Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/11. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 Water pump in the village of Jestřebice, Czech Republic. [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
November 02
New category Speeches by presidents of countries by country
Please help populating the new Category:Speeches by presidents of countries by country – I think it's missing many files and that the contents and this criteria for organizing them are relatively notable. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to say these files are very important but afaik there's many videos of speeches by presidents of countries on Commons but they aren't organized well. Before creating this thread and as of now, it only has Chile, Iran, Kazakhstan, Poland, Russia, Turkey, and the US which is quite few plus some of these are probably quite incomplete. I interpret this cat to be just for speeches of presidents during their duty, not for speeches of them at any time (maybe this should be clarified in a cat description?). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
On the new page Commons:Template requests, Commons users can request edits to templates, the addition of complex templates to pages, and the creation of new templates. Users experienced with templates can find tasks to work on.
So far, such requests could only be made on dispersed talk pages unlikely to be watched by users experienced with templates (and just very few if any users) and at Commons:Village pump/Technical which Template editors may not watch either and which is more broadly about any kind of technical problems. Moreover, on both of these pages, requests may have gotten archived without gotten implemented.
If you are skilled in editing templates, please help out there.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a way to display stats like these (these current stats)?:
- 3 solved requests, 5 open requests (8 total)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- 3 solved requests, 6 open requests (9 total)
- Current open requests:
- Parameter auto=yes for ArchiveBox to detect and link/transclude archive subpages
- Parameter for "review impossible" for LicenseReview template (in progress)
- Fix Topic in country template linking to the redlink Template:Byby
- Make template Shortcut show again
- Florida memory – Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl should contain image number (likely not done)
- Making Template:Search link work with MediaSearch (likely solved)
- Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
November 04
Merging categories
There should be a guideline on how to merge categories. The Candlelight Master and Maestro del Lume di Candela should be merged, but small font text in {{Move}} doesn't make it clear what I'm expected to do. Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Not an answer to your question, but should these two categories not also be merged with Category:Trophime Bigot? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- As I see it, the identification of the Candlelight Master with Bigot is contentious; Master Jacomo is another candidate, and all three are viewed as separate identities. Qbli2mHd (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- Depending on the case, people create a category for discussion. Especially because it can take years until these CfDs get closed and because still only few people provide input / contribute to CfDs, it can often be better to directly implement things yourself. There merging can be replacing one category's content with {{Category redirect}} and letting a bot after a short time automatically move the files and subcategories accordingly or to also also move these yourself as well using the cat-a-lot tool. If the target category doesn't already exist, one would use Tools->Move where one can also uncheck keeping a redirect. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Adding footage
I'm not an expert, but is there any way to see if this footage is out of copyright? Looking for an image to illustrate the wikipedia:1949 PGA Championship page. Thank you,
Packer1028 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Their website says it's copyrighted [1]. Such claims aren't always true though, but with footage from 1949 from a British (?) source it's likely that the copyright claim is true, I'd say. The footage is rather recent and most countries have copyright durations of "70 years after the death of the author", so, if the author died in 1949, then it would have been PD in 2019 (or 2020). But how likely is it that the author died in the same year as the footage was created? If they only lived 6-7 years longer, until 1955/1956, then it wouldn't be PD yet. Nakonana (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright instead of here. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Packer1028 Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom#Unknown author: "If the work was created before 1969 with an unknown author... If the work is unpublished and was first made available to the public after 1968 then copyright expires 70 years after the work was first made available to the public." RoyZuo (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2025 (UTC) Category naming help
I'm doing some cleanup of Speedcubing, and I'd like to make separate categories for different events (Speedcubing by event). However, many of the names of the events clash with the names of the puzzles. For example, I'd like to make a category for Pyraminx to hold Pyraminx, Estonian Open 2011.jpg, Speedcubing2.jpg, and similar. Pyraminx already exists for the puzzle itself, which makes sense, but media of the competition category is a distinct concept (on Wikidata: Q1322820 versus Q107065322). I'm not that familiar with category naming rules. Should this be a parenthetical, like "Pyraminx (event)", or maybe something like "Pyraminx speedcubing"? Eiim (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
- Thinking about it more, perhaps "Speedcubing by event" isn't the right supercategory, and it should be "Speedcubing events"? Not sure. Eiim (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Eiim: I'd name it "Pyraminx competitions". As for whether it's "Speedcubing events" or "Speedcubing by event", I would pick the latter. It sounds like speedcubing is inherently an event/competition, but "by event" clearly denotes a metacat. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Eiim the competition's name seems to be "Estonian Open 2011" https://web.archive.org/web/20160314100028/https://www.worldcubeassociation.org/results/c.php?i=EstonianOpen2011 .
