Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/11

Sourcing to Amgueddfa Cymru Images

Hi, What is the best way to source images from https://images.museumwales.ac.uk/, i.e. File:Underground roadway at Blaenserchan Colliery, 72529.jpg? I can't see a short URL, but long one like [1]. From the image ID, one can create URL like [2], but this doesn't link directly to the image page above. Shouldn't we have a template with the image ID as parameter? Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: Does this form of URL work? https://images.museumwales.ac.uk/view-item?i=72529 And yeah, I think a source template would be great! (There doesn't seem to be one in Category:Source templates related to the United Kingdom.) Sam Wilson 11:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Yes, great! Thanks a lot. Yann (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As {{Amgueddfa Cymru Images}} was created now, this seems solved. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Name of photographer

Anyone want to try and decipher this photographer's name and see if we have a Wikidata entry for them? I don't think my first try was accurate. File:Ruth Elise Bråten (1893-1976) and possibly her mother, Elisabeth Ruuth (1858-1945).jpg RAN (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Why do you think that your attribution is wrong? The source apparently attributes it and 802 other photographs to E. Larsson (Skönvik). -- Asclepias (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

E. Larsson. --Rosenzweig τ 18:42, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I want to remove my comment on this deletion request, am I allowed to do it

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Israeli_Flag_except_star_is_replaced_With_Poop.jpg I wanna remove my comment to not be associated with it Rsidkdjsjs (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I could redact the name and hide your name from the history. Abzeronow (talk) 02:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot not showing in "Media search"

A few hours ago, the Cat-a-lot gadget stopped appearing in "Media Search," but it works in "Special:Search" and other situations. Is anyone else having the same problem? Thanks.

OK, it is working normal again, sorry and thank--JotaCartas (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)s

Should have been asked 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) 12:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

Hi there, I noticed File:Flag of Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg got deleted, with rationale a broken redirect. When trying to fix this on an article where this was used, I found File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.png which has the description "English: Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg". Something messed up has happened here, my guess is that a few people had good intentions and now many wikis have broken links. (The file is a png, not a svg, and there was a redirect that pointed the svg filename to the png file. The redirect got removed, and now there's an issue. Can someone look into this? Milliped (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. The SVG was deleted for copyright reasons; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.svg. Surely those reasons apply to the raster versions as well? Omphalographer (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this image public domain?

I believe it to be PD, because it was made by AI and published by the White House (although I can’t find the link). Does anyone want to migrate it to commons? https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115158096026629509 Victorgrigas (talk) 13:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Meh. Geoffroi 00:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it is clear that this is PD. The image was posted by Donald Trump, not the White House, and there are no indications that this is AI-generated. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Category for WP bugs

I wanted to show an irritating bug in a screenshot, and I couldn't find an appropriate category for it, in the drop-down, then in the list of cats beginning with "Wikipedia...". It's self-evident I suppose, that an illustration of a bug speaks clearer than an awkward description. "Wikipedia [e.g.: – screenshots of bugs]" would be the most promising, intuitively most obvious beginning of a name for this sort of internal problems. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Added Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia bugs. Bidgee (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

yeah, it's the name, there is no possible auto-complete, if you expect "Wikipedia" would be the leading word in the category title (since there have to be other internal cats that document internal affairs and may be affiliated to screenshots of WP [and] bugs) – and I think I searched for "Screenshots", too. But, ok, I am not sure, so anyway, thank you very much for the immediate response. I hope, not to forget again. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I searched for "Screenshots of" and waited, the proposals in the dropdown did show "Wolfram Alpha", but no WP or WC:

File:WC Category Search for "Screenshot" with dropdown of proposals (20251107 Firefox).jpg

Even with "Screenshots of W" it took some time to appear amidst other auto-completes. MenkinAlRire (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That's something on your end – on mine, the autocomplete immediately appears. You could ask about it at Commons:Village pump/Technical. Would be best to check whether videos load slow (see the thread #Videos loading slow? there). Moreover, in 2014 already a redirect from Category:Wikipedia bugs screenshots was created so entering Wikipedia or Wikipedia bug should autocomplete to the correct cat. If the problem persists, please create a new thread or move this thread to VP/T. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

When entering "cat:Wikipedia bug" or "cat:Screenshots of Wikipedia" in the top search instead of the HotCat category box, it also autocompletes to the correct cat. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, for your advice. MenkinAlRire (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Is there a Commons category for “Victim of a miscarriage of justice”?

