Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/02

Madonna and Child

Is there a particular term for this representation of the Madonna and Child, with the representation of Jesus superimposed on Mary's chest? - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: en:Our Lady of the Sign. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: thank you, that term is totally new to me. - Jmabel ! talk

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Censored by lack of FOP

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

We seem to have consensus here, and a user who would really like to move forward. Can we please have an uninvolved admin close this? - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a tool for checking if your image was used on a Wikimedia project?

This is surely vanity, but I find it encouraging to see my uploads being used on Wikipedia and the like. I can go through Special:ListFiles and just check the description pages of each of my uploads, but it’s tedious! And it also shows me images that I added to Wikipedia myself, which is not as encouraging. Does anyone know of a tool that would aggregate this data? If not, is the “File usage on other wikis” list available by some API? I think I could hack together a tool, probably. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything: GLAMorous lets you track usage statistics by category and by user. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

For apis you have prop=globalusage (keep in mind you can use that with generators) for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&generator=allimages&gaiuser=Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything&gaisort=timestamp&formatversion=2&prop=globalusage&gailimit=max&gulimit=max another option is toolforge wikireplicas contain an sql database with a globalimagelinks table, which you can query at https://quarry.wmcloud.org/ Bawolff (talk) 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Balancing Uploader Requests vs. Descriptive Filenames?

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

What's your take on this file naming dilemma? When an original uploader requests to change a descriptive filename to a less meaningful one, should we prioritize COM:FR#FR1 (respect original uploader's request) or COM:FR#FR2 (avoiding meaningless names)? How do you balance respecting the uploader's wishes with maintaining clear, descriptive filenames? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on the best approach in this situation. SimmeD (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimmeD: I think File:Ardea cinerea A7R04867 (51957702865).jpg is a good example of how a compromise was reached. The original uploader wishes the files to retain their original code, but Commons policy is pretty clear that the original file name File:A7R04867 (51957702865).jpg is in violation of our naming policies, regardless of how the uploader feels about them. The code can be appended to a name that complies with the naming policy, but it can't be the filename in its entirety. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@SimmeD: My usual approach as a filemover is that I will honour most criterion-1 requests, but will decline them if the new name would immediately be eligible for renaming under some other criterion. So in the example above, I decided that the inclusion of the species name was enough to mean that criterion 2 didn't apply and so I renamed the file as requested by the uploader. On the other hand, when the uploader asked for File:Hochhaus Wintergartenstrasse, Leipzig, 12-06-30 by ralfr 11.jpg to be renamed back to File:12-06-30-leipzig-by-ralfr-11.jpg I declined the request because the proposed name was so ambiguous that it could immediately be renamed again under criterion 2. --bjh21 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I am too a filemover. And I even happened to decline COM:FR#FR1 requests when the uploader wanted to change the filename from one in Latin script to IIRC Kanji / Kana, as the latter can be read only by a minority of Wikimedians and potential re-users. So: "FR1" is, for me, never higher than other criteria (FR2 or FR3), and I often deliberately changed a FR1 requested name to something else, often adding a shot date, location or motif (scientific) name. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's comments. I'll take them to heart and think about them if a situation arises. SimmeD (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Renaming multiple files

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

65 file names contain the typo Trafala, which should be Tarfala. This includes all currently existing file names containing "Trafala," most of which begin "Valley between Trafala," with a few exceptions. The captions and descriptions have already been corrected. (Example 1, example 2.)

Do I simply request that they all be renamed one by one, or is there a way that's more convenient for file movers? I don't wanna clog the backlog with a bunch of individual requests unless it's necessary.

Sinigh (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have a script for this and will correct the names the next days. GPSLeo (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That is indeed a more convenient way. :) Thanks! Sinigh (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done all corrected now. GPSLeo (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-02

In January 2025, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 182 sysops.

• User:Ratekreel was elected (27/2/2) on 27 January.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

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

--RoyZuo (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Invicta (Airline) - not a straightforward rename problem?

Ok, so this will probably appear lame compared to the deep technical stuff normally discussed here, but it has all but done my head in, although I now feel I am winning the battle. I'll explain.

Is this Invicta Airways or Invicta International Airlines? You can have two guesses.

