On the new page Commons:Template requests, Commons users can request edits to templates, the addition of complex templates to pages, and the creation of new templates. Users experienced with templates can find tasks to work on.

So far, such requests could only be made on dispersed talk pages unlikely to be watched by users experienced with templates (and just very few if any users) and at Commons:Village pump/Technical which Template editors may not watch either and which is more broadly about any kind of technical problems. Moreover, on both of these pages, requests may have gotten archived without gotten implemented.

If you are skilled in editing templates, please help out there.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a way to display stats like these (these current stats)?:

• 3 solved requests, 5 open requests (8 total)

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

3 solved requests, 6 open requests (9 total)

Current open requests:

• Parameter auto=yes for ArchiveBox to detect and link/transclude archive subpages
• Parameter for "review impossible" for LicenseReview template (in progress)
• Fix Topic in country template linking to the redlink Template:Byby
• Make template Shortcut show again
• Florida memory – Attribution-FLGov-PhotoColl should contain image number (likely not done)
• Making Template:Search link work with MediaSearch (likely solved)

Prototyperspective (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Regarding making the template {{Shortcut}} show up again: really nobody wants to fix it? Currently, lots of policy pages don't display their shortcuts. I would check if I could fix it myself but I don't have permissions to edit that template. Considering how many pages use that template and how important policy & guideline pages are on Commons, I think this is not unimportant to look into. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

8 solved requests, 5 open requests (13 total)

If you're skilled with template editing, please consider watchlisting that new page.

Current open requests:

• Parameter auto=yes for ArchiveBox to detect and link/transclude archive subpages
• Parameter for "review impossible" for LicenseReview template (in progress)
• Fix Topic in country template linking to the redlink Template:Byby (confirmed bug)
• Make template Shortcut show again (confirmed bug)
• Setting Videos by xyz category based on license templates like PD-USGov-USDA (likely won't be done; instead e.g. set {{Category search by/filetype}} on these license tag categories like Category:PD USDA)

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Free media resources/Datagraphics is a relatively new page for databases with free data graphics like charts that could be uploaded to Commons.

It still only has few sites – do you know of any further ones?
-
Recently added this resource but it's mostly just German-language data graphics. It would be great if somebody could upload the graphics from there that aren't yet on Commons. Until now, doing so was just in my private todos but I may never get to uploading more of these. For an example, see Category:Meat Atlas which contains charts and maps about meat consumption (not just in Germany but also worldwide; translatable).

--Prototyperspective (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems like Eurostat could be added: according to this page The copyright for the editorial content of this website, which is owned by the EU, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. There probably are more sites like it and maybe somebody here knows of or can find more.

There also are a few files in Category:Data visualization by Statista – is there a way to search for the subset of files in Statista that are CCBY/CCBYSA?

May be good to create a Commons:Batch uploading request for these if that's anyhow possible (and it's probably possible to scrape the sites in structured ways even if they don't have APIs). For Our World in Data, the batch uploading is done semi-manually/automatically via the OWIDImporter which is linked on that page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've heard NOAA is another resource for charts but I could not find a page on their site for finding and/or searching these – does somebody know? There probably are quite a few more government agencies with lots of data graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I just added CDC Data Dashboards, Visualizations, and Query Systems – it contains lots of useful visualizations not yet on Commons; maybe somebody can upload some of them
• See also Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Are World Inequality Database data graphics in the public domain? I think it has to be removed again.
• I'm sure there must be at least some more pages of US agencies who publish data visualizations and probably also some of other countries.

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Time and time again we see users trying to delete their own uploads, only to find out that they cannot do that themselves, and they can rarely convince sysops to delete for them (as the current practices show).

But this reality, the lack of utility to delete one's own content, is not communicated to the users at all. If you go through registration and every step in Special:UploadWizard, this rule is not mentioned at any point. This is a very different rule from what people can expect on any other major file hosting sites such as flickr, youtube... where users can always delete their own uploads anytime for any reason or no reason at all.