On the German Wikipedia there is the category Opfer eines Justizirrtums. In English: “Victim of a miscarriage of justice”, Dutch: “Slachtoffer van een gerechtelijke dwaling”. I tried to find a category in Commons, but I could not. Does such a category exist? Wouter (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens Perhaps Category:Wrongfully convicted people? Tvpuppy (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

That category was not linked with Category:People wrongfully convicted of a crime (Q9573520). Fixed. A broader category doesn't seem to exist (yet) but it could be created (went through the English Wikipedia categories to check). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Broader Category:Victims of Justice does exist though. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(Renamed and moved to Category:Victims of injustice) --ReneeWrites (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

it's not commons category's job to document this piece of info. RoyZuo (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion but this is also about making given people files/categories findable and a very reasonable category to have (albeit there probably is an issue with its state of completion). One can simply add the categories the corresponding Wikipedia category has. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Question about categorization

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:29, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I have a question about COM:OVERCAT and how it applies to categories for Quality, Valued, or Featured images. Since these are hidden categories, are they considered a separate kind of category from mainspace ones? Specifically, if a quality image belongs to category X, can it be included in both "X" and "Quality images of X", or should it only be placed in "Quality images of X"? ReneeWrites (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A problem of the overcat policy is that when files are located in one subcategory of a category but also belong into a or multiple other subcategories, they're gone from the category. For example, if people categorize files by say year but the files are then missing in the by subject subcategories. I think the same issue exists here – afaik so far no exceptions are made and when categorizing one needs to go through many or all subcategories, e.g. using the deepcategory search operator. Here, one could for example use deepcategory on the quality images of X category and -deepcategory for the subcategory the file should also be located in to find files still awaiting categorization into the latter subcategory branch. Furthermore, maybe these categories shouldn't be hidden to begin with. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I'd place them in both categories, exactly because one is hidden. Being hidden is one of the reasons mentioned for why user categories are exempted from this rule, so I'd think the same applies to other hidden categories by that analogy. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hidden categories are considered non-topical; OVERCAT with topical categories does not apply. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I wanted to know :) ReneeWrites (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

COM:DIGNITY and attack ads

Is it okay to host media that goes against COM:DIGNITY if the media is an w:attack ad made by a political opponent as part of their political campaign? Trade (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

This totally depends on the individual case. A campaign against Trump is likely okay, the same against the mayor of a small town is not. GPSLeo (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

As that guidance says, you need to weigh up the educational merit of retaining the image, so it is impossible to make an ironclad ruling on a mere hypothetical situation. The issue will also be complicated if the subject is a living person. We host a large amount of historical propaganda that would struggle to pass COM:DIGNITY if made today. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to take a look at Category:Attack ads and tell me if it passes Trade (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say the educational use of an example of what a flailing campaign like Andrew Cuomo's would use against a political opponent expected to win would outweigh COM:DIGNITY issue from Mamdani's side but I am biased towards Mamdami. I'd certainly welcome other points of view on that though. Abzeronow (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Acceptable source?

I want to know if the Supreme Court of India website is considered an acceptable source for free-use?

I am asking because before I have seen Indian office-holders' pics added to Commons from other similar government websites. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

If you are looking for copyright expertise, you are more likely to get a good answer at COM:VP/C.

Also, when referring to a website, it is very helpful to provide an URL. - Jmabel ! talk 06:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I thought I had included the URL in the message. Here it is.

https://www.sci.gov.in/judge/justice-deepak-verma/

I'll also post it on COM:VP/C. Thanks! Kingsacrificer (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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 [3]. 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)

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

:[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
:

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T409400

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@DustDFG: Some of this is very hard to follow. If you have another language where you can express yourself more clearly than in English, you might try writing in that as well. - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about (potentially) overwriting someone else's SVG already on Commons, or are you talking about something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Tbh, I would be talking confusingly even using my native language

Yeah I am about overwriting someones else work. I can reduce file size of an existing SVG image to minimal. But it will drastically change internal structure. If I change looks of image noticeably enough I should go and create new file right? It seems correct.

But what if the look is the same but internals are different? For example original image was produced with Inkscape and contains Inkscape metadata. But my version won't contain it. Should I go for creating new file or overwrite existing? And an image has template on the page which produces banner "it is created with inkscape" and I overwrite with version not suitable for Inkscape I need to remove the banner... It is a change which I would consider like "almost using another version of file format"...

Internals of the file itself can be changed to use SVG2 features which aren't supported everywhere. So it would mean that previous version was supported everywhere and new one only in modern svg readers. Should I go for a new file or overwrite existing?

One more example. There is an image which uses paths which are easy to handle in an editor (inkscape) but my version goes for using <rect> <elispse> and other svg elements. Which makes the end file much more easy to render for browser and much more easy to read for people in the editor but makes editing the file in the editor itself more hard.

Does wikimedia care about printing images? If we talk about SVG some modifications can make direct printing (without rasterizing first) more

To summarize: I can produce an image which looks the same as original but has different internal structure and has different properties if we consider something except looking at image. So overwriting existing image would mean overwriting some "properties" of the image.

Is there a way to express (probably with templates) the following semantic? "This image is the same of look like that image but it has different properties". Or at least in this particular situation if the look of the image is the same, I need to provide following semantic: "there is an image A and there is an image B which is the same as A but is more suitable for particular usage"

Is there subpages on wikimedia like in wikibooks? Is there a way to add an image as a child of existing one? For having several childs which are good for different things? DustDFG (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@DustDFG: We don't usually care much about SVG file size. Most SVGs here, even bloated ones, are so small compared to other graphic files as to be absurd. And almost no one but editors really downloads the SVG; the mediawiki software renders it as a JPEG of one or another size, and that is what gets downloaded by all casual users.