There are approximately 30 media items (photos) related to a lesser-known defunct UK airline that operated as Invicta. And around 20 categories and sub-categories more or less related to them and not much else. The problem arises because for half its life this airline operated as Invicta Airways Ltd, and for the other half it adopted a new legal identity as Invicta International Airlines Ltd. Both the main article on en:wikipedia, and here at Commons, have ended up in a muddle, with everything being labelled as International. I am attempting to put this right, but it is not a straightforward rename situation, because approximately half of the images are in the correct categories, whilst the other half need renaming, and new categories creating for them. I cannot imagine there is a bot for that, so I am slogging through the process on a one-by-one basis. Mostly it seems as if there are more categories than images.

An additional complication is that the front-end image selection requires a trained eye, most probably from an aviation geek such as myself, because the differences are subtle, to the extent that they have been overlooked for the past 12 years. For a start, the aircraft colour-schemes are all but identical. The aircraft owned by Invicta Airways are not marked Airways, and the ones that belong to the later airline are not marked Airline - that would just be too helpful LOL. And sometimes the same aircraft appear on both sides of the divide at different times. Nevertheless I have a crystal ball that takes me to the right place. What I do not possess is the skill-set to be 100% sure I am getting the re-categorisation process correct. In fact I am sure I am making a complete xyz$ of it, but I also feel I am making progress, slowly.

I believe it is only correct that I set the record straight somewhere (here, for instance), as to what I am trying to achieve, and invite comments. Meanwhile, I will observe that in this case, a picture really is worth a thousand words. WendlingCrusader (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@WendlingCrusader:

1. Yes it's a slog.
2. Normally, we make the older company a subcat of the newer company, and parallel that for subcats. Anything where we are in doubt stays in the category for the newer company.

Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel

Thankyou - that is most useful confirmation, as it is something I have been working towards already. WendlingCrusader (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons:GLAM

It looks to me like Commons:GLAM and its subpages have barely been touched in years (unless we count vandalism and its reversion), and that much of the advice there falls short of being clear, comprehensive, and current. Anyone with experience in this area care to make a good pass through this and see what you can improve? - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Shāntián Tàiláng who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng. Wüstenspringmaus _talk 12:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Deletion request categorization

Hello,

I came into a talk with a fellow Wikimedian about the subject of categorization of FOP-related deletion requests. Sometimes, the outcome is that an offending version gets revision-deleted, but the file itself stays after cropping, here's an example. As far as I understood it, differentiating between "kept" and "deleted" categories has the purpose to keep track of files that could eventually return and get restored should any local legislation change. So, by this logic, it would make more sense to affix "deleted" categories to DR like the example, instead of using the "kept" denominator. JWilz12345, which whom I talked, said to best carry this over here to get more input. So, here we go! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If majority of users agree that in those cases of files that were eventually suppressed/redacted, then I'll also agree: xyz FOP cases/kept → xyz FOP cases/deleted. Anyway, it's more logical. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping Podzemnik (who changed from /kept to /deleted here). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the purpose of the "deleted" category is to bring some FoP photos back one day, so it makes sense to me to categorise those pictures with their deleted versions in the deleted category. Regards, Podzemnik (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If the file is kept, but revisions are deleted for copyright reasons with known expiration, the solution is not to categorize the deletion discussion. The solution is to categorize the file page, e.g. Category:Commons:Files with deleted versions to be restored in 2040, where I categorized a bunch of images that had works by Cecilia Cuțescu-Storck in the background. - Jmabel ! talk 20:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Major restructuring of database tables might require updating some tools

I just wanted to share this here, for all developers who do not subscribe to any of the announce mailing lists. In the coming months MediaWiki will see some major changes to the database structure for tables related to file management. Essentially, if something depends on the image or oldimage tables of the toolforge replicas, or any other sort of database dump, it is likely to require updates to the tool in order to keep working.

With these changes, the information around files will be stored much more similarly to how the page and revisions table keep track of revisions for a page. This is something that has been on the MediaWiki todo list for a long time. The ticket was created in 2011, but really, it was already supposed to happen in 2006. Due to the technical complexity and the fast growth of wikimedia in the 2006-2008 timeframe the change quickly became almost unachievable and increasingly complex afterwards. But now the foundation seems to have acquired the knowledge and experience to execute this long time need. Fixing this should simplify the management of file revisions, making them less susceptible to bugs and inconsistencies, as well as overall making it much easier to work with old and new versions of files from within MediaWiki.

