Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/06

Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg

Proceeding with rename. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ok, this is getting a bit ridiculous, but this rename request has been at some sort of limbo state for 5 months so I'm bringing it here so it can gain more attention. Should we rename the file to File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg? I quote Fry1989's reasoning:

"This flag is currently in use, so the year of introduction should not be included in the file name. This is as per Commons' long-standing practice of naming flag images "Flag of XXX.svg" without a year of introduction unless the flag has been retired from use. It also can be confused for implying this flag was only used in 2023, as per the naming styles for flags such as File:Flag of Burundi (1966).svg, File:Flag of Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).svg, and File:Flag of Jamaica (1962).svg, which were only used for 1 year or less and for that reason include both their year of introduction and year of retirement as a single year."

Pinging previously involved editors: @Fry1989, KylieTastic, Paine Ellsworth, and Billinghurst. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Leaning toward  support pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has changed since January? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Support as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stuck in category redirects

At Special:Permalink/880570764 a list of category redirects with files (or subcategories) that aren't moved.

This is generally due to categories being added by templates. I identified some at User_talk:RussBot/category_redirect_log#Template_populating_category_redirects and fixed a few occurrences. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Normally, there shouldn't be any category on that list. If one is there it means RussBot tried to move the files or subcategories, but couldn't. If the category is empty now, it means it has been fixed.

Maybe there is a way to adapt w:Template:Resolve category redirect so redirecting categories aren't picked up by templates. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2024-06

Volunteer staff changes

In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.

• User:Benoît Prieur was removed on 13 May due to global ban by the Wikimedia Foundation. He had served as sysop since 18 January 2018.

Other news

• Video2commons is out of service since 16 May.
• User:SteinsplitterBot is back in service rotating files. User:Steinsplitter explained that it was out of service because ' the so called "Toolsforge" does not provide enough ressources (RAM, CPU, Storage and binarys) to run Rotatebot '.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Aligning images with strong sources

We have several pictures from WWII concerning Croatian area that are described wrongly or incorrectly given that this is what the secondary sources who comment or talk about these pictures say. The source that took picture from a Yugoslav archive is United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is also a factual source, however, it has a description of the image that is not in accordance with modern sources, which mark such an interpretation(regardless from whom) and as propaganda.

What to do in this case, and if nothing can be changed, can the same picture be posted but with an explanation ie description based on modern high-quality sources of historians?

Images are: Corpses in the Sava river, Sisak 1945.[1], Ustaše militia execute prisoners near the Jasenovac concentration camp[2], Glina church massacre [3] --Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this helps: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg reproduces the original description with a caption/disclaimer. The actual wiki-description goes in a different field. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

For starters, there is {{Fact disputed}}. If (as appears to be the case here) the matter is genuinely controversial, that's a good choice: you are not simply making a correction, you are noting that two presumably scholarly sources disagree.

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg may not be the best example, because it just has a generic warning. File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg might be a better example. Note: "original description" distinct from (corrected) "title"; also, in the "description" field, note the horizontal bar separating what the original source said from Commons' own original content.

Also, when contradicting a presumably respectable scholarly source, it is a good idea to report the contradiction back to them. They are likely to incorporate it into their archives as well (which I see has now happened with that example I gave). - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Category inclusion bug

Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Bavaria correctly shows Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Germany as a parent cat, but the latter does not show the former as a child cat. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Categories included due to templates frequently have issues with updating due to cache issues or the MediaWiki software updating its index (which I believe is done weekly). So while three days is a long time for it to not display, it’s not entirely unreasonable. Have you tried purging both cats and the template (I cannot on the machine I’m using presently)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I had purged both cats. I didn't think to try purging the template; now I've done so, and it still didn't resolve this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Null edit fixed the problem. MKFI (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

27.png still exists

So I've been making a spreadsheet of all the numerical PNG files on here from 01.png to 99.png. While browsing I found that 27.png is somehow still an existing file? Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:27.png

I don't know what it is so I can't move it to a better file name. Hopefully someone knows what this is. 0x16w (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

29.png also still exists apparently. 0x16w (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Checked all the other numbers up to 99.png, these are the only two remaining ones. 0x16w (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Limited to the edits

IP address: 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912 This limited to 128 edits on IP address to expiry 1 week 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Yusaya 94038917, this seems to be an IP and user trying to hit some kind of autoconfirmed edit count, probably a misunderstood one. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Deletion request for presumed orphaned category

I recently made this Category:Hungern bis ihr ehrlich seid 2024, then realized that that name is confusing, formed something more suitable, and duly added a redirect. That confusing name is still being shown as an auto‑completion option when filling in other more sensible categories, which could lead to wrong categorizations and be detrimental. I believe that that confusing category name is orphaned in any case.

My request is that Category:Hungern bis ihr ehrlich seid 2024 be deleted if at all possible. My apologies for adding to the admin workload, sorry for that. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll delete it, but for the future please see the directions at Template:How to delete empty categories. - Jmabel ! talk 23:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I looked at the documentation for Template:How to delete empty categories and it is not clear (to me at least) where to place this template. I guess that the target category is the correct location? Perhaps that information could be confirmed and added to the usage notes for that template? I have also already added a topic to the template discussion page to record my suggestion there. In addition, the template name seems confusing: is this template invoking a deletion process or merely offering passive advice. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(Question is answered on that template talk page.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: -- — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)