Certainly if you are changing the visual appearance, unless it is marked with {{Current}} or something similar, you should create a new version.

I personally don't have a take on the SVG2 issue (again, typically someone who is—for example—seeing this through Wikipedia never really accesses the SVG)

There might be issues about copyright of the SVG code and who that copyright is credited to. If the original creator/uploader is a Commons user you might want to consult with them before any overwriting. Are you familiar with Commons:Overwriting existing files? It doesn't get heavily into SVG-specific issues, but it does touch on them, and certainly anyone thinking of overwriting files should read that.

No subpages in the sense you are asking.

Someone else who works more with SVGs may have more thoughts on this than I do. - Jmabel ! talk 06:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

In general, SVG files should not be optimized. Leave them alone. Deleting metadata is often a poor idea. Making a visually identical SVG and uploading it under a new name seems to be a pointless exercise that has no real gain. WMF is essentially an SVG 1.1 house. Some SVG 1.1 features have been dropped, and a small number of the evolving SVG 2.0 features have been added. It is best to stay within the widely supported features of SVG 1.1. Yes, Inkscape produces overly verbose SVG, but that does not mean the files should be fixed.

Some SVG files should be overwritten with bug fixes or improvements. Many SVG files on Commons have broken namespace declarations. Some Inkscape files have broken clip paths or use never adopted SVG 1.2 features. Sometimes it is appropriate to turn path text into genuine text. Some Adobe Illustrator files should have their text anchors fixed. Some SVG files may be reorganized so SVG Translate will work on them, but that choice needs some sophisticated judgment because it may lock out the original author.

Glrx (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

AI upscaled video

File:The Musketeers of Pig Alley.webm was heavily upscaled by AI, which is confirmed by the source URL provided [4]. "Neural networks upscaled and enhanded film. Upscale 4k: Videoenhance – Topaz Labs". Does this need to be tagged somehow? Can we revert to the old (2013) version of the file and reupload this version separately? Apologies if this is the wrong venue. Courtesy ping to @Racconish. Toadspike [Talk] 10:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this should be reverted under COM:OVERWRITE, I'll do that now. Digital restorations are specifically listed there as impermissible for overwriting, even if the alterations are minor ones.

Any reuploaded upscaled version should be clearly described as such. I'm not sure whether we have a category for upscaled video. Belbury (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Does this need to be tagged somehow? You can use {{Upscaled}}. The template currently seems to be designed as if that was only possible or done for images but that's a flaw at the template. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. — Racconish ^💬 11:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: when looking into the source at Template:AI upscaled/i18n/en, I came to the conclusion that the {{Upscaled}} template is designed to switch between the phrasing "image" for everything that is not a WEBM file and "video" (and "footage") for that type. Dunno if it'll work as designed, and for the sake of simplicity, I'd rather use "imagery" (encompassing all forms of visual media) instead of a maybe convoluted extension-related switch, but the intent was clear as far as I could tell. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay then there is no flaw in the template. Subcategorizing by media type makes sense and is useful. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Images too simple to be CC-BY-SA?

What to do with images which are too simple to be not public domain but state it is for example cc-by-sa4? (perhaps it happens because of upload wizard). There is an example File:Geometric_lens_examples.png. Where do I need to report such images. Who is deciding that license notice can be replaced?

There is an File:Inkscape Logo.svg which confuses me even more... DustDFG (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

If a user uploads their own work as CC-BY(-SA), we can leave it as that even if it is simple enough to probably be PD-shape. There's not any real benefit to changing to the PD license. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree. And threads relating to copyright / licensing belong on Commons:Village pump/Copyright which is also where one could ask about specific cases or types of cases. Something to consider for example would be adding the {{PD-shape}} license tag beneath the original license template, maybe with "Possibly:" above it but I haven't seen that and it's probably not good; either way there is no reason to waste scarce volunteer time on this (and if you think otherwise, again the place is the /Copyright VP or a more specific page than that). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 13 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)

Replacing a pseudo-SVG image with a real one

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Basically, I've recreated Crystal Clear app home.png as an SVG and I want to upload it under a similar name. The problem is that the name has already been taken by a pseudo-SVG (SVG wrapper of a PNG) and I wonder if it makes sense for me to upload my version under the existing SVG file name, scrubbing the old one from existence since that one has no purpose if a real vector image exists. ManuelB701 (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that is reasonable, with appropriate rewrite of the file page content. I see you don't have autopatroller rights. You should request them so that you are allowed to overwrite files. Please make sure you are completely familiar with COM:OVERWRITE, though. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

a pseudo-SVG (SVG wrapper of a PNG) never heard of that – is it explained on any Commons page what such a "pseudo-SVG" is? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I made up that word but they're all SVGs viable for {{FakeSVG}}. ManuelB701 (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. So it's just a PNG file inside a SVG but not an actual SVG. In that case, just upload it as a new revision and in that case, scrubbing the old one from existence will not happen as the prior revision will still be there and could if needed be reverted to. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but/and if the author information is about who wrote the SVG, that should also change. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It's like that for every new-revision upload. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@ManuelB701: I added a template to File:Crystal Clear app home.svg that allows you to overwrite the file with your version. The old version is still available in the file history, but will no longer be in use. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Done! Thanks everyone for you help! ManuelB701 (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Why is my file being marked?

