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.
May 17
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]
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]
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 ! talk18:48, 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]
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]
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].
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]
It used to work so it seems like something was changed. I think it uses subtemplates or something of that sort and I don't want to check where exactly which change caused the the to be added. See for example Category:Society@Sbb1413: could you fix this? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Many files uploaded by Exbellestartsit are reuploads of deleted files previously uploaded by GYHASHAKE. Instead of sending VRT permission and requesting undeletion, he reuploaded copies. So yes, VRT would be useful anyway to confirm the identity and prevent redeletion. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The artist does have notability and I have a draft page for David Clendining in the works. I contacted the artist and asked him to upload his pictures because when I did it, as a representative, it seems that the images were deleted. I tried to find the deleted files, but was unable to even through I followed the steps to investigate the reasons for the deletions. I need the images of his work to complete my draft page. GYHASHAKE (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The photo images were all taken by David Clendining himself or on his camera by his partner (for the ones that include him). They are all original and he holds the copyright for each of them. GYHASHAKE (talk) 13:22, 1 June 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]
Article 1(vii) protects "architectural works, including both plans and models and the building itself." Article 14 provides the usual public place exemption.
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]
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.
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)
Support, as a guideline. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
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)