This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.
Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/10.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.
Photograph of a public statue
Latest comment: 6 days ago10 comments6 people in discussion
Every statue is art that was created by SOMEONE, even if owned by, and displayed in, a public space. If I photograph a statue in a public setting, can I submit it to a Wikipedia photography contest? 3dphotoguy (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you would say what country you are talking about, we can give you much clearer guidance. Rules about publishing photographs of statues vary widely from country to country. - Jmabel ! talk23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@3dphotoguy: The trickiest, as it happens. (Pinging @Clindberg to correct me in case I get anything wrong here, but this should at least be very close.) There is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. However, a lot of statues and other sculptures as late as the 1980s are in the public domain (whereas in most countries nothing is PD from the last 70 years, and little from even 100 years ago).
The main reason for this is that until 1 March 1989, the U.S. did not grant copyright automatically. A very large number of sculptures before 1 January 1978 are in the public domain, along with some from then until 28 February 1989. Also, for works published before 1978, the U.S. determined duration of copyright entirely from the publication date, not the death date of the creator.
Here's a breakdown to cases; much of this information can be found in Commons:Hirtle chart, but that doesn't account for the changed meaning of publication.
Prior to 1978, display of a sculpture in a public place where photography by the general public was possible constituted publication. The only way to retain copyright was to meet both of the following conditions:
The initial copyright was good only for 28 years, then copyright had to be renewed. The last year of initial publication for which renewal is relevant is 1963 (because in 1992 the requirement for renewal was dropped). See Copyright renewal in the United States for how to check for renewals. If a work published from 1930 to 1963, inclusive, was initially copyrighted, but not renewed, use {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
All works in the U.S. published before 1930 are now out of copyright. As remarked above, this would include any sculptures erected in public before that date. Use {{PD-US-no notice}}. That 1930 date will be moving year-by-year until 2073, then we will get into issues of author's death dates.
In 1978, the legal meaning of "publishing" a sculpture changed. It's not enough that it was in a place where people could take photos, there had to be authorized photos published in the more obvious sense of "published": e.g. a postcard, a museum catalog, a magazine article, etc. Still, from then until 28 February 1989, the laws did not change a lot in any other respect. The only other large difference is that it became possible to rectify the lack of a copyright notice by registering the work within 5 years. (You check for that the same way you check for renewals.) Works from this period that fail on these formalities can use {{PD-US-1978-89}}.
Everything from 1 March 1989 onward is still in copyright; we can't use photos of these without the permission of the copyright-holder of the sculpture.
As I said: the U.S. is the most complicated case in the world for this.
Yep, that's a good reference. Most public statues put up in the U.S. before 1978 are fine, unless they have a copyright notice on them. You can usually find them in the SIRIS art inventories database to see if a copyright notice is mentioned. Ones put up before 1930 are definitely fine, ones with a notice put up before 1964 also needed a renewal (rare but needs searching). Statues put up since 1978, generally not. You can use your photo of those to the extent of fair use, which is pretty far, but not for commercial use generally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
How do file information and Summary Description of a file work?
Latest comment: 9 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have recently added File:(R)-Aporphine.gif to Wikipedia Commons. I want to ask how do file information and Summary Description of a file work? Because I believe that by adding 85 notable languages (those with more than 100000 articles or depth more than 100) to the file, the file will get more and more public and accessible to everyone. Hope anyone can clear the confusion/misunderstanding of this Geoopt1234 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Geoopt1234: I'm unaware of anything called a "Summary Description". Where do you see that?
I see you have already correctly added descriptions in three languages. More would be welcome, as long as they are correct. Be very wary of adding a machine translation into a language you cannot even read to check for correctness.
Someone else may have a better suggestion than just adding these in separate templates. I was looking for something like {{Title}} that would be appropriate for the description field, but I don't see it. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Summary" is a completely arbitrary heading. Nothing changes if that changes. It's just the English-language value for {{int:filedesc}}. The template containing "description" is {{Information}} (or {{Art Photo}}, or any of a number of other alternatives). But it does exactly the same thing independently of {{int:filedesc}}. - Jmabel ! talk04:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Suppression de plusieurs photos concernant une propriété privée dont la propriétaire exige le retrait des vues la représentant
Latest comment: 6 days ago16 comments6 people in discussion
Je suis l'auteur de photographies représentant le château de Mollans, (70), ainsi que de sa chapelle castrale. Bien que les vues aient été prises depuis une route publique, la propriétaire a déposé une plainte contre moi. Par souci d'apaisement, je demande la suppression de ces cinq vues. Merci. Espirat Jean E.J (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merci de la réponse. Il s'agit de deux vues représentant la chapelle castrale de Mollans , ainsi que de trois vues représentant le château de Mollans. Elles se trouvent sur Wiki Commons de Mollans. Mollans étant un village de la Haute-Saône (70). Merci de votre aide. Espirat E.J (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Une recherche rapide sur le net aboutit bientôt à la page https://www.murielle-cahen.fr/le-droit-a-limage-quels-sont-vos-droits-et-obligations/ , qui a des références sur le problème du droit (inexistant!) sur l'image de ses biens - section N°II: "Le propriétaire du bien ne dispose plus d’un droit exclusif sur l’image de celui-ci". En principe, je pense qu'une plainte va aboutir nulle part, surtout si les images prises ne sont pas cause a un quelconque trouble anormal... Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Espirat: dénicher ces vues dans une liste de téléversements très longue, probablement dans les centaines de fichiers, sans indications sur les dates de prises de vues, n'est pas très simple... Est-ce qu'elles sont enregistrées aux alentours du 8 juillet 2024, comme File:Château de Mollans (1).jpg, ces photos? Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ces vues se trouvent dans wiki Commons, Mollans, château de Mollans et chapelle castrale de Mollans
Ces photos du château de Mollans et de sa chapelle castrale ont été envoyées, après le 06-07-2024. Je souhaite leur suppression définitive. Merci. Espirat jean E.J (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Commons n'est pas constraint à supprimer ces photos - ni les lois françaises, ni les lois américaines le demandent. Il n'y a pas de "droit à l'image de ses biens", un propriétaire d'immeuble n'a pas de moyens d'interdire les prises de vues de lieux publics.
