Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/06

PD-simple videos

Is there any examples of this? Trade (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Webdriver Torso videos have been uploaded under both PD-shape and PD-algorithm. Some of the SMPTE color bar videos as well. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-06

Volunteer staff changes

In May 2025, 1 sysop and 1 checkuser were elected. Currently, there are 179 sysops and 5 checkusers.

• User:Ziv was elected sysop (31/2/0) on 20 May.
• User:Lymantria was elected checkuser (41/2/0) on 22 May.

Other news

• Poland banned photography at over 20,000 sites (over 90% of which are civilian infrastructure) under new national security law. See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Poland bans photography of military and critical sites, including bridges, tunnels, viaducts, port facilities and the National Bank.

---

Edited by RoyZuo (talk).

---

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) 19:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Brazil: National Archive Publishes Documents on Nearly 900 UFO Sightings (incl photos)

The release was reported on early here. Seems like it's PD; Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil. Could somebody upload these? The link describes how to get to the documents. When registering, make sure to select foreigner and to fill out the required fields; it seems like the password can't contain special characters. I can't get through to the documents; maybe it's because HTTPS is disabled (?). The documents including photos are in the ARQUIVO DIGITAL tab.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Public access does not equate to being freely reusable even in commercial reuses. One red flag I see based from the article: "In addition to browsing the files and materials, internet users can also contribute to the archive themselves by sending content to the email address supra_normalizacao@an.gov.br. Another option is to submit documents in person to the main office of the National Archive, located at Praça da República 173, in downtown Rio de Janeiro." This means it's a remix of images under the stewardship of the authorities and images that were submitted by private citizens. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Didn't imply that. I think it's licensed {{PD-BrazilGov}} and was told it's public domain. That people can submit new content doesn't mean the old content they collected isn't PD, the new content can be excluded albeit I'm not sure if by sending it to them one is licensing it PD and it does seem like new content is not included currently in the release (it may get added later though). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

How may one tell the difference between old and new?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The data in the date field. Also things like this: "Nome(s) do(s) Produtor(es) Nome: Ministério da Defesa (Brasil). Comando da Aeronáutica". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: They don't like Google's plussed addressing or birthdates older than 2015. "Registration is not possible without a CPF" per Google Translate of https://sian.an.gov.br/sianex/consulta/problemas-com-acesso.asp but I don't have a CPF and https://faq-login-unico.servicos.gov.br/en/latest/_perguntasdafaq/contaacesso.html has "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

One needs to check foreigner for not having to enter a CPF; that is the right toggle box at the top of that page section iirc. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Need help properly formatting image descriptions to show publisher and photographer

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload some photos to Commons, I would like to know the correct formatting for the descriptions which should include two parts:

1. Credit to the agency, the agency itself holds the copyright (which is defined in the contracts as far as I understand)
2. The photographer

What is the correct way to include both of these pieces of information? Should I just include both in 'Author'? E.g Author = UN Agency name, photographed by Name of Photographer

or should the UN Agency name be the name of the 'source' with a link to the original image?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In the information template I would put the photographer as author and the organization as source. In the license template you can then define the required attribution. For example "organization / photographer" or just "organization", depending on the agreements with the photographer. GPSLeo (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clearer about "In the license template you can then define the required attribution," for example, {{cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=the UN agency in question}}. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Probable another term for FoP

"Public place exemption" appears on pages 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, and 193 of the report on architectural copyright by former US Copyright Office director Ralph Oman, dated 1989. Should we consider this as another term for Freedom of Panorama (which in itself is a literal translation of the German term panoramafreiheit)? For example, regarding Senegal (page 187):

Article 1(vii) protects "architectural works, including both plans and models and the building itself." Article 14 provides the usual public place exemption.

I'm thinking of adding this term on the relevant enwiki and tlwiki areticles, but I am seeking second/third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the term being mentioned outside of this report. It may just be jargon like the term "copyvio" as a shorthand for copyright violations. VTSGsRock (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Haven't researched it myself, but I would agree with VTSGsRock: If the term "Public place exemption" isn't really used outside of this specific report, it's probably not worth mentioning. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Locking image page

To prevent vandalism, can this file of Donald Trump's official portrait be locked? Thank you. File:Official_Presidential_Portrait_of_President_Donald_J._Trump_(2025).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUserGuy1738 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@RandomUserGuy1738: Where's the metadata? How can we be sure Daniel Torok took it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Question Did you upscale the photo and revert a user's edit who tried to restore the previous version? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Template:President.az vs. FoP

The president of Azerbaijan seems to really like traveling his country and being photographed while doing so, and his website shares those photos under a Creative Commons license (license text from the website: The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).All materials on the website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.). That's what {{President.az}} is for. However, unfortunately Azerbaijan has no Commons compatible FoP regulations (see COM:FOP Azerbaijan), which leads to a lot of DRs for photos that are sourced to the president's website (and there are still plenty of files that have not been nominated yet but probably should, e.g. File:Aghdam Mugham Center - 01.jpg and Category:Ilham Aliyev arrived in Aghjabadi district for visit). So, my question is, how to go about this problem? I guess the photos must be deleted even if the president licenses them as cc-by-4.0, but shouldn't we at least add some text blurb to the President.az-template to make uploaders aware that the presidential license does not overrule the country's lack of FoP? There are often dozens of DRs listed per day that are all a result of President.az-files ignoring FoP. Nakonana (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support the suggestion. This is similar to the notice on {{PD-Highsmith}}, it is appropriate to add notice to that template, considering that the President seems unaware of the single clause in their copyright law concerning non-commercial use of copyrighted public landmarks of their country. We should also start adding such "blurbs" to some high-use PDGov or CCGov templates from countries with insufficient FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support abd I also think that much of the President's uploads are puffery / propoganda / politicking / self advertising. Should it be reined in? Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged Commons is not censored. Regardless of propaganda involved, if the images have forseeable use, on-wiki or off-wiki, then those are in scope, provided that there are no derived images of copyrighted monuments and landmarks from that country (as long as no-commercial FoP still prevails in that country). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:39, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: - true, but we must also have regard to Commons_is_not_your_personal_free_web_host. The thousands of images uploaded by agents acting on behalf of the President suggests that there is a dire shortage of storage space in Az. Who would have thought that an oil-rich state could not afford a few servers? How sad that a head of state should have to resort to such methods. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged it is not our matter to question the status of internet hosting in Azerbaijan. At least, highlighting the no-FoP problem using the blurb may (hopefully) convince their legislature to align FoP to the international norms if they wish (at least to align their FoP to the standards of one of their three European allies: Hungarian FoP, Serbian FoP, or Russian FoP, with the first two granting full unrestricted outdoor FoP while the last only allowing unrestricted architectural FoP).

We do routinely host US military images showing US Armed Forces etc. conducting activities overseas, like here. See, for example, images under Category:Altavas and Category:Bongao. I don't think hosting government images with clear image promotion overseas (regardless of whoever was their uploader/importer here) is a problem for us. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we have the same issue with US government pictures? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Numerous times, see Category:Korean War Veterans Memorial-related deletion requests/deleted. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged it is not our matter to question the status of internet hosting in Azerbaijan. At least, highlighting the no-FoP problem using the blurb may (hopefully) convince their legislature to align FoP to the international norms if they wish (at least to align their FoP to the standards of one of their three European allies: Hungarian FoP, Serbian FoP, or Russian FoP, with the first two granting full unrestricted outdoor FoP while the last only allowing unrestricted architectural FoP).

We do routinely host US military images showing US Armed Forces etc. conducting activities overseas, like here. See, for example, images under Category:Altavas and Category:Bongao. I don't think hosting government images with clear image promotion overseas (regardless of whoever was their uploader/importer here) is a problem for us. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

None of those say anything about "dire shortage of storage space in [USA]", a "state [that] could not afford a few servers" or "a head of state [having] to resort to such methods". HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:25, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah. I thought you are referring to similar cases of publicly-licensed government images (PD / CC-licensed) containing no-FoP infringements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I can see that you made it look like that was what I was asking by changing the indentation of my comment, and moving it away from the post to which I was replying. DO NOT EVER DO THAT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Because your indentation is making things confusing. The topic is mainly about the FoP issue; Laurel Lodgewood's "propaganda" concern is not the main issue here (which I already addressed: COM:NOTCENSORED). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

My indentation was correct. If you don't understand that, you have no business editing or moving my, or anyone else's, comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Noted. My apologies.

I won't comment on any debate concerning COM:NOTCENSORED vs. potential propaganda government images from Azerbaijan, USA etc ever again. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Drop this passive-agressive nonsense. You can comment on whatever you want. Just don't mess with other people's comments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the indentation.

But again, I won't comment on Laurel lodgwood's 2nd (and non-essential) concern from now on. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

...and left my subsequent comment mismatched with the one it was replying to.

What parts of "DO NOT EVER DO THAT", "you have no business editing or moving my, or anyone else's, comments" and "Just don't mess with other people's comments" do you not understand? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but I'll not change any indentation for now on.

