Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08

History split?

Looking at File:Zaxbys, Rome.jpg, this image was moved from Wikipedia back in 2012. Before it was moved, the uploader uploaded an original image (two versions, one color-corrected) - but then uploaded another image of the same location over that. The thing is, the original image is also a good image, and I'd like to split the image history to have both this (the current image) and this (the original, color-corrected image) as "live" images. Is there a way to do that? - The Bushranger (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Yes, please see COM:SPLIT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, so you have to be an admin in order to do it, since it involves deletion. Is there a place to request this? - The Bushranger (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: Requests for splits go on Commons:History merging and splitting/Requests, and requests for Adminship follow Commons:Administrators/Howto.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! - The Bushranger (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Recategorizing IBM System/23 Datamaster contents into subcategories

I have created a new category, , removed the redirect and enabled the category and moved the pictures from into their corresponding subcategories. I would like to ask for some help since the two subcategories don't seem to find their corresponding wikidata item. I would like to ask for a revision of the work I have done myself in order to improve the outcome. Thank you in advance!

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

•  Done. @Buran Biggest Fan: Here are the steps you left out: [1], [2]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Misidentified

What is the name of the template we use to show that a caption or a file name is or the person in the image is misidentified? Should we add to it that "Versions of this image may appear elsewhere on the internet still misidentified". We correct our version but cannot correct the other versions online. RAN (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): are you talking about {{Inaccurate description}}? - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I think there was one with more text, but this one will do. I thought there was a specific one at Template:Disputed..., but I do not see it. Here it is: {{Fact disputed}}, same concept but in red text.--RAN (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

  If the title is factually wrong, the best course of action is to leave a message in the file's talk page and maybe notify the uploader. If you are very sure of what the title should be - or if some consensus has been reached in the talk page - you could use {{Rename}} to ask for the name to be changed. Pere prlpz (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass category rename

Hi, the category Category:Khatumo and all its subcategories will need to be renamed "Waqooyi Bari" since the state has had a rename. Is there anyone with tools, a bot or a script, or someone with knowledge thereof to do a mass rename? Or will it have to be done manually? Girligaanshub (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

There are tools that help with this, the main ones that come to mind are Cat-a-lot and AWB (AutoWikiBrowser). @Auntof6: has experience dealing with mass edits related to categories and might know more or be able to help. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Girligaanshub and ReneeWrites: I find 436 categories that have the string "Khatumo" in the name. Seventeen of them appear to be redirects. If someone wants to verify that all these need to be changed, I could use those search results to generate a list of rename requests to hand to the bot User:CommonsDelinker. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

436? Seems like overcategorization to me, a lot of those categories have one or even no files. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Per en:Talk:Khatumo State#Requested move 30 July 2025, although the state was indeed renamed to “Waqooyi Bari”, the users at en-wiki are waiting to see if there is an official English name for the state. So I think we should wait to see as well before renaming all the categories. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6: "Waqooyi Bari" literally means "north east"; I don't think it needs t be anglicized because (a) there's precedence for native renderings (example here), and the currently trending English rendering "North East federal state of Somalia" is too wordy for categories. Imagine for example the verbosity of category "Category:Maps of weather and climate of North East Federal State of Somalia". That title won't fit on a smartphne screen. As such, I would appreciate it if you could hand all current categories under the title "Khatumo" including variations like "SSC-Khatumo" to the bot User:CommonsDelinker for a name change to "Waqooyi Bari". Thank you very much, and I appreciate the help. Girligaanshub (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to keep Khatumo as a subcategory of Waqooyi Bari for that part of its history, like how Zaire is a subcategory of the DRC. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Disagreement over a category

So there is a bit of a dispute over the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan and Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) being discussed at Category_talk:Lamune_Onsenkan.

I made the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan and moved 4 images from Category:Nagayu Onsen to it. I did so solely based on the fact that they were all of the same building and labelled as this same building.

They created the category Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) 11 hours later and moved all of these files from Category:Lamune Onsenkan to Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa).

Both of us independently created wikidata entries on the topics, and I erroneously merged the wikidata entries but that conflict has been resolved.

Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) is the parent organization of Category:Lamune Onsenkan.

Is there an actual formal policy on this issue? My thought is that because it does not appear that there are any photos of Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) by itself, it should be a parent category containing Category:Lamune Onsenkan and Category:People of Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) but no images. I think having all of the images in the top level category feeds a misconception that the Lamune Onsenkan building is the entirety of Daimaru Ryokan, when in reality it is just a single building in the complex. There are not good images of the entire complex but here is a birds eye view with google maps https://earth.google.com/web/search/Daimaru+Ryokan,+7992-1+Naoirimachi+%c5%8caza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita,+Japan/@33.06941941,131.3837959,457.47335541a,119.9101215d,35y,-60.5609887h,17.48856925t,0r/data=CrQBGoUBEn8KJTB4MzU0NmM5ZGRiNDdkZTViZDoweDYzNDgxY2JlM2Y1YzI4YjkZAMPy59uIQEAha_EpAEZsYEAqRERhaW1hcnUgUnlva2FuLCA3OTkyLTEgTmFvaXJpbWFjaGkgxYxhemEgTmFnYXl1LCBUYWtldGEsIE9pdGEsIEphcGFuGAEgASImCiQJUTQCewCNQEARVD0j5ZWBQEAZWgCRL05tYEAhNYs6PEVrYEBCAggBOgMKATBCAggASg0I____________ARAA and here is street view https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0692755,131.3833934,3a,90y,109.68h,93.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLyeojkDk85J68Ls5mTOMZA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.744474460873988%26panoid%3DLyeojkDk85J68Ls5mTOMZA%26yaw%3D109.68240970887084!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D so it appears to be a rather large complex, with apparently Lamune Onsen being the only building to have many photos taken of it. Looking for things I did find one image I think is of Daimaru Ryokan which was unlabelled though File:忘れられない、長湯温泉 - panoramio.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually I misidentified buildings and the complexes are not even connected. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lamune+Onsen,+7676-2+Naoirimachi+%C5%8Caza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita,+Japan/Daimaru+Ryokan,+7992-1+Naoirimachi+Oaza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita+878-0402,+Japan/@33.0687787,131.3811538,19z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x353f0273012d9271:0xa154c576e605447f!2m2!1d131.3800693!2d33.0683315!1m5!1m1!1s0x3546c9ddb47de5bd:0x63481cbe3f5c28b9!2m2!1d131.383545!2d33.069211?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I am very tempted to be bold and add

{{En|'''Lamune Onsenkan''' is a building of [[:Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa)|Daimaru Ryokan]] in [[:w:en:Taketa, Ōita|Taketa City]], [[:w:en:Ōita Prefecture|Ōita Prefecture]], [[:w:en:Japan|Japan]].}} [[Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa)]]

to the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan. But I do not want to engage in edit warring.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

You really should have pinged Japaneseviewtifullsaitoshiingu about this discussion. I am doing so now. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

U4C call for non-voting candidates

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has recently put out a call for people interested in becoming a non-voting member. Through last year's annual review, the community approved appointment of up to 4 non-voting members, and the U4C has now created a place and process for volunteers to express their interest. If you know of anyone who might be interested please point them out way. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask us (or ask me here). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

File:Restrictions in Grindr app.svg

I need a map update for en:Grindr, which is under UK government restrictions were enforced under the en:Online Safety Act 2023, per source: https://www.mambaonline.com/2025/08/01/grindr-introduces-mandatory-age-verification-in-the-uk/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutiva (talk • contribs)

First of all, the file is supposed to show where restrictions were applied from the app to safeguard the lives of LGBT people in countries considered homophobic, e.g. general access restrictions. The UK restrictions are requiring age verification and do not seem to be a homophobic measure.

Based on this first observation, you need to say which new color you would like to have introduced. In my opinion however, that would be a whole new other topic: "Countries where the Grindr app is age-restricted by law", with the options of "unaccessible" (copied over from this map here), "age-restricted" (the UK), "not age-restricted" (the rest of the world). --Enyavar (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably just "age-restricted" then, in light green, but only Grindr safety measures were taken. Absolutiva 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Possible misidentification of astronauts

Hi, Please see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Possible misidentification of astronauts. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to replace "Non-Falun Gong swastika"

In the context of addressing the recent overuse of "under section" templates (see discussion), I plan to replace all remaining uses of the {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} template with {{Non-Nazi swastika}}, because the two countries mentioned in the former (China and Russia) are authoritarian regimes that block or restrict Wikimedia projects anyway (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Chinese sensitive content and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Extremist symbol in Russia): however, the [edit: non-Nazi] swastika disclaimer still applies.

This is not yet a deletion request, because a number of files still use the {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} template and would need to be updated to use {{Non-Nazi swastika}} instead. --Minoa (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me that the Falun Gong swastika is quite different from the Nazi swastika. File:Falun Gong Logo.jpg, for example, is currently tagged with both of these templates. It is precisely an image of the Falun Gong swastika, and could not readily be mistaken for a Nazi swastika except by someone who thinks that all swastikas are Nazi symbols. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the Falun Gong swastika looks quite different from a Nazi swastika and the Falun Gong swastika is not that different from a manji. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Not to worry, I am aware of the difference between religious and political swastikas: the proposal relates to a template that appears to apply only to China and Russia, both authoritarian regimes that block or restrict Wikimedia projects anyway. I also realise that duplication may be a second reason for phasing out {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}}, since {{Non-Nazi swastika}} also covers religious contexts (e.g. Hinduism and Jainism). --Minoa (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

How on earth did we end up in a situation where {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} is used on File:Falun Gong Logo.svg? Surely the swastika in the Falun Gong logo is a Falun Gong swastika? In any case,  Support the removal of this template per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Zionist symbol, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Chinese sensitive content, and a number of other related discussions. The correct replacement is probably {{Non-Nazi swastika}}. Omphalographer (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons and UCoC enforcement re-opened

The U4C is re-opening our investigation into the Commons and UCoC enforcement case following the six month pause. We note that the Commons community incorporated the UCoC into their desysop procedures. We are re-opening this for any new evidence for 2 weeks, after which we will decide if any further action is needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect licensing for AI enhanced images

The following image is likely incorrectly dual-licensed. I did not find a relevant discussion for what the appropriate licence should be File:(Enhanced Version) Manal Awad Mikhail 1.png.

As it stands it is both licensed under {{youtube}} and {{PD-algorithm}}. I believe there are more cases of this at Category:PD-algorithm. CFCF (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a lot of slop here, and some images like File:1663Bowerie.jpg just seem to be entirely incorrectly licensed. CFCF (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Let CommonsDelinker perform PNG to SVG replacements

The RFC is here: User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace_images_with_.svg_version, please answer there. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not "own work"

What's the right thing to do with File:Golf von Mexiko NASA World Wind Globe.jpg. User:ILA-boy labeled it as "Own work", which it clearly isn't, unless they've got their own satellite in orbit. On the other hand, if it's really from NASA images, then it's PD, but still clearly not "Own work". RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

In cases when something is not a copyvio, I try to find the original source and replace it with the correct link. For something from 2008, might be challenging. If you cant, change the author to 'NASA' and the source to whatever site or software it originated from. PascalHD (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We do have {{Wrong author}}. MKFI (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI, PascalHD, and RoySmith: We also have COM:ANU for reporting uploaders that falsely claim "Own work".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

About tagged pictures

What is Wikimedia Commons policy regarding pictures that has @names in the picture. Such as the ones uploaded by this user https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Zul_muhaimin_hmn&ilshowall=1 ? Thank you. Hysocc (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy regarding watermarking for now, closest thing we have is a proposed policy of Commons:Watermarks. HyperAnd (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They should generally be marked with {{Watermarked}}.

