This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, 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:
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.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
April 26
Naming conventions for flags (for example Flag of Honduras)
Given the ongoing discussion of the Syrian flag, and by request of User:Panam2014 on my talk page (and discussed with User:Jmabel briefly), I wanted to discuss further our naming conventions of recently changed flags and Honduras's flag in particular because that may be one of the least controversial to discuss. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: Are you saying you want to discuss it here (in which case, start by laying out the issues) or that you want people to participate in a discussion elsewhere (in which case, link)? - Jmabel ! talk23:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have been more clear, I wanted to start the discussion here and I didn't want to forget to do it. Basically, as evidenced on the of Syria (2025-) talk page], there is an idea that "Flag of Foo" (where Foo is a country) should always be a redirect so our templates can always stay up to date when they just want the country's flag. Regimes and flags can change within some of our lifetimes (my country the United States has last updated its flag in 1960) and we obviously also want a stable name for the current flag of a country, which is why the current flag of Syria is named File:Flag of Syria (2025-).svg. Some are resistant to this idea and always want the current flag to be a file. Since we are doing this for Syria, there is the question of "renaming the flags who have been adopted recently, like Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan, Mauritania, Malawi, Myanmar, Libya, Turkmenistan, Iraq, DR Congo, Georgia, Rwanda" that was posed on talk page. Of course, we should start where the discussion would be least controversial. Honduras in 2022 changed the color of its flag from navy blue to turquoise in accordance to a 1949 decree that had never been carried out as en:Flag of Honduras explains. The file File:Flag of Honduras.svg shows revisions with the old navy blue flag and the new turquoise flag. So if the Honduras flag file should be a redirect, should the file be split and then older versions merged with the file depicting the old flag? Should all revisions be moved to a File:Flag of Honduras (2022-).svg file? Basically, it would be a good idea to hammer out what we should do when flags of countries change so the disruption to various Wikimedia projects is minimal and have a good idea of how to "futureproof" flags of countries. I hope I've started to lay out the issues that make for a fruitful discussion on these matters. Abzeronow (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: as you know, I'm on the side of moving toward having File:Flag of FOO always be a redirect. Then we can tell sister projects that if you want an article (e.g. about a particular city, or the national football team) to just show whatever is the current flag, use File:Flag of FOO; if it is important that it show a particular flag and not change over time (e.g. you are writing about a particular event, and want the article to retain the chronologically accurate flag for that event) you use something more like File:Flag of FOO 1928-1972 or File:Flag of FOO 1972-.
In theory, the redirect between File:Flag of FOO and, say, File:Flag of FOO 1972- could go either way. I favor having File:Flag of FOO be the redirect, because it seems to me to leave the histories clearer when the flag might later change. If File:Flag of FOO is a redirect, and the flag of FOO changes in 2027, we just:
upload the new flag as File:Flag of FOO (note that this will have no record of the history of what was at this name)
create a new redirect from File:Flag of FOO 2027- to File:Flag of FOO so people have some way to refer to this specific flag that will be stable over time.
I think we should not have such naming guidelines and redirects. The template use case is exactly what Wikidata is for. If the templates just use the current flag from Wikidata the name of the file on Commons does not matter. GPSLeo (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: are there any Wikipedias that currently do this through Wikidata? (Let me guess that if there is one it is de-wiki, because so much of the Wikidata expertise is in Germany.) I know en-wiki does not. - Jmabel ! talk17:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. Dewiki is also one of the wikis using the lowest amount of Wikidata. Not even simple info boxes use Wikidata as fallback for photos. Wikipedia and Wikidata community in Germany are quite separate. During the introduction of structured data we even had discussions if it would be better to get rid of the file names entirely and use the M-ID instead. We should not support using a system of file names and wikitext page redirects to keep old templates working. Instead we should encourage everyone to use a more reliable solution using modules and Wikidata. GPSLeo (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Abzeronow: if you look at GUC/CommonsDelinker and search the text "Flag_of_Honduras.svg", you will find hundreds of pages where CommonsDelinker has removed "Flag_of_Honduras.svg". Moreover, my GUC link does not show all the removals (because it is limited to 20 results per wiki). What to do? --NicoScribe (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could use this to make a campaign to get users currently publishing their files on Flickr moving to Commons. Something like "Disappointed from Flickr? Learn how to publish your photos on Wikimedia Commons". GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be "Disappointed by flickr" in English, but otherwise... yes, that could be a chance. Though our rustic to rusty interface will probably deter some users accustomed to flickr... - And also, of course, we have stricter policies, as you can't upload just any file to Commons (COM:EDUSE)... Gestumblindi (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: Interesting, just tested: I don't get a paywall, don't even need to be registered, I can use the search feature (including filtering by license) just fine. The only thing it seems to require to be signed in for is if you want to disable the "family filter". Maybe it's country-specific? I'm using it from Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gestumblindi - thanks! I'm in Britain; I get a non-removable flashscreen paywall that requires I must sign up for Flickr before I can search for anything there; I can't use the search feature (including filtering by license) at all, it's blocked by the paywall. - MPF (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you try to scroll further down beyond the first results? I can make a search and get results but I can only click on the first ones. If you scroll further down I run into the paywall and also do not get back to the first results. GPSLeo (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just tried it – no paywall for me (accessing from Germany, logged in), even when scrolling to the very end of the search results. With another browser (not logged in) I got a pop-up (saying I should register to continue) after scrolling down. --Rosenzweigτ21:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF: copy the JavaScript code to clipboard, add a bookmark as though the code is a URL, then click the bookmark when you want to activate the code. JayCubby (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stylus and Violentmonkey are browser extensions. The links above will have the instructions how to install them REAL💬⬆18:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby @999real I still don't understand any of those! I couldn't even find out how to make that "javascript .... ();" stuff into a bookmark. Can you describe what to do in non-technical language please! I'm not a computing expert, I just want to be able to search for suitable cc-licensed pics in Flickr to add to Commons like in the past. - MPF (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello community, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to vote for a new checkuser, Lymantria, at Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Lymantria. Your vote is critical to make Commons work better in the future. The poll ends in four days so please take your time when available to cast your precious vote.