My file has been marked for Sppedy deletion due to copyvio. It was a screenshot for a discussion I was active in in the English Wikipedia Dispute Resolution board.

I understand the pictures inside the screenshot are not freely available and were used for fair use.

The screenshot was only taken and uploaded to English wikipedia for reference in the board discussion. Can there be no alternative? I don't want to commit copyright violations every time I want to have a screenshot in a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsacrificer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

There are several points to observe, Kingsacrificer.

1. Refrain using screenshots despite wanting them, use links and plain text instead.
2. Inform yourself about local policies - Commons:CARES.
3. Read and carefully follow en:Wikipedia:Non-free content, use en:Wikipedia:File upload wizard.

Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Also note that fair use is not acceptable on Commons, only on Wikipedia. Nosferattus (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both for your response.

@Nosferattus I am aware that fair use is only acceptable on Wikipedia. As you know, when one tries to paste a screenshot in a Wikipedia discussion, the file is uploaded on Commons and then transcluded.

@Grand-Duc I appreciate your point about refraining from using screenshots. I do. In this case, I had to use it because the file history was gonna get wiped out as the file was going to be deleted even before the DRN discussion concluded.

I understand your view, but I want to re-iterate. If we have no other option and must include a screenshot, is there no way to do so without it getting uploaded to commons?

As can be seen, the screenshot that was taken was of a Wikipedia page, not of a Commons page.

Kingsacrificer (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

You can only rely upon local fair use guidelines, like one the linked EN-WP rule, as fair use is not allowed on Commons. Or use an external en:Image hosting service à la Imgur. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If you open the main menu on Wikipedia and choose "Upload file", it gives you 2 options: "Upload your own or a freely-licensed file" or "Upload a non-free file". You need to choose "Upload a non-free file". There is also a link for this when you paste an image into the editor on Wikipedia. Finally, you can just go straight to "Special:Upload" on whatever Wikipedia you are using. Nosferattus (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you @Grand-Duc @Nosferattus

I think Imgur would be the best way to go about it in the future. Cheers! Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

If a non-free file does not meet the requirements of the en.wikipedia policy for hosting non-free content on en.wikipedia, you cannot bypass the en.wikipedia policy by uploading that non-free file to Commons, because such a non-free file cannot be on Commons anyway. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

That was not my aim. Kingsacrificer (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

PD-US-patent-no notice?

Can this [5] 1945 US patent be uploaded to Commons using the PD-US-patent-no notice license? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: clearly it can. Are you just asking if that PD tag would be correct (it is), or are you asking someone else to do the upload? - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying. I will upload it, @Jmabel. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)

I don't fully understand the first part of your reply such as what you mean with "for every asked property" when we were talking about the date field or where and how it would be similar for the other input boxes.

Yes, a hoverable info icon could be good enough and I'll ask about adding it at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements if nobody else does. May be best to additionally display something like "Date of recording" as the placeholder text in that input box (it disappears when the input box is clicked). Prototyperspective (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In first part I meant that there can be added one big warning: "we are asking about properties of the object itself not a medium of it". It is general. But when uploader who read this notice applies this idea to date field for scroll, they understand it is about creation date of that scroll and not when uploader photographed it. When they apply that idea to author field, they understand it is about original author who wrote that scroll and not the uploader who is an author of photo. So the first part is about "generic" notice which user must apply themselves.

In the second part I meant that idea from first part maybe is too idealistic. Waiting from user to so each field will need to have their own explanation. The same "we ask about object itself not a medium" but sharpened for that specific field "we ask about date of first publication not about date of upload from place where you took it from and not about date when you upload it". So generally the second part is about the fact that generic way is probably unrealistic and people won't evaluate that generic thing to each field by themselves...

Second placeholder text! DustDFG (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations! Got some doubts whether a sufficiently large fraction of users who would read that abstract guidance would understand it and correctly apply it to the date field. For example, many things in media aren't objects – such as a video of some event. Moreover, I don't think it really applies much to fields other than those two fields and the author field is already handled at the UploadWizard's license selector where e.g. 'contains the work of others' is part of it. Maybe it would good to have such a general note regardless, don't know. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

How to remove exif fields from a published image

I have published on Commons an image taken in a home. This has the camera GPS coordinates. I want to delete the GPS coordinates from the EXIF in the Commons image file. I know how to delete EXIF fields on my laptop. If I upload a new version, will the GPS coordinates disappear from the image page? If not, how do I delete the EXIF lat-long fields? Any help would be appreciated. --Tagooty (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Tagooty: they will disappear from the page, but still be accessible in the file history. If you want them completely gone, ask for a REVDEL to get them out of the file history (admins will still be able to access them, but no one else will). - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks! Tagooty (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