- so you could see how the category tree is set up for other major sports competitions, e.g. Category:Australian Open (tennis) Category:2024 Summer Olympics events.
- i would name it "Category:Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association) - Pyraminx" or "Pyraminx at Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association)", but how many files do you have for that particular event at that particular competition? when there're very few files, i'd just create separate "Category:Estonian Open 2011 (World Cube Association)" and "Category:Pyraminx competitions". RoyZuo (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
November 05
File error
I uploaded this file to Commons, however it says "The media playback was aborted due to a corruption problem or because the media used features your browser did not support." How can this be fixed? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
- On Firefox, I hear the audio fine, but see only black. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. If an admin knows how to fix it, I'll be more than happy to help them. PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- yeah broken file. ffmpeg reports
- —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
:[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] zero_bit out of range: 1, but must be in [0,0]. :[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Failed to read unit 0 (type 0). :[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Failed to read frame header. :[vp9 @ 0x91f0b8380] Not all references are available :[matroska,webm @ 0x91ec1c000] decoding for stream 0 failed :[matroska,webm @ 0x91ec1c000] Could not find codec parameters for stream 0 (Video: vp9 (Profile 0), none(tv, gbr/bt709/bt709, progressive), 1280x720): unspecified pixel format :Consider increasing the value for the 'analyzeduration' (0) and 'probesize' (5000000) options :
- Can it be fixed by any chance? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Took quite a bit, but with some help (AI) noticed that the original file uses a pretty unconventional colorspace (gbr) and apparently this confuses the encoder. Made it work by specifying the transcode as:
ffmpeg -i "(Clip_1.1)_MEDIA_REDACTED_91_I_95_N.mp4" -c:v libvpx-vp9 -pix_fmt yuv420p -colorspace bt709 -color_primaries bt709 -color_trc bt709 -c:a libopus output.webm—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Took quite a bit, but with some help (AI) noticed that the original file uses a pretty unconventional colorspace (gbr) and apparently this confuses the encoder. Made it work by specifying the transcode as:
- Can it be fixed by any chance? PublicDomainFan08 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should have been asked / moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical. This is the wrong place. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC) November 06
Categorization missing on Special:Upload
Has anyone else noticed the option to add categories to a file is no longer on Special:Upload today? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. The three files I just uploaded a few minutes ago had to be categorized after upload. I use the basic upload form. Geoffroi 01:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is reported. GPSLeo (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should have been asked / moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical. This is the wrong place. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC) Data graphic resources?
Commons:Free media resources/Datagraphics is a relatively new page for databases with free data graphics like charts that could be uploaded to Commons.
It still only has few sites – do you know of any further ones?
-
Recently added this resource but it's mostly just German-language data graphics. It would be great if somebody could upload the graphics from there that aren't yet on Commons. Until now, doing so was just in my private todos but I may never get to uploading more of these. For an example, see Category:Meat Atlas which contains charts and maps about meat consumption (not just in Germany but also worldwide; translatable).
--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
November 07
Uboot ---> U boat?
I found Special:Contributions/Mbarma993 which appear to be photos of U-boat bunkers. Do these need renaming? Can they he mass renamed? Thanks. Geoffroi 20:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- No, U-boot is just the German word for U boat. Per COM:LP, file names can be in any language. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- Why should e.g. File:U-Bootbunker Fink 2 WW2 shelter 12.jpg be renamed? That's around Hamburg, and "U-Boot" is the usual German word for submarine. There's no need to use a historicizing "U-Boat"; the COM:FRNOT explicitly mandates a decline for language switches. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought that might be the case.Geoffroi 21:00, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is that the filetitle is not entirely German or entirely English or both but a mix of German and English, in principle only fully understandable by the fraction of users who understand both German and English. Not good.
- Moreover, the captions were declared to be German when they are actually in English – could somebody bulk-move them to the correct language / change the language for the captions? Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
- This is a common naming scheme: The proper name "U-Bootbunker Fink" is in German. Everything that is not a proper name is in English. GPSLeo (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I have placed these 14 files in Category:U-Boot-Bunker Finkenwerder, let me know if this is incorrect. Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC) November 08
IP block on AWS eu-west-1?