Thank you for your participation in the poll, the results are as follows:
Support 41 votes
Oppose 2 votes
The result is successful, and Lymantria will gain their checkuser right.
I would like to congratulate Lymantria for becoming a checkuser and hope they will make Commons more better over time. 〈興華街〉📅❓06:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question about watermarks
Hi all
I'm working with a UN agency who are considering sharing some photos on Commons, but they have some concerns. They have asked if they can add a watermark to the images in the corner with the UN organisation name and the UN emblem. I know that watermarks are discouraged in general, but can I ask if a watermark with the UN emblem would be allowed? I'm aware of Commons:Watermarks and have shared this with them.
It's interesting that a UN agency has these reservations. In my perception, the UN serves humanity as a whole and it's thus in their interest and general remit to produce content that can be shared as widely as possible, with the priority being usefulness and reusability. Visible watermarks don't feel right in this regard. Of course content can be shared under licenses that require attribution, which serve the exact purpose of what the agency may want/appreciate.
They could add a watermark. However, if they upload to Commons then the most restrictive license would probably be CC-BY-SA and that license still allows to edit a file as one pleases, which means that re-users can choose to either crop the watermark out or to somehow edit it out. That's something that the UN should keep in mind when uploading a watermarked image to Commons. Nakonana (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shorter version of that: watermarks are allowed but discouraged, and people are allowed to make derivative works that omit the watermark, or even overwrite the original with a retouched version that omits the watermark. - Jmabel ! talk21:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Officially maybe allowed, certainly discouraged, but practically watermarked images are not used in Wikimedia platforms, as watermarks are considered problematic.
@Romaine: I'm sure John is long since aware of all that. But your point is valid that if the agency wishes its content to be used in Wikipedia, watermarking it is a bad idea. On the other hand, if they are just using Commons as a way to make this content more broadly available, they may have their own priorities and agenda. - Jmabel ! talk03:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can add a margin around the image and add a catalogue number and the symbol there. See what the Bundesarchiv did: here. Destructive watermarks are a terrible idea. You should also get a free Flickr Commons account. The more places you store the images, the more likely they will be around in 100 years. You can also make sure that you add in information in the Metadata. That information is preserved if someone downloads and reuses. --RAN (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John Cummings Back in 2013, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) donated a few hundred maps to Commons. They all included destructive watermarks. Commons editors gradually removed all of the watermarks, even in cases where it left holes in the graphics (compare [1] and [2]). So the UN is welcome to use watermarks in the images, but they are counterproductive and unlikely to be preserved. Nosferattus (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for the information, I'm confused about a few things about what Commons editors have done.
The logo doesn't appear to be very destructive, at least in the example you have included. Do you think it would have been removed if it was added to the white space underneath? Are there any rules which would relate to this if the logo was in the space below?
The other thing that has happened is that the text below has been removed, the text appears to be made of two parts. Do you which rules relate to them being removed?