So I suggest, that this rule be clearly communicated to the users, and that there should be a write-up documenting this rule as well as its origin and rationale.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

written as i am fed up with mistreatment of fellow users as recently as Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules.--RoyZuo (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is hidden in the license conditions shown on the "Learn" page at the UploadWizard and at the linked license texts. And of course it is also in the Terms of Use. We could make this more clear if we would have a definitely needed rework of this info graphic. GPSLeo (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

it is not explicitly spelled out that "you cannot delete your user-generated content" in https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use .

when all other major websites, which also support certain "free licences" fit under wikimedia commons definitions, allow users delete their uploads, most users dont realise they cannot do the same on wikimedia commons until they want to delete something, and that this surprise is because wikimedia commons prioritises irrevocability of the licence over user experience. RoyZuo (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I find this very clear: "e. No revocation of license: Except as consistent with your license, you agree that you will not unilaterally revoke or seek invalidation of any license that you have granted under these Terms of Use for text content or non-text media contributed to the Projects or features, even if you terminate use of our services." This in theory event forbids making a deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Something this vital shouldnt be hidden in the first place at all Trade (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This rule was clearly communicated to this user multiple times. Maybe not at the upload stage but certainly once they started filing deletion requests and had those requests denied. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I actually broadly agree with RoyZuo on this. I've always found it weird that there is no warning in plain language in the upload process about the lack of simple deletion procedures for users uploading their own works to Commons. "License irrevocability" is quite a niche topic if you don't spend a lot of time on this and other Wiki project or work professionally in the realm of IP; many if not most people have no idea what that means or just assume it's a technical requirement akin to allowing cookies on a website. I think that's evidenced by the steady stream of users over the years who have tried at the help desk, village pump, and other forums to get their content deleted and were baffled by the idea that they had no recourse to delete their own work. There should be clear, plain language in the upload process that explains how, barring copyright questions or another legal issue and following a 7-day courtesy window, works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request.

And to be clear, I'm not saying it's good that so many people don't understand free licensing or the preexisting written warnings/caveats in the upload process; it just seems to be a fact. I believe we could avoid a lot of headaches by adding plainer language. But that would also probably lower the rate at which users complete the upload process, as a warning like that might scare some people off, which, if I were being cynical, I would assume is why the language has never been added (after all, who wants to be responsible for on average less content being added to Commons?). But the ethical choice appears to be better informing uploaders about the long-term deletion policies in the clearest, most non-technical language possible. 19h00s (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

"works uploaded to Commons will not be deleted at the uploader's/author's request." But we already do delete works uploaded to Commons at the uploader's request. It's just not consistently Trade (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Provided the deletion is requested within 7 days after upload and the work is not currently in use on a Wikimedia-project. --Túrelio (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have deleted files long after 7 days several times Trade (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but that is not the rule. In such cases often the file is also out of scope and there may be further aspects. But the uploader should be communicated the valid rule, because they have a right to it. --Túrelio (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. A lot of the files i see deleted after a week would not have survived a typical "out of scope" deletion request Trade (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: We are allowed, but not required, to extend a courtesy. Lying to us and/or threatening legal action certainly both decrease the chance of us extending a courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Can you expand on this? I believe you're hinting at a perceived double standard or deference on the part of Commons or WMF to certain users or rightsholders (or types of users/rightsholders) when they request their content be deleted, but I don't want to incorrectly assume. I think that's an important separate conversation in that we shouldn't, for example, allow large corporations to remove validly licensed content while not allowing individual authors/uploaders to do the same simply because one has more structural and financial power. But this conversation seems to be specifically about the average, or very new, user, who does not fully grasp the ramifications of their choices when freely licensing and uploading their work to Commons. Again though, I could be misinterpreting you. 19h00s (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where do we allow large corporations to revoke their licenses? We hand mass deletions because an employee published something without the corporation having the permission from the rights holders to do so. But this is something totally different. GPSLeo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was responding to Trade, asking about what they were implying with their comment about policy not being applied "consistently". I gave theoretical examples of what I believed they were implying (e.g., that there may have been deference or double standard in the way certain rightsholders' requests were handled). I never said Commons in fact does these things. 19h00s (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am moreso implying that some users lean heavily towards courtesy and others towards keep. Whether or not the deletion goes through is mostly dependent on which group of users decided to stumble upon the DR at the given time

At this point dealing with courtesy deletion requests is little different than using a random number generator to determine the outcome Trade (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@19h00s while i dont know what User:Trade might actually mean, here's a separate answer to your question:

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/03#March 2025 update from WMF Legal on "Vogue Taiwan and possible Copyright Washing" discussion, not that long ago.

the unfortunate thing here, is that these good hearted contributors dont have money to lawyer up.