I maintain a small free online game that uses images from WikiMedia Commons (https://wikipic.fun/). Recently, my requests to download a few images to create a new puzzle are blocked (HTTP error code 403). When I run the same download from my laptop, everything is fine. The game is hosted at AWS eu-west-1 region.
Could there be an IP ban of some sort? Maybe someone performed abuse from those data centers? Who can I contact?
This is an example of a request that now meets 403 (but all images behave the same): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg/250px-PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg
Teunduynstee (talk) 08:15, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Teunduynstee: Are you sending a user agent header with your requests? See foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Foundation User-Agent Policy. Sam Wilson 09:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I use Axios from a node.js lambda function. I am not setting anything myself, so I assume the I get an axios/0.21.4 header. This has worked fine for years. This is how I call:
- const imageBuffer = await axios({
- method: 'get',
- url: imageUrl,
- responseType: 'arraybuffer'
- }); Teunduynstee (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Update: it seems you are right, Sam. When I try this from curl it fails too:
- > GET /wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg/250px-PepsiCoHQPurchaseNY.jpg HTTP/2
- > Host: upload.wikimedia.org
- > User-Agent: axios/0.24.1
- > Accept: */*
- >
- Request completely sent off
- < HTTP/2 403
- < content-length: 92
- < content-type: text/plain
- < x-request-id: 5cab256a-06ef-4f59-b8e8-b43cb4696751
- < server: HAProxy
- < x-cache: cp3074 int
- < x-cache-status: int-tls
- < x-analytics:
- <
- Please set a user-agent and respect our robot policy https://w.wiki/4wJS. See also T400119. Teunduynstee (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- This thread belongs onto Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC) Warning for users
Time and time again we see users trying to delete their own uploads, only to find out that they cannot do that themselves, and they can rarely convince sysops to delete for them (as the current practices show).
But this reality, the lack of utility to delete one's own content, is not communicated to the users at all. If you go through registration and every step in Special:UploadWizard, this rule is not mentioned at any point. This is a very different rule from what people can expect on any other major file hosting sites such as flickr, youtube... where users can always delete their own uploads anytime for any reason or no reason at all.
So I suggest, that this rule be clearly communicated to the users, and that there should be a write-up documenting this rule as well as its origin and rationale.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- written as i am fed up with mistreatment of fellow users as recently as Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is hidden in the license conditions shown on the "Learn" page at the UploadWizard and at the linked license texts. And of course it is also in the Terms of Use. We could make this more clear if we would have a definitely needed rework of this info graphic. GPSLeo (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- it is not explicitly spelled out that "you cannot delete your user-generated content" in https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use .
- when all other major websites, which also support certain "free licences" fit under wikimedia commons definitions, allow users delete their uploads, most users dont realise they cannot do the same on wikimedia commons until they want to delete something, and that this surprise is because wikimedia commons prioritises irrevocability of the licence over user experience. RoyZuo (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- I find this very clear: "e. No revocation of license: Except as consistent with your license, you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services." This in theory event forbids making a deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- Something this vital shouldnt be hidden in the first place at all Trade (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- It is hidden in the license conditions shown on the "Learn" page at the UploadWizard and at the linked license texts. And of course it is also in the Terms of Use. We could make this more clear if we would have a definitely needed rework of this info graphic. GPSLeo (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
- This rule was clearly communicated to this user multiple times. Maybe not at the upload stage but certainly once they started filing deletion requests and had those requests denied. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- I actually broadly agree with RoyZuo on this. I've always found it weird that there is no warning in plain language in the upload process about the lack of simple deletion procedures for users uploading their own works to Commons. "License irrevocability" is quite a niche topic if you don't spend a lot of time on this and other Wiki project or work professionally in the realm of IP; many if not most people have no idea what that means or just assume it's a technical requirement akin to allowing cookies on a website. I think that's evidenced by the steady stream of users over the years who have tried at the help desk, village pump, and other forums to get their content deleted and were baffled by the idea that they had no recourse to delete their own work. There should be clear, plain language in the upload process that explains how, barring copyright questions or another legal issue and following a 7-day courtesy window, works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request.
