Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Commons

message: Suggest that after saying what Wikim. is the first thing to present is a quick link for putting something on Wikim. Alethe (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: editing page suggestion

message: What if there's an image already on Wikipedia with the same filename, but you want to use the Commons version? Also, I've removed most of the gallery of images, only one row is needed to demonstrate. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
:Rename one of them to give it a more specific name? pfctdayelise 11:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki troubles and gallery removal 

message: I wanted to include an image found on Wikimedia Commons into an article I have been writing. But I could not find quickly how to do it. From some of the comments I saw on other talk pages I am not the only one to have had this problem. So having eventually found the information, to make life easier for those who may need the same information, I have converted this article page from a redirect into an article.
I have chosen to place how to display an image before how to upload an image because I suspect more editors want to use images in articles than want to upload images from Wikipedia to Wikicommons --Philip Baird Shearer 12:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!  Hopefully this will help people out. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that, I was just looking for information of that sort, and you came along and did it a mere three days ago.  One question I still have is, should images be uploaded to the Commons in preference to the local Wikipedia, provided the license is correct (i.e., free)?  Would there ever be a reason why uploading such images to the local Wikipedia might be better (aside from it being a little easier for the uploader)?--Father Goose 07:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From redirect to article

message: is there any way to link to a commons image if there is an en image (different) of the same title? Savidan 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, unfortunately. You can try to get the enwp one deleted (possibly transfer to Commons if appropriate), or re-upload the Commons one under 
another name. pfctdayelise (talk) 10:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  linking problem 

message: This article tells us what commons is doesn't mention *why* one would upload to commons - what are the arguments against uploading directly to WP, other than the "available to other languages"? Does there exist other reasons? Should diagrams that are only in english be uploaded? I'm sure I have more questions, but I can't think of them at the moment User A1 (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons#Rationale --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In Commons the uploaded image can have more information, including meta data & copyright/creative commons data. Chongkian (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why commons 

message: I suggest use c: instead of commons: to link to Commons. It is shorter and easy to remember (in a similar way to use "w" instead of "wikipedia" to link from Wikimedia sister projercts. --Mac (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short linking 

message: While i think it's incredibly useful to be able to browse our thousands of images by sight through categories, we seem to have three standards in effect which essentially makes it a moot point.  The first is from WP:FUC which, understandably, states we shouldn't have galleries of unfree images without commentary.  The second is from this page, which states that we should move all free images to commons for better accessibility and maintainibility (again, this makes sense).  The third though, says that we shouldn't categorize images from commons here.  This makes category galleries pointless.  I also can't fathom why we wouldn't want to transclude the images from commons into categories when the feature is already worked into the software so nicely.  While categorizing the images in commons is just as important, individual wikis (especially those in other languages) will likely need their own categorization outside of how commons goes about it. -03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of galleries in categories? 

message: Is there a lag between when items are posted on commons and when they are available on Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've ever seen.  Can you give a link to the media on Commons that you're trying to use, so I can look into it?--Father Goose (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Aha, maybe it's specific to midi files.  Maybe it has to scan them or something first.  Pass your question along to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and Commons:Village pump, that's your best shot of getting an actual answer.--Father Goose (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably due to caching, did you purge the cache when it didn't show up initially? Mr.Z-man 23:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't know what that is. Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Lag

message: Hi.  I'd like to use an image from Italian Wikipedia here [] on English wikipedia.  How do I do this?E2a2j (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to move the image to Wikimedia Commons first, then only you can use it in English Wikipedia. Chongkian (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Image help

message: Where can I get a technical explanation for how Image:foo can insert an image that may be local to WP or may be shared in Commons?  How does it know where to pull it from?  What's the mechanism there? ⇔ ChristTrekker 05:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical explanation 

message: schools, colleges, Education Institutions, Universities, Training Institutions and Corporate Houses across the globe under one umberella. This amalgamation brings cosmopolitan students to colleges. Your enrollment in this website are sure to attract elite cream of students across the world to join Your college.
chk this site :  [[Media:[www.worldcolleges.info]]]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldcolleges (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges Information  and  World Colleges list 

message: The Mayflower search engine referenced in this article is not accessible due to an expired account on toolserver.org. Tystnaden (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayflower Is Not Accessible 

message: We have long had a fairly stable style of linking to Commons (see WP:COMMONS) through the  template. 
There is also a template .  News to me too - I'd never heard of it until today. Seems it's not too popular, it hit TfD for the second time recently Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_1#Template:Subject_bar, "A mere 1,477 transclusions in 4.8 million articles, in over four years, show that this template has failed to gain traction with the community;". Note also that this  template uses the Commons search mechanism (and its random return of synonyms) rather than linking simply and directly to a useful category.
There is now a push, at least on MILHIST topics,    to remove the existing Commons link template and replace it through the  style.  I've no great aversion to  as a portal or navbox, it's yet more of that useless crud that accumulates at the bottom of pages rather than useful editing, but there is as yet no consensus to start removing the established, recognised and functional template.
Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In each of those 3 milhist articles (after conversion to use subject_bar) the Commons link goes straight to the relevant Commons page; perhaps it only uses the search mechanism if there isn't an exact match - which seems reasonable to me (does/should the normal Commons template do that?). I don't like the subject_bar template as it unneccessarily introduces another way of formatting these links (one of the great strengths of wp, IMO, is that we have articles on a wide range of subjects all presented in a fairly consistent format), but (based on these articles) I wouldn't criticise it for using a search mechanism. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  AFAICS, they all link to the search box. Commons then maps that onto a category, if there is one high in the search results. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If I go to the Panzer II page and click on the link lebelled "Media" then I'm taken to the Commons page titled "Panzerkampfwagen II" (i.e. exactly where I want to go) - what's the problem? DexDor (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of established Commons links by obscure {{tl|Subject bar}} template? 