Conde Nast can get away by merely saying they made an error.

meanwhile, the absolutists here and there (Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#c-Olga_Rithme-20251107145500-Appealing_decisions_that_contravene_a_set_of_rules) dont realise that commons users are at the most only given t&c in "browsewrap manner via hyperlinks alone" which is void as per Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

also, when users are never displayed the full t&c, it's probably invalid as per Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

and clearly, the t&c linked in the uploadwizard doesnt refer to the file uploaded, because in a single sentence it says "By clicking "publish", you agree to the terms of use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons CC0 License." even if you are releasing your photo in any licence other than cc0. the only logical understanding is this only explicit mention of "terms of use" here covers "your contribution" related to "captions and other additional information such as main subjects and location (NOT the file)".

so if they have a lot of money, they could quite possibly do something to have the same treatment as corporations.--RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not a very sympathetic ear on the Vogue Taiwan case, as I vocally approved of deletion and still agree it was the correct decision; corporate structures are opaque for a reason, they give companies plausible deniability and legal/ownership "air-gaps" for situations just like that one, meaning our obligation to protect the project and reusers from possible (and possibly valid) litigation or damages must necessarily trump our desire to retain the content. Indeed though, Vogue Taiwan is what I thought Trade was referring to (clearly I was wrong), and I do believe we generally shouldn't let corporations with capital or power dictate our decision-making purely because they have the means to fight a legal battle. But that is a complex calculation that involves different levels of risk for WMF, Commons, and the Wiki community broadly.

On the whole though, I still completely agree that clearer language in the upload process about the slim prospects of courtesy deletion and lack of long-term deletion procedures would solve a lot of issues and prevent a lot of stress for both uploaders and Commons. 19h00s (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

and i'll end off my comments by this. what disgusts me the most, is certain users' hostility against other users and indifference to other users' needs. they choose to needlessly antagonise and bash other users instead of seeing and understanding people's needs and working kindly and gently with them.

i see this problem, i come up with this solution of a warning. those users see this problem, they bully the users in need and drive them away. technical solutions cant solve attitude problems. RoyZuo (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Support for the proposal to very clearly explain/state our current rules for the deletion of own uploads in the basic tutorial for new users and also during the upload-procedure. --Túrelio (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Commons:Upload page does have a warning (in bold even!) that licenses cannot be revoked. If people overread that part of the formular, it is their own loss.

However, I am surprised that the much-advertised Upload Wizard does not have a warning (I could find): The licensing part says currently: All media uploaded to Wikimedia Commons are free for anyone to use and share anywhere on internet or off internet. To ensure the work you upload is copyright-free, please provide the following information. (...)
That means I  Support the suggestion: Between these two sentences in the Wizard, we should add another sentence, that could read like this: "Please note that you can usually not revoke your permission later."(en), "Bitte beachte, dass du die hier gegebene Einwilligung später nur in Ausnahmefällen wiederrufen kannst." (de), "Veuillez noter que vous ne pouvez pas révoquer votre autorisation ultérieurement, que dans des cas exceptionnels." (fr) and so on. In the spirit of making the sentence less legalese, I exchanged "licence" with "permission", and kept it short. If someone is alarmed by this statement, they should stop uploading and find the relevant rules. --Enyavar (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Concur, though "usually can not" is better English than "can usually not". - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 14 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Support.✅️

I'm not sure if this is still under discussion, but I agree with @RoyZuo and others who say that this should be stated clearly in plain English on the upload page (prior to uploading). Also, deleting from the website doesn't unilaterally equate to revoking the license, contrary to what someone suggested earlier. BetsyRogers (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very important point. Deleting a file here does in no way whatsoever "revoke" the licence granted by the author. It simply means that the file/the work is no longer publicly available on this website - the "deleted" work itself is still under the licence originally given. ~TheImaCow (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Support -- Ooligan (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I share the same view, that a user's deletion of his/her files on a website doesnt mean that s/he is revoking the licence granted to any other user re-using that file.