Also, I won't argue with Laurel lodgwood's one-sided perspective on propaganda claims vs. President-az content, even if it is subjective and can be applicable too to thousands of US-military image files that we currently host. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.
Before things go off-topic even further and things end up on an admin board or something, I'll be bold and declare the section as resolved, because my concerns about the template have been addressed. And if there are other issues that need to be discussed, I suggest to open new threads on them. -- Nakonana (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Word and cat for

"floor directory" of buildings? the plaques or maps listing what's on which floor. Category:Floor_plans is for a flat map of a certain floor? RoyZuo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

"Floor directory" seems as good a name as any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Source for engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne

I've often come across the images in this category[1], nice engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne in the public domain. They seem to have been uploaded by Tarawneh back in 2006 from this website:[2] But looking at them now, they seem like they must exist somewhere in higher res so they can be updated, but neither the website nor Commons give any actual source for them, though they appear to have all been published in the same work, probably a book. Anyone know what that could be so higher res versions could be found on Archive.org or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Published in The Century magazine, see for example there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, how did you find it? And I guess the images there are fairly easy to download? Also found an Archive.org version here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A bio of Castaigne somewhere mentioned his work about Alexander for The Century. I looked for a collection of the magazine. I don't know about downloading works from hathitrust, but there is a download button and Commons has a few thousand files from there in Category:HathiTrust book. That site has four copies of the same volume of the magazine, from different sources. You could look if there are differences in quality. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Review

Everything they post to EN Wikipedia has copyright concerns

User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Special:Contributions/Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Moxy (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like this should be moved here or here. Not sure what you're asking though and I checked one file the user uploaded and it has the license specified (CCBY). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

AI-generated or edited images of graphics cards (again)

Unfortunately, we have many new images of NVIDIA hardware that is obviously influenced by AI, making the pictures inaccurate (with PCBs like shown, the cards would never have entered the market). We had this issue before: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/10/17#Files found with Special:Search/marcusburns1977. The files may also be potential subject to copyright violations. How to proceed in this case? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

This feels like some sort of weird AI-assisted copywashing (slopwashing?) - it's extremely suspicious that all of these files are being uploaded to DeviantArt by multiple different brand-new accounts with no other activity, shortly before being imported to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, and the arrangement of the components and the components themselves look deformed :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't help that the images were added to Wikipedia articles immediately after upload. So there's really nothing we can do about it on our end since admins on here are hardliners about not deleting in images that are in use on other projects. Otherwise, I'd suggest nominating them for deletion. But it's not really worth it considering the attitudes around in use files and AI-generated images on here. Better to just let people use Commons as a launching pad for spreading obviously fabricated nonsense to other projects I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Or just wait until these are removed on Wikipedia or point the issue out there. The admins aren't hardlines, we just shouldn't overstep important policy. One can also start DRs before. The hyperbole, lamenting and riling up is excessive/not needed. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Again, we were told to disengage and I wasn't talking to you. Don't respond to me when I'm writing message to other people. I don't care about or want to hear your opinion about this or anything else. It shouldn't be that hard for you to drop it and stop responding to me every time I make a comment about AI on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I think you were told that. Maybe soften your language, like not calling admins hardliners on a policy when policy is made to be adhered to and when that's not the case. Or not rile up people by claiming there was a huge problem when people could just simply remove these images from Wikipedia and start a DR even before that's done? If people want to cause some friction in Commons and get policy changed and undone, all they seem to need to do is upload some obviously bad problematic AI images and make it appear is if there was some huge problem.

@PantheraLeo1359531 How to proceed in this case? As usual, by filing deletion requests. In this case I'd suggest also making a thread on Wikipedia on some relevant discussion place there or multiple at the article talk page(s). Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anyone "riled up" here. Nor was anything about my comment meant to claim there was a huge problem about anything. There are certain administrators and users who take a rather hardline stance when in use and/or AI-generated images are nominated for deletion. You clearly have a problem with facts though. But maybe disengage now. This isn't a debate even if your trying to turn into one. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Common sense. Images used in other projects can't be deleted from Commons, and that's very good as it is, but images shouldn't be in use only for them not being deleted from Commons. In fact, those images, if unused, could perhaps even be kept in Commons as showcase of AI-generated images of graphics cards, but make not any sense in Wikipedia articles about graphic cards.

AI should never be used to illustrate things already existing in the real world that have freely licensed or public domain photos available. Even without AI, an image manually drawn by a user (using software, or by hand), that doesn't add anything to what a photo would show, would be rejected in the same context for sure. Once this is solved, the discussion about whether they are or not in scope in Commons can begin. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

If these images are derivative work copyvios - which seems likely, someone just needs to find a few examples of the source images - they can and will be deleted on Commons. COM:INUSE does not trump COM:LICENSING. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that you mention it the various policies in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would probably apply to at least a few of these images. I'm not sure how copyrighted bland photographs of products that don't contain logos or the like are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: Not sure how to go about this, since a real photo of an item shot with transparency or from the same angle with a plain background could easily end up looking identical, regardless of whether it's a derivative or simply a new work based on the same product. That said, File:TITAN RTX NVIDIA.jpg appears to be an AI-generated carbon copy of the first two product photos shown on Amazon. But again, someone could take a legitimate photograph of the same item from the same angle and produce a visually identical result. I'm unsure how we’re supposed to determine whether any copyrightable differences exist—or don't. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Upon a closer look, I strongly suspect this is the same user as previously. At least one of their images (File:480 GTX PC.png) is virtually identical to one uploaded by marcusburns1977. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I filed a sock report on Wikipedia. Someone else is going to have to do it on here though since I'm topic banned from administrator boards on here. But their clearly the same user. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

• File:Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

"Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message on first login attempt

From some time ago, I get an "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message every time that I log in to Commons or any other WMF project, such as Wikipedia. Then, when I enter the same password and the captcha that is shown, login is succesful. I don't know if this is a general problem or it's because there has been some brute force attempt against my account. If it's this last case, it's good to know that WMF has good systems in place to prevent worse things from happening, but the message "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" is not correct (the password IS the correct one; in fact, it always works at the second attempt when using the captcha), and can be a bit scary when you're sure that you are using the right password (I think it should be replaced by a more precise message, when it's the case of access with improved verification through a captcha).

Note: it happens approximately since the day that I became "extendedconfirmed" in English Wikipedia, but I think it's not likely to have any connection. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Did you try it with different browsers/computers, and did the nature of this error changed? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

No, I always tried from the same computer, and it only has one browser installed. I must say that I always use private browsing, and the problem only happens the first time that I log in at each private browsing session (that is, if I log out and then log in again, there is no problem). Coincidentally (or not, if something was detected and fixed, or if hypothetical hacking attempts ceased), just now, I've logged in succesfully at the first attempt for the first time since this started happening to me.

Of course, I have no problem in using the captcha. If there have been repeated failed login attempts by attackers (naturally, I don't know if it's so), it's the right way to prevent this from becoming much worse. But, in that case, the message should be something like "We want to be sure that you are not a bot, please enter your password again, and also the captcha shown below", not "incorrect password", because that's not true. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It's tricky sometimes. In some cases, the server lags, and patience is needed. Sometimes, there are issues with different browsers (as they have different settings that may interact in an undesired way), etc. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Who knows the reason, but I didn't change browser (other than, maybe, version updates), computer or settings just before it started happening. It happened again to me just now. I have no problem: now, I know that I must enter the password twice, and use a captcha, that's all. But, before one is aware of that behaviour, the message that the password is not correct is a bit frightening when you are sure that it is. Well, even thinking about the worst case, I know that my contributions will remain there, and it's possible to begin again from scratch, if needed. No need to panic. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems like a subject for Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, it sounds like a part of this already existing subject. I'll comment there. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo from 1918, photographer died in 1976 - is it public domain?

I've done a bit of biographical sleuthing about a photographer named Clara Louise Petzoldt (1878-1976) and I see that one of her photos was uploaded here: File:KatherineEmmet1918.jpg. My question is - is that photo really public domain? It's from before 1930, but the photographer died in late 1976, about 48 years ago, which is within the 75-year copyright window. So is this image really public domain? I'd like to know this, since it affects what images I might choose to upload as public domain in the future. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Theatre Magazine was published in New York so USA copyright law applies and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  So it's the case that any image published in the US before 1930 is public domain, even if the author died less than 75 years ago, correct? Peter G Werner (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, if it was originally published in the USA. (Older US copyright laws were based on registrations and publications, not death date of author.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Create a Wikidata entry for Clara Louise Petzoldt. You can add in your research there. You can add in her Familysearch ID L7K3-7BT and Findagrave ID 280396473. --RAN (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  Clara Louise Petzoldt (Q134710870)

  Creator:Clara Petzoldt

  Glrx (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; answering the original question) Yes, if a photograph was published in the United States before 1930 it is public domain in the US and, if no other countries are involved, it can be uploaded to Commons. The longer answer is Commons:Hirtle chart. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483

Can someone fix the date for the image displayed. --RAN (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Requesting further input for Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups

There is some debate being had on the following CFD. Could I please ask for further people to have a look to see if they can provide some feedback? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Category description is as follows: This category contains media from scientific studies which have conducted surveys of people relevant to the subject(s) of the study. and the category contents may make it clearer. Concrete suggestions for other cat titles are very welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Please vote for new admin

Hello community, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to vote for a new administrator, Chem Sim 2001, at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Chem Sim 2001 (2). Your vote is critical to make Commons work better in the future. The poll ends in three days so please take your time when available to cast your precious vote.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the vote. The result is successful.

I would like to apologize that the use of the wording for in the title may confuse users, that I am suggesting that they vote to  support the user aforementioned. I will change the title of similar ones next time to be more neutral, using links to RFAs or similar instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 05:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Merging files

Hi, would anyone be able to help me with merging some files? I did find the Merge Template, but could do with a bit of guidance (or if someone's particularly kind, for them to do it) especially with any re-directs that will be needed.

Files are: Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881 to be merged into La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046

There's also: Henry Hugh Armstead - Playmates - ABDAG004807 and Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807 to be merged into Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807

Let me know if you need to know anything else. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBulfin (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

@FBulfin: First a side remark: You are not forced to use external links for internal sites, just use wikisyntax (note the colon at the beginning in wikitext preventing the image display, but presenting the link). I will use it below for your first two cases:

• Both files displaying the same painting by Claude Monet – File:Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881.jpg and File:La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046.jpg are undoubtfully to be merged. For future requests see COM:HMS, here COM:MERGE (but the same page is also for splits: COM:SPLIT). The actual request can be added on the lower part of the page (or COM:HMSR), but I am going to do it this time myself just after my answer.
• The three images displaying a statue created by Henry Hugh Armstead are not to be merged! Same object does not mean same image.

— Speravir – 01:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

@Speravir Thanks very much for this! I'll take a note of the links you shared for any future instances. They're much clearer than the merge template I found. FBulfin (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

You’re welcome. If you know what it is for, e.g. by your additional notes, you just can save the link COM:HISTMERGE or the full actual link instead of the three others, then you land on top of that page. — Speravir – 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgot it, hence separate: Pinging FBulfin. — Speravir – 22:02, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 22:00, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Some images not displaying for quite some time

I am having problems with some images not displaying. Seems to be happening just randomly. If I try and try and try, after many minutes they display. Is there currently a technical problem with the server(s) delivering images? Or am I the only one having this problem? Nurg (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Might be related to this issue. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, likely the same problem. Nurg (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there any way to automate the uploading of these images?