In my view re If you want them completely gone, ask for a REVDEL to get them out of the file history I think this process should be fairly quick and easy to protect privacy of users and info about this more findable. I'll check the FAQ whether it has info on this. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: the really right way to do it is to remove such private data from the EXIF before you upload. Unless we can automate it to the point where little or no admin time is involved, I wouldn't want to encourage a lot of people to think it is "normal" to upload confidential content, then have it deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. That could also be added to the FAQ and/or other places where users may see or look for it. I think there was a thread not long ago about making it easier to see and possibly change EXIF data during upload. The question I was adressing was how to remove EXIF data from an already published file which is the subject of the thread. One could suggest EXIF data to be displayed during upload at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements. Nobody wants to upload confidential content they don't want to have uploaded and then be required to do things to get it deleted anyway – this isn't about what people think is normal. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguating similar subjects

Hello!

We've got two Russian actors by the name of Artyom Alekseev (Артём Алексеев), both born in 1983:

• Category:Artyom Alekseev

= Artyom Vladimirovich Alekseev (Q110632288)

and, to be categorized:

• File:Актеры сериала Звонарь 2.jpg
• File:Алексеев Артём Александрович 2019 (cropped).jpg

= Artyom Aleksandrovich Alekseev (Q136839245)

How do we disambiguate these two?

Sinigh (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Usually by adding their Patronymic (unless they share that too). Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

The full name of Category:Artyom Alekseev is Артём Владимирович Алексеев = "Artyom Vladimirovich Alekseev" per this website.

And the second actor's full name, according to the file name File:Алексеев Артём Александрович 2019 (cropped).jpg, is "Artyom Aleksandrovich Alekseev". Nakonana (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Other examples where the patronymic is used for disambiguation:

• Category:Alexandr Andreevich Ivanov
• Category:Alexandr Evdokimovich Ivanov
• Category:Aleksandr Anatolyevich Ivanov
• Category:Aleksandr Stepanovich Ivanov

Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Why not a disambiguation page that links to both categories? The files would be in the disambig cat until somebody disambiguates to which category they belong to. There's probably many examples of disambig cats for people names. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you! I've disambig'ed Category:Artyom Alekseev and created new categories using patronyms, as per Nakonana's description. Sinigh (talk) 09:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Stopping MediaWiki message delivery from messaging me

Every few months, MediaWiki message delivery will leave a message on my talk page, informing me about picture of the year/month/day/hour/second votes, and honestly I couldn't care less. It's also very annoying whenever I get stressed about one of my files being deleted and I realize it's that. I would very much like t turn this off. Is there any way that would be possible?

I very much hope this signs me message automatically.

edit: it did not. Mohammad.darg (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

1. In the notification preferences in the preferences (at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo) you can disable the notifications for Web and Mail. Please comment whether this solves your issues or not. I don't know if there is a way to unsubscribe from / disable notifications for just MediaWiki message delivery & DR notifications.
2. If you press the Add topic button at the top as one is supposed to or alternatively the other large blue well-described button "Start new discussion", it will automatically sign your message. (And I agree talk page posts should be automatically signed instead of users having to worry about learning that they should do so and the wikitext syntax to do so.)

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks you for the response. Unfortunately, it doesn't allow me to disable notifications for one specific user. Thank you very much nonetheless. Mohammad.darg (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the MediaWiki message delivery user page, it says that you can opt-out of its messages by adding your user talk page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery. That would only stop messages sent through that specific process, but that might be what you're looking for. — PeterCooperJr (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Vyshyvanka/Вишиванка

Can someone who's familiar with this type of dress take a look at File:Альона Ігорівна Мовчан.jpg and see if this is in fact a Vyshyvanka and if I've added the right category? This is a really beautiful dress she's wearing and the portrait is high quality. Thanks for your time. Geoffroi 20:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Vyshyvanka basically just means embroidery. Вышивать (vyshyvat') = to embroider (literally).

I'd say the outfit qualifies as vyshyvanka. Nakonana (talk) 21:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Can this be QI? Also, could it be VI for blue vyshyvankas? Geoffroi 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What do QI and VI stand for? Nakonana (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Com:Quality images and Com:Valued images. Geoffroi 21:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks.

If the image meets the quality criteria for QI / VI, then sure, why not.

It features classical vyshyvanka motives like rhombuses and crosses. Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I think File:День Вишиванки. Молода україночка у вишитій синій сукні серед квітів 14.jpg or one of the others in that series is probably better because they show the whole dress. Thanks for the help though. Geoffroi 21:47, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Both dresses are modern variations and factory made. Apron (and it was part of many other ethnic female costumes) is obviously missing on second photo. Please note that pendant on first photo may be variation of w:en:Black_Sun_(symbol). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Looks more like a Svitovit (Свитовит), a pagan symbol. Nakonana (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. I've added this to the file's description. From my own research, I see that the reverse swastika (in the middle of the pendant) was never used as a separate symbol by the nazis. They only used it as a background for their version. Geoffroi 23:41, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, the Ukrainian image caption which was added by the uploader says: "Красуня у вишиванці" (literally: Beauty in embroidered dress). Nakonana (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

What are these typographer codes called?

