Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/11

Sourcing to Amgueddfa Cymru Images

Hi, What is the best way to source images from https://images.museumwales.ac.uk/, i.e. File:Underground roadway at Blaenserchan Colliery, 72529.jpg? I can't see a short URL, but long one like [1]. From the image ID, one can create URL like [2], but this doesn't link directly to the image page above. Shouldn't we have a template with the image ID as parameter? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Does this form of URL work? https://images.museumwales.ac.uk/view-item?i=72529 And yeah, I think a source template would be great! (There doesn't seem to be one in Category:Source templates related to the United Kingdom.) Sam Wilson 11:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Yes, great! Thanks a lot. Yann (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As {{Amgueddfa Cymru Images}} was created now, this seems solved. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Name of photographer

Anyone want to try and decipher this photographer's name and see if we have a Wikidata entry for them? I don't think my first try was accurate. File:Ruth Elise Bråten (1893-1976) and possibly her mother, Elisabeth Ruuth (1858-1945).jpg RAN (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think that your attribution is wrong? The source apparently attributes it and 802 other photographs to E. Larsson (Skönvik). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

E. Larsson. --Rosenzweig τ 18:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to remove my comment on this deletion request, am I allowed to do it

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Israeli_Flag_except_star_is_replaced_With_Poop.jpg I wanna remove my comment to not be associated with it Rsidkdjsjs (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I could redact the name and hide your name from the history. Abzeronow (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot not showing in "Media search"

A few hours ago, the Cat-a-lot gadget stopped appearing in "Media Search," but it works in "Special:Search" and other situations. Is anyone else having the same problem? Thanks.

OK, it is working normal again, sorry and thank--JotaCartas (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)s

Should have been asked Commons:Village pump/Technical. This is the wrong place. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Hi there, I noticed File:Flag of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg got deleted, with rationale a broken redirect. When trying to fix this on an article where this was used, I found File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.png which has the description "English: Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg". Something messed up has happened here, my guess is that a few people had good intentions and now many wikis have broken links. (The file is a png, not a svg, and there was a redirect that pointed the svg filename to the png file. The redirect got removed, and now there's an issue. Can someone look into this? Milliped (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The SVG was deleted for copyright reasons; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg. Surely those reasons apply to the raster versions as well? Omphalographer (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this image public domain?

I believe it to be PD, because it was made by AI and published by the White House (although I can’t find the link). Does anyone want to migrate it to commons? https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115158096026629509 Victorgrigas (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Geoffroi 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that this is PD. The image was posted by Donald Trump, not the White House, and there are no indications that this is AI-generated. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Category for WP bugs

I wanted to show an irritating bug in a screenshot, and I couldn't find an appropriate category for it, in the drop-down, then in the list of cats beginning with "Wikipedia...". It's self-evident I suppose, that an illustration of a bug speaks clearer than an awkward description. "Wikipedia [e.g.: – screenshots of bugs]" would be the most promising, intuitively most obvious beginning of a name for this sort of internal problems. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Added Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia bugs. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah, it's the name, there is no possible auto-complete, if you expect "Wikipedia" would be the leading word in the category title (since there have to be other internal cats that document internal affairs and may be affiliated to screenshots of WP [and] bugs) – and I think I searched for "Screenshots", too. But, ok, I am not sure, so anyway, thank you very much for the immediate response. I hope, not to forget again. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I searched for "Screenshots of" and waited, the proposals in the dropdown did show "Wolfram Alpha", but no WP or WC:

File:WC Category Search for "Screenshot" with dropdown of proposals (20251107 Firefox).jpg

Even with "Screenshots of W" it took some time to appear amidst other auto-completes. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That's something on your end – on mine, the autocomplete immediately appears. You could ask about it at Commons:Village pump/Technical. Would be best to check whether videos load slow (see the thread #Videos loading slow? there). Moreover, in 2014 already a redirect from Category:Wikipedia bugs screenshots was created so entering Wikipedia or Wikipedia bug should autocomplete to the correct cat. If the problem persists, please create a new thread or move this thread to VP/T. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

When entering "cat:Wikipedia bug" or "cat:Screenshots of Wikipedia" in the top search instead of the HotCat category box, it also autocompletes to the correct cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for your advice. MenkinAlRire (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a Commons category for “Victim of a miscarriage of justice”?

On the German Wikipedia there is the category Opfer eines Justizirrtums. In English: “Victim of a miscarriage of justice”, Dutch: “Slachtoffer van een gerechtelijke dwaling”. I tried to find a category in Commons, but I could not. Does such a category exist? Wouter (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens Perhaps Category:Wrongfully convicted people? Tvpuppy (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That category was not linked with Category:People wrongfully convicted of a crime (Q9573520). Fixed. A broader category doesn't seem to exist (yet) but it could be created (went through the English Wikipedia categories to check). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Broader Category:Victims of Justice does exist though. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(Renamed and moved to Category:Victims of injustice) --ReneeWrites (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

it's not commons category's job to document this piece of info. RoyZuo (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion but this is also about making given people files/categories findable and a very reasonable category to have (albeit there probably is an issue with its state of completion). One can simply add the categories the corresponding Wikipedia category has. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about categorization

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a question about COM:OVERCAT and how it applies to categories for Quality, Valued, or Featured images. Since these are hidden categories, are they considered a separate kind of category from mainspace ones? Specifically, if a quality image belongs to category X, can it be included in both "X" and "Quality images of X", or should it only be placed in "Quality images of X"? ReneeWrites (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A problem of the overcat policy is that when files are located in one subcategory of a category but also belong into a or multiple other subcategories, they're gone from the category. For example, if people categorize files by say year but the files are then missing in the by subject subcategories. I think the same issue exists here – afaik so far no exceptions are made and when categorizing one needs to go through many or all subcategories, e.g. using the deepcategory search operator. Here, one could for example use deepcategory on the quality images of X category and -deepcategory for the subcategory the file should also be located in to find files still awaiting categorization into the latter subcategory branch. Furthermore, maybe these categories shouldn't be hidden to begin with. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd place them in both categories, exactly because one is hidden. Being hidden is one of the reasons mentioned for why user categories are exempted from this rule, so I'd think the same applies to other hidden categories by that analogy. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hidden categories are considered non-topical; OVERCAT with topical categories does not apply. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I wanted to know :) ReneeWrites (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

COM:DIGNITY and attack ads

Is it okay to host media that goes against COM:DIGNITY if the media is an w:attack ad made by a political opponent as part of their political campaign? Trade (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This totally depends on the individual case. A campaign against Trump is likely okay, the same against the mayor of a small town is not. GPSLeo (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As that guidance says, you need to weigh up the educational merit of retaining the image, so it is impossible to make an ironclad ruling on a mere hypothetical situation. The issue will also be complicated if the subject is a living person. We host a large amount of historical propaganda that would struggle to pass COM:DIGNITY if made today. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at Category:Attack ads and tell me if it passes Trade (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say the educational use of an example of what a flailing campaign like Andrew Cuomo's would use against a political opponent expected to win would outweigh COM:DIGNITY issue from Mamdani's side but I am biased towards Mamdami. I'd certainly welcome other points of view on that though. Abzeronow (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable source?

I want to know if the Supreme Court of India website is considered an acceptable source for free-use?

I am asking because before I have seen Indian office-holders' pics added to Commons from other similar government websites. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking for copyright expertise, you are more likely to get a good answer at COM:VP/C.

Also, when referring to a website, it is very helpful to provide an URL. - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I thought I had included the URL in the message. Here it is.

https://www.sci.gov.in/judge/justice-deepak-verma/

I'll also post it on COM:VP/C. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Merging categories

There should be a guideline on how to merge categories. The Candlelight Master and Maestro del Lume di Candela should be merged, but small font text in {{Move}} doesn't make it clear what I'm expected to do. Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Not an answer to your question, but should these two categories not also be merged with Category:Trophime Bigot? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

As I see it, the identification of the Candlelight Master with Bigot is contentious; Master Jacomo is another candidate, and all three are viewed as separate identities. Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Depending on the case, people create a category for discussion. Especially because it can take years until these CfDs get closed and because still only few people provide input / contribute to CfDs, it can often be better to directly implement things yourself. There merging can be replacing one category's content with {{Category redirect}} and letting a bot after a short time automatically move the files and subcategories accordingly or to also also move these yourself as well using the cat-a-lot tool. If the target category doesn't already exist, one would use Tools->Move where one can also uncheck keeping a redirect. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Adding footage

I'm not an expert, but is there any way to see if this footage is out of copyright? Looking for an image to illustrate the wikipedia:1949 PGA Championship page. Thank you,
Packer1028 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Their website says it's copyrighted [3]. Such claims aren't always true though, but with footage from 1949 from a British (?) source it's likely that the copyright claim is true, I'd say. The footage is rather recent and most countries have copyright durations of "70 years after the death of the author", so, if the author died in 1949, then it would have been PD in 2019 (or 2020). But how likely is it that the author died in the same year as the footage was created? If they only lived 6-7 years longer, until 1955/1956, then it wouldn't be PD yet. Nakonana (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Packer1028 Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Unknown author: "If the work was created before 1969 with an unknown author... If the work is unpublished and was first made available to the public after 1968 then copyright expires 70 years after the work was first made available to the public." RoyZuo (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

File error

I uploaded this file to Commons, however it says "The media playback was aborted due to a corruption problem or because the media used features your browser did not support." How can this be fixed? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

On Firefox, I hear the audio fine, but see only black. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. If an admin knows how to fix it, I'll be more than happy to help them. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah broken file. ffmpeg reports

:[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] zero_bit out of range: 1, but must be in [0,0].
:[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Failed to read unit 0 (type 0).
:[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Failed to read frame header.
:[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Not all references are available
:[matroska,webm @ 0x91ec1c000] decoding for stream 0 failed
:[matroska,webm @ 0x91ec1c000] Could not find codec parameters for stream 0 (Video: vp9 (Profile 0), none(tv, gbr/bt709/bt709, progressive), 1280x720): unspecified pixel format
:Consider increasing the value for the 'analyzeduration' (0) and 'probesize' (5000000) options
:

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Can it be fixed by any chance? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Took quite a bit, but with some help (AI) noticed that the original file uses a pretty unconventional colorspace (gbr) and apparently this confuses the encoder. Made it work by specifying the transcode as: ffmpeg -i "(Clip_1.1)_MEDIA_REDACTED_91_I_95_N.mp4" -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -colorspace bt709 -color_primaries bt709 -color_trc bt709 -c:a libopus output.webm —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Should have been asked / moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical. This is the wrong place. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Categorization missing on Special:Upload

Has anyone else noticed the option to add categories to a file is no longer on Special:Upload today? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The three files I just uploaded a few minutes ago had to be categorized after upload. I use the basic upload form. Geoffroi 01:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T409400

The problem is reported. GPSLeo (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Should have been asked / moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical. This is the wrong place. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Uboot ---> U boat?

I found Special:Contributions/Mbarma993 which appear to be photos of U-boat bunkers. Do these need renaming? Can they he mass renamed? Thanks. Geoffroi 20:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No, U-boot is just the German word for U boat. Per COM:LP, file names can be in any language. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Why should e.g. File:U-Bootbunker Fink 2 WW2 shelter 12.jpg be renamed? That's around Hamburg, and "U-Boot" is the usual German word for submarine. There's no need to use a historicizing "U-Boat"; the COM:FRNOT explicitly mandates a decline for language switches. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that might be the case. Geoffroi 21:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that the filetitle is not entirely German or entirely English or both but a mix of German and English, in principle only fully understandable by the fraction of users who understand both German and English. Not good.

Moreover, the captions were declared to be German when they are actually in English – could somebody bulk-move them to the correct language / change the language for the captions? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This is a common naming scheme: The proper name "U-Bootbunker Fink" is in German. Everything that is not a proper name is in English. GPSLeo (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have placed these 14 files in Category:U-Boot-Bunker Finkenwerder, let me know if this is incorrect. Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

IP block on AWS eu-west-1?

I maintain a small free online game that uses images from WikiMedia Commons (https://wikipic.fun/). Recently, my requests to download a few images to create a new puzzle are blocked (HTTP error code 403). When I run the same download from my laptop, everything is fine. The game is hosted at AWS eu-west-1 region.

Could there be an IP ban of some sort? Maybe someone performed abuse from those data centers? Who can I contact?

This is an example of a request that now meets 403 (but all images behave the same): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg/250px-PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg

Teunduynstee (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Teunduynstee: Are you sending a user agent header with your requests? See foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation User-Agent Policy. Sam Wilson 09:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I use Axios from a node.js lambda function. I am not setting anything myself, so I assume the I get an axios/0.21.4 header. This has worked fine for years. This is how I call:

const imageBuffer = await axios({

method: 'get',

url: imageUrl,

responseType: 'arraybuffer'

}); Teunduynstee (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: it seems you are right, Sam. When I try this from curl it fails too:

> GET /wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg/250px-PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg HTTP/2

> Host: upload.wikimedia.org

> User-Agent: axios/0.24.1

> Accept: */*

>

• Request completely sent off

< HTTP/2 403

< content-length: 92

< content-type: text/plain

< x-request-id: 5cab256a-06ef-4f59-b8e8-b43cb4696751

< server: HAProxy

< x-cache: cp3074 int

< x-cache-status: int-tls

< x-analytics:

<

Please set a user-agent and respect our robot policy https://w.wiki/4wJS. See also T400119. Teunduynstee (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This thread belongs onto Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Uploading photos from another party who wants them shared under CC

This is a question I'm surprised isn't covered somewhere already. Maybe the instructions are out there, but apparently my search skills still suck after all these years.

I have a pair of photos I convinced the subject of an article to share under Creative Commons by creator. (My reasoning was that if her picture is on Commons where it is available for free, it will be the default photo used whenever someone writes about her. This guarantees a good picture will always be used.) I haven't done this before but I know one of the steps involves sending some kind of documentation to someone at the Foundation that the subject or creator agreed to this. Beyond that, I'm stymied.

Either please point me to the relevant page with the instructions, or provide me with the instructions. TYIA. -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Llywrch The guidance you are looking for is at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Llywrch: also for a broader overview of related issues, see COM:THIRD. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but how do I learn to create gradiants in Inkscape?

Specifically I wish to learn to create a replica of the gradiant found on this website and upload it to Commons. (The gradiant in "Spectrum" menu in webpage https://redketchup.io/color-picker ) How could I do such with Inkscape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jothefiredragon (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

https://inkscape-manuals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/creating-gradients.html ? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

New category Speeches by presidents of countries by country

Please help populating the new Category:Speeches by presidents of countries by country – I think it's missing many files and that the contents and this criteria for organizing them are relatively notable. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say these files are very important but afaik there's many videos of speeches by presidents of countries on Commons but they aren't organized well. Before creating this thread and as of now, it only has Chile, Iran, Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia, Turkey, and the US which is quite few plus some of these are probably quite incomplete. I interpret this cat to be just for speeches of presidents during their duty, not for speeches of them at any time (maybe this should be clarified in a cat description?). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Where should I upload image?

There is an inkscape version of file. It includes lots of trash produced by inkscape which usually builds up in the image the more you edit (I am not about metadata, I am about useless clips and gradients which are usually even not used). If I just remove the trash (well that can do inkscape by itself) I should just upload it as a new version of the image.

But what if I alter fundamental parts of the image? For example instead of using raw paths I will use svg elements and for example will use stroke instead of another part of path. Optionally metadata of inkscape can be removed. Image will be much more dense and more readable for people and will have exactly the same look (just forally there will be difference but it is smaller than 0.1px for an image which is 700X800). Or I can simplify image by using feature of SVG2 which is unfortunately is still a draft and not supported everywhere...

The question is in this case how I should upload it? As new version of the image or as separate file with a link from original version? Why I ask? For example there is template about created in Inkscape. If I then upload version remade by hands so just formally Inkscape template would be incorrect for that version... Or if I use SVG2 features it becomes better but not supported everywhere DustDFG (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: Some of this is very hard to follow. If you have another language where you can express yourself more clearly than in English, you might try writing in that as well. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about (potentially) overwriting someone else's SVG already on Commons, or are you talking about something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Tbh, I would be talking confusingly even using my native language

Yeah I am about overwriting someones else work. I can reduce file size of an existing SVG image to minimal. But it will drastically change internal structure. If I change looks of image noticeably enough I should go and create new file right? It seems correct.

But what if the look is the same but internals are different? For example original image was produced with Inkscape and contains Inkscape metadata. But my version won't contain it. Should I go for creating new file or overwrite existing? And an image has template on the page which produces banner "it is created with inkscape" and I overwrite with version not suitable for Inkscape I need to remove the banner... It is a change which I would consider like "almost using another version of file format"...

Internals of the file itself can be changed to use SVG2 features which aren't supported everywhere. So it would mean that previous version was supported everywhere and new one only in modern svg readers. Should I go for a new file or overwrite existing?

One more example. There is an image which uses paths which are easy to handle in an editor (inkscape) but my version goes for using <rect> <elispse> and other svg elements. Which makes the end file much more easy to render for browser and much more easy to read for people in the editor but makes editing the file in the editor itself more hard.

Does wikimedia care about printing images? If we talk about SVG some modifications can make direct printing (without rasterizing first) more

To summarize: I can produce an image which looks the same as original but has different internal structure and has different properties if we consider something except looking at image. So overwriting existing image would mean overwriting some "properties" of the image.

Is there a way to express (probably with templates) the following semantic? "This image is the same of look like that image but it has different properties". Or at least in this particular situation if the look of the image is the same, I need to provide following semantic: "there is an image A and there is an image B which is the same as A but is more suitable for particular usage"

Is there subpages on wikimedia like in wikibooks? Is there a way to add an image as a child of existing one? For having several childs which are good for different things? DustDFG (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: We don't usually care much about SVG file size. Most SVGs here, even bloated ones, are so small compared to other graphic files as to be absurd. And almost no one but editors really downloads the SVG; the mediawiki software renders it as a JPEG of one or another size, and that is what gets downloaded by all casual users.

Certainly if you are changing the visual appearance, unless it is marked with {{Current}} or something similar, you should create a new version.

I personally don't have a take on the SVG2 issue (again, typically someone who is—for example—seeing this through Wikipedia never really accesses the SVG)

There might be issues about copyright of the SVG code and who that copyright is credited to. If the original creator/uploader is a Commons user you might want to consult with them before any overwriting. Are you familiar with Commons:Overwriting existing files? It doesn't get heavily into SVG-specific issues, but it does touch on them, and certainly anyone thinking of overwriting files should read that.

No subpages in the sense you are asking.