Can these image be uploaded using some automation: https://conservation.academie-architecture.fr/fonds/fondsanciend Click on the first blue link on the right and scroll down to see the images on each page. Each blue link will bring you to a page of image of French architects.They all meet {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-1996}} RAN (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Batch uploading, a page that probably needs to be made more visible somehow, e.g. needing more contributors who do these batch uploads. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

They are probably in the public domain. However they can't be qualified of "no author disclosure". The photographs in most recueils are attributed to Ch. Blanc and Th. Truchelut. Commons does not have a death year for Truchelut, but PD-old-assumed can work for photos from before 1905. Is Ch. Blanc the engraver? The recueil in the first link has attributions to more photographers: "Th. Truchelut, Ch. Reutlinger, Ch. Lemayrie, P. Nadar, Bingham, P. Petit, E. Pirou, etc." Their works seem comfortably in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Letterform Archive

This article is about a new online archive that might be worth mining for copyright-expired and PD-ineligible material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I created the great uploading instrument: script for gThumb

https://gitlab.com/vitaly-zdanevich/upload-to-commons-with-categories-from-iptc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly Zdanevich (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich thank you very much! your new tool looks amazing! RoyZuo (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Upload Wizard "release rights" blurb

Choices from the "Upload Wizard" form:

• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit)

• Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license)

As written, this gives the impression that you choose the first one over the second if you want the person using this media to give appropriate credit but then be able to distribute it free of any such requirement. This would seem to allow trivial circumvention tantamount to unrestricted release (e.g. get your friend to put the media on their Facebook page with credit, and then copy it willy nilly from their Facebook page), so seems to make little sense. Even reading the "learn more" links, I still don't quite understand why you would choose the first one over the second. Is the difference relevant only if people "remix, transform, or build upon the material"? I wonder whether the distinction could be explained better in summary. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the first license doesn’t mean other people can just reupload the exact photo, give appropriate credit, and just declare the photo to be used by anyone without restrictions. The original CC license will always be applied to the original materials even if they were redistributed or adapted. The difference between the two is if you create a derivative work based on the image, under the first license you can license your own contributions under any license you want, under the second license you must license your own contributions under the same license. See https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-derive-or-adapt-material-offered-under-a-creative-commons-license-which-cc-licenses-can-i-use for more details. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

True, but more to the point, under the first license a reuser can reserve all rights to their own contributions and fail to license them at all. So, for example, if File:Mardi Gras Day 2019 in the French Quarter - St Anthony Ramblers on St Peter Street 09.jpg were not under an "SA" license, you could create a derivative work based on the woman in butterfly wings looking at her phone, with a small blond child over her right shoulder, credit Infrogmation, and not offer any license to republish your derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. This is totally unclear from the Upload Wizard wording, which, as I say, reads as meaning "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license" versus "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit, but allows them to redistribute it under any license, or none at all, i.e. unrestricted". Does anyone know who maintains this wording? Even though it needs to be short, surely a better job can be done than what we presently have. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That last wording as it stands is really problematic. In fact, CC-BY allows derivative works to be redistributed under a more restrictive license, but certainly not a less restrictive license. The reuser can license their own contribution as they wish, but the original work must still be licensed and attributed by any further reusers down the line.

@Sannita (WMF): how should this be fixed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, it seems that this problem varies across languages, and some of them mentioning that the SA part applies to derived works (Catalan and Basque), some of them leaving so it can be understood as applying to redistributing the original work (English, French, German) and some with ambiguous wording (Portuguese).

I suspect at some point it was intended to simplify the summary with the result of an oversimplification that still hasn't spread to all translations. However, it's hard to explain the SA part while avoiding the technical term "derivative work".

Mixing the English and Catalan versions I would suggest:

(requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute any published derivative work under the same license)

In bold my addition to the current English version. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Crop

Can someone crop File:Dr. Pippa Malmgren.png please? If you click on the image and zoom in to the bottom left corner you'll see that the left and bottom need to be cropped a bit and I can't do it on this device. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have cropped off the white at left of image. I have uploaded as File:Dr. Pippa Malmgren (cropped).png. If OK you may want to overwrite the existing and get rid of the new image. Keith D (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Graphic Lab is for things like that. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Question on city-town categorization practice on Commons

This has been bothering my mind on several occasions. Perhaps the right time to ask. What's the usual categorization practice for cities and towns under topical categories, like "Category:Night in X by city", "Category:Sunrises of X by city" etcetera? Are categories of cities only permitted, or categories of towns also permitted, provided that the town is also an incorporated place (a community with mayor and municipal council and services)? I have long noticed that in places like Category:Night in France by city and Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, even certain municipalities that are de facto "towns" or rural communities by either US or the strict Philippine local government standards are also categorized, since those "towns" or "villages" are municipalities (e.g. French communes, German gemeinden, Russian goroda, Italian comuni, Dutch gemeenten, Spanish comuna, etcetera) which are "cities" in the international sense. For this reason, I also included the Philippine towns (we call those towns "municipalities") under Category:Night in the Philippines by city, based on the de facto categorization practices of similar categories concerning other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping also several Pinoy wiki peeps here for their comments, and if they agree to fully enforce this practice on the similar categories related to the PH; for example, categorizing categories of towns like Category:Buildings in Bangued under Category:Buildings in the Philippines by city, if applying the categorization practices for those in other countries for consistency. Ping @HueMan1, Aristorkle, Ralffralff, Ganmatthew, Sanglahi86, Borgenland, Sky Harbor, Seav, Royiswariii, and AstrooKai: . I'll also ping @P199: whom I asked on certain things on enwiki in the past. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not use the terms city, village or town. We should only use term they are clear to define like state, district and municipality. If the municipality is still to large there could be locality or neighborhood but there it also starts to become ambiguous. GPSLeo (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We do have categories like Category:Populated places in Pampanga for cities and towns within one of the provinces here. Should the likes of Category:Night in France by city, Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by city be moved to ... Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: it appears that, even in America, non-city incorporations are also "cities" for categorization purposes here. For instance, under Category:Streets in Pennsylvania by city, are the subcategories Category:Streets in Norristown, Pennsylvania and Category:Streets in West Chester, Pennsylvania, even if Norristown, PA and West Chester, PA are not legal cities but legal towns (Pennsylvanian towns are called boroughs). Also, under Category:People of Pennsylvania by city, are those of non-city Pennsylvanian incorporated populated places (boroughs) like Category:People of Doylestown, Pennsylvania and Category:People of McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

For the category tree of Germany on country level the city category tree is a subcategory of the municipality tree. On the state and lower levels they are separate trees with most cities being also categorized as municipality. GPSLeo (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Russian goroda are cities though? Moscow is a gorod (which is the singular form of goroda). Spontaneously I can't even think of any other Russian translation of the English word "city" than "gorod".

The issue will be that each country has their own definitions of what constitutes a "city" vs. a "town", so to avoid the definition issue we might really be better of by naming the categories Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place. Nakonana (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: perhaps, it's a country-specific issue after all. I've added a "blurb" on top of Category:Municipalities in the Philippines to let non-Pinoy/non-PH-based Wikimedians know that our local government law sharply differentiates cities from towns, and that towns are legally called "municipalities" here. We don't follow the international definition of a "municipality", which includes majority of the world's cities like Paris, Rotterdam, München, Madrid, Budapest, and Nizhniy Novgorod (since these cities are "municipalities" too).

Perhaps the PH-related categories may deviate from the international practice of lumping categories of their towns into city-related categories. There may be Category:Night in the Philippines by city and also Category:Night in the Philippines by municipality. Recategorization shall be made if a [Philippine] municipality legally upgrades into a [Philippine] city (the final incorporation phase of a populated place here).

It's up to the other editors of other countries if they desire to retain the categorization scheme for their respective countries (lumping cities and towns altogether into a city-related topical category), or to rename their categories to officially-appropriate ones (based on what they call to their municipalities), like Category:Night in France by commune or Category:Education buildings in Russia by gorod (though these may be "weird" and inconvenient). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't follow the international definition of a "municipality", which includes majority of the world's cities like Paris, Rotterdam, München, Madrid, Budapest, and Nizhniy Novgorod (since these cities are "municipalities" too). I feel like there might be a little confusion involved here too, though. I can't speak for all cities / countries, but the city Nizhny Novgorod is not a municipality. It is more or less correct that there's also a municipality by the name "Nizhny Novgorod" but the city and the municipality are not the same administrative unit. The city Nizhny Novgorod is part of the municipality by the same name, however, the municipality also encompasses other populated places than the city of Nizhny Novgorod. Maybe this not clear because there's no separate enwiki article on the municipality? But ruwiki has separate articles on the city and the municipality: w:ru:Нижний Новгород (for the city) and w:ru:Нижний Новгород (городской округ) (for the municipality). If you visit the article on the municipality and go to the subsection "Административно-территориальное устройство" -> "Населённые пункты" ("Administrative-territorial structure" -> "Settlements") you'll see a list of settlements that belong to the Nizhny Novgorod municipality, including the city of Nizhny Novgorod. But the city is not the sole entry in that list.

And as for towns, they are called малый город (maly gorod), literally: small city, in Russian, so that they would probably still qualify for categories of the "xx in Russia by city" type. Nakonana (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana perhaps that is the case in Russia, but here, cities and municipalities (or Philippine towns) are populated places and at the same time, political units. For instance, w:en:Baliwag as a local government unit is also the city itself. The mayor of Baliwag exercises jurisdiction in the entire settlement, and there are no other settlements within Baliwag. All cities and towns here are subdivided into administrative villages or wards known as barangays, but usually the barangay that serves as the downtown or the core of a city or town is not the same name as the city or town itself. Typically, that barangay is named "Poblacion" (for example, "Barangay Poblacion, San Pedro, Laguna province). In a nutshell, the populated places here (cities and towns) are also political units themselves. A city or a town is also a political unit, as in "one is to one". Being a populated place here is also being a local-level political unit here that's equivalent to a municipality in other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Nizhniy Novgorod, it may be because that, in most cases, a municipality, headed by a mayor or whoever the local chief executive is, should encompass a single populated place, with no other "towns" or "cities" inside a municipality (except China, since there are "cities" [county-level] inside "cities" [prefecture-level]). As per my example, Baliwag as a local government unit (we don' apply the international definition of municipalities) is also the city itself. The local government unit of w:en:Magalang, Pampanga is also the town itself. No other populated places contained within those settlements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, a municipality (gemeente) typically contains several populated places. Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should take ideas on how other countries design their category trees, but not contort things to make them consistent globally. English is an official language in the Philippines so we should use "city" and "municipality" in categories. It's unfortunate that there is no single term to refer to a city/municipality but it is what it is. I wouldn't be opposed to category names like "Night in the Philippines by city/municipality" with generous redirects to help people along. —seav (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Seav I'm planning to separate towns from Category:Night in the Philippines by city into the prospective category Category:Night in the Philippines by municipality. I have already created a parallel category to Category:Categories of the Philippines by city, which is Category:Categories of the Philippines by municipality, for all topics involving the 1.4K+ PH towns. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

A bot on wikidata is moving pages to useless interwikis

This category Category:Three_Enclosures and its subcategories all got randomly moved by a bot from useful wikipedia articles on many wikipedias, to a wikidata that is connected to just one category on Chinese wikipedia. What is going on there and is there a way to stop this? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I added interwikis to the enwiki articles that are actually useful for reference Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Diff(s), please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1131585&diff=2358526140&oldid=2358440980

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145862&diff=2358526639&oldid=2358376529

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145852&diff=2358527206&oldid=2358370167

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145944&diff=2358526728&oldid=2358375617 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The bot, which is operated by User:Mike Peel, appears to be acting correctly and in line with the consensus of the Wikidata community (and far from "randomly").