Suppose I upload the same photo here and on flickr under the same licence. I then want to delete only one of them, but the current situation is such that I can only delete the flickr one and keep the one here, but not the other way around. RoyZuo (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Haven't read all the above, sorry, but what I would like to see is a facility for contributors to be able to delete their own content for a short window (exact duration TBD) after upload. Surely this is reasonable so that mistakes can be quickly corrected. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Illustrating Wikipedia brochure.pdf is very outdated. Things look very different now. Maybe parts of the text need updates too but the images would be very confusing if anybody reads this.

That file is used on many pages, including en:Help:Pictures, en:Help:Files and meta:Commons brochure.

Alternatively, the document could be replaced by an entirely new up-to-date document. Note that in that case, most file-uses should probably also be changed.

See also Commons:Simple media reuse guide and Commons:Welcome. The file is of course relevant to the entire global Commons project.

Also posted this to Commons:File requests#Updated version of the Commons brochure and I suggest discussion continues there once this thread here is archived. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The file is outdated by over a decade – it was uploaded and last revised in 2014 which in 1 week is 11 years ago. Despite of this it is and remains heavily used across Wikimedia projects, including English Wikipedia and metawiki. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the last 30 days, the file got 81,282 views but it shows totally outdated screenshots of Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed when moving categories without leaving a redirect – as one may want to for titles with typos or flaws or that are just the plural/singular form etc (pollutes the autocomplete) – links to the category in Wikipedia can become broken.

The move page doesn't inform the user much about this potential issue – it says The old title will become a redirect page to the new title. Be sure to check for double or broken redirects. You are responsible for making sure that links continue to point where they are supposed to go. but the user may not be aware that the category is linked from a Wikipedia page. One also can't see which Wikipedia pages do – Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't show them and the they're also not listed on the move page. Many Wikipedia articles just link dynamically to whatever Commons category is linked on the/a Wikidata item but apparently many(?) also specify the exact category title.

This is especially problematic when one wants to move a set of categories all named by the same schema. Usually, Wieralee moves files in the moved category to the target category but that's not the case for moves when no redirect is left. When moving multiple categories, one would have to check for each where it's linked on Wikipedia and also correct that(?)

See also Commons:Village pump/Technical#How to move (rename) many categories?

I think there may be quite a few moved categories where the links have not been updated on Wikipedia – is there any way to find them (if possible just the ones with broken links) so these can be corrected? Is there maybe a tool for category moves that would also change these similar to "Move & Replace" for files? Prototyperspective (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another benefit for those wiki's to just rely on Wikidata for this. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there any tool / query (probably quarry) that could check

• all redirect pages and
• all pages that were moved without leaving a redirect

whether they contain files so that one could for example create a regularly bot-updated report page that lists these categories for editors to fix these? Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So I'll just go through my contributions filtered for category moves and then check all the source categories whether they still contain any files. However, what about other users that may have at some point also moved categories or categories without leaving a redirect – is there any way to have them all checked? Prototyperspective (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've found one user who names all the files with their own name. Something like <subject>_<name>.<ext> Name space is already very polluted and this thing pollutes it even more. At the same time I understand that looking for new name is a bit hard task. So...

1. Is it normal to do use such namings? 2. If it is not desirable naming scheme, what should I do? I should go to users talk page, politely explain and hope they will understand? DustDFG (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's not 'normal', it's not encouraged, but nor is it forbidden. This isn't helped by a couple of prominent and very active editors here (inc. at least one admin) who do this, and will angrily defend against any renaming.

BTW, the same policy of 'free choice' that makes this possible also means that it's nearly as easy to rename them otherwise, should one of the other general conditions for renaming be met. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear. Ppl have no RIGHT to demand this name is preserved, similar to how they have no right to retain metadata in the exif, or a specific mark inside a photograph. These are not rights that the license provides them, literally the opposite, the license explicitly permits others to make such changes.