What are these typographer codes called that appear in the lower left hand corner of public notices and ads in newspapers? They appear to be telling the typesetter how long the ad runs, so they do not break up the type. --RAN (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Can you link an example or two of what you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

• Ooops! File:William Naughton (1809-1891) probate in The Berkshire County Eagle of Pittsfield, Massachusetts on May 28, 1891.jpg and there are more in the Category:Probate records. One of the numbers must be how long to run the ad. --RAN (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Probably for typesetters rather than typographers, but I don't have an answer to the question of what they are called. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) & @Jmabel, Here is an explanation by the Bishop Museum [6]. See the footnotes to each example. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Advertisement Codes" is the article's title. -- Ooligan (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks! I have been wondering for a few years now, and ChatGPT didn't know either. Excellent research skills! --RAN (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

  • You are most welcome. I'm glad to have helped and your question was about a detail I noticed myself, but never took the time to research. Your request prompted my search. Keep up your good works. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to put info requests like this into Commons:Expert identification or categorization requests and then having a thread where these are bundled. It seems not very important or relevant to the entire global Commons community – if you knew how these are called would this have any impact on the file? I don't think files should be categorized by some tiny textcode in the corner. The respective categories would be very incomplete, distract, and not used/useful. Could be wrong of course but then it would be good to explain why you need to know what these are / what you'd like to do with the info. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Issues with requesting permission information of File:Voice of Korea English Service Logo.png

I have no idea how to request permission from the Voice of Korea. I know they have an E-mail address (vok@star-co.net.kp), but I do not think they will actually respond to my requests to permission information.

Melissza’s page Have a talk! See my contributions 19:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC) – uploader of this image and File:Voice of Korea Korean Service Logo.png

Best practice is, to first make sure your permission is in order, and only then upload the file...

I'm sorry they're not responding to your emails. Ciell (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

It’s not that they aren’t, it’s that I don’t think they will. After all, it’s North Korea. That or I’m not looking at the right way. Melissza’s page Have a talk! See my contributions 19:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Then simply don't upload the files. Maybe you could file a Commons:Permission requests. There probably isn't anything that could be done here so this could probably be closed. You could of course look for other contact information but it seems unlikely the chances of a reply are higher than with the email. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

COM:INUSE and outdated charts

When files with old data are in use and there is a file with newer data but otherwise the same, does COM:INUSE mean the file with the older data can't be redirected to the file that also shows the newer data which preserves the file uses?

If it does mean that, should that policy be changed to enable this method / kind of updating data graphics?

See also Category:Wikimedia updating and Category:Charts by year of latest data.

• 
  Moore's Law Transistor Count
  1971-2016
  (closed DR)
• 
  1971-2018
  (closed DR)
• 
  1970-2020
  (the file I asked the two other ones to redirect to)

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Have you looked at some of the places these are used and seen whether such a substitution would be appropriate? (In this case, I would guess it would). Commons Delinker can do a global substitution even without us redirecting the older files, but (just as much as with your redirect proposal) you'd want to make sure global substitution is really desired. - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

It's the same image except that the third one has more data. A substitution would be appropriate – the design and so on haven't significantly changed and the trend also hasn't. It would just mean data graphics aren't as outdated anymore in Wikipedia. This may not be a big problem in this case and more important for cases where the data shown for some disease is outdated by a decade but it's nevertheless appropriate and useful to do this here too.

Commons Delinker can do a global substitution Interesting, didn't know that. How can it be used for that? On User:CommonsDelinker it says It aims to prevent image links from visibly breaking on local wikis after a Commons file is deleted.. If it's nevertheless possible, I think just very few users know about it, and it's not as straightforward and known as a making DR (with a request to redirect the file). Moreover, the outdated files will still be on Commons instead of only having the up-to-date file which I think is very desirable unless the target file has a significantly worse/undescriptive file-title. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but setting this as a general principle is a bad idea. The role of Commons is to act as a repository and not dictate which files other projects use. If one language version of Wikipedia chooses to present and discuss a set of data available in 2018 and another language version of Wikipedia chooses to present and discuss a set of data from 2020, what right do we have to enforce a substitution with a version containing 2025 data? Who is going to jump into those various language versions and update the narrative of the articles to align with the new data? If you want to investigate an individual case and make educated substitutions, then that is fine. Encouraging mass substitutions without proper consideration will create more problems than it solves. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

The file used is outdated not on purpose and one could just replace all of the files manually but that would currently be a lot of work and won't be done as often. You're right though,

