let's use what tools we have available right now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidata was created to serve other Wikimedia websites, this request simply asks for this mission to stop excluding the Wikimedia Commons. Connecting all categories with Wikidata would allow us to utilise the existing navigational infrastructure (or "legacy infrastructure") and use its best aspects in Structured Data for Wikimedia Commons (SDC) rather than forcing it to re-invent the wheel. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Peel: In theory, this seems a good idea. However, we don't have the manpower to do that in practice. So unless translations of category names could be done automatically, I don't see the point. IMO there are much more important issues to solve first: creating a category and a Creator template for all potential authors, starting with all people who have a Wikipedia article. Then creating a category with {{Wikidata Infobox}} for all places and objects/items which already have a Wikidata entry. Then creating a Wikidata entry for all artworks. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "build it and they will come" even if it takes many years, solving those other issues aren't mutually exclusive with adding more structured data to the existing category and navigational infrastructures. Accurate machine translations will improve over time and more volunteers will come once the system exists, nobody would want to do something they don't know already exists. We shouldn't try to limit our toolboxes based on the amount of volunteers we have today. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1, thanks @Donald Trung: . Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using Wikidata to internationalize the category system on Commons is a horrible kludge. And the existing implementation is quite awkward. Here's a random example: Category:Train stations in L’Aquila. The infobox helpfully explains that this is a "Wikimedia category" and then helpfully explains that it is an "Instance of Wikimedia category". You are then given a list of seven links, half of which are completely useless. It's basically just a box of cruft. Until the implementation is cleaned up, I don't think we should be expanding the use Wikidata for Commons categories. Nosferattus (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: I added category combines topics (P971) to the item, the infobox displays more info now. Would love to hear of a system that was less of a kludge. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Peel: Perhaps Wikidata need more supervision. Recently I found an email address and telephone number in a Wikidata item. Also I had trouble with a mosque in Pakistan that kept turning up as a work of literature in India. Help at Wikidata couldn't help. Only going to the Wikipedia page about the literary item and removing the mosque image seemed to work. (I admit I don't see the point of many of the "depicts" that seem very general, like "landscape" etc.) Krok6kola (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Krok6kola: By "more supervision", I hope you mean more involvement by editors that aren't yet active there. Email and telephone numbers are fine in Wikidata items, and also in the infobox here, unless consensus changes against that in the future. Which mosque were you having problems with? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 20[edit]

Something went wrong with Template:China photographs taken on navbox or its transclusions[edit]

I checked Category:China photographs taken on 2021-12-19 just now, only to find that it became a redirect page, and I can't figure out who vandalized it.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 11:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the problem is caused by this edit.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Soumya-8974 as editor.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I converted the category China into a dab page after a CfD, which caused a slew of problems I was trying to fix, including categories which used "China" to mean the People's Republic of China rather than China (region). I have made workarounds to these problems and this caused more problems. Maybe I should treat "China" to mean the country a la the categories of Taiwan. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that, but those "China photographs taken on " categories are still redirects as of now, so it seems that my previous efforts didn't work. I just don't want the files in that categories to be moved again to that parent categories which don't have regional differences, causing more unnecessary bot works.--N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the technical problem is not just caused by changes in Template:Country label. N509FZ Talk 前置,有座!Front engine with seats! 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted my recent developments of categories related to China because of the above-mentioned technical problems. I have also make new workarounds on templates to avoid further problems. Soumya-8974 (he) (talkcontribs) 12:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves[edit]

This paper:

“An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves vetted to plant family for human and machine learning”, in PhytoKeys (in en), volume 187, 16 December 2021, DOI:10.3897/PHYTOKEYS.187.72350, ISSN 1314-2003, Wikidata Q110218751, pages 93-128


"an open-access database of 30,252 images of vouchered leaf specimens vetted to family level, primarily of angiosperms, including 26,176 images of cleared and x-rayed leaves representing 354 families and 4,076 of fossil leaves from 48 families."

which is available on Figshare under CC by 4.0, with metadata, all spread across seven zip files. Would anyone care to automate their upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dataset is now documented as Image collection and supporting data for: An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves vetted to plant family for human and machine learning (Q110219451). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 21[edit]

Queering Wikipedia 2022[edit]

Queering Wikipedia logo wordmark.svg

QW2022 (Queering Wikipedia) is a global conference focused on LGBTQ+ communities and our representation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in all languages.