- And to be clear, I'm not saying it's good that so many people don't understand free licensing or the preexisting written warnings/caveats in the upload process; it just seems to be a fact. I believe we could avoid a lot of headaches by adding plainer language. But that would also probably lower the rate at which users complete the upload process, as a warning like that might scare some people off, which, if I were being cynical, I would assume is why the language has never been added (after all, who wants to be responsible for on average less content being added to Commons?). But the ethical choice appears to be better informing uploaders about the long-term deletion policies in the clearest, most non-technical language possible. 19h00s (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- "works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request." But we already do delete works uploaded to Commons at the uploader's request. It's just not consistently Trade (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Provided the deletion is requested within 7 days after upload and the work is not currently in use on a Wikimedia-project. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- We have deleted files long after 7 days several times Trade (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, but that is not the rule. In such cases often the file is also out of scope and there may be further aspects. But the uploader should be communicated the valid rule, because they have a right to it. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. A lot of the files i see deleted after a week would not have survived a typical "out of scope" deletion request Trade (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Trade: We are allowed, but not required, to extend a courtesy. Lying to us and/or threatening legal action certainly both decrease the chance of us extending a courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I disagree. A lot of the files i see deleted after a week would not have survived a typical "out of scope" deletion request Trade (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, but that is not the rule. In such cases often the file is also out of scope and there may be further aspects. But the uploader should be communicated the valid rule, because they have a right to it. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- We have deleted files long after 7 days several times Trade (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Can you expand on this? I believe you're hinting at a perceived double standard or deference on the part of Commons or WMF to certain users or rightsholders (or types of users/rightsholders) when they request their content be deleted, but I don't want to incorrectly assume. I think that's an important separate conversation in that we shouldn't, for example, allow large corporations to remove validly licensed content while not allowing individual authors/uploaders to do the same simply because one has more structural and financial power. But this conversation seems to be specifically about the average, or very new, user, who does not fully grasp the ramifications of their choices when freely licensing and uploading their work to Commons. Again though, I could be misinterpreting you. 19h00s (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Where do we allow large corporations to revoke their licenses? We hand mass deletions because an employee published something without the corporation having the permission from the rights holders to do so. But this is something totally different. GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I was responding to Trade, asking about what they were implying with their comment about policy not being applied "consistently". I gave theoretical examples of what I believed they were implying (e.g., that there may have been deference or double standard in the way certain rightsholders' requests were handled). I never said Commons in fact does these things. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I am moreso implying that some users lean heavily towards courtesy and others towards keep. Whether or not the deletion goes through is mostly dependent on which group of users decided to stumble upon the DR at the given time
- At this point dealing with courtesy deletion requests is little different than using a random number generator to determine the outcome Trade (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- I was responding to Trade, asking about what they were implying with their comment about policy not being applied "consistently". I gave theoretical examples of what I believed they were implying (e.g., that there may have been deference or double standard in the way certain rightsholders' requests were handled). I never said Commons in fact does these things. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @19h00s while i dont know what User:Trade might actually mean, here's a separate answer to your question:
- Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/03#March 2025 update from WMF Legal on "Vogue Taiwan and possible Copyright Washing" discussion, not that long ago.
- the unfortunate thing here, is that these good hearted contributors dont have money to lawyer up.
- Conde Nast can get away by merely saying they made an error.
- meanwhile, the absolutists here and there (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules) dont realise that commons users are at the most only given t&c in "browsewrap manner via hyperlinks alone" which is void as per Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
- also, when users are never displayed the full t&c, it's probably invalid as per Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.
- and clearly, the t&c linked in the uploadwizard doesnt refer to the file uploaded, because in a single sentence it says "By clicking "publish", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License." even if you are releasing your photo in any licence other than cc0. the only logical understanding is this only explicit mention of "terms of use" here covers "your contribution" related to "captions and other additional information such as main subjects and location (NOT the file)".
- so if they have a lot of money, they could quite possibly do something to have the same treatment as corporations.--RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not a very sympathetic ear on the Vogue Taiwan case, as I vocally approved of deletion and still agree it was the correct decision; corporate structures are opaque for a reason, they give companies plausible deniability and legal/ownership "air-gaps" for situations just like that one, meaning our obligation to protect the project and reusers from possible (and possibly valid) litigation or damages must necessarily trump our desire to retain the content. Indeed though, Vogue Taiwan is what I thought Trade was referring to (clearly I was wrong), and I do believe we generally shouldn't let corporations with capital or power dictate our decision-making purely because they have the means to fight a legal battle. But that is a complex calculation that involves different levels of risk for WMF, Commons, and the Wiki community broadly.
