Jump to content

Commons:Village pump

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Potential misidentification 2 2 Nakonana 2025-05-31 14:37
2 I created the great uploading instrument: script for gThumb 0 0
3 European Commission Audiovisual Service 4 3 Trade 2025-06-02 12:03
4 In editing, there is the Edit summary that formerly listed previous summaries that I have used 12 5 Hmains 2025-06-01 01:21
5 Mass duplicates in an album 7 4 Omphalographer 2025-05-30 03:22
6 Tool to create timeline 4 3 Prototyperspective 2025-05-30 11:35
7 700 terabytes of works on Commons 2 2 MGeog2022 2025-06-06 12:33
8 STL ASCII Files not uploadable 1 1 Grand-Duc 2025-05-30 13:09
9 Map illustrated 5 4 Enyavar 2025-06-03 21:59
10 Who represents our community and liaises with other organisations 8 6 Don-vip 2025-06-03 20:46
11 Butia odorata or Butia capitata 4 3 -sche 2025-06-06 05:25
12 PD-simple videos 2 2 Kevin Payravi 2025-06-01 14:44
13 Commons Gazette 2025-06 1 1 RoyZuo 2025-06-01 19:11
14 Probable another term for FoP 3 3 Gestumblindi 2025-06-03 20:45
15 Please vote for new admin 2 1 HingWahStreet 2025-06-06 05:15
16 Brazil: National Archive Publishes Documents on Nearly 900 UFO Sightings (incl photos) 7 3 Prototyperspective 2025-06-02 10:57
17 Need help properly formatting image descriptions to show publisher and photographer 3 3 Jmabel 2025-06-02 20:06
18 Bot for enwiki DYK stats 0 0
19 Locking image page 2 2 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2025-06-03 14:42
20 Word and cat for 2 2 Pigsonthewing 2025-06-04 14:59
21 Source for engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne 4 2 Asclepias 2025-06-04 12:58
22 Review 2 2 Prototyperspective 2025-06-04 12:50
23 Merging files 0 0
24 "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message on first login attempt 7 3 MGeog2022 2025-06-05 19:16
25 AI-generated or edited images of graphics cards (again) 14 6 Josve05a 2025-06-04 20:54
26 Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti 1 1 JSutherland (WMF) 2025-06-04 18:11
27 Photo from 1918, photographer died in 1976 - is it public domain? 7 5 Glrx 2025-06-05 14:02
28 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483 2 2 Jmabel 2025-06-05 04:27
29 Requesting further input for Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups 2 2 Prototyperspective 2025-06-05 14:35
30 SDC and working at cross-purposes 1 1 Jmabel 2025-06-05 18:25
31 Upload Wizard "release rights" blurb 4 3 ITookSomePhotos 2025-06-06 08:18
32 Some images not displaying for quite some time 3 2 Nurg 2025-06-06 04:23
33 File:Pernorgard.jpg marked for deletion 3 June 2025 4 2 Storye book 2025-06-06 08:34
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 27

Potential misidentification

Do we have a template or category where we suspect that an image may be misidentified? See: File:Vincent de Groof.jpg --RAN (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Fact disputed}} or {{References missing}}? Nakonana (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the great uploading instrument: script for gThumb

https://gitlab.com/vitaly-zdanevich/upload-to-commons-with-categories-from-iptc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly Zdanevich (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Commission Audiovisual Service

I was clicking around and ran into 173.216 photos that seem to be freely licensed. They offer a nice api and every photo has an unique identifier. Worth uploading or not? Would need to do some clean up in relation to {{EC-Audiovisual Center}} because that's a bit messy (old naming, multiple templates adding to same category, integrated {{LicenseReview}} breaking workflows). Multichill (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely useful. Also, is there an SDC property for the unique ID? I think that'd also be useful -- DaxServer (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might be useful to prevent duplicates. Multichill (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cant propose an property without examples Trade (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

In editing, there is the Edit summary that formerly listed previous summaries that I have used