Chacune de ces demandes de suppression a été refusée. C'est logique, mis à part ta demande, Espirat, il n'y a pas de raison pour la suppression, certainement pas de raison juridique, en tous cas. Et vu que ces fichiers sont présents depuis longtemps (2024) et utilisé pour des fins encyclopédiques, même une suppression par obligeance est plus ou moins exclue. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Est-ce si difficile de faire retirer d de wiki , des photos dont on est l'auteur? Je souhaite faire retirer cinq vues, mais apparemment ce n'est pas possible. (J'ai fait cinq ou six demandes, toutes refusées). Je suis contributeur à hauteur de plus de dix mille photos, et bien, ce sera fini. Je vais oublier wiki et sa non coopération. Jean espirat E.J (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do I understand correctly that the user is demanding as a courtesy, with no rationale given, that we delete 5 images that he released into the public domain over a year ago? If so, that strikes me as ridiculous. If you could change your mind a year later about releasing work into the public domain, then such a release would mean nothing. - Jmabel ! talk02:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I uploaded 7 images yesterday, and I think I should name them differently, to include the monument name. Can you tell me whether I can change the names, and how? Or can I delete them and start over uploading, and naming correctly? And how?
You can request renaming of these files pretty easily. Go to each image and find the dropdown Tools menu just above the image. There's an option for requesting a rename. Then you just put in the new name in the first field and uploader requested in the bottom field. If you have problems, I can help further. Geoffroi18:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Permissions for images uploaded to Wiki Commons
Latest comment: 8 days ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I'm probably missing something obvious, but I wonder if somebody can help me understand what is happening. I have read all the stuff I can find, and I have read the messages on the pages, the messages from bots, and the email to the owner of the copyright, who has agreed to the right CC4.0 Attribution Share-Alike International. But I can't take the boxes off the pages that say that the copyright status is not clear and that they will be deleted.
The copyright owner did the online permissions form, as I asked. He forwarded the emailed reply from Martin Anderson thanking him for giving permission. And saying that we should add {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=October|day=28}} somewhere in the file description, which I did, but when I go back, it's not there.
One possible glitch: when he replied to my email telling the filename of the photos I uploaded, he forwarded the message to Martin Anderson and said he had uploaded the photos, but I don't see any evidence of copies of the photos I uploaded, but perhaps the perms got attached to them if they did get actually uploaded into Commons?
Oh, wait, I see something. So the code Martin Anderson said to include in the file description, which I had put in this message without anything to make it nowiki, is what put that box there. Ok, so the pages for both files have that message on them, so maybe everything is ok? I'm still not sure, just can't tell, tbh.
@Scogdill: As the tag said, "If you have resolved the issue by adding a valid copyright tag, you may remove the deletion template." I've done it for you this time, though. - Jmabel ! talk22:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Broken links to uploaded files in the Upload Wizard
Latest comment: 8 days ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I’ve already written in one of the threads above (several people seem to have a similar problem), but it looks like my post was overlooked since nobody replied.
The links to my uploaded files have been broken for every upload over the past few days. The files are uploaded successfully, but the links in the upload summary point to something like this. It’s a bit annoying because I want to access the uploaded pictures to add them to a gallery, and this issue causes extra work each time.
Hi @DAS1950: Thanks for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments! You can request deletion of photos you upload within seven days (so all the photos you've uploaded in the last day qualify). You can add the following "speedy deletion" (SD) template to the files you wish to be deleted:
{{SD|Author/uploader request within 7 days of upload}}
I see all your files are tagged as Wiki Loves Monuments, so no action is needed there. We can take care of updating the state parameter in the template. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kevin Payravi: This user asked how to rename these files in a section just above "renaming or deleting and uploading correct ones". These are good quality photos that need renaming not deleting. We don't want this user to have these files deleted just to reupload them with a new name. Geoffroi00:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
saya didieth adalah admin yang di percayakan oleh muhammad hasan abdillah untuk membuat profilenya di wikipedia, dan foto yang saya upload di hapus karna ada unsur hak cipta.. untuk fotonya saya dapet dari sumbernya langsung atau dari muhammad hasan abdillah yang di kirim via whatsapp ke saya, dan yang bersangkutan filenya di ambil saat dari IGnya dan takeshootnya ketika yang bersangkutan di lantik sebagai anggota DPRD PROV DKI JAKARTA. Mohon tanggapannya dan petunjuknya agar gambar tersebut tidak di bilang melanggar hak cipta Didieth Dengoh (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Kita harus mempunyai izin tersurat dari pemegang hak cipta foto tersebut (orang yang menekan tombol kameranya, belum tentu pemegang hak ciptanya Hasan sendiri!) untuk memberi lisensi bebas.
Perizinan itu dilakukan dengan melewati email/surel. Kita mempunyai Commons:Volunteer Response Team (bahasa Indonesia) yang akan mengonfirmasi perizinan lisensi bebas tersebut. Anjurkan pemegang hak ciptanya untuk membuat perizinan di Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator dan mengirim teks perizinan ke alamat surel yang didaftarkan di situ, melalui alamat surel kerja/utama milik dia. Jika dia tidak mengirim surat perizinan, baik karena ditolak ataupun tidak bisa dikontak, sayangnya kita tidak bisa menerima foto tersebut. HyperAnd (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
De minimus question
Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 8 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This image of a fighter jet is by a French military photographer, but has an own work claim and license from the uploader. Can someone change this to the proper license? Thanks. Geoffroi23:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I often use fultonhistory.com as a source for Wikipedia articles because it has newspaper records not available anywhere else, but there are two problems with the site. Firstly, it isn't possible to isolate clips from a page, the entire page has to be used as the source link, which can be problematic because it can make the relevant facts hard to find for somebody looking to confirm the information. Secondly, it's a private, basically one-man website, which like many other such websites could disappear overnight, taking all its data with it.
