Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/07

Help reviewing image uploads by one editor

Aladythatwrites has uploaded 2-3 dozen images. I've reviewed several of them and I have nominated them for deletion as they almost certainly have the wrong license attached to them e.g., college wordmarks are not likely to have been placed in the public domain, images downloaded from a school's website are not likely to be CC licensed. I do not have the time to review the remainder of their uploads but I strongly suspect they are all incorrectly licensed and should also be nominated for deletion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Strong warning sent. However, I believe that most of what you nominated for deletion are simple text logos, which can be kept. - Jmabel ! talk 05:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

thank you, all. I'm new to this, so I appreciate others' work on this. Aladythatwrites (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Reproductions of public domain images

I have an image of a Czech composer here. According to this source it seems like it's a reproduction of an image in 1894, which would be {{Pd-old-assumed}}. This reproduction is in 1996. Is it copyrighted or is it free to upload on Commons? WafflesInvasion (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Wait, I think this is supposed to belong in Villagepump/Copyright. Sorry! WafflesInvasion (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume, that it would be eligible per {{Pd-old-assumed}} (or any similar license). Pinging @Gumruch, Harold, and Jklamo: — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

In the EU there is no copyright to mere reproductions of public domain works. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-07

In June 2025, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 180 sysops.

• User:ChemSim was elected sysop (25/5/1) on 6 June.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

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

--RoyZuo (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

wikimap tool is down

I’m getting a 504 error from https://wikimap.toolforge.org/ and it doesn’t seem it’s transient.

1. Any ideas on how to get it back to work?
2. Or is there are comparable tool that would show geolocated Commons files pages on a map?

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Confirming down for me too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing@Tuvalkin: Thankfully, appears to be back up. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yay! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/03/Category:Lebak

Kindly look into this possibly-uncontroversial CfD that I opened months ago. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:55, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. --Achim55 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Now closing this thread.

This section was archived on a request by: 09:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:HistoricImages

Category:HistoricImages I added a category for these watermarked press photos for sale from the company "HistoricImages", they are all watermarked and eventually there will be better software for removing the watermarks. They buy press images from defunct newspapers. If we find a better version without a watermark we usually overwrite the image. Any idea what the parent category should be? Or what a better category name would be to describe the images. We probably have 50 of these but no way to find them. RAN (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Should just be a hidden maintenance category, in any case, and I'd call it something more like Category:Images from HistoricImages. - Jmabel ! talk`

• How do I make it a maintenance category? --RAN (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Place it under Category:Maintenance categories or a descendant, and make sure you use __HIDDENCAT__. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• @Jmabel: Did you try and use any of the AI watermark removal programs on these images yet? I tried three of them a few years ago and none were very good. I am sure some are much better now. The best of the three produced this: File:Olive Jones, President Of National Education Association.webp, which wasn't worth pursuing. --RAN (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm not working on these, and have no particular intention of doing so.

  In the past, I've had some success removing watermarks using the clone tool (and some other similar tools) in GIMP. That's the only program I use for retouching in recent years. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Would introducing something like en:Wikipedia:Proposed deletion on Commons be helpful?

For anyone who's not familiar, editors on enwiki add a template to a page (there an mainspace article, here a file) proposing it for deletion, with a reason for deletion. Anyone can remove the template if they disagree, and the page can't be re-proposed after that. If the template stays up for a period of time (there a week or so, here probably longer) an admin reviews the page and decides to delete it or not. Editors and admins also have the option of converting it into a regular deletion request if they feel that it needs discussion. This is generally intended for stuff that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria but opposition wouldn't be expected on a deletion requests.

One motivation for this is the large backlog of deletion requests, but I can think of other ways it could help. This isn't quite a proposal yet, I just want opinions. Apocheir (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons deletion requests generally default to "delete" so long as the nominator makes a valid policy-based argument for deletion and the file isn't in use, so I'm not sure how much of a difference a PROD-like process would make. Omphalographer (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

There's already speedy deletions anyway, which should work like PRODs in theory since they can be contested. Although I rarely see anyone convert them into regular deletion requests. But that's what they are in theory. I just don't think anyone usually cares about contesting the deletion of individual files on here as much as they do with Wikipedia articles on enwiki. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I think adding that proposed deletions would increase the complexity of the process for no benefit.

The large backlog of deletions in Commons is not because of cases for which no oposition is expected but for more or less borderline causes where the need for deletion is unclear. The simple cases for which a proposed deletions process would be applied are simple enough that they are usually deleted within a week. Additionally, setting a deletion proposal for a single file is more automated in Commons than in most Wikipedias, and therefore there is no need so simplify it. Pere prlpz (talk) 10:24, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A week? Commons:Deletion requests/File:!!!Basic strokes.jpg took two and a half months. That was a diagram of kanji stroke order that was so blurry you could barely tell what it was trying to show. Commons:Deletion requests/File:1 Без назви.xcf took a month and that was last year. Apocheir (talk) 22:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

How long it takes deletion requests to be closed is certainly inconsistent. That's improved some lately since two more administrators were approved though. A lot of this comes down to that. Not enough users working in the area because of how toxic and complicated it is or admins to close the discussions, Etc. Etc. That's not really helped with PRODs. If anything they would just exacerbate the issue because it would be yet another process people would have to be put the time into. I don't think PRODs are really that effective on Wikipedia anyway. It's not something that seems to scale well since anyone who does more then a couple of PRODs at a time just gets reverted, attacked, reported to ANU, Etc. Etc. Or at least that's how it was back when I use to contribute to Enwiki. Commons really just needs more contributors and admins period. Either that or AI to do everything instead (obviously I'm being sarcastic but that seems to be where things are going). --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Keeping a Category redirect

I've modified Category:Edifici Gil-Tecles so now it's a category redirect. The name of the building is not all that popular; in fact I didn't knew it even after reading a whole 500-page paper on Valencian architecture of that period. But it seems that the name has some use by some people, so I would like to keep it. Option B is eliminating it and having to search any pictures uploaded to categories too general to be of any help.

It seems that what I have to do is nothing. But I'm not sure.

Thanks!

10:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC) B25es (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link Category:Edifici Gil-Tecles.

@B25es: this is not how you are supposed to move a category. It does not handle the history well. Please read Commons:Rename a category, which is policy. Also "Building at" is not normally part of a category name; much more normal to just use the address.

Commons (and Wikimedia broadly) is overdue for a complete overhaul — here’s why

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

After years of contributing to Wikimedia Commons and other projects, I want to openly express a number of deep concerns and propose a direction for meaningful reform. Please read this not as an attack, but as a call to renewal.

1. The platform is stagnating. Commons — like Wikipedia — hasn’t aged well. From interface limitations to rigid community structures, the platform feels stuck in the late 2000s. There's been little visible progress toward modernization, and much of the system feels unwelcoming, overly complicated, and hard to engage with productively.

2. AI moderation must be implemented before uploads go live. Commons badly needs 24/7 AI-powered pre-screening of uploads. Copyvios, spam, or harmful files should never go live in the first place. We need to stop relying on burned-out humans to clean up messes that could be prevented entirely. Machine learning tools for filtering visual content, metadata quality, and licensing compliance are mature enough to handle this today.

3. The editing and review experience is hostile or thankless. It is often far more difficult and tedious to contribute in good faith than it is to vandalize. Newcomers face a dense wall of policies, unfriendly tooling, and inconsistent community support. The result? Editors leave, while vandals find loopholes.

4. Commons is flooded with low-value content. We should prioritize quality over quantity. Most uploads are marginal, unsourced, or redundant. A massive audit — ideally automated — should identify low-value content for merging, deprecation, or deletion. Let’s stop hoarding and start curating.

5. Disincentivize abuse through real accountability. Tying editing rights and upload privileges to verified accounts (e.g., through a secure third-party identity verification service) could deter sockpuppetry and long-term abusers. Most good-faith users would have no reason to object — and it would help reduce abuse, vote stacking, and endless reuploading of deleted material.

6. Mascots like Wikipe-tan need to be retired. Wikipe-tan has been around since 2007, and her design reflects a very specific (and exclusionary) subculture. It’s time for Commons and Wikimedia at large to project a more professional, inclusive identity that reflects a modern, global project. Mascots should unify, not alienate.

7. Merge all language editions into one Wikipedia — and one Commons. Right now, projects are fragmented and duplicated across languages, each with their own templates, policies, and standards. This makes translation and collaboration painful. We should aim for one global platform with multilingual support, not dozens of inconsistent forks. That includes Commons, which could benefit from being streamlined and deeply integrated with a unified multilingual backend.

8. Simplify and clean up everything. From templates to user rights to Village Pump categories — the entire system is overloaded with cruft. We need a deep cleanup: of unused templates, contradictory policies, broken workflows, and outdated assumptions.

9. The current governance model discourages reform. The “old guard” often resists change, enforcing policies more out of tradition than effectiveness. Meanwhile, real contributors burn out and potential editors bounce off. Reform needs to be baked into our governance model. Admins, ombudsmen, ArbComs — these structures need to be transparent, accountable, and re-evaluated regularly.

10. Donations must be anonymized. To prevent financial influence or bribery disguised as “support,” all donations should be routed through third-party anonymizers. This is vital for editorial independence and public trust.

In summary: Wikimedia Commons and its sibling projects must stop running on inertia. We need a full audit, a modern architecture, AI-first moderation, professional branding, and a governance model that respects contributors and adapts to change.

I say this not out of hostility, but because I care about what Wikimedia could still be.

Thank you for reading.

Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Certain Commons editors are fond of constantly beating the "Commons is short on admins" drum. No, Commons is short on warm bodies, period. The few regulars have a bad habit of being exceedingly condescending towards those on the wrong side of the learning curve, while giving a pass to people with exclusively or overwhelmingly problematic contributions who have figured out how to game the system. That's at the top of my list. This and other things are the reason why I've put a pause on contributing my original intellectual property. If it keeps up, I just may throw it all on Flickr and mark it copyrighted instead of CC-licensed. The choice is in how others choose to conduct themselves, really. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Grandmaster Huon, as we are here at Commons, it might have been more goal-oriented to restrict your expose to really Commons-related issues. For example, #10, AFAIK, has no relation to Commons.

Anyway, from my own year-long experience, I can confirm the problems described in #2 and #4. It seems indeed to be absurd that the constantly growing number of uploads needs to be manually checked by (unpaid) volunteers for issues such as being a copyvio, which IMO could easily be taken over by a AI routines/bots. --Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Grandmaster Huon,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. While there are definitely some valid points in your post — particularly around modernization and contributor burnout — I think it’s important to address a few things for the sake of context and transparency.

First, it’s a bit misleading to frame this as coming from a longtime contributor. According to public user records, your editing history spans just under two years, during which you've been indefinitely blocked on two different Wikimedia projects — and, until very recently, were also indefinitely blocked here on Commons. You successfully appealed that block just yesterday, and now you’re presenting a sweeping reform manifesto as though you’ve been here for a long time. That dissonance undermines the credibility of the post.

Second, while there's nothing wrong with using tools to help write clearly, this reads very much like something generated (or heavily assisted) by ChatGPT or similar AI. Again, not a crime — but it's worth being transparent if you’re going to frame this as a deeply personal appeal.

Lastly, while critique is always welcome, reform is most credible when grounded in experience and mutual trust. Coming off a block and immediately calling for top-to-bottom change, including drastic measures like account verification, mascot retirements, and forced platform unification — all while dismissing the current community as stagnant or outdated — feels more like a provocation than a good-faith invitation to collaborate.

If you genuinely want to help Commons improve, I’d suggest a more constructive path: engage in active contribution, participate in discussions with humility, and propose incremental change where it’s grounded in actual experience here. That’s how real reform happens — not through sweeping manifestos from a just-unblocked account.

Respectfully, ReneeWrites (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this was written with the help of AI, as it helps me articulate my statements. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who wrote it, but how it resonates. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, if AI writes it, AI can read it. No reason for humans to be involved at either end. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Wow! Honestly, my mind couldn't tell the difference between a well-written statement and... well, AI. All of this is more of an emotional appeal to those burned-out users, actually. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• If AI were to filter my uploads and make decisions to exclude content, I would leave the project.
• You refer to "low-value content" but give no examples. You do not even state criteria for such value
• I may be mistaken, but I haven't seen anyone here reference Wikipe-tan in about a decade. Can you give me an example from the past year?
• It is hard enough for Commons and Wikidata to coordinate across languages. Why would you want to impose our most difficult issue on the creation of articles that are inherently each monolingual?

- Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Also, frankly, coming back from a well-deserved block to tell us we should all be doing things very differently shows a lot of gall. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your candid feedback, Jmabel. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify and respond.

1. On AI filtering and content exclusion:

I understand your concern about AI making exclusion decisions. My intention is not to replace human judgment but to use AI as an assistant to flag potentially problematic or low-quality uploads before they go live, allowing human reviewers to make final calls. This would reduce the workload on volunteers, not remove their authority.

2. Defining “low-value content”:

By “low-value,” I mean media files that:

Lack clear educational, encyclopedic, or documentary purpose.

Are duplicates, blatant copyright violations, or trivial fan art without relevance.

Have poor or no sourcing or context.

The goal is not to censor creativity but to maintain Commons as a high-quality repository that serves global knowledge needs.

3. Regarding Wikipe-tan:

While it may be true that Wikipe-tan isn’t frequently referenced recently, she remains an emblematic mascot representing an older era and subculture within Wikimedia’s history that no longer reflects our current mission or broad community. The suggestion to retire her is symbolic of broader cultural modernization.

4. On language coordination and multilingual articles:

I recognize that articles are inherently monolingual. My vision is not to force projects to merge immediately, but to work towards a unified backend and AI-assisted translation tools to reduce duplication and inconsistencies over time. This is a long-term goal, not an overnight change.

5. On my history and “gall”:

I accept that coming back after a block and proposing sweeping changes is unusual. However, my motivation is to contribute constructively to Wikimedia’s future. I hope this can be judged on the merit of ideas rather than personal history.

Thank you again for engaging in this dialogue. I welcome continued discussion on how to improve Wikimedia sustainably. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Preemptively closing this before it becomes a complete circus. Throwing out a bunch of vague thoughts that are a mix of unrelated to Commons, non Commons-specific, utterly unworkable, exceedingly unlikely to be accepted by the community, and bereft of useful detail is not the way to start a productive conversation.

@Grandmaster Huon: , I suggest you carefully Jmabel and ReneeWrites told you. Immediately after an unblock is an exceptionally poor time to propose systemic change. That is not going to establish you as a trustable community member, and neither is posting LLM-generated drivel. If you want to eliminate "low-value uploads", you can start with some of your own. Just since your unblock, you're uploaded multiple uselessly-blurry files (1, 2, 3), multiple sets of duplicates (4a/4b, 5a/5b), and vacation photos with useless filename and description (6) - and none of the uploads are well-categorized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi.1415926535 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Renaming a Category

I read "Commons:Rename a category" and not sure how to accomplish this myself so here I am... I previously posted a query about this issue at ”Commons:Village pump/Technical“. To me the Commons "Category:Wilmington insurrection of 1898" is mis-named, it should be "Category:Wilmington massacre". There isn't more than one event of this type on more than one date that happened in Wilmington, NC and to call it an insurrection mischaracterizes the mass murders and toppling of a municipal government that happened there on November 10, 1898. See the Wikipedia article "Wilmington massacre". (And I really would do the linking thing but cannot figure out how to do it over here on Commons...) – Shearonink (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

For a potentially controversial rename like this, the right way to approach it is to start a CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright of audio works that are only partially generated by AI

Hello! I found on Pixabay, this music that claims to be AI-generated. However, going to the artist's YouTube channel, it seems like the Roneat ek (which I would say is the main instrument in the music), is in fact not AI-generated.

If this is uploadable to Commons, what license would this go under? I know that {{Pixabay}} wouldn't be applicable since this was uploaded to Pixabay this year, way after Pixabay stopped licensing their media under CC0. COM:AI only mentions a case in which people modified AI work that was a visual work, which are treated differently than audio works in the US. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably avoid just to be safe Trade (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Category for files that were ripped from video games

Do we have a category for this? I am specifically talking about this icon--Trade (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Video game icons? Tvpuppy (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Problem is that the category is not limited to files that were ripped from games Trade (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

If we were to have a distinct cat for that (and I'm not at all sure we should), surely it would be a subcat of Category:Video game icons, no? - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Icons ripped from video games is a thing now. Trade (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps I’m not understanding, what’s the difference between an icon ripped from video games and a regular video game icon? Tvpuppy (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Purpose it to indicate the source of the files Trade (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand now, so isn’t simply “Icons from video games” a more suitable name for the category? Tvpuppy (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

No, that's ambiguous Trade (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: what exactly is the definition for "ripped from"? Directly copied from game assets, taken from marketing resources, screenshots, something else? MKFI (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

1 Trade (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I suspect you typo'd here, or something. That is not in any way a reply to the question asked. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

He asked me which definition. I said the first one? Trade (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Which makes them likely copyright violations. Indeed, both of the contents of that new category are almost certainly copyright violations. The James Bond "007 and gun" logo is copyrighted. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That's called a trademark Trade (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of the difference, thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

File:Marcellus Hartley Dodge Jr. (1908-1930) portrait.png

Can someone add File:Marcellus Hartley Dodge Jr. (1908-1930) portrait.png to his wikidata entry at Q6756466? I'm blocked at Wikidata and I find at least one a day where an image is missing from data but available at Commons, is there any way to flag an image so a bot can add it if none is at data? --RAN (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): you were recently warned by a Wikidata admin that you may not make proxy requests for edits to Wikidata, and that anyone who edits Wikidata on your behalf there is subject to having their account blocked. Please do not put other people at that risk.

I would truly hate to have to block you here for importing problems from another wiki and placing others at risk, but if you continue to use Commons as a forum to request proxy edits against the policy of a sister wiki, you would put us (Commons admins) in a position where we have no other reasonable choice. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Just saw that now, that is why a bot should do it. Just as we have bots perform other routine maintenance. --RAN (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , bots are "other users". You may not request that other users proxy edit for you on Wikimedia projects on which you are blocked or banned, full stop. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

    Maybe he is suggesting that a bot should automatically add images to Wikidata items when an image has depicts set to that Wikidata item.