"The logo doesn't appear to be very destructive" For some editors the mere existence of any watermarks is in and of itself inherently destructive. Does it make more sense now? Trade (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File descriptions
And then the same problem also occurs to file descriptions. some users are fixated on editing descriptions into a way they like.
no, description does not need to be reduced to a mechanic statement. creators (photographers) sometimes have additional things to say and it's completely fine. sometimes the original description is too generic, it's also fine, coz you can add on to it for the original authors.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally get people on my watch list editing a bunch of files I've uploaded/created where they change or remove my gallery tags (if the image is part of a series), or place the "other versions"/"extracted from" template outside the file description space; I'm never quite sure if I'm allowed to revert those edits. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"other versions"/"extracted from" template outside the file description space don't know what you mean by this but the standardized {{Information}} has a |other versions = parameter into which other versions belong which could then be read properly using for example apps like the Commons app, APIs, scripts, search methods, and so on. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
my personal stand is i leave as much original description as possible, unless it's plain irrelevant or wrong. quite often i see original description, that contains much more detail and is written with more literary techniques/devices, gets trimmed by commons users to become cold and boring. why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RoyZuo (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyZuo: Some of that should have been kept, but are you honestly saying we should keep, "Ready to improve your bedroom performance? Try LOAD BOOST by VB Health and see what everyone is talking about" as part of the description of a file? - Jmabel ! talk16:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The original description contained some material which was clearly promotional in nature and wildly inappropriate for Commons. And, perhaps it's a separate issue, but I'd also question whether it's appropriate at all for Commons to host a podcast episode which includes promotional segments for penis pills. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same promotional description can belong to different kinds of spam -- spam that is obviously spam, spam that is also a copyvio image, and stuff that in your gut you know is spam and/or copyvio but can't prove, in which case the only resort is to remove the spammy copy. (And these days that copy is often AI generated which raises its own set of questions about copyvio.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are allowed to look at the context and value of the files. Otherwise we would have to delete any of the hundreds of 18th and 19th century advertisements and film trailers currently hosted on Commons since they are promotional as well Trade (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like (per all of that) the ONLY scenario where a snapshot would not be PD-US-no notice between 1930 and 1977 is if the photographer shoved the negatives in a drawer somewhere and never printed them. All others are public domain. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that is true. I don't think any court has ever ruled that making a single print, or even putting it in your own personal photo album, constituted publication, and it is certainly not the obvious meaning of the law. - Jmabel ! talk01:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Public display constitutes publication" when a copy is displayed, displaying the negative (the original creation) would not be publication. This would be, for example, an original oil painting, where there is no copy. --RAN (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really, though, on anything before 1978 in the U.S., "publication" is quite a muddle, with contradictory rulings by various courts. - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have several questions about heirs:
Does US accept the rules about heirs en inheritance in foreign countries, or do only the US rules apply for authorship? I hope not, as it would be quite messy, but many US laws apply extraterritorialy.
If the partner of the author stil lives, does he/she have the full heirs rigths and does have to ask permission to the childern for publication?
Are heirs in principle only the direct descendants (children). If there are no childern, does it goes back up the chain (are there brothers and sisters, and if not aunts and uncles, etc) until some heirs are found? This goes against the principle of protecting the income rigths of descendants (childern) and spouses. Outside the US the rules can be quite different. This is totaly non-transparent for people seeking permission to publish or upload to the Commons.
If no heirs are found, does the inheritance go back to the state? I think the rigths to Hitlers Mein kampf, went to the German state, who probihited further publication using authorship rigths. The case could be argued that in no heirs cases, there is reason to keep the works out of the public domain. In practice is virtualy imposible for outsiders to know that there are no heirs.
Does it matter if the author is exactly known, but certainly one of the family, (of the heirs). For example photo's taken by a husband and wife couple (or non adult childern).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS:I will legate my authorship (and heirs) rigths in my will to the local Wikimedia Chapter. So that what I have not uploaded to the Commons, can later still be done. I hope other will do this also.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your will, I'd suggest releasing all your works under a free license in addition to legating your remaining autorship rights to your local Wikimedia Chapter. Otherwise, you risk your photos not being released under a free license if your local Wikimedia Chapter is not dilligent enough or not interested on your photos. Pere prlpz (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To take up your points, and I suppose none of the following is definitive:
I find it unlikely that anyone other than perhaps a very famous author or photographer would write a will that bequeathed their copyrights in one country differently than their rights in another country, and then it would be very clear who owned what rights were. Inheritance of intellectual property rights usually occurs in a single jurisdiction (though it can get complicated if the person lives in one country and is a citizen of another) even if those rights apply elsewhere. Do you have something in particular in mind?
By "partner" I presume you mean spouse. This would depend on whether the rights were initially community property (varies with jurisdiction) and of course with the terms of the will in question. If the rights were initially community property, I can't imagine the spouse would lose their share of the rights upon their partner's death, and I suppose that if the two spouses chose different heirs for their rights (or if they failed to choose and the law determined different heirs) you could have quite a mess. That's a matter of law, not of our policy.
The case of what happens if there are no heirs is a matter of law, different in different countries. Hitler's case I'm not sure of, but I don't think lack of heirs was the basis for those rights going to the BRD.