I am wondering then, if it would be permissible to upload public domain newspaper clippings from the site to Commons to ensure the preservation of the information and make it much easier for users to verify the facts? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Also: in citing these, the "real" source you should cite is presumably the article (with author) from a particular page of a particular issue of a newspaper. It's online presence is just a convenience. Naming the article should make it reasonably straightforward for someone to see what was cited. Remember: it's still more convenient than if all you had was a paper copy. - Jmabel ! talk01:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Anything from the U.S. 1929 or earlier (this will move year-by-year for the next several decades) is in the public domain.
A great deal from U.S. newspapers 1963 or earlier (this date will not move) is in the public domain because of failure to renew copyrights, but that takes some research to demonstrate for a particular case. Often, you can show that a particular newspaper never renewed its copyrights.
Similarly, even some things down through 28 February 1989 are in the public domain for failure to comply with copyright formalities; again, takes some legwork to prove. - Jmabel ! talk02:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Copyrights from different countries
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This is very confusing. What said what copyright was invalid? (And could you possibly mean that the license was invalid rather than the copyright?) This would all be much clearer if you would link to something in particular. - Jmabel ! talk02:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel:y si le pido a la IA (Gemini) que elimine el escudo en el centro de la bandera y si agrego la bandera modificado (Gemini) a Wikipedia es posible que este dentro del alcance de Commons (in scope/in use)?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
ഒരു കൂട്ടം സാമൂഹ്യ ബോധമുള്ള ചെറുപ്പക്കാരുടെ കൂട്ടായ്മയായ് 1980 ൽ യുവതരംഗം കലാ സമിതി & ലൈബ്രറി രൂപീകരിക്കപ്പെട്ടു. നാട്ടിൻപുറത്തെ പറമ്പുകളും തോടുകളും വൃത്തിയാക്കിക്കൊണ്ട് സ്വരൂപിച്ച പണം കൊണ്ട് ആദ്യകാല പ്രവർത്തന മൂലധനം കണ്ടെത്തി. പ്രദേശത്തിന്റെ സാമൂഹികവും സാംസ്കാരികവും കലാ -കായിക -സാഹിത്യ മേഖലകളിലും സമഗ്രമായ ഇടപെടലുകൾ ലക്ഷ്യമാക്കിക്കൊണ്ട് ബൈലോ രൂപീകരണം, കേരള ഗ്രന്ഥശാല നിയമപ്രകാരമുള്ള രെജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ., നാളിതു വരെ നിയമാവലി അനുസരിച്ചുള്ള പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ. വൈവിദ്ധ്യം കൊണ്ട് ശ്രദ്ധേയമായ നിരവധി പരിപാടികൾ : 'കുഞ്ഞുണ്ണി മാഷും കുട്ട്യോളും ' പരിപാടി കേരളത്തിൽ ഒരുപക്ഷെ ആദ്യമായി സംഘടിപ്പിച്ചത് യുവതരംഗം ആണ്. പിന്നീട് കേരളത്തിന്റെ പല ഭാഗങ്ങളിലും നടത്തിയ 'കുഞ്ഞുണ്ണി മാഷും കാർന്നോന്മാരും ' പരിപാടി ആദ്യമായി സംഘടിപ്പിച്ചതും യുവതരംഗം തന്നെ.കേരളത്തിൽ ജനമൈത്രി പോലീസ് എന്ന ആശയം നടപ്പിലാകും മുൻപേ ' പോലീസും ജനങ്ങളും' പരിപാടി സംഘടിപ്പിച്ചത് യുവതരംഗത്തിന്റെ ചരിത്രത്തിലെ പൊൻ തൂവലുകളിൽ ഒന്നാണ്. തൃശ്ശൂരിന്റെ അതിർത്തി ഗ്രാമങ്ങളിലും വടക്കൻ ജില്ലകളിലും അരങ്ങേറിയിരുന്ന' ഓണത്തല്ല് ' നമ്മുടെ പ്രദേശത്ത് പരിചയപ്പെടുത്തിയതും യുവതരംഗം ആണ്. യോഗയുടെ പ്രാധാന്യം മനസ്സിലാക്കി കാൽ നൂറ്റാണ്ട് മുമ്പേ യോഗ പ്രദർശനങ്ങൾ സംഘടിപ്പിച്ചു. കലാ- കായിക മേഖലകളിൽ പഞ്ചായത്ത് കേരളോത്സവങ്ങളിൽ സജീവ സാന്നിധ്യം, ക്രിക്കറ്റിൽ കൊടുങ്ങല്ലൂർ താലൂക്കിലെ വിവിധ ടൂർണമെന്റുകളിൽ കിരീട വിജയികൾ, മധ്യ കേരള ക്രിക്കറ്റ് ടൂർണമെന്റിൽ കാണികളെ ത്രസിപ്പിക്കുന്ന മത്സരങ്ങൾ, യുവതരംഗത്തിന്റെ കയ്യൊപ്പ് ചാർത്തിയ വിജയങ്ങൾ , തൃശ്ശൂർ ജില്ലയിൽ തന്നെ അപൂർവമായി സംഘടിപ്പിക്കുന്ന ഡബിൾ വിക്കറ്റ് ടൂർണമെന്റിൽ ശ്രദ്ധേയമായ രണ്ട് കിരീടങ്ങൾ, അഖില കേരള ക്രിക്കറ്റ് ടൂർണമെന്റുകളിൽ പ്രമുഖ സ്ഥാനമുള്ള എസ് കെ നായർ റോളിംഗ് ട്രോഫിക്ക് വേണ്ടിയുള്ള ടൂർണ്ണമെന്റിൽ സെഞ്ച്വറി നേടി. The Hindu പോലുള്ള ഇംഗ്ലീഷ് ദിനപത്രങ്ങളിൽ പേരു വന്നിട്ടുള്ള കളിക്കാരെ സംഭാവന ചെയ്യാൻ യുവതരംഗത്തിന് കഴിഞ്ഞു. സിൽവർ ജൂബിലിയോട് അനുബന്ധിച്ച് കൂടുതൽ സൗകര്യങ്ങളോടുകൂടിയ പുതിയ കെട്ടിടം വേണമെന്ന ചിന്തയിൽ നിന്നും സ്വന്തമായി 5 സെന്റ് സ്ഥലം വാങ്ങി. തൃശ്ശൂർ ജില്ലാ പഞ്ചായത്ത് അംഗമായ ഇടി ടൈസൺ മാസ്റ്ററുടെ ശ്രമഫലമായി 7 ലക്ഷം രൂപയുടെ ഫണ്ട് ഉപയോഗിച്ച് പുതിയ ഇരുനില കെട്ടിടം പണിതു. തുടർന്ന് കലാസമിതിയുടെയും ലൈബ്രറിയുടെയും നേതൃത്വത്തിൽ നിരവധി പരിപാടികൾ, ഓണാഘോഷത്തോടനുബന്ധിച്ച് സംഘടിപ്പിച്ച 'ഓണപ്പെരുമ' ആഘോഷങ്ങൾക്ക് പുതിയ മാനങ്ങൾ നൽകി. മൂന്നു പതിറ്റാണ്ട് മുമ്പേ പനങ്ങാട് ഹൈസ്കൂളിൽ സംഘടിപ്പിച്ച പൂക്കള മത്സരം വീട്ടുമുറ്റത്ത് ഒരു തിരുവോണക്കള മത്സരമാക്കി മാറ്റിയെടുത്തു.' നാടൻ കളികളും നാട്ടുകാരും', നൂറിൽപരം അടകളുടെ പ്രദർശനം, മലയാള ചലച്ചിത്ര ഗാനശാഖയിലെ മഹാരഥന്മാർക്ക് സ്മരണാഞ്ജലി അർപ്പിച്ചുകൊണ്ടുള്ള 'മഞ്ഞണി പൂനിലാവ് ', 'ശ്യാമാംബരം', 'പിന്നെയും പിന്നെയും' തുടങ്ങിയ ശ്രദ്ധേയമായ പരിപാടികൾ കൊണ്ട് ഓണപ്പെരുമ ഒരു ഗംഭീര അനുഭവമാകുന്നു. യുവതരംഗം കലാസമിതി ആൻഡ് ലൈബ്രറിയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളിൽ സജീവമായി പങ്കെടുക്കുന്ന കുട്ടികൾ സംസ്ഥാന സ്കൂൾ കലോത്സവങ്ങളിൽ ഒന്നാം സമ്മാനങ്ങൾ നേടുന്നു. യുവ തരംഗത്തിന്റെ സെക്രട്ടറി പദം അലങ്കരിച്ചു നേതൃത്വപരമായ കഴിവുകൾ പ്രകടിപ്പിച്ച വ്യക്തിത്വങ്ങൾ സംസ്ഥാനത്തെ മികച്ച അധ്യാപകനുള്ള അവാർഡ് നേടുന്നു. കൊൽക്കത്തയിലെ പ്രശസ്തമായ ഐസറിൽ(IISER) പ്രവേശനം നേടുന്ന പനങ്ങാട് ദേശത്തെ ആദ്യത്തെ കുട്ടിയായി യുവതരംഗത്തിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തക മാറുന്നു. മെൽബൺ യൂണിവേഴ്സിറ്റിയിൽ ബിരുദാനന്തര ബിരുദ പഠനത്തിന് സ്കോളർഷിപ്പോടുകൂടി പ്രവേശനം നേടിയ ഇന്ത്യയിലെ രണ്ട് കുട്ടികളിൽ ഒരാൾ യുവതരംഗം പ്രവർത്തകയാണ്. 2016 ൽ ഇടി ടൈസൺ മാസ്റ്റർ എംഎൽഎയുടെ ആസ്തി വികസന ഫണ്ട് ഉപയോഗിച്ച് യുവതരംഗത്തിന്റെ കെട്ടിടത്തോട് ചേർന്ന് സ്റ്റേജ് നിർമ്മാണവും ഒന്നാം നിലയിലെ ഹാൾ ടൈൽ വിരിച്ച് മേൽക്കൂര ഷീറ്റ് ഇട്ട് ഉപയോഗപ്രദമാക്കി. ഇതിനായി 7 ലക്ഷം രൂപ ചെലവഴിച്ചു. ഇവിടെ രാവിലെയും വൈകിട്ടും യോഗ ക്ലാസുകൾ തുടങ്ങി. അത് ഇപ്പോഴും തുടർന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു . മഹാപ്രളയം ഉണ്ടായപ്പോൾ ദുരിത ആശ്വാസ ക്യാമ്പിന് നേതൃത്വം നൽകി. പ്രളയത്തിൽ വീട് നഷ്ടപ്പെട്ട ഒരു അമ്മയ്ക്കും കുട്ടികൾക്കും ഒരു സ്നേഹവീട് നിർമ്മിച്ചു നൽകി. ലൈബ്രറി കൗൺസിലിന്റെ നേതൃത്വത്തിൽ നടക്കുന്ന സർഗോത്സവങ്ങളിൽ താലൂക്ക് തലത്തിലും ജില്ലാതലത്തിലും യുവ തരംഗത്തിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തകർ കഴിഞ്ഞ കുറിയ വർഷങ്ങളായി മികച്ച പ്രകടനം കാഴ്ചവയ്ക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. കൂടാതെ ലൈബ്രറി കൗൺസിൽ നടത്തുന്ന വായനാ മത്സരങ്ങളിൽ ലൈബ്രറി തലത്തിലും താലൂക്ക് തലത്തിലും ജില്ലാതലത്തിലും മികച്ച സമ്മാനങ്ങൾ യുവതരംഗത്തിൽ എത്താറുണ്ട്. കഴിഞ്ഞ രണ്ടു വർഷത്തോളമായി എൽഎസ്എസ് ക്ലാസുകൾ മികച്ച രീതിയിൽ സംഘടിപ്പിക്കുന്നു. എൽഎസ്എസ് നേടുന്ന കുട്ടികളുടെ എണ്ണം ഓരോ വർഷവും കൂടിക്കൊണ്ടിരിക്കുകയാണ്. കൂടാതെ ബാല തരംഗത്തിന്റെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളും മികച്ച രീതിയിൽ യുവതരംഗത്തിൽ നടന്നുകൊണ്ടിരിക്കുന്നു. ' കളികളിലൂടെ അറിവ് പകരുക ' എന്ന മുദ്രാവാക്യം ഉയർത്തിപ്പിടിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് 'അറിവിന്റെ വേനൽ പച്ച' അവധിക്കാല ക്യാമ്പ് കുറേ വർഷങ്ങളായി നടത്തിവരുന്നു. വനിതാവേദിയുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളും നല്ല രീതിയിൽ നടക്കുന്നു. അങ്ങനെ സമൂഹത്തിന്റെ എല്ലാ മേഖലകളിലും വളരെ സർഗാത്മകമായി ഇടപെടാൻ യുവതരംഗത്തിന് കഴിയുന്നു. പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ തുടരുന്നു...
Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments4 people in discussion
The artist David Clendining had images uploaded to a gallery for his works to be used in a Wikipedia article. These have disappeared. They are owned images by the artist. How do I get them back or make them available for use? GYHASHAKE (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@GYHASHAKE: There were quite a lot of images (about 50) discussed in the Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Exbellestartsit referred to above by Grand-Duc. Some of these might've been dupilcates (just going by some of the file names); so, the actual count might not be that high. Of course, Commons is happy to host any images provided by Clendining as long as they're licensed in accordance with Commons:Licensing; however, Commons is mainly concerned with the copyright licensing of the content it hosts, and there's no guarantee that any content hosted by Commons will end up being used in en:David Clendining or any other English Wikipedia article which mentions Clendining. English Wikipedia is also concerned with the copyright licensing of the image files used in its articles, but it's also concerned with the encyclopedic value and context of such images to its readers. Adding too many images to an image gallery of the article is not really a good idea per en:Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image galleries and most likely will end up with many of them being removed by other English Wikipedia users.English Wikipedia articles are intended to be mainly text based with images occasionally added in support of the text; English Wikipedia articles about artists aren't really intended to be online photo galleries for the artists' work. Anyway, whether en:Draft:David Clendining is ultimately accepted as a Wikipedia article doesn't depend in any way on how many images are included in it; the draft is going to be assessed in accordance with en:Wikipedia:Notability (people). The draft has already been declined three times by three different reviewers; so, my suggestion to you is to focus on addressing the concerns left by those reviewers when they declined the draft and work on improving the draft to more clearly establish Clendining's Wikipedia notability to improve its chances of being accepted the next time its submitted. You should worry about adding more images to it only after the draft has been accepted. If the draft has ended up being accepted, you can then try to sort out which of the deleted images might work best in the article. There's no way to probably use them all, ut one or two considered to be representative of Clendining's style which can best be tied into the text of the article should be OK. You should also understand that once something has been uploaded to Commons under an acceptable copyright license, it can be hard to get deleted later on per Commons:License revocation, and others will be able to keep using the images (even in ways that Clendining might not like) as long as they comply with Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. So, it might not be in Clendining's interest to upload so many images of his work to Commons because there's no way for him to ensure they'll only be used in someway on English Wikipedia or any of the other language Wikipedia's, and there's no real way to stop others from using them out in the real world (even for commercial reasons). Finally, if you have a personal or professional connection with Clendining, you should make sure to take a close look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Having such a connection doesn't mean you can't try to create an English Wikipedia article about Clendining, but it does mean that there are additional English Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply to you and that others will expect you to comply with. Commons isn't really concerned with users who have a conflict-of-interest, but English Wikipedia is, and such users often find themselves running into problems if they fail to follow relevant English Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding such connections. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand all that you've said and thank you for taking the time to explain. The only thing that is confusing is your indication about licensing. All the pictures were coded, I believe, with the proper copyright license code. I was sure David used the proper steps in uploading his pictures, as we went over it together. They all seemed uploaded appropriately and coded {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I will arrange to have uploaded only the pictures that ultimately will be used. Many of the previous ones were going to be used in the article, but I later had to reduce the content. GYHASHAKE (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please note that the answers above do not imply that only the pictures that will be used on Wikipedia should be uploaded to Commons. On the contrary, as Marchjuly said above, "Commons is happy to host any images provided by Clendining" as long as there is evidence that there is sufficient permission in accordance with the policy of Commons. Then, it's all fine if he wants to upload any number of images.You seemed to somewhat imply the following three facts, although it's not clear. Can you please clarify, as far as you can know, if: 1) User:Exbellestartsit is or is not David Clendining, 2) the photographs of objects were taken by David Clendining, or by User:Exbellestartsit if they're not the same person, 3) David Clendining emailed at least some sort of license and/or permission and/or account confirmation to the VRT.If the deleted files did not have a VRT template, it could be because no communication was received or because the permission that was received was not sufficient and the copyright owner did not complete it. If a communication was received, its sufficiency is decided by the VRT. (Not speaking for them, but to be sufficient, a communication from David Clendining should probably include at least either a confirmation that User:Exbellestartsit is his account, or a statement that he agrees that the images of his works are shown in the photograhs that are under the free license in the specified files.) If you know that a communication was sent to VRT, you could ask at Commons:VRT/Noticeboard. They will not give you any detail, but they might tell you at least if something was received. Another possibility is that David Clendining may actually have sent a permission for the deleted files that you had uploaded with your account GYHASHAKE but not for the files uploaded with the account Exbellestartsit under different file names.In File:Artist David Clendining, by Photographer Roberta Gal, 2018.jpg, you twice used the template "Self", thus seemingly stating either that you are Roberta Gal or that Roberta Gal legally transferred the copyright to you. Although a VRT administrator apparently validated your statement, it looks like it could be a mistake. Can you please clarify? If you are not really claiming to be the photographer and/or the copyright owner, please remove the two "Self" templates and please indicate the source explicitly.