In editing, there is the Edit summary field at the bottom left of the panel that formerly listed previous summaries that I have used. I could then choose one string and use it or choose one and modify it. In either case, it saved on my keystrokes/fingers/hands, etc. Since last week, when I put my cursor over the first position of the Edit summary field and click the left button of my mouse to retrieve the list, I get nothing. It always worked before. Does anyone know about this? Did something change? Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Normally something like this is more of a browser issue than an issue with a particular site. Are you having similar issues with filling in fields on other sites? - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to Jmabel. Have you maybe deleted your cookies in the meantime? This would result in form datas' deletion. You could prevent that by setting an exemption on the Commons site, at least in the webbrowsers I know. --AnnaS. (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other sites are fine and the fill in also fine when I choose to MOVE a category to a new name. There, all my previous summaries are listed, including the ones I used for editing categories. In global editing preferences, I have this checked as ON: 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)'. On the non-global screen, the global for this option is checked as ON so I did not turn on 'Set a local exception for this global preference' as the global is on already. What am I missing here? thanks Hmains (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now think that 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)' does not have anything to do with this problem, which started before I looked at my preferences. So I must be missing some change made somewhere, right? Hmains (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Filling in also works fine in English Wikipedia, so the problem I experience is just with editing in Commons. What to fix? Hmains (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: It prompts with my previous edit summaries when I type at least one character (or more). It does not prompt when I just place the cursor in the blank box without typing anything. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that used to work for me also. Since this problem started, it has not worked for me in the same way that the left mouse button not working to fill in. Hmains (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also just noticed that when I key into this field, it no longer spellchecks me. I still get spellchecked in the other locations I have mentioned above. Hmains (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit summary field not filling in

In editing, there is the Edit summary field at the bottom left of the panel that formerly listed previous summaries that I have used. I could then choose one string and use it or choose one and modify it. In either case, it saved on my keystrokes/fingers/hands, etc. Since last week, when I put my cursor over the first position of the Edit summary field and click the left button of my mouse to retrieve the list, I get nothing. It always worked before. Does anyone know about this? Did something change? Thanks Hmains (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked the question before. See replies above at Commons:Village pump#In editing, there is the Edit summary that formerly listed previous summaries that I have used. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I have not asked a question here before and could not find that I had successfully done so. I also do not know how be notified of any responses. Also, when I tried to save my text here, it tells me I have not provided an edit summary, but there is one, one that I did not change. Hmains (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass duplicates in an album

Category:Florida Gators vs LSU Tigers, 11 November 2023 seemingly has 200+ images duplicated under slightly different names. Dissident93 (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although I can't tell the difference myself it looks like some of them aren't duplicates since they have different file sizes. But I'd nominate them for deletion anyway, probably as a probably since dealing with individual deletion requests would be a hassle. Don't be supprised if some of the "duplicates" are kept though. At least in my experience the files have to be exact duplicates for people on here to support deleting them. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it's unambiguous - most of the images in this category are part of a series numbered from 001 to 318, and each of the numbers from 001 to 230 appears twice. Want me to set up the {{Rename}} requests? Omphalographer (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The images already are appropriately named and numbered. Renaming won't fix the problem with duplicates, it seems more useful to me to tag the duplicate images with {{Duplicate}}. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops - yes, I meant {{Duplicate}}. Omphalographer (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Want me to set up the duplicate requests? Might as well. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done. I've tagged all the higher-numbered images as duplicates. Interestingly, seven of the photos weren't duplicated. Omphalographer (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 29