They get their name somewhere, the license somewhere and often the share alike provision and thats it. The rest is a courtesy, and the more people abuse a courtesy (for instance by plastering their names over each and every wiki page that uses an image) the more likely they are to eventually cause every person to loose that courtesy. (Aka. Why we cant have nice things) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The topic of rights is irrelevant here. Commons instead has policies, including a naming policy that outlines which files should and shouldn't be renamed, and if a filename meets the naming guidelines otherwise, there are no grounds for renaming files just to remove the author's name from it. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ReneeWrites I was just saying that that is a choice. If people start misusing policy because they figured out it is a good way to insert their name everywhere without other people being allowed to complain about it, then we can amend the naming policy (and in my opinion should [but I haven't looked into how much of a problem this actually is right now, so no opinion on that]). This is somewhat alike to the whole GFDL debate. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:12, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that it's wrong to name the author in the file name. We do that with paintings, books, song etc., so why shouldn't we be allowed to do the same with photographers (even if they are Wikimedians)? I personally don't do it, but I have no problem with others doing it. Nakonana (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

We have handwritten categories, but I dont see any handtyped categories. This example is clearly typed with a classic typewriter, not even an electric one, where the impact is constant. Nowadays this type of text is not made anymore, but (laser)printed. The most handy solution to make the handwritten text in Category:Lettre posthume de Bernard à Estelle is of course to write out the text in the French Wikisource, but in the meantime... Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Smiley.toerist: I've recently been wanting to categorise typewritten documents by equipment as well. I've not thought to distinguish between electric and manual typewriters, but that totally makes sense if it's determinable. We have categories for Handwriting and Writing by medium and Writing equipment, so maybe Writing by equipment used would make sense? With Written with electric typewriters, Written with manual typewriters, Written with fountain pen etc. as subcats? Sam Wilson 03:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is Category:Typed texts from Gallica, so as a first step I created Category:Typed texts. There are many categories under Category:Writing systems. Also interesting are the typefaces. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Smiley.toerist, should that new Category:Typed texts, include the category "typewriters?" -- Ooligan (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No typewriters are included in the broader Category:Writing systems. Typewriters produce Typed texts, but typewriters is not a subcategory of Typed texts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

To say I'm surprised by the undeletion (a supervote?) at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Nintendo Advanced Video System cartridge console, data recorder and keyboard all together-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg is an understatement - but I'm not clear where such an action should be challenged. Is here a suitable place for discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As the uploader, I'd have been fine with it remaining deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would say that COM:VPC is a better page than this. On copyright principles, I'd let it be. Continued fighting over something like this drains energy from a community quickly. It's not really a supervote; there was only like one explicit opposition and one explicit support, making it two to one with the closer's vote. But if you feel the admin has an issue with closing votes inappropriately, it'd be COM:AN or COM:ANU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

...hmmm... nobody thought of a courtesy ping, as I closed Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nintendo Advanced Video System cartridge console, data recorder and keyboard all together-February 1985 Computer Entertainer.jpg. I agree this is highly likely copyrighted by the manufacturer. It can be nominated again for deletion of course, but we can also spare our energy. I am amazed how PCP seems to be turned upside down. Ellywa (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

To me it looks like the same quality and taken in same conditions as other photos of devices from different companies in the magazine  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   01:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course. (1) Did the magazine obtain full rights on these photos? (2) Did they just publish press photos without even attribution, which is quite usual? (3) Or did they make all these photos with their own photographers? If 2 is true, we cannot keep these photos on Commons. Ellywa (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are photos of devices from different competitor companies, there is also no information on where to buy them so they are unlikely to be photos from a store. I searched newspapers in 1985 and can't find that press photos of this console were distributed  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   13:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see anyone suggesting they were from a store; that's a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What Andy and Ellywa are insinuating is that Nintendo took the photograph (since they were the manufacturer), not that these were from retail. Abzeronow (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me, though, that if Nintendo repeatedly gave them photographs and made no objection to them repeatedly publishing without copyright notices, we'd be back to {{PD-US-1978-89}}. No? - Jmabel ! talk 01:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The magazine had an overall copyright notice, so no, unless they were straight up advertisements  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   11:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am saying that all the photos of devices from different competing companies look like they were taken in the same conditions at the same time. Nintendo was not taking and distributing photos of Commodore and Atari machines, that's why I brought up being from another third party which would be a possible reason for all photos to look the same  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   11:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would like to raise an issue regarding recent category moves involving Munich/München. According to COM:NAME, category names should generally use English. The main parent category on Commons for this city is Category:Munich, but a number of subcategories were moved from Munich to the German München without a clear community consensus, and seemingly against Commons' naming policies. Similar moves have affected dozens of other Munich-related categories, often at the hands of the same user, resulting in inconsistency within the category tree.