It is advisable that tool maintainers start working on rewriting their tools now, to be able to read from both the new and the old tables, so that you can easily switch your tool when the old tables disappear. If you know of any such tools or tooling, you might want to double check with their maintainer if they are ready for this change. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Original description by photographer/author

What's the community's opinion on "original description" given by the author? Some descriptions (as well as file captions) I write include my thoughts that form an integral part together with the visual files. The same goes for non-commons photographers whose works are imported here. When they are deleted or altered sometimes the context of the creation is lost.

Is there / can there be an sdc property for original description?--RoyZuo (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, so far Commons' policy has generally been to keep original descriptions from GLAMs intact (though of course more information can be added). File:Elliott Bay sunset, probably before 1889 - DPLA - cd9cd454e8804395a00fe402fc987c12 (page 1).jpg is a good example of an image where the original description and title were quite wrong, and I added more accurate information.

We do not currently give such deference to other uploads. I certainly would not want to guarantee to everyone that their original description would be kept: I have seen some wildly misleading, highly opinionated, and even slanderous original descriptions. We have also taken imported from Flickr where the description on Flickr was wildly out of bounds for what would be acceptable on Commons. File:Free Palestine, London.jpg is a good example of that.

My suggestion to anyone who wants to keep their own description intact and available is to first upload to a site such as Flickr where you have complete control of your descriptions, then use that as a source for your upload to Commons, with a link back to that as source.

I'm neutral on adding an SDC value for "original description". I suspect we could use an existing property with a qualifier.

Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

SDC would not be the right place for this. For certain historical documents (such as uploads from the Bundesarchiv) the original description is kept with a disclaimer for its biases or inaccuracies, but generally speaking if a file's description should be amended in some way, the original version's just somewhere in the file history. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That becomes de facto inaccessible to most users. RoyZuo (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I recently started wrapping the original description in {{Original caption}} and preceding it with an improved description, like here. It's not SDC, but could be enough? --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thx a lot! that's good enough for me. i think it's enough to prevent other users from deleting the "original description".--RoyZuo (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

SDC property on the nature of audio track？

I made videos of something like Category:Automata. I put a piece of music in place of the environmental sound captured. I will explicitly say in description that the music is added in postproduction and not the sound from or around the mechanical device.

I wonder, is there / should there be an sdc property about the nature of audio track of a video? in order to specify: live sound, or mix of sound recorded live and sound recorded elsewhere / at a different time, or purely sound recorded elsewhere / at a different time? RoyZuo (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, but at least one other relevant question is whether the sound, if not recorded on the spot, is intended as wikt:diegetic or not. - Jmabel ! talk 00:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Photo challenge December results

Footprints: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Hund im Herzen	Pawprints of hares in freshly fallen snow	Track on sand
Author	Ilka Franz	Slottsviken51	Saral Shots
Score	18	13	11

Pastels: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	A piece of pastel colors rainbow mille crepe cake and a piece of strawberry cream mille crepe cake	Red Arrows flying the "Tornado" manoeuvre in evening light	Foggy morning
Author	Junyu-K	Julian Herzog	BogTar201213
Score	23	10	9

Congratulations to Ilka Franz, Slottsviken51, Saral Shots, Junyu-K, Julian Herzog and BogTar201213. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Fake SVGs

A user has uploaded hundreds of SVGs which are fake SVGs. They've also overwritten a number of proper SVG files with fake ones.

1. Is there a Commons policy which details why uploading such images should be avoided?
2. Is there a way to apply Template:Fake SVG to all such files simultaneously?

Thanks in advance. EthanL13 | talk 17:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I would think #1 is not so much policy as common sense. Obviously locking in artifacts is a terrible idea.

#2: VFC can do this pretty easily. It's a powerful too, though, so use the preview feature and if you haven't used it much try something small before you use it to edit hundreds of files at once. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thanks, I will give it a try. Another question – I may or may not need to do this in this case, but is there also a way to mass revert overwrites? EthanL13 | talk 20:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@EthanL13: I'm not aware of one. - Jmabel ! talk 20:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has continued (in Spanish) at User talk:Autopistero20502020. - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Unidentified yellow flowers in salt marches

• 
• 
• 
• 

Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Bermuda buttercup, Oxalis pes-caprae. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Why vectorize pixel art?