Tool to create timeline

Example of timeline

I am looking for a tool to create a timeline that is in setup similar to a timeline like File:Timeline of web browsers.svg in what I can split/merge/fork/etc. the lines. Output doesn't matter as long as I can save it as an image. My Inkscape/svg skills are probably too limited to simple draw it myself as svg. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 10:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what you want to do with this, you might consider en:Help:EasyTimeline syntax or some of the links at en:Template:Timeline rather than creating a graphic. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jmabel, Over the years I have collected many EasyTimeline timelines, and none of them comes close to the example. Writing one from scratch is in EasyTimeline seems therefore not an option, knowing my limited skills with it. The timeline templates do not seem to provide the options for indicating forks/mergers/splits.
In my ideal world I would put the data in Wikidata and have a tool that is able to show a multi-dimensional timeline, but such a tool does not exist. In a bit less ideal world it is a flexible diagram that can be changed easily in wikicode, but I do not have examples to base myself on, drawing from scratch is too difficult and the existing extension/templates seem too limited. Romaine (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe TimelineJS or preceden. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

700 terabytes of works on Commons

Hi!

In this year, we achieved a new data milestone! On 2025-05-29, the threshold of 700 terabytes (ca. 637 TiB) was reached. It took 314 days since the 600 TB milestone from 2024-07-19; 77 days longer than the 100 TB timespan before --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great if it's because of good new content (for example, videos). Not so good if it's because of lots of photos with far more resolution than needed. This can become a storage problem, and not a minor one. Improvements in storage technologies promise a good future, unless cameras keep "improving" resolution so you can see the ants on the mountain in the background of the landscape :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STL ASCII Files not uploadable

here is an error in the UploadWizard: If I try to upload a STL file in the standard ASCII encoding there is an error message that says "File extenstion .stl does not match the detected MIME type of the file text/plain". The uploader errs in assuming that all STL files need to be binary. (The ASCII files all start with "solid" in the first 5 bytes.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by R. J. Mathar (talk • contribs) 10:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the Upload Wzard still works as intended. Please read Commons:Project scope#Must be a media file and Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types for further references. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Map illustrated

For some centuries, maps have been decorated with figures, ornaments, fictional creatures, text banners etc. If we have an extract of such (not a cartouche) -- how should such a (new) category be named? My only idea is "non-cathographic map illustrations" (example img). --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure: "cathographic" => "cartographic", correct? - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Decorative figures on maps", "decorative illustrations on maps"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

Who represents our community and liaises with other organisations

Commons:Village_pump/Technical#c-S5A-0043-20250529120300-User:FlickreviewR_2_appears_to_be_down flickr review is down, presumably due to flickr.com blocking api requests from toolforge.org .

I imagine a natural solution is for someone to liaise with flickr about the situation and resolve the problem.

Question is, who is that person?

Similar problem https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236446 involving youtube/google/alphabet. RoyZuo (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a cooperation with Flickr, have a look at Commons:Flickypedia/Team. GPSLeo (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I already emailed them about 36 hours ago, asking if there is any way they can intervene on our behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Emailing Flickr to tell them something might be wrong with someone's API requests is not going to get you very far. First someone needs to confirm if API requests to Flickr are in fact being blocked from toolforge.org. And if so, what is the error message? Does it contain any helpful information about why the requests are blocked (probably not, but it's worth checking). Once those steps are done, someone with a Flickr API key could file a support request with Flickr to get it unblocked. Nosferattus (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't email Flickr, I emailed our contacts at the Flickr Foundation. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm all traffic to Flickr coming from Toolforge / Cloud VPS is blocked. It doesn't matter if the request is authenticated through the API (with an active API key), or if it's just a call to the website, the error message is always plain and simple: HTTP 403. I suspect our public IP address has simply be blocked. vip (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appears FlickreviewR_2 is working again now. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm, works for me too. Looks like Andrew managed to convince Flickr support to unblock us :) vip (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butia odorata or Butia capitata