Video with multiple sources

I created a video based on recordings from several programmes (namely iD, JOSM and Vespucci), all of which have different licences: iD has an ISC licence, JOSM uses GNU GPL v2+ and Vespucci Apache 2.0. If I wanted to upload the video here on Commons, which licence should I use? Should I indicate all three? ----Mannivu · ✉ 12:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a case of Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing / Commons:Multi-licensing. I think that you can chose any suitable license. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's the opposite: you can't choose but you must abide to all of them, so you would need a license compatible with all of them, if it is possible.

However, you might be able to license each part under a different license, just as Wikipedia is under one license but each of its images is under its own license. Pere prlpz (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like you are going to end up with a complicated license statement, and several separate credits that must be given both by you and by any reusers. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc @Jmabel @Pere prlpz sorry for pinging all of you, bu I've found this website from the UE that gives this simple table and it seems that, if I read it correctly, I can use the CC-BY 4.0 here in Commons without any problem (in the file description I will give the proper license to each software in each part of the video). --Mannivu · ✉ 08:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood/overlooked the part "video based on recordings from several programmes", I thought that it was a clip where the videographer offered several licenses for his work, not that it was a compilation of parts with different licenses arranged together. My sentence with "choosing" is only valid in the former case. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Hi all

I've asked a question about what rules exist for revoking a VRT permission at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Rules_for_revoking/invalidating_a_VRT_permission. E.g if the person within the organisation didn't have permission from the organisation to share the files or didn't have the permission to share it under that specific license. I'd really appreciate it if you could answer there to keep the discussion in one place.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Are you asking for all ways that a ticket can ever be invalidated (which would be a long, cumbersome answer), or how an organization can deliberately revoke a permission that was incorrectly given in its name, or how an organization can challenge an invalid permission given by someone else for work where that organization actually owns the rights, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, nice to hear from you :) I would say mostly 'deliberately revoke a permission that was incorrectly given in its name', but honestly its not quite that because they do want to share the images and I'm trying to help them correct the errors. John Cummings (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you got a better discussion of this going at COM:VRT/N. Better to keep it in one place. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone research who is in the painting and where it now resides?

Can anyone research who is in the painting and where it now resides? File:Arnaldo Casella Tamburini in 1917.jpg RAN (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel III ? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Certainly likely. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Asclepias: Brilliant! --RAN (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço

Hypothethically speaking if we had a freely licensed photo that showed DePaço to a meeting at the organization that he allegedly founded would we be allowed to host it on Commons? Trade (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), " Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves."--Trade (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no issues to host any images not previously demanded to be removed. No need to censor more (and other projects) unless we're forced to (and if so, I suspect WMF Office will do the dirty work of deleting such an image). However, if the uploader wishes for their username to be hidden from public view as a precaution, a revision deletion of the username can be done and would be supported by me. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Does that not go against Commons:PRECAUTION? It seems like the only reason the court order only specifies ENWP/PTWP is because the judge is ignorant about the structure of Wikimedia. Keeping the photo here would essentially be exploiting that Trade (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons hosts freely licensed media in scope. The court order didn't demand removal of images from Commons or ban photos of the subject. WMF confirmed it concerns only specific criminal facts and related procedural issues, not lawful, freely licensed images. Commons is not a place for censorship. Commons:PRECAUTION is about licensing: we keep files with clear free licenses or public domain status. Non-copyright restrictions (COM:NCR) may apply here, but they do not justify applying COM:PRP to remove lawful images. Whether an image appears in a Wikipedia article is an editorial choice, not a Commons issue.

Until WMF receives a valid legal order explicitly targeting Commons, there's no basis to take down such images. WMF Legal or Trust & Safety would handle any such order. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jonatan. WMF would take it down via office action if a valid legal order said to do so. I as a volunteer would not or would never delete a photograph to please a government. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA

Do we have plans to upload the remainder of the 21,963 "Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA" from their website? We have 3,084 already loaded. I am not aware if someone created an upload template already so that the captions and other data get formatted the same way as before. I have a few I want to upload, but best if all get uploaded in same way so the captions and other identifiers get formatted the same way. See: https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog?f%5Bmember_of_collections_ssim%5D%5B%5D=Los+Angeles+Times+Photographic+Collection&sort=title_alpha_numeric_ssort+asc RAN (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: Category:Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA. Yann (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Size of pdf

Hello! I have come across some scans of books with old Danish law text. There are 29 files at https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Schous_forordninger (a Norwegan source). Many of the files can be downloaded in either low or high resolution. The total size of the files in low res is 5,94 GB and the size in high res is 9.93 GB. I compared 2 files and could not really see any difference. But I do not know if it will make a difference when making OCR. My question is if I should upload high res or low res. Thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: always high res. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have uploaded a few files and added them to Category:Chronologisk Register over de Kongelige Forordninger og Aabne Breve, samt andre trykte Anordninger (1670–1849). Rest will be uploaded later. --MGA73 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass license tagging & Check SVGs against GitHub for changes

1. Mass license tagging:

• • All licenses in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons need to be changed to {{MIT|2011–2022 Wikimedia Design & OOUI team and other contributors.|Expat}}. Is there a userscript or tool I could use for this?

1. Check SVGs against GitHub for changes:

• • First rename all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons per naming convention in repository
  • Check all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons against gerrit repo: */main/packages/codex-icons/src/; or on GitHub: wikimedia/design-codex/tree/main/packages/codex-icons/src.
  • Do the same but colorise all images as appropriate based on their actions etc. -- I know which ones need to be @color-destructive etc.

Thanks! Waddie96 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Why does the readme license differ (CC BY 4.0)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeh I was wondering the same thing! If you look at the blame for LICENSE, it was created in Feb 2022 by User:Volker E. (WMF) with the comment:

icons: Set to MIT license

Icons have been originated in MIT license repo and might also be
used in distributed closed source applications.
Also add all 'LICENSE' files to '.stylelintignore'.

Waddie96 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin Waddie96 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

User having trouble accessing this site from Pakistan

User talk:SohaibAhmadu#Unable to Open Wikimedia Commons in Desktop Mode from Pakistan. It's sheer dumb luck that I ran across this post on the user's own talk page.

Basically, he can access it on a mobile device, but not on a PC (and has tried several PCs). If he accesses with a VPN he can get in but gets a message that "Editing is blocked."

If someone can help him, including just an explanation of what might be going on, please either answer here and ping SohaibAhmadu, or answer on his user talk page.

Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

"Sunsets" vs "Sunsets on Earth"

Hi, Can someone explain me the difference between Category:Sunsets and Category:Sunsets on Earth. @Sbb1413: --JotaCartas (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Seven letters and a space? Someone being pedantic? To be fair, we do have Category:Sunset from space, Category:Sunset on Mars, Category:Sunsets on Titan (moon), but if that is the rationale, then surely Category:Sunsets by country would belong under Category:Sunsets on Earth. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe you're right, but in that case, all the photos and a lot of categories under the "Sunsets" category could/should be in the "Sunsets on Earth" category or vice versa. It's not a big problem, it's better to keep quiet. JotaCartas (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Outdoor places of worship

Do we have an appropriate category somewhere for outdoor places of worship such as File:Outdoor chapel at Camp Stephens (YMCA-YWCA).jpg? Probably also relevant to File:Freeport, NY - waterfront Catholic chapel 01 (9336906975).jpg and to things like the plaza of Category:The Grotto (Portland, Oregon), but probably not to public squares that might incidentally at times be used for a religious service. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Not specifically outdoor, but the first two could go into Category:Chapels. Nakonana (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but this is enough of a thing that we ought to have a category for it. Places of worship are not necessarily buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps it can go into Category:Outdoor churches or one of its subcat? Tvpuppy (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, though it's interesting that we only have a category for these if they are Christian. These are, so my immediate problem is solved. - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

There are things like Category:Wayside shrines or Category:Tree shrines. While not explicitly in any outdoor shrine category, they are outdoor places of worship. Nakonana (talk) 13:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a good observation! Thanks for the hint!

It does seem that categories like Category:Open air places of worship and Category:Open air altars should be used more often. What about prehistoric sites like Stonehenge? What about ancient Greek altars such as the Great Altar of Pergamon (and more)? What about the once famous sanctuary of Dodona in a sacred grove? -- Martinus KE (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mascot costumes

I would have thought that a lot of mascot costumes would raise copyright issues, but I see no warning on this category, and it has a fair deal of content that I would expect was a problem (at least half of its direct content). Am I missing something? I ask because if I can upload [3], I'd like to. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Would mascot costumes fall under cosplaying? We have a lot of cosplay photos and it seems like Commons is ok with that. Nakonana (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

CSD reason for crops of deleted copyright violations

Under which speedy deletion reason should we delete files that are cropped versions of images already deleted for copyright violations?

For example, File:1997 Filippo Inzaghi (cropped).jpg is a crop of File:Brescello v Juventus, 4 September 1997 - Filippo Inzaghi, Pierluigi Prete.jpg, which was deleted due to copyright issues (missing permission). Should the crop be deleted under G8 (page dependent on deleted or non-existent content), F1 (clear copyright violation), F3 (derivative work of non-free content), or another existing reason?

Alternatively, should a new specific CSD criterion be created for this case, or should such files go through regular deletion requests if the cropped version was not deleted within (for example) 7 days of the original image? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I typically go with F1. G8 isn't always accurate; in some cases crops can be kept after the original is deleted (such as if the original was deleted because of a copyrighted background not visible in the crop), though usually it's better to simply crop and revdel the original. F3 wouldn't apply; it's for cases like freely-licensed photographs of non-free artworks.

I don't think we need a separate CSD criterion. Unless there is a reasonable chance that the crop isn't a copyvio (such as my example above), F1 speedy is fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Well in my example above, it was never proven to be a copyvio, only that no permission was sent or verified VRT within 30 days of tagging. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, bit unrelated, if someone were to get around to fix this issue we could possibly have a parameter as |checked=unrelated and |checked=delete within {{Extracted from}} to mark if the source image's issues were unrelated to the extracted image or if the extracted image should be deleted (and thereby tagged for speedy deletion). Currently it behaves as {{Extracted from deleted}} and makes it sound as if the file has already been reviewed as fine. Ping RoyZuo & Andrew Gray. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't admins see the deleted image (and related deletion discussion / rationale) to asses whether the source image issues are unrelated to the crop? Nakonana (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes of course, but for a random user, looking at File:1997 Filippo Inzaghi (cropped).jpg right now it states "The source file was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image, like a derivative work which is not a part of this cropped image." despite no-one having made that review - it's defaulting to "it's fine", whne it should through big alarm bells. I wanted to go through all such files now, but wanted to know which CDS reason to best use for easier handling. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

For your amusement and edification (Disney and AI)

https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/08/disney-scraps-deepfake-dwayne-johnson-after-lawyers-panic-about-the-public-domain/

Looks like Disney is having some problems with the issues of AI and intellectual property, too. - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It's so ridiculous and absurd what corporate greed can lead to :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Uhhh, 503 HTTP error on file sometimes?