Someone else who works more with SVGs may have more thoughts on this than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 06:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, SVG files should not be optimized. Leave them alone. Deleting metadata is often a poor idea. Making a visually identical SVG and uploading it under a new name seems to be a pointless exercise that has no real gain. WMF is essentially an SVG 1.1 house. Some SVG 1.1 features have been dropped, and a small number of the evolving SVG 2.0 features have been added. It is best to stay within the widely supported features of SVG 1.1. Yes, Inkscape produces overly verbose SVG, but that does not mean the files should be fixed.

Some SVG files should be overwritten with bug fixes or improvements. Many SVG files on Commons have broken namespace declarations. Some Inkscape files have broken clip paths or use never adopted SVG 1.2 features. Sometimes it is appropriate to turn path text into genuine text. Some Adobe Illustrator files should have their text anchors fixed. Some SVG files may be reorganized so SVG Translate will work on them, but that choice needs some sophisticated judgment because it may lock out the original author.

Glrx (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaled video

File:The Musketeers of Pig Alley.webm was heavily upscaled by AI, which is confirmed by the source URL provided [4]. "Neural networks upscaled and enhanded film. Upscale 4k: Videoenhance – Topaz Labs". Does this need to be tagged somehow? Can we revert to the old (2013) version of the file and reupload this version separately? Apologies if this is the wrong venue. Courtesy ping to @Racconish. Toadspike [Talk] 10:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this should be reverted under COM:OVERWRITE, I'll do that now. Digital restorations are specifically listed there as impermissible for overwriting, even if the alterations are minor ones.

Any reuploaded upscaled version should be clearly described as such. I'm not sure whether we have a category for upscaled video. Belbury (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this need to be tagged somehow? You can use {{Upscaled}}. The template currently seems to be designed as if that was only possible or done for images but that's a flaw at the template. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. — Racconish ^💬 11:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: when looking into the source at Template:AI upscaled/i18n/en, I came to the conclusion that the {{Upscaled}} template is designed to switch between the phrasing "image" for everything that is not a WEBM file and "video" (and "footage") for that type. Dunno if it'll work as designed, and for the sake of simplicity, I'd rather use "imagery" (encompassing all forms of visual media) instead of a maybe convoluted extension-related switch, but the intent was clear as far as I could tell. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay then there is no flaw in the template. Subcategorizing by media type makes sense and is useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Images too simple to be CC-BY-SA?

What to do with images which are too simple to be not public domain but state it is for example cc-by-sa4? (perhaps it happens because of upload wizard). There is an example File:Geometric_lens_examples.png. Where do I need to report such images. Who is deciding that license notice can be replaced?

There is an File:Inkscape Logo.svg which confuses me even more... DustDFG (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

If a user uploads their own work as CC-BY(-SA), we can leave it as that even if it is simple enough to probably be PD-shape. There's not any real benefit to changing to the PD license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree. And threads relating to copyright / licensing belong on Commons:Village pump/Copyright which is also where one could ask about specific cases or types of cases. Something to consider for example would be adding the {{PD-shape}} license tag beneath the original license template, maybe with "Possibly:" above it but I haven't seen that and it's probably not good; either way there is no reason to waste scarce volunteer time on this (and if you think otherwise, again the place is the /Copyright VP or a more specific page than that). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Category naming help

I'm doing some cleanup of Speedcubing, and I'd like to make separate categories for different events (Speedcubing by event). However, many of the names of the events clash with the names of the puzzles. For example, I'd like to make a category for Pyraminx to hold Pyraminx, Estonian Open 2011.jpg, Speedcubing2.jpg, and similar. Pyraminx already exists for the puzzle itself, which makes sense, but media of the competition category is a distinct concept (on Wikidata: Q1322820 versus Q107065322). I'm not that familiar with category naming rules. Should this be a parenthetical, like "Pyraminx (event)", or maybe something like "Pyraminx speedcubing"? Eiim (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, perhaps "Speedcubing by event" isn't the right supercategory, and it should be "Speedcubing events"? Not sure. Eiim (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Eiim: I'd name it "Pyraminx competitions". As for whether it's "Speedcubing events" or "Speedcubing by event", I would pick the latter. It sounds like speedcubing is inherently an event/competition, but "by event" clearly denotes a metacat. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Eiim the competition's name seems to be "Estonian Open 2011" https://web.archive.org/web/20160314100028/https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=EstonianOpen2011 .

so you could see how the category tree is set up for other major sports competitions, e.g. Category:Australian Open (tennis) Category:2024 Summer Olympics events.

i would name it "Category:Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association) - Pyraminx" or "Pyraminx at Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association)", but how many files do you have for that particular event at that particular competition? when there're very few files, i'd just create separate "Category:Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association)" and "Category:Pyraminx competitions". RoyZuo (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Replacing a pseudo-SVG image with a real one

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Basically, I've recreated Crystal Clear app home.png as an SVG and I want to upload it under a similar name. The problem is that the name has already been taken by a pseudo-SVG (SVG wrapper of a PNG) and I wonder if it makes sense for me to upload my version under the existing SVG file name, scrubbing the old one from existence since that one has no purpose if a real vector image exists. ManuelB701 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, with appropriate rewrite of the file page content. I see you don't have autopatroller rights. You should request them so that you are allowed to overwrite files. Please make sure you are completely familiar with COM:OVERWRITE, though. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

a pseudo-SVG (SVG wrapper of a PNG) never heard of that – is it explained on any Commons page what such a "pseudo-SVG" is? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I made up that word but they're all SVGs viable for {{FakeSVG}}. ManuelB701 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So it's just a PNG file inside a SVG but not an actual SVG. In that case, just upload it as a new revision and in that case, scrubbing the old one from existence will not happen as the prior revision will still be there and could if needed be reverted to. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but/and if the author information is about who wrote the SVG, that should also change. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It's like that for every new-revision upload. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@ManuelB701: I added a template to File:Crystal Clear app home.svg that allows you to overwrite the file with your version. The old version is still available in the file history, but will no longer be in use. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Done! Thanks everyone for you help! ManuelB701 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is my file being marked?

My file has been marked for Sppedy deletion due to copyvio. It was a screenshot for a discussion I was active in in the English Wikipedia Dispute Resolution board.

I understand the pictures inside the screenshot are not freely available and were used for fair use.

The screenshot was only taken and uploaded to English wikipedia for reference in the board discussion. Can there be no alternative? I don't want to commit copyright violations every time I want to have a screenshot in a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsacrificer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There are several points to observe, Kingsacrificer.

1. Refrain using screenshots despite wanting them, use links and plain text instead.
2. Inform yourself about local policies - Commons:CARES.
3. Read and carefully follow en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, use en:Wikipedia:File upload wizard.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Also note that fair use is not acceptable on Commons, only on Wikipedia. Nosferattus (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your response.

@Nosferattus I am aware that fair use is only acceptable on Wikipedia. As you know, when one tries to paste a screenshot in a Wikipedia discussion, the file is uploaded on Commons and then transcluded.

@Grand-Duc I appreciate your point about refraining from using screenshots. I do. In this case, I had to use it because the file history was gonna get wiped out as the file was going to be deleted even before the DRN discussion concluded.

I understand your view, but I want to re-iterate. If we have no other option and must include a screenshot, is there no way to do so without it getting uploaded to commons?

As can be seen, the screenshot that was taken was of a Wikipedia page, not of a Commons page.

Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You can only rely upon local fair use guidelines, like one the linked EN-WP rule, as fair use is not allowed on Commons. Or use an external en:Image hosting service à la Imgur. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If you open the main menu on Wikipedia and choose "Upload file", it gives you 2 options: "Upload your own or a freely-licensed file" or "Upload a non-free file". You need to choose "Upload a non-free file". There is also a link for this when you paste an image into the editor on Wikipedia. Finally, you can just go straight to "Special:Upload" on whatever Wikipedia you are using. Nosferattus (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you @Grand-Duc @Nosferattus

I think Imgur would be the best way to go about it in the future. Cheers! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If a non-free file does not meet the requirements of the en.wikipedia policy for hosting non-free content on en.wikipedia, you cannot bypass the en.wikipedia policy by uploading that non-free file to Commons, because such a non-free file cannot be on Commons anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not my aim. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

PD-US-patent-no notice?

Can this [5] 1945 US patent be uploaded to Commons using the PD-US-patent-no notice license? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: clearly it can. Are you just asking if that PD tag would be correct (it is), or are you asking someone else to do the upload? - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying. I will upload it, @Jmabel. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Date Own work Author

I've noticed numerous uploaded files where the Date, Author, and Source metadata fields are filled in a standardized but potentially misleading way : the uploading date for the Date property, the uploader's user name for the Author property, and the template "Own work" for the Source property, the latter triggering a bot to add the mention "source of file: original creation by uploader". However, in many cases—such as this file, that file or that one—it seems highly unlikely that the uploader actually created the content in 2023, as some of these files appear to date back to the 16th century. Without any supporting information beyond the file's upload history, how can we verify their true origin and actual creation date? This also raises concerns about the legitimacy of applying a "self CC-BY-SA-4.0" license. What steps can be taken to address this issue? 00:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC) William C. Minor (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

In the three linked examples, the underlying content is clearly old enough to be out of copyright everywhere in the world. It would be safe to treat these as {{PD-100-expired}}. You cannot (and need not) license public-domain materials. If the license has any meaning at all in these cases it would be to license any intellectual property that the photographer might somehow hold with respect to these images. Since they presumably have no copyright on any aspect of any of this, it is exactly as if I offered to license you my portion of the ownership of the Hope Diamond. - Jmabel ! talk 06:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

it seems highly unlikely that the uploader actually created the content in 2023 good point and this may also / does also affect other files where it's less clear. Maybe the UploadWizard should clarify that the date field is supposed to be the creation date (and if it's a scan / photo of an old document for example the old date should be in the date field). Currently, how that field is used makes it ambiguous.

One could also do a scan of all files in categories about old years and check whether the date field has any recent date in it to correct these. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

• Every noob does this, the hope is that they listen to the feedback and upload correctly next time. The upload form has been modified to help people choose the correct settings, but we easily have thousands of images historically loaded incorrectly. --RAN (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think. I am in a similar situation though I am the one who uploaded... Not about date but about "own work".

So there is an example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gray_code_number_line_arcs.svg I found a png file and created a vectorized version of it. What should I write there. Is what currently on the page correct?

Upload wizard doesn't give you a way to convey semantics that image is made by you but it is derived from another from wikimedia... :/ At least it was when I was uploading for my last time... DustDFG (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree, good point. The field is too ambiguous and the UploadWizard should provide more guidance on what to enter there. For example, it could display a prompt if the user enters an old-year category but a recent date or if the user enters an old date but declares the file to be "Own work". Such cases could (and imo should) also be queried and then corrected / disambiguated retrospectively.

See also the thread below – setting year categories based on the value in the date field can result in a few miscategorizations because of this ambiguity and lack of guidance. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

What I think would be sufficient is one clear notice to uploader which clearly distinguishes properties of depicted object like an old manuscript and properties of a medium like a photo/video probably with one or two examples. It is general enough to not repeat for every property and seems to be not too abstract so user can understand it and apply for every asked property.

But I understand that probably one notice is too perfect to really work and each case can be different and still have different ways to interpret so I think near each question should be icon of question symbol which will reveal detailed explanation (type of like you provided below "...be date of first publication where that is the key date (films) or date of recording where that is the key date..." DustDFG (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the first part of your reply such as what you mean with "for every asked property" when we were talking about the date field or where and how it would be similar for the other input boxes.

Yes, a hoverable info icon could be good enough and I'll ask about adding it at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements if nobody else does. May be best to additionally display something like "Date of recording" as the placeholder text in that input box (it disappears when the input box is clicked). Prototyperspective (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In first part I meant that there can be added one big warning: "we are asking about properties of the object itself not a medium of it". It is general. But when uploader who read this notice applies this idea to date field for scroll, they understand it is about creation date of that scroll and not when uploader photographed it. When they apply that idea to author field, they understand it is about original author who wrote that scroll and not the uploader who is an author of photo. So the first part is about "generic" notice which user must apply themselves.

In the second part I meant that idea from first part maybe is too idealistic. Waiting from user to so each field will need to have their own explanation. The same "we ask about object itself not a medium" but sharpened for that specific field "we ask about date of first publication not about date of upload from place where you took it from and not about date when you upload it". So generally the second part is about the fact that generic way is probably unrealistic and people won't evaluate that generic thing to each field by themselves...

Second placeholder text! DustDFG (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations! Got some doubts whether a sufficiently large fraction of users who would read that abstract guidance would understand it and correctly apply it to the date field. For example, many things in media aren't objects – such as a video of some event. Moreover, I don't think it really applies much to fields other than those two fields and the author field is already handled at the UploadWizard's license selector where e.g. 'contains the work of others' is part of it. Maybe it would good to have such a general note regardless, don't know. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

How to remove exif fields from a published image

I have published on Commons an image taken in a home. This has the camera GPS coordinates. I want to delete the GPS coordinates from the EXIF in the Commons image file. I know how to delete EXIF fields on my laptop. If I upload a new version, will the GPS coordinates disappear from the image page? If not, how do I delete the EXIF lat-long fields? Any help would be appreciated. --Tagooty (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tagooty: they will disappear from the page, but still be accessible in the file history. If you want them completely gone, ask for a REVDEL to get them out of the file history (admins will still be able to access them, but no one else will). - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks! Tagooty (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In my view re If you want them completely gone, ask for a REVDEL to get them out of the file history I think this process should be fairly quick and easy to protect privacy of users and info about this more findable. I'll check the FAQ whether it has info on this. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: the really right way to do it is to remove such private data from the EXIF before you upload. Unless we can automate it to the point where little or no admin time is involved, I wouldn't want to encourage a lot of people to think it is "normal" to upload confidential content, then have it deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That could also be added to the FAQ and/or other places where users may see or look for it. I think there was a thread not long ago about making it easier to see and possibly change EXIF data during upload. The question I was adressing was how to remove EXIF data from an already published file which is the subject of the thread. One could suggest EXIF data to be displayed during upload at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements. Nobody wants to upload confidential content they don't want to have uploaded and then be required to do things to get it deleted anyway – this isn't about what people think is normal. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguating similar subjects

Hello!

We've got two Russian actors by the name of Artyom Alekseev (Артём Алексеев), both born in 1983:

• Category:Artyom Alekseev

= Artyom Vladimirovich Alekseev (Q110632288)

and, to be categorized:

• File:Актеры сериала Звонарь 2.jpg
• File:Алексеев Артём Александрович 2019 (cropped).jpg

= Artyom Aleksandrovich Alekseev (Q136839245)

How do we disambiguate these two?

Sinigh (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually by adding their Patronymic (unless they share that too). Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The full name of Category:Artyom Alekseev is Артём Владимирович Алексеев = "Artyom Vladimirovich Alekseev" per this website.

And the second actor's full name, according to the file name File:Алексеев Артём Александрович 2019 (cropped).jpg, is "Artyom Aleksandrovich Alekseev". Nakonana (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Other examples where the patronymic is used for disambiguation:

• Category:Alexandr Andreevich Ivanov
• Category:Alexandr Evdokimovich Ivanov
• Category:Aleksandr Anatolyevich Ivanov
• Category:Aleksandr Stepanovich Ivanov

Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Why not a disambiguation page that links to both categories? The files would be in the disambig cat until somebody disambiguates to which category they belong to. There's probably many examples of disambig cats for people names. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I've disambig'ed Category:Artyom Alekseev and created new categories using patronyms, as per Nakonana's description. Sinigh (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Stopping MediaWiki message delivery from messaging me

Every few months, MediaWiki message delivery will leave a message on my talk page, informing me about picture of the year/month/day/hour/second votes, and honestly I couldn't care less. It's also very annoying whenever I get stressed about one of my files being deleted and I realize it's that. I would very much like t turn this off. Is there any way that would be possible?

I very much hope this signs me message automatically.

edit: it did not. Mohammad.darg (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

1. In the notification preferences in the preferences (at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) you can disable the notifications for Web and Mail. Please comment whether this solves your issues or not. I don't know if there is a way to unsubscribe from / disable notifications for just MediaWiki message delivery & DR notifications.
2. If you press the Add topic button at the top as one is supposed to or alternatively the other large blue well-described button "Start new discussion", it will automatically sign your message. (And I agree talk page posts should be automatically signed instead of users having to worry about learning that they should do so and the wikitext syntax to do so.)

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you for the response. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to disable notifications for one specific user. Thank you very much nonetheless. Mohammad.darg (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the MediaWiki message delivery user page, it says that you can opt-out of its messages by adding your user talk page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery. That would only stop messages sent through that specific process, but that might be what you're looking for. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Vyshyvanka/Вишиванка

Can someone who's familiar with this type of dress take a look at File:Альона Ігорівна Мовчан.jpg and see if this is in fact a Vyshyvanka and if I've added the right category? This is a really beautiful dress she's wearing and the portrait is high quality. Thanks for your time. Geoffroi 20:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Vyshyvanka basically just means embroidery. Вышивать (vyshyvat') = to embroider (literally).

I'd say the outfit qualifies as vyshyvanka. Nakonana (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Can this be QI? Also, could it be VI for blue vyshyvankas? Geoffroi 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What do QI and VI stand for? Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Com:Quality images and Com:Valued images. Geoffroi 21:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks.

If the image meets the quality criteria for QI / VI, then sure, why not.

It features classical vyshyvanka motives like rhombuses and crosses. Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think File:День Вишиванки. Молода україночка у вишитій синій сукні серед квітів 14.jpg or one of the others in that series is probably better because they show the whole dress. Thanks for the help though. Geoffroi 21:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Both dresses are modern variations and factory made. Apron (and it was part of many other ethnic female costumes) is obviously missing on second photo. Please note that pendant on first photo may be variation of w:en:Black_Sun_(symbol). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks more like a Svitovit (Свитовит), a pagan symbol. Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. I've added this to the file's description. From my own research, I see that the reverse swastika (in the middle of the pendant) was never used as a separate symbol by the nazis. They only used it as a background for their version. Geoffroi 23:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Ukrainian image caption which was added by the uploader says: "Красуня у вишиванці" (literally: Beauty in embroidered dress). Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What are these typographer codes called?

