Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace images with .svg version (5 August 2025) Category talk:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines#RfC: Cemetery name (18 July 2025) Discussion on Copyright law of North Korea (16 March 2025) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 05

Category:All media needing categories as of 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 06

[Request] Add Special:AllEvents page to Wikimedia Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello @Gopala Krishna A,

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

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

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

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

August 07

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

https://gamehistory.org/computerentertainer/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated:

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

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

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

August 08

Are there any rules/restrictions on using magic eraser apps to get rid of objects/people surrounding the subject we want?

I ask this in regards to File:Rhea Perlman Danny DeVito 2006.jpg which allows us "to remix" the work. I've used a magic eraser app to remove Rhea Perlman to leave only Danny DeVito so that when using his image (here), it doesn't have a third of someone else's face in it when cropped. This hasn't changed his image but has filled in his shirt shoulder where Perlman was. Is this something deemed acceptable? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: on the linked page on ibb.co, I don't see the required indication of the CC-BY 2.0 license, nor do I see the required attribution for the underlying photo to Flickr user "amyrod", nor the required indication of what changes were made. So as it stands, this is a copyright violation, but entirely remediable. In general: if you are using a photo under a license, you need to conform to the terms of the license.

Are you talking about the potential of uploading this back to Commons? If so there are several more considerations, but I won't bother spelling them out unless you want to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

So the IBB one is my modified version based on the one uploaded to Wikimedia already, I didn't want to upload it to Wikipedia in case it was a violation, so there is no tag. So yes, I'm talking about the potential for adapting the work per the existing license and uploading my modified version as a derivative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, this is acceptable. Photos can be cropped and retouched, and it's fine to use AI to do that. There are some restrictions placed on the use of AI itself, but they don't apply to your example.

Slightly longer answer: If you make a derivative version of a file (such as a crop or a retouched version), it should be uploaded under a license that's compatible with the original. Usually this is done by just copying the old license - this is what the crop tool does, for instance. There are some restrictions around the use of AI itself - there's a policy against old files being overwritten by versions upscaled/retouched with AI (think artificial sharpening, removing of wrinkles, etc.), but the subject in your photo has been unaffected by that. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that is my intention, to upload it as a derivative and not overwrite the original. I typically do basic crops in this manner, but this is the only clear image of him close to the 80s and 90s, but because of the second subject it's not possible to crop it through normal means without having a distracting piece of another person in the cropped image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

My issue with this is not that you have used such a tool to remove Perlman, but that it has "hallucinated" one side of deVito's head. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

August 12

SHA-256 hash in Structured Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uhhh, 503 HTTP error on file sometimes?

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

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

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

August 13

SiIvaGunner template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 15

New page: "Commons:Digital preservation"

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

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

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

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

UploadWizard limited in Australia?

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

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

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

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

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

Ah, I missed that discussion: [1]. Should this be reported somehow? Their editing history does not look too promising and they continue emailing random users despite having received clear instructions to contact VRT some three weeks ago. Nakonana (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 16

Upload request

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

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

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

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

UK pub signs

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

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

Category:Wolmar von Treyden II

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

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

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

CfD advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I might add:

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

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

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

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

August 17

RE: Multi-licensing

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

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

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

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

Old en-wiki pages on multi-licensing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need your help with forming a new OpenRefine user group

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

Template: topic in country|Medicine

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

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

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

August 18

When is it OK to do something after similar discussions?

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

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

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

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

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

August 19

On files about hate speech

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 20

Television channels versus stations versus networks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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