Just happen today, some files (upload.wikimedia.org) are returning 503 error(s) Does anyone the same issue? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@DinhHuy2010 same, also impacts the Commons images as viewed on enwiki articles where those are being used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed; images now load when I visit Commons pages after waking up. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

SiIvaGunner template

Every video on the SiIvaGunner YouTube channel is free-use according to the Highquality.rip website, with a unique non-commercial license not based on any Creative Commons license - this has in the past been almost useless for Commons given how much the channel depends on derivative works, but recently the channel released a Kevin MacLeod tribute album - the remixes will all have to checked for samples and melodyswaps, but this should theoretically be fine to post on Commons for the most part, at least assuming Commons doesn't fall under the definition of a "streaming platform", which I assume it doesn't given the license immediately after says "*otherwise* aim to profit" - would it be worth creating a devoted SiIvaGunner license template? Some of the original KFAD music could maybe also be posted under this (though BE THE KING ends with a Flintstones melody so that would have to be cropped).

https://sgfr.highquality.rip/sgfr-0012/ --RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ignore this. Didn't realise non-commercial licenses are outright not allowed on Commons. I'm an idiot lmao.--RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thiking about this again, I'm not sure if the SiIva license is truly non-commercial - the wording is "profit directly" (reselling) and it says that DJing and streams are OK. Re-opening this discussion.--RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Not enough. You have to be able to outright sell a copy. I don't love that, but it's a decision made nearly 20 years ago and never revised. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Save Our Signs effort to preserve images of interpretive signs as US National Parks that may be removed

I was wondering if anyone has engaged with Save Our Signs. I heard about them on an NPR program, Here & Now. I have written to them at their contact email address about using Commons as a repository.

• Save Our Signs. Google Drive. Retrieved on 2025-08-13.
• Here & Now (2025-08-13). Historians, curators say sign and exhibit removal at historical sites erases history. WBUR. Retrieved on 2025-08-13.

I did not elaborate much about Commons with them as I figure that was best done in a follow-up email, especially the discussion about licensing. Is anyone else familiar with their efforts? Peaceray (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Peaceray: I've already engaged. Their upload form makes all submissions CC-zero. Once they go live, they'll be happy to have us pick up content. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Excellent news! Peaceray (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

New page: "Commons:Digital preservation"

Hello. I created this page. It's a "how to" about using Commons for digital preservation of files, including how to make Commons a better tool for it. If somebody considers that it should be marked as an essay, I have no problem in tagging it as such, but in principle I don't see it as an essay. Improvements to its content, as well as links to it from other pages, are welcome. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Of course it is an essay. You are telling people which way you would advise them to vote on DRs. Certainly this is not policy or a guideline. - Jmabel ! talk

OK, I marked it as such. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Digital preservation is one of the most important topic these days. I hope it gets more attention :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wolmar von Treyden II

At Category:Wolmar von Treyden II one child, Johannes von Treiden, appears twice in the chart, can someone work out how to fix the error? RAN (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see this: the only place I see that name is as the lower of two in the third column from the left. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Someone was working on it at Wikidata, merging stuff, etc., from where it's somehow repercuted to Commons. It looks fixed. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

We need your help with forming a new OpenRefine user group

We are trying to start a new Wikimedia user group. We'd really appreciate your inputs here: New Meta page for OpenRefine user group Thank you :) -- DaxServer (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Video Game History Foundation acquires the rights to Computer Entertainer and has released the magazine under cc-by-4.0

https://gamehistory.org/computerentertainer/

Computer Entertainer is definitely an invaluable resource already for 1980s games. I wonder if anybody is going to start uploading those scans here. Obviously game screenshots would still be a COM:DW issue but it's definitely significant that this historic magazine is now released under CC-BY. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

should a new template be made for scans of this magazine? Howardcorn33 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

yes Trade (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

ok then. I created {{Computer Entertainer VGHF}} just now. Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh crud. i'm finding it difficult to manually replace all the tags. :( is there an automated way? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: While I'm not clear on the specifics of what you are trying to replace with what, the usual tool for this sort of thing is VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on the change i made to the template? @Howardcorn33 and Jmabel: --Trade (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

why does it say “ This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required.” at the bottom? doesn't the CC-BY 4.0 notice suffice? Howardcorn33 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

There are 3 notices in this template. The last line of the last notice refers to the second cc-by 4.0 notice being required. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ah well, i wont debate this further Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made some edits; shorter and communicates the same information. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That sounds great, but are we sure that they have the rights to all the material included? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Andy: are you saying that there is a significant chance that this 501(c)3 is lying on their site when they say that they have obtained these rights and are offering a license? Why would we trust them any less than any other institution that makes a similar claim? - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

1. No (for some value of "these rights").
2. I'm not suggesting that we trust them any less than any other institution in a similar circumstance.

I just tried to view this archive, and had first to click an interstital that said "Welcome to the Video Game History Foundation’s digital archive. By accessing our archive, you agree to use this material only for research or private study..." Which might be taken by some as a measure of the institution's understanding of copyright and CC licences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point i just assume no one outside of Commons understand how CC licenses works Trade (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated:

• File:Atari 130ST Personal Computer-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg
• File:Nintendo Advanced Video System cartridge console, data recorder and keyboard all together-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg

for deletion as likely copyvios. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I have responded to both as the issue (February 1985) discusses the Winter CES (which was January 1985) and the text accompanying the article mentions booths (by Atari and by Nintendo). Abzeronow (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Upload request

The https://earthquakes.ga.gov.au/ page, click Past earthquakes, click last 7 days, click Australia only. Pick the QLD quake that happened on the 15th August. Scroll down and select ShakeMap. Could you please upload this as a new image in a high resolution. (The copyright link in left bottom corner shows it is a creative commons licence which is compatible with Commons.) Many thanks, Gryllida (talk) 04:24, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I'm missing why you are asking someone else to do this rather than do this yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 05:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I would take a screenshot. I do not think that would be very high quality. I also would completely mess up the description and tags and licensing. If someone more experienced could do it, i think it would be better than having me do it and someone get confused and need to correct. Gryllida (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Better make sure the satellite images are actually ok. here's a long list of potential copyright holders, "Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community" "Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community". for example, Maxar images dont seem to be free. RoyZuo (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

UK pub signs

Sadly, the vast majority of images in Category:Pub signs in the United Kingdom by theme are derivative works of 2d art, for which there is no FoP in the UK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I thought there were warnings to this effect on the categories...Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

RE: Multi-licensing

Wow, this is complicated for someone who doesn't know. Are these pages up-to-date?:

• See the nice pretty table at Commons:Multi-license copyright tags! Easier.
• Commons:Multi-licensing
• Commons:Simple media reuse guide?

I'm trying atm to copyedit COM:Licensing, Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia

Template:PD-old-auto says "Please use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-1996}} in preference to this template." But why?

Old en-wiki pages on multi-licensing:

• en:Wikipedia:Multi-licensing
• en:Wikipedia:Licensing update

Waddie96 (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Waddie96: On one point here, {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-1996}} covers the U.S., {{PD-old-auto}} does not. - Jmabel ! talk 21:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeh, so my question is: why is it that we are making it preferred to use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} and {{PD-old-auto-1996}} when {{PD-old-auto}} is perfectly good, it's just we prefer use of the more general coverage template? Is it because the author is required to stipulate that exact clause US copyright law at the time of licensing in order for anyone to use that clause afterwards.

My concern being: as an uploader (and maintenance person in autopilot), I saw the comment on thex template:

Please use {{PD-old-auto-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-1996}} in preference to this template.

and was like WTF I just used some of those some time, and edited a central copyright help document relating to using this copyright tag and it suggested using it. The realisation obvi being about the warning mentioned, and Commons:Multi-license copyright tags. Waddie96 (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Preferred because being PD in the U.S. is mandatory, and it just makes matters simpler to combine the issues in one template. The other way is OK, too, but using a single template is just plain simpler for everyone down the line who'll have to deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Got you! Thank for explaining!! Waddie96 (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

"pretty table": I find the color gradients very distracting. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

They were worse, I corrected it using the Wikimedia design pallette... Waddie96 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Pretty == my definition being lots of information, consolidated; but now is it outdated? Waddie96 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

To me, "pretty" tends to be about aesthetics. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Template: topic in country|Medicine

Hi, that template has an error. Check for example, Category: Medicine in Italy. The template returns an error message: File:Lua error in Module:Wikidata/GetClaims at line 285: property-param-not-provided. Gveret Tered (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the template is under going some debugging at the moment, please the relevant discussion at Commons:Village pump/Technical#Abkhazia technical puzzler. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe so, but it's been about 24 hours and it is still broken. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

When is it OK to do something after similar discussions?

Hi. I was looking through Category:Film locations of Agatha Christie's Poirot in the United Kingdom a few minutes ago and thinking that I might nominate the category, subcats, and related galleries for deletion as pointless trivia. Looking through previous CfDs for categories of film locations, there's been numerous ones at this point that resulted in delete. So I do wonder if yet another CfD for something like this on top of the 170ish that have already resulted in the categories being deleted should be necessary at this point. But then people on here love to act like things are controversial when they aren't just to maintain the status quo for whatever reason.

So I'm wondering, what is a realistic threshold where it should be OK to do nominate a category, gallery, or whatever for speedy deletion without having to do a CFD first given the clear outcomes of previous ones for similar categories? Personally, I'd consider this a situation where it should be fine to nominate Category:Film locations of Agatha Christie's Poirot in the United Kingdom and everything associated with it for speedy deletion given similar CfDs and whatnot. Maybe not though? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You could probably try to get this raised to the level of being a "speedy deletion" criterion for categories, but until it is we are stuck with a CfD every time. Presumably, given how much precedent we now have, those should be rather quick and easy CfDs. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It's only quick if he can get anyone to actually participate. Biggest issue with CfDs Trade (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I was going to say that. Along with getting an admin to close the CfD. I hate having to ask an administrator to close or otherwise deal with a CfD. Especially when it relates to something that's already been discussed ad nauseum. It just seems like a waste bad use of time and resources. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

[Request] Add Special:AllEvents page to Wikimedia Commons

I request respective stakeholders add the Special:AllEvents page to Wikimedia Commons. Here is the link to Meta.-- Gopala Krishna A (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing that bad link is meant to go to meta:Special:AllEvents. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Made respective changes. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi can you please help with this task? Gopala Krishna A (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gopala Krishna A, this special page comes inbuilt with mw:Extension:CampaignEvents, which we don't have here, see Special:Version. This is to do with Community Configuration, and would need a consensus, and then a phabricator task. You may probably follow phab:T355666 - and imho this comes under the purview of meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes. @IFried (WMF) might have a better understanding if her team plans to deploy the extension on Wikimedia Commons anytime soon or not. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed reply. I will follow the task and wait for @IFried (WMF) response. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support Ainali (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Gopala Krishna A,

It is great to see your excitement about the CampaignEvents extension and desire to see it enabled on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for sharing your wish!

Fortunately, the Connection Team team has already been planning and working on this. Early next week, we will post the official announcement message about enabling the extension on Wikimedia Commons to this page. We ask you to share your thoughts on that message too. I will ping those of you here when the message is posted.

Thanks for your engagement! GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for responding @GFontenelle (WMF). Looking forward for the release. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello everyone (@Gopala Krishna A, @Jmabel, @Aafi, @Ainali),

Thank you so much for waiting patiently. As promised, I'm back with the official announcement message about enabling the extension on Wikimedia Commons. It was posted here, on Village Pump, a few minutes ago. As I mentioned before, it would be nice if you could share your thoughts on that message too.

Looking forward to your engagement with the extension once it's enabled!

GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

UploadWizard limited in Australia?