    Anyway, this is a truly brilliant situation where no one can add this image now. So if someone wants something to not ever be done on Wikidata all they have to do is get blocked and then ask other people to do it, then no one can ever do it.  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

    • There's no need to make such a hyperbolic reducio ad absurdium. People can absolutely do it. RAN cannot ask them to do it. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I've added the image (applying the spirit of en.Wikipedia's "ignore all rules"), since Wikidata, the wider Wikimedia movement, and the open web at large are all better with it there than without.

In future since RAN still has access to his Wikidata talk page, I suggest he posts there the QID and filename of any such "missing" images, without additional commentary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

More intense monitoring of copyvios

There must be stricter monitoring of potential copyvios. Many still got slipped through, like File:Southern Uptown Area Cebu.jpg. We should not rely on EXIF metadata claims in some instances, since some may have been added by the erring uploaders, to avoid being suspected of. Ping PhiliptheNumber1, who also detected a copyvio image that contained fabricated metadata (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Line 2 Marikina–Pasig station exterior 2.jpg).

I'm also proposing to limit FileEx/Importer tool to "autopatrolled" users based on Wikimedia Commons user rights (not local Wikipedias' user rights). I had encountered at least one case of English Wikipedia media content that turned out to be a copyright violation: Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices/2024#2010 Winter Olympics Canada clebrating hockey gold medal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is this tool? Trade (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

FileExporter/FileImporter is a tool that easily transfers local files not tagged with "do not move to Commons" templates from Wikipedias to Commons. I have been using this to transfer eligible enwiki images of Patrickroque01 (that don't show recent public buildings and monuments). However, there is a tendency for inappropriate local wiki files to be transferred to Commons using this tool, and there has been some cases of supposedly "safe" enwiki files becoming tagged as problematic once on Commons (like copyrighted artworks), and at least there's one instance of an enwiki file that was flagged for DMCA take down (though it was transferred to Commons using different tool). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:43, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: "false and erring metadata" and "We should not rely on EXIF metadata claims in some instances, since some may have been added by the erring uploaders, to avoid being suspected of."? Well, while it's technically possible to fake EXIF, you would need some not-so-easily accessible tools for that (like EXIFTool and possibly a GUI for it, too, cf. Commons:EXIF). Your example looks different: it's more likely a photograph from a screen or print, where the uploader may have used a software to remove privacy-relevant data (GPS or the like), only somehow keeping the model and make of a smartphone. But that's still enough to raise suspicion: you don't have ISO values, no focal length, no exposure duration, no aperture value, no camera software... So, it's clearly a malformed dataset, which makes for a stark reduced value as evidence for being a legitimate photo. It's rather becoming the opposite. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc no, it is a straight copyvio - a photo grabbed from the Facebook page of Pinoy content creator The Island Nomad, and the uploader purposely removed FB metadata and added bogus Huawei exif metadata to remove suspicions on copyright status. The Island Nomad post predates the upload here. I'm not convinced that Marmar0222 (talk · contribs) is the same person behind the Pinoy content creator. Marmar0222 also grabbed an image from a w:en:Rappler contributor's Facebook post and did the same fabrication of metadata (see Marmar0222's talk page). The Huawei metadata in these low-resolution images (that are post-2020) are bogus and fabricated. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Are we certain it was deliberately "purposely removed", or simply remvoed as an artifact of cutting and pasting the images? If they were lifted from FB, yeah, that's copyvio, but simply right-click-saving an image and then editing it in an editor can result in that editor's metadata overwriting any original ones. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Problem with Template pages

Hmmm...

So, just noticed that whenever I'm on a "Template:" space page, the tabs at the top kind of...shift down when the page completely loads, so that they're half hidden by the bar at the top of the page. On Firefox, latest version, with Monobook. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm the same problem. Also Monobook + Firefox. MKFI (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I have cross-posted this also in en-wiki: en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#On_template_namespace_with_Monobook_skin_the_tabs_are_half-buried. MKFI (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I confirm too, the Monobook theme is quite underrated. (Firefox Nightly). Sev6nWiki (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Files from 500px.com with bad file names

Category:Files from 500px.com with bad file names still has over 18,000 files, which means few people are working on the problem. A fair number of the files have enough information either in categories or descriptions that it should be fairly easy to propose reasonable file names. Obviously, help from people with filemover privileges would be especially useful, but even without that you can use {{Rename}} and someone else can follow up the actual move.

If moving:

• Please do not delete the redirect, these have been here for quite some time and someone may be relying on the link.
• If a file currently has a name like File:BLAH (41777424).jpeg, please leave the parenthesized number intact when you rename the file. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I added the above bullet points to the category page description, since I think they are quite helpful for people to know. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Why should we retain a meaningless serial number from an external site? It holds no value whatsoever to Commons or reusers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: As I understand it, there are people here who seem to find those useful for detecting duplicates. Not my issue, but I was chewed out for not doing so in the past. - Jmabel ! talk 00:30, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

That was always a silly excuse - no one was actually using them to detect duplicates when uploading - and it's completely irrelevant here because all the files are already uploaded. I've removed it from the category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how it works with 500px.com but at least Flickr2Commons checks for duplicates during imports using the numbers. So they serve a purpose there. It might be different with 500px.com but they aren't totally pointless in general. Probably it depends on the site and how the images are being uploaded. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The 500px import was a one-time affair - the site no longer allows users to tag their images as Creative Commons, and now primarily focuses on stock photo licensing. So there's no need to support future duplicate detection. Omphalographer (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

OK. It makes sense why the numbers wouldn't be necessary in this instance then. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

LES LARMES D’ÉROS

http://www.leslarmesderos.com/

sell physical photographs and works of art whose copyright has expired and have digital images of them online

most of these are rare, and once sold, the images have succumbed to linkrot

some that have succumbed to linkrot have been archived at commons.wikimedia.org

is there a task force or project to save these ?

Piñanana (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Inflation calculator

Where can I bring up migrating the Wikipedia inflation calculator template to a WMF site so that it can be used universally by all projects? I tried migrating it to Commons but it was too difficult, it involved dozens of subroutines that have to be migrated for each currency. It would be awesome in Commons space so we can have a note where we know what $500 in 1880 is worth today from historical news articles. It would be helpful in Wikisource too. RAN (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it’s easier to do this in Wikifunctions. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me try there. --RAN (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

See mw:Global_templates and pages linked from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Image extraction request

Most, but not all, of the images in https://www.istoria-artei.ro/resources/files/SCIAAP_2013_Art_01_Serbanescu.pdf are in the public domain and would be worth having; the Iosif Iser works are 3-1/2 years from being in the public domain (a good reminder, by the way, that some 120-year old work is still copyrighted). Ideally, extraction & upload should be done by someone who knows enough Romanian to provide decent descriptions, etc. I'd do this myself, but I have way too much else on my plate. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Extracting the images as such is pretty trivial, but the weird thing is that the images are cut apart into different files. E.g. that first image with soldiers walking is not a single image file but two: one that ends around their knees and a second that starts around the dogs' heads. Very bizarre. Plus, out of 139 images, almost all are JPEG, but a handful are PNG. Do you want me to reassemble the component files into a single image when they are split up like this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:53, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, my understanding of Romanian is extremely limited. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be disproportionate to the effort involved.

There are early works of a few important artists there, though, and quite a few interesting commentaries on Romanian politics. It would almost certainly be worth capturing the works by Nicolae Petrescu-Găină, which all should be PD. Some of the others of importance are still in copyright in Romania: Iosif Iser, probably the most important artist represented here, in 1958, so as noted above his early work will soon be out of copyright; Ary Murnu and Iosef Franz Steurer, the latter also a pretty important artist, in 1971. Nicolae Mantu is probably one step down; he died in 1957, so his work will be OK in 2028.) So maybe other than Nicolae Petrescu-Găină it's not worth doing at this time, but certainly 3-1/2 years from now those early works by Iser would be very worth having. (For a "Western" comparison, it would be as if someone like Andrew Wyeth had early work as a political cartoonist.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll just respond if you have some kind of action for me. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Studio Biederer

Category:Biederer Studio refers to : w:Studio Biederer and w:Ostra Studio

can a Category be a redirect? such as:

Category:Ostra Studio

Category:Studio Biederer

Piñanana (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Piñanana: are you just asking to create a redirect from Category:Ostra Studio to Category:Biederer Studio? Yes, that would be OK. Don't create a "hard" redirect, though, use {{Cat redirect}}. And, if you are doing this, you should expand the hat note of Category:Biederer Studio to mention Ostra Studio. - Jmabel ! talk 18:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know... Ostra Studio and Studio Biederer and Biederer Studio refer to the same set since there seems to be no way to definitively separate them, but some items have metadata that claims one of the three. So now I wonder if there could be a superset that would contain all three. I don't comprehend the full consequences of { {Cat redirect} }

Piñanana (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaways nomination

This is to notify that I have nominated Lymantria for a merchandise giveaway (a T-shirt) at m:Merchandise giveaways/Nominations/Lymantria. Please give your support for a T-shirt for them. Thank you! 〈興華街〉📅❓ 15:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Request to sort out categories of railway images in Category:Upper Arley, etc..

I have been categorizing and sorting images of the UK for about a year and a half now. The continuing influx of new images from Geograph makes it too hard to keep up. Also, since the talk pages of Category:Rail transport in Great Britain and Category:Rail transport in the United Kingdom are more-or-less dormant (and not followed), I thought it was best to make a request here.

The images mainly concern heritage and preserved railway vehicles, stations and events on the Severn Valley Railway from 2023 and 2024. Categories that are affected and should be checked are:

• Category:Upper Arley
• Category:Kidderminster Foreign
• Category:Kidderminster
• Category:Bewdley

I rather want to concentrate on current railway photography, heritage railways are not as interesting to me. --Btrs (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Btrs: you are not clear here on what task(s) you want people to do on those four categories. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I think I recognise the problem, areas with a nearby heritage railway receive many images of said heritage railway, what I usually do is cat-a-lot those images over to the local heritage railway station Oxyman (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Lossless AV1: Yay or Nay?

So I've noticed that both SVT-AV1 and libaom, encoders for the AV1 video codec, support lossless encoding.

I encoded the first 10 seconds of the Sintel Trailer with SVT-AV1 with the lossless option enabled, and uploaded it to Commons on File:Example.webm, just to test how well Commons handles these types of files.

The output video is, as expected, large, although not as large as the trailer's collection of frames stored as PNGs (~900 MB compared to ~300 MB) Fortunately, this is still under the Commons maximum file size limit, however I can imagine this being an issue on longer run times/FPS.

My laptop (Intel Core i3-6006U CPU, no hardware AV1 decoding available) struggles to play back the video with libdav1d, and combine that with the streaming of a very large file with bad internet download speeds, and it's pretty much unwatchable. However, Commons automatically re-encodes the video under more simpler to play formats, like VP9.

For such big file sizes, I don't think it's really that big of a deal, since I've seen extremely large in dimensions PNG files before, which Commons also automatically downscales them.

I couldn't do FLAC for audio since it isn't supported in WebM for some reason, so I chose 320Kbps Opus as the next best thing.

What does anyone here think? Should lossless AV1 be preferred if available? I wanted to ask this since I've found the uncompressed frames of the Sintel trailer, and I wonder if a lossless version of the trailer could supercede File:Sintel trailer-1080p.ogv, especially considering that MDN Web Docs considers Theora as deprecated. SergioFLS (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Lossless AV1 should not be preferred. The Wikimedia eco system is not mature enough to handle people uploading a large amount of video data in lossless, and then having to software decode it and re-encode it to lossy version. Doing so at scale, would likely result in lossless being forbidden as an ingestion format. Use it where it makes sense, but not all the time. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we focus on solving that issue? Rather than forcing uploaders to limit themselves Trade (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Some may upload every PNG as single file, as alternative. But I don't know what the opinion of the community is about that --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking .jpg is preferred for photographic work, and .png for graphics. See also the descriptions of these templates: {{BadJPEG}} and {{BadPNG}}. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It would also be interesting to know how big the difference between lossless compressed AV1 and uncompressed AV1 is --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What is best format for news articles continued on a second page?

I tried three methods, is one preferred or are all three acceptable?

• 
  column 1
• 
  column 2
• 
  combined columns into one image
• 
  two page pdf version

RAN (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what's acceptable and what's not (though the license text says that one can edit files as one pleases, so do as you want?), but I can say that the last method (=pdf) is hardest to read on mobile. (I'm accessing Commons via a browser app on mobile.) Personally, I'd prefer the second method because all the info is in one place, but method one and three are truer to the source which might be relevant if someone wants to quote the newspaper, for example, in a research paper where you also have to mention the page from which you are citing. Nakonana (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

• Maybe I should create all three for important documents. --RAN (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  My view, as a reader on desktop and phone, is that your example could have another format, the column 2 below column 1 for scrolling simplicity, clearly displaying that the image has two non-contiguous regions, so as to not obscure the documents provenance.

  Piñanana (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, combined into one image but with space around each segment seems like a good layout. Sam Wilson 00:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

+1. PDF files aren't great for something like this. Probably having the section combined into one image but with space around each segment is the best way to go. That's how I've seen a couple of archives do it. Although you could just do all three formats but that seems like pointless overkill. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:13, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

PDF files aren't great, but the (correct) actual text can be embedded (eventually), w:djvu is an option... Piñanana (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of the pdf version, but it keeps the two files together. We have several halves of news articles, and I cannot tell if we once hosted the second half. It may have been deleted or a name change made it no longer findable, or it was never added to the category. So many things can cause separation. Sometimes "pointless overkill" is worth it, if the document is important enough. Is there an easy one step software package for converting files to the djvu format? I would love to start using it. --RAN (talk) 01:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  read: w:djvu ... Piñanana (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  DjVu is, quite frankly, a pain to work with. I wouldn't recommend using it over PDF if you have a choice in the matter. Omphalographer (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  It's totally tangential but I'm always surprised that Commons supports either format. Neither one works great on here. There really isn't reallu any reason for using them over image files in most, if not all, instances I've seen either. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  PDF is very well suited for use cases like scanned books (with or without text layers) - uploading these as collections of single-page images is much less convenient. DjVu was at one point considered a more Free alternative to PDF, but they're both open standards nowadays. Omphalographer (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

  What is the best layout for news articles with multiple clippings ? ... Piñanana (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think there are many reasons to recommend DjVu over PDF these days, other than some rarely-used features around text structure representation. And yeah, if all that's in a PDF is images, they could be uploaded separately (personally I more often do that, and then add a {{G}} in the |other versions= parameter to show all the parts if there are few, or add them all to a category if there are many). Sam Wilson 02:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Categories that are vulnerable to selfie spam and self-advertisement

As you might have noticed there are certain categories that are receives an disproportionate amount of selfie spam and self-advertisement. Would it be useful to list these categories somewhere? That way it could encourage other editors to take a look at them from time to time to clean them up

A couple of examples here:

• Category:Celebrities
• Category:Freelancers
• Category:Graphic designers
• Category:Entrepreneurs

Trade (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

At least with Category:Celebrities, there was a discussion and attempts to get rid of it last year but the category was never fully emptied. So it's still around. That's probably the best way to do deal with it though. "Celebrities" is to ambagious to be useful anyway. Hence why it gets turned into a dump for random selfie spam. The same goes for the other categories IMO. Although I'm not going to advocate for getting rid of them without proper discussion first. But all of them are ambagious to the point of being meaningless. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Clearly someone are teaching people to advertise in that particular category. Otherwise so many people wouldn't do it Trade (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A wrinkle is that usually it's not the people posting the spam doing the categorization, it's people coming along after them. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

It's the exact same problem I've pointed out repeatedly: editors go through uncategorized files, tack on some random, inconsequential category and walk away, all for the sake of being able to claim the file has now been "categorized". More often than not, it makes spam and copyvios harder to catch. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

One idea I've had is a technical solution where certain categories can be designed as not for files. That could be done with an edit filter, but it would be clunky - we'd have to edit the filter for each individual category, and it would only be able to warn or disallow the edit entirely. More elegant solutions are possible but might require software changes.

On the other hand, these categories do make it easy to detect a lot of spam. Perhaps its best to keep them as honeypots until something else (like automated upload filtering) reduces the amount we get. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a maintenance category specific to categories which frequently attract selfies and self-promotion? If not: should we? It could be useful for coordinating periodic cleanup of these categories. Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

We cant even have a filter that stops people from reuploading the same selfie biweekly from different accounts Trade (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS Ennnhhh I don't know if I agree with this. The people who make this stuff hard to find are the people who put a lot of effort into categorization and track down the really granular and deeply nested categories that no one is checking. The people who just tack on something like Category:Business are actually doing copyvio hunters a favor. (The main exception is people-related categories like Category:People, but the problem there isn't that spam is hard to find, it's that there's so much of it.)

As with every single maintenance backlog (and old spam is a backlog), the thing that will improve matters more than anything is just having more people do it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The problem isn't just categories related to commerce; creative categories get a lot of self-promotional content as well: Category:Artists; Category:Authors; Category:Disc jockeys, Category:Musicians; Category:Vocalists Category:Writers. Omphalographer (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Let's not forget Category:Social media influencers and Category:YouTubers.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• Hm, some good observations. However, alternatively, rather than label them "Categories that are vulnerable to selfie spam and self-advertisement", perhaps think of them as "Categories where much selfie spam and self-advertisement can be found and deleted". The project is going to get spam regardless of the existence of such categories; having places where the glurge tends to gather thus can more easily be found and cleaned out would seem to be of some use. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

So, is emptying categories just untracable?