If everybody has the same heirs, it doesn't matter who was the original author. If not, that is one of the ways a copyright can be "orphaned": copyright persists, but no one is in a clean position to grant a license.
Just releasing the works under a free license, does not solve the problem. There stil needs to someone who takes the time to scan photos/slides and publish them under a free license (Commons or elsewhere). A will is only communicated to the people or organizations involved in the inheritance. If you not have descendants (childern), the children have no interest in your collection or dont want to publish it, there is a problem. Some third party who you trust, wil need have the legal authority to publish. (the third party can also be family member of the larger family or a trusted friend who shares your hobbys). It does not necessarrily involves possession/ownership of the photos, (for example family albums) but certainly access to it. For uploading to the Commons it is handy to have a the background information, and do some research. Dont expect the Commons community to do the research for you. What sometimes happens by some GLAM Wikimedia projects, where the content information about the pictures is incomplete (when, where was the picture taken, etc). My local chapter has a lot of experience with GLAM projects, so I hope it can give guidance. I wil certainly consult with the executor, the Wikimedia chapter and beneficiaries, before the will is written. All wills are customized and the solutions wil differ by country and indivudual situations. Precautions to avoid that the old photo archives / slides / papers wich may have historical interest, be trashed just to clear out the house so it can be sold quickly. I have seen that happen quite a lot.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May 19
FYI: Creative Commons 4.0 arriving soon to Flickr.
E-mail from three minutes ago:
Hi koavf,
This June, Flickr is rolling out support for version 4.0 of the Creative Commons license suite – the most global, legally robust licenses produced by CC yet.
==== Here’s what’s in it for you: ====
* If your account defaults to one of the six Creative Commons 2.0 licenses, we’ll automatically upgrade it to 4.0 for all your future uploads. Easy peasy—no clicks required.
* Your existing photos with CC 2.0 licenses? They’ll stay just as they are unless you decide to update them.
* Prefer other license types or dedication tools? Not to worry—those won’t be affected by this change.
Creative Commons 4.0 brings clearer terms, better international usability, and more flexibility for creators like you. We’re excited to support a stronger, smarter future for open sharing on Flickr.
Got questions? Our Support Heroes are here to help.
Keep creating.
'''- The Flickr Team'''
Not to mention that the link simply goes to "enshittification," not to whatever action of Flickr's Nosferattus may be referring to. - Jmabel ! talk17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i vaguely remember that croptool a pic with reviewed licences would also trigger that filter. not sure if my memory's right. RoyZuo (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not exact duplicates and all of them are in use. Therefore, nothing to do about it unless you feel in the mood to decide that one of them is superior to the other ones and replace them in all projects - with consensus from the involved projects.
The original one is Athens Metro Piraeus station, Line 1.jpg by Bad-seed, the others are derivatives using Athens Metro Piraeus station, Line 1.jpg as source. I really cant see any differences. By the way: I dont need any consensus. As all Wikimedia projects, anyone can make changes. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Athens Metro Piraeus station edit.jpg is cropped, tilt corrected, and perspective corrected. The foreground has also been slightly brightened. Not a lot of difference between the different versions, but they're there.
Hi, can I get cctv published at a random site like bbc.com and upload it at commons? Is any cctv always in public domain? I mean video footage from a security camera. Does it matter if it was in a public street or on a personal property or property of government such as a school or a prison?
@Gryllida: the consensus (but not without controversy) seems to be that if the camera is "fixed" (cannot be pointed different directions by an operator) it should be PD. - Jmabel ! talk18:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the question here? What is EVR? What is wrong with Russian? Do you need a translation? Is there something wrong with the file(s)? Gryllida (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assuming they are asking if the train carriages shown in the photos are sleeper cars from the EVR Ekspress (now known as en:GoRail), and perhaps they are also asking if the sleeper cars are from/made in Russia. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All other sleeper cars where Russsian and Russian compagny. These are also the only one in blue. When the Estonian EVR compagny ran the trains, the question is did they loan the sleeping cars from Russia, or did they have their own? I suspect the sleeping car trains to Moskou only ran a short under the EVR logo.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are Russian-produced cars if this is the question. Whether EVR owned then or leased them, I do not know, and I am not sure there is any way to know. Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Images of Cameron Rowland - public event, freely licensed, subject claims permission needed
Hoping to get some extra opinions or insights on a situation involving a public figure who is represented in images on Commons. In October 2022, @GSAPPstudent uploaded severalphotographs of the artist Cameron Rowland, made at a free event open to the public at Columbia University's architecture/planning school (GSAPP). The images were uploaded as own work, which seems legit as the account has uploaded a range of photographs from lectures at GSAPP.