I'd like to get wider input on how these categories should be handled and hopefully establish a consensus, so these inconsistencies can be ironed out one way or another. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pinging L. Beck as he started the CfD, and DALIBRI for having made this move (among many others). ReneeWrites (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Proper names are generally used as such. However, there are exceptions, namely when a common English name exists (for example: Nürnberg - Nuremberg or Köln - Cologne). Therefore, all categories where the name München appears should be renamed to use the English name. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category names should generally be in English, excepting some of proper names, biological taxa and terms which don't have an exact English equivalent. Lukas Beck (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to get wider input on how these categories should be handled As Lukas Beck noted the policy is for category names to be in English. If you want things to be multilingual at scale and in reality so that categories can also be found by people searching the Web or Commons in their own language and category titles be better understood by people not speaking English well, I suggest you vote on m:Community Wishlist/W214.
Proper names with any translation solution would need special treatment as they often shouldn't be translated and the labels of Wikidata items can be used for that, albeit in this case (and cases like it) 'English Garden' and its translations wouldn't necessarily be inferior to the proper name "Englischer Garten". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I removed the link to the CfD, so as to not cause further confusion. This is about Munich vs. München, not Englischer Garten. --ReneeWrites (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Because you're replying to me: had understood that and there's no need to remove it. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Clearly "Munich". Is there any existing category that uses München, or any current CfD proposing that one should? - Jmabel ! talk 23:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Englischer Garten (München) and many subcategories for example. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Lukas linked to an ongoing CfD with the user who had been moving these categories. But am I correct in understanding that these moves went against established policy, and I'm at liberty to change them back? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Certainly if they introduced "München" rather than "Munich" as a disambiguator, that should be changed back.

There are rare cases of a proper noun phrase where "München" could be correct, but this is not it. For example, we have Category:FC Bayern München (though I see there is a current RfC about that) and Category:Zoologische Staatssammlung München. Those are certainly at least defensible, but (for example) I would say Category:Stachus (München) (which has now had that name for over a year(!) and does not appear to be undergoing an RfC) is misnamed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the purpose of this category? And why is this category full of art that is not line art? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jerimee: this appears to be your handiwork. What's going on here? And why are thousands of images categorized as lineart that aren't? ReneeWrites (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @ReneeWrites! I appreciate your help. This hidden category houses some of the images that have SDC with instance of (P31)→line art (Q365552) and lack depicts (P180)

The category has documentation on the talk page and I'm happy to improve that documentation.

One would need a narrow definition of "line" to access hundreds of images as miscategorized in this category. I find a more broad definition to be useful, considering that there 79,327,945 files without any P31 value. Broad categories are useful; categories are as unique and numerous as the items themselves have limited utility.

That said, I did immediately find one image that was miscategorized, and I'm sure there are others. The documentation on the category talk page has a few saved queries to help in that endeavor. -- Jerimee (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jerimee: it looks to me like you have also applied instance of (P31) -> line art (Q365552) very arbitrarily to etchings, few of which are line art. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jerimee: "I find a more broad definition to be useful". It's not about applying a broad or narrow definition, but one that is accurate. Categories exist to catalogue specific types of images so that other people have an easier time finding what they're looking for. Categories that are bloated with content that doesn't belong in them are not more useful as a result, that's why they're not used in this manner. What definition of lineart have you been applying? ReneeWrites (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can turn off the visibility of hidden categories. And, yes, the goal is to make the images easier to find Jerimee (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question was "What definition of lineart have you been applying?". I, too, would like your answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you all not remember the conversation about this nearly a year ago? Each person on this thread was also on that thread.

The category itself can't be the problem, right? There are tons of this sort of maintenance category, typically without any sort of documentation at all.

I'm at a loss as to how to help. Can you tell me what problem you're trying to solve?