I've had times where i perfectly remember a category being full on images only to later discover it has been nominated (and deleted) for Speedy Deletion for being empty

Common sense would suggest to bring the issue up with the deleting admin and whoever moved the files out of the category. But as far as i can tell there is no way of seeing who moved the images out of the category unless you have memorized the name of the images in the category

So it seems like anyone can just empty categories whenever they please with little risk of anyone being able to find out they did it? Trade (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

You can still search for the images that used to be in that deleted category, and you will be able to see who removed the category in the file history. It is possible that all the images within the category were deleted, hence the category was empty and subsequently also deleted. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

And if i dont remember what the files were named? Trade (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not the best solution but I follow a couple of main categories just so I can keep track of whats added or removed from them. That's the only way I can think of to do it though and there should be a better alternative if there isn't one I'm not aware of. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would encourage you to request a solution on https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/

I dont feel too confident navigating the UI myself Trade (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would but I think they require a new account and that your email address be publicly viewable to create one. Totally agree about the UI to. It's not super user friendly to say the least. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

A lot of MediaWiki tools suffer from the same issue unfortunately Trade (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's close to untraceable. Certainly it is usually good practice to build some sort of consensus or at least to make some sort of comment (e.g. on the category talk) that gives people a chance to work out who was doing this. Also, leave edit summaries that let people concerned with certain files see readily that categories are being removed. Also, when deleting a category because you've merged it's content elsewhere, it's a really good idea for the deletion comment to explain where the content has been moved.

Still: sometimes a category is so obviously bad that I couldn't blame anyone for skipping the usual processes. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you believe there is any responsibility on the deleting admin to check if the category is actually empty? Or just emptied? Before any deletion Trade (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The deleting admin should evaluate before deleting. Otherwise, we'd just let everyone make deletions themselves. But everybody is going to make occasional mistakes, because sometimes the diligence required is disproportionate to the effect. For example, there are certainly users who I trust enough to follow through on their requests without much checking of my own. If one of them screws up despite a long, good track record, I might not spot it. And I would have to guess that the admins who do the most deletions are most likely to fail to notice one that isn't correct, because they would not have time for as much diligence per deletion as those of us who are less confident of knowing what is likely to be abuse. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Trade, you may be encountering this because of your habit of creating excessively intricate category trees that are not useful. I just deleted a dozen categories you created which collectively contained exactly one file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Try and avoid stating false reasons for deletion in the logs next time then Trade (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Try and avoid creating massive collections of near-useless categories. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

We have been keeping video game screenshots seperate from the games they came from for more than a decade now. Lashing out at me for following the decade long precedent does little to change that Trade (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

"Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features"

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jun/27/deepfakes-denmark-copyright-law-artificial-intelligence

"The Danish government is to clamp down on the creation and dissemination of AI-generated deepfakes by changing copyright law to ensure that everybody has the right to their own body, facial features and voice."

"The changes to Danish copyright law will, once approved, theoretically give people in Denmark the right to demand that online platforms remove such content if it is shared without consent."

"It will also cover “realistic, digitally generated imitations” of an artist’s performance without consent. Violation of the proposed rules could result in compensation for those affected."

What would the consequences for Commons be for AI files that were generated by individuals residing in Denmark? Trade (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, but it's odd if they are handling this through copyright law rather than personality rights. The article is very vague on exactly what rights this would grant or limit. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The original article in Danish explicitly mentions that this would affect ophavsretsloven ("the copyright law"). From my limited understanding copyright law and personality rights law is treated as being interchangable

https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/minister-oensker-ny-lov-mod-deepfakes-saa-alle-har-ret-over-egen-krop-stemme-og?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US

In short if someone makes a deepfake (image, video or voice) of a Dane without their consent and said Dane demands for it to be taken down Commons will (supposedly) be legally obligated to do so or risk facing legal consequences (more likely Wikimedia Denmark will be the victims but still) Trade (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Personality rights is already a thing in Denmark but some politicians feel like it does not offer sufficient protection against deepfakes. Hence this law proposal Trade (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume they would have to prove its a deepfake in the first place. I wonder how they would do that, especially as AI images get more realistic or would it just apply to any image of a person that they don't like or want on the internet regardless? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Would a hypothetical person reasonable believe this photo to be a real photograph of X absence of any evidence to the contrary" It's not that complicated. Courts and lawyers have been doing hyphotheticals about how a reasonable person would act or believe for years.

"I assume they would have to prove its a deepfake in the first place." Deepfake is essentially just a synonym for the hypothetical i just described

"or would it just apply to any image of a person that they don't like or want on the internet regardless?" The whole point of the law is to make the personal rights of defendants equivalent to the way copyright works with audiovisual materials (my assumption). Trade (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I was thinking more about claims made to Commons then actual court cases but I guess it wouldn't be that different. It's at least hard for me to imagine anyone nominating a deep fake for deletion just because it depicts a celebrity or something. Like probably the project should wait until there's some actual court cases or the WMF takes a stance on it before nominating deepfakes for deletion based on copyright. Especially since they still aren't copyrighted in the United States anyway. That's all. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

It doesnt matter that they aren't copyrighted in the United States. All files have to be free in both the US AND the host country (Denmark)

"Like probably the project should wait until there's some actual court cases or the WMF takes a stance on it" The WMF likely wont take a stance unless the Commons community prompts them to do so. Hence this discussion Trade (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Flagging that I started a discussion over at the Talk page for Denmark's copyright rules (didn't notice this discussion at first as I only checked the copyright VP, apologies for starting an additional thread). There were a few comments over there in response. 19h00s (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Kurds or Assyrians?

Good day.

Today, @Surayeproject3: tagged the following file as a duplicate. Unfortunately, that's not so easy in this case, as it must first be clarified what exactly the image depicts. According to File:Kurdere - fo30141712180016 27.jpg, it's Kurds, and it's also used as such in language versions. In File:Nestorian (Assyrian) Christian family making butter, Mawana, Persia.jpg, you can see Assyrians in Persia making butter. Image one is by Category:Bodil Biørn, while image 2 doesn't name an author in this sense; it comes from the collection Category:Images from the Library of Congress. The question now is which statement is correct, and in that sense, an image may need to be renamed, depending on which version is keept. Regards. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 20:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for making the Village pump posting @Ziv. Like I mentioned on her talk page, I tagged a file as a duplicate of another depicting a group of people in Persia making butter. As an Assyrian, I typically categorize and upload Assyrian-related images here on Commons, so I'm familiar with the terminology and background of these topics. Based on the general use of the image, upload dates, and a version having the words "Christian family...", my instinct was to assume that the ethnic identity of these figures was Assyrian (in Persia and the Middle East, Assyrians are almost unanimously Christian while Kurds are Sunni Muslims). It's possible that as we move the discussion along, we could find many reliable sources pertaining to the image that prioritize a certain description over another, but this is just an idea. Surayeproject3 (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:CIS minors

I noticed this oddly named templates inside Category:Non-copyright restriction templates. Is there any consensus that we have to follow this law? Otherwise it should be deleted--Trade (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Unused, and the creator's only edits were to create the template. Bizarre. I'd support deletion unless someone can confirm that these alleged laws exist and would apply to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Omphalographer's comment. Admittedly I didn't look into it that extensively but from what I can tell the template is totally pointless and should be deleted as such. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

So start a noincluded DR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I started a DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Template:CIS minors. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Aloe suzannae

Hi guys! I am very active on the Afrikaans Wikipedia but not too familiar with Commons. Please take note that the species Aloe suzannae has been renamed to Aloestrela suzannae. See POWO. Can somebody fix it please and update Wikidata as well?

Regards. Oesjaar (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Oesjaar: mind providing relevant links? Is there a category or at least one or several examples as files? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: See Aloe Suzanne. Regards.Oesjaar (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Oesjaar: I processed your renaming request as far as I could (and I hope without mistakes), there were some Wiki editions that didn't allow me moving the relevant page. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Vielen dank! Oesjaar (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Bot deletion threat

I followed instructions for this photo, and the 3rd party has 30 days, so the license is pending. I marked in the instructions what license I needed. The upload program should tag what I check. If it doesn't, that is a problem with the program. Bots should not be checking this and threatening deletion. I think the tag is {{Cc-by-4.0}}, but I have no idea how to insert it except under the picture, which I just did, but I think this tag needs the approval as it is 3rd party, which will come with the submission of the letter by the author of the photo. It already has this tag for {{Permission pending}} under the photo, which should be good for 30 days.

I worked two hours getting this up and requesting permissions. This is the frustation of Wikicommons. RosPost (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

• @RosPost: You don't link the file, so I have no easy way to check your work, but normally licenses go near the bottom of the file page, just above categories, directly under the {{Permission pending}} tag. If you look at Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload), step 12, this is spelled out. Yes, the Upload Wizard should ask you this question and do it as part of the Wizard process, but only the Foundation's developers can fix that. They've said a fix is forthcoming. I'm not holding my breath. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  Very Kind of you to help me. I can also go into the 9 photos and put the code {{Cc-by-4.0}} under {{Permission pending}} in the edit section perhaps? I will read the link, but once uploaded the Wizard disappears. RosPost (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

  • @RosPost: Yes, please do (1) read the link and (2) add {{Cc-by-4.0}} to the file pages in question. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Official Journal of the European Union 2012, C Series

There are 11,045 files here. 9,621 of them appear in Category:2012 texts, which doesnt seem helpful. This because they all contain something like

| date        = Published on 28 July 2012

which generates this. Is there any way of changing this? Rathfelder (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It can be changed via appropriate subcatting. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

It comes from the template. {{Published on}}.

They can only be subcategorised by editting each individual file - about 100,000 in all. Rathfelder (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

We could do this with Help:VisualFileChange.js  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Oof. Topical categories that are liable to have subcats should not be coming that way from a template. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I see two images that clearly seem like they should have history merges

This File:Motoise-gegu01.png and this File:Motoise-gegu02.png seem like they are clearly just the first one has an error so the second one was uploaded. I think they should be history merged with the first version being treated as an older version of the file.

Also moved to a more accurate name like File:Fukuchiyama Toyuke-daijinja map.png Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Please post at COM:MERGE instead.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

PD-India template

{{PD-India}} opens with "This work is in the public domain in India because its term of copyright has expired.", but is used on works that are not copyright expired, but which meet the criterion in the template's final bullet point, "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports are free from copyright."

The former wording therefore needs to be improved, perhaps to "This work is in the public domain in India because its term of copyright has expired, or it is ineligible for copyright."

I cannot figure out where this wording is held, and in any case the template is protected. Can someone make the necessary change, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

It is in Template:PD-India/en, I added it  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   15:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann it is wrong to include this?  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   18:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports" should be under {{EdictGov-India}}. Yann (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That text has been in {{PD-India/en}} since its creation in 2010; and you did not comment on it when you edited the template in September 2012, September 2014 and July 2018. To revert User:999real's edit (which I requested) now, with no edit summary, is unacceptable. I have restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Being wrong in the past doesn't make right now. Yann (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

GSAPPstudent, Columbia, Cameron Rowland

Hi all - I posted about this here a while back, but I have an unfortunate follow up. You can read that old post for more context, but: several users requested images (1, 2, 3) of a public figure, artist Cameron Rowland, be removed, saying they violated an agreement between Rowland and the host of the event, Columbia University; the images were kept because they did not seem to be sourced from the event host but made by an attendee (at an event with no photo restrictions, open to the public in the U.S.). I wanted to get to the bottom of it after I posted the previous thread, so I sent an email to Rowland's gallery (Maxwell Graham Gallery in New York) asking if there was something we were missing. They got back to me a little while ago to clarify.

Turns out the account that uploaded the images (@GSAPPstudent) is not a student or member of the public, but was run by one or several Columbia administrators or faculty. Columbia did indeed sign an agreement with Rowland saying they would not release photos, the user(s) behind that account were both representatives of Columbia and aware of the agreement; they violated the agreement, Rowland called their attention to it, they deleted the image from other platforms. But GSAPPstudent never clarified that they were actually a Columbia rep, so the images have been kept on Commons after every request.

I directed Rowland's rep to the info-commons@wikimedia.org help email, this seems like a different issue than licensing/copyright. But obviously it seems these images need to be deleted now, they do in fact violate an agreement between Rowland and the institution that released the image.

But this would also seem to call into question other images published here by the GSAPPstudent account. As far as I know, it's not appropriate for an institution (in this case Columbia's GSAPP) to use an account in this way. All of their images are "own work", credited to "GSAPPstudent", which could also be wildly inaccurate/incomplete (correct me if that's a reach). Any ideas on how to handle this/what needs to happen here? Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Started a deletion request as seems necessary here. 19h00s (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Two Vietnam-related issues that have come to my attention recently.

Two different but important Vietnam-related issues have come to my attention recently.

The first is Vietnam's recent provincial reorganization which had 63 provinces reorganized so that there are now only 34 provinces. Obviously location maps will have to be moved so it's known that these are now historic maps. And the new location maps will have be organized in such a way that these reflect the provincial reorganization. And so I raise the issue here rather than at the thread in COM:OWR https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/Requests#c-Chemistry(NuTech)-20250708060800-Abzeronow-20250707233500 because this should not be done on an ad hoc basis. Apparently Viwiki has been notified, but enwiki and other wikis should be notified of this as well.

The second matter is File:Flag of Vietnam.svg as there is apparently some debate about what the official color scheme of the flag is (and whether or not there is a standardization of the flag or not) File talk:Flag of Vietnam.svg. I have per consensus on Talk Page reverted to the previous version, but since there was a source raised in the discussion that points to a revision being "official", I thought bringing that up here might get more knowledgeable people about Vietnam to settle this matter or to at least provide more insight into the matter. Abzeronow (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Re: point 1. Not only provincial reorganization but a massive overhaul of all local government units. The entire district-level division has been nuked, but that also means majority of Vietnam's cities as well as all of their towns are officially no more (or at least, the likes of Nha Trang, Vinh, and Dienbienphua now exist as nominal, geographical features since they no longer have valid city governments). All of Vietnam's towns and provincial cities lie within this recently-abolished level. Additionally, massive mergers of Vietnam's communes (which I treat as equivalent to Philippine barangays or administrative villages that serve as divisions of Philippine cities and towns).

Some questions:

Should the categories of recently-abolished Vietnamese cities and towns continue to exist?

Should a massive recategorization of Vietnamese communes take place, too?

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Categories for longstanding historical stuff should continue to exist, but should have parent cats that make it clear they are historical. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps like, Category:Former cities in Vietnam, following the convention of the likes of Category:Former cities in New Zealand and Category:Former cities in Nova Scotia. The last cities of Nova Scotia province (Canada) – Dartmouth, Halifax, and Sydney – ended up the same fate as Vietnamese cities (except six "special" ones that are independent of any Vietnamese province), but in different ways. The three Canadian cities were abolished and replaced with higher-tier regional municipalities, making them permanently nominal and geographical. In the case of Vietnam's provincial cities, all were axed and their functions distributed to either the provinces or the enlarged communes (or Vietnam's version of Philippine administrative villages or w:en:Barangays). "Enlarged" in the sense, like Vietnam's provinces, mergers to reduce 10,000+ communes to slightly over 3,000+.

This may need opinions from Vietnamese Wikimedians, though, since according to w:en:Plan to arrange and merge administrative units in Vietnam 2024–2025 the reorganization (which I consider to be the most radical reorganization of local governments the recent world has witnessed, as of this comment of mine) has generated some controversy, both within Vietnam and outside the country. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely want to have Vietnamese Wikimedians give us some input. I'd ask someone to post about these issues in Commons:Thảo luận but I don't know how effective that would be. Abzeronow (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow I think we don't need the opinion of Vietnamese Wikimedians. This article by Vietnam.net clearly states that all provincial cities have been nuked and wiped off of the world map. No legacy titles will be retained too, because it "would lead to inconsistency in the administrative structure and cause public confusion - questioning why district names persist if the level is officially removed." We must treat the 85 cities of Vietnam in the same manner as we treat the three former cities of Canada's Nova Scotia province.

The likes of Category:Ba Ria and Category:Bien Hoa must be recategorized to Category:Former cities in Vietnam (same pattern as Category:Former cities in Nova Scotia), which in turn must be a subcategory of both Category:Cities in Vietnam and Category:Former subdivisions of Vietnam (as Sbb1413 suggested for category "Districts of Vietnam"). Only 6 of the main members of "Cities in Vietnam" category will remain: Category:Can Tho, Category:Da Nang, Category:Haiphong, Category:Hanoi, Category:Ho Chi Minh City, and Category:Huế. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Vietnamese here:

• Yes, no more provincial cities or municipal cities. No more Thủ Đức City, no more Nha Trang City, and Phú Quốc is now also a commune-level "special zone". The territories of the old Thủ Đức district, the old Thủ Đức City and the today's Thủ Đức ward are all different, same thing with Nha Trang and most other cases
• Yes, only communes or wards below cities/provinces
• Yes, the only cities existing in Vietnam at the moment are the Municipalities of Vietnam, which are enough for me asking to rename "Municipalities of Vietnam" into "Cities of Vietnam" for better transparency

So yes, I strongly support the recatogization of Vietnamese entities, especially placing many of them into the "former" categories. Please be distinguish between existing subjects and the abolished ones.
And it would be even better if the new categories would follow a standardized naming convention, as I tried to discuss in WikiProject VN. Hwi.padam (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a CfD below relating to the now abolished districts. I would definitely also support a standardized naming convention for the new categories. (And yes, we'd want to make sure that the difference between the existing and the abolished subjects is very clear). Abzeronow (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@Hwi.padam@Abzeronow overhaul of Vietnam-related content here will not end at simply recategorizations of the now-abolished cities and towns of Vietnam (the district level). Images of legitimate sites and places within those former settlements — like File:Bùng binh Hùng Vương-Hoàng Diệu - panoramio.jpg of the former city of Ba Ria and File:Mô hình cột mốc chủ quyền ở Viện Hải dương học.jpg of the former city of Nha Trang — will end up in the "former" categories, making them not readily accessible for most common users.

This means the categories of new wards and communes must be created, so the images of legitimate sites will be transferred from those of former cities and towns to those of the current communes and wards. The categories of former cities and towns must be cleaned up to only focus on media related to their former statuses, like their flags, locator maps, and government icons or insignia. The categories of wards and communes may be categorized under the former cities and towns "if" their communal jurisdictions lie within the boundaries of the former cities and towns.