- On the whole though, I still completely agree that clearer language in the upload process about the slim prospects of courtesy deletion and lack of long-term deletion procedures would solve a lot of issues and prevent a lot of stress for both uploaders and Commons. 19h00s (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- and i'll end off my comments by this. what disgusts me the most, is certain users' hostility against other users and indifference to other users' needs. they choose to needlessly antagonise and bash other users instead of seeing and understanding people's needs and working kindly and gently with them.
- i see this problem, i come up with this solution of a warning. those users see this problem, they bully the users in need and drive them away. technical solutions cant solve attitude problems. RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Where do we allow large corporations to revoke their licenses? We hand mass deletions because an employee published something without the corporation having the permission from the rights holders to do so. But this is something totally different. GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- Provided the deletion is requested within 7 days after upload and the work is not currently in use on a Wikimedia-project. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
Support for the proposal to very clearly explain/state our current rules for the deletion of own uploads in the basic tutorial for new users and also during the upload-procedure. --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
November 09
Date Own work Author
I've noticed numerous uploaded files where the Date, Author, and Source metadata fields are filled in a standardized but potentially misleading way : the uploading date for the Date property, the uploader's user name for the Author property, and the template "Own work" for the Source property, the latter triggering a bot to add the mention "source of file: original creation by uploader". However, in many cases—such as this file, that file or that one—it seems highly unlikely that the uploader actually created the content in 2023, as some of these files appear to date back to the 16th century. Without any supporting information beyond the file's upload history, how can we verify their true origin and actual creation date? This also raises concerns about the legitimacy of applying a "self CC-BY-SA-4.0" license. What steps can be taken to address this issue? 00:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC) William C. Minor (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- In the three linked examples, the underlying content is clearly old enough to be out of copyright everywhere in the world. It would be safe to treat these as {{PD-100-expired}}. You cannot (and need not) license public-domain materials. If the license has any meaning at all in these cases it would be to license any intellectual property that the photographer might somehow hold with respect to these images. Since they presumably have no copyright on any aspect of any of this, it is exactly as if I offered to license you my portion of the ownership of the Hope Diamond. - Jmabel ! talk 06:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
it seems highly unlikely that the uploader actually created the content in 2023
good point and this may also / does also affect other files where it's less clear. Maybe the UploadWizard should clarify that the date field is supposed to be the creation date (and if it's a scan / photo of an old document for example the old date should be in the date field). Currently, how that field is used makes it ambiguous.- One could also do a scan of all files in categories about old years and check whether the date field has any recent date in it to correct these. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
- Every noob does this, the hope is that they listen to the feedback and upload correctly next time. The upload form has been modified to help people choose the correct settings, but we easily have thousands of images historically loaded incorrectly. --RAN (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think. I am in a similar situation though I am the one who uploaded... Not about date but about "own work".
- So there is an example https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gray_code_number_line_arcs.svg I found a png file and created a vectorized version of it. What should I write there. Is what currently on the page correct?
- Upload wizard doesn't give you a way to convey semantics that image is made by you but it is derived from another from wikimedia... :/ At least it was when I was uploading for my last time... DustDFG (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, good point. The field is too ambiguous and the UploadWizard should provide more guidance on what to enter there. For example, it could display a prompt if the user enters an old-year category but a recent date or if the user enters an old date but declares the file to be "Own work". Such cases could (and imo should) also be queried and then corrected / disambiguated retrospectively.
- See also the thread below – setting year categories based on the value in the date field can result in a few miscategorizations because of this ambiguity and lack of guidance. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- What I think would be sufficient is one clear notice to uploader which clearly distinguishes properties of depicted object like an old manuscript and properties of a medium like a photo/video probably with one or two examples. It is general enough to not repeat for every property and seems to be not too abstract so user can understand it and apply for every asked property.
- But I understand that probably one notice is too perfect to really work and each case can be different and still have different ways to interpret so I think near each question should be icon of question symbol which will reveal detailed explanation (type of like you provided below "...be date of first publication where that is the key date (films) or date of recording where that is the key date..." DustDFG (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
Criteria for setting Category:Videos by year categories? Set them by bot?
- Is there some rough criteria to which files videos-by-year categories should be added? (Category:Videos of 2024 etc)
- I've mostly only added it to videos that are either notable (such as videos of films or year-specific events) and/or
- where the year is important metadata such as videos extensively portraying cities (which look/ed quite different 50 years ago or 50 years in the future) or of events that occurred in that year.