As far as what I consider line art:

• Art with distinct lines
  • Typically I try to consider what the specific digital representation looks like in and of itself, and not put too much emphasis on intent or the original. The file Jmabel mentioned is a useful example because it is of low enough resolution that the lines are hopelessly blurred. So I agree it is a poor example of line work.
  • Color washes applied over line art do not typically detract from line work
  • I'm happy to explain further if it would genuinely be useful - just let me know how much detail you actually want
  • I'm not wedded to the label; I'd be happy to use anything else sufficiently broad
• Here are a number of examples: Category:Line_art_without_P180
• I've bookmarked queries here, which I consider documentation: Category_talk:Line_art_without_P180
• My motivation is to make it easier to find images, especially via SDC.
  • Commons:Structured_data
  • Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction#Level_of_detail
  • ...structured data makes it possible to use Commons' media in new ways, and makes the files on Commons much easier to view, search, edit, curate or organize, use and reuse... Commons:Structured_data/About
  • {{Search instances|Q365552}} → find instances of line art (Q365552)
• A taxonomy only works by approximating; if it were perfectly accurate it would tell you nothing. A useful system of organization requires some degree of generalization.
  • w:On_Exactitude_in_Science
  • Which, to answer User:Jmabel, is why I tend to categorize etchings as line art. Applying both values to P31 would be even better IMHO, but of course this is debated. And I'm sure there are people that would say "this is not an etching, it is an Aquatint, Sugar Lift, Spit Bite, Mezzotint, intaglio etc"
    • find instances of etching print (Q18218093) returns 14 results
    • Etchings are typically considered coincident with line art.

I don't claim the authority to define these things with perfect certainty - I'm glad we have a variety of viewpoints. Jerimee (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I remember User talk:Jerimee#Line art, where I objected to your categorisations (I still do), and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01#Line art, where you did not contribute, and which remains unresolved.

User:EncycloPetey was the only other person to comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jerimee: I noticed that you're still adding metadata and categories to non-lineart images despite this conversation being ongoing, could you please pause your activity until this issue is resolved? ReneeWrites (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It should have stopped in January. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

While I appreciate the thoughtful and generous nature of this proposal, I have some reservations. Rather than list all my questions out here, perhaps you could point me to some past issues you have successfully resolved? Jerimee (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to list any questions you have, that's what discussions like these are for. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. Can you tell me what problem you're trying to solve?
2. Perhaps you could point me to some past issues you have successfully resolved, so I can better understand how and if to participate
3. Are you speaking for yourself, or do you represent a group of editors, or do you have a special role that I should know about?
4. Am I interfering with your work in some way? I value your contributions

Jerimee (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

1: Categories exist to catalogue specific types of images so that other people have an easier time finding what they're looking for. Categories that are bloated with content that doesn't belong in them are not more useful as a result, that's why they're not used in this manner.

2: I'm a bit unsure why you're asking me specifically, since a Commons admin with long-standing experience in this area is also participating in this discussion.

3: Several other editors in this thread have also expressed frustration with your work, so it isn't just a one-to-one disagreement.

4: Does it matter? ReneeWrites (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So should we just delete the category then? I don't really mind doing that. Jerimee (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You don't appear to be taking this seriously.

If you don't stop voluntarily, until consensus is demonstrated, the next step will be to ask for administrative action to prevent you from continuing until it is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re: "I tend to categorize etchings as line art". Is there a reason for this tend? You've made assertions with no reason or authority or citations. I've looked at the relevant article on English Wikipedia, which, as a general article, is devoid of references and most of the gallery examples were added by a single individual last year without documentation. Most Wikipedias do not even have an article on "line art", and I own no good authoritative book on the taxonomies of art, but it the above reply I see no source for the taxonomy being applied, merely an appeal to inexactitude. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Certainly "line art" is a common enough term in graphics especially and in art more generally. Certainly the category makes sense in principle; the problem is that, at a quick assay, it looks to me like roughly half of what is here isn't line art. If these all have instance of (P31)→line art (Q365552), then that assertion is being made incorrectly as often as not. And while an etching can be line art, most etchings are not; they have solid areas, areas that have been etched with a wire brush where the individual lines are not under the artist's conscious control, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a template for when an anonymous author releases their work into the public domain? Right now I'm using {{PD-author}} with {{Anonymous}}, but that's grammatically incorrect. Based5290 (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Which work(s)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Something very similar (though not PD) came up recently for File:SedeGEM.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This came up at File:2003 birthday letter to Epstein.png. I suppose it would be more accurate to say that an unknown author released it into the public domain. Based5290 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see no evidence that its author has released it into the PD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like something to take to a deletion discussion if you disagree with the abandonment rationale. Based5290 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What "abandonment rationale"? Where did I mention disagreeing with one? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