The creation the categories of the new 3K+ communes and wards needs guidance in the form of a list of all commune-level divisions of Vietnam, which is the job of English and Vietnamese Wikipedias. I have already did my part on enwiki by tagging w:en:List of cities in Vietnam with an "update" template, which should imply the need to create a "List of communes and wards in Vietnam" article. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:01, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Back to the original questions re: Vietnam, I'd only comment on the first one.

 Support moving the impacted map files (of Vietnamese provinces) to their new file names that reflect on their historical statuses. Original names (base names) should reflect the maps that show the current provincial boundaries (since 2025). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the flag of Vietnam:

• Only the dimensional designs of the flag are codified, not the colors
• A majority of Vietnamese governmental website has been using Wikipedia's illustration as the existing standard file for the Vietnamese flag, with some messing around with the colors due to cosmetic reasons (to make it sensical to the website's design, for example).
• The "official" renders coming from the Government of Vietnam and/or Communist Party of Vietnam are largely unreliable due to poor file quality (.gif) or resulting from scanning physical images that do not present the accurate colors. Some of them even nominate renders that violate the codified dimensions and ratios of the flags, so as I've written in the Flag of Vietnam, the Vietnamese people largely don't care about this as along as the overall symbolism is maintained and recognized.
• After all, there was never a codified shades of colors for the Vietnamese flag, having them only described as "fresh red" (màu đỏ tươi) and yellow/gold (vàng), and most specific formal requirements that I could find is "the color of the threads being used should be consistent with the cloth", according to the Vietnamese Standards (TCVN), and this detail most certainly confirms that they know there's no codified colors for the Vietnamese flag.
  Again, most Vietnamese official narratives are using our Wikipedia's version as the standard flag of Vietnam, which is not helpful.
  Talking about real life representations, the Vietnamese government has produced flags having the same shades of colors with the red in Russian flag, the red in US flag, as well as the red/yellow with the flag of PRC and flag of Germany, even though none of those foreign flags are nominated in the same color shades. So, it's your choice talking about the Vietnamese flag colors ;)

Hwi.padam (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Related CfD Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Districts of Vietnam. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Also related: Commons:Overwriting_existing_files/Requests#Allow_overwriting_for_the_following_files. Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

That request got archived. Didn't see a comprehensive plan as we requested so I couldn't start the file moving process. Abzeronow (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Now at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests/Archive 18#Allow overwriting for the following files 2. Still relevant so that someone does not go off half-cocked the way the user there was ready to. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Adiutor notices don't get signed

As can be seen here notices using this tool aren't signed. This must be fixed ASAP in my opinion. Jonteemil (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Adiutor#c-RoyZuo-20241117143500-No_sign . RoyZuo (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Need help with a Commons File <-> Wikidata link

Hello,

I would like to correct an error in this file. This is a print by Charles Albert Waltner (Q749982) after a painting by Jan Daemen Cool (Q6148748) (see for example this file). Hence this modification.

But the information describing it is that of the painting (Portrait of a Lady with a Fan (Q105870209)). I'm assuming it's from structured data, but I haven't mastered that part at all, and I think one of the first two attributes needs to be removed.

Could anyone help me on the best way to do this, please?

Thank you, --Daehan (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Remedy for erroneously identified images

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems#c-Yann-20250713093000-Eatcha

This recently exposed hoax makes me wonder how to remedy the harm caused by such commons uploads. even though those files may be deleted or their descriptions may be rectified, they have often spread to other websites due to wikipedia and will continue to pollute the information and knowledge of the world. worse still, they may get reposted and end up on commons again after some years.

not xx

i can think of an idea. someone should run a blog that publishes those images crossed out and with detailed explanation that "this image doesnt show xx. it shows yy. it was uploaded to <commons url> and misidentified." RoyZuo (talk) 10:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

• @RoyZuo: Take a look at File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg for how I typically approach this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

There is also {{Fact disputed}} and {{Factual accuracy}} that can more prominently mark, describe, and categorize images with potential errors. --Animalparty (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Those methods dont work when the commons files are deleted. RoyZuo (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

banned by the Wikimedia Foundation

Tulsi (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

sysop banned. anyone knows why? RoyZuo (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

His last Diff blog was in 2021. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Apparently undisclosed paid editing. [1] and [2]. Yann (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

We need to sysban half of the newly created accounts then Trade (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: You will need proof to make such an allegation stick.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

but those links are more than one year old? RoyZuo (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Man that sucks. I didn't interact with Tulsi much but he seemed nice from what little I had to do with with him. It's never good to lose admins on here. Especially over something like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

AI training bots overwhelming GLAMs

Piece of possible interest from National Information Standards Organization (NISO). Forwarded to me by a GLAM I coordinate with for uploads, in the context of some serious difficulties they've been having with keeping their content available. I wonder how much of this traffic hits our site? My guess is that we are used to enough traffic that it is not as (relatively) heavy for us. https://www.niso.org/niso-io/2025/06/ai-training-bots-and-cultural-heritage - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It is quite heavy for Wikimedia. See this blog post from the WMF in April. "Since January 2024, we have seen the bandwidth used for downloading multimedia content grow by 50%." and "65% of our most expensive traffic comes from bots". When people think of wikis in the context of LLMs they often think of Wikipedia, but it's moreso the mass-scraping of our media files that is expensive and causing issue (or at least enough of a concern so far for the WMF to put out this blog post). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a very interesting aspect. In addition, the growth in media files (quantity) this year is already as high as the growth in 2024 as a whole (approx. 11.1 million files), and the additional data volume in 2025 already reaches 75% of 2024. This is therefore a remarkable increase on both sides. PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Can confirm this issue is massively impacting GLAM institutions with open online collections, many of which are nowhere near large enough/well-resourced enough to handle this kind of thing. Coming on the heels of the Gallery Systems hack that took down ~50% of U.S. museum collection databases for an extended period, this is starting to spark conversations among some GLAM leaders about the long term viability of open collections (which imo is the wrong takeaway from what's happening and has already earned substantial internal pushback in most cases). 19h00s (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Something I noticed recently is that views to my talk page have gone up by an insane amount since the middle of last year. Apparently it got 5000 views last month. Either it's bots or someone is mass posting about me on some forums somewhere. But I doubt that many views is organic. Anyway, I don't see how it couldn't impact the sites performance.

As a side to that, Flickr has been totally unusable for me recently. Probably for the same reason. They recently implemented a thing where you can't see search results unless your logged in and you can't mass download images without a paid account anymore either. My state university website has also been crashing a lot recently. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if more sites don't do the same thing as Flickr. I'm not sure how it would work on here but that seems like the only sustainable, long-term solution. There should at least be restrictions on mass downloading by bots if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I am Nikon ad campaign logo

Can this be uploaded as {{PD-logo}}

https://jcubic.pl/nikon.svg

I used Liberation font to recreate the original logo. Does it meet Commons:TOO Japan? Can I upload it to Commons?

Jakub T. Jankiewicz (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

• I think that is safely below TOO pretty much anywhere. I'd use {{PD-textlogo}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Escritora Cora Coralina

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

• File:Escritora Cora Coralina.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Escritora Cora Coralina. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Maps by Survey of India

Hi, I started upload maps by Survey of India. Since there are quite a lot of them, better to do categories right from the start. I have had difficulties finding the right administrative divisions in some cases, as they have changed over the years. Then I noticed that they exist in 3 scales (for the ones in the public domain): 1/253,440 (1 inch for 4 miles), 1/126,720 (1 inch for 2 miles) and 1/63,360 (1 inch for 1 mile), sometimes mixed up between them. I added categories year by country, local administrative division. What other categories do you suggest? More generally what category tree should we have for them? Yann (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Category:Maps by the Surveyor General of India (1/126,720)
• Category:Survey of India map sheets (1/253,440)

Thanks for your link on my talk page, unfortunately I am not a big fan of the category system and I think it is more important that people are able to find what they want and I like the find maps feature at https://warper.wmflabs.org - also the mosaics - example https://warper.wmflabs.org/mosaics/15 - more useful and important for users. Some of these maps were made as parts of (time-bound) projects so there is Category:Atlas_of_India_(1827-1906) Shyamal L. 01:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Interesting. How is the mosaic created? I understand that coordinates of each file is needed, but after that? Yann (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: - creating the mosaics involve some personal intervention from the folks behind wikimaps - I was assisted by User:Susannaanas. Shyamal L. 15:05, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Shyamal and Chaipau: I have dispatched all the files in subcategories according to the scale in Category:Survey of India map sheets. I removed some redundant categories, including Category:Old maps by the Survey of India (we can't have recent maps by the Survey of India for copyright reasons). All maps by the Survey of India we have are necessarily old. Yann (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Yann, I think using the provinces/districts, as available in 1918 or so, would be the most natural category tree. We could get the history groups from other Wikipedias involved as well to help us here - since they will most benefit from these maps. Chaipau (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chaipau: OK, let's try a practical example: File:Survey of India, 42 D SW Dir (1931).jpg. How do you find the proper categories for this file? This is now in Pakistan, but Pakistan didn't even exist at that time. Yann (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Alternative for Glamorous file usage stats tool?

I used to check my file usage with Glamorous (glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous/?), but for some time now it doesn't seem to work. It works on smaller users, like up to 300 files. For my account (1068 files) and similar big galleries it seems to be loading forever. Are there any alternatives, other than clicking each and every file in my uploads? Tupungato (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I've uploaded around 18000 files and was having the same issue a few weeks ago. It seems to be fine now though. So it might be something with how they index files or something. Anyway, you might give it a few weeks without uploading anything so the database has time to catch up and then try again. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I haven't uploaded anything in 5 weeks. The issue seems to persist for, i don't know, maybe 8 months. I had a period of 5 months with no uploads, and it didn't help. Tupungato (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@Tupungato: It just worked for me at https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=Jeff_G. and for you at https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=Tupungato .   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

This works, yes. But I was also using the one I linked to (https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous/ or https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous/? - supposedly two different versions). It has additional useful stats, for example File Usage Details: this is list of your files from most popular to least popular, with all instances of usage listed under each file. It was really neat. Normally you input a username, click Run, and depending on size of portfolio it took 3-60 seconds to load everything. Now for many portfolios it runs endlessly and never loads. Tupungato (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

When I run it it's getting lots of "429 Too Many Requests" responses from calls to the action=query&prop=info&titles=File%3AFoo.jpg API. It looks like it's sending requests for individual files rather than batching them into groups. Sam Wilson 11:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Riverina and the South West Slopes

Can I invite people to review Category talk:Riverina - is the Riverina part of the South West Slopes in NSW. I believe it is as parts of the South West Slopes seem to encompass the Riverina, this is disputed. Happy with whatever outcome so long as it's clear. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Category talk:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines#RfC: Cemetery name

Interested users may participate in this "Requests for comment" discussion. All comments and opinions should be posted there, not here on Village Pump. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Voting on new proposed text for project scope policy for PDF and DjVu formats

Now that (I think) the proposed text is growing mature, thanks to feedback from other users, I invite everyone who wants to vote or comment on the new proposed text for the project scope policy for PDF and DjVu formats. No change in the policy is intended, the change is only about making objectively determinable when a PDF or DjVu file is in scope and when not.

Please carefully read the full proposed text before voting or commenting. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Setup errors on Category:Monaco

If you look at Category:Monaco, you can see the following issues:

• Stray characters after the "Selected maps" hatnote
• Categorized in Category:Categories by country, which it shouldn't be

It's caused by something in the processing of Template:Country category. I tried tracing through that processing, but I couldn't make sense of it. Would someone else like to try? Thanks muchly. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably some category for Monaco does not exist. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: Maybe that's it. I did a little more checking, and it seems that {{Country category}} doesn't work for city-states. I removed it from the Monaco category and it seems OK now. Thanks for your reply. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Categories for discussion backlog

As I have mentioned a few times before. This categories for discussion Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha has been running for a year and a half. Is there any backlog function for old non-closed categories for discussion? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 23:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a limit as to how how much space custom licenses are allowed to take?

It does feel a bit extreme sometimes--Trade (talk) 01:01, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Do you have an example of one you feel is too long? I would draw the line at "diatribe" or "rant".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:18, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Not that it's an ongoing issue, but I'd point to File:Berlin Bridge Bird 27.jpg as an example of excessive user licensing templates - there's a couple pages of templates, including some confusing additional requests in EXIF tags (!). Omphalographer (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It looks like there are some redundant elements and not applicable terms. I hope the bird is not dependent on freedom of panorama :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

It's to bad there's no way to edit EXIF information on here. Otherwise I'd totally axe most of that. Really, I'm kind of tempted to nominate the images for deletion just because of how needlessly obtuse the whole thing is but I doubt anyone would vote delete purely because of the walls of nonsense. Or alternatively someone could download the images, edit the EXIF information, and reupload without any of the garbage. Then have the old files redirected or something. I don't know but something should be done to clean them up. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's possible to do this by reuploading a version of the file where the excess EXIF information has been removed, without needing to delete the original. I could try this with File:Berlin Bridge Bird 27.jpg if there are no objections. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No objections here. I'll probably do it for more files if it works. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

This appears to work. You can edit or remove most fields by right-clicking and going to properties, but the "JPEG file comment" field specifically required specialized software (I used ExifTool). ReneeWrites (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Cool. I'll have to go through his files at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531 I have already removed the FoP template. To the uploader @C.Suthorn: there is no reason to put {{FoP-Germany}} because there is no recent work of architecture or artwork (like monument or sculpture) intentionally included in the image. Be prudent in using FoP tags. Birds are not works of art (except if the "bird" is a sculpture permanently placed on public roads or squares). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:41, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Nominate the templates for deletion instead Trade (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

He's talking specifically about the file's EXIF data, not the templates. For File:Berlin Bridge Bird 27.jpg it's been trimmed to a more manageable size, here's a file that shows how it looked before: File:"Unteilbar" 009.jpg. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you support a ban against QR codes in the EXIF? Trade (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Probably unnecessary. C.Suthorn was blocked indefinitely a few months ago, and as far as I'm aware they're the only user who was doing that. Omphalographer (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Anti-social behavior

Sometimes you come across remarkable things in rail travel. Do any extra categories come to mind? I dont seem to find one for painted toenails. I did not speak to the (unidentified) person. The person sitting in the chair did not notice what happened behind him. I did not warn him, as this certainly would have caused a disturbance.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No additional category ideas but I've gotta say, "Anti-social behaviour in Germany" is one of the funniest categories I've come across in a while. Hats off to you. 19h00s (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

(To be clear, I was chiming in that it was funny not out of support for the category but because it's a funny find. Not a category wonk so I wasn't that familiar with the guidelines.) 19h00s (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if the category gets deleted. There was a CfD for a similarly subjective category a while ago that ended with the same result. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The worst part of that category is that it contains:

• A photo and a video - that could be deemed subjective, as warned.
• A long chain of small nested categories (Animal aggression in Germany (1 C), Animal damage in Germany (1 C), Insect damage in Germany (1 C), Diseases and disorders of plants due to insects in Germany (1 C), Coleoptera (damage) in Germany (1 C), Curculionidae (damage) in Germany (1 C), Scolytinae (damage) in Germany (1 C, 1 F), Forests damaged by bark beetles in Germany (94 F)) that only contains the category:Forests damaged by bark beetles in Germany, which can hardly be considered anti-social behaviour.

Pere prlpz (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's totally ridiculous. I have better things to do but someone should deal with it somehow. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that somebody seems to have a confusion between "animals causing damage" and "people damaging animals". Pere prlpz (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

There are a whole bunch of problematic, mostly-empty categories upthread of it, too: Tactics in Germany (1 C), Revolutionary tactics in Germany (1 C), Terrorism tactics in Germany (1 C), Threats in Germany (1 C), Animal aggression in Germany (1 C) etc. And so we end up with the forests damaged by bark beetles, which have nothing to do with anti-social behaviour, or revolutionary tactics, or terrorism. This is not how categories are meant to be used. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep. This is, unfortunately, a somewhat common pattern I've seen where users will create deep trees of categories through a process of free association; one notable instance is detailed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Cultural history of New South Wales, where photos of grain silos ended up categorized as "popular culture". (For whatever reason, this problem seems particularly common in categories by location.) Omphalographer (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh, no: That’s exactly how categories are meant to be used: Tidy cladograms in which any ancestor cat has a predictable linear connection with any of its offspring is but one subset of the much vaster kind of intercat relationships the whole of Commons harbours. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:45, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes and no.

Sometimes subcategories aren't a subset of parent categories, but when damage done by insects is a subcategory of antisocial behaviour or when industrial grain silos are a popular culture, some inclusion in the chain is wrong. In the first case, the wrong inclusion is that animal damage in Germany shouldn't be a subcategory of antisocial behaviour in Germany, and in the second case, none of the actual content of Category:Popular psychology in New South Wales is related to psychology because of several wrong inclusions. Pere prlpz (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

These particular cases may well be wrong, but there are definitely valid reasons why category inheritance (1) is not always an "is-a" relationship and (2) is not transitive. A simple example is that a category for a building is typically categorized under every use the building has had; a particular photo taken in that building is likely to be related to at most one of those uses. Things are often categorized under who they are named after or were formerly named after; sometimes this is direct inheritance, sometime via a Category:Things named after FOO; in almost no case will that eponym be relevant as we continue down the hierarchy of inheritance.

This case is clearly anti-social. However what is anti-social? This is often depends on the local context and has to do with unwritten rules and conventions. The most broad definition is: Do not do, what you not like others to do to you. Example: When is being bare feet tolerated and accepted? We could write whole books about it and stil not have every unwritten rule and convention defined.

We sometimes need categories, wich are more than objects, events, etc. How would you for example illustrate transience? (File:De tijdelijkheid van sporen.jpg).Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: I did use a bit of humor is using the category Footrests. Not everything has to be serious.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Flinfo not working

Wanted to add some cc-by licensed pics from Flickr, but the Flinfo uploading tool has stopped working; when I enter the flickr pic number, it throws up this error message:

Looks like there’s a problem with this site

https://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php?id=5742671475&repo=flickr&user_lang=en might have a temporary problem or it could have moved.

Error code: 500 Internal Server Error

The site could be temporarily unavailable or too busy. Try again in a few moments.

