Commons:Village pump/Technical

Shortcuts: COM:VP/T • COM:VPT

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Welcome to the Village pump technical section

Technical discussion

Village pump/Technical

Bug reports

Code review

Tools

Tools/Directory

Idea Lab

This page is used for technical questions relating to the tools, gadgets, or other technical issues about Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; recent archives: /Archive/2023/12 /Archive/2024/01.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Please note

• Feature or bug reports should be filed on Phabricator (see how to report a bug). Bugs with security implications should be reported differently (see how to report security bugs).
• Have you read the FAQ?
  
  

 

Start a new discussion

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Template:Userpage formatting

I'm trying to add formatting parameters to Template:Userpage (e.g. for changing the background color), but having some issues. I introduced them to Template:Userpage/layout, but I gather that I need to pass them through language variants like Template:Userpage/en to get them to be usable. But when I try to add something like

|border={{{border|}}}
|background={{{background|}}}
|extra-style={{{extra-style|}}}
|file={{{file|}}}

to the English translation, it shows in previews that undefined values are interpreted as blanks rather than just ignored. How do I get around this? Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

{{subst:bump}} {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User template update

Do we have any tutorials on updating my user template? --Don (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Internal error: The server could not save the temporary file

Hi!

When I upload some larger files, I get the following error: "Interner Fehler: Der Server konnte keine temporäre Datei speichern." (Internal error: The server could not save the temporary file). Is someone encountering the same? I saw this error yesterday already. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: The error affects the upload wizard, but also the chunked uploader --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Making content in template only visible to a certain user group？

is there a way to make certain things only visible to say registered users or autopatrollers?

a use case would be transcluding certain maintenance related stuff (so only useful for commons users but not any website visitor) on category pages. RZuo (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s technically possible using the classes defined on the CSS pages listed at Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki:Group-, but I’d recommend against it except for things that are totally useless for users not in the given group (e.g. hiding delete buttons for non-admins is okay, since they can’t delete pages anyway), as logged-in status or user groups are not good proxies for what the user’s intentions are – maybe an experienced user didn’t log in because they decided not to create an account, use an insecure computer, don’t want to go through the 2FA login process etc.; and conversely, maybe a logged-in user isn’t really a contributor (and as such doesn’t need the maintenance links), but someone who only came here to upload a few pictures or even someone who never wanted a Commons account, but got one due to central login. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• On Wikimedia Commons, there are some minor user-interface improvements for the "choosing own vs not own work" step in the UploadWizard. This is part of the Structured Content team's project of improving UploadWizard on Commons. [1][2]

Problems

• There was a problem showing the Newcomer homepage feature with the "impact module" and their page-view graphs, for a few days in early December. This has now been fixed. [3][4]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 December. It will be on all wikis from 14 December (calendar). [5][6]

Future changes

• The 2023 Developer Satisfaction Survey is seeking the opinions of the Wikimedia developer community. Please take the survey if you have any role in developing software for the Wikimedia ecosystem. The survey is open until 5 January 2024, and has an associated privacy statement.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 02:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Internal error: Server failed to store temporary file. (for pdf)

Hi all

I'm getting an error trying to upload what I think is a very standard pdf file, I started a discussion here. Please can anyone help? My assumption is its a rare/niche technical issue. Please reply there so the disussion doesn't get broken up.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I have the same problem with larger TIFFs. See here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T353498 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T353068. I think the issues have the same origin --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Path between categories

Do we have a tool, to show path between two categories? Juandev (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know such a tool doesn't exist, but it wouldn't be hard to make a python script to find a path between two given categories. Pere prlpz (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Upload wizard change

The upload wizard design seems to have been changed in the last day or two. Is there any possibility that whoever changed it could provide more space for answers to 2. Where did you find this work? Enter the website, the book, or another source. and 3. Enter the name of the original author of this work., both of which questions often require more than a single short sentence. By way of example, for an image I've just uploaded I'd like to give the following information for q.2 - which used to fit in the edit box before this change; now there's a single line edit box which requires both horizontal and vertical scrolling to try to make any sense of the input text:

Upper Wharfedale : being a complete account of the history, antiquities and scenery of the picturesque valley of the Wharfe, from Otley to Langstrothdale via Internet Archive - https://archive.org/details/upperwharfedaleb00speiuoft/page/n177/mode/2up