If you are a Commons contributor and LGBTQ+ or a committed ally, please help shape the proposal by providing feedback on what the priorities should be, and how the event should run. You can give anonymous feedback through the survey link below, or by copying the questions and emailing in your responses in plain text.

For a preview of the proposal, add your support, ask questions or even volunteer to join in and make it a success, see:

Visit LGBT to find out more about the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the different ways of talking with fellow LGBTQ+ volunteers.

Different words and acronyms are used for communities within the rainbow of sexualities and gender identities/expressions (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, non-binary, two-spirit, third gender, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, LGBTQQ2IA*, QUILTBAG, SOGI). "Queer" is used by us to represent all members of these communities and work toward solidarity for those affected by related discrimination.

Thank you!

QW2022 proposal team --QW22 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "us"? For example FLINTA* is used by people who identify as queer (LINTA*) and people who identify as CIS (FL). Are pan and poly queer? Is Alice Weidel (lesbian woman, member of german parliament, living in Switzerland, with asian partner and child (rainbow family), fluent in chinese because of having lived in China outside of designated ExPat residences) welcome to the conference? --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the invitation above is also open to "allies," I presume that they are welcoming anyone with a similar philosophy or view point, regardless of the specific labels used. Personally, this is not something for me, although I support the principle of encouraging participation by under-represented groups. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 22[edit]


It looks like the Delinker is "stuck" in terms of moving categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split Judgefloro DR[edit]

COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro is getting crowded, and likely more files may be nominated as I see some poor quality ones found at Category:Makati City Hall; some do not even show the 3 buildings of the city hall themselves, but surroundings like some random trees or plants and sunsets obscuring surrounding area. I am thinking of nominating some for deletion via user category, though the DR may become overly full. Thus I am proposing to manually split the said DR, similar to Minorax's proposal for COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa.

For this case, all threads related to FOP and DR will be split to another DR: COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro (FOP and DW), and be categorized accordingly. The rest that is related to COM:SCOPE and COM:WEBHOSTing issues will remain at COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro.

While the Burj Khalifa proposal was backed by several users, there has been no move made. Also, the action may impact transclusion to archival daily listings, but I think that is no longer relevant for FOP and DW threads in Judgefloro DR as these can be accessed more easily through existing categories than archival listings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete versus normal deletion[edit]

When you see a speedy-delete that is obviously incorrect, or is incoherent, or contains no valid reason for deletion, can you just remove the speedy-tag, or do you have to go though the regular deletion process? See for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red queen alicia.png --RAN (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you can prove that the document is OK, then just remove the tag. If you have doubt, then convert the speedy request to a proper DR. Yann (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, Thanks! --RAN (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 23[edit]

File:Official Photograph of Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi, November 2020 (ISCS version).jpg[edit]

Please look into this version and compare it with File:Official portrait of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, November 2020 (cropped).jpg. Only websites are different but these are same version. Can this picture be kept as original version and link in all wikimedia projects to Narendra Modi.? Best --TTP1233 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? In addition, it is up to projects to decide what photo to use. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections[edit]

The Board of Trustees is preparing a call for feedback about the upcoming Board Elections, from January 7 - February 10, 2022.

While details will be finalized the week before the call, we have confirmed at least two questions that will be asked during this call for feedback:

  • What is the best way to ensure fair representation of emerging communities among the Board?
  • What involvement should candidates have during the election?

While additional questions may be added, the Movement Strategy and Governance team wants to provide time for community members and affiliates to consider and prepare ideas on the above confirmed questions before the call opens. Community members can also organise local conversations during the call. You can find more information about this upcoming call for feedback here.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 24[edit]

File:Coat of arms of Romania.svg[edit]

Time for a Romanian version?

There’s been some edit-warring on this, with disruptors uploading the Communist-era coat of arms (the one with the rising sun and ears of wheat) instead of the contemporary one (the eagle). Given a) high visibility b) no need for frequent modifications and c) ongoing malfeasance, I suggest some kind of protection. — Biruitorul (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul: ✓ Done. By the way, we also have a specific noticeboard for this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. Multichill (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I didn’t know that, but will make use of the board in the future, as needed. — Biruitorul (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting images[edit]

We need to delete images I uploaded when I didnt know what copyright was. I believe these are the images that are copyrighted. The ones that have to do with Space 220 and the one picture of the inside of pecos bill. You can find the images here Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Hi, and welcome. Please see User talk:Kaleeb18#File:Pecos Bill Dining room.webp.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 25[edit]