After one of the images was used in the article for Rowland (full disclosure, by me), GSAPPstudent nominated the images for deletion because Rowland had not "consented" to their release; consensus was keep as the works were freely licensed and Rowland was speaking in a public setting in the U.S. with no photography restrictions. GSAPPstudent then re-listed for speedy deletion a while later, consensus was again keep. After that, several new accounts began re-listing the images for deletion and removed the image from the article. This time, the rationale was that Columbia had not received permission to make or publish images from this event and had explicitly promised Rowland none would be released, and Rowland requested Columbia delete these images. But again, that didn't really make sense; GSAPPstudent doesn't represent Columbia AFAIK, they are not bound by any agreement Rowland and Columbia made, and the event clearly had no photography restrictions (event listing). Once again, consensus was keep.
As someone who follows Rowland's work, I believe they are asking Columbia to have these photographs removed - and probably did request that Columbia not release photos from this event - because part of their artistic practice involves minimal documentation of themselves. They seem to be following in the footsteps of other notable artists who generally refuse(d) to document themselves or allow others to document them (Cady Noland, stanley brouwn, etc.). But their aversion to being photographed does not change what seemed to have happened here, where an independent photographer (not Columbia) made a photograph at a public event with no known photo restrictions and published it with an irrevocable free license on Commons. Someone else added a personality rights tag to all photos, so the restrictions on reuse are clear.
Two of the photos have now been nominated again for deletion by an IP user who previously requested deletion. I voted keep as nothing seems to have changed.
But am I just being a stick in the mud here? Does my analysis have gaps/is there a reason we would just cede to Rowland's request? I don't want to be overly deferential to the "keep" perspective. Just wanted to flag this for a broader group of editors to get some extra eyes. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 12:57, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I'd just add that I did one extra search and actually found an example of Columbia's GSAPP themselves releasing video of Rowland under a CC license on YouTube the same year this separate lecture happened. They appear at 53:12 and give a full presentation.) 19h00s (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Yann for keeping the files (although I think you forgot to close the DR for the second image). If anyone has any insights into this kind of situation or ideas on how to limit the recurring deletion requests (if that's even a thing or appropriate), would love to hear. Thanks again. 19h00s (talk) 14:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Yann! And for those wondering why I brought this up here, I'd just say that I value consensus and I know I'm not always right. 19h00s (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he doesn't like the photos? They show him in motion etc., so it might be worth suggesting to them that they upload one good selfie of themselves for their article so that the other photos will be considered obsolete. Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Authorship with camera held by bystanders or tripod
My deceased grandfather was an amateur photografer, who sometimes took a selfie of himself. In those days (around 1924) you did not have selftimers, but you could certainly ask someone to to activate the shutter. With a tripod you can arrange the composition, so the creative work is already done. Nowadays many people ask a passerby to take pictures of themselves with their camera. I would certainly not consider the passerby to have authorship rigths. Can I for license purposes, consider the authorship to be from my grandfather? One can never be certain that not some other photografer took the pictures. The fact that he often developed the films himself in a darkroom, makes it unlikely that it is taken by some other (professional) photografers. A professional photografer would never publish prints with these development (bleu black areas) and composition (horizon) errors.File:Wijtschate mine craters 1923 1.jpg (later he became better).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: Thanks, for the legal arguments, but in practice for very old pictures it is imposible to reconstruct the conditions at the time of the picture taking, as all involved are long dead. But the fact that these pictures are in a family albums of a amateur photografer, who developed printed the negatives in his dark room, one can argue that it was his own work and not of bystanders. The pictures in the family album are consistant in style. As this is unpublished work, I cant apply PD-1923, (or PD-US-unpublished as he died after 1955, and it is not PD in Europe, where they do not make the unpublised/publised distinction) so I prefer to use an heirs licence. My grandfather died around 1965, when I was a small child. I changed the license for File:René Defonseca 1922.jpg and File:René Defonseca bij strandcabine op wielen 192x.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:55, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary file renames
I have asked User:AnRo0002 to stop renaming files, such as
Isodon lophanthoides (Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don) H.Hara (6363545923).jpg
to
Isodon lophanthoides (6363545923).jpg
and
Caribbean Trumpet Tree (Tabebuia aurea) flowers in Hyderabad, AP W IMG 6556.jpg
to
Tabebuia aurea flowers in Hyderabad, AP W IMG 6556.jpg
as there doesn't seem to be any need for this. I can see multiple complaints, an ANI discussion and a previous block, all relating to file renames, on their talk page.