Image cropped from https://ia800905.us.archive.org/view_archive.php?archive=/9/items/upperwharfedaleb00speiuoft/upperwharfedaleb00speiuoft_jp2.zip&file=upperwharfedaleb00speiuoft_jp2%2Fupperwharfedaleb00speiuoft_0195.jp2&ext=jpg

--Tagishsimon (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon: You may wish to ask this at (or see) Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Udehb-WMF. RZuo (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@Tagishsimon Do you mind translating your request into a Phabricator ticket? I'll raise the problem at the next round of talks with the designer when they get back from the holidays. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Lua error

How to fix "Lua error in Module:Wikidata_art at line 450: attempt to index field 'datavalue' (a nil value)." at this page File:蔦紅葉図-Autumn Ivy MET DP251150.jpg? OutOfTheBunker (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this! It was a case to handled well by Module:Wikidata art. At least that specific case I've fixed for now. Best, --Marsupium (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

When should an image where uploader stated "own work" get a "no source" speedy deletion nomination?

When should an image where the uploader stated the image was their "own work" trigger a {{No source since}} speedy deletion nomination?

I upload some images I took as {{Own}}. I don't ever remember my {{Own}} images getting challenged. Should an assertion of "own work" be challenged just because the uploader is a relative newbie?

Yes, if the challenger thinks they have reason to believe the uploader is a sockpuppet, or otherwise not credible, there should be a way to challenge the image's provenance. But is a bald {{No source since}} tag the right kind of challenge?

User:Kacamata has recently applied many {{No source since}} tags, including [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38].

Near as I can tell Kacamata didn't really offer an explanation as to why he or she doubts whether these own work assertions are credible. Should he or she have offered an explanation? Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, IMO "no source" shouldn't be used if a source like {{Own}} is stated, even if this source is suspected to be wrong. "No permission" is better, or speedy deletion if there is evidence of copyright violation, or a regular DR. Only for an old document probably in the public domain claimed as own work, a "no source" might be useful: we don't need a permission in this case. Yann (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I tag as no source all the files that are clearly not own work and have no proper source. Most of the time these are copyvio. Files that are clearly taken from elsewhere. When I can locate the image source on the internet, I tag them as copyvio indicating the source. Almost every time I tagged a file as no source, it was deleted by a sysop. Normally, the files I tag were uploaded by accounts from pt.WP. It's very common for socks, vandals and spammers to create articles in the pt.WP, and then upload problematic images here on Commons. Again, these uploaders are not reliable and almost always their claims of "own work" are not credible. By the way, all this conflict started because Geo Swan is trying to keep out of scope unused images uploaded by a LTA and spammer who created dozens of socks and have being trying to spam pt.WP for a long time. To me, it's shocking that a user goes to this distance to try to keep images uploaded by unreliable accounts (socks, trolls, spammer, etc.) with clearly not credible assertion of "own work". Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 15:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I support deletion of such files, but "no source" is the wrong template. Yann (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• User:Kacamata, you wrote "I tag as no source all the files that are clearly not own work and have no proper source. Most of the time these are copyvio..." I linked to close to three dozen images you recently tagged this way.

Frankly, A LOT OF THEM seemed to have very credible claims that they were the own work of uploaders.

• Could you please explain, more fully, how you reached your bogus conclusion on these "own work" claims?

File:Estátua_de_José_Lopes.jpg looks old, but it bears the date 1958, so the sculptors copyright matters, and it merits a challenge. However, the related File:Igreja paroquial de Lamelas.jpg mainly shows the old church, and I suggest the sculptor's copyright claim on the 1958 monument, should be dismissed as "de minimis". I don't believe either of these images merits tagging for speedy deletion due to "no source".

• Some of the other images you tagged as "no source", like File:Mariuva 2.png, could be deleted, but for other reasons than "no source". In other recent discussions you have argued for deleting selfies, as "self-promotion", even when the uploader is someone with a credible claim of notability. User:Mariuvavalentin, who recently uploaded three images that look like selfies, doesn't seem to have a credible claim of notability. So, I agree, her selfies merit a challenge over whether they are in scope. I think it was a mistake for you to nominate any of those three images as "no source", when they are almost certainly selfies.
• There are some other images among those three dozen that do merit a challenge, but I strongly agree with Yann's suggestion that when your real concern is that the image looks like a copyright violation, you really should offer that as your deletion justification. WMF projects require experienced good faith contributors to do their best to educate inexperienced good faith contributors. In your case, if you are going to continue to nominate images for speedy deletion, I suggest it is essential you apply the best speedy deletion tag, so those good faith new contributor can learn from their mistakes.
• Frankly, your revision history shows you have a long history of leaving heads-up on newbie's user talk pages, informing them their images were tagged for speedy deletion due to lacking a valid source. A good faith newbie won't know, can't know, when they are authorized to upload images they took themselves, accompanied with a tag that the image was their own work.