Is there any advantage for images like file:Confused-tpvgames.svg to exist? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I guess it's because to avoid blurred images due to antialiasing, if the image would have 32×32 pixels. So it can be scaled freely --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

But that is only a problem with the software interpreting the file. With software displaying and scaling the file correctly such a SVG is useless. GPSLeo (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say both sides have valid complaints in this discussion. While SVG files of e.g. pixel art do circumvent some problems, the SVG files shouldn't categorically supersede PNG files (which they currently don't). Sinigh (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe there is. There were some QR codes that were converted to SVG. For such images, a bitmap is the compact form. Glrx (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Some may argue that you can take advantage of SVG with animation possibilities, layers, modifying the viewbox and different editing possibilities (adding true color gradients or shadows, etc.) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, you can make PNG pixel art scale without the blurring on pages, but you need to use a special template. e.g.

Bawolff (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The PNG is even blurred in the thumbnail view in the "file history" section of its own description page. And as its size is 20x20 MW software does not even offer scaled thumbnails on the description page.

When looking at QR codes in ePapers I see more blurred QR codes than good ones. A problem that would not exist if SVG was the standard for QR codes. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Just make an upscale PNG for the QR code. PNG has compression for neighboring tiles. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Commons could add .filehistory img {image-rendering:pixelated} to MediaWiki:Common.css to fix that (You can put it in your Special:MyPage/common.css to test). There is an issue though in that for many image the other behaviour is better. Arguably though, image types that benefit from the other algorithm are likely to be bigger than the size of the file history preview, so maybe pixelated is a better default choice. Bawolff (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Looking at pages that use File:Confused-tpvgames.svg, it's used in the signature of user TBC (for instance here). The downscaled svg version looks very pixellated, whereas the png version at this size would look more smooth.

Generally speaking when it comes to "which version is better" I just look at a few things: Which one looks better, which one can be more widely applied, and which one has the smaller file size. In many cases, simple bitmap graphics get superseded by their svg counterparts, but in this instance I don't think that is the case. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

it's pixel art Aaron Liu (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

And? ReneeWrites (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It's supposed to "look very pixelated". Aaron Liu (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I should've used "jagged" or "aliased". The png version is anti-aliased. Here's a visual comparison, svg at the top, png at the bottom. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting. I would have expected the opposite result, if anything, or no difference. Sinigh (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Naming of Nvidia GPU categories

(Note: GeForce is the name of the brand itself, not the actual graphic cards model itself)

• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060
• Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060
• GeForce RTX 2060
• RTX 2060

Which naming scheme will be the correct one to go with? Trade (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I'd go with "Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060". This seems to be the most common naming schema in Category:Nvidia, though not with 100% consistency (especially not in Category:NVIDIA products). ReneeWrites (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am currently starting a discussion on Wikidata on the naming scheme as well. My hope is that both projects can agree to use the same consistent naming scheme Trade (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Good luck, and feel free to ping me if you start a CfD about it here as well. I'm personally fine with either, but not both at the same time. Whichever one is chosen should be the one consistently used. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

My personal taste would be the original company name writing (NVIDIA) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Category:Media from YouTube

Could anyone with a bot help me diffuse this category? I know the categories are placed by the template but surely there must be a workaround because this is an absolutely mess Trade (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we need a template like Template:YouTube_CC-BY_screenshot  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

SDC inception added by wizard precise to only date

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=993670434

"Timestamp +2025-02-04T00:00:00Z Precision 1 day"

even though actually "Date and time of data generation 18:37, 4 February 2025".

is this what the community prefers? RoyZuo (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

this uploadwizard feature was introduced sometime between 4 and 14 November 2024. RoyZuo (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata (and so, I presume, SDC) does not attempt to e more accurate than just the day. This is partly because things are so often not tagged with timezone, or at least not accurately. I'm certainly guilty of that last: I don't reset my camera's clock every time I change timezone, so I could take a picture in Bucharest with a West Coast U.S. timestamp. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Camera time settings are very often inaccurate. Probably best to just set the precision to 1 day and the uploader can override if needed. Nosferattus (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, here is the documentation about the current situation: d:Help:Dates#Hours,_minutes_and_seconds --Zache (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thx Zache! nvm then. i had the false impression that other bots were adding more precise sdc. turns out all were just precise to date.

cameras that make use of gps record quite reliable time. i dont have data but my wild guess is for new uploads 90+% of phone photos and 50+% camera photos have accurate time settings calibrated by gps or internet. RoyZuo (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

A new group for data preservation is emerging

Hi!