The file File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg is titled and captioned as Butia capitata, is categorized into Category:Butia capitata, and is used on w:pt:Butia capitata. At the same time, it is claimed to depict Butia odorata, is used as the type illustration on Category:Butia odorata, and is presented as Butia odorata on w:Butia and several other Wikipedias' pages, like es:Butia odorata. Which is it? (I wasn't sure what the best place to raise this question was; let me know if another venue is better. I have cross-notified en.WP's science refdesk.) -sche (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying the uploader William Avery. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. At the time the photo was taken, the two taxa were not generally regarded as separate, and I simply took the label on the plant at face value. As the English Wikipedia article on B. odorata explains, the plants then in cultivation as B. capitata would now be assigned to B odorata. In short, that picture shouldn't be used to illustrate B. capitata. I think the file is a good candidate for renaming. William Avery (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have updated pt.WP and requested renaming of the file here (to Butia odorata; if you think the file should instead be renamed to something species-agnostic like Butia tree in Madrid, please feel free to change the requested-rename target). Thanks! -sche (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 01

PD-simple videos

Is there any examples of this? Trade (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Webdriver Torso videos have been uploaded under both PD-shape and PD-algorithm. Some of the SMPTE color bar videos as well. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Gazette 2025-06

Volunteer staff changes

In May 2025, 1 sysop and 1 checkuser were elected. Currently, there are 179 sysops and 5 checkusers.

Other news

  1. ↑ https://tvpworld.com/86161179/poland-to-ban-photography-at-over-20000-sites-under-new-national-security-law
  2. ↑ https://www.polskieradio.pl/395/7784/Artykul/3512109,poland-bans-photography-of-military-and-critical-sites-sets-fines-and-jail-terms-for-violators
  3. ↑ https://www.army.mil/article/284641/polish_news_translated_poznan_april_15

Edited by RoyZuo (talk).

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

--RoyZuo (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 02

Probable another term for FoP

"Public place exemption" appears on pages 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, and 193 of the report on architectural copyright by former US Copyright Office director Ralph Oman, dated 1989. Should we consider this as another term for Freedom of Panorama (which in itself is a literal translation of the German term panoramafreiheit)? For example, regarding Senegal (page 187):

Article 1(vii) protects "architectural works, including both plans and models and the building itself." Article 14 provides the usual public place exemption.

I'm thinking of adding this term on the relevant enwiki and tlwiki areticles, but I am seeking second/third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the term being mentioned outside of this report. It may just be jargon like the term "copyvio" as a shorthand for copyright violations. VTSGsRock (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't researched it myself, but I would agree with VTSGsRock: If the term "Public place exemption" isn't really used outside of this specific report, it's probably not worth mentioning. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote for new admin

Hello community, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to vote for a new administrator, Chem Sim 2001, at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Chem Sim 2001 (2). Your vote is critical to make Commons work better in the future. The poll ends in three days so please take your time when available to cast your precious vote.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your participation in the vote. The result is successful.
I would like to apologize that the use of the wording for in the title may confuse users, that I am suggesting that they vote to  support the user aforementioned. I will change the title of similar ones next time to be more neutral, using links to RFAs or similar instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 05:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil: National Archive Publishes Documents on Nearly 900 UFO Sightings (incl photos)

The release was reported on early here. Seems like it's PD; Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil. Could somebody upload these? The link describes how to get to the documents. When registering, make sure to select foreigner and to fill out the required fields; it seems like the password can't contain special characters. I can't get through to the documents; maybe it's because HTTPS is disabled (?). The documents including photos are in the ARQUIVO DIGITAL tab.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Public access does not equate to being freely reusable even in commercial reuses. One red flag I see based from the article: "In addition to browsing the files and materials, internet users can also contribute to the archive themselves by sending content to the email address [email protected]. Another option is to submit documents in person to the main office of the National Archive, located at Praça da República 173, in downtown Rio de Janeiro." This means it's a remix of images under the stewardship of the authorities and images that were submitted by private citizens. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't imply that. I think it's licensed {{PD-BrazilGov}} and was told it's public domain. That people can submit new content doesn't mean the old content they collected isn't PD, the new content can be excluded albeit I'm not sure if by sending it to them one is licensing it PD and it does seem like new content is not included currently in the release (it may get added later though). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How may one tell the difference between old and new?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The data in the date field. Also things like this: "Nome(s) do(s) Produtor(es) Nome: Ministério da Defesa (Brasil). Comando da Aeronáutica". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: They don't like Google's plussed addressing or birthdates older than 2015. "Registration is not possible without a CPF" per Google Translate of https://sian.an.gov.br/sianex/consulta/problemas-com-acesso.asp but I don't have a CPF and https://faq-login-unico.servicos.gov.br/en/latest/_perguntasdafaq/contaacesso.html has "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One needs to check foreigner for not having to enter a CPF; that is the right toggle box at the top of that page section iirc. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Need help properly formatting image descriptions to show publisher and photographer