It's been like this for a few days now. Anyone know if/when it'll get repaired? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Flominator as author and presumed maintainer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Should be fixed. My hoster forced me to update to php 8 and I didn't test Flinfo. --Flominator (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Flominator @Jeff G. working now, thanks! - MPF (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Australian pages

I know most of Comoms is done in the category space, but I am interested in the purpose of main space. My reason is that my focus is on documenting the South West of Sydney, and I have so far covered (I would estimate) about 75-85% of the City of Liverpool in terms of geotagged photos.

I would love to establish a main space page, but I don’t know what is appropriate content for the pages. I clearly don’t want to compete with Wikipedia but I would like to find a common ground that allows Commons users to navigate our content around this region.

Does anyone have any advise on what to do with main space pages? It seems a waste not to use them. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: gallery pages are (or should be) about curated content. A gallery is most valuable when there are too many images or subcategories in a category to easily check. Select representative images you think are are best for various purposes (general, historical, aerial, selected sites/details/landmarks etc.). You might consider annotating some images. Keep text to minimum and concentrate on images. You can always improve it later.

While galleries are underused there are some and Sydney is quite good. You could use it as a model and start with some smaller town. MKFI (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries provides fairly good guidance. The examples linked near the bottom of the page are quite varied and give a sense of what is appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Jungian archetypes

Broad categories should not be placed under Category:Jungian archetypes, supposedly a concept in a specific school of thought? such listing is more appropriate for wikipedia or wikidata. do you agree? RoyZuo (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were populated categories specific to the Jungian archetypes, e.g. Category:Mother (Jungian archetype), those would be appropriate subcategories. Broad categories like Category:Mothers are not appropriate subcategories, as they aren't specific to the parent category. Omphalographer (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I removed some. RoyZuo (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

ImageNotes

Does anyone have any guesses why File:Streetcar on Stone Way Bridge, 1911 (2942061361).gif isn't giving me the "Add a note" tool to add an ImageNote? - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It works for me. I just added a test note to the street car. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: still doesn't work for me, nor do I see your test note (which you should probably revert), though of course it is present if I go to edit. I'll see if I can get it to work in a different browser. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Hhhmm weird. It's probably your browser or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

probably https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js#c-RoyZuo-20250326061000-Not_showing_when_browsing_zoomed_in . RoyZuo (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it, at least not if the description of the causes there is accurate. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Country-specific photography laws, and national borders

Imagine the hypothetical scenario where I'm at the China-North Korea border on the Chinese side at Dandong, I launch a drone, fly over to the North Korean city of Sinuiju, and start taking photographs. In terms of rules such as freedom of panorama, personality rights, et cetera, which country's rules would I be required to follow, if I were to upload the photographs to Commons? The drone would be physically located within North Korea, however the operator controlling the drone (and ultimately performing all photographic actions) would be physically located within China. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 05:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I think in this case, it would be irrelevant, because both countries have a variant of FoP. In my opinion, it is important where the camera is located, when it comes to FoP, pers rights, etc. But you get the copyright protection of the country from which you shoot the photos (your physical location), IMO --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The Choice of Law section of the FoP page talks about this, and funnily enough uses North Korea as an example:

The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (published/viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient law of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken. For example, North Korea has a suitable freedom of panorama law, while South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons. As a result of the practice of applying the more lenient law, we would generally retain photos taken from North Korea of buildings in South Korea, as well as photos taken from South Korea of buildings in North Korea.

ReneeWrites (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

If I'm reading this section correctly, we'd pick the most lenient out of the two countries' rules? Going back to our hypothetical border scenario, China has FoP for buildings and 3D works (e.g. statues), but not 2D works (e.g. painted murals), while North Korea has FoP for buildings, 3D works, and 2D works. In other words, North Korea would have the more lenient FOP rules. With this in mind:

• Fly drone from China to North Korea, and while drone in North Korean airspace, photograph a 2D mural in North Korea: Permissible on Commons?
• Fly drone from China to North Korea, and while drone in North Korean airspace, but looking back towards the Chinese border, photograph a 2D mural in China: Still permissible on Commons, since the drone is physically in North Korea?

Based on the wording on Choice of Law, it seems like both cases would be permissible. Of course there are other laws to worry about, such as flying in restricted airspace (personally I'd consider any drone geofencing to fall under COM:HOUSERULES, i.e. a problem for the photographer to sort out with the country arresting them, and not a problem for whether or not an upload is permitted on Commons), but let's not overcomplicate this discussion for now, and just focus on copyright and non-copyright restrictions for Commons uploads only. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 10:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Any concerns related to security, privacy, COM:CSCR (consent of identifiable persons), etc. which aren't copyright related are not relevant for Commons. It is the uploader's decision to continue taking photos despite these non-copyright restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:14, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought North Korea even does not have copyright protection for architectural works? Then, is wouldn't even fall under FoP --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

New train liveries in Italy

There does seem to be no corresponding livery category for these:

• 
• 

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Expedite cfd

I'd like to invite more participation in Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/07/Category:Localities of the Novel "The judge and his hangman" (Dürrenmatt) so it can be closed asap. thx. RoyZuo (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with deletion (and have voted there), but I don't see why this is an urgent matter that needs expedited closing asap. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

In scope?

I was wondering. Is the description of a place provided by a geographical dictionary that is in the public domain deemed to be in scope for the project? This would be an example. Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Borderline; since the file is in use, the question is moot for this particular file. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

It could be even better if the whole dictionary could be uploaded, or maybe each full page rather than just some particular excerpts? I think it is in scope. Sam Wilson 03:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Jmabel: Thanks for the reply. I only provided that file to better illustrate what I was referring to. Anyway, leaving the fact that it is in use aside, what do you think about the idea of having those clippings? I think they are interesting and useful, but I have no idea whether they are in scope for the project. That is why I was asking. Alavense (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Samwilson: Yes, some editions of the dictionary have already been uploaded to Commons. I was just wondering about this format. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, I would only upload a clip like that if I had use for it, otherwise I'd definitely upload at least a page, probably a book. I wouldn't want to see a separate file for every entry in a dictionary, for example. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your opinion, Jmabel. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 04:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Samwilson, see Category:Diccionario geográfico-estadístico-histórico de España y sus posesiones de Ultramar. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It sounds like this comes down to "when is it appropriate to have a clipping as a separate file, when the full file is also available." Or something like that. I've sometimes also done details of scans (e.g.) for transcription purposes. Sam Wilson 12:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Does COM:INUSE always trump Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content? This is indeed nothing more than raw text, and I no not see why it's used in gl:Curtis... Doesn't make a lot of sense, IMHO. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/02#c-維基小霸王-20250208152200-CSS_Image_Crop_tool

this tool could eliminate the need to upload clippings. RoyZuo (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you can effectively clip a DJVU, though.

Yes, COM:INUSE is a trump card for anything about scope. Got to fight it out on the other wiki first if you want to get rid of the file. In this particular case, I think the use is well within reason.

• The only tricky case about that I know is if things get "circular" between Wikidata including something only because there is a Commons cat and Commons keeping an image only because it is used to illustrate that Wikidata item. It's a bit hard to "break" procedurally, but usually the thing to do is a DR on Commons to agree that the only reason it is on Commons is the Wikidata item, then a DR on Wikidata citing the Commons DR and questioning whether there is any other justification on Wikidata beyond the Commons category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

- Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Category Hotel stamps?

(file rename pending) And what of compagny stamps? In this case there is no licence problem as I am a heir. (hotel of my great grandparents) Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Wierd. I was just looking at that image or another one yesterday and could swear I created the category. What are the odds? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

They seems to be quite popular as poststamps. File:Stamp of Seychelles - 1988 - Colnect 655627 - Hotel cabanas.jpeg, File:Hotel Bloudon RS Stamp.jpg, File:Stamp of Peru - 1951 - Colnect 386552 - Tourist Hotel in Arequipa.jpeg. But not as ink stamps. There is the Category:Rubber stamp imprints. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: There was a couple of hotels in Gibraltar that used handstamps like the Bristol Hotel and Grand Hotel. It's definitely a niche of a niche though. It would be cool to get a collection of them together on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I am thinking of creating two categories: Hotel poststamps and Hotel handstamps. Unfortunatly there is some confusion in the categories between a stamp (impression with ink) and a seal (a piece of paper affixed to the object). most of the time stamp is used for both. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: There seems to be Category:Hotels on stamps for postage stamps with hotels on them. The second category sounds good, but I'd probably just go with "stamps" since there doesn't seem to be specific categories for handstamps on here and probably rightly since there's usually no way to know where the line is between a machine or handstamp. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As both use ink, I suggest the Category:Hotel inkstamps. (d:Q644099). The first one (d:Q37930). In English both definitions use the word stamp. In Dutch it is handstempel / postzegel. rubber stamp is not always correct as it can be metal, see (d:Q2387838 / signet ring.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Transparent roofs" and "Glass ceilings"

Here is an example of a glass ceiling that is definitely not a roof.

Yes, what is the difference between "Transparent roofs" and "Glass ceilings"? Since I doubt that all pictures from the second are showing ceilings made of glass (and not of any other transparent material), I feel like the categories should be merged. Thanks --A.Savin 09:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

In theory, there are other materials that can be transparent, e.g. plastic. For example, think of small-sized greenhouses with plastic foil roofs or acrylic roofs made of Plexiglas (which isn't actual glass despite its name). Nakonana (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure all photos from Category:Glass ceilings truly showing glass ceilings? Or was this category once created just to collect pictures of something that "more or less looks like a glass ceiling"? That is more my question, I didn't intend to ask about differences between glass and other transparent materials, thanks --A.Savin 11:00, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just up-merge Category:Glass ceilings. There's some pretty convincing plastic (or other synthetic material) windows these days like faux stained glass and I doubt anyone can tell the difference from a photograph taken at the distances most of these ones are. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, most probably can't tell the difference between glass and plastic, however, there's still another difference between the categories: one is Category:Roofs by color while the other is Category:Ceilings by material (or Category:Roofs by material), so if you want to have glass/glass-like ceilings/roofs included in categories by color and by material, then we probably need both categories. Nakonana (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Roofs are seen from outside; ceilings are seen from inside. (And, at least in principle, you can have a glass ceiling between two stories of a building without the roof being transparent as well.) Omphalographer (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Anyone into making ship categories?

I've done some of these, but it's not really my thing. I recently was cruising around Seattle's Lake Union and the Lake Washington Ship Canal, and I can see that I photographed a fair number of ships that doubtless deserve categories of their own and don't have one. I did a few myself (including extracting a couple of images of particular ships), but I don't think I'm going to get around to doing all of what deserves to be done.

Some of the pictures where this would be worth doing for one or more ships (& as of this writing I'm still uploading more):

• 
• 
• 
  DONE
• 
• 
  DONE
• 
• 
• 
• 
  (mostly the same ships as the previous one)
• 
• 
  (mostly the same ships as the previous one)
• 

Jmabel ! talk 22:14, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there some better place I should post this, or some relevant maintenance category to add? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Sheesh, the amount of things you have to take care of... Well, never done this before, but tried my hand at it. Now, we have: Category:Point Nemo (ship, 1993) and Category:IMO 9043914 to deal with what I though as simple case from File:'Andrew Foss' and other ships at Northlake Shipyard, Seattle.jpg - "simple" because you provided an IMO number and the vessel's name. I hope that I did the Wikidata stuff right enough; I more or less copied the patterns of Category:COSCO France (ship, 2013) and Category:IMO 9516416 (as I knew that on this photo of mine, there were ship categories available). But Category:Point Nemo (ship, 1993) still has an issue: it's not mounted in any of those "Ships by XY" categories, I wasn't able to find out what its homeport is - searching for external imagery to maybe see the homeport painted on the ship wasn't successful, as Marinetraffic and other AIS trackers had image galleries, but only with probable sister ships of Point Nemo. @Joe, do you have any clue? I will also try to ask our marine buffs on DE-WP who likely have paid accesses to those databases, let's see what will come out. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Done: de:Portal Diskussion:Schifffahrt#Heimathafen für ein US-Arbeitsschiff?. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Looks like you did a fairly thorough job (more thorough than the average, in my experience). I'll make a few changes on things that weren't quite right. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting! - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Joe, could you advise for which ships you deem actually deserving categories? I'm not deep enough into the usual local practice about categories for that to be able to decide that myself. I won't mind doing that at least for all vessels with known IMO numbers, but I'd like a second opinion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Made another one: Category:Dominator (ship, 1979) / Category:IMO 7940467, advising it here so that interested parties may add anything useful. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Thank you very much. Usually, any shop with an IMO number for which we have media that could reasonably be used to illustrate the ship merits this pair of categories (and the corresponding Wikidata items); there are certainly a fair number of ships without IMO numbers that also deserve categories, but that is harder to delineate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Report on File:Seattle - boats on the north side of the Ship Canal, near NW 40th Street - 2025-07-09.jpg: Category:Wide Bay (ship, 1977) pair created, no IMO number for Lady Joanne (MMSI 303419000) found. We have Category:Vessels by MMSI number, but I did not unearth enough details about the vessel (like the launching date) to be confident in creating a category for the Lady. Grand-Duc (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

& just to confuse things further, there is a different Lady Joanna (not Joanne) with an IMO that fishes in the Gulf of Mexico. - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: The completely useless file names aside, a user is in the process of dumping a bunch of uncategorized images of boats into Category:Port of Kołobrzeg. Anyway, it would be cool if they were categorized by ship if you want something else to do that's related to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Precisely how are my filenames above "completely useless"? These are primarily pictures of locations, which happen to have ships in them. The names accurately describe the locations. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

It depends on the image. Like with File:Kołobrzeg port 41.jpg it would be cool to know what the name of it is, if it has one to begin with, or what it exactly it is by looking at the file name without having to open the file page and read the description. Not that the description says anything anyway though. Cool its a port though. We know that from the category the files are in. What exactly am I looking at though? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

That is not one of my images on which I was requesting help here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

A European, or a German, would often know that Kołobrzeg is a city in Poland, but I admit that this knowledge is not necessarily present stateside. But, @Adamant1, that wasn't a so great idea to highjack this thread. If you happen to know some German, you may very well ask for assistance on de:Portal Diskussion:Schifffahrt for the polish images, my German colleagues are often quite eager to lend a helping hand. In fact, one of them enhanced Category:Point Nemo (ship, 1993) quite a bit and wrote de:Responder-Klasse, likely motivated by this thread here (so, thanks @Joe, you indirectly made for a new article on DE-WP )! I'll try to see what I can do, but not immediately. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of awards

Over the years users have built these cat trees like Category:Recipients of awards. are they actually useful, when most files under the persons' own cats are not actually related to (receiving) the awards? RoyZuo (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This feels suspiciously like yet another instance of misusing categories as metadata ("person X received award Y"). Some of the subcategories like Category:Nobel laureates are justifiable, as the awards are significant enough to be a defining property of the recipient, but most (like, say, Category:Brian Piccolo Award winners) aren't. I've also removed a couple of categories for individual people - describing a person as a "recipient of awards", without specifying an award, is meaningless. Omphalographer (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

without specifying an award, is meaningless. There might just not be a category for said award yet (or someone could not have been bothered to find the correct sub-category). Nakonana (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

If the award is significant, a category should be created for it. If not, it doesn't need to be represented as a Commons category. Simply saying that a person is a "recipient of an award" says very little - there are a lot of awards in the world, most of which are completely non-notable and do not need to be annotated in Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd go beyond that, though. There are awards that deserve categories, but not every winner of the award needs to have that as a parent category. E.g. we appropriately have Category:Order of Labour Merit to show what the medal itself and its ribbon bars look like. That doesn't mean it is an important enough award that our category hierarchy should track who won it. Similarly for Category:Jubilee Medal "80 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", where I see we have an (empty) Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "80 Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945"; I don't think we should. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I was just going to mention the "Recipients of Whatever Jubilee Medal" categories. Their a perfect example of where this whole thing goes wrong. From what I remember there's a rather rude, aggressive user who won't allow the categories to be removed and/or deleted though. Although I think they are being added on Wikidata's end through infoboxes. So I'm not sure it's something that can be dealt with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

That medal was recently created in September 2024 and the first medal weren't handed out up until 2025, so, that might explain why it's still empty.

It might actually be one of the more interesting categories of the jubilee medal series because they are awarded to veterans, but there are hardly any veterans left. The veterans must be around 100 years old by now. If we'd delete recipients' categories of the jubilee medal series then I'd rather argue to get rid of the first awards of the series, e.g. Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" because they are flooded with 1154 sub-categories, which isn't really helpful.

Ah, interesting. I know at some level we get to control what comes in via {{Wikidata Infobox}}, but I've never been involved and don't know the granularity of control. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Do you happen to have any idea where to even start with figuring out where the categories come from or how to remove them? I looked into a few months ago but couldn't find jack myself. It seems to involve multiple templates from both here and Wikidata that work on top of each but that's as far as I was able to get. I'm a strong believer that Commons should have control over, or at least a say in, things like this though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. I've seen discussions that led to changes before, but I don't know who tunes this, or how tunable it is. If you've found the relevant templates, you might look at who edits them, and ping them here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, the Wikidata Infobox template (or one of its integrated templates) probably makes some property call (e.g. https://wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P27) and that's what probably adds the category. So, when going through a template's code you'll probably have to look out for the mention of those properties. Ruwiki infoboxes often use such calls, example: [3]. There, you can see code lines like:

|изображение2 = {{wikidata|p94|{{{герб|}}}|.