In future, if you wish to criticise the work of another contributor, you should inform them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Yes, that is the correct behaviour. See d:User:Mike Peel/Commons linking for an overview. The Commons category links should be on Category items when they exist. The Wikidata Infobox auto-includes the sitelinks to articles here (you do not need to manually include them), and MediaWiki fetches the Commons category link from the category item as needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Peel it appears to be much better than I had thought. The interwikis work well now. But it was very misleading before the wikidata infobox was added. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

"Could not acquire lock. Somebody else is doing something to this file."

I've just uploaded 33 files at the same time, using Upload Wizard (maybe it was a really bad idea). For 2 of them ("Ortofotomapa_Asturias_2010-BELMONTE_DE_MIRANDA.pdf" and "Ortofotomapa_Asturias_2010-CASTRILLON.pdf"), I get the error message "Could not acquire lock. Somebody else is doing something to this file." Those files aren't publicly visible in Commons. If I try to upload them again, I get the same error.

For another 2 files, I got another error message, and the captions were lost (I could solve it manually, later). Although I hadn't done massive uploads recently, I perceive a certain deterioration in the working of Commons, I don't know if I'm the only one who perceives it that way (years ago, I uploaded, I believe, even more files at once).

Returning to the precise issue, I'd like to be able to upload the 2 files again (maybe they where partially published, or something like that?) MGeog2022 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Weird, someone else reported a similar error... Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a longer eixsting error --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann and @PantheraLeo1359531, thanks for your responses. I uploaded them again now, and it worked! MGeog2022 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when an upload is hanging while publishing, it should publish after 20 or 30 minutes or so (after retrying) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Page cleanup scripts or bots

Is there a bot or script I could run, perhaps with visual file changer that moves all the categories to the bottom of the page, removes duplicate categories, or removes all comments from a page? I have a lot of pages that I want to fix this way because of errors in my editing earlier.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: As far as I know, categories not at the bottom are not a problem. In fact, to copy-paste categories in the uploader wizard you can paste its wikicode in "other information" and they end not at the bottom, but they still work fine. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: you wrote "removes all comments from a page"; why would you want to do this? Comments are usually left for a reason. And are you talking about html-comments, invisible when reading or something else? MKFI (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI Because on my uploads I often used visual file changer and commented things out instead of properly deleting them when I made mistakes. But this accumulated a lot on my uploads. I managed to use visual file changer to get rid of the comments though. So currently just moving all the categories to the bottom is the concern. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you still want to remove comments, the simplest may be to use the "VisualFileChange" gadget that you can activate on your preferences, although you probably need to know some regex for this task.

Removing duplicated categories could also be done with VisualFileChange but then regex becomes trickier. Anyway, I wouldn't see duplicated categories as a serious problem - I would try to avoid creating them as much as possible, but I wouldn't invest a lot of time to fix some tens or hundreds of files where the same category appears twice. As far as I know that makes the wikitext uglier but doesn't cause other problems. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you still want to move categories to the bottom, I think that it could be done with VisualFileChange and regex.

But having the categories not at the bottom is also a feature of a lot of my uploads. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pere prlpz How can it be done with the regex? I am interested in doing that. Do you have the regex code to do that? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My familiarity with regex is just basic, but I think it can be done, because you can use a pattern to capture categories and then add them to the end. Maybe somebody in Commons:Village pump/Technical can provide a pattern. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The main concern is that I have some categories inside the descriptions which is really annoying. Not so much the duplication. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: could you clarify if you are intending to change only files you have uploaded yourself, or are you planning on larger scale changes across Commons? MKFI (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI only files I have uploaded myself. This is only to fix some mistakes I made on these specific files. I actually did remove all the bad comments such as for example this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shimogamo_Shrine-90.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1041001843 so now it is just an issue of categories which are less disruptive if still annoying Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Have you looked into using User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I haven't. It does not appear to have documentation so I am not sure what it does. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Would you please document that script?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a JPG file

Some upteen years ago I uploaded a photograph from the Azores File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg Today I discovered that this was a low-resolution file and I found a larger version of this image in my archive. Tried to upload the new version (size 1000x666 px) but the system is refusing. I get error messages and no clue. I uploaded the new version with a modified name File:Mosteiros sao miguel1.jpg

It is odd. I did upload low-resolution pictures some time ago and am willing to upgrade these, but the system does not accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotoviski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski, your attempts to overwrite was blocked by the filter, since only autopatrolled users are allowed to overwrite other user’s files. Although you did originally upload File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg to en-wiki, it was later uploaded to Commons by another user. Still, you can request overwriting for this file at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski: I added the template to File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg, you can now overwrite it with a higher-resolution version. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

It is all too complex for me. I do not even understand most of the lingo used on Wikipedia. For instance - what is "autopatrolled user"?

I have uploaded hundreds, or maybe more than a thousand, photographs to Wikipedia, but the instructions are getting more and more mysterious for me. Kotoviski (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski: Autopatrolled users can overwrite existing files, and their edits are automatically marked as patrolled (meaning they're not flagged for potential abuse/vandalism that needs to be double-checked). It's one of the roles a user can have on Commons. You can find the full list on this page, but I've linked to the autopatrolled section in particular: Commons:User access levels#Patrol_and_autopatrol.

On File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg's page, below "File history", there should be a link "Upload a new version of this file", which takes you to the upload form where you can upload a new version. You can ignore all the text in the light blue box on top of the form, and scroll to the bottom. The only things you need to do here is provide a source file and a small description of the file changes. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File was successfully overwritten. I've granted autopatroller status to Kotoviski since they are an experienced user and to prevent future issues with files they've uploaded originally to other wikis. Abzeronow (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

SDC and working at cross-purposes

The most recent winner at Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges is a user who, on Commons, was admonished for adding low-quality structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Donia (WIA): care to comment? Multichill (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jmabel, and thank you @Multichill for tagging me. Actually the main problem in the March campaign is that there were many images in the categories with high quality structured data but participants insisted on editing them so added low-quality ones. I contacted the participants who made unintentional mistakes and tried to explain the issue to them (including the 2 participants who where excluded from the campaign, and the 1st winner, who did some low quality SD). I reviewed the edits of the top participants (excluded the top 2) and found that although the 3rd one who became first winner did some low quality edits, he did more qualified ones, so he deserved the 1st place. And to avoid the repetition of this issue in the next campaigns, we will consider the categories used on ISA campaigns, advertising this page among participants (we already added this in our campaigns page but we need increase the visibility and accessibility of depicts guidance). Another point but it is related to the same problem, I want to open a discussion about future steps concerning the 2 users who were blocked because of their wrong edits on that campaign to discuss what commons admins see and if there is a way to remove the block. Where is the best place to raise this discussion please? Donia (WIA) (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Donia (WIA): I'm not sure there is one single clear best place, but Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections seems reasonable, as does just Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I still dont get how this happens. Does the differentiation between abstract and concrete concepts ("depicts") simply not exist where they are from? Trade (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pernorgard.jpg marked for deletion 3 June 2025

As I understand it, the above file was uploaded in 2015, and licensed as "own work" by the author. It is now up for deletion on the grounds that the author did not additionally send a letter confirming that they give permission for the licence that they themselves have added to the file.

I have uploaded nearly 30,000 images to Commons, and a large proportion of those are "own work" with a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}} licence. Does that mean that I, too, (along with millions of other "own work" uploaders) have to write tens of thousands of permission emails? Or am I missing something here? Storye book (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add that I have read Commons:But it's my own work!, and as far as I can see, that page does not apply to the above image file, unless there is additional information somewhere, which the deletion tag does not tell us. Storye book (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

you can "Challenge speedy deletion start a regular deletion request/discussion instead" and write down the reason. RoyZuo (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• When there is a speedy tag, and the rationale is wrong for adding it, you can remove the tag without converting it into a regular deletion. You have to leave an explanation. If you are a contributor of a large number of self-taken images, you can add a brief paragraph on your user page that you are an amateur photographer and list some of the equipment you regularly use, and what type of events you concentrate on photographing. This way it will be obvious, even 100 years from now. You can also link to your Flickr account if you have one. If you are a large contributor, but this is controversial, you should have a wikidata entry that has your info so future users of your images will know when they convert from creative commons to public domain. --RAN (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): . Thank you for that information. I shall consider making my own Wikidata entry (although I am worried that it might look self-aggrandising?). But if I do create my own Wikidata page, isn't it too late to connect my many thousands of own-work images to the Wikidata, retrospectively? I'm not sure how that would work. I have a Flickr account, but I have never uploaded images to it. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• It would also help if you created "Category:Photographs by XXXXX", use your real name if you want or first name and last initial. Add that to each image and then connect the category to Wikidata. Again, as we both know, it is controversial, even though we all recognize the need to prevent the deletion nominations we are both seeing. Flickr limits you to 1,000 images to store without paying but nothing prevents you from creating multiple accounts each with a different email. I don't know if Google lets you create synonyms for your email account anymore, you used to be able to have three synonyms for the same account. Each synonym let you create a Flickr account that all led to the main Google email account. That may have been a beta feature not rolled out to everyone. I also make sure I add portraits of dead people to Familysearch, Geni, Wikitree, Findagrave, and Familypedia. Familypedia is by the same Wiki people, but for-profit. --RAN (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I don't really want to upload images to Flickr, unless it serves an additional useful purpose. All my useful (i.e. encyclopaedic) images are already on Commons, apart from the 300+ batch that I'm currently editing for upload. Do I really need them all to be on both sites? But I shall think about the Wikidata thing. Thank you for all your kind help so far. Storye book (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed the same problem with several files tagged for speedy deletion with "no pemission" without explanation. For some files the reason does not seem obvious at all. If there's actually a known and obvious reason, they can be tagged as copyvios with a proper reference. If it's only a vague impression, they can be tagged for ordinary discussion. Hopefully, admins will be cautious with such speedy requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The "no permission" tag is used for cases where we see a need for confirmation that the account owner and the author of the photo are the same. GPSLeo (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Storye book: If that does not reasonably explain the tagging, I encourage you to ask the tagger for their reasoning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Run out of time this morning. Will try to ping them later, unless someone else does. Storye book (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sahaib: Re the above discussion, please would you kindly give us some evidence that the uploader of the above file has a history of copyright violation? I.e. can you prove with links that the uploader has uploaded something as their own work, when the same work had a pre-existing presence online as an unknown author's work or as a named author's work? If I understand correctly, what the above commenters appear to want is hard and verifiable evidence of copyvio (not just a suspicion of copyvio). This request from me is not intended to imply that you have made a mistake; it is just that it's a big thing to delete an uploader's own work without absolute proof of copyvio, so for my part, I'm being careful. I hope that's OK? Storye book (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

See User talk:Laivakoira2015. I would also argue that it is better to delete an image suspected of being a copyright violation instead of keeping it. Sahaib (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Sahaib. Your explanation might have been helpful if only the list of deleted images that you are referring to, on the uploader's page, had not been deleted. How are we to see confirmation that the uploader actually committed copyvio? You argue that it is better to delete due to suspicion alone, than to keep an image. But how are we supposed to check out that suspicion if we cannot see any of the suspicious images?