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload some photos to Commons, I would like to know the correct formatting for the descriptions which should include two parts:

  1. Credit to the agency, the agency itself holds the copyright (which is defined in the contracts as far as I understand)
  2. The photographer

What is the correct way to include both of these pieces of information? Should I just include both in 'Author'? E.g Author = UN Agency name, photographed by Name of Photographer

or should the UN Agency name be the name of the 'source' with a link to the original image?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the information template I would put the photographer as author and the organization as source. In the license template you can then define the required attribution. For example "organization / photographer" or just "organization", depending on the agreements with the photographer. GPSLeo (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clearer about "In the license template you can then define the required attribution," for example, {{cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=the UN agency in question}}. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 03

Bot for enwiki DYK stats

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical#Bot for enwiki DYK stats

Locking image page

To prevent vandalism, can this file of Donald Trump's official portrait be locked? Thank you. File:Official_Presidential_Portrait_of_President_Donald_J._Trump_(2025).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUserGuy1738 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomUserGuy1738: Where's the metadata? How can we be sure Daniel Torok took it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Question Did you upscale the photo and revert a user's edit who tried to restore the previous version? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Word and cat for

"floor directory" of buildings? the plaques or maps listing what's on which floor. Category:Floor_plans is for a flat map of a certain floor? RoyZuo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Floor directory" seems as good a name as any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source for engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne

I've often come across the images in this category[1], nice engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne in the public domain. They seem to have been uploaded by Tarawneh back in 2006 from this website:[2] But looking at them now, they seem like they must exist somewhere in higher res so they can be updated, but neither the website nor Commons give any actual source for them, though they appear to have all been published in the same work, probably a book. Anyone know what that could be so higher res versions could be found on Archive.org or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: Published in The Century magazine, see for example there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, how did you find it? And I guess the images there are fairly easy to download? Also found an Archive.org version here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bio of Castaigne somewhere mentioned his work about Alexander for The Century. I looked for a collection of the magazine. I don't know about downloading works from hathitrust, but there is a download button and Commons has a few thousand files from there in Category:HathiTrust book. That site has four copies of the same volume of the magazine, from different sources. You could look if there are differences in quality. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 04

Review

Everything they post to EN Wikipedia has copyright concerns

User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Special:Contributions/Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Moxy (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this should be moved here or here. Not sure what you're asking though and I checked one file the user uploaded and it has the license specified (CCBY). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging files

Hi, would anyone be able to help me with merging some files? I did find the Merge Template, but could do with a bit of guidance (or if someone's particularly kind, for them to do it) especially with any re-directs that will be needed.

Files are: Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881 to be merged into La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046

There's also: Henry Hugh Armstead - Playmates - ABDAG004807 and Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807 to be merged into Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807

Let me know if you need to know anything else. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBulfin (talk • contribs)

"Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message on first login attempt

From some time ago, I get an "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message every time that I log in to Commons or any other WMF project, such as Wikipedia. Then, when I enter the same password and the captcha that is shown, login is succesful. I don't know if this is a general problem or it's because there has been some brute force attempt against my account. If it's this last case, it's good to know that WMF has good systems in place to prevent worse things from happening, but the message "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" is not correct (the password IS the correct one; in fact, it always works at the second attempt when using the captcha), and can be a bit scary when you're sure that you are using the right password (I think it should be replaced by a more precise message, when it's the case of access with improved verification through a captcha).