What are these typographer codes called that appear in the lower left hand corner of public notices and ads in newspapers? They appear to be telling the typesetter how long the ad runs, so they do not break up the type. --RAN (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Can you link an example or two of what you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Ooops! File:William Naughton (1809-1891) probate in The Berkshire County Eagle of Pittsfield, Massachusetts on May 28, 1891.jpg and there are more in the Category:Probate records. One of the numbers must be how long to run the ad. --RAN (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Probably for typesetters rather than typographers, but I don't have an answer to the question of what they are called. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) & @Jmabel, Here is an explanation by the Bishop Museum [6]. See the footnotes to each example. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Advertisement Codes" is the article's title. -- Ooligan (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have been wondering for a few years now, and ChatGPT didn't know either. Excellent research skills! --RAN (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome. I'm glad to have helped and your question was about a detail I noticed myself, but never took the time to research. Your request prompted my search. Keep up your good works. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to put info requests like this into Commons:Expert identification or categorization requests and then having a thread where these are bundled. It seems not very important or relevant to the entire global Commons community – if you knew how these are called would this have any impact on the file? I don't think files should be categorized by some tiny textcode in the corner. The respective categories would be very incomplete, distract, and not used/useful. Could be wrong of course but then it would be good to explain why you need to know what these are / what you'd like to do with the info. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Issues with requesting permission information of File:Voice of Korea English Service Logo.png

I have no idea how to request permission from the Voice of Korea. I know they have an E-mail address (vok@star-co.net.kp), but I do not think they will actually respond to my requests to permission information.

Melissza’s page Have a talk! See my contributions 19:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC) – uploader of this image and File:Voice of Korea Korean Service Logo.png

Best practice is, to first make sure your permission is in order, and only then upload the file...

I'm sorry they're not responding to your emails. Ciell (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s not that they aren’t, it’s that I don’t think they will. After all, it’s North Korea. That or I’m not looking at the right way. Melissza’s page Have a talk! See my contributions 19:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Then simply don't upload the files. Maybe you could file a Commons:Permission requests. There probably isn't anything that could be done here so this could probably be closed. You could of course look for other contact information but it seems unlikely the chances of a reply are higher than with the email. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

COM:INUSE and outdated charts

When files with old data are in use and there is a file with newer data but otherwise the same, does COM:INUSE mean the file with the older data can't be redirected to the file that also shows the newer data which preserves the file uses?

If it does mean that, should that policy be changed to enable this method / kind of updating data graphics?

See also Category:Wikimedia updating and Category:Charts by year of latest data.

• 
  Moore's Law Transistor Count
  1971-2016
  (closed DR)
• 
  1971-2018
  (closed DR)
• 
  1970-2020
  (the file I asked the two other ones to redirect to)

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you looked at some of the places these are used and seen whether such a substitution would be appropriate? (In this case, I would guess it would). Commons Delinker can do a global substitution even without us redirecting the older files, but (just as much as with your redirect proposal) you'd want to make sure global substitution is really desired. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It's the same image except that the third one has more data. A substitution would be appropriate – the design and so on haven't significantly changed and the trend also hasn't. It would just mean data graphics aren't as outdated anymore in Wikipedia. This may not be a big problem in this case and more important for cases where the data shown for some disease is outdated by a decade but it's nevertheless appropriate and useful to do this here too.

Commons Delinker can do a global substitution Interesting, didn't know that. How can it be used for that? On User:CommonsDelinker it says It aims to prevent image links from visibly breaking on local wikis after a Commons file is deleted.. If it's nevertheless possible, I think just very few users know about it, and it's not as straightforward and known as a making DR (with a request to redirect the file). Moreover, the outdated files will still be on Commons instead of only having the up-to-date file which I think is very desirable unless the target file has a significantly worse/undescriptive file-title. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but setting this as a general principle is a bad idea. The role of Commons is to act as a repository and not dictate which files other projects use. If one language version of Wikipedia chooses to present and discuss a set of data available in 2018 and another language version of Wikipedia chooses to present and discuss a set of data from 2020, what right do we have to enforce a substitution with a version containing 2025 data? Who is going to jump into those various language versions and update the narrative of the articles to align with the new data? If you want to investigate an individual case and make educated substitutions, then that is fine. Encouraging mass substitutions without proper consideration will create more problems than it solves. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The file used is outdated not on purpose and one could just replace all of the files manually but that would currently be a lot of work and won't be done as often. You're right though,

• Sometimes the dataset changes instead of staying the same and just getting new data points.
• It may be rare but sometimes articles may deliberately choose an older time-span, probably because newer data is thought to be of lesser quality (haven't yet seen any of these but if these DRs would be done more often it could be that some charts are used deliberately with old data as the article is about an old time-period/event albeit I don't think it's likely such a chart would get a DR)

Maybe the better approach would be to have for example a bot or a Commons script leave a notification on the article's talk page that one of the files has a newer version available so that users watching the Wikipedia article can manually edit. For a bot to do this one would have to mark a file as an older version of another chart with newer data somehow. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Another way would be to upload the latest version as a new revertable revision to EACH of those files and rename the file if they got the old year in the title, assuming none of these have the 'intentionally old data' template set. This would mean all the file uses are up-to date. However, then there would be three identical PNG images. Back when they got uploaded and added to Wikipedias, they were the most up-to-date versions; but not anymore. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Icons of Madonna and Child

Shakko seems to have taken it upon himself to unilaterally empty Category:Icons of Madonna and Child and soft-redirect it to Category:Icons of Virgin Mary. Surely this is not the sort of uncontroversial move that should be made without discussion. I see that for at least some of these (e.g. File:Bucharest - Biserica Schitul Darvari interior 02.jpg, one of my uploads) he has substituted Category:Hodegetria instead. Literally no ancestor category of that indicates the presence of Jesus as part of such an icon (that could, of course, be remedied), so there is a loss of information.

Also related: I see that Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary was emptied and redirected to Category:Icons of Virgin Mary.

Again: my main issue here is not whether this is right or wrong, but that this is the sort of change that certainly merits a CfD or other discussion. I would like to have at least an after-the-fact explanation of what other related changes may have been made to the category hierarchy, and a (belated) opportunity to discuss what is desirable here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, on File:Muzeul Vasile Grigore 05 - Madonna and Child with Saints Ermolaos and Mina, prophets and apostles.jpg I see similar changes; at least Category:Panachranta has an ancestor category indicating that it is a Madonna and Child. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm art historian and I've uploaded here circa 1000 my own photos of icons. I'll be glad to explain. First of all we will talk about definitions:

• Term Icon - is a Christian painting made, to generalize, in Byzantine style, usually tempera on the wood. As byzantine art, icons almost always are related to en:Eastern Orthodoxy, because it was the religion of the Byzantine Empire (exception is tiny national ancient churches such as the Coptic and Armenian). This is why Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary is unnecessary, it sounds like "photographic photographs of John Lennon". (Also there is such thing as Greek Catholic Churches and Slavic Uniate Church after Union of Brest, who combined Byzantine and Catholic styles. Proportionally the number of icons created in these narrow Churches is very small (maybe 5-10%), and they are taken out here in subcategory Category:Uniate and Catholic icons, they also immediately catch the eye because their non-typical iconic style and a Catholic themes prohibited by Orthodoxy.)
  • We can find several cases when icons of Mary aren't Orthodox, mainly two: 1) Catholic icons of Poland (where they started up, probably because Poland is too close to the Orthodox lands and is also Slavic country); 2) several pieces of worshipped icons in Italy, in Catholic churches (which, if you look closely, were brought to Italy from Byzantium before the 15th century, and are basically Byzantine, also Orthodox, copies of them (+ sometimes early Italian paintings pre-Giotto, when Italian painters worked in Italo-Byzantine style, but they aren't icons but simply paintings, see Category:Early Italian paintings of Virgin Mary). You can find it here Category:Uniate and Catholic icons of Virgin Mary. If i'll find such I'll create also Category:Oriental Orthodox icons of Virgin Mary, but in analog about Jesus we have only 5 yet.
• Term Madonna is exclusively Catholic. Not Orthodox. Not Lutheran. Not Greek Catholic. Not Coptic. It should refer only to Catholic images of Virgin Mary with Child. The whole Category:Madonna and Child is wrong named, 'cos we see there the images of her from all the confessions. Now it is not neutral and it looks as if the Catholic point of view is the main one in the world. (However, feel the difference: "Madonna lactans" is a normal, worldwide scientific term for iconography.) But my area is the icons. "Icon" as I told below almost always is the synonim for "Orthodox religious painting", so it could't be used with "Madonna". It sounds like "Retablo of Buddah" or "Thangka of Zeus". Funny, illiterate. In Orthodoxy her title is Theotokos, but we'll not call the category Icons of Theotokos, the name sould be as neutral as possible and take into account other denominations from around the world, including, say, the Church of Ethiopia.
• "...and Child". Circa 85-90% icons of Mary are icons of Mary with Child. In Category:Types of icons of Virgin Mary by alphabet are now 140 types. No need to create separate "Icons of Virgin Mary with Child", it's like to create "Icons of Christ with beard". More logical would be create "Icons of Christ without beard" and put there these unusual cases (by the way it calls Category:Christ Emmanuel, + icons of Nativity and other vita icons from his childhood). So here is Category:Icons of Virgin Mary without the Child. Very few.
• Tree of categories. Don't worry, Hodegetria and Eleusa etc. (see the difference here) are in Category:Icons of Virgin Mary which is in Category:Madonna and child byzantine style which is in Category:Madonna and Child by type (and all this Madonnas' should be renamed!!!)
• Believe me, I've thought a lot about how to put this category in order from the point of view of scientific accuracy of icons' iconography. -- --Shakko (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Shakko: I do believe you've "thought a lot". I also believe you have undertaken a major change with no discussion with any other participant in the project. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Is this really the major change? Icons are very local hobby for very few users here. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to touch the real global problem with ubiquitous Madonna, only the thing that is clearly mistake in icons category. I have outlined my reasoning above and how the category tree should look like so that our Wikipedia does not look illiterate. I apologize if I don't understand all the nuances of intonation, I'm not a native English speaker. For example your File:Bucharest - Biserica Schitul Darvari interior 02.jpg was moved to Hodegetria, 'cos it is en:Hodegetria. Category:Madonna and child byzantine style now is the maternal. --Shakko (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

      @Shakko: have a look some time at Commons:Categories for discussion, and you will see how many much smaller changes are normally run through there to make sure we have consensus before proceeding. I'm not saying your changes are wrong, I'm saying they are large, and that they affect hierarchy and naming conventions that had been hashed out over a couple of decades. I'm definitely not used to seeing some of my own work recategorized to this degree with no advance indication anywhere.

      I've initiated similarly large reorganizations of material in the past. It's usually been my experience that even if I know the subject matter well, there are usually others with some useful thoughts. You didn't give anyone a chance to express those.

      In short, my main issue here is one of process, not substance. I'm not expert in the relevant area, but certainly you are not the only Commons contributor who is, and you should have given others a chance to weigh in.

      In particular, I understand your point about the word Madonna being a Roman Catholic term, but the flip side of that is that probably fewer than 5% of English-speakers have words like Hodegetria and Eleusa in their vocabulary, which is also a consideration for naming categories. (FWIW, I'm a secular Jew, and my only stake in the outcome of this is usefulness to end users.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Big PNG and small JPG dupes

User:Killboy010 uploaded:

File:Γκάντατζ.png 2,560 × 1,920 (9.98 MB)

File:Γκάντατζ1.jpg 640 × 480 (188 KB)

what to do in this situation? RoyZuo (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Convert the large PNG into a JPEG and delete the other two? Nosferattus (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep both, but add the higher resolution image as "other versions" to the smaller image. Wouter (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Convert the large PNG into a JPG and overwrite the small JPG with the large one. Keep both files, but have them link to each other in the "other versions" field. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep both versions or delete low-quality JPEG. Юрий Д.К. 18:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete the jpg per F8 The file is an exact or scaled-down duplicate of an older existing file. but I haven't checked which of the two files was uploaded first and think an older would be good to change to another in that policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

We can retain different file types of the same image. See Commons:File types#PNG for details of a bug affecting thumbnails of PNG images. It is normally a good idea to retain a JPG version of a PNG file, where available. The PNG file is a lossless file type that is a good starting point for any crops or file conversions, while JPG is a lower quality compressed file that avoids the thumbnail bug. In this case, ReneeWrites' solution provides us with the best of both worlds; retaining high quality PNG and JPG files that serve both roles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It is normally a good idea to retain a JPG version of a PNG file, where available Strongly disagree and a JPG is available for all files because they can/could all just be converted to jpg. It clutters search results and category pages and comes with lots of other problems without any benefit if the file-title isn't significantly better. Transcoding a jpg version at upload of PNG files could be something to consider. The bug needs fixing (and/or a workaround) instead of images being uploaded twice. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read Commons:File types. There are plenty of advantages and disadvantages between file types, so saying this is "without any benefit" is incorrect. Instead, you see the increased categorisation burden as outweighing the problems with the different file types. Your preference does not negate the existence of other benefits. If you wish to change this, push to get the bug fixed (if it can be fixed) and gain consensus that the other issues explained in Commons:File types are secondary to categorisation issues. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. There are lots of downsides and I named more than just that one. Another examples is bloating up feeds that people patrol or watch by up to twice the size. The file with the highest quality is best and can be converted to other file types if needed or alternatively be transcoded by the Commons software so that e.g. all PNG files have a jpg file version available in the file description page. Moreover, that bug doesn't even affect the file this thread is about or does it? Prototyperspective (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with User:Prototyperspective. The PNG is inherently a better, lossless format. It's only drawback used to be the demand for larger file sizes, but the internet has moved on since then. The thumbnail problem seems to manifest itself mostly in two-tone graphics and drawings. It is not particularly important and should be solvable. For those of us who do a fair bit of categorization, needless doubles are indeed a nuisance. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Allowing users to override what type of scaling is used on an image might be a worthwhile feature request. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Criteria for setting Category:Videos by year categories? Set them by bot?

• Is there some rough criteria to which files videos-by-year categories should be added? (Category:Videos of 2024 etc)

I've mostly only added it to videos that are either notable (such as videos of films or year-specific events) and/or

where the year is important metadata such as videos extensively portraying cities (which look/ed quite different 50 years ago or 50 years in the future) or of events that occurred in that year.

If there are (or should be), please add this as info. The criteria may be less relevant to items in subcategories.

• Is there some script/bot that automatically adds years cats to videos depending on the year in the Date field of the file description?

This is tied to the question above – whether or not there is or should be criteria for which files should be in these cats (however, there could also be a subcategory that contain less notable/relevant files from a given year). If simply all videos of a year are supposed to be in there, I don't see why people waste their time manually categorizing files by year when this info is already there in the date field. However, it may be best to limit it somehow and/or require things to be in certain subcategories. In that case, a bot or multiple bots doing this categorization would still be useful.

• A small fraction of files have false date set but they'd either also be miscategorized when handled manually or could rather be identified later on, for example if they are underneath seemingly contradicting categories like 2022 events or 1980 works. Those are the exception.
• This is probably also related to thread the VP thread #Date Own work Author above, to Commons:Categorization requests#NASA videos from unidentified year, Template:Taken on discussion, and to VP/T: How to search fields of files' Information template?.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

A small fraction of files have false date set I would think nearly all videos of archival film/video materials would have a false date in the in-file metadata. Is that not the case? - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know and it would be new to me; good question. Checked some files in Category:Videos of films by year and some (example) had the correct year set while some had the date of publication on YouTube (example imported from video2commons with the default date unchanged).

This category also makes clear how Commons categories could be used to check and change these ambiguous values in the date field. I think the date should consistently (expectably & standardized) be date of first publication where that is the key date (films) or date of recording where that is the key date (more or less any other videos; and these date values could be converted to use {{Taken on}}). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

There are probably quite a few more cases of videos with wrong year in the date field due to importing the publication date but not the year of either first published or depicting like the second example. However, probably most of them are older videos that have a category that puts them somewhere underneath Category:Videos by year and if the year in the date field was read and written to the categories, a hypothetical bot could ignore those files that are already underneath that category. Maybe there's a way to scan for these in Category:Uploaded with video2commons where the date of the category does not match the date in the date field (see also section #Contradictions & ambiguity within Wikimedia projects).

I think the by year category(ies) would be more useful if limited in a certain way like only including videos where the year is of substantial relevance. One could however solve this by creating a subcategory where that is populated by aforementioned bot-based method and/or separate such videos where it's of special relevance via subcategory/ies like Category:Videos of 2024 events, Category:Videos of software in 2024, etc. All of this would be too much work when done manually but again bots could add the videos and could maybe subcategorize based on other categories the videos have (or do it batchwise via scanning e.g. the whole Software category to populate the subcategories of Category:Videos of software by year). I'm not sure what the value of videos by year categories are if they're are super incomplete, meaning you can't search, statistically compare, browse, or filter by them. That's at the same time that this data is already there, in structured format, in the {{Information}}'s date field.

-

Also, files in there, including especially Category:Videos of 2024 by country, often don't really show anything of that year or of the respective country. For example, animated explainer videos (here the year is of relevance in terms of 1. techniques and technologies used for them and 2. the state of humans' knowledge which for subjects can change over the decades). All of these are very incomplete. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Contradictions & ambiguity within Wikimedia projects

Created this new category: Category:Contradictions within Wikimedia projects

Looking for some more files to add to it and, why I'm creating this thread, also some examples and ideas how to visualize the concept(s) and its subtypes:

• Contradiction between the categories of two language versions of a Wikipedia article: e.g. German Wikipedia has category 1980 deaths while English Wikipedia has 1982 deaths – how to best visualize this concept / is there file(s) that show this?
• Contradiction between text contents of two language versions of a Wikipedia article: I heard about the idea of, basically, having LLMs read the language versions of Wikipedia articles and showing which things in the article may contradict with other language versions – is there any media on this?
• On English Wikipedia there is a template for contradictions between ENWP articles which puts articles into en:Category:Articles contradicting other articles – maybe somebody could create a diagram to explain this. There also is this new research project do detect such: m:Research:Wikipedia Inconsistency Detection
• There is this preprint study about a tool that identifies articles contradicting themselves in the text
• There are sometimes contradictions between the data in Wikidata and Wikipedia, specifically the data in Wikipedia's infoboxes and/or categories – there doesn't seem to be a tool to list these so users can correct either / sync them; maybe somebody knows of an example to screenshot to explain this assuming there's no better way to explain this
• Here on Commons categories of a file or a category can contradict each other

-

• Is there maybe a meta page about all this? Maybe a WikiProject, or task force, or tool(s), or media coverage?
• Especially if there is none, I may create a new page about this on metawiki but I don't know much about it, it would be quite short, it would barely be found by people, and it would need or greatly benefit from explanatory & statistical media about this. I've been thinking a while about this, basically in the context of it being as a specific class of Wikimedia contribution types. (And a class where tools could be especially useful, e.g. via creating reports like Commons:Database reports/Category cycles.)