You might be interested in a new group that focuses on saving huge loads of data that are at risk to be lost. As its goal is to provide (and) free endangered information, it is similar to the scope of projects like Commons. Take a look here: https://fedihum.org/@SafeguardingResearch. Commons has a similar issue to save CC Sketchfab files before they will be removed soon

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect wikilink in metadata

Some photos (for example, File:Housefromfield.jpg) are taken using a phone manufactured by Sonim Technologies, Inc. (No enwiki article; web site at [1]). The metadata for these photos looks like this:

Camera manufacturer

Sonim

Which would be okay, except that the text "Sonim" is linked to the enwiki article on Sonim, a Korean singer, not to any article having to do with the company Sonim Technologies. Surprisingly to me, there is no enwiki article for the company. The metadata for some Commons pages (such as File:A 1938 Jerrycan (in original state and restored).jpg) use "Sonimtech"instead of "Sonim", but no such article exists.

As far as I know, the singer Sonim has no relationship with the company Sonim Technologies.

Q1: How can this be corrected? I see nothing in the source for File:Housefromfield.jpg, for example, that shows that linkage.

Q2: I see many such examples in Category:Taken with Sonim mobile phones and its subcategories. I don't know if that's exhaustive. Is there a way of finding all the images that erroneously link to Sonim (i.e., the equivalent to "what links here", but cross-wiki)? TJRC (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You may be interested in taking a look at the {{Exif-make-value}} and {{Exif-model-value}} templates, which are used to form these links. It looks like they have a couple of special cases for certain manufacturers already. Omphalographer (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's wild, there are French, Arabic, German and Swedish articles on Sonim Technologies but none in English. Someone should translate one of the others.

facepalm w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonim Technologies Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I note that is is also possible to have an exception to make it NOT a link of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if those should be linked to Wikidata items instead of Wikipedia articles in general. whym (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

That'd certainly be better than the current state of affairs, which links directly to the English Wikipedia (regardless of the user's selected language) - but, to do that, we'd need some way to map from the name in the EXIF tags to a Wikidata entity. I'm not sure that exists - there may not be entities at all for individual camera models, in fact. Omphalographer (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It looks like this has been resolved, thanks to the edits discussed here. Thank you, all! TJRC (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. TJRC (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Word, category for fruit defect？

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

is there a professional jargon for this kind of marks on an orange? The dent is not at the top or bottom that each orange has, but in the middle of the fruit. It's not deep enough to reach the pulp. Doesnt seem to fit under existing subcats of Category:Imperfect fruit? RoyZuo (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: That looks like a scab. That image can be categorized under Category:Fruit hole scabs and Category:Orange scabs ReneeWrites (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Getting rid of unnecessary categories.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like you to configure the template {{topic in country|teaching}}, so that I can get rid of unnecessary categories: Teaching by country of location and Teaching of [any country] in the "Teaching in _____" categories. Thank you. ★♚★♛★ 🅾🅿🅴🆁🅰🆃🅸🅾🅽𝒮𝒶𝓀𝓊𝓇𝒶⁶¹⁴⁴ ★♛★♚★ 《♦ talk • ♥ contributions • ♠ global • ♣ rights》 04:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: this is about the Topic in country template, used in the subcats of Category:Teaching by country. For example Category:Teaching in Slovakia has two redcats that can't be removed due to the template. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I added teaching to the list of topics for the template. This should also automatically add "Education in ...", so there's no need to have that in the category page. --rimshot^talk 13:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rimshot: Thank you very much :) ReneeWrites (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

What kind of vehicle is this?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a Ligier Quadéo. --rimshot^talk 13:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)