I've been in an email correspondence with an editor in Australia who is asking me to upload files on their behalf because "UploadWizard is blocked in my region". If true, this is news to me. Can anyone explain what might be going on? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait I received a similar or the same email and just opened a new thread below before seeing yours. Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh and did you check out the sender's user page? I just did and it looks like they sent at least one similar email to another user in July and got a response on their talk page that directed them towards VRT (including the VRT email). The sender also replied to that post on their talk page, so they already know where to turn to, but then why are they still sending out email requests to random users? Nakonana (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Donald Trung: as the one who answered the sender on their talk page in July and offered assistance. Nakonana (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Nakonana, I already started a previous village pump thread about this a month ago, I don't have the archival link, but it was discussed in detail here before. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:08, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that discussion: [4]. Should this be reported somehow? Their editing history does not look too promising and they continue emailing random users despite having received clear instructions to contact VRT some three weeks ago. Nakonana (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a possibility that this is just trolling and wasting time, but we should always assume good faith. If they continue to copy-paste the exact same message then a partial block only affecting the ability to e-mail other users should be in order (as blocks should be preventative and not purely punitive). Alternatively, it might be a sophisticated form of phishing of some sorts or to see which users are willing to do this, though it's never wise to speculate in such a negative regard. It's best to just assume that what they are saying is the truth and then we simply need to verify it, if it can't be verified it can't be uploaded. Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Struck comment as it's never wise to make such assumptions, especially not against another user. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I also want to assume good faith and initially just wanted to know how to direct them to the right channel (VRT?) because I'm definitely not an expert on Australian copyright to do the upload. I didn't even reveal their username and the full content of their mail. But then I saw the thread above mine being about the same email and also discovered your exchange with them with clear instructions to contact VRT and they even took notice of your instructions, so it's weird that we're here again. Nakonana (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

According to their email they have come through VRT, but VRT wants them to upload the files (they forwarded VRT correspondence to me that looks plausible), and they claim that they cannot do that themself for technical reasons. That last claim is what I am wondering about. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Krista.Watson1: can you explain what is going on here? It looks like you have contacted many people privately without letting any of us know that you have contacted the others, and that you have not been clear to anyone in what "region" UploadWizard supposedly is not working. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

She has now clarified to me that she is in the U.S., not Australia, and that the block she is running into is on IP range 51.81.0.0/16, blocked as an open proxy. (No idea why she thought the block was geographical.) @Jon Kolbert: you blocked this range. Is there any reason we cannot or should not allow this user to log in from that range and do these uploads herself? It would be a lot simpler for all of the rest of us who have been pulled into this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

They are most certainly using a VPN, and they would not have been able to create an account if the same VPN was active as they would have been blocked from creating an account. My advice to the user is the same that is in block message FAQ - disable the VPN and try editing that way. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Jon Kolbert, I understand the need for blocking IP ranges for users who are not logged in, and for brand new accounts. However I think established logged in users should be exempted from such blocks, since if they misbehave we can block the account. Maybe we should have automatic exemption for elevated user groups: probably for autopatrollers and maybe for autoconfirmed users. --Jarekt (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Received email request to assist with uploads. What to do?

So, I received an email by the "Email this user" function with the request to help with uploading materials related to "Matilda Magazine, an Australian political satire magazine that was published in 1985–8". The materials include a cover and archived newspaper clippings referencing the magazine and belong to magazine’s original publisher, according to the sender of the email. The sender says they are authorized and have a statement of permission from the owner, but can't upload themselves because "Commons is currently blocked in [their] region".

I'm absolutely not familiar with Australian copyright regulations, and am also wondering how they managed to email me via wiki's own "Email this user" function if Commons is blocked in their region. (Why would Commons be blocked in Australia?)

So, what do I do with this email? Ignore? Forward to VRT? (If VRT, then what's their email?) Something else? Nakonana (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

The Sender wrote "I am working on a Wikipedia article about Matilda Magazine", but I'm not seeing anything of that sort in their editing history. They mostly only added hyperlinks to a small number of articles and most of the edits were reverted (I'm guessing due to overlinking). Nakonana (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if, and I don't think that there is an ID restriction as in Great Britain. I assume you don't have an active VPN or Proxy connection? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

On files about hate speech

Case Scenario: I go on a family vacation in another U.S. state to meet my relatives. It is a long drive that takes about 14 or so hours without stops, but it does mean occasionally stopping for gasoline and bathroom breaks, which I inevitably take. While in the middle of Mississippi, I have one such break, inside a typical convenience store. As I seat myself in one of the stalls and look purposelessly around, a crude bit of graffiti containing two elements carved onto the stall's wooden panel. One element is a crass writing of President Donald Trump's last name atop a fascist swastika, both having been scratched out for who-knows-how-long. The second element, presumably scratched in at a later time, is fainter than the first, but can be made out as a brusque example of literal anti-Black hate speech. As disgusting as it may have been, this is not the first time that I have come across latrinalia with shock value. I also take a couple of photos of the whole graffiti, thinking I could illustrate the sorry state of at least one aspect or two of American politics, the sort in which bathroom graffiti and its content often manifest, and the fact that dirty toilets and surfaces are not necessarily the only things that worried janitors need to clean.

That is what happened to me last Thursday on my trip to Alabama. I have the photos stored on my Android, but I am left unsure what to do next. Leaving aside the fact that I try to steer clear of associating my account name with hate or filth, I am also in doubt as to whether the photos would count as being in Commons' scope. Granted, neither photo contains copyrighted material, and the speech, however odious, does not really incite violence or hatred, but there is the lingering fear of not being able to put either photo in proper context, and I risk something more than merely uploading a file that is out of the scope. Yet, a precedent exists as to files about hate speech, if only because they at least have educational merit. What would you do about the photos I have just described if you were in my position? FreeMediaKid$ 04:29, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: Depending on the complexity you can probably side step all that and just not upload the images to Commons in the furst place because graffiti (and probably its painted over) is copytighted in the United States. And if your going to say it isn't complex enough then I'd suggest you at least look through previous deletions requests since the bar is pretty low for fancyish, spray painted (or drawn) lettering to be deleted as COPYVIO. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't the US have a rather high threshold of originality? See {{PD-text-logo}}. Nakonana (talk) 09:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Generally, but lettering in graffiti can be pretty stylized sometimes and some standard about shading or something in letters that lowers the bar a little. It's hard to tell without seeing the actual graffiti though. What FreeMediaKid! could do is upload the images and immediately nominate them for deletion. That way we could determine if the graffiti is above the threshold of originality or not without FreeMediaKid! intentionally being responsible for uploading COPYVIO to Commons if it turns out it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

No, the US Copyright Office does not copyright stylized lettering: see https://www.copyright.gov/rulings-filings/review-board/docs/Earth-Air-Fire-Water.pdf . It's also pretty strict on coloring; I don't see much of a chance the underlying work is copyrightable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: It depends on how your defining "stylized." The Tesla shield logo is copyrighted despite being a glorified T in a basic shield. Of course you know that since you participated in the discussion about the DCMA takedown. There's also some questions when it comes to different color gradients in letters. Although I don't have specific court case to cite, but there's certainly been DRs for stylized graffiti of letters with color shading and the like on here where the images have been deleted. 99% of this isn't based on actual copyright filing anyway. But again, there is the Tesla copyright and takedown. Which sure, you could argue was granted due to the shield, or maybe the combination of the shield and the T, but who really knows. That's why I said it depends. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that copyright filings are not generally verified by copyright offices for accuracy or validity. While the offices administer registration systems, they do not usually examine or confirm the legitimacy, ownership, or originality of the work being registered. This means that even if a graffiti style or lettering has a registered copyright, it does not automatically guarantee that the claim is valid. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Copyright question aside, if this is a question about concerns for your personal safety, then you could remove EXIF data, like location etc., from the photo (the Commons app offers that option in its settings).

If this question is about concerns regarding potential legal consequences, then, as far as I am aware, the US don't have any laws that prohibit hate speech, so there shouldn't be any problems in that regard. And you can always add legal tags like {{Nazi symbol}}.

If this questions is about the fear of not being able to distance yourself enough from the upload to not be associated with it, you can always ask others to assist with the file description. But I'd say it's enough to explain the situation in the file description just like you did here, except, maybe, leave out the personal details like how long your trip was, where you were going etc., just write you found that in a bathroom stall while doing a road trip, but you don't endorse any of the depicted political views, it's just supposed to serve as an illustration of political latrinalia. Nakonana (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Upload the photos to Flickr to a throw-away account and ask an editor off-wiki to upload them through Flickr2commons--Trade (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  User:FreeMediaKid!, If you do this, I'll be happy to upload them for you. Or you can send them to me by email (strip the EXIF first, if you know how) and then do the VRT thing. But, frankly, if they were mine I would just upload them and say in the description something like "I saw these awful things and thought they should be recorded for posterity". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:53, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Deployment of the CampaignEvents Extension

Hello everyone,

Apologies for posting in English only. Please help translate into your language.

The Connection Product team at the Wikimedia Foundation proposes enabling the CampaignEvents extension on Wikimedia Commons by the week of September 15th.

This extension is designed to simplify the management of community events, campaigns, projects, and other on-wiki collaborations, in addition to facilitating the discovery and participation of all contributors in these events. Once it's enabled on Wikimedia Commons, organizers will have access to features that will help communicate with participants, as well as plan, organize, and promote events/campaigns/projects on Wikimedia Commons.

The features of the extension are:

• Event Registration: A tool that helps organizers and participants manage event registration directly on the wiki.
• Collaboration List: A global list of events and a local list of WikiProjects, accessible at Special:AllEvents.
• Invitation List: A tool to help organizers find editors who might want to join, based on their past contributions.

Please note the extension comes with a new user right called "Event Organizer". When the extension is enabled, admins will be responsible for managing the Event Organizer right on Wikimedia Commons. This includes granting or removing the right, as well as establishing related policies and criteria, similar to how it has been done on Meta or Wikidata.

Organizer tools, such as Event Registration and Invitation Lists, will only function if someone is granted this right. The Collaboration List is available to everyone immediately after deployment.

The extension is already live on several wikis, including all Wikipedia languages, Meta, Wikidata, and more (see the full deployment list). On Wikisource, it will be available at the end of August.

If you have any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to share them here or on the extension discussion page. We would love to hear from you before the rollout.

Looking forward to your contributions! GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Picture of the Year categories: everyone's help is welcome!

Dear users,

Our beloved Picture of the Year yearly contest is starting soon (15 September 2025) and multiple images are actually miscategorized. Some work is being done to spot images needing recategorization but spotting all of the images is not easy.

So please feel free everyone to have a look at all the POTY 2024 categories and to report on this POTY talk page any miscategorized image that you might spot.

Thank you in advance for your help and wishing everyone a beautiful day!

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:All media needing categories as of 2019

I noted that 28,000 files to be categorized, please in the Category:All media needing categories as of 2019. This is good news, as have been 50.000 files in February. Do you want to join the small team that is working on this task? If so, you may leave a note on the relevant discussion page, if you reach a funny or round number. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

All the Files from 500px.com with bad file names have ben categorized by now. Now the real work can start: 26,000 files to be categorized, please. Do you want to categorise some files yourself? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Though from what I've seen working on these, some of these are rather poorly categorized. When going through these, give some attention to whether they can be better categorized. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finding a fair number that have no categories at all, or things like Category:Unidentified airports.

There is a lot of work to do here, and very few people seem to be doing any of it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It's totally tangential but the amount of uncategorized categories seems to be pretty large. Any plans to go through them again? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Work is getting done, it's just slow. I used to keep stats on this but stopped keeping up because of other backlogs, but as of 1/10/25 these were the numbers:

• 2018: 28,328
• 2019: 50,751
• 2020: 51,498
• 2021: 128,464
• 2022: 82,065
• 2023: 97,302
• 2024: 188,549

Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Television channels versus stations versus networks

Channels, stations, and networks. There's currently numerous categories, CfDs, and discussions having to do with all three of them on here. All of which haven't resulted in anything except for people mindlessly shuffling images around based on their personal preferences. Although "Channels" seems to be more established, widely used term out of the three. But apparently it's either "stations", "networks", or a combination of the two on Wikidata and Wikipedia, which has led to disagreements and deviations from the current system.

