Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08

History split?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recategorizing IBM System/23 Datamaster contents into subcategories

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

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

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

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

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

Misidentified

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

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

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

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

Mass category rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disagreement over a category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very tempted to be bold and add

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

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

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

U4C call for non-voting candidates

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

File:Restrictions in Grindr app.svg

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

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

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

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

Possible misidentification of astronauts

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

Proposal to replace "Non-Falun Gong swastika"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commons and UCoC enforcement re-opened

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

Incorrect licensing for AI enhanced images

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

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

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

Let CommonsDelinker perform PNG to SVG replacements

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

Obviously not "own work"

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

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

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

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

About tagged pictures

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

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

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

Video with multiple sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Caesar DePaço

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA

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

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

Size of pdf

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

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

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

Mass license tagging & Check SVGs against GitHub for changes

1. Mass license tagging:

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

1. Check SVGs against GitHub for changes:

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

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

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

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

icons: Set to MIT license

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

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

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

User having trouble accessing this site from Pakistan

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

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

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

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

"Sunsets" vs "Sunsets on Earth"

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

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

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

Outdoor places of worship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Category:Mascot costumes

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

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

CSD reason for crops of deleted copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your amusement and edification (Disney and AI)

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

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

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

Uhhh, 503 HTTP error on file sometimes?

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

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

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

SiIvaGunner template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New page: "Commons:Digital preservation"

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

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

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

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

Category:Wolmar von Treyden II

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

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

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

We need your help with forming a new OpenRefine user group

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

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

https://gamehistory.org/computerentertainer/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have nominated:

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

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

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

Upload request

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

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

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

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

UK pub signs

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

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

RE: Multi-licensing

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

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

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

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

Old en-wiki pages on multi-licensing:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template: topic in country|Medicine

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

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

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

When is it OK to do something after similar discussions?

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

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

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

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

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