So, here we see the property p94 and the purpose of the line is to automatically add the image of the Coat of Arms (герб) to the infobox on ruwiki from the wikidata item that is associated with the article. More specifically, this will add the image that can be found on wikidata under the p94 property (or under the statement "coat of arms image" https://wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P94). Similarly, there are properties for awards received, but I don't know their p-numbers. Nakonana (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, the number was easier to find than I thought: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P166. Does the code of {{Wikidata Infobox}} mention p166 anywhere? If so, then that might be what's adding the categories. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There's a whole list: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Wikidata_Infobox/doc/properties Nakonana (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for looking into it. I left @Mike Peel: a message on his talk page about the discussion since he seems to be the main editor of the infobox template. Hopefully he can add some information to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

And Adamant1 is right, those categories are added via the Wikidata Infobox. People probably see that the infobox creates red link categories and then go ahead and create those categories so that they aren't red links anymore. Nakonana (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Omphalographer. Nobels, Oscars, César Awards, Congressional Medal of Honor, British knighthood, Order of the Paulownia Flowers: sure. Stranger Genius, Purple Heart, Order of the Rising Sun Sixth Class: no. Sometimes in between it is hard to know exactly where to draw the line. - Jmabel ! talk 19:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Seconding (thirding?) this. I also agree that it's hard to draw the line, but a line should be drawn somewhere. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Category:Wakkerpreis-Prix Wakker Wakker Prize (Q689888) a bunch of towns. RoyZuo (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Axe the subcats. Kind of a funny side find to that is the nesting doll categorization of Category:Architecture awards by genre and type ---> Category:Architecture awards honoring architects ---> Category:Viktor Kovačić Award ---> Category:Viktor Kovačić Award laureates ---> Category:Juraj Denzler ---> Category:Buildings by Juraj Denzler ---> Category:Faculty of Economics & Business (Zagreb).

That's what, 7 categories before you get to an image? And heck if I know what the first category has to do with the last one. I really do wonder what some people on here are thinking sometimes. At this point the whole thing is just an endless shell game of categories inside of other categories that never get to an actual image. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

So, the way this works is that categories like Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" have associated Wikidata items, here Category:Recipients of the Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" (Q9983554). These are linked from the award item like Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945" (Q783270) using category for recipients of this award (P2517). Individual items on people then link to the award item using award received (P166). {{Wikidata Infobox}} follows that logic from the individual's Commons category back to the award Commons category, and then auto-includes the category in the award category. If I recall right, it only does this where the Commons category for the award exists - it doesn't create redlinks - but I'd have to go back to the code to confirm that. That means that the level of granularity is in Commons' control - if we think award winners should be collected into a category, then we can create that - but if we don't, we just don't have the award category, and that can be discussed using the usual categories for discussion process. Does that make sense? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: That kind of makes sense but the whole thing just seems circular. Like with the category for Pierre Dansereau it's in Category:Honorary doctors of Université Laval which is being automatically added to it through the infobox. The category can't be removed though and non-empty categories can't be deleted. So what's the solution there if I want to nominate the category for the award for deletion? I assume the same issue would still exist if there was a CfD since non-empty categories can't (or at least shouldn't be) deleted regardless. But from what it sounds like the category will be added by the infobox as long as it exists on Commons but it can't be deleted from Commons as long as it's being added to categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: You just nominate it for discussion/deletion as normal? There's no requirement that the category has to be empty to be deleted (you just can't get it speedily deleted - but then you shouldn't be emptying categories out to qualify for speedy deletion anyway). After deletion you can just do null edits to each of the categories and that should empty out the redlinked category fairly quickly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: , @Jmabel: , @Nakonana: , @ReneeWrites: , @Omphalographer: Any of you want to do CfDs for the categories? It seems like we all agree the "Recipients of the Jubilee Medal" categories shouldn't exist (except for maybe the last one) but apparently they can't be nominated for speedy deletion. So oh well on those ones I guess. But there's plenty of others. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Please check page for File:Amsterdam-apierson-egyptian-death-papyrus-0.jpeg

Hi Village pump. I uploaded File:Amsterdam-apierson-egyptian-death-papyrus-0.jpeg. This is the first time I upload this genre, an ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead papyrus, so I'd appreciate if someone could help check the description page. I'm not sure what templates to use and how, so I'd like help in that, as well as in categorization. Also I'd like to know how to present the license templates in this case to make it clear which one is for the original papyrus and which one is for the photo.

The photo is of a reproduction in Amsterdam, where the sign only says that the original is in the Louvre and it's from c. 150-100 BC, Thebes. I found a few other photos on Commons that seem to depict details of the original papyrus in the Louvre, as well as link the specific catalog entry page of the Louvre. Sadly the museum catalog webpage only has a low-quality photograph, and Commons doesn't have photos of the whole papyrus. Anyway, I copied the object description part from such a photo of the original on Commons. I think the catalog entry is useful, since it lets you find the original.

– b_jonas 23:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@B jonas: you might find {{Art Photo}} a better way to handle something like this. But that one remove of a reproduction makes that tricky, too. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for Assistance Uploading Matilda Magazine Materials to Wikimedia Commons

With permission from the author I would like to share the following letter:

"Hi Donald Trung,

I hope this message finds you well.

I’m reaching out to kindly ask for your help in uploading some historical materials to Wikimedia Commons. I am working on a Wikipedia article about Matilda Magazine, an Australian political satire magazine that was published in 1985–86, and I have several original scans that need to be cited in the article.

The material includes:

• 1. A scanned original covers of Matilda Magazine
• 2. A set of archived newspaper clippings referencing the magazine and its public impact

These materials belong to Mr. Robbie Swan, the magazine’s original publisher, who is now 80 years old and unable to upload them himself or engage directly due to age and access limitations. He has explicitly authorized me to share these materials for publication on Wikimedia Commons under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license so they can be used in the upcoming Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons is currently blocked in my region, which is why I’m requesting your help.

Would you be willing to upload these files on his behalf? I can provide:

• 1. All the files (cover + clippings)
• 2. File descriptions and metadata
• 3. Statement of permission on his behalf

Your help would be deeply appreciated and credited appropriately.

Please let me know if you’d be willing to assist and where I can send the files. Thank you so much in advance for considering this.

Warm regards,
Krista Watson Acting on behalf of Mr. Robbie Swan
[Redacted e-mail address]
(user:Krista.Watson1)

-- This email was sent by Krista.Watson1 to Donald Trung by the "Email this user" function at Wikimedia Commons. If you reply to this email, your email will be sent directly to the original sender, revealing your email address to them. To manage email preferences for user ‪Krista.Watson1‬, please visit the following URL: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Mute/Krista.Watson1 "

I have instructed them to contact the VRTS and if anyone else is interested in helping them with this project, you could message them on their talk page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the "Wikimedia Commons is blocked in my region"? - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe they are from one of the countries that have blocked Commons? (i.e. China, Myanmar and North Korea). Tvpuppy (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Though the user appears to be from Australia. Perhaps she was using VPN or what? (Or are there any instance of some Australian places blocking parts of Wikimedia platforms?) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The most likely reason is a blocked (transparent) proxy for "Unfortunately, Wikimedia Commons is currently blocked in my region", IMHO. Or the user is connected to some kind of corporate intranet with a weirdly configured exit to the general WWW, where maybe file transfers get blocked; or something similar. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

So "region" was probably a mis-conjecture?

Usually when we block IP ranges, we allow logged-in accounts. She appears to have an account, and obviously any effort to upload would have been made while logged in.

Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

"These materials belong to Mr. Robbie Swan, the magazine’s original publisher, who is now 80 years old and unable to upload them himself or engage directly due to age and access limitations." In other words, Robbie Swan has limited access but the sender of the email can upload the material. They just want someone else to do it for them. Not to be bad faithed about this but uploading COPYVIO and/or paid editing by proxy maybe? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

That's surely not a copyright violation, as the actual rights holder is aware of the proceedings and endorses them, as far as we can tell. "Paid editing" and "editing by proxy"? The latter yes, as it is clearly described; and I think that the declaration with "on behalf of" also signalize a relationship possibly involving payments - likely sufficient per Foundation:PAID. This transparency by Krista Watson is welcome, in my eyes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: That assumes Mr. Robbie Swan indeed owns the rights to Matilda Magazine, which I don't think is a given. If I were to guess being involved in similar situations, probably not. With the "paid editing by proxy" thing specifically, the proxy here would be whichever user decides to take the bait as it were and upload the material for Krista Watson. They can of course upload images as a paid editor themselves, but IMO it's an entirely different thing to email random users asking them to do it on their behalf. There's no reason to think Donald Trung is the only user who received an email either. Honestly, why go that route instead of just posting a question about it here if everything is completely aboveboard about it? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, As these covers are not in the public domain yet, we first need a confirmation from the copyright holder that they are released under a free license. This should be done via COM:VRT. If the copyright holder is not comfortable doing this online, it can be done on paper, then scanned, and the scan sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org by a third party. Yann (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Photo challenge May results

Flags: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Rettungsschwimmer im Parque Natural de Corralejo, Fuerteventura	Flag of Namibia on an airplane winglet	Parachuter with the national flag of Italy
Author	Fischer1961	Mozzihh	Marcxosm
Score	18	7	5

Flowers: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Sunflower field in Burgundy	Waterlily	Hasenglöckchen eingerahmt
Author	Ibex73	Peterdownunder	Englandfan~commonswiki
Score	12	8	8

Congratulations to Fischer1961, Mozzihh, Marcxosm, Ibex73, Peterdownunder and Englandfan~commonswiki. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

A crazy side story about May Photo Challenge were contributions by user:Djae26, who created multiple sockpuppets, who all voted for their entries. That was enough to be in top 3 in one of the topics. Thank you user:Lymantria and User:Bait30 for investigating. --Jarekt (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Which King?

Charles IX, king of France

There seems to be some confusion as to the subject: is it Charles IX, king of France, or François II, ditto?

(This was originally raised at en:Wikipedia:Teahouse#Linked portrait is of a different person.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

What was the basis for the claim that it is Charles IX? The source for cited on upload, still online, states it is François II and that source appears to have been based on an auction of the piece; it is quite a claim to say that the auction house misidentified the piece, and would call for a very strong citation. - Jmabel ! talk 00:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@FDRMRZUSA: can you explain? Unless I'm missing something, it looks like both mutually contradictory identifications (title and descrption) came from you. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

The image is used on en:Francis II of France and 60+ similar articles in other languages. A sketch of this privately-owned painting, is in Bibliothèque Nationale de France] and is titled "François II". Portrait of Charles IX, brother of François by the same painter in the same pose and at the same ago, looks strikingly similar, but I do not think there is a confusion between the two. --Jarekt (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Cleaning Category:Historia Naturalis Brasiliae

The category is kinda a mess. Excluding Category:Animal illustrations (Historia Naturalis Brasiliae) and Category:Plant illustrations (Historia Naturalis Brasiliae), all files related to the book where put straight in the main cat, including scans of the pages, covers, PDF files and some random cropped images. I've managed to organize it a bit, and even created Category:PDF files of Historia Naturalis Brasiliae cuz the book was uploaded 7(!) times, but the main issue is the pages.

All pages from the scan in BHL plus some random scans from other sources were uploaded as separate .jpg images and placed in the main cat, but at the same time we have Category:Pages of Historia naturalis Brasiliae, where all pages of a different scan of the book were uploaded again—in the end we have a total of 779 page files of a roughly 550-page book.

So, for this last bit, what would be the best approach: 1) move all the files to Category:Pages of Historia naturalis Brasiliae regardless; 2) try to divide them into subcategories by source; 3) delete the duplicates and just keep the highest quality pages or 4) delete everything and just keep the PDFs? Trooper57 (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trooper57: Any idea how many of those page images are being used? They are certainly more tractable for reuse than a PDF, and they look like they have reuse potential (typically with CSS cropping). - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: only the cropped images in Category:Illustrations from Historia Naturalis Brasiliae are being used in Wikisource and Wiktionary AFAIK, which have a link to the original page image with {{Extracted from}}. That's about 60 pages in use if they're all properly linked, but some of them were extracted from the same page (File:Historia naturalis Brasiliae (Page 209) BHL289302.jpg). Trooper57 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm. Apologies for butting in, I don't have a strong opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

How should courtesy deletion requests be handled via VRT?

I'd like to raise a broader question on how courtesy deletion requests should be handled when they come through the VRT system, especially in cases where a subject contacts WMF Legal or VRT directly (e.g. via info-commons) rather than using the public DR process. Let me describe a general situation:

A person depicted in an image on Commons has contacted WMF Legal to request its removal. Legal defers to community processes and suggests the person request a courtesy deletion. However, due to the sensitivity of the situation (potential embarrassment, privacy, safety concerns, etc.), the person prefers not to go through the public deletion request system. Legal then points them to VRT for more discreet handling.

The relevant guidance is spread across multiple pages:

• Commons:Courtesy deletions notes that admins are "normally sympathetic to well-reasoned removal requests" even if no policy is violated.
• Commons:Photographs of identifiable people says requests from subjects may be considered even if there's no legal violation, and can be routed via Commons:Contact us/Problems.
• The Contact us page explicitly acknowledges that there's no uniform policy and such requests are handled case by case, but they can email VRT to request deletion ("For quick help, you can email the support team").

However, these statements leave some open questions from a VRT or admin point of view:

• What discretion do VRT agents (who are also admins) have to act on these requests without requiring a public DR?
• Is it within scope to process a request entirely via VRT and delete a file under courtesy grounds with admin tools?
• Or is a DR always required, even if the requestor has compelling personal reasons not to go through a public venue?
• Is there a meaningful difference in expectations when the request is coming via WMF Legal's advice?

I’m asking both as a VRT agent and as an admin. My default has been to suggest DR even for sensitive cases, but that seems to contradict the guidance that discretion may be used, or that VRT can serve as an alternative path. Would appreciate clarity from the wider community. If these policies guidelines are meant to grant discretion, it would be good to know what the limits are. And if they're not, then maybe the language should be clarified so requesters (and WMF Legal) are not misled.

Thanks in advance for thoughts and input. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

In my years in Wikimedia projects I feel that deleting without DR /under the radar is not appreciated by the community and should be avoided (or should be kept to an absolute minimum).

Also, I would like to point out, that deleting without DR could also cause a backlash and attract unwanted attention (like en:Streisand effect).

VRT-agents could still help, for example, write up a good DR that expresses what original itent, but is more in line with the typical language we have here --Isderion (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

As an admin, I can also see how a DR could also attract undue attention to a matter that could be handled discretely. Generally if the person isn't notable and there is an actual privacy concern, I'd close as delete as far as a DR. Notable people is more a case by case basis where if we have a number of photos of the person, I'd also probably delete. It's tougher when there are fewer or the only freely licensed photograph of the person. Abzeronow (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

It's tougher when there are fewer or the only freely licensed photograph of the person. At the same time, there are also some people who Commons may not have photos of because they've tried to maintain a low public profile, and (IMO) Commons should aim to respect that where reasonably possible. Omphalographer (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

This exact conundrum has come up recently, and I would tend to agree that Commons should aim to respect someone's desire for privacy if they have made a reasonable effort to remain private. 19h00s (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Very few people outside the Wikisphere are even aware that DR exists. I'm not really sure how much undue attention there really is attracted here Trade (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I think that all we can do as VRT members is to confirm the requester identity if they explicitly wishes so and express our personal opinion about deletion reasons without revealing what the reasons indeed are. I think that I participated in a courtesy DR when the real deletion reason could not be revealed and I just supported the DR providing info that a strong deletion reason has been provided to VRT. I think that we should not go beyond this line. Ankry (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with a VRT member who is also an admin deciding to do a courtesy deletion on this basis, as long as they (1) verify that if this came from an online source, it has already been removed from that online sources, (2) believe that a courtesy deletion is genuinely appropriate, (3) make sure that if the image is in use there is an appropriate substitute image, and they do that substitution everywhere, and (4) indicate clearly in the deletion log that this was a courtesy deletion. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Josve05a, Thank you for bringing this to the attention of the Village pump. It is an important matter. The relevant modifications to the guideline "Commons:Photographs of identifiable people" (COM:PIP), and the related modifications to the information page "Commons:Contact us/Problems", were made in connection with this discussion on the page "Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people" from November 2013. (Special attention can be given to the comments by Maggie Dennis (WMF)). My understanding of it all is that the (only) role of VRT, whenever it receives a deletion request, is to determine what type of case it is and then to dispatch, to judiciously redirect it to the proper decisional entity: either to WMF Legal, in the cases that require it, or to the Commons deletion procedure. It must be noted that at the time of the discussion, in November 2013, the relevant section of the page "Commons:Contact us/Problems" mentioned only "Inappropriate images of children" and such requests had necessarily to be sent to WMF Legal [4]. The November 2013 discussion started when a user controversially added to the COM:PIP page a suggestion to send other types of deletion requests directly to WMF Legal [5]. After the discussion, the wording ended up being "In any case you may address a removal request through the normal public process of a regular deletion request. if discretion is required a deletion request may also be sent privately through this page." [6] ("this page" meaning "Commons:Contact us/Problems"). Then there was a discussion at "Commons talk:Contact us" to change the wording of the page "Commons:Contact us/Problems", which was changed on 26 December 2013 [7]. That change added the email address related to en.wikipedia ("info-en-c") as a possible entry point for more general deletion requests related to COM:PIP. That was later changed for the email address related to Commons ("info-commons"). The role of an entry point is to evaluate and send the request to the proper decisional entity. It doesn't seem that there was any intention to confer to VRT members any decisional power to decide to delete files. (That doesn't mean that an administrator can never take the initiative to delete a file after receiving a deletion request through VRT. Administrators can delete files in cases of copyvios and other cases covered by the deletion policy such as "Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion". It doesn't matter if the administrator became aware of the case through their own research or through a mention on Commons or through VRT, as long as the deletion is allowed by the deletion policy. But that is unrelated to the matter of the present discussion. An administrator cannot invoke their additional VRT membership in order to bypass the deletion policy and to surrepticiously delete a file in cases when deletion is not allowed for an administrator who is not a VRT member. In other words, VRT membership doesn't change anything to the powers and duties of an administrator in their role as administrator.) As for the guideline "Commons:Courtesy deletions" (COM:COURTESY), it merely says that it can be an acceptable reason for deletion. It doesn't change the procedure. Courtesy deletions follow the established procedures. In cases that do not require any confidentiality, the deletion rationale can be explicit. If a level of confidentiality is required, the problematic details are left out. In most cases, there can be at least some indication of the general type of reason. In extreme cases, I think the comment above by Ankry states a proper course of action. Extreme cases should be rare. Could there be even more extreme cases that would justify that Commons might change its deletion policy to allow an administrator (or an administrator from a small subset of administrators who happen to be VRT members) to unilaterally decide to secretly make courtesy deletions? Maybe, although given the inherent subjectivity of courtesy deletions and without the possibility to check, there would be a serious risk of abuse when giving someone an unchecked power to perform actions in secret. If there are cases so extreme that total secrecy is required, they are likely cases that should be sent to the WMF. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

One situation that keeps recurring in VRT is when someone contacts us with a clearly sincere and understandable wish to have a file deleted for personal, sensitive reasons. Legal has no basis to act (as nothing illegal is involved), and the person does not want to file a public DR, as even doing so might draw attention to themselves or suggest they're trying to "scrub the web".