Definitionally the word "channel" refers to the actual numerical frequency that the (I guess) the station is being broadcast on. While a "station" is usually the company running the channel and network is an affiliation of stations. In actual reality though all three terms seem to be used pretty interchangeably to just refer to whatever someone is watching on their TV at the time and it's a distinction without a purpose on our end (or at least it should be). As there's really no actual way to know if something like a logo is for a channel, station, or network without checking legal documents or the like.

But then maybe it's worth having separate distinct category systems for the channels, companies, and networks. Who knows. It certainly over complicates things and leads to a lot of duplication. Personally, I would prefer just going with "channels" and calling it good there as the category system is complicated enough already and that seems to be the main preference on here. It would be cool if the whole thing was settled one or another though. So does anyone have an opinion about it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Networks" is -as mentioned - the overall affiliation. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ext. "Station" and "Channel" however is more nebulous, as they're pretty much interchangably used in common useage. I'd argue that "station" should probably be preferred for individual, well, stations like, say, Category:WCTV... - The Bushranger (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: One problem with that is stations can have multiple channels. So you run into a situation where you end up with categories for stations, channels of the station, and network affiliates of the station. As well as the parent company (since I'd argue things ABC, NBC, CBS are actually media companies. Not television stations per se). Which just overcomplicates things. There's no way to know from looking at any particular image where to put it in that hierarchy. Like is File:KKCO 2023 (cropped).png a logo for a channel, station, network, network affiliate, parent company, or something else enterally and how is anyone suppose to know just by looking at the image? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the answer to that is extremely easy. You can tell just by looking at the image that "KKCO 11" identifies it as an indivdiual station (KKCO) and channel (11). It's not a network or parent company (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, UPN, WB, and so on) because those aren't individual stations. The staton/channel is likely a network affiliate, but as the logo does not state this, it is not a logo of a network affiliate. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So if a logos says "network" then its for a network. Otherwise, if it doesn't then its not. Sounds reliable. Anyway, so would that logo go in a category for stations or channels since we both seem to agree they are different things even if the words are used interchangably sometimes? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Could someone give an example from television (not radio) where a station has multiple channels, and we have content specific to the channel as against the station? Does this come up much? Not sure I've ever seen it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I can't think of an example myself but Category:Television stations was deleted in 2022. and a lot of the categories for them are redirects to ones for channels. Just to add to it Category:Stations is totally incoherent and should probably a DAB (it is on other projects). Looking at the raw numbers, there's 10431 files and 3854 categories on here for television channels. Whereas there's 3779 files and 1051 categories for television stations. So clearly people think there's media for television channels and that it's having categories for them even if technically it's all just "stations" or whatever.

Anyway, I assume that we can't just redirect or delete those 3854 categories whole cloth to ones named "stations" and something would have to be changed with Category:Stations if that's the direction this goes in. Really, it should be turned into a DAB regardless but that's a seperate thing. Except that it doesn't make sense to create categories for "television stations" if "stations" aren't an established category system on here and/or refer to something completely different. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Depending on how to define "channel," it could have several owners, brands, formats, etc, all of which might be considered different stations. I did a little research, and found a good example: Look through the history of en:CJNT-TV, (UHF Channel 62 from 1997-2011) which has been owned by various companies, part of various networks, and branded as ""CJNT", "CH", "E! Montreal", "CJNT" (a second time), "Metro 14" (the number representing its channel 14 slot on cable), "Citytv on Metro 14", "City Montreal", and (possibly?) "Citytv Montreal". In 2011, it also switched to digital, with a new callsign (CJNT-DT) on channel 49, and then in 2020, switched back to 62, with a duplicate high-resolution sub-channel at 62.1. Assuming we had logos and other images for all these different things, what's the best way to categorize them? If it's one channel (or one station), what are the appropriate parent categories in terms of network? In some places, a call sign might be multiplexed with multiple sub-channels from different networks. In the case of CJNT, categorizing by call sign might make more sense than by "channel" or "station" since the call sign is less ambiguous and more consistent over time. I don't know if that's true in general, but maybe? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Responding specifically to @The Bushranger: comment above regarding KKCO, would you say that any "local" station/channel that does not use the network-affiliated mark in their logo should not be grouped as such? Perhaps someone in the business may have a better understanding, but Category:WKYC logos may be a good example. It is a mixed bag, in both previous and current versions, of logos that use the NBC logo and ones that do not.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, for the individual image (i.e. File:KKCO 2023 (cropped).png), it should only be categorised by the network the station is affiliated with if the network is mentioned/featured in the logo. For the category for the station/channel (i.e. Category:WCTV), it should be a subcategory of the appropriate network category (i.e. Category:CBS News local affiliates) even if none of the uploaded logo images have the network logo, as long as it can be reliably verified as belonging/formerly having belonged to that network of course. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are also things related to the organizations behind the above mentioned items, like the Columbia Broadcasting System, National Broadcasting Company, 30 Rockefeller Center, American Broadcasting Company (not to be confused with the Australian Broadcasting Company), Walt Disney Company, Capital Cities, the WB, etc. Also, FCC and other regulated broadcasting call signs and analog/digital broadcast frequencies. And then there are radio, non-profits, and websites.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this confusion is due to the TV station-network model that is almost unique to the United States. For example, in European countries, the concepts are usually seen interchangeably, even if the network's channel or channels have a local programming section (in those cases, the station making local programming has not a specific proper name, other than the network name and the region where it operates). A rare exception to this is ITV, at least in the past. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Deletion requests for files in the U.S. Copyright Office Public Records System/pending

Any protests if i convert the files in this category from regular DR to {{SD|F1}}? Once the USCO have declared a file to be under a proprietary license there isn't really any mitigating factor or circumstance that would justify us hosting them --Trade (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I stated here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

So how do we on Commons determine the accuracy or validity of the claims then? Trade (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

By the same complex weighing of evidence as always. This is a factor, but neither necessary nor sufficient. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass uploaders who fail to properly categorize their uploads

Is there a policy against this? I’ve been having to do a lot of categorization work from a certain mass Flickr uploader who both lacks subject matter expertise to ID their subjects, and does not put in the effort to add categories that don’t require expertise (e.g. date or location categories when the location is clearly in the filename or Flickr caption). I’ve raised the issue on their talk page (and highlighted which categories their uploads should go into, including ones that don’t require subject ID), but I’ve got no response, no categorization, and they continue uploading several dozen barely categorized photos every day, leading to an ever-growing backlog of categorization work that I don’t have time for. Is there a policy against this? For mass uploaders this just puts a ton of work on other Commons editors. I’m personally of the opinion that if you don’t know what your subject is, don’t upload 300 photos of it.

In this case, the uploader clearly knows how to categorize (they do full-categorizations of some of the photos in the London area), which makes this more annoying. 4300streetcar (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't a policy against it per se. But it is extremely frowned on. Uploaders should at least put files in basic topical categories if nothing else. It's not even that much extra work depending on how they are uploading the images. Personally, I probably spend as much time, if not more, categorizing images I've uploaded then I do actually uploading them. I much do it myself then have someone else do it wrong later. I suspect a lot of photographers who upload their images to Commons just want the clout without having to actually do anything on here for it. Since for some reason it's pretty common for photographers in particular to use extremely vague file names, descriptions, and not categorize their uploads properly (if at all). --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think such issues have been reported on the administration noticeboard in some instances and also led to some sanctions like blocking the user from uploading until they've sorted out their mess. Nakonana (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We've had the occasional block over this when it reaches extremes (e.g. 100,000+ files, poor filenames, poor descriptions, gfew relevant categories).

@Adamant1: I much do it myself then have someone else do it wrong later. No matter what I do to this sentence it won't parse, but after looking at it for a few seconds I would presume that "then" should be "than", and there are some words missing.

Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

"Rather than"? Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cant we set up a system which demands all files are categorised? Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Or at least be stricter about enforcing it. There's no reason it take 100,000+ files before there's an issue. That's even assuming it becomes ones to begin with. A lot of times it doesn't. The standard should be enforced way before it gets to that point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I made a maintenance category for files needing additional categorization uploaded by the uploader on just one particular subject area, and skimmed the thumbnails and used Cat-A-Lot to quickly add files from the last week or so into that maintenance category, and ended up with 479 files uploaded over the course of about 4 days for that one subject area alone (which also excludes the dozen or two I already categorized, and hundreds of photographs of other subject areas). For all files they uploaded about 263 files in the 24 hours before their most recent upload, and 257 files in the 24 hours before that. This is probably well beyond the rate at which it's reasonable to expect other Commons editors to categorize at. Perhaps upload rate of uncategorized/barely categorized files is one factor to consider here. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: it really doesn't work. Bad categories are worse than no categories. This is one of those things that requires common sense and good will, and if one of the two is lacking no rule makes it work. I won't name names, but we had a rather experienced user, someone who has been employed by WMF, whose initial response to an admonition about putting no categories on their uploads was to add things like Category:2017 in the United States. About all that did was make them harder to find as needing categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Photo challenge June results

One stands out: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	One purple Tulip surrounded by a few white Tulips.	Flamingos, one shakes itself after a bath, Parc Ornithologique de Pont de Gau, Camargue, France	a goose surrounded by ducks
Author	MikeBurnsPhotos	Mozzihh	Chrissieminton
Score	17	15	11

Steam: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Treno a vapore nella stazione di Pontassive in occasione della Befana	Sinter terraces full of steam in the morning sun, Lower Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park	Vasca e sorgenti di acqua calda sulfurea al Parco della Mola di Oriolo Romano
Author	Repuli	Lusi Lindwurm	Albarubescens
Score	13	10	8

Congratulations to MikeBurnsPhotos, Mozzihh, Chrissieminton, Repuli, Lusi Lindwurm and Albarubescens. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Using infoboxes or creator templates in galleries

Yay or nay? I could go either way myself depending on the gallery but creator templates seem a little excessive in most, if not, all instances. Like with Louis Daguerre. I don't really see what the template adds there. At least outside of pointless extra scrolling to get to the images. BTW in case anyone wants one, България is a great example of where an infobox can go wrong in a gallery. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't they be made collapsible to only show the most important info unless one clicks expand? Nakonana (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I think there's a setting to have them collapsed by default but I can't remember ever seeing anyone use it if there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Like this:

Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)
	Alternative names	Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Clito Ruiz y Picasso
	Description	Spanish painter, sculptor and graphic artist co-founder, along with Georges Braque, of cubism
	Date of birth/death	25 October 1881	8 April 1973
	Location of birth/death	Málaga	Mas Notre-Dame-de-Vie de Mougins
	Work location	Paris; Royan; Aix-en-Provence; Avignon; Antibes; Schoorl; A Coruña; Barcelona; Madrid
	Authority file	: Q5593 VIAF: 15873 ISNI: 0000000122755381 ULAN: 500009666 LCCN: n78086005 NAID: 10580567 NLA: 35422161 MusicBrainz: 9d5f2c22-e2d2-40be-9919-534437143bb3 Open Library: OL44790A DBNL: pica010 GND: 118594206 SELIBR: 211453 SUDOC: 027071790 BNF: 11919660r NDL: 00452768 BIBSYS: 90058585 NCL: 000093750 NKC: jn19990006541 SBN: CFIV051221 RSL: 000033155 BNE: XX1637941 CALIS: n2004366423 CiNii: DA00376731 NLP: a0000001180893 KulturNav: 87305a20-73cd-45e9-8d1e-022b0b0c29e2 RKD: 63276 J9U: 987007266685605171 BNR: 000174361 Koninklijke: 068447809 Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural: pessoa8902/pablo-picasso NLK: KAC199621663 WorldCat

creator QS:P170,Q5593

Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Restoration of buildings in Germany

How to distinguish already restored buildings and buildings during restoration process? This category should be divided into category which would contain images of restored buildings and category which would contain images of buildings during restoration. Any ideas? Eurohunter (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, we could have a subcat like Category:Restored buildings in Germany. On the other: if the restoration isn't recent, anything like this seems a bit odd. If a 16th-century castle had restoration work in the 19th Century, do we call it a "restored building"? - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

GLAM Batch Uploading Project Feedback

Hi everyone,

I hope nobody minds me making use of this community space to generate discussion and feedback of some of the work I have been undertaking in commons this year.