They have defended the renames and indicated an intention to continue, claiming falsely that "no common user is affected directly" (also disregarding the affect that it has on users of other projects) and that the renames are required for category sorting. I feel that these are fundamental misunderstandings, so I'm bring the matter here, in the hope that the matter can be resolved through community discussion rather than admin intervention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits12:17, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of the person themselves, AnRo is doing a lot of tedious but mostly good work. I do not exactly follow what else is done, but I am kinda thankful for at least some. I do hope that AnRo will acknowledge that this other behaviour (even if not his main objectives) is somewhat disruptive, and will stop it to pursue other tasks. By the way, don't focus again on hyper-categorization either, please! The whole subject by year-mess has been mostly amplified through AnRo, and I find much of it unhelpful.
On the matter at hand, and speaking as someone who categorizes a lot: renaming files is not necessary for category sorting, period. Category-Keys are the way to go. In some cases, I think that file names can be too long (If it takes more than 5-6 lines in the category view, I dislike that naming decision, but that's about it). In other cases, file names can be too unspecific, and that (but rarely) encourages me to rename a file. I mostly move when the filename includes an obvious typo or a falsehood that I care about. And if there is a batch of a few files that obviously form a series, I might wish to harmonize their names, yes. But file moving is still somewhat of a hassle, so I just avoid to do much of it. Meaning, I do not understand what drives AnRo to move someone else's files, and Andy's examples are particularly unreasonable moves.
Is this an appropriate scope for an category? Before you judge please keep in mind that i am not the one who created it--Trade (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably best suited as a guideline, not a policy. It's an informational page on the implementation of the existing Commons:Licensing policy with regards to a particular source, and doesn't create any fundamentally new rules. I'm fully in support of its adoption as a guideline, though; I've seen altogether too many instances of clearly copyrighted images, like screenshots or promotional graphics from TV shows or video games, being copywashed through Fandom wikis. Omphalographer (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to fix it, but the "topic in/of/by country" template processing is generally difficult to work with. Also, I'd just as soon remove that whole sidebar. There aren't map files for a lot of the countries that use it. It also often has a lot of red links, and the times when the links are blue aren't that useful. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to put this template up for discussion. This template is often used on Commons:Undeletion requests by administrators.
VRT members cannot undelete files. When a member at VRT approves a license sent to them, the image doesn't get automatically restored. Instead the VRT member has to file an undeletion request themselves. Therefore this template is misleading.
I would appreciate a wording that better reflects what the current procedure is, for example "This image will be restored, without further action by the uploader, if and when a free license is received, read, and approved at VRT, and VRT requests undeletion."
This way, uploaders would know whom to reach out to if the file remains undeleted after a while or if the process becomes stalled.
I'm not one hundred percent familiar on the specifics of how the procedure works or is supposed to work so I'm leaving this here for discussion to be held. It's moon (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template should be SUBSTed at the current usage and then deleted. While the use is valid, it's exitence in misleading. Krd05:01, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
May 26
Adding files that are nominated for deletion to sister projects
Hi. A month ago I created Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ancient astronauts.png because the file was unused at the time and has questionable educational value since it's AI generated. There was an overwhelming consensus to delete the image. But a few days ago the uploader, Prototyperspective, created this Wikiversity article about if Earth has been visited by aliens and used the image there. Leading to the DR being closed as keep.
I'm pretty sure there was previous discussions about similar behavior where the clear consensus was that it's gaming the system to create an article on another project just to justify using an image that was nominated for deletion. I brought said discussions up to the closing administrator, @Josve05a: , but apparently they aren't concerned with following the outcomes of previous conversations. Instead, they think images should only be deleted if there is a clear policy violation, obvious gaming of the system somehow not qualifying as one.
So I'm bringing this to community. Should people be able to game DRs by creating superficial, vanity articles on other projects like Wikiversity? Or should uploaders not be allowed to overrule consensus in deletion requests by creating faux articles on other projects just so their images won't be deleted? Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, you brought this DR to my talk page, and I closed it based on our deletion policy given that the DR had been open for quite some while, and despite the discussion, it was COM:INUSE. We don’t determine what is or isn’t a "faux article". That’s up to the local project where the page was created. If the community at Wikiversity considers the page inappropriate, they can delete it, remove the image, or take local action. Until then, COM:INUSE applies. You don’t seem to get this part, your personal definition of what constitutes a "bad article" may not match the standards or expectations of the sister project in question. We defer to their judgment on their content. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, as a secondary point, if the uploader’s intent is indeed to “game the system” by creating superficial articles solely to keep files, that behavior may warrant discussion. Still, per our COM:INUSE policy, the file itself should not be deleted just for that reason. We shouldn’t discard valid uses simply because of questionable user conduct, as long as a sister project considers the usage appropriate. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t determine what is or isn’t a "faux article". We certainly can or at least should be able to on our end purely in regards to determing if a usage follows our policies or if its just gaming the system. That's all I'm doing here. Its not like you aren't doing the reverse by saying the usage is valid anyway. "Rules and standards for thee but not for me." Its cool if you say the usage is valid but I can't say it isn:t because we supposedly don't do that. Right.