In some of these cases, I personally believe the file should be deleted. But I don't have a deletion rationale of my own to point to, especially not if the person is notable and the image is otherwise "in scope" (I can make up a scope reason I don't actually believe in, but...). And as VRT is NDA-restricted, I can't share the details without consent; so it ends up in a catch-22: they don’t want to go public, I can't make the case without breaking confidentiality, and deletion policy offers no discrete pathway.

This does happen from time to time. Often the person gives up after realizing there's no viable option, which I find unfortunate. If we want to offer meaningful privacy options, maybe we do need to revisit whether some narrowly defined process could exist, perhaps through a confidential committee as GPSLeo suggested below, or a revised understanding of what admin discretion can cover in extreme courtesy cases. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I can think of some legitimate cases for which it could be much preferable to have a more discreet procedure and avoid starting a DR. (Although there are probably not many cases for which it would be absolutely necessary.) I remember a case from a few years ago, when someone contacted me about photos she had taken of her home and then, because of some events, she had actual reasons to fear for her safety. At that time, I wasn't sure what to do with that (I had not researched the matter as I did here), so I contacted an admin and asked if that required a DR or if the files could be speedy deleted. I was prepared to start a DR although a speedy deletion seemed preferable if possible. The admin kindly speedy deleted the files in good faith. I suppose that such cases may happen from time to time although we don't realise it. Maybe someone can think about a change of policy to officially allow it. The concern, of course, is the obvious risk of abuse. Just like with anything else in life, we would like rules to be flexible enough to allow good and wise people to do just and fair actions, and strict enough to prevent bad or irresponsible people to do abusive actions. That balance is difficult to reach, maybe sometimes impossible. There's the risk of a slippery slope where actions that were intended to be rare exceptions become widely abused. Wikimedia projects have always been aware of that danger and they insist on transparency. GPSLeo's idea can be explored. And other ideas that people might think of. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see deletion request through VRT any different than, deletion request on admin's talk pages or noticeboards, as long as deletion follows Commons:Courtesy deletions and the reasons are clearly stated in deletion comment, I do not thing they need to go through DR. In my experience many such files are borderline in scope, so there is no loss. At the same time, I had cases of VRT requests by celebrities because the only photo we had of them was not flattering. In such cases I was suggesting uploading a good quality selfie, to replace the photo in Wikipedia article, which is all they cared about. Another case was an amateur-photographer who was an author of some well known historical photographs, who gave very broad permission for all his photographs to be released under CC years before selling his whole portfolio to a 3rd party. It was unpleasant to inform him that we can not delete those photographs. --Jarekt (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Question time

• Should people requesting courtesy deletions be expected to provide a reason behind their request? Anything beyond "I dont want this photo up anymore"? It can more difficult to convince the community to delete photos when no actual reason is provided i often feel
• Should DR be consideerd mandatory in cases where the image in question is used to illustrate the subject on Wikipedia?

--Trade (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• • "I don't want this photo" is certainly sufficient in some cases and not in others. If we have (say) 5 photos from the same photo session, and one of them is uncomplimentary, we should be willing to delete the one that makes the subject look bad. Conversely, if (again, for example) we had a free-licensed photo of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump wanted it deleted, no way in the world should we do such a thing. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah shouldn't we at least encourage people to provide a better reason? It's much harder to justify without a proper reason in cases where the photo is clearly in scope Trade (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I also already thought about this problem. I think we need a decision body that works like the ArbCom for such cases. Such a "Privacy complaints committee" or how ever we call it consists of elected community members who decide on privacy related deletion requests in a confidential way. If there is a public reason for the decision has to be decided based on the case. GPSLeo (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd support the creation of such a body. Abzeronow (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought the "privacy complaints committee" is the group of oversighters? Krd 07:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Or just make it so oversighters are automatically members of the committee. For all we know it might get too much of a backlog in the future Trade (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

We could bundle this task with existing oversight. But this would mean that we would have many more (I think 5 to 7 would be needed) users with potential access to the sensitive suppressed content. Most cases we are talking about here do not require to be suppressed and therefore giving these users the right is not necessary. On the other hand adding this task to oversight tasks would have the benefit that existing structures could be used. What do the current Oversighters think about this @Minorax@Odder@Raymond? Do you think making handling of privacy related non public deletion requests an Oversighter task would be a good idea or should this better be done by a separate group? GPSLeo (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I can't imagine any privacy complaint being more sensitive than what oversight already have to deal with. In my mind if you can be trusted with privacy complaints then you can probably already be trusted with oversight tools Trade (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I think GPSLeo's concern is that the existing Oversight team isn't equipped to deal with an increased volume of requests. Omphalographer (talk) 22:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

At the current volume of tickets received, they are responded to within minutes to 2 hours. If the privacy-related requests as mentioned don't come in a bulk, I generally don't expect this response time to change. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 00:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

"privacy related non public deletion requests": yes, as always, this is our mandate. But as OS I do not think it would be our task to do courtesy deletions of i.e. an image of a building or other non-personal images. Raymond (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

This discussion per the initial post is specifically about personal rights courtesy deletions, and the question was who is in charge of that. I thing it will be consensus that the OS team is in charge, and there is no reason for an additional group to be invented. As far as non-privicy courtesy deletions are concerned, they can and should be handeled via normal deletion request. Krd 06:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The scenarios I have in mind are like these:

• Photo under free license on own website now removed there
• Photo of person speaking on stage/during sports where photographing was generally allowed but the photo is not that good
• Crops of group photos
• Photo of a crowd with person clearly visible maybe in an unpleasing situation like eating

GPSLeo (talk) 07:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

When was the last time we had a courtesy DR not related to privacy? Trade (talk) 15:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

We often have own work deletion requests more than 7 days after upload. In many cases we accept these requests. GPSLeo (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Those DRs usually refuse to provide any reasoning behind them so i just assume they are for privacy as well Trade (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I would note here that privacy/courtesy deletion requests are quite ofter in VRT, thay not always and up in DR. In many cases bluring/cropping is an available option and I am not sure if they also need to go to oversiters (and possibly be redirected). These may be cases like:

• I do not want a photo of my car in the public (bluring plates solves the problem)
• My mirrored image is visible on the glass
• My room is visible through the window
• Local law does not allow to publish my image without my consent
• Due to political changes in my country I do not feel safe as I am visible on this photo (during a public event)

Cases like above may be resolved with just bluring, while they are initially privace-related deletion requests. So if we want to leave decisions in some border cases to oversiters, I am not sure if we should direct users with all cases like above to them. Ankry (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"Local law does not allow to publish my image without my consent"

From your experience are the people saying this telling the truth? Trade (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: They may if they are in the Netherlands, but I don't know if the copyright grant was retroactive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: To an extent, oversighters already do fulfill this role. Reading the example scenarios provided by @Jonatan Svensson Glad, we already do suppress files that people ask to have removed for "personal, sensitive reasons" (mostly privacy) as this is specifically allowed under the global oversight policy. These are very much run-of-the-mill requests that we attend to on a regular basis; currently anywhere between 1–3 times per month (although third-party reports/requests arrive more often than that). We do also sometimes reject requests that we assess don't qualify for suppression under the policy, such as these examples you provided immediately above. I do appreciate that the wider community might not be aware of the specifics of oversight work—something that we could improve on perhaps—but generally speaking, we respond to any file removal requests sent to us for privacy/safety reasons quite swiftly and engage the Wikimedia Foundation whenever required. odder (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know oS'ers did that. I only ever knew you hid edits such as text content and diffs, not file deletions (which normally does not require oversighting, only file revision hiding). Perhaps Commons:Oversighters can be updates as to include the fact that you delete files as well, as it does not state any such information at the moment (it may do so over on meta, but would be good to have clear guidance here on who does what) and with what mandate. Perhaps these kinds of requests and tickets sent to normal info- queues on VRT should be directed to an oversight queue instead then? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jonatan Svensson Glad: There is no oversight queue on VRT, however we do have a mailing list on Wikimedia Mailman; you are more than welcome to forward any requests from VRT to that mailing list (as English Wikipedia VRT queues do on a regular basis). As for your other suggestion, I made a small update to Commons:Oversighters to help better reflect what we can do. A detailed explanation on what oversighters do (and how they do it) is available at Commons:Oversighters/Handbook if you'd like to have a look. odder (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps from now on whenever someone complains about their photo being on Commons we should just redirect them to the Oversight email instead of asking them to make a DR. How does that sound to you? Trade (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I would think (per discussion above) that very few of these require an oversighter, and unless the person in question is the primary subject of the photo they can by solved by retouching and revdels. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

The thing oversight can do is responding within a reasonable timeframe Trade (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there any notability rules for creating { {creator} } template

When we upload images to commons, there's a parameter for author. For famous art, photograph, sketch, the author is also famous. So, we add that. Suppose a user from commons creates his own { {creator} } page in commons and add it to his uploaded image (Taken by him). Are there any notability guidelines like Wikipedia on creating such template? Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@Rafi Bin Tofa: it is not normally acceptable to make a {{Creator}} page for someone non-notable. The closest that is permitted is to create a Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Categories user category for your own work. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Rafi Bin Tofa (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am not aware of a policy establishing notability criteria for Creator: pages. There are actually some Commons users who have their own page, e.g. Creator:Raimond Spekking (User:Raymond) or Creator:Yann Forget (User:Yann). I'd say if a user is an established contributor and uploads a significant number of images, it is perfectly fine to create a Creator page for them. Regards, ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I always though we have the same criteria as for Wikidata items. So very low requirements but you need some publication that adds you to the large researcher databases. GPSLeo (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Dark mode

How do I enable dark mode here? My eyes are burning. Einsof (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you use the default skin, there should be a menu on the right hand side, or you click the glasses icon at the top, which present a drop down menu. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Global ban for Chealer

Hello, this message is to notify that Chealer has been nominated for a global ban at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. You are receiving this notification as required per the global ban policy as they have made at least 1 edit on this wiki. Thanks, --SHB2000 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

An artificial resolution in File:Behzad timur egyptian.jpg?

Can someone tell if the resolution of the latest version of File:Behzad timur egyptian.jpg (this) is comletely artifial comparing to the previous one (this)? Should the previous resolution be restored? פעמי-עליון (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a pointless upscaling. Larger, without actually gaining any real information. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Issue with page specific search boxes

Hi. If I do a search for "postcard" in the search box at the bottom of Commons:Categories for discussion it just does a regular search instead of searching in the Categories for Discussion archives, which I assume it's suppose to be doing. Instead of giving me a bunch of results that have nothing to do with Categories for Discussion. The same goes for doing a search on this page. If I do a search for my user name I get a bunch of results for past uploads, not conversations on here that I've participated in. Does anyone know what the deal is with it? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: try it now, I think this fixed it. This is related to phabricator:T378756 about allowing mw:Extension:InputBox to use either normal search or media search, and somehow it now defaulted to media search. MKFI (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I think all Commons search boxes might now be broken. Does anyone know if it is possible to set a global default search engine for inputbox? MKFI (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Yikes. That sucks. Thanks for the information though. Someone should post a comment about it on Phabricator or something if there's no way to set a global default for the inputbox. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Sorry about this! The change is to make MediaSearch be used for InputBoxes, and it now honours the user's preference unless a specific parameter is given (i.e. searchengine = Search as @MKFI mentions above). This is from a Wishlist wish. The general idea is that there are actually more inputboxes that are for searching media than there are for searching categories etc. and so defaulting to that (or rather, defaulting to the wiki's default search, which here is MediaSearch) is the more useful thing to do. The places that search talk pages, categories, etc. are more often in templates and so can be changed centrally. If you want a quick fix, you could change your preference to Special:Search. Sam Wilson 08:39, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

culturalia.ro

culturalia.ro seems to have a ton of interesting content related to Romanian culture; we seem to have very little of it on Commons. They don't mark what is and isn't public domain (though much of it clearly is), and they don't make it easy to download content, so this would take someone who knows what they are doing, but I would guess that there are literally tens of thousands of files there worth having. Anyone interested in researching? Or any suggestion where I might better post this? - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems to work pretty well with Dezoomify. I could open and download images with Dezoomify plugin on Firefox browser. Herbert Ortner (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. I admit I have not come up with very effective search strategies to find materials of more than routine interest, but there is a lot there. - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Herbert Ortner: If you'd be willing to try one experiment to determine feasibility, https://culturalia.ro/search/8d943e55-8226-497d-ad00-9ed38ea4b85e/view looks like it has a better image of the painting we currently have at File:Nicolae Grigorescu - Fete lucrand la poarta.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Worked flawlessly. I did an upload of the new version over the existing one. Hope that's ok since I got an error message about not overwriting of existing artworks but it seemed reasonable to overwrite that old small image which was barely more than a thumbnail. Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. It's OK, but should indicate the different source (which I've done). - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Note that many of the artefacts in Culturalia are also on Europeana with clearer free licenses. Strainu (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I left a short note at Romanian Wikipedia's Villlage pump too. --Pafsanias (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion pages

Change daily headers

Since the new left sidebar design exists, the daily headers (inserted by User:Hazard-SJ's bot) in effect hide all actual section headers. I think it'd be better if they use == instead of =. also, maybe a weekly header (like Week 10 - 3 March to 9 March) will be better coz it takes up less space. RoyZuo (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Why were pages not set up monthly？

Instead of now:

1. all discussions are posted on Commons:Village pump
2. then they get sent to a monthly archive page

why not:

1. all discussions are posted on for example Commons:Village pump/2025/07
2. Commons:Village pump redirects to the current monthly page, or transcludes the most recent 2 monthly pages.

By not moving discussions across pages, there are many benefits:

1. save the edits just for archiving (1 edit to original and 1 edit to archive page)
2. avoid the trouble to find where the discussions were actually archived to. useful when you go through a user's Special:Contributions and try to follow discussions s/he participated.
3. avoid the problems that sometimes the discussions were lost (because the bot malfunctions or someone has edited the archive pages (especially common if they want to "revive" a discussion)...)

is there any wiki project that actually uses a smarter system like this?--RoyZuo (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The archives could be easier to sort through and having those be monthly could be useful for that, but I would prefer if the way discussions itself are set up remain unchanged. It could get tricky to keep track of active discussions, especially for topics posted near the end of the month. The current system doesn't discriminate in that regard. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Signupstart

1. Why an imperative phrase saying that people "should" create an anonymous account, as it should be a choice? And most of us are photographers, have our name spread is not a bad thing, quite the opposite, and for legal reasons, would be more efficient use our full legal names, as we can prove that the photos were licensed by us, seems an import from Wikipedia with the fear of the violence spread around there, not the ideal
2. How can we translate this warning (after fixing it)? By now, seems that the warning is only in English.

I suggest:

1. "Creating an account with your full name can make you not anonymous, as this will be a public account."

-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

• That's terribly roundabout. How about, "Your account name will be public. In selecting an account name, choose carefully whether or not you want to use your real name." - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  I like that wording. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  Or perhaps a little more specifically: "Your account name will be publicly visible on all edits you make and files you upload. Only use your real name as your account name if you are comfortable with it being shown." Omphalographer (talk) 01:08, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  not sure, too wordy -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  The organization is better, the only thing that bothers me is "choose carefully", sounds dangerous @Jmabel...

  how about:

  • We want you to be comfortable with your public profile. Please choose an account name that you are happy for others to see, whether it's your real name or not.
  • Your account name will be visible to others, so feel free to use your real name or a creative username you're comfortable sharing.

  -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

  • • @Rodrigo.Argenton: A little wordy. If anything, we might also spell out that you cannot "borrow" the name of a well-known person or organization (we get that a lot).
    • Maybe: "Your account name will be visible to others. Feel free to use your own name or stay more anonymous with a creative account name you are comfortable sharing, but please use a name that could not readily be mistaken for some well-known person or organization." - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

      @Jmabel

      it's better to start a new paragraph

      And you created an away more wordy than my. And maybe this warning could have an opposite effect... If necessary, we can include there, but more like: Accounts in the name of a brand will be locked. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 05:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

      1. "Accounts in the name of a brand will be locked" would not be an accurate statement of Commons policy. (Current policy at Commons:Username policy, and it looks like the verification policy is about to be significantly weakened.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
      2. My last phrase would be better stated as, "please do not use a name that could be readily mistaken for some well-known person or organization." - Jmabel ! talk 06:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

• You can change your "author name" via Preferences. Go to Preferences -> Upload Wizard -> Licensing. You will see "Author's name". Nemoralis (talk) 23:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am talking about: MediaWiki:Signupstart -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 23:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

  If someone can also replace the blue text by a Codex-token for readability, that would be nice. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton ^m 21:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The author of the photo does not have an email address to send permission

A 64-year-old woman sent me via Facebook messenger photos she had taken herself (to illustrate a Wikipedia article about a temple in a village). In such cases, I upload the photo to Wikimedia Commons, mark it with the Permission pending template and ask the author to send permission to VRT. But here I came across a case where this woman does not have an email address! Only Viber, WhatsApp and Facebook Mesenger. What are the options? --Perohanych (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, that’s quite an interesting question. Just leaving a comment so I get notified too. Incall ^talk 21:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

I think there was once an address to send physical mails to but I could not find if this still exists. GPSLeo (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Perohanych: Just get it in writing and email VRT a photocopy. Try to get it all right the first time, because the back-and-forth that sometimes arises could be very difficult here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Does she have a smartphone? If yes, she does have an e-mail address, as any appstore needs one as account name and simply setting up WhatsApp means an access to one. Facebook too ties the messenger to an @facebook.com address IIRC, but I don't know whether this one can be used to actively send outbound mails. But if she's not aware of that, then making her send mails may be difficult.