Frankly, if I am correct that you routinely tagged images with credible claims of "own work" as "no source", then I am concerned that your record suggests you triggered the deletion of a very large number of perfectly valid in scope images. Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted Mariuvavalentin's files, as pt:Mariuva valentin was deleted, this person doesn't seem notable, and this user has no contribution outside self-promotion. Yann (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• User:Kacamata, why did you conclude the "own work" claim on File:Daniela Pierre Firme.jpg was bogus? Unlike Mariuva Valentin her page on the portugese wikipedia establishes she is in scope. Geo Swan (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Update

• User:Kacamata has changed from tagging images where the uploader asserted "own work" from {{No source}} to tagging them with {{No permission since}} [39] [40] [41].

Just to be clear, User:Yann recently wrote "Where this is the slightest possibility that the file is OK for Commons (for whatever reason), a proper DR should be created." I totally agree. And I think that this means that, so long as a contributor is in good standing, their "own work" images should not be tagged for any kind of speedy deletion, including both {{No source}} and {{No permission since}}.

If a newbie has made a couple of mistakes, and DRs show they have a history of applying "own work" to images innappropriately, would speedy deletion requests then be appropriate - if they linked to the DRs that establish earlier errors? Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

In the 3 cases mentioned above, "no permission" is appropriate. EXIF data shows a different name than the uploader, although the images are in high resolution with full EXIF data, so we can assume the images were not copied from the Internet. Yann (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. Geo Swan (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Yann I believe this went too far. Geo Swan is known for being stalking, harassing and wikihunting people. They were banned from en.Wp for this same reason. They are now pinging in several places in a clear attempt to harass me. I believe this kind of behavior should not be tolerated here or in any other WMF project. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Funny thing is that @Yann said that the tagging was "is appropriate". And yet, Geo Swan reverted my tagging in File:AmandaLeadroDuo.jpg and File:Amanda Maria Fest Sorocaba 2023 2.jpg and started a DR. This is a clear example that they are not acting in good faith. They are just trying to harass me. Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 21:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News

• The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 8 January 2024 because of the holidays.

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 December. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 December. It will be on all wikis from 21 December (calendar). There is no new MediaWiki version next week. [42][43]
• Starting December 18, it won't be possible to activate Structured Discussions on a user's own talk page using the Beta feature. The Beta feature option remains available for users who want to deactivate Structured Discussions. This is part of Structured Discussions' deprecation work. [44]
• There will be full support for redirects in the Module namespace. The "Move Page" feature will leave an appropriate redirect behind, and such redirects will be appropriately recognized by the software (e.g. hidden from Special:UnconnectedPages). There will also be support for manual redirects. [45]

Future changes

• The MediaWiki JavaScript documentation is moving to a new format. During the move, you can read the old docs using version 1.41. Feedback about the new site is welcome on the project talk page.
• The Wishathon is a new initiative that encourages collaboration across the Wikimedia community to develop solutions for wishes collected through the Community Wishlist Survey. The first community Wishathon will take place from 15–17 March. If you are interested in a project proposal as a user, developer, designer, or product lead, you can register for the event and read more.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 16:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Improving MP4 error message

Related to Commons:Requests_for_comment/Technical_needs_survey#Video_conversion_support, can we at least make the error message when someone tries to upload an MP4 file point to Help:Converting video? I believe the message is hosted at MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-upload-error-bad-filename-extension, but not sure whether it can accept links or not. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

number sorting

Category:55.5 (number) is sorted in Category:Rational numbers under sortkey '=', but should be under sortkey '5'. Sorting is done automatically and I did not find the right template to fix it. help & fix appreciated. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like sorting happens in {{Number cat/layout}}. Bit late for me to work on this now, but I'll take a look in the morning. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 08:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated. It's now sorted under 0 because of zero-padding. Also that code is ridiculously complicated; I'll work on simplifying it when I have more time. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

boilerplate in category names

see for example Category:Sanborn maps of Utah

what should be visible: just the name of the town. how to fix? Nowakki (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Add or change a video thumbnail

Hi, how do I change the thumbnail of a video already uploaded on Commons? Is there any gadget? Pạtạfisik 13:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I think this is possible in Wikipedia, but I don't know of a possibility in Commons --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531 Thank you. CC @Galessandroni: . Pạtạfisik 17:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The best answer, I suppose, is here. It is possible to change the thumbnail of a video link with this code: [[File:video.ogv|thumb|thumbtime=1|description]], where thumbtime=1 is the second, but not in the original file. Giacomo Alessandroni ^{What's up!} 17:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Rotate?