-- Asclepias (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I tried uploading the first time but I thought I did it incorrectly. The second time Roberta Gal verified her copyright. I thought the first image was removed. GYHASHAKE (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@GYHASHAKE: When a Commons administrator deletes a file, my understanding is that it isn't really wiped away forever but rather is just being hidden from public view; the file is still somewhere in Commons servers so to speak and can be restored if the concerns that led to its deletion are subsequently addressed. When it comes to photographs of 2D/3D works of art, a lot depends on en:freedom of panorama (see also COM:FOP) and how this principle is applied under the copyright laws applicable to the statue. For countries that allow freedom of panorama for 3D works of art, someone can take a photo of such a work and upload it to Commons as long as they release their photo under an acceptable free license even if the photographed work is under copyright protection. In countries that don't allow freedom of panorama for 3D works of art, someone can still take a photo of such a work but can only upload it to Commons if both their photo and the photographed work of art are released under an acceptable free license (or the photographed work is no longer or never was eleigble for copyright protection). Of course, freedom of panorama can get more complicated depending on a country's copyright laws, but I think this is the basic premise. So, there's sometimes two copyrights that Commons needs to consider for photos of 3D works of art (one for the photo itself and one for the photographed work), and Commons can't host any photos in which both copyrights are clearly not in accordance with Commons:Licensing.With the deleted photos, the first thing to assess is how or if freedom of panorama applies to them. If the applicable copyright laws allow unlimited freedom of panorama, all that really needs to be verified is the COM:CONSENT of the person who took the photo. If, on the other hand, the applicable copyright laws make no allowance for freedom of panorama, the CONSENT of both the person who took the photo and Clendining would need to be verified for Commons be OK in hosting the photos. So, even though the photos have been deleted, they can be restored if the necessary CONSENT can be verified, and typically this is done by Wikimedia VRT. If, by chance, the person who takes the photo and the artist who created the work are the same, then one CONSENT is often sufficient to cover both. If the person who upload the photos didn't take them themselves, the photos aren't their COM:Own work, and they'll need to provide some formal way of verifying the CONSENT of the person who did take them. Similarly, if they're not Clendining, then the photographed works also aren't their "own work", and they'll need to provide some way of verifying that Clendining has given his CONSENT. Without some way of verifying CONSENT, Commons will have hard time hosting the files. If a CONSENT email was sent to Wikimedia VRT, there should be a record of it. Whoever sent the email should've received a response containing a VRT ticket number, and this ticket number can be used by VRT members to try and sort things out. So, if you can figure out whether such an email was sent and get the VRT ticket number for it, you can ask about it at Commons:VRT noticeboard. VRT members won't discuss the details of any emails on the noticeboard, but one should be able to say whether it was verified or whether it had issues that still need to be resolved. If no email has been yet sent to VRT, you can ask the copyright holders to do so so now if you want. If VRT is able to verify consent, the deleted files can be restored. Since there's a lot of files which were deleted and possibly multiple copyright holders invovled, the same email can be used to cover multiple files for which the copyright holder is the same but the name of each file desired to be restored should be explictly mentioned.If all this emailing seems to much of a hassle, Clendining can simply take his own photos of his work and post them somewhere online with a clearly visible copyirght license that meets Commons requirements. He could do this on his own official website or one of his official social media accounts if he wants, as long as the site can be directly tied back to him. If he uses a photo from before (i.e. one of the deleted photos), you can then request that the file be restored using COM:REFUND by providing the url address showing the same photo released under an acceptable license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@GDKG: Ce n'est compliqué que si vous le compliquez. Votre modification ayant clarifié votre intention, je l'ai corrigée. Veuillez consulter la page du fichier. - Jmabel ! talk05:12, 7 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merci, je suis peu doué à cet exercice de licences etc.
G7 cannot be used if the file is in use. There is also a guideline that says that G7 is only applicable up to 7 days from upload (although practically admins will generally grant deletion of unused files within the same month). Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
What I meant is more if the person who uploads this file immediately tags it for deletion after uploading it, before it is transcluded anywhere, should their wishes be kept?
G7 is always a bit of a "courtesy". If someone uploads clearly PD third-party material, then asks for a G7 deletion more likely we would just be willing to hide their account name as uploader than to delete. - Jmabel ! talk04:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Jmabel: Then shouldn’t these exceptions be noted down on the criteria?
Latest comment: 5 days ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I'm currently trying to make a wikipedia page about a criminal case in brazil, however im trying to upload the image of the victim, but it always get deleted. How can i upload the victim's photo? AloneSlk (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@AloneSlk More details are needed. Did you take this picture yourself with your own camera? Have you created a WP-draft on this case you can link, so we don't have to guess about other relevant details? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I didn't started it yet, bcz i need to wait for my account to be 4 days old and 10 edits. Sorry, i am a beginner at this. If you want the case name is Nicolly Fernanda Pogere, i will start to make the sandbox. AloneSlk (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@AloneSlk Then you can't upload a picture of the (dead [1]) victim on Commons. It may be possible to do so on English Wikipedia, which allows a non-free picture in very limited situations, but only if there is an existing article (not draft) to put it in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't know how but i saw some people putting image of a dead victim of a different case and it worked. Anyways, thank you, i appreciate it. AloneSlk (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Thierrynounours: Bonjour, Vous pouvez voir dans vos journaux d'opération que ces deux images ont été supprimées le 20 juin 2025 par un administrateur qui les a jugées non reliées à la mission de Wikimedia Commons pour cause d'«images personnelles». Les images personnelles ne sont pas conservées à moins d'être utilisées sur un des sites de Wikimedia. Votre photo File:Thierry Dalberto.jpg pourrait peut-être être remise en ligne si vous en faites la demande sur la page Commons:Undeletion requests si par cette demande vous réussissez à convaincre les administrateurs de Commons que vous contribuez suffisamment à un site de Wikimedia, par exemple fr.wikipedia, et que si vous y utiliserez l'image dans votre page d'utilisateur. Ou bien que vos activités professionnelles ou autres font en sorte que votre photo peut être utile au public ou à la mission de Wikimedia Commons et donc qu'elle ne devrait pas être considérée seulement comme une image personnelle. Vous pouvez peut-être demander aussi pour l'image File:Thoniers rentrants a Concarneau.jpg pour une raison semblable ou différente. Mais rien n'est garanti quant à la décision que prendront les administrateurs. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How to export public domain newspapers as PDF?