Can you please kindly find any not-yet-deleted images in the uploader's contributions record, that you could link for us, so that we can see what suspicious activity you are referring to? Again, I am not implying that you are wrong in any way. I'm just trying to see what you can see, and understand precisely why you are suspicious. My apologies for repeatedly asking you the same question, but I do not yet understand precisely (with evidence) what you are seeing that is suspect. Thank you for your patience. If I can see one of the uploader's existing images, with a link to a pre-existing identical image by another author elsewhere in the internet, then I will be happy to shut up, apologise, and stop pestering you for that evidence. Storye book (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just out of interest, Sahaib, please could you kindly comment on this online image, credited to this 2015 Commons source, which was uploaded to the website in 2019. In this case, the online image does not predate Laivakoira2015's Commons upload, and I have not yet found any evidence of the image being online before the date of the Commons upload. In your opinion, is this image suspect, or not? Please give your reasons either way, so that I can understand? Storye book (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorting out the Memory of the World Register categories

I'm doing a project, funded by the Khalili Foundation and in consultation with UNESCO, to update/improve the Wikimedia representation of the Memory of the World International Register. I have been working mostly on Wikidata and English Wikipedia: taking a look at the Commons category system for this important cultural heritage, it's clear drastic recategorisation is needed, hence I'm seeking community input.

The Memory of the World Programme includes a number of heritage registers: the International Register which has nearly 600 inscriptions of global importance, plus regional registers and national registers. There is an explainer document on the UNESCO site. We have Category:Memory of the World Register which is an ambiguous name but whose content almost entirely relates to the International Register. We also have lots of "Memory of the World in [Country]" categories. That's a confusing naming system: does Category:Memory of the World in New Zealand mean 1) heritage on the NZ national register, 2) NZ heritage on the Asia/Pacific regional register, or 3) NZ heritage on the international register? There are instances of heritage being on all three registers, so we need to be able to apply multiple categories.

I propose that there needs to be a new overarching category, Category:Memory of the World Programme, which will contain the current Category:Memory of the World Register, renamed to Category:Memory of the World International Register, alongside separate categories for the other registers. The country categories such as Category:Memory of the World in New Zealand probably should be empty apart from three sub-categories for the national register, the NZ content in the regional register, and the NZ content in the international register, which would mean creating a set of categories named something like Category:Memory of the World International Register in New Zealand.

Does this sound like a sensible set of changes? Thanks in advance for any feedback, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support. Yes, it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support sounds like a reasonable approach. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Per Pigsonthewing and Jmabel. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Problem probably also involving wikidata

Marzahn, Eisenacher Straße https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555822779

how to document this info? sdc?

for most buildings, i'd make a wd item, but this is just a "Distribution substation", so i dont know what wd ppl will do if an item is created for this. RoyZuo (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter as long as you create a category for it and a link to said category on Wikidata. They don't really care about any kind of actual notability or really anything else outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". This is false. Wikidata's notability policy is at d:WD:N, and items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Not ones that are connected to Commons categories. Although the bar is extremely low to the point of almost being non-exiting regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You might not like where "The bar" sits, but contrary to your first comment you now apparently accept that it exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

What I originally said was that "they don't really care" about notability. Not that they don't care about it all. I'm sure you get the difference. Maybe it's a language issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, what you actually said was "They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". The existence of "the bar" shows that "they" do indeed really care about a kind of actual notability.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "I disagree with their notability policy". Or perhaps you just meant to dishonestly smear your fellow volunteers. I guess the difference is indeed a language issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. Your just being pedantic and defense for no reason. Maybe drop the stick and move on. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no substantive disagreement here, just stop. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

When i said "i dont know what wd ppl will do", that's just trying to be nice. i'm actually pretty sure they will delete such items in spite of having an osm id and being used as sdc depicts statements, hence my original question. RoyZuo (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: I would do it the other way around: Add the image on OpenStreetMap. That's what I did on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555822779 . Multichill (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Items with just only a sitelink to a Commons category are usually not deemed notable in Wikidata. The good way to have the item would be to find and external source that includes the item. Until now, I haven't had any problem with items that are shown in maps with a name (not OSM but official survey maps), but some of the same items were challenged for deletion before I added the reference to the map.

Therefore I suggest either:

• Find a map or a register or a list of distribution substations in Marzahn that can be seen as a reliable source in Wikidata and use it as reference.
• Or challenge the current Wikidata notability policy and try to make accepted that any item that is in use as depicts (P180) in a Commons image is notable. However, please keep in mind that this change would make notable any place, person, car, tree, animal or whatever as long as it has a photograph on Commons. As a Commons user I can see the advantatges of this approach, but as a Wikidata user I see it very problematic, at least.

Pere prlpz (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

Please help translate to your language

Eligible voters are asked to participate in the 2025 Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee election. More information–including an eligibility check, voting process information, candidate information, and a link to the vote–are available on Meta at the 2025 Election information page. The vote closes on 17 June 2025 at 12:00 UTC.

Please vote if your account is eligible. Results will be available by 1 July 2025. -- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Maps per year shown BC

How to create category:maps per year 31BC ?

Category:Maps showing 31 BC (as a try)

{{MapsYearShown|3|1}}...with BC somewhere Io Herodotus (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The template {{MapsYearShown}} only work for AD years, so it cannot be used for BC years. For now, the simplest thing you can do is just add the navbox and categories directly to the category page. I will see if I can modify the template so it works or maybe just create a new template for them. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus I made one for the BC years, see {{MapsBCYearShown}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

May I ask you to create {{MapsBCDecadeShown}} Io Herodotus (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The decade template should actually be the much more important one. So seconded. --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. See {{MapsBCDecadeShown}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Io Herodotus (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

On the list Category:Maps by decade shown

"Maps showing the 50s" goes between "Maps showing the 480s" and "Maps showing the 500s".

How to avoid that ?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 21:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, I just fixed it. I forgot to add a padding of zeros before the sort key. It will take a couple minutes to update. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:Topics by year

On list Category:Topics by year "year 6" goes on the end of it, after year 2492.

Also "Category:Topics by year BC" or something like that, could be created.

- Io Herodotus (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I fixed the sort key for the years in the first decade in Category:Topics by year, so they should now be sorted properly. I will try to see if I can create a template for the BC years. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus, I created {{TopicBCyear}} and {{TopicBCDecade}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

thank you very much Io Herodotus (talk) 16:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Help with name of Finland photographer

See: File:Karl Helin circa 1905.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Valokuvaamo" in Finnish is apparently "photo studio" so the part currently identified as the photographer's name is not the photographer's name. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There used to be "Valokuvaamo Hellas" (Photo studio Hellas) in Jyväskylä. MKFI (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• I created Category:Valokuvaamo Hellas, thanbks! --RAN (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

...things look...different?

Does the site (in Monobook) look different to anyone else? I noticed that on here there's now, instead of "section header above a horizontal rule", it's now "horizontal rule, then section header, then "Latest comment: | number of comments| number of people in discussion". And I came here because I noticed the "Open in Media Viewer" button on images looked more crowded in... (...and ah, it is Wednesday... I don't think this is an improvement.) - The Bushranger (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a bug, but a feature (really), see COM:VPT#Tech News: 2025-24: “The appearance of talk pages will change at almost all Wikipedias. [...]” You can deactivate it in your preferences. --Rosenzweig τ 07:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

...still has the "edit" just to the right of the topic and "subscribe" way over to the right where "edit" should be, but that's mostly better - thanks for letting me know about that. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks a little silly in Vector Legacy - the date heading has a horizontal rule under it, and there's a second horizontal rule above the section header. So the first discussion under a date (like this one) has two separate lines above it. Omphalographer (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Providing information to viewers about distressing content

Hi all

I've recently been working with a part of the UN who have a lot of content they are considering sharing with Commons. A lot of it is what I'd describe as war photography including very distressing images of war crimes; dead bodies including children, graphic injuries including of children, famine conditions etc. My question is are there ways of providing information to people navigating Commons that a folder includes distressing images so they can make an informed decision about wether to look at them? I'm wondering if there is anything similar to a notice for the top of categories etc?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The closest thing we have to a category disclaimer about potentially offensive/illegal imagery is {{Nazi symbol}} and its derivatives, but as far as I know there are no templates for categories that contain images that depict graphic violence or death. The template I linked earlier is more concerned with legality rather than warning people that content ahead could be shocking, which is (for better or worse) not something Commons does currently. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

One step you can take is to make sure that images are in suitable subcategories, so instead of, say, putting such a picture in "Category:Toyota ambulances", you would put it in "Category:Toyota ambulances in war crime pictures", or some such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings I agree with the above idea of choosing appropriate categories. There are things like Category:War crimes, Category:Children in war, Category:Dead children, Category:Wounded children, Category:Dead people, Category:Emaciation, etc.