• Sometimes the dataset changes instead of staying the same and just getting new data points.
• It may be rare but sometimes articles may deliberately choose an older time-span, probably because newer data is thought to be of lesser quality (haven't yet seen any of these but if these DRs would be done more often it could be that some charts are used deliberately with old data as the article is about an old time-period/event albeit I don't think it's likely such a chart would get a DR)

Maybe the better approach would be to have for example a bot or a Commons script leave a notification on the article's talk page that one of the files has a newer version available so that users watching the Wikipedia article can manually edit. For a bot to do this one would have to mark a file as an older version of another chart with newer data somehow. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Another way would be to upload the latest version as a new revertable revision to EACH of those files and rename the file if they got the old year in the title, assuming none of these have the 'intentionally old data' template set. This would mean all the file uses are up-to date. However, then there would be three identical PNG images. Back when they got uploaded and added to Wikipedias, they were the most up-to-date versions; but not anymore. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Icons of Madonna and Child

Shakko seems to have taken it upon himself to unilaterally empty Category:Icons of Madonna and Child and soft-redirect it to Category:Icons of Virgin Mary. Surely this is not the sort of uncontroversial move that should be made without discussion. I see that for at least some of these (e.g. File:Bucharest - Biserica Schitul Darvari interior 02.jpg, one of my uploads) he has substituted Category:Hodegetria instead. Literally no ancestor category of that indicates the presence of Jesus as part of such an icon (that could, of course, be remedied), so there is a loss of information.

Also related: I see that Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary was emptied and redirected to Category:Icons of Virgin Mary.

Again: my main issue here is not whether this is right or wrong, but that this is the sort of change that certainly merits a CfD or other discussion. I would like to have at least an after-the-fact explanation of what other related changes may have been made to the category hierarchy, and a (belated) opportunity to discuss what is desirable here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, on File:Muzeul Vasile Grigore 05 - Madonna and Child with Saints Ermolaos and Mina, prophets and apostles.jpg I see similar changes; at least Category:Panachranta has an ancestor category indicating that it is a Madonna and Child. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I'm art historian and I've uploaded here circa 1000 my own photos of icons. I'll be glad to explain. First of all we will talk about definitions:

• Term Icon - is a Christian painting made, to generalize, in Byzantine style, usually tempera on the wood. As byzantine art, icons almost always are related to en:Eastern Orthodoxy, because it was the religion of the Byzantine Empire (exception is tiny national ancient churches such as the Coptic and Armenian). This is why Category:Eastern Orthodox icons of the Virgin Mary is unnecessary, it sounds like "photographic photographs of John Lennon". (Also there is such thing as Greek Catholic Churches and Slavic Uniate Church after Union of Brest, who combined Byzantine and Catholic styles. Proportionally the number of icons created in these narrow Churches is very small (maybe 5-10%), and they are taken out here in subcategory Category:Uniate and Catholic icons, they also immediately catch the eye because their non-typical iconic style and a Catholic themes prohibited by Orthodoxy.)
  • We can find several cases when icons of Mary aren't Orthodox, mainly two: 1) Catholic icons of Poland (where they started up, probably because Poland is too close to the Orthodox lands and is also Slavic country); 2) several pieces of worshipped icons in Italy, in Catholic churches (which, if you look closely, were brought to Italy from Byzantium before the 15th century, and are basically Byzantine, also Orthodox, copies of them (+ sometimes early Italian paintings pre-Giotto, when Italian painters worked in Italo-Byzantine style, but they aren't icons but simply paintings, see Category:Early Italian paintings of Virgin Mary). You can find it here Category:Uniate and Catholic icons of Virgin Mary. If i'll find such I'll create also Category:Oriental Orthodox icons of Virgin Mary, but in analog about Jesus we have only 5 yet.
• Term Madonna is exclusively Catholic. Not Orthodox. Not Lutheran. Not Greek Catholic. Not Coptic. It should refer only to Catholic images of Virgin Mary with Child. The whole Category:Madonna and Child is wrong named, 'cos we see there the images of her from all the confessions. Now it is not neutral and it looks as if the Catholic point of view is the main one in the world. (However, feel the difference: "Madonna lactans" is a normal, worldwide scientific term for iconography.) But my area is the icons. "Icon" as I told below almost always is the synonim for "Orthodox religious painting", so it could't be used with "Madonna". It sounds like "Retablo of Buddah" or "Thangka of Zeus". Funny, illiterate. In Orthodoxy her title is Theotokos, but we'll not call the category Icons of Theotokos, the name sould be as neutral as possible and take into account other denominations from around the world, including, say, the Church of Ethiopia.
• "...and Child". Circa 85-90% icons of Mary are icons of Mary with Child. In Category:Types of icons of Virgin Mary by alphabet are now 140 types. No need to create separate "Icons of Virgin Mary with Child", it's like to create "Icons of Christ with beard". More logical would be create "Icons of Christ without beard" and put there these unusual cases (by the way it calls Category:Christ Emmanuel, + icons of Nativity and other vita icons from his childhood). So here is Category:Icons of Virgin Mary without the Child. Very few.
• Tree of categories. Don't worry, Hodegetria and Eleusa etc. (see the difference here) are in Category:Icons of Virgin Mary which is in Category:Madonna and child byzantine style which is in Category:Madonna and Child by type (and all this Madonnas' should be renamed!!!)
• Believe me, I've thought a lot about how to put this category in order from the point of view of scientific accuracy of icons' iconography. -- --Shakko (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
  • @Shakko: I do believe you've "thought a lot". I also believe you have undertaken a major change with no discussion with any other participant in the project. - Jmabel ! talk 18:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
    • Is this really the major change? Icons are very local hobby for very few users here. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to touch the real global problem with ubiquitous Madonna, only the thing that is clearly mistake in icons category. I have outlined my reasoning above and how the category tree should look like so that our Wikipedia does not look illiterate. I apologize if I don't understand all the nuances of intonation, I'm not a native English speaker. For example your File:Bucharest - Biserica Schitul Darvari interior 02.jpg was moved to Hodegetria, 'cos it is en:Hodegetria. Category:Madonna and child byzantine style now is the maternal. --Shakko (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