I also created Category:Ambiguity within Wikimedia projects. Both of these categories are fairly empty and it would be great if more files could be added or uploaded to them. For a brief example of ambiguity and an example of how it can be dealt with: the Wikidata property spoken text audio (P989) can have an audio file that is the audio version of the Wikipedia article of the item but if the Wikipedia article is about a poem or novel for example, it could also be a spoken version (e.g. audiobook) of the poem or novel, not the Wikipedia article. This means the property is ambiguous and a solution could be to create a new Wikidata property for either kind of spoken text audio.

I think there is no overview or page systematically integrating and describing this, just a few loose files and categories few people are aware of. Neither does there seem to be any organized effort or comprehensive tool that works at scale. So far, the cat has just few files and barely anyone knows about this broad concept in the context of tasks.

Also Category:Wikimedia projects would benefit from being diffused more – it now has so many direct subcategories that visitors of that page will be put off and are rather unlikely to explore further with so many subcategories. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: as you mentioned this is really more appropriate for meta. I am not certain what files you expect for the Commons category since we are limited to media. Some screenshots, graphs, help pictures? I will also note that some of your examples are not correct: en:Category:1982 deaths has an equivalent de:Kategorie:Gestorben 1982 and they are both linked to each other in wikidata. However there is absolutely no expectation that the category systems of different wikipedias would be equivalent - in practice they are for large parts, but each wikipedia is allowed to create their own custom categorization systems.

Article texts are by necessity created by different people using different sources so they will be very much different from each other. The ideal would be that articles are reasonably comprehensive and correct, but they are not translations of each other. Some language articles will be outdated or stubs, others are well maintained.

I suggest you ask about this in meta:Wikimedia Forum. MKFI (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

However, one can't well ask about media files on metawiki. I am not certain what files you expect for the Commons category I'm asking about what files people would expect for the one part. E.g. ideas how these things could be visualized. For the other part, yes also screenshots (see "maybe somebody knows an example to screenshot"), graphs, and more. Don't know what you mean by help pictures (diagrams?) but these too probably.

I will also note that some of your examples are not correct: en:Category:1982 deaths has an equivalent de:Kategorie:Gestorben 1982 and they are both linked to each other in wikidata. The example is correct. There are also inconsistencies between linked and unlinked categories but here I was talking about a Wikipedia article about a person where in one language version it has "1982 deaths" and in the other "1980 deaths" which can be identified by a tool – or a human if things are inefficient – to be inconsistent or likely inconsistent. each wikipedia is allowed to create their own custom categorization systems again, this all comes from a misunderstanding what I was saying. And categories about fundamentally different things shouldn't and aren't linked to each other on Wikidata and vice versa.

The ideal would be that articles are reasonably comprehensive and correct of these two things, this thread is only about the latter / contradictions between them. Some language articles will be outdated […] others are well maintained I don't know what repeating this part of my comment is supposed to mean/say.

Thanks, will ask there (albeit the place seems fairly inactive) but this thread here is about 1. specific also to contradictions and ambiguity on Commons, e.g. as it comes to categories of files and 2. (main point of the thread) about adding existing and creating new media and ideas for new media for these two categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: have you checked existing methods of tracking the differences, such as en:Category:Wikipedia categories tracking Wikidata differences, how they are created and who maintains them? You might find help and interested people that way. MKFI (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for this categorylink! I didn't know about it. I'm interested in the existing methods, e.g. to raise awareness of the big potential there so this is scaled this up and specifically via media that explains this. However, media about it seems missing and there's seemingly just a loose pages with no associated info page or organized efforts or large awareness about them. In the case of that category, is there any diagram or other media file that explains how this category works like it's populated and how it's being used? Maybe somebody here knows some media files or alternatively more about these existing methods plus ideas how it could be visualized... At least I found 2 PDF files by searching for "Wikipedia categories tracking Wikidata differences" that I'll probably add to the cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Categorization question

File:Seattle Water Department worker driving ditch digging machine, 1927.jpg I don't think I've ever seen a machine quite like this. I did my best at categorization, but I suspect I didn't do well; I won't be surprised if we need some category we haven't got. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Nice photograph. There is an enwiki article about something called a w:Ditch Witch (for which we also have a category here c:Category:Ditch Witch). This might be related. (I haven't dug into it in any detail.) -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Seeing that a cat about excavators was already set at the time of upload, would putting it in Category:Unidentified excavators or a new subcategory of it like Category:Excavators of unidentified types solve this? (Note: "Identify unknown objects" is already a task-type highlighted at Commons:Welcome and maybe it could get highlighted more if adding the file to the cat is seen as too unlikely to result in identification+categorization.) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I added Category:Barber-Greene, the manufacturer. You can see part of the name "Barber-" above the driver's head. Commons has a good photo of a similar B-G machine in action: File:Drainage, machine, graven, sleuven, barber greene, Bestanddeelnr 160-0317.jpg. Mrwojo (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it belongs to Category:Chain trenchers, although it is old, small and retractable - and that makes it look different -, and the chain has buckets instead of just teeth as most of the examples in the category. Pere prlpz (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This machine's chain of "buckets" is similar to the floating gold field dredges of the American West and Alaska. The buckets work best in wet soils and wetlands. Ooligan (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Charts comparing countries

• The category is about a quite important subject
• It could contain some of the most educational most useful files
• It could be very useful as a way to find specific files, explore interesting content, filter search results, and organize files

However, it's very incomplete. Could people here help populating it? Does anybody have any ideas for search queries and tool-uses to find lots of files that belong into it?

---

For example, I imagine one could somehow show all files that are in more than one subcategory of Category:Life expectancy charts by country to put them into Category:Life expectancy charts comparing countries which is a new subcat of Charts comparing countries.

Then there's some categories that likely contain many relevant categories like Category:Statistics of Europe.

Iirc, I added Charts comparing countries as a redcat to some files and didn't yet create it because it's neither close to complete – and I currently didn't want / have the time to work on making it – nor even just containing many files. Iketsi apparently went ahead and created that cat apparently without worrying much or at all about putting files in it.

I know that lots of nonmap/chart files in Category:Our World in Data show data of multiple countries but don't know how one could filter for these to put them all into the cat.

Lastly, please comment if you have an idea how to make this category better findable to places where it's useful and people who may be interested in these, for example from Wikipedia. E.g. there are Wikipedia articles about statistics like Solar power by country and there doesn't seem to be an article for statistics comparing countries but there could be some section somewhere and things like that. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Should we categorize after the countries that are being compared and which years they are comparing? Trade (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That would be difficult and also probably not very useful for files that compare 5+ countries (such charts are quite common) to be subcategorized by all the included countries.

• Subcategorizing by content / region for charts that compare only countries of a world region makes a lot of sense – Examples: Africa, South Asia, EU, G7
• It would be best I think to have all the files subcategorized first of all by subject area

Often nearly all countries are being compared and either all of the compared ones or the top/bottom fraction thereof shown in the cart. It's more useful to navigate by subject and much more feasible to categorize by it. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Why cant we compare by year? There are only one or two of those in each chart Trade (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean (and how does it relate to the prior comment)? Did you ask whether Category:Charts comparing countries by year would make sense? I think it would also make sense to subcategorize by decade and year there. Only some charts compare just the state of things in one year for multiple countries, there's many that span several years – see Category:Charts by year of latest data. Nevertheless, it may be difficult to subcategorize into these and make the decade/year cats fairly complete so it would still be better to subcategorize by subject and worry about other ways to subcategorize later imo. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Author of Vietnam famous picture

Hi, It seems the author of a famous photo of the Vietnam War is not the one usually credited: ["Petite Fille au napalm" : un analyste français remet à son tour en cause la paternité de la photo https://www.franceinfo.fr/culture/arts-expos/photographie/petite-fille-au-napalm-un-analyste-francais-remet-a-son-tour-en-cause-la-paternite-de-la-photo_7614215.html]. Yann (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The category about it is Category:The Terror of War. Seems like there is just one file whose description would need to be adjusted.

The Netflix movie The Stringer wants to determine that whoever actually holds the camera when taking this photo is not Nick Ut, but a freelancer from the same agency, Nguyen Thanh Nghe. Hence the name of the documentary because "stringer" means "pigist" in English, unlike a person under contract. (machine translation) has this been determined yet? If not, the Commons community probably can't determine it but maybe this info should be added to the file's author info. If it is, the file page would need to be changed. It doesn't seem like it would have implications for the licensing. The Wikidata infobox has Creator: Nick Ut (attribution, The Stringer, disputed). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Edited the file description page. This should solve it, or not? One curious thing is that the file, a quite famous photo, is not used anywhere so far. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Street parts in US cities

Hello, some cities in USA have streets with 'east' and 'west' parts, which is sometimes reflected in the name of those segments (e.g. Broadway and West Broadway in San Diego - see https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/32.715874/-117.163117) When putting files into categories, what is the common practice - use separate categories for ther east/west/no parts, or just one category (e.g. Broadway, without further division)? Thank you. --JiriMatejicek (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

From what I have seen, only one category. Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Ymblanter is right for most cases, but there are exceptions like Category:First Avenue South, Seattle: it is rather different in character from the (unmodified) First Avenue, and once upon a time even had a different name. Also, Seattle has an entirely unrelated First Avenue NW, First Avenue NE, etc. (not along the same line) that happen not to merit categories; the same must happen in some other cities. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Best way to migrate from unclear but widespread category naming system?

The naming system of many categories related to frescoes in Pompeii does not seem to match the spirit of Commons' hierarchical naming system.

Specifically, the paintings generally have two hierarchies, one rooted at Category:Ancient Roman frescos in Pompeii then descending to house → room (and sometimes a subcategory for a specific painting) and another rooted at Category:Ancient Roman frescos of Pompeii by Irelli-Aoyagi-De Caro-Pappalardo number (with 561 subcategories for specific paintings, walls or rooms).

This second system is based on the figures in volume 2 of a book called La Peinture de Pompéi edited by Irelli, Aoyagi, De Caro and Pappalardo. Volume 1 also has other paintings with their own numbering but those are __not__ part of the Commons categorisation system. Volume1 numbers overlap with volume2 numbers but refer to different paintings, however the category names do not mention that they refer to volume2. The pictures in volume 2 are no where close to a complete catalogue of paintings at Pompeii.

Just about everyone who goes to Category:Red oecus q, north of the peristyle is going to have a hard time discovering the painting/subcategory they're looking for, whereas descriptive names (e.g. 'Cupids making wine') would help greatly. Another example of confusion is described here.

Improvement?

Shouldn't this situation be improved? Does anyone have an opinion on the best course of action?

The Aoyagi-Irelli.. categories refer to specific paintings (or sometimes whole walls with multiple paintings) so it doesn't make conceptual sense for a painting to have both this category and a hypothetical new category that describes the painting. It also doesn't seem right to rename the category because then it loses the numbering information.

Would the right way be to create a new category with a descriptive name and then "tag" that category with the Aoyagi-Irelli number? This makes sense to me but I don't know how to "tag" the new category. Also, this would be a very large change (over 500 categories) and I don't know if the rest of the community agrees?

- User:BeakheadIntrados — Preceding undated comment was added at 10:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't have any expertise here, but it sounds to me like your main problem here is with the naming of the categories based on Irelli-Aoyagi-De Caro-Pappalardo number. Is that correct? Is there another problem as well (in which case, please spell it out; if there is more than one other problem, a bullet list of issues at hand would be useful). At the very least, if those are drawn from two different volumes and the numbers overlap, it would seem that the volume should be part of the category name. As for the issue of whether the Irelli-Aoyagi-De Caro-Pappalardo number should be the primary way of naming individual paintings, I bet needs will vary wildly: as a rule, the more scholarly users will probably prefer those, the less scholarly will not. At the very least those should be preserved within the category pages, one way or another.

One possible pattern for a solution is the way we handle ships, with a category for an IMO number and a subcategory for a ship name. In that case, this is partly because a ship can have more than one name over the course of it existence, but still something like that might be workable.

Another possible pattern for a solution would be to pick a handful of languages and try to have descriptions for as many categories as possible be given in all of those languages. That would help greatly with the search problem.

Another possible pattern would be to add another hierarchy under Category:Ancient Roman frescos of Pompeii: Category:Ancient Roman frescos of Pompeii by subject matter, leading down to the same "leaf" categories. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not being totally clear. Yes, my problem is that I don't think the Irelli-Aoyagi number should be the primary way of naming individual paintings, for the following reasons:

• It is not a standard way of referring to the paintings by scholars. Scholars use the title or subject matter along with the house, room and wall compass position (House, Room, north/east/.. wall). (There's no inventory numbers like in museums.) The Irelli-Aoyagi book is not 'canonical'. It would typically only be referenced by scholars indicating where a reproduction of the painting is to be found (but they could equally refer to another book or none at all).
• Further, the paintings in volume 1 (which has 200+ large colour plates, unlike volume 2 which has smaller black and white photographs) are mostly more "important" than those in volume 2. So it doesn't make any sense to arbitrarily pick volume 2 of this particular books.
• The way that the scholars refer to paintings seems much more intuitive for non-scholarly people too: it's common to read about (or see in real life) a painting and its location (particular house and room).
• If we really wanted to pick a book to number from Irelli-Aoyagi would not be the one but rather Pompei : pitture e mosaici in 11 volumes (1990-2003) which did try to be complete. However more paintings have been excavated since then so even this would not be adequate.

I really don't understand why this particular book has been chosen and it greatly degrades the name- and location-based categorisation system that would be more understandable to both scholars and non-scholars.

Adding 'volume 2' to the category names would not solve the problem, it would only entrench the situation.

The ship-like subcategory idea could work! It would conceptually be a bit weird because the Irelli-Aoyagi category would refer to the files in the subcategory rather than any files in itself, but that would be a good trade-off to preserve automatic 'tagging' of paintings in the main category with this number. An alternative would be to remove the Irelli-Aoyagi categories from the location-based hierarchy and but maintain them as a parallel, but they would quickly become out of sync because few people are going to be thinking in terms of this particular book's numbers.

Again though we're talking about 500+ categories and I would like to get some sort of consensus before making a change on that scale.

BeakheadIntrados (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with BeakheadIntrados that any system based on Irelli et al. is misguided, for all the reasons listed, and especially because this work is not a scholarly standard and is not normally cited by professionals in the field as a primary means of identifying a given painting. By far the best organizing principle for Pompeian wall paintings that are still in situ, or for which the original location is recorded, is the traditional numbering system by region, insula, and house numbers (e.g., VI.8.3), subdivided further by room and location within room as necessary. This has the advantage of being (a) universally intelligible to anyone interested in Pompeii, whether they are scholars or casual visitors, and (b) completely independent of any particular publication. It's the system adopted in Schefold's Die Wände Pompejis (available here for those with access to The Wikipedia Library), which, although it is three-quarters of a century old and lacks illustrations, is still the most convenient one-volume index of Pompeian wall paintings available, and is regularly cited in the scholarly literature. As the OP notes, the multivolume Pompei: Pitture e mosaici is more complete, because it includes the results of more recent excavations, but it's also much bulkier and more expensive, and most readers on both sides of the Atlantic will find it harder to locate a library that owns a copy. For wall paintings in the Naples museum (or, in a few cases, other museums) whose original location is unknown, citation by inventory number is universal. Cluttering up category names and hierarchies with identifiers other than these two widely recognized systems is not, in my opinion, helpful to anyone. Choliamb (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Given that others agree I then propose the following:

• For each category like 'Category:Irelli-Aoyagi-De Caro-Pappalardo <NUMBER>':
  • Create a new category with a descriptive name using best practices. In some cases this may just be the subject matter title of the painting (following existing examples) though to disambiguate with other paintings the name of the house, room or wall may be included.
  • Make this new category a subcategory of the Irelli category.
  • Move all files in the Irelli category into this new category.
  • Make the new category a subcategory of all the parent categories from the Irelli category except the Irelli-specific ones (I believe this is just Category:Ancient Roman frescos of Pompeii by Irelli-Aoyagi-De Caro-Pappalardo number).
  • Remove the corresponding parent categories from the Irelli category.

This should preserve the automatic 'tagging' of new paintings with the Irelli number while creating a more logical, scholarly and user-friendly location-based hierarchy.

Please let me know any concerns before I start doing this.

BeakheadIntrados (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I follow how this will "preserve the automatic 'tagging' of new paintings with the Irelli number…". Maybe I'm missing something. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean that in the future, when an uploader/editor categorises a new photo, they're much more likely to find & use the location-based category rather than the Irelli category. In my suggestion, such new photos would be "automatically tagged" with the Irelli number in the sense that the user only needs to find the location-category and then their photo will be placed in the right Irelli number parent category. An alternative would be adding everything to both the location-based category and the Irelli category but I think this would quickly lead to the two categories getting out of sync (when in most cases they should be identical collections).

I don't actually think this is the 100% best idea (I think this gallery page Pompeian Painting (1990) is probably enough rather than categories). I'd actually be most in favour of renaming the Irelli categories to be location-based but I don't know how to obtain consensus (does anyone else?). That's why I'm suggesting a solution that preserves the numbers, to avoid someone's categorisation work being lost without them explaining why the Irelli numbers are so important. BeakheadIntrados (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

link rot: digitallibrary.usc.edu

for example:

File:Spectators watching a bicyclist on Beacon Street, San Pedro, ca.1907 (CHS-4783).jpg

https://web.archive.org/web/20150928155242/http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll65/id/17161 is broken because w:archive.org can fail archiving w:Ajax (programming) web pages, more than w:archive.today

http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/p15799coll65/id/17161 is now at:

https://digitallibrary.usc.edu/asset-management/2A3BF16PKMY

Piñanana (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you asking for these files to be corrected? Checking insource:http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/cdm/ref/collection/ (assuming that's the url part to search for) suggests over 36,000 files are affected.

Since the identifier also seems to have changed I have no idea how this could be fixed – does somebody know? Maybe the organization can be asked to unbreak these links so they redirect?

I also noticed link rot (404) for source links of files in Category:Videos by Terra X where I notified the creator account. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Will the links remain broken and if so is anybody doing anything regarding that or is there a dedicated page to report broken external links for set of files? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:World War II ships of the Netherlands

A non-registered user is empying the categoies "World War II ships of the Netherlands]] the previous days. Is that a correct move? Stunteltje (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Examples? Functional wikilink: Category:World War II ships of the Netherlands. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Hr.Ms. Sumatra (ship, 1926) from Category:World War II cruisers of the NetherlandsStunteltje (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I undid some of the edits of this anonymous user, as I don't see why this category is removed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-34477-45: Please use the edit summary field to explain why you made certain changes. Why did you empty these categories? Also please don't edit war but discuss with the user.