message: The FileExporter and FileImporter will become default features on August 5th, 2020 on all Wikis. They help you to move files from your local Wiki to Wikimedia Commons, while keeping all original file information (description, source, date, author, and revision history) intact. The project to improve moving files to Wikimedia Commons originates from WMDE’s 2013 Technical Wishes survey, where it was voted into the top wishes for technological improvements by the German-speaking Wikipedia Community.
How does it work? 
1. Step: If you are an auto-confirmed user, you will see a link “Export to Wikimedia Commons” in the toolbar on the local file page. 
2. Step: When you click on this link, the FileImporter checks if the file can be moved to Commons. These checks are performed based on the wiki’s configuration page which is created and maintained by each local wiki community. 
3. Step: If the file is compatible with Commons, you will be taken to a preview page on Wikimedia Commons, where you can update or add information about the file, such as the description. You can also add the ‘Now Commons’ template to the file on the source wiki by clicking the corresponding check box on the preview page on Wikimedia Commons. Admins can delete the file from the local Wiki by clicking the checkbox ‘delete file on source wiki in my name’. By clicking on the ‘Import’ button at the end of the page, the file is imported to Wikimedia Commons. 
If you want to know more about the FileImporter extension or the Technical Wishes Project, follow the links. We are looking forward to answering your questions and getting your feedback on our central feedback page. --For the Technical Wishes Team: Max Klemm (WMDE) (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Wishes: FileExporter and FileImporter will become default features on all Wikis 

message: :File:Nat-gall-lond-tr-sq2.jpg was transferred from enwiki to Commons in 2013, but it's still in enwiki's :Category:National Gallery, London, even though there's no way to edit the file on enwiki that I can see. Could somebody please remove it from the category? Ham II (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very late reply, but it is in the category because it has a local description which includes :Category:National Gallery, London. On Vector, there is an "edit local description" button directly to the left of the "view history" button. You should then be able to remove the category. However, I am not certain that the file should be removed from said category, given that it is a picture of the National Gallery and per WP:FILECAT files do not necessarily have to be in a categories separate from articles. HouseBlastertalk 00:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a Commons file from a Wikipedia category 

message: does a massive deletion od commonscat templates with edit summaries like this:
(for page History of Poland (1945–1989)):  Removing Commons category link that does not match this article (:commons:Category:Polish People's Republic) (Commons category belongs at Polish_People's_Republic) 
But this makes no sense. I need illustrations for History of Poland (1945–1989) and since there is no such cat in commons, the only way is to link it to Polish_People's_Republic.
I explained this ro Mike Peek in my edit summary, but they insist  "this has already been discussed before" If this was siacussed before, it must be included in edit summary, so I can see this discussion. May be it was reasonabe, but maybe "cosensus can change". 
So, what and where are the rules for the use of template:commonscat? his in not discussed in the template talk page.Lembit Staan (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been discussed before at Template talk:Commons category and my talk page. In particular, see Template:Commons_category#Resolving_discrepancies. The simple solution here is to create a new Commons category for this topic, if you want to link to it, rather than linking to the wrong Commons category that belongs in another article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thgis is not a "simple solution". I cannot spoend time recategorizing hundreds of pictures. It will take WEEKS. Also You didnt provide neither the links to discussuon, not even keywords to search archives. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have yet to explain why you think the commons category relates to this article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: .A already exoplained 2 times: Because in  this commonscat is necessary for illustrations for my article. (these two wikiarticles are 90% overlap in time frame) You cannot do massive changes based on obscure discussions and then revert my revert without any basis in policies and guidelines.  Lembit Staan (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can illustrate an article without including a link to Commons if you want - although I think it's good to link to Commons, it should be specific for the topic. I can help set up a new category if you want, and using tools like Cat-a-lot, it shouldn't take long to populate it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of removing (or in addition to removing) you should be placing a warning in talk pages, with instructions, so that "page watchers" can handle it. I stil fail to see the rationale for such strict match. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

text: The template has a parmeter allowing different category, and I am using it. If this illegal, you have to remove the parameter.  Lembit Staan (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template already displays a warning when you preview it. There are only around 10k usages of it that are problematic - I guess we are getting to the point where we could post talk page messages for those. For context, it's part of a general synchronisation of Commons links from here with links to enwp from Commons, via the Infobox that is now displayed there. I would love to see the local parameter removed at some point - but it's chicken-and-egg, it will probably only happen once the existing links are cleaned up. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked there is no such sync e.g., in plwiki. I am wondering how they will handle this. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of template commonscat 

message: These 2 images for 21st Century Fox and The Walt Disney Company, is not related from Wikimedia Commons to acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney. 2001:448A:6000:5642:D981:B8D8:C25E:7838 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimedia Commons is not related to the [[acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney]]