If the uploader’s intent is indeed to “game the system” by creating superficial articles solely to keep files, that behavior may warrant discussion I tried to have that discussing with you several times and you wouldn't allow me to. Anyway, its already been determined in other discussions that what Protospective is doing is a form of gaming the system. The point this discussion is if we should allow for it or not. I'd appreciate if we could stay on topic here. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not personally determining whether the usage is valid or not—our policy at COM:INUSE is. As it states, A file that is in use in a Wikimedia project is automatically considered to be useful. That’s the basis for the closure, not a subjective assessment on my part of whether the article is "good" or "bad". If there's a broader issue of user conduct or gaming across sister projects, that's a valid concern, and worth discussing separately, ideally in a venue where cross-wiki behavior can be reviewed, like on Meta or through global sysops/stewards if appropriate. But in terms of Commons' deletion policies, COM:INUSE is a bright-line rule, and I'm applying it as written. If you want to discuss a specific user's conduct, the Village Pump isn’t the right venue, AN/U is. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn't clear, this is a general question about if uploaders should be able to be to game the system by creating faux articles to use images that are the subject of deletion requests. Your the only one making it personal. No offense, but I already know what your opinion is because you've repeated it add nauseum in other conversations. We clearly aren't going to agree. So I'm not interested in what you have to say about it at this point. I'd like to know what other people think. Please stop bludgeoning the process and let other people comment. Otherwise I'll just start another thread. It would be cool if this was settled at some point though. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made my reasoning clear and won’t keep repeating myself. I’ll step back now so others can weigh in, which I fully support. If there’s community interest in clarifying or revising how COM:INUSE should apply in cases of suspected bad-faith cross-wiki use, that conversation should happen through a proper RFC. As for concerns about the uploader’s behavior, those are best addressed at COM:AN/U or on Meta if broader cross-wiki patterns are involved. At this point, your repeated attempts (e.g. 1 and 2) to have this discussion feels more like a roundabout way to express dissatisfaction with a specific user’s actions, without directly making any actionable accusations. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond after this so other people can comment but it's called an example. It's certainly not an issue that purely relates to Protospective though. There's other uploaders who do the same thing. The DR involving Protospective just happened to be the easiest one to refer to due to the recency of it and because we were already discussing it on your talk page. Sorry, but that's just how it works sometimes. People tend to use the most obvious, easiest to access examples to support their arguments. I'm not going to dig through a bunch of 10 year old deletion requests to find an example just so I don't get accused of having a personal grudge or some nonsense. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another thread by Adamant1 lamenting about what I did. The file was used at the time of the DR creation. Moreover, it's in legitimate use now, multiple times. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it wasn't. Otherwise I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. I think the original question is valid and should be answered by people who aren't as involved in the disagreement about the whole thing as we are regardless though. I'm more then willing to accept whatever opinions other people have about this but I have yet to see anyone say that an uploader adding images that have been nominated for deletion to articles is appropriate. It's a pretty simple question at the end of the day. There's certainly no reason it should take this much nonsense to get an answer. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was in use on the Wikidata project chat page. Additionally, it was used in a Wikidata item from which it was removed after being in use there with no available alternative for a long time until just very shortly before your DR. Find other things to do than wasting people's time lamenting how awful horrible things I do. How many threads have you created about me by now. Please respect policies such as COM:AGF, COM:INUSE and so forth. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator on both Wikidata and Commons removed the image from the Wikidata item and you readded it. I'm not really sure how that has anything to do with me but reverting an administrator while telling me I need to respect policies is more then a little on the nose. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are not infallible gods. What's an alternative image? There is none. And it was discussed in your thread that you started. Just find other things to do than deleting one few kB-sized image that can be and has been and is in actual use and of good quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the AI generated image for a minute, my main issue is that I don't think it's good for there to be a de-facto standard where an uploader can just create a Wikidata item or article on another project the second it looks like their image is going to be deleted. Otherwise it kind of makes the whole "scope" thing kind of pointless. Like you've voted delete on the nude images by Exey Panteleev because you don't think they are eductional. Are you seriously going to tell me you'd be fine with TM creating a bunch of "women's body parts with X objects" Wikidata items or Wikiversity articles just so the images can't be deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my question. Are you cool with TM creating a bunch of "women's body parts with X objects" Wikidata items or Wikiversity articles so the images can't be deleted? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, cool with that. It would finally show how or why these useless images would be useful. But they aren't useful. Such wikidata items won't be created or won't stay because they would be absurd. If there are some, then I was wrong and the used files should be kept. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least your consistent. I don't necessarily have an issue with it happening before the DR. It's a waste of everyone's time to do it two days before the DR is closed after everyone has already voted delete though. Otherwise why would anyone bother opening or participating in scope related DRs at that point? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Naming conventions for flags (for example Flag of Honduras) Part 2
Past revisions are not just revisions, they tell everyone a story about the flags. I hate to say it but we also had do a history split too if all else fails. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose new standard is more precise. The solution is finding sources.