@Stunteltje: Have all the edits been reverted by now? Prototyperspective (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to mention here, I made a report at AN/U regarding this unregistered user (see COM:AN/U#User:~2025-32925-15), since they were causing multiple problems other than this one here. The user did not respond there, so it is unlikely they will respond here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I will try to find te deleted categories.Stunteltje (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project

Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are: Abstract Wikipedia, Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Wikigenerator, Proto-Wiki. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!

-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

(This message was sent to Commons:Txokoa and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

U.S. Forest Service pic

The opening picture of this article in The Denver Post [7] states "Provided by Bruce Schmacher/U.S. Forest Service" in its caption. Therefore, it should be public domain (tag: PD-USGov-USDA-FS) and good to use? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

• I agree. --RAN (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Better to ask this/such at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. I think "Bruce Schmacher/U.S. Forest Service" means 'Bruce Schmacher of U.S. Forest Service', not 'Bruce Schmacher and U.S. Forest Service'. Research confirms the latter. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Maps showing ancient history

The category is strangely empty. It doesn't contain a subcat about the ancient Americas. Shouldn't e.g. Category:Maps of the Mayas be in a cat like that?

Moreover, none of the subcats of Category:Maps by year shown or their parent cats are in this category – shouldn't this be changed and if so, how? Also pinging @Enyavar: .

Lastly – and this fits well into a CfD – is the title of this cat and other cats in Category:Maps showing history really appropriate? It sounds as if these maps would show historical developments such as from where to where some people moved (how things developed over a certain period). But the maps each show a situation at a certain ancient time such as population centers on a map. The category is linked to Wikidata historical map (Q459798) described as "map displaying a past event or other historical situation". These maps mostly don't show historical events or historical situations but simply the past of any kind (specifically the ancient past). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories referring to history are generally not useful. There is no agreement about when history starts. Better to use categories with actual dates. Rathfelder (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Prototyperspective: , "Maps of the Mayas" are a subcategory of "Maps of ancient peoples". I do agree that the "maps showing history" category tree feels pretty raw. The history map section on Commons is not fully fleshed out, and I suppose we need a concept on how it should be best structured. I even had arguments with a fellow editor recently on how explicitly regionalized the tree ought to be. (i.e. Maps of Belgium in the 8th century vs. Maps of Luxembourg in the 8th century vs. Maps of the Netherlands in the 8th century: Aren't these just the same? (CfD here, be warned, we are both wall-texters, but the initial proposal is quite brief.)

Maps by year shown (or maps by century shown) should in my opinion not necessarily be part of the "ancient" category, because timespans in history are so hard to define. "Antiquity" was traditionally subdivided into Stone/Bronze/Iron age, which then was succeeded by classical and late antiquity... in Europe and the Near East. The 5th century, when the European middle ages began, was still prehistoric in North America (the Mesoamerican cultures excluded). Right now, I added a disclaimer to the "maps of history by period" category, because I fear that some nitpickers will try and apply the distinction of prehistory and recorded history onto the category to further confuse matters. Aside from that, I have placed a link to "maps showing history by millenium BC" in the OP category. It is a parallel structure though, not a sub/parent cat.

Re "usefulness" of the "history" categories: "History" in our category tree is anything that is about the past. A lot of people are categorizing everything by year and months, and then locate these categories under "history of...". Even the stuff from the 2020s is usually found under "history". That whole practice is often not particularly useful, sure. --Enyavar (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

By the way it would be better to click Reply underneath the post to which you're replying to or if editing wikitext set the indentation accordingly.

I saw "Maps of the Mayas" is already a subcategory of that. I doubt that all maps of the ancient Americas are of Maya and even if adding a subcat for the Americas seems missing considering the other subcats of that cat and how it can be found starting from other categories.

and I suppose we need a concept on how it should be best structured Let's discuss it here then, specifically for Category:Maps showing ancient history and secondarily also for the broader Category:Maps showing history cats regarding the "showing history" part in terms of whether maps just showing a long-ago state of things are "showing history" as opposed to just maps where historical events or developments are illustrated.

Maps by year shown (or maps by century shown) should in my opinion not necessarily be part of the "ancient" category, The proposal is to a fraction of these to the category, not the entire category. The time period included can then be easily changed and be oriented toward some academic consensus of which period(s per location) can be classed as Ancient history, where the gray area category/ies is/are e.g. only linked as see also instead of being subcategories. This would benefit from and incorporate the existing finely-set (down to by year not just broad historical era) categories rather than for example copying the files into this cat. This isn't clear and easy to do so this thread could be used to flesh out how a solution.

The 5th century, when the European middle ages began, was still prehistoric in North America Indeed that's part of the problem: periods vary per region. So maybe things can only be done once the Category:Maps by century shown cats are subcategorized into by-region subcategories(?) (or only those subcategories get added).

added a disclaimer to the "maps of history by period" category Thanks. Category:Maps showing history by period definitely should inform that "prehistory [is grouped] into history categories" despite that many main definitions of "history" distinguish it from prehistory (btw many also it as the study of / information about and field about the past from the past itself).

Aside from that, I have placed a link to "maps showing history by millenium BC" in the OP category Thanks, good call. It is a parallel structure though, not a sub/parent cat. Yes that's how things currently are but I suggested here for this to be changed somehow in an adequate way.

Even the stuff from the 2020s is usually found under "history" […] This is not relating to the primary subject of the 'ancient history' cats where this isn't the case. It does relate to the secondary topic of Category:Maps showing history which brings me back to my question of whether that title is (/ these titles are) adequate. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Categories referring to history are generally not useful. Strongly disagree. Better to use categories with actual dates Agree that it would be better but that's not an either or question: both can be done where the year category is arguably more important. We shouldn't delete Category:History and do away with history cats. The full term here is "ancient history", not just history btw. And it makes sense to have categories for ancient history, middle ages etc because that's making it a lot easier to find things. Organizing also gets better and lots of sources and articles and topics are about such or things by such delineations. Just because it's not perfectly clear-cut doesn't make it useless. There's a lot of other things we organize by that also aren't clear cut.

At Category:Maps by year shown the question or challenge I was asking about is also about how to subcategorize a fraction of these into the cat – if this is done by putting these cats in there instead of e.g. just a fraction of the files – which of course brings the issues of it not being clear cut to the forefront.

I can't now explain you in length why the concept of ancient history is of value but it is and there's good reasons the Wikipedia article about it, Ancient history, exists in 117 language versions and has lots of big sources about exactly that scope, high readership, many articles in its cat, and much info; etc. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh yes, of course, history categories per se are eminently useful.

My critique was mostly on the praxis that detailed ("dated") history like Rathfelder preferred above my comment, usually just spans the last fifteen years, as can be seen for example in this random history category: We have files explictly dated by year and month about the "history" shown in random photographs dated between 2010 to 2024: flowers in parks, sunsets, memorials, road and building infrastructure. I firmly believe that in most cases, it matters little whether those photos were taken in the 1990s or this year, unless you can hold them next to each other and point out the changes.

It is good and important to date our photos, but these examples do not show "history" in my opinion. This would be different with media about unique events (festivals, demonstrations, catastrophes).

The linked example shows how one can group content in a better way instead of by-year breakdowns: photos of history markers/placques/monuments get their own category. Old maps get their own category. Registered historical buildings and sites get their own categories. That should be the focus of "history of" categories in my opinion.

I see more or less the same pattern with History of Chongqing, History of Kanchipuram, History of Caen, i.e. all over the place: Detailed and sometimes meaningless by-year subcategorization, while broader subcategories by theme are more helpful in finding things.

Back to the "maps by year shown", those are helpful when the map content can be clearly dated to a year. I also would like to locate these maps as well, like Maps of North America in the 17th century: First collect enough maps for an area and a century, and subdividing into decades or years on a much later stage. --Enyavar (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

--Enyavar (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

My comment was a reply to Rathfelder, not to your comment.
but these examples do not show "history" in my opinion. This would be different with media about unique events that's also what I argued in my opening post (if I understood you correctly).
that detailed ("dated") history […] usually just spans the last fifteen years, as can be seen for example in this random history category off-topic to this thread, sorry, but you could make a separate thread about this subject.
Detailed and sometimes meaningless by-year subcategorization, while broader subcategories by theme are more helpful in finding things. I think I agree but I think that by-year categories are often useful, just usually for such cases shouldn't be the main or only or first criteria to subcategorize by. Also off-topic to this thread.
Back to the "maps by year shown", those are helpful when… as is, also off-topic to this thread. Clearly those are useful. But let's please discuss the topic of the thread and open a separate one about other or tangentially related topics. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not against categories of history of any kind, but I dont think there is widespread understanding of when ancient or medieval history began or ended, so I think they should, where possible, be populated by categories by century or millenium. Rathfelder (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

When exactly each era started/ended is not important to most use-cases / users that use these categories that adopt a widely-used concept and distinction. Yes, they should be also categorized by century or millenium or year. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Paintings "in" vs. paintings "from" categories

I'm a bit confused by the fact we simultaneously have categories like Category:1930 paintings from Mexico and Category:1930 paintings in Mexico. What is the distinction between them? Sdkb ^talk 18:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just a guess but it seems like the former is paintings made in Mexico in 1930, while the latter is paintings made in 1930 which are currently housed/located in a public collection in Mexico. 19h00s (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. As a meta thing, I wish we'd do a better job of building out descriptions as we build out categories. The proper domain of a category is always obvious to the editor who creates it, but not always to others. Sdkb ^talk 18:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Also a meta thing: we could really use some better guidelines on how to use prepositions in category names - right now it feels like we pick randomly between "in", "of", and "from", and a nontrivial number of categories end up duplicated and/or with inconsistent names as a result. Omphalographer (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

cc @MarbleGarden because of your edit to Category:Prometeo (Orozco), which is a mural done in the U.S. by a Mexican painter. Sdkb ^talk 20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

My understanding based on the guidance for the country categories for "portrait paintings from", was that the "from" category is based on the nationality of the painter. MarbleGarden (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense as guidance, though, imo. A Mexican portrait painter working in, say, France, is by definition not making "portrait paintings from Mexico". 19h00s (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Its not just paintings. There are many categories where it is clear many editors dont understand the intended differences between in, of, from, and the like - stuff that doesnt translate easily. No easy answer, but I think we should at least have some explanations. Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Anything similar to sandbox for images?

Is there anything similar to sandbox for images? There is a tool which was used for uploading tons of images and it seems to me I see the same mistake in each upload and so I need to upload one image with it to test if the tool is the root of the mistake or not... DustDFG (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

See Category:Test uploads. As always, please clarify whether this solves your question. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks it is what I needed DustDFG (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hand typed text

We have handwritten categories, but I dont see any handtyped categories. This example is clearly typed with a classic typewriter, not even an electric one, where the impact is constant. Nowadays this type of text is not made anymore, but (laser)printed. The most handy solution to make the handwritten text in Category:Lettre posthume de Bernard à Estelle is of course to write out the text in the French Wikisource, but in the meantime... Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I've recently been wanting to categorise typewritten documents by equipment as well. I've not thought to distinguish between electric and manual typewriters, but that totally makes sense if it's determinable. We have categories for Handwriting and Writing by medium and Writing equipment, so maybe Writing by equipment used would make sense? With Written with electric typewriters, Written with manual typewriters, Written with fountain pen etc. as subcats? Sam Wilson 03:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

There is Category:Typed texts from Gallica, so as a first step I created Category:Typed texts. There are many categories under Category:Writing systems. Also interesting are the typefaces. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist, should that new Category:Typed texts, include the category "typewriters?" -- Ooligan (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

No typewriters are included in the broader Category:Writing systems. Typewriters produce Typed texts, but typewriters is not a subcategory of Typed texts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Munich vs. München

I would like to raise an issue regarding recent category moves involving Munich/München. According to COM:NAME, category names should generally use English. The main parent category on Commons for this city is Category:Munich, but a number of subcategories were moved from Munich to the German München without a clear community consensus, and seemingly against Commons' naming policies. Similar moves have affected dozens of other Munich-related categories, often at the hands of the same user, resulting in inconsistency within the category tree.

I'd like to get wider input on how these categories should be handled and hopefully establish a consensus, so these inconsistencies can be ironed out one way or another. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Pinging L. Beck as he started the CfD, and DALIBRI for having made this move (among many others). ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Proper names are generally used as such. However, there are exceptions, namely when a common English name exists (for example: Nürnberg - Nuremberg or Köln - Cologne). Therefore, all categories where the name München appears should be renamed to use the English name. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to get wider input on how these categories should be handled As Lukas Beck noted the policy is for category names to be in English. If you want things to be multilingual at scale and in reality so that categories can also be found by people searching the Web or Commons in their own language and category titles be better understood by people not speaking English well, I suggest you vote on m:Community Wishlist/W214.
Proper names with any translation solution would need special treatment as they often shouldn't be translated and the labels of Wikidata items can be used for that, albeit in this case (and cases like it) 'English Garden' and its translations wouldn't necessarily be inferior to the proper name "Englischer Garten". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I removed the link to the CfD, so as to not cause further confusion. This is about Munich vs. München, not Englischer Garten. --ReneeWrites (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you're replying to me: had understood that and there's no need to remove it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Clearly "Munich". Is there any existing category that uses München, or any current CfD proposing that one should? - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Category:Englischer Garten (München) and many subcategories for example. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Lukas linked to an ongoing CfD with the user who had been moving these categories. But am I correct in understanding that these moves went against established policy, and I'm at liberty to change them back? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Certainly if they introduced "München" rather than "Munich" as a disambiguator, that should be changed back.

There are rare cases of a proper noun phrase where "München" could be correct, but this is not it. For example, we have Category:FC Bayern München (though I see there is a current RfC about that) and Category:Zoologische Staatssammlung München. Those are certainly at least defensible, but (for example) I would say Category:Stachus (München) (which has now had that name for over a year(!) and does not appear to be undergoing an RfC) is misnamed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Template for release into the public domain by anonymous author?

Is there a template for when an anonymous author releases their work into the public domain? Right now I'm using {{PD-author}} with {{Anonymous}}, but that's grammatically incorrect. Based5290 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Which work(s)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Something very similar (though not PD) came up recently for File:SedeGEM.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

This came up at File:2003 birthday letter to Epstein.png. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that an unknown author released it into the public domain. Based5290 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I see no evidence that its author has released it into the PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like something to take to a deletion discussion if you disagree with the abandonment rationale. Based5290 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What "abandonment rationale"? Where did I mention disagreeing with one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

My bad for misinterpreting your reply. What did you mean? Based5290 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

All right, I'll start the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Template requests

On the new page Commons:Template requests, Commons users can request edits to templates, the addition of complex templates to pages, and the creation of new templates. Users experienced with templates can find tasks to work on.

So far, such requests could only be made on dispersed talk pages unlikely to be watched by users experienced with templates (and just very few if any users) and at Commons:Village pump/Technical which Template editors may not watch either and which is more broadly about any kind of technical problems. Moreover, on both of these pages, requests may have gotten archived without gotten implemented.

If you are skilled in editing templates, please help out there.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to display stats like these (these current stats)?:

• 3 solved requests, 5 open requests (8 total)

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

3 solved requests, 6 open requests (9 total)

Current open requests:

• Parameter auto=yes for ArchiveBox to detect and link/transclude archive subpages
• Parameter for "review impossible" for LicenseReview template (in progress)
• Fix Topic in country template linking to the redlink Template:Byby
• Make template Shortcut show again
• Florida memory – Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl should contain image number (likely not done)
• Making Template:Search link work with MediaSearch (likely solved)

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding making the template {{Shortcut}} show up again: really nobody wants to fix it? Currently, lots of policy pages don't display their shortcuts. I would check if I could fix it myself but I don't have permissions to edit that template. Considering how many pages use that template and how important policy & guideline pages are on Commons, I think this is not unimportant to look into. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

8 solved requests, 5 open requests (13 total)

If you're skilled with template editing, please consider watchlisting that new page.

Current open requests:

• Parameter auto=yes for ArchiveBox to detect and link/transclude archive subpages
• Parameter for "review impossible" for LicenseReview template (in progress)
• Fix Topic in country template linking to the redlink Template:Byby (confirmed bug)
• Make template Shortcut show again (confirmed bug)
• Setting Videos by xyz category based on license templates like PD-USGov-USDA (likely won't be done; instead e.g. set {{Category search by/filetype}} on these license tag categories like Category:PD USDA)

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Where to challenge undeletion

To say I'm surprised by the undeletion (a supervote?) at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Nintendo Advanced Video System cartridge console, data recorder and keyboard all together-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg is an understatement - but I'm not clear where such an action should be challenged. Is here a suitable place for discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

As the uploader, I'd have been fine with it remaining deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say that COM:VPC is a better page than this. On copyright principles, I'd let it be. Continued fighting over something like this drains energy from a community quickly. It's not really a supervote; there was only like one explicit opposition and one explicit support, making it two to one with the closer's vote. But if you feel the admin has an issue with closing votes inappropriately, it'd be COM:AN or COM:ANU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

...hmmm... nobody thought of a courtesy ping, as I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo Advanced Video System cartridge console, data recorder and keyboard all together-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg. I agree this is highly likely copyrighted by the manufacturer. It can be nominated again for deletion of course, but we can also spare our energy. I am amazed how PCP seems to be turned upside down. Ellywa (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

To me it looks like the same quality and taken in same conditions as other photos of devices from different companies in the magazine  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   01:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Of course. (1) Did the magazine obtain full rights on these photos? (2) Did they just publish press photos without even attribution, which is quite usual? (3) Or did they make all these photos with their own photographers? If 2 is true, we cannot keep these photos on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

They are photos of devices from different competitor companies, there is also no information on where to buy them so they are unlikely to be photos from a store. I searched newspapers in 1985 and can't find that press photos of this console were distributed  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   13:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anyone suggesting they were from a store; that's a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

What Andy and Ellywa are insinuating is that Nintendo took the photograph (since they were the manufacturer), not that these were from retail. Abzeronow (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems to me, though, that if Nintendo repeatedly gave them photographs and made no objection to them repeatedly publishing without copyright notices, we'd be back to {{PD-US-1978-89}}. No? - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The magazine had an overall copyright notice, so no, unless they were straight up advertisements  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am saying that all the photos of devices from different competing companies look like they were taken in the same conditions at the same time. Nintendo was not taking and distributing photos of Commodore and Atari machines, that's why I brought up being from another third party which would be a possible reason for all photos to look the same  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Difference between MetaCat and CatCat

What is the difference between a MetaCat and CatCat I'm reffering specifically to Category:Apple Stores in Singapore and Category:Apple Stores in Thailand. I tagged them with metacat, because they shouldn't contain files, only categories, but that was reverted. I then looked into it and saw that there were both metacats and catcats and don't really understand the difference.–DMartin (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Dmartin969: Definitely not metacats. Metacats are things like Category:Buildings by country or Category:Illuminated manuscripts by place of creation: they group other categories by a specific criterion. But I don't see why these should even be catcats: if we have a photo of an Apple store in Thailand that doesn't have a category for the particular store, why wouldn't it belong directly in Category:Apple Stores in Thailand? - Jmabel ! talk 07:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

If we have a photo of an Apple store in Thailand that doesn't have a category for the particular store. I think the intention here may be that new categories are created for each store if there's any media of/about it which is feasible as this cat is empty except of the subcats. I don't think users should be encouraged or required to create subcats for these however. The CatCat template got removed from both cats. If there's dispute, one could create a CfD. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we have categories for faded images based on which dye has faded or that they need color correction?