Note: it happens approximately since the day that I became "extendedconfirmed" in English Wikipedia, but I think it's not likely to have any connection. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try it with different browsers/computers, and did the nature of this error changed? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I always tried from the same computer, and it only has one browser installed. I must say that I always use private browsing, and the problem only happens the first time that I log in at each private browsing session (that is, if I log out and then log in again, there is no problem). Coincidentally (or not, if something was detected and fixed, or if hypothetical hacking attempts ceased), just now, I've logged in succesfully at the first attempt for the first time since this started happening to me.
Of course, I have no problem in using the captcha. If there have been repeated failed login attempts by attackers (naturally, I don't know if it's so), it's the right way to prevent this from becoming much worse. But, in that case, the message should be something like "We want to be sure that you are not a bot, please enter your password again, and also the captcha shown below", not "incorrect password", because that's not true. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's tricky sometimes. In some cases, the server lags, and patience is needed. Sometimes, there are issues with different browsers (as they have different settings that may interact in an undesired way), etc. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows the reason, but I didn't change browser (other than, maybe, version updates), computer or settings just before it started happening. It happened again to me just now. I have no problem: now, I know that I must enter the password twice, and use a captcha, that's all. But, before one is aware of that behaviour, the message that the password is not correct is a bit frightening when you are sure that it is. Well, even thinking about the worst case, I know that my contributions will remain there, and it's possible to begin again from scratch, if needed. No need to panic. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a subject for Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In fact, it sounds like a part of this already existing subject. I'll comment there. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated or edited images of graphics cards (again)

Unfortunately, we have many new images of NVIDIA hardware that is obviously influenced by AI, making the pictures inaccurate (with PCBs like shown, the cards would never have entered the market). We had this issue before: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/10/17#Files found with Special:Search/marcusburns1977. The files may also be potential subject to copyright violations. How to proceed in this case? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like some sort of weird AI-assisted copywashing (slopwashing?) - it's extremely suspicious that all of these files are being uploaded to DeviantArt by multiple different brand-new accounts with no other activity, shortly before being imported to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the arrangement of the components and the components themselves look deformed :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that the images were added to Wikipedia articles immediately after upload. So there's really nothing we can do about it on our end since admins on here are hardliners about not deleting in images that are in use on other projects. Otherwise, I'd suggest nominating them for deletion. But it's not really worth it considering the attitudes around in use files and AI-generated images on here. Better to just let people use Commons as a launching pad for spreading obviously fabricated nonsense to other projects I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or just wait until these are removed on Wikipedia or point the issue out there. The admins aren't hardlines, we just shouldn't overstep important policy. One can also start DRs before. The hyperbole, lamenting and riling up is excessive/not needed. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we were told to disengage and I wasn't talking to you. Don't respond to me when I'm writing message to other people. I don't care about or want to hear your opinion about this or anything else. It shouldn't be that hard for you to drop it and stop responding to me every time I make a comment about AI on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were told that. Maybe soften your language, like not calling admins hardliners on a policy when policy is made to be adhered to and when that's not the case. Or not rile up people by claiming there was a huge problem when people could just simply remove these images from Wikipedia and start a DR even before that's done? If people want to cause some friction in Commons and get policy changed and undone, all they seem to need to do is upload some obviously bad problematic AI images and make it appear is if there was some huge problem.
@PantheraLeo1359531 How to proceed in this case? As usual, by filing deletion requests. In this case I'd suggest also making a thread on Wikipedia on some relevant discussion place there or multiple at the article talk page(s). Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anyone "riled up" here. Nor was anything about my comment meant to claim there was a huge problem about anything. There are certain administrators and users who take a rather hardline stance when in use and/or AI-generated images are nominated for deletion. You clearly have a problem with facts though. But maybe disengage now. This isn't a debate even if your trying to turn into one. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense. Images used in other projects can't be deleted from Commons, and that's very good as it is, but images shouldn't be in use only for them not being deleted from Commons. In fact, those images, if unused, could perhaps even be kept in Commons as showcase of AI-generated images of graphics cards, but make not any sense in Wikipedia articles about graphic cards.
AI should never be used to illustrate things already existing in the real world that have freely licensed or public domain photos available. Even without AI, an image manually drawn by a user (using software, or by hand), that doesn't add anything to what a photo would show, would be rejected in the same context for sure. Once this is solved, the discussion about whether they are or not in scope in Commons can begin. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these images are derivative work copyvios - which seems likely, someone just needs to find a few examples of the source images - they can and will be deleted on Commons. COM:INUSE does not trump COM:LICENSING. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it the various policies in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would probably apply to at least a few of these images. I'm not sure how copyrighted bland photographs of products that don't contain logos or the like are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer: Not sure how to go about this, since a real photo of an item shot with transparency or from the same angle with a plain background could easily end up looking identical, regardless of whether it's a derivative or simply a new work based on the same product. That said, File:TITAN RTX NVIDIA.jpg appears to be an AI-generated carbon copy of the first two product photos shown on Amazon. But again, someone could take a legitimate photograph of the same item from the same angle and produce a visually identical result. I'm unsure how we’re supposed to determine whether any copyrightable differences exist—or don't. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon a closer look, I strongly suspect this is the same user as previously. At least one of their images (File:480 GTX PC.png) is virtually identical to one uploaded by marcusburns1977. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I filed a sock report on Wikipedia. Someone else is going to have to do it on here though since I'm topic banned from administrator boards on here. But their clearly the same user. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 05