Which German station in 1991?[edit]

Loc 143 926-4 in 1991.jpg

It must a fairly large station with midtrack non-passenger platforms and high supporting structure for overhead lines.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No clue, but maybe you have better chance if you ask at w:de:Portal Diskussion:Bahn? Regards --A.Savin 15:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It very much looks like Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof. The non-passenger platforms are to load mail to the passenger trains which, had one additional car for mail transport in those days. Sometimes the car itself had postal workers sorting mail during transport. Additional you can see the special kind of roof structure on the right side, which I do not know any other station that has this kind of structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]
(Added for comparison: Stuttgart Hbf) The vertical structures of the roof are rare
(Added for comparison: Stuttgart Hbf)
@Giftzwerg 88: Thanks, but please see COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Auf dem Bild sind Treppenabgänge. Es gibt Kopfbahnhöfe mit Treppen (FFM) aber gerade bei Stuttgart erinnere ich mich nicht an einen Verbindungstunnel? --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were Stuttgart, it would have to be quite far away from the station building, else you would see that larger roof structure over all tracks, not those smaller roofs on each platform. But, as C.Suthorn says, there are no stairs like this leading to a connecting tunnel in Stuttgart. At least I don't remember any, and I've been to this station a lot in the 1990s. The station in the image also looks similar to Heilbronn Hauptbahnhof, but there are no mail / luggage platforms there. It looks like the image was taken on the platform between tracks 5 and 6, the platform to the left is the one between tracks 3 and 4, there seems to be another platform to the left (presumably between tracks 1 and 2), and it looks like there are more tracks to the right, so there are probably 7 or more tracks in this station. I looked up this locomotive, and it seems that in the early 1990s it was stationed in Mannheim, though I'm not entirely sure. Given that and the similarities to Stuttgart and Heilbronn, it's probably a mid-size station somewhere in the South-West of Germany. A lot of the elements we see are rather generic though, so it's really hard to tell. Unless someone recognizes that chimney-like structure visible over the roof of the platform between tracks 3 and 4. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof in 1992. Looking at the pictures there I remember now that some of the platforms did have stairs in the part closer to the station building, but they look quite different compared to the image in question. --Rosenzweig τ 13:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The second photograph shows the platform schedule, with one train arriving from Ulm (and the station is the terminus), and two more departing to Schwaebisch Hall and Nurnberg. I would say 100% Stuttgart, though I am unsure about the intermediate stops of the Ulm train - it should list Esslingen for example but it does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Oh, and on another platform the departures are Oberstdorf, Munich, and Klagenfurt. We just need to check the intermediate stations for the train to Ulm - may be Augsburg Hbf? Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Oersingen - Goeppingen - Plochingen. Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, it must be Stuttgart Hbf. Local trains from Ulm and from Schwaebisch Hall at the time alway terminated in Stuttgart. Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: The second and third photographs definitely show Stuttgart (see the file names), they are by User:Giftzwerg 88 and were added for comparison. They are not part of the question here :-) --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, I have misunderstood the issue then. Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we understand the color code of the passenger cars? Could it be one of the sleeping cars (blue with a yellow horizontal line)? Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see, but it's probably just the color scheme ivory/ocean blue used by Deutsche Bundesbahn starting in 1974. Like the cars in File:Intercity ozeanblau-beige Jenbach 1979.jpg. The locomotive type (top speed: 120 km/h) suggests a local train. --Rosenzweig τ 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everybody^. I will rename the file.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: Rename to what? If you thought "Stuttgart", that's not it. See my answer to Ymblanter above. --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The seond an third image are from 2019 and from Giftzwerg88 and from Stuttgart as Giftzwerg assumed the first one may be Stuttgart. While the first one *may* be from Stuttgart in 1991, the Abfahrtstafel in the second one is no argument for that. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already realized this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamps and version history are confusing. Why didn't I get an edit conflict warning? C.Suthorn (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a note to the talk page suggested by A.Savin asking if someone there knows more. --Rosenzweig τ 15:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was an argument about the stairs. Yes I did notice the stairs and took in into consideration. Stuttgart had stairs, and they were amid of the platforms to enable faster change between platforms, and they allowed direct access to the S-Bahn at its north end. The stairs and northern access to S-Bahn was one of the first things that got removed for S21, it was probably around 2012. It was annoying, because this passage allowed short and quick exchange between trains and S-Bahn. Now you need to take a longer walk to the southern access and probably miss your train once in a while, and you need to mingle with people that want to go elsewhere or use other means of transport. So a longer walk could mean you get to destination half an hour later. My photos are more recent and all the platforms got moved outwards to create the gap for the construction. The roofs are only a small remaining part.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can see the stairs in the 1992 photos at [1]. They look rather different though, not like in Smiley.toerist's image. --Rosenzweig τ 15:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this definitely cannot be a terminus station. We see the letter "E" in the front of the picture and further back the letters must be "D" to "A". As far as I know, in terminus stations the sections in the head always start with "A", but the sunlit track in the background does not look as if it is the head. The stairways make it even less likely that this is Stuttgart or another terminus. Lantus (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we're looking for a station that is not one of the big terminus stations (Kopfbahnhof), but still big enough (apparently at least 7 tracks, as explained above) to have this extra platform for mail / luggage (Gepäckbahnsteig). I guess it's time for the experts to take over :-) --Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it must be in former West German territory, because this is clearly a Deutsche Bundesbahn station, and the Eastern part of Germany still had the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1991. East German locomotives were already used in the West though, as evidenced by the 143 type locomotive. --Rosenzweig τ 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint, but the 1992 images at [2] show that Stuttgart Hbf has (had?) the section letters in exactly the opposite order: E is closest to the station building, while A is out there. --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a tunnel in Stuttgart, but this is not Stuttgart Hbf. The vertical structures of the roof aren't that rare: Several bigger stations in West Germany had these, e.g. Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Darmstadt, Dortmund, Bonn, Mainz, Oldenburg, Pforzheim. Darnsradt also had mail/luggage platforms. --Derkoenig (talk)