See for example: File:Stavropol. Celebrating the 200th anniversary of the city. Gorbachev M.S., Suslov M.A. 1978.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): mark it with {{Discolored}}. MKFI (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks! --RAN (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What what you do to these two images?

I would "merge" these two files. Is there any merge procedure at all, some commitee/discussion before merging? Anyway my gut tells me that I should just refrain...

File:Pentagon.svg

File:Regular_pentagon.svg DustDFG (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Aren't they different from one another? One is all transparent except for the lines while the other one has only a transparent background while the pentagon itself is white? Nakonana (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

If two files are identical you can start a deletion request for the version you think is inferior, but these are different enough that I would leave well enough alone. (Different outlines, one is fully transparent, the other has a white background). ReneeWrites (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

DustDFG (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Moving categories without leaving redirect causes broken links at Wikipedia

I noticed when moving categories without leaving a redirect – as one may want to for titles with typos or flaws or that are just the plural/singular form etc (pollutes the autocomplete) – links to the category in Wikipedia can become broken.

The move page doesn't inform the user much about this potential issue – it says The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Be sure to check for double or broken redirects. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. but the user may not be aware that the category is linked from a Wikipedia page. One also can't see which Wikipedia pages do – Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't show them and the they're also not listed on the move page. Many Wikipedia articles just link dynamically to whatever Commons category is linked on the/a Wikidata item but apparently many(?) also specify the exact category title.

This is especially problematic when one wants to move a set of categories all named by the same schema. Usually, Wieralee moves files in the moved category to the target category but that's not the case for moves when no redirect is left. When moving multiple categories, one would have to check for each where it's linked on Wikipedia and also correct that(?)

See also Commons:Village pump/Technical#How to move (rename) many categories?

I think there may be quite a few moved categories where the links have not been updated on Wikipedia – is there any way to find them (if possible just the ones with broken links) so these can be corrected? Is there maybe a tool for category moves that would also change these similar to "Move & Replace" for files? Prototyperspective (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Another benefit for those wiki's to just rely on Wikidata for this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there any tool / query (probably quarry) that could check

• all redirect pages and
• all pages that were moved without leaving a redirect

whether they contain files so that one could for example create a regularly bot-updated report page that lists these categories for editors to fix these? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

So I'll just go through my contributions filtered for category moves and then check all the source categories whether they still contain any files. However, what about other users that may have at some point also moved categories or categories without leaving a redirect – is there any way to have them all checked? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there anyway to automate?

Is there anyway to automate the matching of these names in this list? File:Charter Members of the Ninety-Nines.jpg --RAN (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "the matching of these names". Matching them to what? Categories? Wikidata? Wikipedia in some language? Something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you mean OCRing the file to add categories. This could maybe be done using mw:Extension:Wikisource/Wikimedia OCR and then using a text editor to add "Category:" in front of each line etc. However, I don't think it would be good to add an image that shows a list of names to the categories of these names or would it? Instead one would add a category like "Charter Members of the Ninety-Nines" to these people's categories. Maybe that's what you intend to do. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagging a group of watermarked images

There is a batch Flickr upload in Procession of the Good Friday (San Lorenzo Maggiore) - 2017. 200+ files there should be tagged with {{Watermark}}. Is there a way to process the files automatically instead of adding the template manually? Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Qbli2mHd, perhaps you can use COM:VFC. You can enter the category name, then use the "Prepend any text" option to add the {{Watermark}} tag to the selected images. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Though "prepend" might not be the best choice; we don't usually put {{Watermark}} at the top of the file page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know as I wasn't aware of that, so where should the {{Watermark}} tag be placed at? I have seen these tags being placed on top, middle (after the summary section) or at the end of file pages before, so I always thought it was just a personal preference. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: I'd say ideally after {{Information}} but of course we cannot assume that template is used on every file. I'd probably start by doing a search/query to determine whether there are files in the category that lack that template. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not normal to name all the files using own nickname?

I've found one user who names all the files with their own name. Something like <subject>_<name>.<ext> Name space is already very polluted and this thing pollutes it even more. At the same time I understand that looking for new name is a bit hard task. So...

1. Is it normal to do use such namings? 2. If it is not desirable naming scheme, what should I do? I should go to users talk page, politely explain and hope they will understand? DustDFG (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It's not 'normal', it's not encouraged, but nor is it forbidden. This isn't helped by a couple of prominent and very active editors here (inc. at least one admin) who do this, and will angrily defend against any renaming.

BTW, the same policy of 'free choice' that makes this possible also means that it's nearly as easy to rename them otherwise, should one of the other general conditions for renaming be met. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

To be clear. Ppl have no RIGHT to demand this name is preserved, similar to how they have no right to retain metadata in the exif, or a specific mark inside a photograph. These are not rights that the license provides them, literally the opposite, the license explicitly permits others to make such changes.

They get their name somewhere, the license somewhere and often the share alike provision and thats it. The rest is a courtesy, and the more people abuse a courtesy (for instance by plastering their names over each and every wiki page that uses an image) the more likely they are to eventually cause every person to loose that courtesy. (Aka. Why we cant have nice things) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic of rights is irrelevant here. Commons instead has policies, including a naming policy that outlines which files should and shouldn't be renamed, and if a filename meets the naming guidelines otherwise, there are no grounds for renaming files just to remove the author's name from it. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites I was just saying that that is a choice. If people start misusing policy because they figured out it is a good way to insert their name everywhere without other people being allowed to complain about it, then we can amend the naming policy (and in my opinion should [but I haven't looked into how much of a problem this actually is right now, so no opinion on that]). This is somewhat alike to the whole GFDL debate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that it's wrong to name the author in the file name. We do that with paintings, books, song etc., so why shouldn't we be allowed to do the same with photographers (even if they are Wikimedians)? I personally don't do it, but I have no problem with others doing it. Nakonana (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Moving photographs from a normal to a hidden category: Is this OK?

I yesterday had an argument with {{ping|Fantaglobe11} (still findable at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#June 2025 in The Hague). The point is that they are doing mass recaterigorization, saying they are diffusing categories. As an example, this file, which I added at upload to Category:June 2025 in The Hague (regular) and Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2025-06-14 (hidden), is now categorized only at Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 (hidden), i.e. the file disappeared from a regular category and was transferred to a hidden category. I restored the original category, Fantaglobe11 reverted all my edits and took the position "show me the policy which says I may not do what I am doing, and until that happened I will keep doing it". They made literally thousands of similar edits. I know of course that the community proved itself incapable to resolve a general issue at Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date, but may be it has an opinion on whether removal of file from regular categories and adding them to hidden categories is ok? Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

There are differing opinions on hidden date/place categories, but there seems agreement that files should always have at least 1 relevant non-hidden category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The files I uploaded always have non-trivial non-hidden categories (related to the subject and location, not to the date/place). Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I found this village pump discussion and this CfD where there seems to be a community consensus against creating "Photographs of city by day"-categories. A few categories are so old and/or numerous that nobody's taken an axe to them (New York City and Tokyo come to mind) but I think at the very least no new ones should be created - at least until there's consensus to do otherwise. And like Infrogmation said, if an image is moved to a hidden category it should be in at least one relevant non-hidden category. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Fantaglobe11: as the ping in the original comment appears to be broken. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

In first instance, I would like to set things right. I moved pictures from a hidden category (Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2025-06-14) to another hidden category (Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14). According to Commons:Categories#Over-categorization, I subsequently removed the parent category (Category:June 2025 in The Hague). Please understand that it is hard to consider any consensus on any discussion pages. I take my cue from the example for German districts/cities/municipalities, where there are countless such cases. Best regards, Fantaglobe11 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Ok, my conclusion is that, as a project, we do not need the categories by date anymore. Nobody can explain why they exist, we do not have a common vision how they should look like, discussions about them are regularly started and never come to any conclusions, and people keep doing whatever they want without being accountable to the community. I am pretty sure though the proposal to delete all of them would be stalled as well. May be I should just stop adding them to the files I upload, this will at least make my watchlist less loaded. Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

The question I would like to raise. Is it overfilled categories that we want? The one like Category:June 2023 in Amsterdam that have like hundreds of pictures. The Template:Categorize is not for nothing. I feel that a problem is being created here that shouldn't be a problem at all. Furthermore, it is beyond me why I should be held accountable for something that does not violate the rules. Fantaglobe11 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I never proposed that you would be accountable (blocked, topic banned whatever) though I still think it would be good if you were interested in looking for consensus. You do understand that you are moving hundreds of my uploads per day, some of them multiple times, and they all show on my watchlist, right? Also, I strongly suspect that some of the files you move (not my uploads) you remove from the only non-hidden category as a result, and I do not think you check this. Now, back to the point, whether these moves are acceptable or not depends on whether and how these categories are used. A category with several hundred photographs may be sometimes more convenient than several dozen categories containing ten photographs each, this all depends on the usage. I personally never use these categories to find a photograph unless I know precisely which one; I do not see why I would need to find a nice photo taken in South Holland on 5 May 2023 and why it is better that a photo taken on 6 May 2023. (I use them to find my own uploads, for example I can locate one photograph I took on that day, and then I can locate the others - what you are doing restricts this usage). I strongly suspect no humans use them in this way - only robots, for whatever purpose. And for robots it is not a problem that the categories are overfilled. As simple as that. Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I will kindly overlook that unfounded accusation in order to be able to talk constructively with each other here. Do you think that there is a real difference between the categories Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 and Category:June 2025 in The Hague, except for the fact that only one is hidden? If you ask me, the average user won't search for a file in either category.

Besides, many of the photographs that are categorized in these categories, because I added them. So I would say that I have a rough idea of that. Fantaglobe11 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you think that there is a real difference between the categories Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 and Category:June 2025 in The Hague, except for the fact that only one is hidden? Yes, there's a difference: the former only has photographs while the latter can also have documents, Coats of arms, videos, books, audios etc. Nakonana (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: at least for 19th and 20th Centuries, I find the "by day" categories quite useful, and find "by country" for those to be sufficient granularity because we don't tend to have overwhelming numbers of photos that can be pinned to a single day before digital photography became current. Above all, they are super-useful to help work out that some set of pictures were a single photographer walking around on a given day taking pictures; if some of those have photographer and place information, it helps to pin down the others. And while you may think that wouldn't happen (have the date lack photographer or place) it definitely does, because one archive might have things where all they know is the date and another might have a photo or two where they know a lot more. In particular, the Seattle Municipal Archive only very rarely tracks which city-employed photographer took a particular photo (even if it is someone moderately famous, such as Anders Beer Wilse or Asahel Curtis), but a museum might. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is how I can trace my own photos (I have several thousands uploads, so that going through the upload list is not an option). But if they are spread between province /city categories by day, this is becoming less and less useful. Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

we do not need the categories by date anymore. I disagree, World War II on 7 May 1945 was very different from World War II on 8/9 May 1945. It might not make a difference for every day and at every place, but sometimes it really does make a significant difference. Nakonana (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Launching UK Heritage 3D Data at Risk

Hi folks. In part prompted by industry concern around the future of cultural heritage data on the sketchfab.com platform, Wikimedia UK and Thomas Flynn are collaborating on a user research project UK Heritage 3D Data at Risk: Developing a Strategy for Long Term Access & Storage. The project is made possible with The National Lottery Heritage Fund, with thanks to National Lottery players.

It has a UK focus, but could have implications for 3D content more broadly.

Led by Thomas Flynn, this project will undertake a period of focused stakeholder research into the needs of the UK heritage sector with regards to management and exploitation of digital 3D data. Essentially we're seeking to answer the question:

"What would a 'Sketchfab for UK heritage' look like and how would it work to best serve cultural heritage professionals and audiences alike?"

The project activities are pretty straightforward:

• Ask stakeholders (folks in the UK producing and working with cultural heritage 3D data) what they think & need via questionnaires, interviews, and workshops.
• Survey the current online 3D data infrastructure ecosystem.
• Synthesise this information into an open access report that a) develop guidance for UK heritage organisations of all sizes on best practice related to these themes and b) suggest opportunities for solutions and infrastructure where none currently exists.

You can follow us on our Commons page and email us directly: 3Ddatawikimedia.org.uk Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

This page might be interesting in this manner: Commons:Textured 3D PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Definitely! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

SchlurcherBot

Have anyone noticed the bot creating constraint errors with the SDC data it's adding? Trade (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not routinely. @Trade: can you give an example where you've seen this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

File:Lil bitch (Markiplier video).webm#published in

The property description is explicitly referring to works published in other works ("larger work that a given work"), not random social media stuff Trade (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade Did you pick the right example there? SchlurcherBot didn't take the action you describe (see Special:diff/914006523). Instead, the "published in" claim was inserted by YouTubeBot (see Special:diff/1039529357). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Alright let us change the subject to YouTubeBot. SchurcherBot is innocent for now Trade (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I wanted to take a moment to address the recent exchange concerning SchlurcherBot and the comment that it is innocent for now. While I appreciate that the initial bug report has been resolved, I feel compelled to clarify why this phrasing is both inaccurate and inappropriate given the circumstances.

Over the past months, I have invested hundreds of hours of my own time - entirely unpaid - into the development, maintenance, and improvement of SchlurcherBot. This effort has included writing and reviewing substantial amounts of code, implementing new features, fixing issues and filling a global bot request. My contributions have been driven by a commitment to the Commons Project and idears, not by obligation or compensation.

When someone dedicates this level of effort voluntarily, it is reasonable to expect that their work is treated with respect and fairness. Suggesting that SchlurcherBot is innocent for now implies a presumption of guilt or wrongdoing that is neither justified nor constructive. It undermines the trust and goodwill that are essential for collaborative projects and open-source communities.

I take pride in the integrity of my work and that I have developed unit tests to stress test my processes. SchlurcherBot is the most active bot on Commons. If there are concerns about functionality or behavior, I am always open to addressing them. I usually respond to concerns on my talk page in days rather than weeks. However, language that casts doubt without basis does not contribute to a positive or productive environment.

Moving forward, I kindly ask that we maintain a tone that reflects mutual respect and acknowledges the effort behind these contributions.

@Trade: Thank you for taking the time to read this. I remain committed to improving SchlurcherBot and ensuring it serves its purpose effectively. If there are specific issues or suggestions you would like to discuss, I am more than willing to engage in that conversation. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, pinging @Schlurcher, the operator of the bot. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Since the observed problem has nothing to do with SchlurcherBot: (Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC))

Mass editing categories

I want to perform mass edits on subcategories of Category:Toki Pona logograms by word. What kinds of tools could I use to do such mass edits? The subcategories are a mess coming from a very inefficient workflow I had a while ago and they contain a lot of fluff. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I will need AWB to do this correctly Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I will need to use AWB Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

See Commons:Village pump/Technical#How to move (rename) many categories? and MediaWiki talk:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js#VisualFileChange for category text content changes?. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The Commons brochure needs an update

File:Illustrating Wikipedia brochure.pdf is very outdated. Things look very different now. Maybe parts of the text need updates too but the images would be very confusing if anybody reads this.

That file is used on many pages, including en:Help:Pictures, en:Help:Files and meta:Commons brochure.

Alternatively, the document could be replaced by an entirely new up-to-date document. Note that in that case, most file-uses should probably also be changed.

See also Commons:Simple media reuse guide and Commons:Welcome. The file is of course relevant to the entire global Commons project.

Also posted this to Commons:File requests#Updated version of the Commons brochure and I suggest discussion continues there once this thread here is archived. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

The file is outdated by over a decade – it was uploaded and last revised in 2014 which in 1 week is 11 years ago. Despite of this it is and remains heavily used across Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia and metawiki. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

In the last 30 days, the file got 81,282 views but it shows totally outdated screenshots of Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll admit that, like Prototyperspective (correct me if I am wrong and you are volunteering), I am entirely in favor of someone else doing this. - Jmabel ! talk 06:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this photo violate Commons:Photographs of identifiable people?

• File:Trump Is On the Epstein List (54673829027).jpg

Context: On ENWP i was told we were not allowed to use this particular photograph in any articles because it violated their BLP (specifically that of Donald Trump)

Do the Commons community share the same opinion? Keep in mind that while the photographs does not actually depict Trump per say Commons:Photographs of identifiable people still mandates that Commons are required to "consider the legal and moral rights of the subject" --Trade (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it's fine to host. The image documents a protest of a very public figure, and that falls in our educational scope. It'd be a different situation if the sign targeted a relatively unknown private individual, which could violate reasonable privacy expectations and would have little to no educational value. But this is the case of a protest directed at a U.S. president (and there are little to no legal concerns here, as the right to protest is strong in the US). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. Trump is a public figure and American rights in this case are strong. This is in scope as a photograph of a protest and public reaction to the Epstein files. BLP is a Wikipedia policy, it doesn't apply as much here since Commons doesn't write biographies. Abzeronow (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

I put in the "personality rights"-template, because I thought somebody was concerned about the rights of the protesters. Wether "Trump is on the Epstein List" is a fact or an opinion can be debated, but it amuses me that in the Country of the First Amendment and where News and Entertainment are readily intermixed, anybody would make a BLP-issue, regarding Trump out of this. --Wuselig (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

No but when ENWP starts making BLP issues out of it, it's useful to figure out if Commons is going to follow in suit Trade (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I am sure we have many photos here on Commons that one or another wiki would not consider appropriate to use. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade, Can you provide the English Wikipedia link to which you refer? -- Ooligan (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

what link Trade (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: presumably for your statements "On ENWP i was told…" and "when ENWP starts making BLP issues out of it…", but neither links to anything specific. - Jmabel ! talk 07:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel. @Trade, Please, provide a link(s) to what you wrote at the beginning of this thread above:

• "Context: On ENWP i was told we were not allowed to use this particular photograph in any articles because it violated their BLP (specifically that of Donald Trump) Do the Commons community share the same opinion?"