Photo from 1918, photographer died in 1976 - is it public domain?

I've done a bit of biographical sleuthing about a photographer named Clara Louise Petzoldt (1878-1976) and I see that one of her photos was uploaded here: File:KatherineEmmet1918.jpg. My question is - is that photo really public domain? It's from before 1930, but the photographer died in late 1976, about 48 years ago, which is within the 75-year copyright window. So is this image really public domain? I'd like to know this, since it affects what images I might choose to upload as public domain in the future. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict; answering the original question) Yes, if a photograph was published in the United States before 1930 it is public domain in the US and, if no other countries are involved, it can be uploaded to Commons. The longer answer is Commons:Hirtle chart. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483

Can someone fix the date for the image displayed. --RAN (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting further input for Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups

There is some debate being had on the following CFD. Could I please ask for further people to have a look to see if they can provide some feedback? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category description is as follows: This category contains media from scientific studies which have conducted surveys of people relevant to the subject(s) of the study. and the category contents may make it clearer. Concrete suggestions for other cat titles are very welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SDC and working at cross-purposes

The most recent winner at Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges is a user who, on Commons, was admonished for adding low-quality structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Wizard "release rights" blurb

Choices from the "Upload Wizard" form:

  • Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit)
  • Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license)

As written, this gives the impression that you choose the first one over the second if you want the person using this media to give appropriate credit but then be able to distribute it free of any such requirement. This would seem to allow trivial circumvention tantamount to unrestricted release (e.g. get your friend to put the media on their Facebook page with credit, and then copy it willy nilly from their Facebook page), so seems to make little sense. Even reading the "learn more" links, I still don't quite understand why you would choose the first one over the second. Is the difference relevant only if people "remix, transform, or build upon the material"? I wonder whether the distinction could be explained better in summary. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first license doesn’t mean other people can just reupload the exact photo, give appropriate credit, and just declare the photo to be used by anyone without restrictions. The original CC license will always be applied to the original materials even if they were redistributed or adapted. The difference between the two is if you create a derivative work based on the image, under the first license you can license your own contributions under any license you want, under the second license you must license your own contributions under the same license. See https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-derive-or-adapt-material-offered-under-a-creative-commons-license-which-cc-licenses-can-i-use for more details. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True, but more to the point, under the first license a reuser can reserve all rights to their own contributions and fail to license them at all. So, for example, if File:Mardi Gras Day 2019 in the French Quarter - St Anthony Ramblers on St Peter Street 09.jpg were not under an "SA" license, you could create a derivative work based on the woman in butterfly wings looking at her phone, with a small blond child over her right shoulder, credit Infrogmation, and not offer any license to republish your derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. This is totally unclear from the Upload Wizard wording, which, as I say, reads as meaning "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license" versus "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit, but allows them to redistribute it under any license, or none at all, i.e. unrestricted". Does anyone know who maintains this wording? Even though it needs to be short, surely a better job can be done than what we presently have. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 06