Introduction to Auckland Museum Batch Uploading Project 2025

I have gone through what I would consider a commons deep-dive in the past 6 months while undertaking a batch uploading project on behalf of the GLAM institution that I work for. I have created some reflection-based project documentation if anyone is interested in this project, with some links to some of my personal technical documentation, should anyone which to replicate any of the processes I have worked on. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dactylantha/Auckland_Museum_Batch_Uploading_Project

Request for Feedback

As a newcomer to commons this has been a steep learning curve, so I would appreciate some compassion in any constructive feedback! I understand commons is a shared space that demands respect and I have done my best to not be a nuisance in my experimentation, although I do apologise for triggering so many abuse log flags while trying to workout my GREL expression for generating wikitext.

Potential for Improved Documentation for GLAMs wishing to Batch Upload

My work on this project has also had me thinking about the documentation available for GLAM or research organisations with data they are willing to donate to commons and the support and documentation available to them, this is something that I raised at a categorisation meeting at Wikimania 2025 this year and am still interested in following up: at this point as an outsider prior to the project, I would say the current situation of having three separate sites of information (categories, wikitext, and SDC) and without strong documentation about conventions acceptable to the community to transform raw data for each of these spaces, is acting as a barrier for GLAM workers to pursue batch uploading. This is something myself and others are happy to work on with feedback from others interested in contributing.

Templates

I also have found the current situation with templates to be slightly perplexing - while I enjoyed tinkering with my own custom-made templates, I believe Lua powered template usage is the most appropriate way forward to make use of the SDC work by commons users and I find it odd that only some of the mainstream templates used are Lua powered. If anyone has context for this, I would love to know what the situation is before I step on any toes.

It is also my understanding in surveying other batch uploading projects that many GLAM institutions make use of the {{Artwork}} template, but in my experience the fields are not always appropriate for items that are not artworks and it is purely a workaround to show fields such as the accession number that are important for GLAM catalogue practice - ie, human history artefacts and natural science specimens, or documentary heritage works. I would be interested in what the commons community thinks about potentially rectifying these gaps with more language appropriate templates.

Thank you

If you have read this far, thank you for your time and I hope my post has come across as I have intended it - purely in good faith and not a criticism of the community or anyone's work. It is my hope that more cultural heritage, memory, research and GLAM institutions will feel equipped and emboldened in contributing their data and content in the future and that I may assist in this effort if I can through my own experience and contributions.

Kindest, Dactylantha (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dactylantha: did you read Commons:Guide to batch uploading before you started? Multichill (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I found this documentation only after I had already started, although as a user new to batch uploading at the time it could possibly read a little easier for a GLAM worker? I understand the process, requirements, and errors I have made a lot better now, although the trial aspect of trial by error was a necessity in that. If you have any feedback it would be much appreciated, as I can see you also work within GLAM. If the template experimentation has been more harm than help, I can happily adjust them to a more universal template. Dactylantha (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Risca Cuckoo 14050486 (16308088083).jpg

Inverness to Kyle, or Wales?

File:Inverness to Kyle RiscaCuckoo14050486 (16308088083).jpg's name suggests Scotland, but the categories say Wales, as does the original description on Flickr.

Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Wales categories were added by Iain Bell who has been active within the last month. Have you asked him if there was any basis for them? - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I would say the description at the source, the other photos in the same group, the route of the tour. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Good spot, thank you. I have renamed all files in Category:Risca Cuckoo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, “Inverness to Kyle” was the user name the photographer was using on Flickr. As he as since changed his ID on Flickr, should we update the file and/or category names? Iain Bell (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, right, the Category:Inverness to Kyle is about the flickr user / photographer. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've renamed it, Category:Inverness to Kyle (photographer), to avoid confusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

(For the benefit of anyone trying to follow the above, when this discussion began the file was named File:Inverness to Kyle RiscaCuckoo14050486 (16308088083).jpg; it has since been moved.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This was a 2018 car-crash of a bulk upload: Category:Inverness to Kyle. There are a couple on the Inverness to Kyle line, but nearly all are elsewhere in Britain. Many are South Wales. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

SVG not properly displayed

File does not display

Hello all,

This is a technical issue. If there is a specific forum for this on Commons, please redirect me there.

At File:Provincie West-Vlaanderen in Belgium.svg my file version of July 25, 21:15 is not displayed in the file history thumbnail and was not displayed either when it was the file's current version, both on the file page and on the projects using it. However when I click on the small text shown in place of the thumbnail, I do get the the correct display there. I thought maybe this is an SVG to PNG conversion issue, but Inkscape is able to convert the SVG. The problem is the same for the other files I updated in this category. What is to be done?

--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Adobe Illustrator namespace declaration. File should display correctly in a couple hours (Too many requests error after change). Glrx (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Glrx, it works! Could you please also: either do the other files in the category (except Brussels, which already works for some reason, and historical Brabant which I did not edit), or explain precisely what must be changed in the code? GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@GrandEscogriffe:

When I click on the link you say displays correctly, I get not only a display but also an error message:

This page contains the following errors:
error on line 20 at column 33: xmlns:i: '&ns_ai;' is not a valid URI
Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.

That is the key to the whole problem. The WMF rasterizer also detects the error, but it abandons the rasterization and displays nothing.

The original Adobe Illustrator SVG file starts something like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- Generator: Adobe Illustrator 13.0.0, SVG Export Plug-In . SVG Version: 6.00 Build 14948)  -->
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
	<!ENTITY ns_extend "http://ns.adobe.com/Extensibility/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_ai "http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_graphs "http://ns.adobe.com/Graphs/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_vars "http://ns.adobe.com/Variables/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_imrep "http://ns.adobe.com/ImageReplacement/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_sfw "http://ns.adobe.com/SaveForWeb/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_custom "http://ns.adobe.com/GenericCustomNamespace/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_adobe_xpath "http://ns.adobe.com/XPath/1.0/">
]>
<svg version="1.1"
	 id="Belgium" xmlns:x="&ns_extend;" xmlns:i="&ns_ai;" xmlns:graph="&ns_graphs;" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
	 xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" x="0px" y="0px" width="1135.92px"
	 height="987.996px" viewBox="-0.302 -21.884 1135.92 987.996" enable-background="new -0.302 -21.884 1135.92 987.996"
	 xml:space="preserve">

The file has a DOCTYPE declaration that that defines several entities such as ns_ai. Those entities are referenced using syntax such as &ns_ai;. The svg element shows three such references.

The files at issue have removed the DOCTYPE declaration. Removing the declaration is OK, but when it is removed, all the entity references should be replaced by the entity definitions. Many XML parser routines will do that (if correctly configured) because DOCTYPE declarations are out of favor for XML that uses namespaces.

The tools you used removed the DOCTYPE but did not do the entity substitution. Furthermore, the tool got confused when it tried to output the string xmlns:i="&ns_ai;". An ampersand (&) is special XML character. The problem tools did not want to output it as a special character but rather tried to quote it by changing & to & (thereby destroying the entity reference). I think subsequent saves may introduce an arbitrary number of follow on #38; artefacts that also try to supply an & character.

The resulting nonsense will be an svg element with bogus namespace declarations such as

xmlns:i="&ns_ai;"

The fix is to edit the namespace declaration as if the proper entity substitution had been done:

xmlns:i="http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/"

Are you comfortable with doing that fix? It can be done by downloading the problem file, using a text editor to fix the attribute, and then uploading the changed file. I revert the bad file and use Rillke's SVG Edit to make the change.

Glrx (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed files in Category:SVG locator maps of provinces in Belgium (red location map scheme). They should work in a couple hours. Glrx (talk) 16:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Glrx: thank you for both the fixes and your very clear explanation. GrandEscogriffe (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Glrx (talk) 06:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Error loading image

When you click on this image an error appears saing "E Joaolucas123Z (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Joaolucas123Z: When you click on what image? - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/SS-Panzer-Division_Wolfsangel.svg/1748px-SS-Panzer-Division_Wolfsangel.svg.png this one Joaolucas123Z (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah. More to the point, File:SS-Panzer-Division Wolfsangel.svg does not seem to render correctly. If I try to view the SVG file itself, I get:

XML Parsing Error: prefix not bound to a namespace
Location: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/SS-Panzer-Division_Wolfsangel.svg
Line Number 9, Column 1:
<g id="layer1" transform="translate(-128.5151,-178.79348)" inkscape:label="Calque 1" inkscape:groupmode="layer">
^

GabrielGGD who uploaded it hasn't edited in 5 years, and their user page is deleted by their own request, so they are not likely to be available to help out.

Can someone here who does SVG work this out? - Jmabel ! talk 21:45, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

It is now possible to view the image Joaolucas123Z (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like 999real fixed this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a correct way to handle "bad" geoocoords?

I frequently encounter files with geocoords that are probably accurate within a few kilometers, but are clearly not an accurate representation of the camera location for the photo. Is there any correct way to mark these as such with a template? If I'm not in the mood to do a ton of research myself to pin down the location precisely, is there anything else useful I can do short of that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , See Template:Location "prec" parameter.--Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I never noticed we had that. I'm not sure I've ever seen it "in the wild." Instead, I've just seen a lot of rather inaccurate coordinates and no indication that they are either estimated (e.g. {{Location estimated}}, which I use a lot on my own uploads) or imprecise. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

For those wondering, geo coordinates when retrieved by the camera can be rather inaccurate, especially if the camera was started and you then immediately take photos. It takes about 20 seconds for a GPS signal to become accurate. It is also not uncommon that those photos have the coordinates of the location you visited earlier (the previous photo you took at a completely different location).

Phones are much more precise, as they fallback to, less accurate, but faster positioning information (cell towers and detected WiFi signals A-GPS) and then use gps to refine that positioning further and further. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata automatic categorization needs to generate a different category

Hello, all. Take a look at these categories for people of the German Confederation, and a redlinked automatically generated category on each of them:

• Category:Andreas Allescher, category Category:Men of German Confederation by name
• Category:Emma Jacobina Christiana Marwedel, category Category:Women of German Confederation by name

The redlinked categories there should have the word "the" after the word "of". I tried look for what would add "the", but couldn't find it. It is added correctly for some countries, such as the subcats of men/women of the United Kingdom by name (see here and here), but I couldn't find why it's correct there but not for German Confederation people.