-- Ooligan (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Jeffrey Epstein client list Scrolls down and you can see the context the file was being used--Trade (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: I don't see anything there about whether having the photo on en-wiki (let alone on Commons) is a BLP violation. The discussion seems to be about what photos do and do not belong in a particular article, Jeffrey Epstein client list. Most of the discussion seems to be about political balance. If you see something in the discussion that suggests that hosting the image would be a problem, could you please quote it directly? - Jmabel ! talk 06:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Italian-language help pages

Very confusing that Commons:Primi passi is completely different from Commons:First steps/it, which has the title "Primi passi". - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Same as your question from June regarding the Czech version. I think that it should be corrected globally. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

And the global correction would consist of…? - Jmabel ! talk 06:51, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

YouTubeBot

Per Trade's report above (mistakenly about Schlurcherbot): for File:Lil bitch (Markiplier video).webm, YouTubeBot appears to have added a value for published in (P1433) that creates a constraint error. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The error constraint was introduced through this edit from @Trade: [8]. So first we should clarify if this is needed or rater be removed again. I think the restrictions should be removed, as YouTubeBot additions seem fully valid. Nothing that SchlurcherBot is not doing this, but as I got pinged, I share my opinion. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade Is the idea of the constraint that YouTube is considered a hosting platform instead of a publisher ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Did anyone actually consulted with the Wikidata community to find out if it's correct to treat YouTube treated as a publisher? If not, then changing the property just to fit the whims of Commons is hardly appropriate

Almost all properties exist to facilitate the modeling of items on Wikidata as the community have decided. Their usage on other Commons is completely secondary to that Trade (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Was this constaint needed on Wikidata and where was this discussed on Wikidata? --Schlurcher (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Considering people keep insisting that social media websites are actually the publisher of every media users post on their website apparently so

4.150 days ago. Trade (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the sequence of events, YouTubeBot inserted the "published in" claim on 2 June 2025 (at the time this was a valid edit). Trade added a new constraint for "YouTube" on 29 August 2025 (thus retroactively making YouTubeBot's edit a constraint violation). The suggestion that YouTubeBot's editor failed to communicate with the "Wikidata community" to ensure the original edit was valid is unrealistic. Expecting an editor to predict that a valid edit will become invalid at some point in the future and requiring them to consult with an unspecified person before making an edit will never work. YouTubeBot and its operator have done nothing wrong here, though it may be worth engaging with the operator now so they can decide what to do about this new constraint (either to abide by it or engage in discussion if they think the constraint should change). Courtesy ping to @DaxServer as YouTubeBot's operator.

As Trade is the one to change the property, I am not sure what they mean by "Did anyone actually consulted with the Wikidata community to find out if it's correct to treat YouTube treated as a publisher? If not, then changing the property just to fit the whims of Commons is hardly appropriate" - who on Commons has made this change without consulting the "Wikidata community"? Schlurcher commented on Trade's edit and Trade was pinged to engage in discussion about it. That appears to be the Commons community "consulting" with the relevant parts of the "Wikidata community." From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping @From Hill To Shore. I've just stopped the bot. I haven't read the conversation yet, but will do over the weekend. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@DaxServer: As I understood from below, I think the suggestion is to use published in (P1433) → YouTube website (Q110227693) (an instance of website) instead of published in (P1433) → YouTube (Q866) (an instance of video streaming service). --Schlurcher (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

No; the suggestion is that P1433 should not be used on YouTube videos at all. YouTube website (Q110227693) denotes the web interface to YouTube (e.g. its user interface, help pages, etc), not a conceptual collective work consisting of every video which has ever been uploaded to the service. Omphalographer (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

In that case, some are incorrectly used (sparql query). Flickr should also not be a valid claim? -- DaxServer (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

True. Flickr is closer to one of the photo-sharing subreddits on Reddit than it is to an actual work in of itself. The issue arises when we keep trying to pretend there is no difference between a book publisher and a social media website, despite things like Section 230 being explicitly based around the existence of that differentiation. Of course as some might point out there's nothing grammatically wrong with saying that a video was published on YouTube or Flickr but if i were a photographer and told people that "Flickr is my publisher" or "i am being published by Flickr" you can see how weird that would sound Trade (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

And P1433 wouldn't even be used for the publisher of a book. It's intended for situations like a short story or poem being published in a collection or a song being published in a record album, where a specific work is published as part of a larger but well-defined work. A web site like YouTube or Flickr isn't such a work; it's a diffuse and unfathomably large collection which changes from minute to minute. Omphalographer (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I mentioned that file because Jmabel explicitly asked me for an example. At no point did i claimed that Schlurcher failed to communicate with the Commons community about edits solely to that file specifically Trade (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the description of the property or the property proposal? I can try and elaborate if you are still confused what the issue is Trade (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I did (highlight by me): larger work that a given work was published in, like a journal, a website, a collection, a book or a music album. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

A change to the description which was added by a WMF banned user without any discussion and which has only existed half a year out of the 8 years the property have existed Trade (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is also completely disingenuous from you. The constraint doesn't prevent websites from being publishers at all. It only stops YouTube and Twitch. Both the name, the description and the property proposal itself explicitly talks about larger works that a given work was published in. YouTube is not a work and they do not the videos on their website (unless we are talking about YouTube of course but none of that is freely licenses anyways) Trade (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

"The production, editing or release of this file was supported by the Community-Budget of Wikimedia Deutschland"

{{Offene Kurzbahnmeisterschaften des Landesschwimmverbandes Brandenburg 2018}}

Is there a way we can most these Wikimedia Deutschland templates to a different category?

I'm not a fan of how much these type of templates are currently cluttering Category:Non-copyright restriction templates making actual restriction templates harder to find. These are not actual restriction templates like {{Islamic terrorism symbol}} is. They are just a collection of already existing templates with some flavor text for context Trade (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think embedding the personality rights template into a photo project template should generally never be done. They need to be separate templates. GPSLeo (talk) 06:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking do we really want templates that contain no original content and are just two other templates combined? Trade (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Ali Tur

Hello everybody! Just one question; if the arts of architect Ali Tur are panorama free or not? I already asked for this on french wikipedia, but without reply... Thanks for your help. Tournasol7 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Read COM:FOP France. Nemoralis (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It also depends on the country they are in. In France, they are not free. Ymblanter (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know that in France is not freedom panorama, but on Commons we have a lot of photos of Ali Tur buildings. So mayb it was some agreement? Tournasol7 (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Well, the architect died in 1977, long before any thoughts about and development of free licenses. I would be really surprised if there are some licensing agreements between his heirs and any entity affiliated with the Wikimedia movement. Rather, I tend to think that the Guadeloupe imagery for instance was either uploaded in disregard to architectural IP rights or under reliance on the assumption that the buildings aren't above any relevant COM:TOO. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Flag of Nevada and an inconsistency

Recently, it has come to my attention that the Flag of Nevada uploaded here contain the incorrect colors in its field, scroll, sagebrush, flowers, and most importantly: the star. Per the NRS Chapter 235, the design of the flag "must be of solid cobalt blue." It also specifies the color of the star to be silver (per the state's official nickname, "The Silver State"). In addition to how the colors should be interpreted (even though there's no official enforcement, however I believe it was always wrong), The design of "The scroll and the word “Nevada” must be golden-yellow. The lettering on the scroll must be black-colored sans serif gothic capital letters." According to various different versions, those scrolls have the font "Samdan", per this page on DaFont. However, according to the current version hosted here, it uses "Helvetica Neue" (which is also what the first iteration of the Clark County flag used, per a low quality image found on the CRW flags website.)

Now, my question I'd like to ask is: Should we replace the long, outstanding file with the iteration I uploaded, or do a delete move instance for moving my said file to the "Flag of Nevada" destination and move that file to a different name? This is something that had been recently bothering me, and as a Nevadan, it upsets me that the flag uploaded on here was never really the actual state flag. It was always wrong in color. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ ✰ ʜᴀʙʟᴀ ⍟ コントリビューション 00:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Update: The Samdan font style is actually not considered to be part of the flag code, it's just how some flag manufacturers interpret that. It's always Helvetica Neue for both "BATTLE BORN" and "NEVADA", as that typeface does meet the "Gothic sans-serif" design. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ ✰ ʜᴀʙʟᴀ ⍟ コントリビューション 03:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Just an aside: I can't readily find the flag as such anywhere on the state's own site; I expect the image on page 10 of https://dhcfp.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/dhcfpnvgov/content/Providers/Informational%20Medicaid%20Managed%20Care%20Expansion%20Webinar%20Presentation.pdf has the same lineage as our old file.
• I'm sure you are correct about the star; less certain about the particular yellow, where did you get that?
• No opinion on how we should handle the file move. This sort of thing can be tricky, because if we do it by a pair of moves, we have to be careful not to do a "move and replace." - Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  The yellow actually comes from the second version of the Flag of Nevada file: [9], and while the CRW website does have the yellow on the flag, it's not that exact yellow. I hope that is clarified. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ ✰ ʜᴀʙʟᴀ ⍟ コントリビューション 23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Un-archived because the question in the second paragraph was never resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 00:16, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Straighten tool

Hello, is there a rotate/straighten tool for images somewhere? If not, can I request one please! ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

There is a tool. There should be a "Request rotation" link underneath the image. If not, you might need to activate the Gadget in your settings. Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Or it might work via inserting {{Rotate}}. Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately it isn't what I'm looking for. Rotate through 90, 180, 270 degrees, fine, but otherwise no, it's impossible (or impractical) to know exactly how many degrees (probably not even a whole number) to e.g. get the horizon level. It needs something interactive. I have a photo editor on my PC that does this fine, but this involves downloading and then re-uploading, which is a disincentive to fixing e.g. sloping horizons when I encounter them. An interactive tool in-Wiki would be highly useful. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@ITookSomePhotos: CropTool can do arbitrary rotation without having to download. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! May I strongly recommend that this feature is renamed "Crop/Straighten tool" or "Crop/Rotate tool", at least in the "Tools" menu. I looked through the options on that menu, but there is no indication that it includes this capability. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

"Straighten" seems to me like a poor choice if this were to be renamed; in graphics editing tools that tends to be the name of a tool for fixing warped images, not for doing small (or large) rotations. What in "rotate" for the name of a tool implies that is only does multiples of 90 degrees? - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"rotate" isn't in the name of the tool. It's simply labelled "CropTool", with no indication that it can do rotate, or straighten, or whatever we want to call it. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

 Support Good point and I agree. It wouldn't be an issue imo if that info was in the gadget description but currently it only says A tool for cropping images at Wikimedia Commons. Runs at Toolforge and uses OAuth for authorization to upload the cropped image under your username.. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Agree that adding "rotate" to the description would be great; oppose adding "straighten". - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Long political essays in file descriptions

This is something I came across, looking for an example when I was answering at Special:PermanentLink/1123210716#NPOV. I was expecting to find examples of where long political essays in file descriptions were removed; in fact, they were sitting there, not removed from numerous (maybe all?) photos in the following categories:

• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (11 November 2023)
• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (14 October 2023)
• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (21 October 2023)
• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (28 October 2023)
• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (4 November 2023)
• Category:Solidarity protest for Palestine in London (9 October 2023)
• (and doubtless in many other similar categories)

At least the bulk of this was uploaded from Flickr, and features the excellent photography of Alisdare Hickson, but also his lengthy political essays that are only tangentially connected to the individual photos. We've been through this before: a mass DR a few years back led to removing or radically truncating the texts on over 50 of his images. (Further followup to that at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/05#Category:Photographs by Alisdare Hickson.) I believe we should do the same for all of these. I'm not volunteering to take it on, though, I put several hours into this last time, and that was more than my share. When I did it last time, I tried to actually write descriptions of what the photos showed, and add useful categories, but I don't necessarily think that removing these essays has to be accompanied by all of that. - Jmabel ! talk 07:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

You worried people might treat the descriptions as endorsements by Wikimedia? Trade (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

In part, and also that we set a precedent for hosting political essays in general. While COM:What Commons is not does not spell that out in so many words, it would seem to be part of the intent there. More pointedly, in Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view: "neutrality of description should be aimed at wherever possible": political essays that fail to actually describe the content of the file seem quite far from that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Seems very implicit that it's referring to descriptions created and written by Commons editors Trade (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

References to "author" can refer to people on Commons or original file/description authors off-site. There might be an assumption that the author is someone on Commons, but it's not implied by the text itself. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: so are you saying that if I upload a photo to Flickr, write a political essay there tangentially related to the photo, and then copy that to Commons (or another editor copies that to Commons) that would be fine? Seems to me like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

What i am saying is that the file description can be used for more than one purpose Trade (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Certainly it can be used for more than one purpose. Are you saying that including a political essay is a valid purpose? - Jmabel ! talk 01:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you believe that was A1Cafel's intention?Trade (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

This was not a criticism of A1Cafel's (or anyone else's) conduct, which is why I made no mention of who uploaded these, but now that you've mentioned them it seems only decent to link so that they may weigh in. This is about Commons' content, not about a user's behavior. - Jmabel ! talk 01:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

CC license with no version specified

What should I do when a CC BY-SA license has no version specified? For example, here it really is freely licensed, but there's no version indicated. The {{Cc-by-sa}} template isn't very... let's say, encouraging. Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã: have you considered contacting the author of the image to resolve it? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 11:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This source[10] links to the cc-by-sa-4.0 license. I'll update it. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 17:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Yacàwotçã (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was an option, but I'd say it would be the last one if the answers here weren't good. Fortunately a valid source was found, so it's no longer necessary. I prefer not to rely on academics' willingness to reply to emails, based on personal experience, although his father was very helpful. Yacàwotçã (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think in such cases, it's simply whatever is the latest version of the license at the point the file was released. However, I couldn't find a source that answers your question right now – I think I read that somewhere. There is not much of a difference I think. This question should definitely be answered in the FAQ but doesn't seem to be. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Warning for users

Time and time again we see users trying to delete their own uploads, only to find out that they cannot do that themselves, and they can rarely convince sysops to delete for them (as the current practices show).

But this reality, the lack of utility to delete one's own content, is not communicated to the users at all. If you go through registration and every step in Special:UploadWizard, this rule is not mentioned at any point. This is a very different rule from what people can expect on any other major file hosting sites such as flickr, youtube... where users can always delete their own uploads anytime for any reason or no reason at all.

So I suggest, that this rule be clearly communicated to the users, and that there should be a write-up documenting this rule as well as its origin and rationale.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

written as i am fed up with mistreatment of fellow users as recently as Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It is hidden in the license conditions shown on the "Learn" page at the UploadWizard and at the linked license texts. And of course it is also in the Terms of Use. We could make this more clear if we would have a definitely needed rework of this info graphic. GPSLeo (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

it is not explicitly spelled out that "you cannot delete your user-generated content" in https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use .

when all other major websites, which also support certain "free licences" fit under wikimedia commons definitions, allow users delete their uploads, most users dont realise they cannot do the same on wikimedia commons until they want to delete something, and that this surprise is because wikimedia commons prioritises irrevocability of the licence over user experience. RoyZuo (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I find this very clear: "e. No revocation of license: Except as consistent with your license, you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services." This in theory event forbids making a deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Something this vital shouldnt be hidden in the first place at all Trade (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This rule was clearly communicated to this user multiple times. Maybe not at the upload stage but certainly once they started filing deletion requests and had those requests denied. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I actually broadly agree with RoyZuo on this. I've always found it weird that there is no warning in plain language in the upload process about the lack of simple deletion procedures for users uploading their own works to Commons. "License irrevocability" is quite a niche topic if you don't spend a lot of time on this and other Wiki project or work professionally in the realm of IP; many if not most people have no idea what that means or just assume it's a technical requirement akin to allowing cookies on a website. I think that's evidenced by the steady stream of users over the years who have tried at the help desk, village pump, and other forums to get their content deleted and were baffled by the idea that they had no recourse to delete their own work. There should be clear, plain language in the upload process that explains how, barring copyright questions or another legal issue and following a 7-day courtesy window, works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request.

And to be clear, I'm not saying it's good that so many people don't understand free licensing or the preexisting written warnings/caveats in the upload process; it just seems to be a fact. I believe we could avoid a lot of headaches by adding plainer language. But that would also probably lower the rate at which users complete the upload process, as a warning like that might scare some people off, which, if I were being cynical, I would assume is why the language has never been added (after all, who wants to be responsible for on average less content being added to Commons?). But the ethical choice appears to be better informing uploaders about the long-term deletion policies in the clearest, most non-technical language possible. 19h00s (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

"works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request." But we already do delete works uploaded to Commons at the uploader's request. It's just not consistently Trade (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Provided the deletion is requested within 7 days after upload and the work is not currently in use on a Wikimedia-project. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

We have deleted files long after 7 days several times Trade (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that is not the rule. In such cases often the file is also out of scope and there may be further aspects. But the uploader should be communicated the valid rule, because they have a right to it. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. A lot of the files i see deleted after a week would not have survived a typical "out of scope" deletion request Trade (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: We are allowed, but not required, to extend a courtesy. Lying to us and/or threatening legal action certainly both decrease the chance of us extending a courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Can you expand on this? I believe you're hinting at a perceived double standard or deference on the part of Commons or WMF to certain users or rightsholders (or types of users/rightsholders) when they request their content be deleted, but I don't want to incorrectly assume. I think that's an important separate conversation in that we shouldn't, for example, allow large corporations to remove validly licensed content while not allowing individual authors/uploaders to do the same simply because one has more structural and financial power. But this conversation seems to be specifically about the average, or very new, user, who does not fully grasp the ramifications of their choices when freely licensing and uploading their work to Commons. Again though, I could be misinterpreting you. 19h00s (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Where do we allow large corporations to revoke their licenses? We hand mass deletions because an employee published something without the corporation having the permission from the rights holders to do so. But this is something totally different. GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I was responding to Trade, asking about what they were implying with their comment about policy not being applied "consistently". I gave theoretical examples of what I believed they were implying (e.g., that there may have been deference or double standard in the way certain rightsholders' requests were handled). I never said Commons in fact does these things. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

I am moreso implying that some users lean heavily towards courtesy and others towards keep. Whether or not the deletion goes through is mostly dependent on which group of users decided to stumble upon the DR at the given time

At this point dealing with courtesy deletion requests is little different than using a random number generator to determine the outcome Trade (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@19h00s while i dont know what User:Trade might actually mean, here's a separate answer to your question:

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/03#March 2025 update from WMF Legal on "Vogue Taiwan and possible Copyright Washing" discussion, not that long ago.

the unfortunate thing here, is that these good hearted contributors dont have money to lawyer up.

