Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08

History split?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recategorizing IBM System/23 Datamaster contents into subcategories

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

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

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

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

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

Misidentified

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

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

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

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

Mass category rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disagreement over a category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very tempted to be bold and add

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

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

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

U4C call for non-voting candidates

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

File:Restrictions in Grindr app.svg

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

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

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

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

Possible misidentification of astronauts

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

Proposal to replace "Non-Falun Gong swastika"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons and UCoC enforcement re-opened

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

Incorrect licensing for AI enhanced images

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

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

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

Let CommonsDelinker perform PNG to SVG replacements

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

Obviously not "own work"

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

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

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

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

About tagged pictures

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

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

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

Video with multiple sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caesar DePaço

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA

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

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

Size of pdf

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

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

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

Mass license tagging & Check SVGs against GitHub for changes

1. Mass license tagging:

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

1. Check SVGs against GitHub for changes:

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

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

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

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

icons: Set to MIT license

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

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

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

User having trouble accessing this site from Pakistan

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

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

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

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

"Sunsets" vs "Sunsets on Earth"

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

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

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

Outdoor places of worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Mascot costumes

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

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

CSD reason for crops of deleted copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your amusement and edification (Disney and AI)

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

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

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