Comment The reason why I (and possibly others) hate the new standard is because we all know the flag was adopted in 2024, why would we need to name the file as "Flag of Honduras (2022-).svg" or "Flag of Syria (2025-).svg" for example. Everyone knows when this is adopted, why would we need to add the years, we could just add the adoption years in the date section. I find the new names to be unnecessary IMHO. It should keep the "Flag of Syria.svg" and "Flag of Honduras.svg" for obvious reasons. In 2010, a new flag of Myanmar was adopted. Did they changed the name? No. Because all know this is the new flag. The point is that, we need to rename these back to their old names and repurpose the new names as redirects so people can know what the current flag looks like. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem are the huge amount of usages where many if not most need the flag that was the official on a given date and not the one adopted years later. One example are sport results articles. With years in the file name accidentally using a newer version can be avoided. GPSLeo (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if with years in the file names, it will still not prevent anyone using a newer version. The other way and possible way to solve it in the first place if we want to use the file names without the years is to use the talk page or add a possible checkbox if its a new version or not. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you highlight why we need to future-proof the systems? There are might be other ways that we could keep the old file names while preventing anachronisms (which I think other users might had do so). We will had to wait and see if a majority of users on Commons wanted to keep the old name or use the new file names in their own words. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, we will let other users had their own words. If no solution is solved, I will had to tell the admins and Wikimedia to conduct a survey or poll regarding the file names. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but we need more than just that, we wanted to see the other users and readers opinions on this matter and a survey might be the best option because there are other people who arent aware of this matter. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that some animal species categorys are named off the animal's common name (Like with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Horses) while others are named off the animal's taxonomic name (As seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Haliaeetus_leucocephalus) This makes it quite confusing to find categorys when searching for images or categorizing them.
Making all (or at least most) categorys use one naming standard may reduce confusion. As to which one standard is better that I don't know. Common names are more commonly understood at least for english readers, however this might not be the case for non-english readers. X5DragonFire (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there is no clear solution to this problem. Many depictions of animals, especially artistic depictions, don't accurately correspond to specific taxa. For example, should images of Mickey Mouse go under Category:Mus musculus? Clearly we need Category:Mice. On the flip side, many obscure taxa don't have common names, so only using common names isn't a realistic option either. Nosferattus (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how it relates to my comment or why you put it here as a reply to my comment. Maybe fruit categories would best be titled by the Common name with the scientific term being the redirect. In any case both terms could be in the category description (it's already on the page though via the infobox). Prototyperspective (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for animals should probably be standardized towards not using the species, since most uploaders don't care about it. They just want to put an image of their pet in a category for cats without having to check taxonomic guidebook first. But actually standardizing the categories is a different thing and I don't think it's possible with how things work on here. Specific categories could, and should, be changed to use the common names though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 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]
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 Selection & Call for Questions
This year, the term of 2 (two) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.
The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Governance Committee, composed of trustees who are not candidates in the 2025 community-and-affiliate-selected trustee selection process (Raju Narisetti, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, Lorenzo Losa, Kathy Collins, Victoria Doronina and Esra’a Al Shafei) [3], is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2025 trustee selection process and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].
Here are the key planned dates:
May 22 – June 5: Announcement (this communication) and call for questions period [6]
June 17 – July 1, 2025: Call for candidates
July 2025: If needed, affiliates vote to shortlist candidates if more than 10 apply [5]
August 2025: Campaign period
August – September 2025: Two-week community voting period
October – November 2025: Background check of selected candidates
Board’s Meeting in December 2025: New trustees seated
Learn more about the 2025 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page [link].
Call for Questions
In each selection process, the community has the opportunity to submit questions for the Board of Trustees candidates to answer. The Election Committee selects questions from the list developed by the community for the candidates to answer. Candidates must answer all the required questions in the application in order to be eligible; otherwise their application will be disqualified. This year, the Election Committee will select 5 questions for the candidates to answer. The selected questions may be a combination of what’s been submitted from the community, if they’re alike or related. [link]
Election Volunteers
Another way to be involved with the 2025 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page [link].
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Support 41 votes
Oppose 2 votes
Comment Do you know who took the photos? Was it members of your family? Are they deceased, and if so are you their heir? If so, heirs can license inherited works. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Bangalore. This can affect the entire category tree related to Bangalore/Bengaluru, and the categories like Category:Bangalore Urban district and Category:Bangalore Rural district. However, categories like Category:Bangalore torpedo are not affected. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Done Blocked user for 7 days. --A.Savin 21:46, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)