Conde Nast can get away by merely saying they made an error.

meanwhile, the absolutists here and there (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules) dont realise that commons users are at the most only given t&c in "browsewrap manner via hyperlinks alone" which is void as per Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

also, when users are never displayed the full t&c, it's probably invalid as per Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

and clearly, the t&c linked in the uploadwizard doesnt refer to the file uploaded, because in a single sentence it says "By clicking "publish", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License." even if you are releasing your photo in any licence other than cc0. the only logical understanding is this only explicit mention of "terms of use" here covers "your contribution" related to "captions and other additional information such as main subjects and location (NOT the file)".

so if they have a lot of money, they could quite possibly do something to have the same treatment as corporations.--RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a very sympathetic ear on the Vogue Taiwan case, as I vocally approved of deletion and still agree it was the correct decision; corporate structures are opaque for a reason, they give companies plausible deniability and legal/ownership "air-gaps" for situations just like that one, meaning our obligation to protect the project and reusers from possible (and possibly valid) litigation or damages must necessarily trump our desire to retain the content. Indeed though, Vogue Taiwan is what I thought Trade was referring to (clearly I was wrong), and I do believe we generally shouldn't let corporations with capital or power dictate our decision-making purely because they have the means to fight a legal battle. But that is a complex calculation that involves different levels of risk for WMF, Commons, and the Wiki community broadly.

On the whole though, I still completely agree that clearer language in the upload process about the slim prospects of courtesy deletion and lack of long-term deletion procedures would solve a lot of issues and prevent a lot of stress for both uploaders and Commons. 19h00s (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

and i'll end off my comments by this. what disgusts me the most, is certain users' hostility against other users and indifference to other users' needs. they choose to needlessly antagonise and bash other users instead of seeing and understanding people's needs and working kindly and gently with them.

i see this problem, i come up with this solution of a warning. those users see this problem, they bully the users in need and drive them away. technical solutions cant solve attitude problems. RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support for the proposal to very clearly explain/state our current rules for the deletion of own uploads in the basic tutorial for new users and also during the upload-procedure. --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The Commons:Upload page does have a warning (in bold even!) that licenses cannot be revoked. If people overread that part of the formular, it is their own loss.

However, I am surprised that the much-advertised Upload Wizard does not have a warning (I could find): The licensing part says currently: All media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are free for anyone to use and share anywhere on internet or off internet. To ensure the work you upload is copyright-free, please provide the following information. (...)
That means I  Support the suggestion: Between these two sentences in the Wizard, we should add another sentence, that could read like this: "Please note that you can usually not revoke your permission later."(en), "Bitte beachte, dass du die hier gegebene Einwilligung später nur in Ausnahmefällen wiederrufen kannst." (de), "Veuillez noter que vous ne pouvez pas révoquer votre autorisation ultérieurement, que dans des cas exceptionnels." (fr) and so on. In the spirit of making the sentence less legalese, I exchanged "licence" with "permission", and kept it short. If someone is alarmed by this statement, they should stop uploading and find the relevant rules. --Enyavar (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Concur, though "usually can not" is better English than "can usually not". - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Support.✅️

I'm not sure if this is still under discussion, but I agree with @RoyZuo and others who say that this should be stated clearly in plain English on the upload page (prior to uploading). Also, deleting from the website doesn't unilaterally equate to revoking the license, contrary to what someone suggested earlier. BetsyRogers (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Very important point. Deleting a file here does in no way whatsoever "revoke" the licence granted by the author. It simply means that the file/the work is no longer publicly available on this website - the "deleted" work itself is still under the licence originally given. ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

 Support -- Ooligan (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I share the same view, that a user's deletion of his/her files on a website doesnt mean that s/he is revoking the licence granted to any other user re-using that file.

Suppose I upload the same photo here and on flickr under the same licence. I then want to delete only one of them, but the current situation is such that I can only delete the flickr one and keep the one here, but not the other way around. RoyZuo (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

• Haven't read all the above, sorry, but what I would like to see is a facility for contributors to be able to delete their own content for a short window (exact duration TBD) after upload. Surely this is reasonable so that mistakes can be quickly corrected. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
  • In practice, something quite like that that exists with {{SD|G7}}, but requiring an admin to have a chance to look at the file; I'm a bit skeptical about a feature that would make it easier for someone to pass below notice if they were doing this excessively; also, in particular, it would provide a way for someone to sneak CSAM onto our servers and possibly not get spotted doing so (not that the CSAM would be publicly visible, but that it could imaginably get WMF or others in trouble).

If it could be done with good safeguards, then I'm not opposed. - Jmabel ! talk 06:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Isn't this the kind of situation that Section 230 protects the foundation from? Trade (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Section 230 might or might not protect them, depending on whether it was determined that they were doing due diligence. This is exactly why we currently have a different reporting mechanism for CSAM material, and it actually gets hard-deleted, unlike other deleted content. It looks to me like the proposal would bypass that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

If this is an issue then "soft" user deletions could be reviewed by admins for hard deletion. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Strong support: I agree that Commons' general limitation on deletion, different than any other media sharing site, is in no way sufficiently explained in the Upload Wizard or in our policies in general. But walking through the Upload Wizard today, I don't even think the CC licenses are explained sufficiently. Our license tags like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} have very high-level summaries of the license that are as clear and succinct as possible. The Upload Wizard seems to summarize this even further, all the way to requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit, which in no way explains to the user what they're getting into, including irrevocability. IMO the Upload Wizard should display the full text from our license tags while the user selects their license, so that they can make a fully informed decision. Consigned (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• I  Support a clearer warning that 1. most users cannot delete their own uploads; 2. barring the first week, we do not accept deletion of files with a clear educational use and a proper license. Yann (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
  • +1 to that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
•  Support also to including a clearer warning regarding the limits/barring on deletion of uploads in the uploading process itself. - Theriocephalus ! talk 10:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• I chimed in earlier but just to formalize it:  Support for a clearer/less technical warning in the upload process explicitly spelling out that most users do not have the power to delete their own uploads and that user-authored uploads will not be deleted after seven days barring copyright or scope concerns. --19h00s (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

i wrote a draft for a brief guide for newbies: Commons:Must-read for uploaders. feel free to improve. RoyZuo (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Line art without P180

What is the purpose of this category? And why is this category full of art that is not line art? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: this appears to be your handiwork. What's going on here? And why are thousands of images categorized as lineart that aren't? ReneeWrites (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @ReneeWrites! I appreciate your help. This hidden category houses some of the images that have SDC with instance of (P31)→line art (Q365552) and lack depicts (P180)

The category has documentation on the talk page and I'm happy to improve that documentation.

One would need a narrow definition of "line" to access hundreds of images as miscategorized in this category. I find a more broad definition to be useful, considering that there 79,327,945 files without any P31 value. Broad categories are useful; categories are as unique and numerous as the items themselves have limited utility.

That said, I did immediately find one image that was miscategorized, and I'm sure there are others. The documentation on the category talk page has a few saved queries to help in that endeavor. -- Jerimee (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: it looks to me like you have also applied instance of (P31) -> line art (Q365552) very arbitrarily to etchings, few of which are line art. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: "I find a more broad definition to be useful". It's not about applying a broad or narrow definition, but one that is accurate. Categories exist to catalogue specific types of images so that other people have an easier time finding what they're looking for. Categories that are bloated with content that doesn't belong in them are not more useful as a result, that's why they're not used in this manner. What definition of lineart have you been applying? ReneeWrites (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

You can turn off the visibility of hidden categories. And, yes, the goal is to make the images easier to find Jerimee (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

The question was "What definition of lineart have you been applying?". I, too, would like your answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you all not remember the conversation about this nearly a year ago? Each person on this thread was also on that thread.

The category itself can't be the problem, right? There are tons of this sort of maintenance category, typically without any sort of documentation at all.

I'm at a loss as to how to help. Can you tell me what problem you're trying to solve?

As far as what I consider line art:

• Art with distinct lines
  • Typically I try to consider what the specific digital representation looks like in and of itself, and not put too much emphasis on intent or the original. The file Jmabel mentioned is a useful example because it is of low enough resolution that the lines are hopelessly blurred. So I agree it is a poor example of line work.
  • Color washes applied over line art do not typically detract from line work
  • I'm happy to explain further if it would genuinely be useful - just let me know how much detail you actually want
  • I'm not wedded to the label; I'd be happy to use anything else sufficiently broad
• Here are a number of examples: Category:Line_art_without_P180
• I've bookmarked queries here, which I consider documentation: Category_talk:Line_art_without_P180
• My motivation is to make it easier to find images, especially via SDC.
  • Commons:Structured_data
  • Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction#Level_of_detail
  • ...structured data makes it possible to use Commons' media in new ways, and makes the files on Commons much easier to view, search, edit, curate or organize, use and reuse... Commons:Structured_data/About
  • {{Search instances|Q365552}} → find instances of line art (Q365552)
• A taxonomy only works by approximating; if it were perfectly accurate it would tell you nothing. A useful system of organization requires some degree of generalization.
  • w:On_Exactitude_in_Science
  • Which, to answer User:Jmabel, is why I tend to categorize etchings as line art. Applying both values to P31 would be even better IMHO, but of course this is debated. And I'm sure there are people that would say "this is not an etching, it is an Aquatint, Sugar Lift, Spit Bite, Mezzotint, intaglio etc"
    • find instances of etching print (Q18218093) returns 14 results
    • Etchings are typically considered coincident with line art.

I don't claim the authority to define these things with perfect certainty - I'm glad we have a variety of viewpoints. Jerimee (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I remember User talk:Jerimee#Line art, where I objected to your categorisations (I still do), and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01#Line art, where you did not contribute, and which remains unresolved.

User:EncycloPetey was the only other person to comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: I noticed that you're still adding metadata and categories to non-lineart images despite this conversation being ongoing, could you please pause your activity until this issue is resolved? ReneeWrites (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

It should have stopped in January. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thoughtful and generous nature of this proposal, I have some reservations. Rather than list all my questions out here, perhaps you could point me to some past issues you have successfully resolved? Jerimee (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to list any questions you have, that's what discussions like these are for. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

1. Can you tell me what problem you're trying to solve?
2. Perhaps you could point me to some past issues you have successfully resolved, so I can better understand how and if to participate
3. Are you speaking for yourself, or do you represent a group of editors, or do you have a special role that I should know about?
4. Am I interfering with your work in some way? I value your contributions

Jerimee (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

1: Categories exist to catalogue specific types of images so that other people have an easier time finding what they're looking for. Categories that are bloated with content that doesn't belong in them are not more useful as a result, that's why they're not used in this manner.

2: I'm a bit unsure why you're asking me specifically, since a Commons admin with long-standing experience in this area is also participating in this discussion.

3: Several other editors in this thread have also expressed frustration with your work, so it isn't just a one-to-one disagreement.

4: Does it matter? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

So should we just delete the category then? I don't really mind doing that. Jerimee (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jerimee: The problem is the too-broad application of the term line art, the category is only a byproduct of that. I don't understand why "line art" became such a fixation when you yourself admit to not really knowing what it is. I saw that you're also applying other kinds of metadata where their contents are not as ambiguous, such as subject matter or the number of people it depicts. Why not continue in that area instead? Your efforts are more likely to be appreciated there. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't appear to be taking this seriously.

If you don't stop voluntarily, until consensus is demonstrated, the next step will be to ask for administrative action to prevent you from continuing until it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Re: "I tend to categorize etchings as line art". Is there a reason for this tend? You've made assertions with no reason or authority or citations. I've looked at the relevant article on English Wikipedia, which, as a general article, is devoid of references and most of the gallery examples were added by a single individual last year without documentation. Most Wikipedias do not even have an article on "line art", and I own no good authoritative book on the taxonomies of art, but it the above reply I see no source for the taxonomy being applied, merely an appeal to inexactitude. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Certainly "line art" is a common enough term in graphics especially and in art more generally. Certainly the category makes sense in principle; the problem is that, at a quick assay, it looks to me like roughly half of what is here isn't line art. If these all have instance of (P31)→line art (Q365552), then that assertion is being made incorrectly as often as not. And while an etching can be line art, most etchings are not; they have solid areas, areas that have been etched with a wire brush where the individual lines are not under the artist's conscious control, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Video and audio plays

Hey All, we at Wiki Med funded software to record how many times a video or audio file has been played and how much of the file gets played. It is live for all users on EU WP currently.[11] Is this something the Commons community would be interested in?

To activate one needs to add to this MediaWiki:Common.js this script[12]. The code itself being here User:Yaron Koren/tmh-engagement.js

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! How does this compare to the mediaviews tool? Example

Also see the wishes Analytics missing on Wikimedia Commons and Add view count to videos in the Community Wishlist. Which stats MVC displays seems to be a topic on the talk pages. m:Wiki Loves Broadcast about Category:Videos by Terra X for example claims Over 90% of [the more than 350 videos] have found their way into Wikipedia articles, raking in more than 3 million views a month – is this statement false? Prototyperspective (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Prototyperspective So the mediaviewer tool is simply listing the number of times the page with the video on it has been loaded. Please note that with lazy load this can be lower than the actual views of the page as on mobile the entire page may not be loaded and thus the video may not be loaded. It is not the number of times the video has had the play button hit. What we have built is the ACTUAL plays and than how much of the video is watched. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I suspected this and also user(s) claimed this was the case, if I remember correctly, on the talk pages of the two linked wishes. However, I could never find any confirmation of this.

It would be better if the media views tool explained this and I wonder why it doesn't. On the information page of file pages, it's linked to as "Mediaviews Analysis on Toolforge" and that title and the tool name suggest it's plays when it comes to audio & video files. Maybe the subheader at the tools page is supposed to explain it – it says "Comparison of media requests across multiple files".

Thanks a lot for your involvement in getting this tool developed; I think the two wishes should get the status changed to 'In progress' and then once the tool shows play from all the projects and can be accessed from the info page from all or all big projects to 'Delivered'. I was slightly alienated by seeing various claims about x number of views of the public broadcast videos I mentioned (such as in the Q&A in this video and the WLB pages) as I suspected these numbers are inaccurate and would soon edit the pages to clarify that these are just the views of the articles and that we don't know the number of plays.

If the tool only shows the plays originating from a few Wikipedias, it's not yet very useful – it really needs to show all or nearly all plays regardless of where the play originated.

By the way, I hope that low view-counts for high-quality and educationally useful videos and audios (an example for the latter are spoken Wikipedia audios) will hopefully raise understanding of the importance of good indexing in Web search engines (e.g. until recently Google, didn't show videos in the Videos tab even when searching for the exact title of a video on Commons) as well as having a good modern audio player, better visibility of audio files like audio versions of Wikipedia articles, better linking to Commons on Wikipedia (category link and further media and direct linking to Commons file page), and other things like that. Seeing media playcounts can be motivating to contributors (note: I doubt many contributors and visitors will find the link if it will again only be on the Tools page). Prototyperspective (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup the tool is still under development. Activating it here on Commons would be useful. Will start an RFC eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Is there a bot that adds old style interwikis to wikidata?

I made a lot of categories with interwikis with the intention of them being linked on wikidata. However I am concerned this might not actually work this way. Is there a bot like EmausBot that does the thing? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Specifically it is subcategories of Category:Toki Pona logograms by word which all have interwikis to toki pona wikipedia. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

It is not working if it does exist Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:58, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Data graphic resources?

Commons:Free media resources/Datagraphics is a relatively new page for databases with free data graphics like charts that could be uploaded to Commons.

It still only has few sites – do you know of any further ones?
-
Recently added this resource but it's mostly just German-language data graphics. It would be great if somebody could upload the graphics from there that aren't yet on Commons. Until now, doing so was just in my private todos but I may never get to uploading more of these. For an example, see Category:Meat Atlas which contains charts and maps about meat consumption (not just in Germany but also worldwide; translatable).

--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Seems like Eurostat could be added: according to this page The copyright for the editorial content of this website, which is owned by the EU, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. There probably are more sites like it and maybe somebody here knows of or can find more.

There also are a few files in Category:Data visualization by Statista – is there a way to search for the subset of files in Statista that are CCBY/CCBYSA?

May be good to create a Commons:Batch uploading request for these if that's anyhow possible (and it's probably possible to scrape the sites in structured ways even if they don't have APIs). For Our World in Data, the batch uploading is done semi-manually/automatically via the OWIDImporter which is linked on that page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I've heard NOAA is another resource for charts but I could not find a page on their site for finding and/or searching these – does somebody know? There probably are quite a few more government agencies with lots of data graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

• I just added CDC Data Dashboards, Visualizations, and Query Systems – it contains lots of useful visualizations not yet on Commons; maybe somebody can upload some of them
• See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Are World Inequality Database data graphics in the public domain? I think it has to be removed again.
• I'm sure there must be at least some more pages of US agencies who publish data visualizations and probably also some of other countries.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can't find and don't know of all the major resources myself. So far the page only has resources I found myself. Is there maybe a tool to scan top sources/websites of files in Category:Data graphics (especially of used files in it)? And I removed the World Inequality Database for the list and made it a permission request to ask for their data graphics to be put under a free license. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Added a few more: Klimadashboard (German-language data graphics about climate change & GHG emissions; as a result of a request at Commons:Permission requests), US-specific government resources (United States Census Bureau visualizations, U.S. Cancer Cases and Death Statistics, U.S. Mortality Data Dashboards, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics)
• Are there CCBY data graphics on https://observablehq.com and if so how to find/link them? There are many user-made charts I think and I don't know if there's a way to see CCBY-licensed ones. Same for Tableau Public except that I have more doubts there's CCBY ones there.
• Are there any data visualizations in https://data.worldbank.org/ that aren't also in OWID or in a more complete/up-to-date version in OWID? For example, if I try to upload this data visualization about prevalence of anemia in pregnant females as SVG I get this error in the UploadWizard (and also can't edit the svg in a text editor): This SVG file contains an illegal namespace "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" and when I download it as PNG just a corner of the image is visible and for JPG it's entirely blanks. However, OWID has a map that I just uploaded for the year 2023 while this is for 2019. Since many OWID visualizations are based on WB data, I wonder if there's any WB visualizations that aren't also visualized via OWID software. For example, I've noticed that OWID maps are always at most at the country level but never at higher resolution than that so maybe this or another site has also such choropleth maps.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)