If you put the images in such categories, the name of the category itself will serve as content warning. Nakonana (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both Pigsonthewing and ReneeWrites, I'm really suprised no one has made some kind of notice before. Has there been a previous RFC or anything similar? I guess the number of photos of modern war crimes available under an open license is quite limited, although there are a lot of distressing war photos from the American government from the Vietnam War etc. John Cummings (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, by the time someone sees the notice, they will already be seeing the image(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems like we need a new tool for that (and I think it's worthwhile to develop one): phab:T198550, either as an official part of MediaWiki, or in the absence of that, a more basic JavaScript gadget just for Commons. I can see there could be resistance against hiding images from a COM:CENSOR viewpoint, though. Some mechanisms against abuse might be necessary. (e.g. only sysops can flag images.) whym (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You would have to define "distressing content" for this to work Trade (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Crop for Wikidata

Dear people,

I addition to uploading files, checking descriptions and updating categories, another was to help is to crop some images.

Category:Crop for Wikidata lists 12,000 photos that could be cropped, especially group pictures.

These pictures can be cropped easily with https://croptool.toolforge.org – would you like to help?

Sulov Jondauss 76 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC).

At least some of these are for Wikidata items that already have good images (in some cases better images), so this calls for some care. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Another concern I have immediately is that the cropped images need to be categorized correctly. Many editors make the mistake to just crop them, and leave the original categories of the parent image in place.

For example, cropping six faces from a group photo would lead to seven images in each person's category, five of them being misplaced.

So this calls for extra care, too. --Enyavar (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

You are both right. One needs to do things carefully, as with other tasks. Specifically, it us useful to check:

1. If cropping is still needed (or if good portrait already in Commons);
2. If yes, if there is a better image to take as source (instead of the one tagged);
3. After cropping, to update description and categories (if create a new category for the person, link it on the Wikidata page).

Feel free to update the list of key points.

Sulov Jondauss 76 (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC).

In addition, the use of annotations is useful, as done for example in File:1952 Aust RowingSquad.jpg. Wouter (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

T. H. McAllister

Hi, Any information about this photographer (Category:T. H. McAllister)? Any relation to [4]? Apparently was based in New York, and took pictures in France, Italy, Greece, and Egypt. The Brooklyn Museum hosts a number of pictures. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Other than Creator:T. H. McAllister and d:Q134930700, no.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

"The McAllisters were a family of opticians that were active in the scientific instrument trade for over a century starting in the late 18th century with John McAllister Sr. (1755-1830). They had businesses in Philadelphia and later in New York. Thomas. H. McAllister (1824-1898) moved to New York around 1865. Unlike the Philadelphia based part of the family, he actually manufactured and sold his own microscopes as well as those by other manufacturers. See: the McAllister Family Business Timeline. and The McAllister Family" [5] - the "see" parts are link to further pages. The dates for Thomas. H. differ from those in Wikidata; but [6] has T.H. active circa "1910s-1920s", so maybe two people

TBH, questions like this are better asked at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Now at en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#T. H. McAllister, photographer, NY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, and posting there. There are pictures dated ca. 1890 and others dated 1900. Yann (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Yann: It is Thomas Hamilton McAllister (1824-1898) of Brooklyn, New York, he worked as an optician and took photos on his vacations. His adopted son took over the family business. I would update the Wikidata entry with all the info I have, but I have been blocked there without any warning. --RAN (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Please share sources. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  I completed with information from [7]. [8] mentions "business succeeded by T.H. McAllister-Keller, 1917", so there is probably a confusion about the photographer of the Paris Exhibition pictures in 1900. And probably not the son of T. H. McAllister. A nephew? Yann (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

  Or son-in-law? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Nikoladze memorial in Zestaponi (Georgia, the country)

Dear all, to whomever it concerns. I just got wind of the deletion of File:Nikoladze memorial in Zestaponi.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nikoladze memorial in Zestaponi.jpg). Since the request is closed, I look for other ways to ask for the actually used evidence and motivation. The request speaks of NO-FOP in Georgia, and that may well be the applicable reason for deletion. However, the request does not specify evidence nor any indication it does apply here (the 70 year death rule of creator of the artwork, to my understanding). The monument is obviously not very new. Do we know from which year the (Soviet-era) bust is and who made it? The depicted person, founder of the metallurgic plant in Zestafoni, Giorgi Nikoladze, died in 1931, two years before the factory went in operation. It is very well possible the bust was created not long after. Was any evidence or indication submitted that the sculptor of the monument is known (by name)? And thus we know whether he/she is still alive or did not die more than 70 years ago. Or alternatively, do we know the estimated year of the creation of the bust? None of this was indicated in the deletion request, so I wonder what was the actual ground. Was any of this established as being the case within the reasonable "without a doubt" boundaries. Mind you, the specific photo (that is still visible via google cache) depicts the original monument before the complete overhaul and relocation in 2018, which is a different thing. Thanks for any feedback. Sorry to be long. --Labrang (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Also I'm not sure if URAA restoration might further complicate the situation, at least until the monument is over 95 years old. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't find anything on the memorial. Some possible hints:

• The metallurgic plant was named after Nikoladze in 1967, according to Georgian Wikipedia ("1967 წელს ქარხანას გიორგი ნიკოლაძის სახელი მიენიჭა."), and it's possible that this opportunity was also used to unveil the memorial, but that's just speculation.
• There's another monument to Giorgi Nikoladze at the Nikolai Nikoladze House for which I could find information on the unveiling date and the name of the sculptor ("1969 წლის 5 ივლისს ნიკო ნიკოლაძის სახლ-მუზეუმის ეზოში საზეიმოდ გახსნეს დუტუ ჩხეიძის მიერ შესრულებული გიორგი ნიკოლაძის ძეგლი. ძეგლის გახსნას ესწრებოდა მოქანდაკე ნიკოლოზ კანდელაკი, რომელსაც იმ დროს 80 შეუსრულდა." - translation: "On July 5, 1969, a monument to Giorgi Nikoladze, created by Dutu Chkheidze, was ceremonially unveiled in the courtyard of the Niko Nikoladze House-Museum. The unveiling of the monument was attended by sculptor Nikoloz Kandelaki, who turned 80 at the time."[9]). It was common in the Soviet Union to make copies of already existing monuments and install them all around the republics, so, maybe there's a chance that the monument at the museum and the plant are the same? Then we'd know the sculptor. The unveiling ceremony was also attended by representatives of the plant... Or maybe Nikoloz Kandelaki is the sculptor (because why else would they mention him like that)?

Nakonana (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that page I did not see when I looked around. I also looked at Georgian sources before writing this up, and just like you couldn't find anything solid. I also stumbled upon the 1967 date in the encyclopedia of the naming of the factory to Nikoladze (verified this in the 1970s Geo-SSR encyclopedia), but also another source that spoke of 1942 of naming the factory to Nikoladze. I couldn't find any further corroboration which date would be more likely - nor any indication whether the naming was accompanied with a memorial (we might assume it did, but we don't know, as there is not a single indication/trace of that). Of course, one would be inclined to take the encyclopedia of the 1970s to its merit, that they know what they say if it is just a decade ago ;-) - but that is only about naming, not the sculpture. I also checked the dspace photo/media archive of the nplg, but couldn't find anything (the newspapers are a bit hard for me to check - so who knows..). So yes, that is all we have. We don't know for sure, and we don't know who is the sculptor, just a speculative hint. The memorial as the photo presented is in fact no more, because as I indicated, it has been completely overhauled and relocated, with only the head being reused. Labrang (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

If you speak Georgian, you could try emailing the plant to ask them for information about the memorial. Maybe they've got something in their archives. Nakonana (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that's an option. I might give it a go. Labrang (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Comments wanted from the community on Wikidata property proposal to be used in SDC

trailer of

Would anyone from Commons like to see this property in SDC? If not please explain how else the modeling should or could be done--Trade (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

LibriVox link template needed

There is a {{Internet Archive link}} but I cannot find anything equivalent for audio files from LibriVox. Is the syntax possible to create a link to the work page from which the recordings are accessed and downloaded from LibriVox, so that this information can be standardized for use in the |source= field of information templates? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A LibriVox work hosted at their site (many are also hosted on the Internet Archive) is in the form of "https://librivox.org/x/" such as https://librivox.org/under-the-guns-by-annie-wittenmyer/ so making a template like "{{LibriVox link|under-the-guns-by-annie-wittenmyer}}" would be trivial, but I'm not sure what value it adds or why it's needed. If you want, I can make it. Do you think it needs any kind of tracking category as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: I think including a tracking category would be prudent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that. Let me tinker with it today. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that there could be issues I'm unaware of. But having a template allows for tracking, and also forces a link using the template to point to LibriVox, never some other site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

See {{LVs}}/{{LibriVox source}}, which (like {{LibriVox}}) categorizes files in Category:All LibriVox recordings and which has been successfully used in the wild. If users want me to do some mass substitutions with AWB, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:00s BC

Category:10s BC shows a link to Category:00s BC Once there it says : This category is located at Category:0s BC

Question : Would it be possible that Category:10s BC shows a link to Category:0s BC ?

Category:0s BC shows a link to Category:00s BC and should only show 10s BC. Io Herodotus (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus I corrected the link, it should be displayed correctly now. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Gee, you're fast ! Io Herodotus

Category:1st century BC still has a link there. --Io Herodotus (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. That should now be fixed too. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo challenge April results

Meadows: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	A hill dream	Sunset over a green meadow with forest in foreground and layered mountain silhouettes in the distance, under a glowing orange sky.	Fioritura a Castelluccio di Norcia. Italia
Author	Anna.Massini	Martinovmejl	Repuli
Score	14	12	9

Camelidae: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Camel at toni's zoo - B&W	Kamel am Strand in Ägypten.	Ägyptische Motive mit Kamel. Strand des Grand Makadi Hotels am Roten Meer.
Author	Roy Egloff	Kora27	Kora27
Score	16	11	10

Congratulations to Anna.Massini, Martinovmejl, Repuli, Roy Egloff and Kora27 (twice). -- Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible mislabel from the source

Per en:User talk:Thebiguglyalien#Question from Labonham (04:51, 19 June 2025) the file at File:Texas - Diboll through Donna - NARA - 68149189.jpg may not be the city that's named on the image. Could we get some advice on how to confirm a mislabel for the purposes of Commons? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the user's identification of the city as Lufkin, TX is sound. It's not far from Diboll, the railroad and city grid match up, and there are some distinctive details that confirm it. For instance, the pair of distinctive curvy roads right of center are a perfect match for Humason and Hoskins Ave. (The little triangle where Hoskins meets with Clinton Drive is still present today.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Using generative AI to write your unblock request