Can anyone help? If this mystery (mysterious to me, at least) is solved, I will check to see if other countries' categories have similar issues. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe an issue where a "the" parameter needs to be set to true somewhere (like in case of the Czech Republic in comparison to the other countries in that list[5] or[6]), but no clue which module or template it could be. Nakonana (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that it is Module:Wikidata Infobox#L-1572 but most likely the modules talk page is correct place to request change. --Zache (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zache: Thanks! I'll follow up on that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

SHA-256 hash in Structured Data

There were attempts to compute SHA-256 hash for all Commons files, but the results are not accessible on Commons. Now that we have structured data for every file that can store just any kind of hash. Therefore, the issue that SHA-256 hash results are not supported and not accessible, is gone. As SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash is not searchable otherwise, adding them as structured data (SHA-1 hash is already being added) will make them more accessible and searchable, so it will be possible to check whether a file on disk already exists on Commons automatically. Midleading (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Dumb question, but as a VRT agent I quite often use the COM:SHA1 tool to find images uploaded here, didn't that tool search for SHA-1 hashes? You stated "is not searchable otherwise"? How does it do it? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Tool hosted in toollabs is not an official WMF product. There is no way to search for SHA-1 hash directly on Wikimedia Commons. However, if there is an SHA-1 statement on the file page, then you can search that using "haswbstatement" keyword. Midleading (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Nice :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

So is it fine to add SHA-256 hashes as structured data to many files in the same fashion SHA-1 hashes are? Midleading (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. I see little need to add multiple cryptographic hashes, and I see a downside in watchlist annoyance. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. A high cost for little benefit. Glrx (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think its really silly to have functionally dependent metadata (i.e. Metadata that is objectively calculated from the file) manually added to structured data. This is the sort of thing that should be calculated automatically by the system. That way we know its accurate, and we don't spend time maintaining it. Unfortunately I guess that is not going to happen anytime soon due to lack of devs improving structured data. p.s. There is an official way to search via SHA1. This is via the MW API. For example with today's featured picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allimages&aisha1=2b556d5ec82604e562617497b24b570fb6fb20cf&formatversion=2 Bawolff (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Watchlist annoyance is high when someone edits the file solely for such purpose. But what if this task is bundled in other tasks, like many multipurpose structured data adding bots do? Thanks for letting me know there's still an API for searching via SHA1, I couldn't find a web interface for it. Midleading (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think in a perfect world this would still be bad - I believe technical metadata that can be calculated directly by the file should be calculated automatically by MediaWiki and automatically inserted, otherwise it can get out of sync way to easily (E.g. someone uploads a new version of the file) or have mistakes. Of course we do not live in a perfect world, so maybe what you are proposing makes sense in the context of commons as it is today. Bawolff (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if there were such metadata produced by MediaWiki, I would not ask this question. Currently, Wikimedia Commons is already busy transferring media to text-to-image bots, so I wouldn't bother with adding huge server load just to produce a short hash. Instead, I may only add this information to some categories that I'm interested in and bundle this task with other tasks, and other people can also do the same. Midleading (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support brewing SHA-256 for files, and search by it. How does commons currently identify dupes? Problem: commons seems to edit SVG files upon arrival. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons does not edit SVGs on arrival. Dupe searching is currently implemented in SHA1, which is of course problematic as its possible to construct files that share the same SHA1 but are different. In practice its not that problematic as dupe detection is meant to detect accidental dupes and not a control against malicious users. Bawolff (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Still advocate switching of all MD5 and SHA-160 to SHA-256 for consistency. Indeed cracking of SHA-160 is admittedly possible but prohibitively expensive. OTOH SHA-256 is probably safe for the eternity. Upload a SVG, download, compare -> files are NOT identical. Typical changes: LF -> CRLF WtF , repetitive spaces inside tags reduced, encoding="UTF-8" added, BOM(B)s removed. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Bulk deletion nomination

Do we have a tool for nominating all, or most, of the articles in a category for deletion, with a single discussion (as opposed to creating a deletion discussion for each file)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

VisualFileChange, see Help:VisualFileChange.js. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to see the result: Two recent DRs which I created using VFC are Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Prince Amedeo of Savoy in unidentified years and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Vase inscribed with text mentioning the Vergobretus" if you want to see the result. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Good, but is has a heavily misleading name. Is should be named MassProcessHelper. Also the original question probably means files, not articles. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Should variations of real flags be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category?

Hello! I would like to ask if variations of real flags that differ only in shade of color or small details (such as the arrangement of elements) should be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category? I have noticed that in general, such variations are not included in this category, but are instead placed either in the main flag category or in the "Variations of X flag" category. However, there is currently a conflict with Freedoxm regarding a File:Syrian Flag العلم السوري.svg. Freedoxm insists that this file should be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category, since this version has never been used in real life. I object, pointing to the aforementioned practice of not including variations of real flags in this category. However, Freedoxm stubbornly continues to return Template:Fictitious flag to its place. In this regard, I would like to know the community's opinion on this issue. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably they should be both categorized and labeled as such. There's seems to be a real resistance with some users who uploaded fictional flags to that though. So I don't think it would actually work even if there was a consensus to do things that way. Really, any clearly "ficitional" flag should just be nominated for deletion as OOS on sight. That's the only way to actually deal with the problem IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There are some *notable* fictional flags (eg used in a famous work of literature that has Wikipedia articles about). So there can be such a thing as an in-scope fictional flag. But if it can't be shown to have notability, agree, it should be deleted. (I remember going to school in pre-internet era, when some kids found it fun to make up flags and draw them on paper. Unfortunately some contemporary counterparts seem to think that Wikimedia Commons is an appropriate place to put their fantasies, which it is not.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If the variation is actually used in the real world and has some notability, it may not be "fictional". If the variation is just something someone or some group on the internet made up, it should be labeled as fictional (if it should be on Commons at all, which per COM:SCOPE would often be not). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Infrogmation just said what I was about to say. For example, the Thin Blue Line flag and the flag substituting a peace symbol for the stars on the U.S. flag are certainly not fictional. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The key questions that I tend to consider about flags are "what does this flag represent", "who has used this flag to represent that thing", and "who recognizes the flag as representing that thing". Flags which are in scope typically have broad use and recognition, including by people outside the group identified by the flag. Omphalographer (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

CfD advertisements

Hello everyone! In January there was little CfD that still has larger consequences: CfD: Flora. I only noticed this now, when seeing that "Flora distribution maps of..." are now all in the "Plant distribution maps" parent category. This is weird and probably not the only result of an action that did not have a particularly large consensus: The CfD was opened in January, got ONE (1) other voice and was then closed by the proposer. The proposal was made with the intent to weed out a mess of categories, but so far I can not see lots of progress?

My main point is that it was not transparent in the slightest. I have argued before ("Georgia", "Historical images") that large-scale category changes where controversy can get expected, should get some advertisement, so that a broad consensus can be formed. A consensus of two people is fine with absolute niche topics. The entire plant-dom is not such a niche topic, so I now opened CfD:Plants for either the reversal of the previous CfD, or for a proper full discussion of the matter.

PS: On a related note, for those disinterested in biology category discussions: There are other large-scale CfD proposals that may have evaded your attention. For those who are still waiting on reactions, this could be a good thread to advertise. I will start with five proposals that I have participated in but that have not currently been resolved:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams - including the question, what is a "diagram", in the first place?
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Statues of tortoises - the old turtle-vs-tortoise question, but to classify artworks, not biological species
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Heimatmuseums - a language-dependent but somewhat specific type of "local museums"
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century - quite obviously the US did not exist back then... but how to call stuff in the Americas before the US were founded as countries?
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Books about World War I - also in a general sense: should we categorize "Books about <topic> by year"?

Please feel free to add other CfDs that affect entire category trees, and where you think the matter should get some more attention. --Enyavar (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Enyavar, for addressing this! – In general, I agree that:

• A community vote (and the voters’ right to take part) is only as good as the notification about the vote being held. A vote that is held in the dark of the night or under the mantle of silence is not a very democratic thing.
• Obviously, voters won’t want to be called to the urn for each and every triviality. So, a notification process should probably apply to such CfDs only which are likely to have wide-reaching consequences (large-scale category changes).

I might add:

• A CfD that is likely to have large-scale consequences should also include a discussion of its extent: Which branches of the category tree should the result be applied to? Which branches should be exempted and stay "as is"?

Admittedly, I haven’t taken much part in CfDs so far. But these Flora-vs.-Plants category moves/renamings in specific do affect my work. So, I’m glad that this topic is re-opened in a new CfD:Plants. -- Martinus KE (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It was closed by the proposer? That...strikes me as a big no-no, but maybe Commons is different with that than en.wiki... - The Bushranger (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It can depend on the situation. If it's an uncontroversial change that only effects a couple of categories then it's usually not a problem for the proposer to close the CfD. Otherwise, they shouldn't. I'd say this is the former situation. Although it's a bit of stretch to read any ill intent behind Sbb1413 closing it himself. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to claim this is a major scandal, I just wanted to make clear that this is another occurence of a not-entirely-okay CfD that should have had more deliberation, and I wanted this to get adressed and rectified in some way. Re-reading Sbb's first proposal, I saw that he seemed to have had only the parent category in mind, and nothing else. Omphalographer, who was the one agreeing opinion a whole week later, certainly had no ill intent, and also brought up the issue of the sub-categories. Up to that point, there was nothing untoward with the whole action.

And yet, Sbb closed the CfD and determined that not only should "Flora" be renamed, but also the sub-categories should "get sorted out". Those are thousands, by the way, but at least right after closing the CfD, Sbb moved only ~200 pages around, please Ctrl+F for "flora" in the log activity around this timestamp. I just realized now that on that very same day, several other mass-moves occured. I still struggle to wrap my had around the affair: Aves -> Birds / Felis silvestris -> Cats / Canis lupus -> Wolves / Caballus -> Horses. I have now found one discussion, which is titled "Plantae" and can be found in Category talk:Cats, and there I see a total of three (3) users (MPF, Proto, Sbb) who decided just between themselves, to simplify and restructure the biologial category structure, so that for all "common" names like cats, birds, wolves and plants, Commons uses vernacular names from now on, while all the "uncommon" names may remain in Latin. Hm. I may have misunderstood this?

Reading more. I am quite stunned now. IS this a major issue? Please note, I am only assuming the very best intentions from all these participants that I identified previously. They are experienced long-time contributors and they apparently genuinely wanted to make Commons more easy to navigate for people who don't know that "lupus" means "wolf", and so on. But in the end, we have now a pretty distinct chaos that I certainly wouldn't want to touch, in fear of breaking things further.

For example, I can see that something is wrong with the wikidata connection in Animalia: [Error in Wikidata: wikidata gallery item 'animal' (Q729) property 'topic's main category' (P910) should contain 'Category:Animalia' (Q6254409) (currently 'Category:Animals' (Q7157802)).], and I suspect I know why it is broken.

"Lupus..." were moved to Wolf distribution maps. Okay... but we still have Panthera tigris distribution maps. In fact, the majority of all distribution-map category names is still using proper biological and not vernacular names. @Nova, Aristeas, Ryan Hodnett, The Bushranger, ReneeWrites, AnRo0002, and Martinus KE: please ignore this if this does not affect/interest you, I just noticed that you are major nature photography contributors, maybe you can give input on the following.

In one of the Wikipedia projects, we would have a biology portal/project to coordinate actions like this. Here on Commons, I just cannot see the whole scope. What else has changed in February? Is this part of an even larger movement? Is this okay, and I am just seeing some parts that merely have to be smoothed further? Who coordinates the rest of the mass-recategorizations? Who has the oversight over the whole taxonomy and cladistic rules, is there a forum that is suited for this debate? Please tell me that my larger concerns are completely invalid.

Oh man, so much for a quick response to calm everyone down. Yes, that was my intention when I started the first paragraph two hours ago, and I rewrote a lot of this wall of text a few times over. --Enyavar (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Just to be clear, I can understand where your coming from. I certainly wouldn't have closed the CfD myself and it should have had more participation before being closed, whomever was the one to do it. Really, CfDs that involve more then a few categories should be closed and implemented by an admin. I had actually thought about proposing a rule along those lines a while back but never got around to it. Maybe that's something to consider though since users closing controversial CfDs involving hundreds or thousands of categories has clearly been an issue.