      @Shakko: have a look some time at Commons:Categories for discussion, and you will see how many much smaller changes are normally run through there to make sure we have consensus before proceeding. I'm not saying your changes are wrong, I'm saying they are large, and that they affect hierarchy and naming conventions that had been hashed out over a couple of decades. I'm definitely not used to seeing some of my own work recategorized to this degree with no advance indication anywhere.

      I've initiated similarly large reorganizations of material in the past. It's usually been my experience that even if I know the subject matter well, there are usually others with some useful thoughts. You didn't give anyone a chance to express those.

      In short, my main issue here is one of process, not substance. I'm not expert in the relevant area, but certainly you are not the only Commons contributor who is, and you should have given others a chance to weigh in.

      In particular, I understand your point about the word Madonna being a Roman Catholic term, but the flip side of that is that probably fewer than 5% of English-speakers have words like Hodegetria and Eleusa in their vocabulary, which is also a consideration for naming categories. (FWIW, I'm a secular Jew, and my only stake in the outcome of this is usefulness to end users.) - Jmabel ! talk 22:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Big PNG and small JPG dupes

User:Killboy010 uploaded:

File:Γκάντατζ.png 2,560 × 1,920 (9.98 MB)

File:Γκάντατζ1.jpg 640 × 480 (188 KB)

what to do in this situation? RoyZuo (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Convert the large PNG into a JPEG and delete the other two? Nosferattus (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep both, but add the higher resolution image as "other versions" to the smaller image. Wouter (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Convert the large PNG into a JPG and overwrite the small JPG with the large one. Keep both files, but have them link to each other in the "other versions" field. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep both versions or delete low-quality JPEG. Юрий Д.К. 18:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete the jpg per F8 The file is an exact or scaled-down duplicate of an older existing file. but I haven't checked which of the two files was uploaded first and think an older would be good to change to another in that policy. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

We can retain different file types of the same image. See Commons:File types#PNG for details of a bug affecting thumbnails of PNG images. It is normally a good idea to retain a JPG version of a PNG file, where available. The PNG file is a lossless file type that is a good starting point for any crops or file conversions, while JPG is a lower quality compressed file that avoids the thumbnail bug. In this case, ReneeWrites' solution provides us with the best of both worlds; retaining high quality PNG and JPG files that serve both roles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

It is normally a good idea to retain a JPG version of a PNG file, where available Strongly disagree and a JPG is available for all files because they can/could all just be converted to jpg. It clutters search results and category pages and comes with lots of other problems without any benefit if the file-title isn't significantly better. Transcoding a jpg version at upload of PNG files could be something to consider. The bug needs fixing (and/or a workaround) instead of images being uploaded twice. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Please read Commons:File types. There are plenty of advantages and disadvantages between file types, so saying this is "without any benefit" is incorrect. Instead, you see the increased categorisation burden as outweighing the problems with the different file types. Your preference does not negate the existence of other benefits. If you wish to change this, push to get the bug fixed (if it can be fixed) and gain consensus that the other issues explained in Commons:File types are secondary to categorisation issues. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. There are lots of downsides and I named more than just that one. Another examples is bloating up feeds that people patrol or watch by up to twice the size. The file with the highest quality is best and can be converted to other file types if needed or alternatively be transcoded by the Commons software so that e.g. all PNG files have a jpg file version available in the file description page. Moreover, that bug doesn't even affect the file this thread is about or does it? Prototyperspective (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Agree with User:Prototyperspective. The PNG is inherently a better, lossless format. It's only drawback used to be the demand for larger file sizes, but the internet has moved on since then. The thumbnail problem seems to manifest itself mostly in two-tone graphics and drawings. It is not particularly important and should be solvable. For those of us who do a fair bit of categorization, needless doubles are indeed a nuisance. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Allowing users to override what type of scaling is used on an image might be a worthwhile feature request. Omphalographer (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2025 (UTC)