Some images not displaying for quite some time

I am having problems with some images not displaying. Seems to be happening just randomly. If I try and try and try, after many minutes they display. Is there currently a technical problem with the server(s) delivering images? Or am I the only one having this problem? Nurg (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be related to this issue. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, likely the same problem. Nurg (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pernorgard.jpg marked for deletion 3 June 2025

As I understand it, the above file was uploaded in 2015, and licensed as "own work" by the author. It is now up for deletion on the grounds that the author did not additionally send a letter confirming that they give permission for the licence that they themselves have added to the file.

I have uploaded nearly 30,000 images to Commons, and a large proportion of those are "own work" with a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}} licence. Does that mean that I, too, (along with millions of other "own work" uploaders) have to write tens of thousands of permission emails? Or am I missing something here? Storye book (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I have read Commons:But it's my own work!, and as far as I can see, that page does not apply to the above image file, unless there is additional information somewhere, which the deletion tag does not tell us. Storye book (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you can "Challenge speedy deletion start a regular deletion request/discussion instead" and write down the reason. RoyZuo (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there is a speedy tag, and the rationale is wrong for adding it, you can remove the tag without converting it into a regular deletion. You have to leave an explanation. If you are a contributor of a large number of self-taken images, you can add a brief paragraph on your user page that you are an amateur photographer and list some of the equipment you regularly use, and what type of events you concentrate on photographing. This way it will be obvious, even 100 years from now. You can also link to your Flickr account if you have one. If you are a large contributor, but this is controversial, you should have a wikidata entry that has your info so future users of your images will know when they convert from creative commons to public domain. --RAN (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): . Thank you for that information. I shall consider making my own Wikidata entry (although I am worried that it might look self-aggrandising?). But if I do create my own Wikidata page, isn't it too late to connect my many thousands of own-work images to the Wikidata, retrospectively? I'm not sure how that would work. I have a Flickr account, but I have never uploaded images to it. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I noticed exactly the same problem with several files tagged as "no pemission" by that same user without explanation. Some seem correctly tagged, but for some other files the reason does not seem obvious at all. If there's actually a known and obvious reason to think that they are copyvios, they can be tagged as copyvios with a proper reference. If it's only a vague impression, they can be tagged for ordinary discussion with an explanation. Hopefully, admins will be cautious with speedy requests by that user. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to automate the uploading of these images?

Can these image be uploaded using some automation: https://conservation.academie-architecture.fr/fonds/fondsanciend Click on the first blue link on the right and scroll down to see the images on each page. Each blue link will bring you to a page of image of French architects.They all meet {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-1996}} RAN (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Batch uploading, a page that probably needs to be made more visible somehow, e.g. needing more contributors who do these batch uploads. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably in the public domain. However they can't be qualified of "no author disclosure". The photographs in most recueils are attributed to Ch. Blanc and Th. Truchelut. Commons does not have a death year for Truchelut, but PD-old-assumed can work for photos from before 1905. Is Ch. Blanc the engraver? The recueil in the first link has attributions to more photographers: "Th. Truchelut, Ch. Reutlinger, Ch. Lemayrie, P. Nadar, Bingham, P. Petit, E. Pirou, etc." Their works seem comfortably in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1040807094"