Please rotate me

I put this picture in for rotation a day ago but it didn't happen. Will it happen? ̴̴Jim.henderson (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

If I'm reading User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot correctly, the bot appears to have been down since the 16th. I'll do it manually. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How to edit the location of creation in the structured data of an image

No, this photo is not taken from Reading Abbey

I'm used to being able to edit the 'location of creation' in an image's structured data by using the edit button, but that button seems to have disappeared for a number of properties, including 'location of creation'. Not sure why this is, but it is quite important to be able to do it in order to modify or remove locations set by the GeographBot, which in my experience quite often either gets it completely wrong, or uses a location that is too general to ever be of any use.

As an example of what I'm talking about, the picture here of Reading station has a location of creation of Reading Abbey!. The ruins of Reading Abbey are actually about 500m in front of the camera, and a little bit to the left, beyond the big pink office block. And I seem to have no way of correcting this.

I originally asked this question at Commons:Help_desk#How_to_edit_the_location_of_creation_in_the_structured_data_of_an_image, and despite a few suggestions there, the problem persists. I suspect that it is also related to the issues raised by another editor at Commons:Help_desk#Can't_add_structured_data_statement. One suggestion was that I raise it here, so here goes. -- Chris j wood (talk) 11:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Well that is well weird. I went for lunch. Before lunch there was no edit button, after lunch the edit button was back. I made no changes to me environment, didn't even restart the browser. Somebody fiddling?. -- Chris j wood (talk) 14:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Not public log regarding user

There are any non-public logs regarding users? If I read in special All public logs, I would expect there are also non-public logs. Juandev (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Juandev: Yes. There are two levels above public. There is revision deletion which means only administrators can see the content, and there is oversight which means not even most administrators can see the content. GMG^talk 15:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

And if someone account is in a blocked range of open proxy, why it is not in the log attached to a specific user? Juandev (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Juandev: Disclaimer: I'm old. But IP range blocks don't generate any content in the user log at all AFAIK. We're generally fairly cautious with connecting IP addresses with registered accounts for privacy reasons. If a user is say...in a place like Turkey or China where they may need to use a proxy to contribute, they would need to request a special permission in order to avoid the IP block. GMG^talk 15:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Just an addition the non public IP logs are visible to checkusers. And there are also some more technical logs they are only available to the MediaWiki and server infrastructure maintainers. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Colors not showing up correctly on SVGs?

File in question

Hello!

I recently fulfilled a request at the Illustration Graphics Lab for a logo, but I noticed something weird when I uploaded it...

The colors are wrong! Especially the blue! It was supposed to be #0000FF, but my eyedropper tool says that the PNG rendering has #5401FF as its color, which is closer to purple! Why is that? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

So, I just checked it out on my phone, and it looks like it's alright at the expected color, so I think this problem may be on my end, but why though? QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 20:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not know, but here are some issues.

The SVG colorspace is sRGB.

When WMF's rasterizer converts the SVG to PNG, it does not specify the sRGB colorspace.

When the PNG is painted to the screen, there may be a colorspace conversion.

When the color picker selects a pixel, it may read the device colorspace.

Glrx (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Template for adding up the amount of files of all subcats inside a cat

Hi folks!

Is there a template that adds up the number of all files of all subcategories in one category?

Thank you! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I figured it out! (for all those who are interested in: https://petscan.wmflabs.org/) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

SHA1 hashes

There are SHA1 hashes available in PetScan for each file from Wikimedia Commons. I suspect this is information received via API from Commons. Does MediaWiki creates hash for an upload version of the file or are these hashes for the last version of a file? Juandev (talk) 06:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Juandev: MediaWiki provides a sha1 hash for each revision of a file, not just the latest revision. Xover (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)