- If there are (or should be), please add this as info. The criteria may be less relevant to items in subcategories.
- Is there some script/bot that automatically adds years cats to videos depending on the year in the Date field of the file description?
- This is tied to the question above – whether or not there is or should be criteria for which files should be in these cats (however, there could also be a subcategory that contain less notable/relevant files from a given year). If simply all videos of a year are supposed to be in there, I don't see why people waste their time manually categorizing files by year when this info is already there in the date field. However, it may be best to limit it somehow and/or require things to be in certain subcategories. In that case, a bot or multiple bots doing this categorization would still be useful.
- A small fraction of files have false date set but they'd either also be miscategorized when handled manually or could rather be identified later on, for example if they are underneath seemingly contradicting categories like 2022 events or 1980 works. Those are the exception.
- This is probably also related to thread the VP thread #Date Own work Author above, to Commons:Categorization requests#NASA videos from unidentified year, Template:Taken on discussion, and to VP/T: How to search fields of files' Information template?.
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
A small fraction of files have false date set
I would think nearly all videos of archival film/video materials would have a false date in the in-file metadata. Is that not the case? - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)- I don't know and it would be new to me; good question. Checked some files in Category:Videos of films by year and some (example) had the correct year set while some had the date of publication on YouTube (example imported from video2commons with the default date unchanged).
- This category also makes clear how Commons categories could be used to check and change these ambiguous values in the date field. I think the date should consistently (expectably & standardized) be date of first publication where that is the key date (films) or date of recording where that is the key date (more or less any other videos; and these date values could be converted to use {{Taken on}}). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
November 10
Uploading photos from another party who wants them shared under CC
This is a question I'm surprised isn't covered somewhere already. Maybe the instructions are out there, but apparently my search skills still suck after all these years.
I have a pair of photos I convinced the subject of an article to share under Creative Commons by creator. (My reasoning was that if her picture is on Commons where it is available for free, it will be the default photo used whenever someone writes about her. This guarantees a good picture will always be used.) I haven't done this before but I know one of the steps involves sending some kind of documentation to someone at the Foundation that the subject or creator agreed to this. Beyond that, I'm stymied.
Either please point me to the relevant page with the instructions, or provide me with the instructions. TYIA. -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Llywrch The guidance you are looking for is at Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Llywrch: also for a broader overview of related issues, see COM:THIRD. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC) A bit off-topic but how do I learn to create gradiants in Inkscape?
Specifically I wish to learn to create a replica of the gradiant found on this website and upload it to Commons. (The gradiant in "Spectrum" menu in webpage https://redketchup.io/color-picker ) How could I do such with Inkscape? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jothefiredragon (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
- https://inkscape-manuals.readthedocs.io/en/latest/creating-gradients.html ? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC) November 11
Where should I upload image?
There is an inkscape version of file. It includes lots of trash produced by inkscape which usually builds up in the image the more you edit (I am not about metadata, I am about useless clips and gradients which are usually even not used). If I just remove the trash (well that can do inkscape by itself) I should just upload it as a new version of the image.
But what if I alter fundamental parts of the image? For example instead of using raw paths I will use svg elements and for example will use stroke instead of another part of path. Optionally metadata of inkscape can be removed. Image will be much more dense and more readable for people and will have exactly the same look (just forally there will be difference but it is smaller than 0.1px for an image which is 700X800). Or I can simplify image by using feature of SVG2 which is unfortunately is still a draft and not supported everywhere...
The question is in this case how I should upload it? As new version of the image or as separate file with a link from original version? Why I ask? For example there is template about created in Inkscape. If I then upload version remade by hands so just formally Inkscape template would be incorrect for that version... Or if I use SVG2 features it becomes better but not supported everywhere DustDFG (talk) 12:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
The Commons brochure needs an update
File:Illustrating Wikipedia brochure.pdf is very outdated. Things look very different now. Maybe parts of the text need updates too but the images would be very confusing if anybody reads this.
That file is used on many pages, including en:Help:Pictures, en:Help:Files and meta:Commons brochure.
Alternatively, the document could be replaced by an entirely new up-to-date document. Note that in that case, most file-uses should probably also be changed.
See also Commons:Simple media reuse guide and Commons:Welcome. The file is of course relevant to the entire global Commons project.
Also posted this to Commons:File requests#Updated version of the Commons brochure and I suggest discussion continues there once this thread here is archived. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)