This very much looks like Offenburg. Offenburg has the stairs at platform section E, has a separate (now: former) platform for baggage and mail between tracks 4 and 5 (but only between those) and has this distinctive canopy (only) on the platform towards track 6. See this picture for comparison. GeorgR (de) (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you found the right station. Congratulations :-) Everything checks out. File:2014 08 16 Offenburg Personenbahnhof m BR01 1533 7 Gleis07.jpg shows the platform between tracks 6 and 7 visible in the right part of the original image. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And File:1996 02 20 Film 523882 Neg 18 OG Bf Gleis 1 IC mit 103 194 7.jpg shows the chimney I mentioned earlier. --Rosenzweig τ 22:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm pretty sure this is Offenbach. Here is image taken almost exactly from the same perspective: --PhiH (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you mean Offenburg :-) --Rosenzweig τ 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgR (de): Indeed, and see also this photo for comparison -- IMO nearly the same camera point; note also the tunnel stairs, the chimney, and the top of a mast to the left of it. Regards --A.Savin 02:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China vs. People's Republic of China[edit]

This week User:Soumya-8974 moved "China" (as country) to the current title "People's Republic of China," without any proposal, discussion or consensus. IMHO it should be restored back. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Orijentolog: the user tried, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:China, but didn't get much response. Multichill (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 26[edit]

File Remove Icons[edit]

I press a big red x button and it said "remove these icons". I had uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons. The red x button had options like "use this file" and so one. How can I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 07:01, 26 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Hi, and welcome. That appears to be our QInominator gadget, which documentation is silent on the use of the "X" button and recovery. If refreshing doesn't work, try using the links from another file, and substituting as appropriate. To use that file in a wiki as a thumbnail, use "[[File:Citation Reuse Error.png|thumb|Citation Reuse Error]]". To use that file in a wiki regularly, use "[[File:Citation Reuse Error.png|Citation Reuse Error]]". See also en:H:PIC and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. No sorry, I have got what I what I wanted. When I click the "reuse this file" button, there are a couple of options like download, use this file, email a link, information, and beside that is a cross. Clicking on that shows options like, file, file history, file usage on commons and metadata. Refreshing the page shows the option reuse this file. Clicking on that shows me the past options like download, use this file etc. Anyway thanks, for trying to help me out. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Itcouldbepossible: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error at COM:Freedom of panorama/Asia[edit]

An error has occurred at COM:Freedom of panorama/Asia, in which the transclusion link for China has become "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/中国" (with the subsection header as "Template:中国"). COM:FOP China did not transclude as expected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: This appears to be more fallout from the edits by User:Soumya-8974.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 27[edit]