Can you make her use a service like WeTransfer instead (sending the links through FB), to preserve the EXIF? That way, it could work out to:

1. Download the imagery from WeTransfer, upload them on Commons with "permission pending";
2. Take a screenshot of the pertinent messenger exchange with the permission statement, especially if it displays the images;
3. Send the info to VRT. That way, it is demonstrated that the uploads are most likely genuine, I think.

Still, it would be more convenient to get her to set up a freemailer address... Reg Grand-Duc (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

@Incall: In future, please use instead the "subscribe" option next to the subheading. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, there were other reasons, thank you. Incall ^talk 15:53, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Categories. Conciseness vs extensiveness

As an editor on Commons, I see it as my main task to categorize files, and then mainly files that are donated/made public by museums, archives and libraries. My goal is to categorize the media files as best as possible, and then I think in terms of questions likeː who is on it? What depicts it? Where and when is it made? Who made it? On what occasion? And who made it available? If that all is categorized, I think I did a good job in helping to create a well-organized media collection. See for example here and here.

However, I recently discussed this matter with User:FotoDutch, someone with a different opinion. He adds lot of categories to photographs, adds a new, extensive description of what can be seen, and often adds the phrase "free photo" to the description. See for example here and here.

His arguments (translated from Dutch to English by Bingː

Just because the idea of Commons is that all photos are free to download, you will need to include that with every photo. People always search online with keywords to find their photos; otherwise, they find nothing. I discovered on Google Trends that a lot of people often add the words: photo/photo - free download - image - when searching for the subject they want. Especially when they are looking for photos they want to download!! If you don't include those words with a photo, you exclude all those people. Because most people are not familiar with Commons at all, as they don’t come across it during their searches. When I ask around, no one knows about it. Wikipedia does. And also Pexel, Unsplash, Alamy, Instagram, etc..... They ensure that! (...)

What good is 'a well-organized media collection' if little use is being made of it? Why do they exist then? As a goal in itself?

Moreover, Wikimedia will become quite dependent on donors in the future. But who will donate money if you are hardly known as an organization? In the long run, little recognition means a lot of uncertainty about the survival of this media collection. Or you become dependent again on that one rich American.(...)

I describe what the photographer shows and what I am looking at in the photo. A photo is communication, isn't it?

My question isː what is the policy Wikimedia Commons would go for? I feel a bit uneasy if the goal is to make Commons a top find on Google. But that is me, as one can read above, others see things differently. So let's discuss. @JopkeB: @Mdd: @Mr.Nostalgic: @Pelikana: and @Antoine.01: ,I am curious for your input. Kind regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Explicitly adding "free photo" to descriptions is not needed. Otherwise FotoDutchs edits seem fine, perhaps some COM:Overcat but mostly ok. Descriptions are verbose but certainly not against policy. MKFI (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 to MKFI's comment. COM:Overcat being the main issue IMO outside of it being redundant to put "free photo" in descriptions. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Also +1 to MKFI's comment. I don't think this approach is a matter of being a top find on Google, but just being a find on Google because Google search appears to have a negative bias against Commons (I remember reading discussions about this). But even to be helpful to those people who know of Commons' existence you have to keep users in mind who reuse images outside of the wikiverse (e.g. magazines that regularly look for stockphotos). For such reusers it might be really helpful to have very specific (and sometimes seemingly useless looking) categories, such as Category:Women of Iran giving V-signs, but for a magazine editor from a Muslim country who is looking for stockphotos of women this might actually be a helpful category because they likely can't use photos of women who are not wearing headscarves.

As for FotoDutch's descriptions, I don't even find them that long, I've seen and written longer ones. The required detail of description depends on context. In my given example, the photo is from a rural area with a small population, so finding information on that place would be really hard, and if I wouldn't mention those things then people would likely never even learn that those things ever existed in that place. Nakonana (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, the categories on these photos make a fairly compelling argument that we need better tools for allowing users to search by category intersections. The vast majority of categories on these photos are intersectional in nature - e.g. Category:Hand carts in the Netherlands, Category:Pedestrians in Amsterdam, Category:Black and white photographs of people wearing hats, Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Vietnam War held in the Netherlands - and many of them are redundant to each other. (For instance, there's a lot of repetition of "Black and white photographs of..." or "... in the Netherlands".) Being able to specify these properties once and search for images which have them in combination, rather than having to include every relevant combination as an individual category, would dramatically simplify a lot of category work. Omphalographer (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

After ReneeWrites's recent category removals from the Dutch example, the only further category I'd be inclined remove is Category:Human faces. I would think almost no photo belongs directly in that category; if this one belongs there, then so do literally a million others. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Adamant1's comment. My policy would be: make short file names (without "free photo") and put the rest in the description (I assume that Google will search file names as well as descriptions). I do not mind long descriptions as long as they are to the point. I'd even rather have a long description with a lot of information about the image, that can be helpful for searchers (a long description offers more search terms) and researchers alike, and for reusers to judge whether the image is what they are looking for.

By the way: you can easily find "free photos" with Google, by clicking on "Images", "Tools", "usage rights" and "Creative Commons licenses" (though a lot of photos shown are still not usable on Commons). I may hope that (professional) users looking for free photos "who reuse images outside of the wikiverse (e.g. magazines that regularly look for stockphotos)" know this trick too. And when I use it, Commons images appear in the search results as well. I never experienced that "Google search ... has a negative bias against Commons".

About category intersections: they may have multiple purposes, like make it possible to find images about very specific subjects or relieving overcrowded parent categories. Looking for color photos is easier if the black-and-white photos have been put into categories of their own. So I am pro intersection categories as long as there is not a large string with subcategories just holding one subcategory or only a few files. JopkeB (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the "free photo/free download" thing is pointless. - Jmabel ! talk 07:08, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

On category intersections: A lot of categories are quite interesting, and once a pattern is found, similar photos should be grouped together. "people with flags of..." or "voting lines in..." are very specific descrptions and the variety among the images is often great. However, JopkeB is right, highly specific categories with very few images should not be created in the first place, instead collecting images in less specific categories beforehand seems like the way to go.

A lot of categories could be handled better by structured metadata, especially stuff that is visible but not the main feature of an image (combatting overcat!); and especially time-properties. There is little difference whether an illustration of Notre Dame was created in 1877 or 1882, so these images should not be placed in different by-year categories. Their common trait is that they are paintings of the same object.

On descriptions: These should be allowed to be as long as editors wish, provided that they are useful for understanding the image: transcripts of scanned/photographed infographics, for example, to help vision-impared users or to allow them quicker machine translations. Or, a text description of which details are visible in some painting (again, combatting overcat by not tagging a still life painting in 50 "food in art"-categories). In that matter, what I've seen from FotoDitch seems just okay.

Long description text should however not be generic (like, an uploader visiting a historic site, and the description of all 80 files is the same ten-paragraph blurb copied from the location website, never describing the actual objects depicted): That redundant content should find deletion and replacement with actual descriptions, Other generic stuff like "free to download" is not a great when the content us already published under CC0 license already. --Enyavar (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

a lot of people often add the words: photo/photo - free download - image - when searching for the subject they want. Especially when they are looking for photos they want to download!! If you don't include those words with a photo, you exclude all those people. this is something that Commons would probably benefit a lot from discussing in a broader sense – I think this isn't things that should be added manually by uploaders but e.g. be part of the Commons site which have descriptive terms that people search for so that people who search the Web for "free photo" etc can find the Commons pages. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I did a bit of investigating, and apparently if you google "free media repository" from an incognito tab using a US VPN, Wikimedia Commons shows up on the first page, with Commons:Free media resources at the top and Main Page following. However, if you google "free image respository" the bad resources comes up, with occasional exceptions like Openverse, but not Wikimedia Commons. "Free photos for commercial use" also has similar results. I'm thinking that if we just use those buzzwords like "free images", "for commercial use", "royalty-free", "free photos", etc. into the Main Page rather than the files, it could maybe, just maybe, increase the SEO rankings. HyperAnd (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Private promotional campaigning in editorial space continues till today and contitutes a clear Conflict of Interest (COI) which should be avoided. Free spam belongs neither in title nor in the caption nor in descriptions. Author is already mentioned as photographer/uploader and (free) license is already on the page as public domain. Please stop repeating the obvious. As for the horrible ill categorizing, stop repeating the inherently obvious, it can be cleaned up, but not as long as it feels like a sevice to a personal spam campaign which harms principles of NPOV. Peli (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This is about Wikimedia Commons overall (which is also a problem) but not for media about a certain subject. It's also an issue but the topic of thread I think is more about when people search for example for things like "nightsky free photo" or "Ammonoidea fossils free images" or "4k drone video free copyright" etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Since 2018 the algorithms and AI can read the context and synonyms. It knows Wikimedia Commons as one of the largest free image databases. It also recognizes and penalizes keyword stuffing so it can be even contra-productive and harmful to overdo that. Peli (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, keyword stuffing is probably not the wisest choice, but we should at least tell people that when we say "free", we really mean it, unlike those websites that bury those non-free exceptions deep in their ToS. The only other alternative to this SEO ranking problem is to simply spread the word of Wikimedia Commons and how it is better than those bad resources, though it will be a long time before it reaches the top searches like Wikipedia. HyperAnd (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Google knows about the licenses our files have. I just noticed that if I google for my name the license text at creativecommons.org is one of the first results because it is linked that much from my photos. GPSLeo (talk) 06:51, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I tried this search on Google with three words: 'free' 'photo' 'Rokin'.

Rokin is one of the main streets in Amsterdam city.

First I get above a message of Google on the first link-page, without mentioning Commons:

"Free photos of Rokin, Amsterdam, can be found on several stock photo websites. Websites like Pixabay, Picryl, Pexels, and Unsplash offer free, royalty-free images, including those of Rokin. Additionally, Canva integrates with Pexels and Pixabay to provide access to a wide range of stock images."

And then on the same first link-page I find a link to GetArchive with a collection of free Rokin images.

Only on the third link page a find a link to Commons - and that is because of a photo I placed a few years ago on Commons with indeed included the words 'free photo':

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earthworks_at_the_Rokin_and_sheet_piling_for_the_underground_constructions_of_the_future_metro_station_under_the_Rokin;_free_photo_of_Amsterdam_city,_Fons_Heijnsbroek,_2007.jpg

And on the fourth link-page of Google ditto a photo I placed on Commons with 'free photo'

The rest of the nine link-pages no Commons.FotoDutch (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

To me this just illustrates the uselesness of sticking to "free photo" in the first place. While if you just lookup Rokin Amsterdam you get the Wikipedia article on page top which has the 'free images' and links to commons, just 1 clicks away. 'free photo' is a very expensive keyword competed for by too many sites. Also: if a real 'image search' is done, media from Commons will show up soon enough. Rokin jpg Peli (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

But when people are searching for photos of Rokin?? Then Wikipedia appears on the 6th page.FotoDutch (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Categorization challenge on Lingua Libre

Greetings all,

There is a new campaign project on Wikimedia Commons that my community is developing, called the Wiki Audio Walk. The aim is to record words of any language under this campaign using Lingua Libre. All those audio files recorded on Lingua Libre will be channeled into a particular category in Wikimedia Commons, let's say to "Category:Wiki Audio Walk 2025/Tyap", if the campaign were on the Tyap language (ISO: kcg); or to "Category:Wiki Audio Walk 2025/Tyap/Kanai", if the campaign was on the Kanai dialect of the Tyap language. This project aims to be able to record words of the dialects of a language, or a minoritized language without literacy documentation, and have a category on Wikimedia Commons to serve as a voice library for that dialect or language. Right now, my community has been able to record words from five Tyap-speaking communities and would like to upload them through Lingua Libre. But the concern now is that if we do so, the entire sounds would fall into this Commons category, "Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation-kcg", which we don't want. Please, how do we get to solve this challenge? Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The categories you're trying to use here are not consistent with Commons category naming. Can you explain what you're trying to accomplish here, and why these files need to not be categorized in the standard fashion for Lingua Libre recordings? Omphalographer (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything particularly wrong with those categories (though usually we try to avoid "/" in category names) but they should be used in addition to the more usual Lingua Libre categories, not instead. - Jmabel ! talk 06:19, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer, the aim is to have 'per dialect' pronunciation of the same word having the same spelling, hoping to distinguish the records by editing the Lingua Libre title for each record. But then, if I don't get a support for that, one can still find another way, which could be recording each dialect's pronunciation and renaming the records (still according to Lingua Libre's style but adding something to the title of a recording in dialect A to differentiate it from the recording of the same pronunciation in dialect B or C). Kambai Akau (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jmabel. Kambai Akau (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Rename request

Please, rename this two files. Thanks

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ETA_20250727_112530.jpg > Aritma Praha_20250727_112530.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ETA_20250727_112528.jpg > Aritma Praha_20250727_112530.jpg VANOCE2022 (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@VANOCE2022: I will do this, but was anything preventing you from either using the "Move" tool or the {{Rename}} template on these files? - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume in the latter case, you meant to move to Aritma Praha_20250727_112528.jpg, and have moved it accordingly: you can't move two files to the same name. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-08

Volunteer staff changes

In July 2025, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 179 sysops.

• User:Tulsi was removed on 8 July by User:WMFOffice for being "WMF banned user", but the actual reason remains unclear (see also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/07#banned by the Wikimedia Foundation). He had served as sysop from 25 August 2019.

Other news

BabelStone (talk · contribs) (Andrew West (Q4758888)) passed away on 10 July 2025. We express our sincere condolences.

---

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

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

--RoyZuo (talk) 21:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Sun, snow, and sanity checks

Just dropping by to wish everyone a happy summer (or winter, if you're in the global south or just living in a server room). With so much happening across the wikis lately, from noticeboard novellas to Meta melodramas, it's easy to forget that the sun is still shining somewhere (or not, depending on your hemisphere).

Whatever the climate, meteorological or editorial, I hope all get a chance to breathe, log off briefly, touch some grass or snow, and enjoy the season on your own terms.

Take care out there, and may your uploads be properly categorized and license-tagged on the first try. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

More than 123,456,789 files

Now Commons has more than 123,456,789 files :). Does somebody know what the 123,456,789th file is? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I would not bother. Its the last File when the list/count was made. Better to use the xxthe File of a round number or a specific time. That last would be dificult as the count is very fast and in many places.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

When I started to write this reply, the article ID 171_332_530 was the latest file, and Special:Statistics said 123_984_404 uploaded files. That means about 72% of pages on Commons are files. (I believe this counts only the latest versions of files, and only non-deleted ones, but all pages including ones that were later deleted.) If we assume that this frequency of files among pages was uniform in the history of Commons – a rather shaky assumption –, then we can interpolate that we reached 123_456_789 files around page ID 170_603_425, which is [a photo of a page from a periodical East Boston Ledger September 22, 1849, see the middle one below. This is inaccurate enough that it's fine to fudge it to some more interesting photos uploaded at close to the same time, see below. These were uploaded on 2025-07-24.

• 
• 
• 

See also Commons:Milestones.

– b_jonas 10:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, sounds good :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Basque diaspora

• 

I think there are some problems with this image. No sources provided, only a link to en.wiki (Basque diaspora).--Carnby (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

The descriptions file doesn't just point to enwiki. It says that the map is based in the sources in that article - which has sources. Therefore, to check the sources of the image you can go to the article - and maybe to the version of the article when the map was created - and check if they back the data in the map.

Of course, copying the references to file description page would be better.

And if after checking for sources you find the use of the map objectionable, you could post a message on the talk pages of four articles in four Wikipedias that use it. Pere prlpz (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Create font

Alphabet for Swedish road signs of 1937.

Classic road signs using this font. Double arrow for primary roads, single arrow for secondary roads.

Can somoeone convert this image to a font that can be used, e.g. from GIMP or Inkscape? Measurements are in millimeters. Upper case E is 120 mm high, lower case e and digits are 80 mm. Or find me an existing font that looks like this? Since this image is from the Swedish law, it has no copyright. LA2 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds more like a request to be made at COM:Graphic Lab. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For Commons, only the SVG files fro the glyphs can be uploaded, but the font as whole might be suitable with TTF or OTF --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, we cannot upload fonts directly (yet), but if you upload a PDF with the entirety of all the characters in the font, then that would include the font as part of the archive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Does it need to be exactly that font with those text metrics? The common Helvetica condensed bold is close. Two-story a, but the O, Q, and 0 are wider and rounder, there's no slash on the q, a more acute angle on the 2, and no break in the 4.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZÅÄÖ
abcdefghijklmno
pqrstuvwxyzåäö
1234567890

Glrx (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just saying that that is a way to send someone a font file within a PDF. PDF is a container that can contain a lot of stuff, including scripts (!), fonts, graphics, etc. Adobe maintains the PDF standard and has some details about this topic here: https://www.adobe.com/uk/acrobat/resources/embed-fonts-in-pdf.html

ndahere: https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/pdf-fonts.html. So if someone downloaded a PDF that included some text that you want and the font embedded in it, that person would also ipso facto download the font. Now, could someone actually use that font by installing it on a local machine? That's a little more complicated than just a download. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This requires a specialist designer. You'd do better asking on font forums, someone might have done it. Next best option: use DIN Engschrift, various adaptations of which have been created, some open-source (e.g. D-DIN). Blythwood (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Alberta road signs use a dramatic font.

It used to be possible to store fonts in SVG files with the glyph element. That functionality was removed in favor of web fonts. A graphic designer could make sure the user got the exact font by using a conventional URL or a data URL. However, web fonts using conventional URLs allow tracking, and some fonts could even be malicious, so WMF does not enable web fonts.

Getting WMF to add a font to the image servers is a slow process that may never succeed. Even if a font does get installed, it does not help the user displaying the SVG on his local machine. That leads to two alternatives. One, use the correct font and convert the text to curves (often acceptable for road signs but bloats maps). Two, use a common font that is widely available but does not have exactly the desired appearance.

Glrx (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)