Can we make a rule against this specifically? Trade (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this topic without a clear outcome: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/04#Do we need a policy against AI generated comments in discussions. GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of AI-generated content of any kind, but this seems almost impossible to enforce and likely to result in false positives. I've seen these comments too, but knowing it and proving it are two different things. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

We delete AI generated images all the time, even in cases where the uploader did not disclose it Trade (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we need a rule against it? Accepting an unblock request is at an admin's discretion, and is generally contingent on the blocked user making it clear that they understand why they were blocked, and making a credible promise to not repeat that behavior. I've seen a number of obviously AI-generated unblock requests, and they've uniformly failed to do either of those things. Omphalographer (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You literally have to sign your posts on this platform. As long as you take accountability for the words you post, I don't think we should stress about how you came by them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

As soon as we can demonstrate that we have sufficient available volunteers, fluent in every language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have enough diverse admins to cover 95 % of all first and second languages worldwide. GPSLeo (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

So "not yet", then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the languages we do not cover are also the languages where machine translation totally fails. GPSLeo (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose, I suggest to leave the AI-generated unblock requests at admins' discretion. In fact, the unblock request reason is just one factor (putting the sincerity of the request in mind). The user's prior contribution history is another important factor in determining the eligibility and sincerity of the blocked user's request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Flickr now supports CC 4.0 licenses

I noticed today that Flickr finally released support for newer 4.0 licenses on uploads; https://blog.flickr.net/en/2025/06/18/creative-commons-4-0-has-arrived-on-flickr/. However, there could be some problems. I transferred some photos to the Commons that are under a CC 4.0 license, and it seems the license is not applied properly to the files. Instead of adding the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and Flickr Review template, it simply says 'undefined' in the licensing section. One has to manually add the appropriate licensing. Someone might want to fix that before the inevitable influx of photos occurs. Here's an example; File:The Bow Room, Ceiling by Louis Laguerre, 1697 with trompe l'oeil.jpg. Also, Category:Files with no machine-readable license will probably fill up quickly. PascalHD (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@PascalHD: I already pinged Sannita (WMF) about this elsewhere, but he may want to comment here, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Same here with File:Juneteenth cookies for sale.jpg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a CC 2.0 file that also seems affected, it's not just 4.0 ones: File:BAMF 2014 70.jpg PascalHD (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we know, I'll try to see if we can fix this in a short time. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Flight information region boundary maps

I have put together a set of maps of ground-level flight information regions encoded in GeoJSON, and I was wondering if they would be suitable for addition to Wikimedia Commons. The base map I used for this project was this, and then I verified as much of the boundary data as I could by consulting the aeronautical information publications of each country. Wherever the AIPs called for international boundaries to be followed, I used data from OpenStreetMap to fill those in. I have already added the boundary data for one FIR, Gander Oceanic, at Data:CZWX.map, but I have had to hesitate when it came to adding the rest, because looking in the AIPs might raise some questions over copyright. Would you be okay with me adding the rest of them, or would they belong somewhere else? -- Denelson83 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a subtle copyright question here, and it might better be asked at COM:VP/C. In general, facts cannot be copyrighted, but this gets into an odd territory between a fact and the visual representation of that fact. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Paul Vénel (1864-1920) Q96185647

Can someone update the death date for Paul Venel (Q96185647) or review my block at Wikidata. I come across minimally 10 errors a day that go unfixed. RAN (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin on Wikidata if you can be unblocked. An indef for doing something that isn't even against the rules to begin with is totally ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

RAN was blocked because of an unwillingness to respect a standing community consensus and then being abrasive about it, and it is indefinite due in part to their record on Wikipedia.

Also, if you or anyone else who sees this message does make such a proxy edit, it will be construed as block evasion and result in a block of that editor's account on Wikidata. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 06:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So this is not just a block, but a type of ban where the fact that he notes incorrect data means that no one is supposed to make the correction? That seems pretty excessive to me, and I don't see how it furthers the interest of Wikidata, nor of Commons which draws information from Wikidata in our Infoboxes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Read the discussion in question. The matter in question was his behavior after being told his interpretation of our notability policy was incorrect. While blocked he cannot engage in any editing period. If he had permission to edit we would allow it through partial blocks, but he showed no interest in contributing when we reduced it to a partial, so no, we don't entertain his attempts to get around the block. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Jasper, I appreciate that a blocked user cannot make it a point to ask for proxy edits, but in this instance, I think it would be fair to have someone fix this data point and from now let RAN know that requests for edits are not acceptable. Do you agree? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone who happens upon it out of their own volition without seeing this discussion is okay doing it. But yes, Richard is strictly not allowed to request WD edits unless and until they can convince our community that he will not waste their time and energy. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

so you're saying, wikidata prefers keeping errors, even if the errors have been pointed out? RoyZuo (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no errors in the Wikidata element, and nothing has been pointed out. What can be done (and I may or may not do it later today, depending on the availability) the birth and death years can be replaced by the birth and death dates using the source cited in the Wikidata element. Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/06#c-Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)-20250605030900-https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483 . RoyZuo (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You know, I can also make urls of links: [10]. The element was correct but could have been more precise, which is what I have done. Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Until there are new admin people, they will not unblock me. I already asked multiple times, and there is no complaint review group like in Wikipedia. Asking the people to admit they are wrong, is not going to happen, and there appears to be no consequences for what they did. It is part of an harassment campaign, that has gone unchecked by the WMF. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC).

Cascading protection message

File:Generic Camera Icon.svg is under cascading protection, but since Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2025/03#c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20250304022700-Tech_News:_2025-10 it's now possible to edit the wikitext, while only overwrite upload is restricted, so maybe the message should be tweaked to reflect that? RoyZuo (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload a photo of a 12th century mid relief artifact from a museum

The policy is that faithful replications of 2d works count as their copyright being when the work was made. But what about mid reliefs (or bas reliefs for that matter)? I want to upload this https://www.narahaku.go.jp/english/collection/1257-0.html but I am not sure if this counts for the PD-Art or not. This is a Japan section talking about this Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Japan Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• The website: "These contents are protected by the Copyright Law of Japan, International Law, and the copyright laws of other countries, and utilization beyond the scope of personal usage as prescribed in the Copyright Law is prohibited." --RAN (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it is a 3D work of art? But it can depend on different factors. I think we had a similar case in Germany, where 2D photographs (faithful repro) of the "Himmelsscheibe Nebra" were used. But afaik a renewed law from 2021 what WMDE influenced, was applied. I suppose it's a case for COM:VP/C --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Categories for discussion has been going on for 1.5 years

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha I think there is a consensus here too Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Or at least needs relisting or something Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

How to classify structures for building bird nests?

A lot of small birds are flying in and out

Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:500px licensing data and Internet Archive link

I'd like to take this opportunity to request for changing of the link on the 500px Commons page. The link, https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005097533, is no longer working (leads to error page), and for some reason the Internet Archive web link (web.archive.org) isn't working (at least on my part, tried both smartphone and laptop browsers, not working). It was also a struggle to review two imported files (which eventually led me to nominate these files: file1, file2). I tried the "wayback.archive.org" link, and I received a warning page stating that PH authorities blacklisted the site as violating various PH laws (like Republic Act(RA)10175/w:en:Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Executive Order No. 13/Strengthening the Fight Against Illegal Gambling, RA9995/Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act etc.). Sometimes, repeatedly trying to access "web.archive.org" results to this same warning being shown on my screen/s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: I managed to browse for the last archived copy of the page using IA. I tried accessing "wayback.machine.org" to redirect me to "web.archive.org" via my laptop, and I immediately browsed for the last archived copy. For some reason, after updating the 500px page, revisiting the Wayback Machine page only results in error, as expected ("DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN"). I suspect there is some suppression of Internet Archive links here; if not within the entire PH, perhaps my Internet service provider at the very least. This has been the case since Sunday (Philippine Standard Time). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: AT (Archive Today/archive.ia) is still working in my case as of this writing/post. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sunday was the day when I tried verifying the licensing history of the source of File:Cephalopholis sonnerati, the tomato hind.jpg, which eventually I decided to nominate the import for deletion after all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Hopefully, you can use User:Jeff G./500px Marketplace Transition Contributor FAQ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. thanks sir. By the way, Chipmunkdavis also commented on my post on WikiProject PH's noticeboard that they were also experiencing some issue in accessing web.archive.org, but AstrooKai and D-Flo27 were able to access the site. It makes me wonder what is the exact reason why I can't directly visit Wayback Machine (unless, again, I use "wayback.machine.org" though that doesn't always work). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Sadly, Kevin Payravi wants it deleted; I hope you got what you wanted from it.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I have already pasted the Internet Archive link, when I got lucky to have "wayback.machine.org" redirected to "web.archive.org", bypassing the filter/block/whatever that hinders my access to Wayback Machine itself. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

CONFIRMED. w:en:Converge ICT (Pampanga province-based ISP) has recently blocked IA's web.archive.org without clear explanation (as of this writing). See this Facebook post. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Or, the reasons for block are vague: the foreign, US-hosted site is allegedly violating various Philippine laws (like anti-p*rno laws, regulations on investments, and laws combating online fraud and scams), as claimed by the warning page that resembles this one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll stop making new updates or comments regarding Converge ICT's blocking of IA (web.archive.org), from now on (I won't disclose the off-wiki reason). Consider this thread now closed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: 12:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Need help with conversion of CSV-like file to JSON-like *.tab page on Commons!

Hi!

I would like to convert the largest file of this content (produkt_klima_tag_19470101_20241231_02261.txt) (it contains the temperatur highs and lows of every day in Hof since 1947) to a data page. I tried several ways, but I failed. Is someone experienced in creating these data pages?

The OpenData content by the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (LIESMICH; README; Copyright notice).