Latest comment: 10 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I'm not at all sure whether that can be done in any reasonable manner, but at least now the question is clear: Is there a way to turn the content of a newspaper from a Google page like [3]] into a PDF? - Jmabel ! talk23:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I rediscovered some older files. The old file versions may contain music that is not CC BY compatible, so I uploaded files without audio track. Could somebody please delete the old file version? Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Jmabel ! talk04:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Usar imagens pra artigos na Wikipedia
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Estou tentando adicionar uma imagem no wikimedia commons pra uma futura página na Wikipedia sobre uma vitima de um caso criminal, porém estou recebendo mensagens de copyright e as imagens sendo deletadas, como posso fazer pra dar Upload nessa imagem e ser aceita pra ser usada no artigo da Wikipedia? AloneSlk (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi all, I was hoping to get some advice on how to grab a high quality image of a public domain book cover from the Internet Archive. The book is the original 1962 edition of Ralph Ginzburg's anthology 100 Years of Lynchings; it was published with notice but the copyright was not renewed and the original edition is PD (see HathiTrust rights tag; an edited version with a new foreword and cover was published with notice in 1988, but Ginzburg and his publisher never renewed the original). Hathi Trust has a very low quality Google Books scan with lighting/exposure issues and Google/University of Michigan watermarks, but Internet Archive has a much higher quality version. IA's version is not available for download though. Given that it's a scan of a public domain work, I assume it's not an issue to find a way around the download problem, right? In which case, what is the best way to get the highest quality capture of the cover? Thanks for any guidance! 19h00s (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Wikimedia Commons administrators, I hope you are doing well. I wanted to ask about changing the name of an image here from JPG to PNG, as I have a version with a transparent background. I have obtained permission from the last user who uploaded the most recent version. However, I’m not the original uploader, and I’m not sure if I can update the file even after renaming it, since I don’t have the required permissions. I’d like to know what would be the correct solution in this case. Thank you in advance. Yosf22ww (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello again, and thank you for your replies.@Abzeronow and @Ruslik0
just wanted to clarify my intention, the image is used in the portal bars across many Wikipedia language editions, so my goal was to update the same file with the transparent PNG version (to keep all existing uses intact), not to create a separate file.
Would it still be acceptable to upload it as a new PNG file, or is there a proper way to replace the current JPG version with the transparent PNG (considering I have permission from the last uploader)?
Hi Buddingsheep. Whether such an image is OK for Commons probably depends on something called the Commons:Threshold of originality (TOO). Assuming en:Car (magazine) is the Car magazine you're referring to, then File:Car Magazine Logo.svg already exists on Commons, which is OK to use if you want. If, on the other hand, you're referring to a different magazine or a different logo, then perhaps you can provide a link to some website where the logo can be seen. If the logo is nothing more than the word "Car", then there's a good chance it would be too simple to be eligible for copyright protection depending upon where the magazine was published. The more complex and creative the logo is, though, the more likely it will be eligible for copyright protection. So, it's kind of hard to give you a specific yes or no answer without knowing more about the logo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Μάχη των Γιαννιτσών
Latest comment: 13 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I’m following up regarding File:Collins Barracks 2025 08 31 Philomena Begley - Patrick Hugh Lynch Photographer (2).jpg. The photographer sent permission via email on 19 October 2025, and I contacted permissions-commons@wikimedia.org with a link to the file in question as they asked for that and photographer doesn't have Wikimedia account. I haven’t received a reply, and the file page hasn’t been updated to reflect the permission. Could an admin or VRTS agent please confirm whether the email was received? ItsShandog (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ItsShandog: The file was tagged with {{Permission received}} on October 26 by Krdbot, which is a bot run by a VRT member and Commons administrator named Krd; so, an email was received by VRT, but it's still awaiting processing. You can ask Krd directly about this or ask at COM:VRTN instead if you want; VRT members can't discuss any specific details about the emails they receive, but they should be able to give you a general update. If you do ask about this somewhere else, adding the name of the file and the VRT ticket number (it's on the file's page) to your post will make it easier for a VRT member to look up the email. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Puedo subir una foto de una obra que he comprado y cuyo pintor ha fallecido?
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Buenos días,
Quería consultar si es posible subir a Wikimedia Commons la fotografía de un cuadro de mi propiedad, cuyo autor falleció hace años. En caso afirmativo, ¿hay algún requisito legal o técnico específico que deba tener en cuenta para hacerlo correctamente?
Muchas gracias de antemano JCregui (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@JCregui: No. La posesión física de la obra es completamente independiente de los derechos de autor. Este último pertenecería a los herederos del pintor. - Jmabel ! talk04:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Smoothen SVGs
Latest comment: 11 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Yovt (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'd like to know how the signs on these SVG images can be smoothened out- they are pixelated, and the "X" file has minor imperfections and should have the ratio that file "O" has. If needed, the source webp files they are derived from are in their descriptions; I tried to convert using the "Bitmap to SVG" converter. If someone could help that'd be great, thanks. Yovt (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Yovt: You've presumably ended up with a "phony SVG" there: an SVG encoding of raster (bitmap) graphics, rather than a vector encoding of the actual symbols represented. - Jmabel ! talk04:44, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Uploading a new and improved SVG file to an existing "article" in wikimedia
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
I have tried to figure this out myself, but it is too complicated, and I simply want to share what I was planning to use myself anyways.
I have an SVG file from here: File:Sustainable Development Goals.svg
The file was very messy, so I cleaned it up by sorting everything in proper order, and making "identifications" for ease of reading for future downloaders, but I don't know how I upload my version. There are so many things regarding licensing and all that, that I just don't understand. Hope somebody can help me. TalkingRush (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello and welcome @TalkingRush, please see Commons:First steps. It sounded like your version will be different than the current file, so you can use Special:UploadWizard to upload your version under a new filename. For the licensing you can choose:
This work was created by me and anyone is free to use it
This work contains the work of others
Yes, the work is not protected by any copyright law
Choose the CC license you liked to license your own contributions under
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There's a few of us who have been uploading astrophotographs to Commons, and at one point we were asked to use Template:Photo Information to provide information that would normally be present in EXIF metadata. This is a good point, but I don't think this template is suitable for astrophotography -- there are some fields that are irrelevant or may not make sense in an astrophotographic context (exposure compensation, ISO, flash) and others that would be informative but are not included in the template (filters used, palette, exposure time, number of subs, stacking method, number of panels for a mosaic).