Although I will say that there's a large problem in general with low participation on here and CfDs are no different. So I don't see the low turnout as that much of an issue. It's either that, or the status quo becomes things just can't be changed or improved on here anymore purely because there's not enough editors to agree to the changes. Which you'd have to agree wouldn't be a fair, workable way to do things (conversely it takes absolutely zero discussion what-so-ever to mass create categories however someone wants to BTW). --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Sbb was likely justified in making most of those moves. Felis silvestris is the name of the species of which the domesticated housecat is an extremely common subspecies. Most likely the files he moved were moved to the right subcategory.

Technically "wolves" refers to a group of animals consisting of several species, of which canis lupus is one. There's not necessarily a conflict here, "Wolf distribution maps" can serve as a parent category with "Canis lupus distribution maps" being a subcategory. Both categories are in use, I don't see why the canis lupus distribution maps category couldn't be put back in use.

"Horses" and "Equus caballus" were in use parallel to each other for several years. In 2009, the description of caballus was that it refers to the biological aspect of domesticated horses but that sports, equipment, toys etc. belongs in the horses category. In 2015 caballus was changed to a category redirect (by an editor named BartekChom). I feel this was the right call to make; unlike the categories mentioned earlier, caballus and horses are functionally synonymous.

I'm personally unaware of other discussions of this nature, or other category structures I've been involved with other than the plant/flora one from February. I don't see work that needs to be done as an issue if there's clarity and consensus. I consider a flawed and inconsistent status quo to be more of an issue, which is why I got to work. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: (it's more just a general comment then directed at you, but whatever). I don't personally care about the whole thing with categories for animal species myself but I don't think anyone can argue Category:Ursus arctos syriacus in Tiergarten Nürnberg is easier to say or use then Category:Syrian brown bear would be lmao. That said, if we go with the common English name for plants then it should follow with animals (and whatever else) as well per the Universality Principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, "Plantae" is the scientific name for plants. "Flora" refers to species that occur naturally in a particular location. All flora are plants but not all plants are flora, but right now there is no "plants (or plantae) by location" category, because they all direct back to "flora by location". In other words, flora is treated as if it means plants. "Should we use plants or plantae" is a different conversation than the one that was held before, and I would be fine with either. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar and Adamant1: the Latin names are UNIVERSAL and PRECISE, so the question is "easier for whom?". Now everyone would have to know and use not universal and not precise names in English. The names are often different in American, British or Australian English, which one to learn and use? And the same name may refer to a few deferent species. In addition, I see comments that the categories are not for regular users, as they just want to find a picture, and don't look through the structure of categories. Thus, I find such a change useless for the regular users and problematic for others. It makes harder to maintain the scientific correctness, important not only for the Commons, but also for wikidata, wikispecies and outside projects (like those building AI models). Nova (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

So the question is "easier for whom?" @Nova: I'd say the average educator, student, or random internet user who wants to reuse an image from Commons for their personal project. Certainly Latin names are UNIVERSAL and PRECISE, but are they widely known by internet users outside of the field of biology? No. Commons:Categories#Universality principle "local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible." Again, Latin being universal is different then people universally known and/or using Latin. Although I'd argue Latin isn't universal anyway. There's this whole area of the plant called the Middle East where they use Arabic. The idea that anyone knows or cares about the Latin term for an animal or plant outside of extremely affluent English speaking white Europeans is laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: For all the average users, as you say, the photo should be properly described to be findable, and clearly state what it depicts. Not necessary categories, which sort things out. The same COM:CAT rule says, "Category names should generally be in English. However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language.". I couldn't agree more with the vote of MPF in the Category talk:Cats. Nova (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nova: Notice that the quote says "some" though. I don't personally have a problem with using Latin in cases where the English name doesn't work or isn't common for whatever reason, but nothing in the guideline or elsewhere says that every category for every animal has to be Latin regardless of if it makes sense or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: thank you for all your arguments and trying to understand my point of view at the same time. I don't interpret the guideline that way, and I'm not surprised there is no definitive statement. Nova (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on what is to be done with regards to all the renamed species categories? I support to at least re-instate the "<biological name> distribution maps". --Enyavar (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with that. It makes sense to have the categories for distribution maps as the biological names even if the other categories aren't that way since they are mostly, if not exclusively, used in biology. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Gamepad controller with grips to the joystick

Do we have a category for this? I am not of hosting these kind of images in the main category as it misleads people into thinking what the controller actually looks like--Trade (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the kind of image you're referring to? Omphalographer (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Steam Deck with Joystick grip

https://dbrand.com/shop/killswitch/steam-deck-cases?addons=stick-grips-steam-deck-black&design=damascus-holo-w&kit=skin#buy

Steam Deck without Joystick grip

https://scale.coolshop-cdn.com/product-media.coolshop-cdn.com/23PY7T/1c13efbfd081405886335aad2c95cd10.jpg/f/valve-steam-deck-256gb.jpg

My point is, should gamepads (and handhelds in general) that have been equipped with accessories or modifications be moved to their own category? Trade (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are multiple such pictures you could create a subcategory "Steam deck with third-party accessories" or similar. MKFI (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

AI tool for inverse halftoning?

I'm generally not a fan of using AI to touch-up or enhance images, but it seems like one area where AI could actually be helpful is for inversing halftoning (aka descreening). Regular tools for this generally do a crappy job and lose a lot of detail. Of course, I would not want to replace any original images with AI descreened images, but it might be nice to have them as alternate versions (especially in cases where there is prominent moiré patterning). Anyway, I was just curious if anyone knows of a service (preferably free) that actually does this well. Nosferattus (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Even without AI, I've found just a slight blur often does this pretty well. And I would presume that any "detail" AI produces beyond that is just the usual upscaling garbage. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Inverse halftoning is a fairly specialized process. General-purpose image models (like the ones available through ChatGPT and similar) are not suitable for this task; they will inevitably make other changes to the image regardless of what instructions they are given. Omphalographer (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What does ChatGPT or general-purpose image models have to do with my question? Nosferattus (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

For better or worse, that's what most people think of when they hear "AI tools", and it's what a nontrivial number of Commons uploaders have been using to retouch photos (both old and new). Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Improving Deletion Workflows in the Commons App

Hi all, Currently, in the Commons App we do not have a proper Speedy Deletion tagging system like on the web. Instead, there is only a "Nominate for deletion" option with a set of pre‑written reasons. I would like to propose some changes to make the process clearer and more consistent with Commons practices:

• Nominate Speedy Deletion option in the App

When a user clicks Nominate for Speedy Deletion, a menu of pre‑written standard reasons should appear, such as:

• Copyright violations – Copyright violations
• Duplicate – Duplicate
• Advertisements – Advertisements for speedy deletion
• Personal files – Personal files for speedy deletion
• Other speedy deletions – Other speedy deletions

This keeps tagging consistent with web workflows, and prevents “miscategorized” speedy nominations.

• Nominate for Deletion (regular DR)

When a user clicks Nominate for deletion, instead of a pre‑written menu, a text box should open where they can explain in their own words why the file needs deletion. This matches how we handle non‑speedy DR on desktop, where reasoning and evidence are needed for discussion.
Why propose this?

• Aligns Commons App workflows more closely with established Commons deletion policies.
• Makes it easier for newer contributors to choose the right process (clear distinction between Speedy vs. Regular deletion). (We can also discuss if we should allow only above 10 level users can have this or overall deletion request option)
• Reduces ambiguity and improper tagging.

Would love to hear thoughts from the community and admins on whether this distinction should be implemented in the App. There is also an enhancement proposal added to its repository (https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/6408). Gopala Krishna A (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

we do not have a proper Speedy Deletion tagging system like on the web We don't have any speedy deletion tagging on the web either. Or am I missing something? I only have the "nominate for deletion option" (and even that might be related to some gadget that needs to be activated in one's settings). Are you sure that the speedy deletion tagging is a regular thing on the web that is just available to everyone by default?

As for the proposal, do the two deletion processes need to be separated? Couldn't one just have a drop down menu pop-up where one chooses the reason for the deletion request, e.g. options could be "copyvio", "advertisement", "other reason" etc. If one chooses "copyvio", then a speedy deletion process is initiated. If one chooses "other reason", then a regular deletion process is initiated. One could also add options such as "FoP concerns", "scope issues" etc. which would then initiate a regular deletion process and automatically add potentially relevant categories to the DR or text proposals for one's reasoning. Nakonana (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Many possible copyvios are not speedy deletions, and reasonably often doubts about copyright turn out to be unfounded. Many advertisements aren't even out of scope (e.g. the 756 files in Category:Advertisements in Seattle), let alone speedy deletions. We would not want to drive all such toward being nominated as speedy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Jmabel has a point but that doesn't turn off the possiblity that the app should remain as is. For example, the app doesn't let the uploaders CSD-tag their recent uploads under G7, and pushes them into unnecessarily creating a DR. We have a well defined CSD criteria at COM:CSD, and I'm sure, we as admins, do check when we delete a file under any CSD rationale or make it turn into a DR. Tagging doesn't mean deleting. Having that said, we for sure do not have proper speedy-deletion tagging system on web either (one that tags the file, and notifies the uploader). Thanks to the kind Mdaniels5757 for working on Twinkle that addresses this challenge on web. I believe that trusted users should have options for CSD-tagging on mobile app, which it currently doesn't offer. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 13:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nakonana and Aafi there's Help:QuickDelete, available through the gadgets in your settings. It allows for customisable CSD short commands as toollinks. I'm using that quite often for NETCOPYVIOs or self-promotional selfies and wrote myself a customised link for CSD G2 "Useless redirect". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Wat are these drinking places called?

• 
• 
• 

This is typical drinking bar in some local stations in Austria. Mostly wooden structures.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar ones in Romania, where I haven't heard any term more specialized than "bar". - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The building looks like a former railway building, maybe originally used for cargo and/or for technical purposes, and when it was repurposed for Bahnhofskneipe (Beiz, Beisl), they expanded it by adding the part with the windows.

As to DE-AT names, let's see what the others can tell us. -- Martinus KE (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I almost want to call them pop up bars. That doesn't seem quite correct though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Post Restant

In the pre-digital age, people where often traveling/working in a far away places, with no fixed adres. So a Poste restant was a solution to forward the mail to. Are there any other examples and is there a category for it? Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Poste restante? Tvpuppy (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks,  Done Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

How to disable categorization using a template for one of the pages?

Hello! I would like to know how to disable categorization using a template for one of the pages? The reason for my question is the following: I tried to disable categorization using a Template:Shahada for Category:Flags with shahada, since the categorization in this case was recursive, but none of the methods I tried worked. Therefore, I am contacting here again. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Suppress categories}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Through truss bridges

1. I am not a mechanical or civil engineer.
2. I believe a "through truss bridge" specifically means one where the truss extends both above and below the roadway.
3. In Category:Through truss bridges, not only do a lot of the images appear to me not to be through truss bridges, but File:Through Truss.png, used as an illustration at the top of the page, does not appear to be a through truss bridge. Ronaldino, who added it there, is long gone, so presumably not available for discussion.

I hesitate to make changes in an area where I am very far from expert. Can someone who knows more about this please have a look? - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also not an engineer, but the impression I got from looking through Category:Through truss bridges is that those bridges have a "roof", while the bridges in Category:Half-through truss bridges don't have a "roof", and the description of Category:Pony truss bridges seems to confirm my impression: pony truss bridges are half-through truss bridges (the top is not connected by cross braces above the deck, as is for through types). Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/historic-bridges/bridge-types/Pages/truss.aspx

For File:Through Truss.png, I see a left and right truss, the roadbed on the bottom chord, and the tops of the trusses connected. Looks like a through truss bridge. However, the two views of the bridge are inconsistent.

Glrx (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)