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of online CSV-to-JSON converters, if you don't want to write your own code. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I used them, but there was still an output of errors :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Postcards vs. art

Why is Category:Postcards of dogs in Category:Dogs in art by medium, when many postcards are photographic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I don't agree with it myself but a lot of categories for postcards are subcats of ones for art. The same goes with photographs. Personally, if I had my way categories for both would be separated from art except in instances where the photograph or postcard is clearly artistic (however you define that). I actually seem to remember bringing it up at some point and there was no consensus do anything about it at the time. So it's not something that's worth changing. Although I do wish things were categorized differently. There's obviously a difference between a drawing of a dog and a photograph of one. But their both "art" for some reason, which doesn't make any sense. But you'd have to start a CfD to remove Category:Photographs from Category:Works of art by medium, remove the subcats from each other, deal with the inevitable blowback, Etc. Etc. to change it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Photography is an art.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not disputed. But that is not, in the main, how we use our "in art" categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

News Paaper cutting.jpg

I've popped into File:News Paaper cutting.jpg and I think it violates copyright rules as it is a part of a newspaper edited in the 21st century, so it's unlikely to be old and very likely to be copyrighted. I don't remmember the proper way of dealing with it (what {{}} to use) but I feel that has to be dealt with. B25es (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagged as a copyvio. Take look, but be quick! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Attribution and vanished user

File x had been uploaded by user y. user y vanished. but attribution on the file page remains "user y", because it has never been changed to user y's new username.

now suppose i create a new derivative of file x. how should i put the attribution? "user y" or "vanished user ..."?

has this problem between "need to attribute" and "right to vanish" been discussed before? RoyZuo (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What license does the file have? If it is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA the original attribution has to be used unless the author changes it. GPSLeo (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thousands of WLM-files risk deletion because they failed Flickr review 10 years after upload

In the 2014 WLM thousands of files were uploaded to Flickr and then moved to Commons. That was/is normal practice. Sadly User:Superzerocool moved thousands of files to Commons and added '{{flickrreview|Superzerocool|2014-10-14}}' instead of {{Flickrreview}}. As a result of that Superzerocool is now both uploader and reviewer of those files.

A few days ago User:Leoboudv noticed and reviewd some of the files. But there are so many and most are no longer available on Flickr. So Leoboudv asked if I could request a review with my bot and around 200 files were reviewed but 4,550 files failed (most because file was not found but some because license is unfree) and they are now in Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review.

Some files like File:WLM14ES - 05082012 182214 H 0065 - .jpg can be saved via web.archive.org but it will take a lot of time to check. So I would like to ask if someone can find a better solution.

Maybe someone made a list at some point with the license found on Flickr? Maybe someone can write a bot that can check the file and license on web.archive.org? Or maybe someone have another idea. MGA73 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the uploader not also the photographer here? GPSLeo (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that they are still active (though not here every day) and can probably verify that. I'll let them know on their talk page (they probably get notifications when that is hit, and may not for a mention here). I'd be surprised if that is not the case (a ton of uploads for WLM, which at a quick assay are attributed to one Flickr user and taken with one camera). - Jmabel ! talk 06:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Superzerocool should have a notice. We discussed this topic on my talk page so I just left the notice there. If it is own work it is easy to fix. --MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Dear Jmabel,

Most of MARIA ROSSA FERRE's images by Superzerocool are trapped in this Category today with an ARR license. Maria Rossa Ferre gives her Email address on her flickr profile address over here I don't speak Spanish but you do. If you wish, you can Email here and ask if she would reconsider relicensing her images in her Flickr Album here as "Attribution-ShareAlike" in English or "Atribución-CompartirIgual" in Spanish. I Emailed someone once in France if he would be willing to change the license of his Tutankhamun treasure flickr album to a free license...and he Emailed back to say that he did so.....which I subsequently uploaded to Commons.

PS: Thee 2 images by other uploaders confirms she once licensed her image as CC BY SA 2.0: File:Vestidor Imperi - Museu Romàntic Can Papiol - Vilanova i La Geltrú - 11.jpg & File:Montserrat - 42.jpg Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Files that are now unfree are probably easy to save because File:WLM14ES - Esglèsia del Sagrat Cor, Girona Temps de Flors 2014 - MARIA ROSA FERRE.jpg for example clearly show in the license history on Flickr that the photo was licensed freely earlier. It just take a lot of time if we have to verify that manually for hundreds of photos. --MGA73 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Could the bot somehow access that license history which is visable to humans? In oder to automate that... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The review template outputs incorrect info though...it states "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 June 2025 by the administrator or reviewer Josve05a, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." Which is incorrect. I can see in the history that they distributed it under the specific license in the past, at time of upload here, but it is not being distributed under the free license there anymore (even if still possible to use it under the same license due to non-revocability). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope a bot can do it. I guess you have to change the review date manually or leave a note below that the file WAS licensed freely when file was uploaded and the date above is the date you made the check. And perhaps aslo add a {{Flickr change of license}}. --MGA73 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The few images that I've checked also had a free lincense in Flickr by the time they were uploaded to Commons.

Are there images that didn't have a free lincense when uploaded to Commons? If we can find such images or at least dobious cases, it would be safe to assume that in spite of having been reviewed by the same uploader, those images were correctly uploaded to Commons.

Anyway, if someone wants to manually check licenses, I suggest starting by 64 ones that are in use in some Wikimedia project. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• For some reason I missed around 4,900 images in the first bot run. 175 of those passed the review. So it means there are almost twice the number of files now. So it makes it even more helpful if a bot could pass some of the files. --MGA73 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort the files in files that are on web.archive and files that are not. But its a simple check if the URL is archived there or not. It does not check if the files are identical. When bot is done it should give us an idea how many can be saved that way and how many that can't. If all files on web.archive have a free license I think its a good indication that all the files had a free license (files were most likely moved with some sort of script so that script should validate the license). See Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-2.0 for example. --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Result:

• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-2.0 ( 6597 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-sa-2.0 (6 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc0 (25 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review unknown (73 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review not-found (1738 F)

So all the files where we can check the license have proven to be licensed freely (earlier the bot passed a few hundred files and around hundred (I think) files that were still on Flickr was reviewd and passed manually). So I think it is very likely that the remaining 1738 files were also licensed freely. Furthermore since the files were most likely uploaded with a script that checked the license it seems very unlikely that any of the files were free.

I therefore think that per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/02#Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview we should fix the review template and add indeterminable on thos files and add a notice that files were reviewd by uploader which is not allowed but because the files are believed to be licensed as stated we will keep them.

However we need someone to help fix the review template. --MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: I'm a bit lost here. Take File:Boats in Cadaqués - 14072008.jpg. This file was uploaded and included the review. At that point in time the user was an image reviewer. Why are you challenging this? Is the user suddenly no longer trusted? You seem to imply that self-review is not allowed. I don't think we have such a rule. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may not review their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot."  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill: As written above uploader should not review own uploads. The correct would have been to ask for a Flickrreview and let the bot verify. If the script used was an approved bot it would help. --MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Meh, would be ridiculous to delete this files as a sanction. Multichill (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently 681 photos of the 8439 images in Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review are used cross-wiki. We could at least try to "save" these images. Vysotsky (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The result is that, after a lot of effort, it has not been found a single image whose license review was wrong - that is, it hasn't been found a single non free image among those uploaded and reviewed by Superzerocool. Therefore, even under the most restrictive application of the precautionary principle, it's very safe and very reasonable to assume that the review was done correctly and that all the remaining images - at least those that can't be reviewed - were also free when they were uploaded.

Of course, shame should fall upon those who failed to notice in 2014 that the process wasn't following the rules and took eleven years to realise. However, that shame shouldn't make us delete valuable images that we can safely assume to be free. Pere prlpz (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

And Leoboudv just reported on my talk page that some files in the "not-found" category are in fact on web.archive. My bot just failed to find it because it checked the latest version so it did not see File:WLM14ES - Reus Casa Navas 00003 - .jpg as a good file. That means it would probably be possible to confirm the license on even more files if someone had the time. So I think that is one more reason to keep the files. --MGA73 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have un-archived COM:VP/P#Add an outcome of LicenseReview. There was near-unanimity on this. I don't think there is any doubt about the desirability; really, all that is missing is a concrete proposal for the name of this outcome. Concrete ideas should be placed in that un-archived discussion, and we should resolve and act. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo source transparency

I think we should have some kind of photo source transparency tool. Of course every photo already has a source. But often it requires further research to check what kind of source this is. It would be good to have around five to ten different source types like: "governmental source", "(semi) independent public broadcasting source", "independent journalistic source (including most commons photographers works)", "photographing on invite (not payed)", "NGO source", "(non publishing) company source". These levels should be shown next to the source on the file page. GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Given the information you are asking for, what would you do with that information?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It would de convenient for the Wikis or externals using the photos having such sometimes very important classification of the source directly next to the source. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The vast majority of the files, would be non-professional private person. Most professional photographers do not like to publish under a free license. When I see the list I see an exclusive focus on professional work, ignoring the vast majority of files.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

sdc for generic compound concepts

sculptures of swans

how to describe this in sdc? depicts=? sculpture? but how to convey that it's specifically a sculpture of swan? qualifier main subject (P921)=swan? RoyZuo (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

also i dont know where the line between sculpture and statue is. RoyZuo (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

smallest ones are statuettes, medium are sculptures, large=bigger than adults are statues. So in this case d:Q860861 Greetings from Germany, --Mateus2019 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

No, as a native English speaker, that last is not quite right. "Sculpture" includes reliefs, statues, three-dimensional abstracts, and busts, as well as more specialized things such as figureheads of ships. A "statue" is free-standing (in contrast to a relief) and representational (though it may be somewhat abstract); busts are normally not considered statues. Something with multiple figures might or might not be considered a single statue, I think usage would vary among native speakers (though a single person on a horse can definitely be called either an "equestrian statue" or an "equestrian sculpture"; oddly, one would never use that term for a statue/sculpture of just a horse, English can be insane). A "statuette" is simply a small statue, usually less than 20% of lifesize. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The photo depicts two sculptures; the sculptures each depict a swan. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1048883299 should cover it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I would have gone with garden ornament (Q28597527) as they are quite small and look mass produced...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Is advertisement really necessary on this photo? EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Aram Andonian (1919).jpg

Can anyone figure out if we have a category for this photo studio, or a Wikidata entry? --RAN (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Aram Andonian (1919).jpg. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , surely you have been active on Commons long enough to form an internal link. - Jmabel ! talk 03:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

How do I connect a page to wikidata without it having a wikipedia article

I want to connect d:Q135098821 and Category:Hongu-jinja Yohaisho of Kasuga-taisha but I cannot figure out how to do since the ui here only allows connection to wikipedia. How do I do it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Add Commons category (Q24574745) to the item. Then at the bottom under "Multilingual sites" add Commons along with the name of the category. Then you can add "wikidata infobox" to the category and it should connect everything and add an infobox. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 okay I think I get that. But what is the purpose of the property when there is the multilingual sites thing on it too? They seem redundant Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I'm not totally sure but I think the infobox uses the Wikidata item while other projects connect to the "Multilingual sites" link. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, the “Multilingual sites” link can only link the category to one wikidata item, while multiple wikidata items can add the same “Commons category” property. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And that last is very useful in cases like Manhattan (Q11299) and Category:Manhattan (Q7469772) - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)