There doesn't seem to be a question here, at least as Google Translate handles this. If someone can read Chinese, do you see a question here? - Jmabel ! talk04:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
This user is either attempting to self promote or is not typing a full sentence. Their user contribution is showing a lot of self bragging. --痛Designism (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How can i remove a deletion template?
Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I received a message telling me to add copyright info, which i have now done. The message said i can then remove the deletion template, but i dont know how to do that. Leo Brennan2 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The page was likely deleted because you've made no contributions here. You can't post a webhost/social media page here and not contribute to Commons with uploads or other constructive edits. Geoffroi19:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Awefeki Commons is not a personal web host. While there is nothing wrong with a bio yours read more like a CV "Mohammed Abubeker is an IT professional and content creator based in Toronto, Canada. Originally from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, he combines his technical expertise with a deep passion for culture and classical music." And thats just the first two lines Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can I post a reproduction of an old painting
Latest comment: 11 hours ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I am in possession of a catalogue print cut out from the Berlin Photographic Company's catalogue. By 1922 the BPC was no longer in existence so it must have been printed by then. The reproduction is of George Lawrence Bulleid's painting The Mother's Love, it is black and white, I'd like to bring it into the public domain. I've scanned it and corrected for wear and tear. I have asked the British Intellectual Property office about it and they reason that, while they cannot give a definite opinion, both the author's license and the BPC's license to it has expired. American law also reads that it has expired. European Union law is interested in whether the reproduction is a creative work, which it is not. Can I upload this image? Veronica7x7 (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
No results thru Google Lens search and AI questioning. No immediate results with a Google search for the exact artist and title. Geoffroi21:52, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
SOS - Help - Someone deleted "Flag_of_Colombia.svg" and there is no image of map ot Colombia in Whole es.wikipedia. Please someone can solve it? Repf72 (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
For this page, I'm wondering if the wiki link to "Texas" on the bar above the page can be changed from "Police patches of Texas" to "Law enforcement patches of Texas"? Ominae (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ominae: not readily, though imaginably possible. {{Us states}} is a pretty generic template, so you probably wouldn't want to mess with that, but you could create a specialized template for police patches that would handle Texas differently from everything else. But, really, the existing soft redirect Category:Police patches of Texas handles this in a more or less reasonable manner. - Jmabel ! talk04:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How can I find media files missing from a specific category?
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I established Category:Files by Christoph Braun for content I created myself some time ago. However, it seems like I forgot to add some files to this category based on the entirety of my uploads. I was wondering if there's a tool to reveal any potentially missing files (i.e. files that I have created personally but not yet categorised in Files by Christoph Braun). I tried to run Petscan, but excluding all the files categorised in Category:Files by Christoph Braun and including all the files still linking to my user page didn't seem to do the trick. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello @Christoph Braun, I tried to search for files not in the category, but contains your username, and I found 60 of them here. This probably doesn't include all the files you needed, but at least it's some of them. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Is CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR allowed to be used?
Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I just found out that a profile picture of an artist uploaded by their agency to Naver profile is automatically fall under the CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/kr/deed.en however, the agency has no website, they only changed the profile picture of the artist through Naver Corp (the only one able to change profile search on Naver is the artist themselves or the agency, as stated on the profile so it wasn't uploaded by fans or anyone unrelated). The one I wanna upload and use on her wikipedia page is Kang Hye-won, so if we look up her name on Naver, her profile will be the first to show up https://m.search.naver.com/search.naver?query=%EA%B0%95%ED%98%9C%EC%9B%90&sm=mtp_hty.top&where=m and the profile picture has been licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR, the Namuwiki (Korean wikipedia) page also put the profile license under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 KR https://namu.wiki/jump/9e8lH45OA1Ihq3O7VyBsJjydI8hRDE0jO3A0aT5h50Vl7%2BfSAnQVf1Z0VSVJnqxt
(edit conflict) Saying namuwiki == Korean Wikipedia would be super incorrect as Korean Wikipedia is not using the domain https://namu.wiki. Files on namu.wiki is not using CC BY NC SA 2.0 KR by default (like Wikipedia's files), but namuwiki is notable among Korean Wikimedians for lack of proper licensing of files and sometimes license laundering, so care must be taken for the site. For example the file you linked has no proof that the copyright owner has released the file under such license. — regards, Revi02:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see, thank you for the correction. I said it's Korean wikipedia to mean that it's like the wikipedia to Korean. But I didn't know about them lacking proper license. So they're more similar to fandom.com than wikipedia, thank you for the correction. Appreciate that! Hyemdan (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
나무위키는 한국어 위키백과와 위키미디어 공용에서 다른 사람의 파일을 업로드할 때 요구되는 저작권의 검증을 사실상 하지 않기 때문에 나무위키에 있는 파일을 위키미디어 공용에 업로드하는 행위는 저작권 침해 사유로 차단되는 지름길이므로 하지 않으시는 것이 권장됩니다. 어짜피 위키미디어 공용에 파일을 업로드하셔도 나무위키에 쓸 수도 없고 말이죠. 한국어 위키백과에서 사용하시려는 목적이시면 해당 프로필 사진을 '해당 사진의 저작권자'가 (대개 에이전시 또는 소속사) 'CC BY'로 배포했다는 증거를 찾아 오시면 라이선스 검토를 통해 사용할 수 있겠네요. — regards, Revi02:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you want, you can upload CC media with NC or ND restrictions to https://nccommons.org/ That site has no formal affiliation with this one, but the user bases and missions overlap and you can log in with your Wikimedia username without creating a new account. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Files on that site is usually uploaded with 'fair use' provision, and even without citing correct copyright holder. It is probably going to be a mess, but if the nccommons site folks are fine with that… I think nothing holds them back. — regards, Revi02:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Starting from yesterday, I cannot add categories to my uploads directly on the classic upload form any more. However when the upload has been done, I can add categories on the resulting image page itself. So it's not really something that's stopping my work, just a minor hindrance. But I'd still like to know whether this is some kind of bug or by design. JIP (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ALMcquillen: the fact that the team is defunct has nothing to do with the copyright status of the logo. Since you give no other specifics, there isn't a lot more I can say. - Jmabel ! talk23:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
_File_information_and_Summary_description.png)
Done - Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
-Aporphine.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