My bad for misinterpreting your reply. What did you mean? Based5290 (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

All right, I'll start the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I yesterday had an argument with {{ping|Fantaglobe11} (still findable at my talk page, User talk:Ymblanter#June 2025 in The Hague). The point is that they are doing mass recaterigorization, saying they are diffusing categories. As an example, this file, which I added at upload to Category:June 2025 in The Hague (regular) and Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2025-06-14 (hidden), is now categorized only at Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 (hidden), i.e. the file disappeared from a regular category and was transferred to a hidden category. I restored the original category, Fantaglobe11 reverted all my edits and took the position "show me the policy which says I may not do what I am doing, and until that happened I will keep doing it". They made literally thousands of similar edits. I know of course that the community proved itself incapable to resolve a general issue at Commons:Requests for comment/Categories of photographs by country by date, but may be it has an opinion on whether removal of file from regular categories and adding them to hidden categories is ok? Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are differing opinions on hidden date/place categories, but there seems agreement that files should always have at least 1 relevant non-hidden category. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The files I uploaded always have non-trivial non-hidden categories (related to the subject and location, not to the date/place). Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found this village pump discussion and this CfD where there seems to be a community consensus against creating "Photographs of city by day"-categories. A few categories are so old and/or numerous that nobody's taken an axe to them (New York City and Tokyo come to mind) but I think at the very least no new ones should be created - at least until there's consensus to do otherwise. And like Infrogmation said, if an image is moved to a hidden category it should be in at least one relevant non-hidden category. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy ping to @Fantaglobe11: as the ping in the original comment appears to be broken. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In first instance, I would like to set things right. I moved pictures from a hidden category (Category:Netherlands photographs taken on 2025-06-14) to another hidden category (Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14). According to Commons:Categories#Over-categorization, I subsequently removed the parent category (Category:June 2025 in The Hague). Please understand that it is hard to consider any consensus on any discussion pages. I take my cue from the example for German districts/cities/municipalities, where there are countless such cases. Best regards, Fantaglobe11 (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ok, my conclusion is that, as a project, we do not need the categories by date anymore. Nobody can explain why they exist, we do not have a common vision how they should look like, discussions about them are regularly started and never come to any conclusions, and people keep doing whatever they want without being accountable to the community. I am pretty sure though the proposal to delete all of them would be stalled as well. May be I should just stop adding them to the files I upload, this will at least make my watchlist less loaded. Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The question I would like to raise. Is it overfilled categories that we want? The one like Category:June 2023 in Amsterdam that have like hundreds of pictures. The Template:Categorize is not for nothing. I feel that a problem is being created here that shouldn't be a problem at all. Furthermore, it is beyond me why I should be held accountable for something that does not violate the rules. Fantaglobe11 (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I never proposed that you would be accountable (blocked, topic banned whatever) though I still think it would be good if you were interested in looking for consensus. You do understand that you are moving hundreds of my uploads per day, some of them multiple times, and they all show on my watchlist, right? Also, I strongly suspect that some of the files you move (not my uploads) you remove from the only non-hidden category as a result, and I do not think you check this. Now, back to the point, whether these moves are acceptable or not depends on whether and how these categories are used. A category with several hundred photographs may be sometimes more convenient than several dozen categories containing ten photographs each, this all depends on the usage. I personally never use these categories to find a photograph unless I know precisely which one; I do not see why I would need to find a nice photo taken in South Holland on 5 May 2023 and why it is better that a photo taken on 6 May 2023. (I use them to find my own uploads, for example I can locate one photograph I took on that day, and then I can locate the others - what you are doing restricts this usage). I strongly suspect no humans use them in this way - only robots, for whatever purpose. And for robots it is not a problem that the categories are overfilled. As simple as that. Ymblanter (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I will kindly overlook that unfounded accusation in order to be able to talk constructively with each other here. Do you think that there is a real difference between the categories Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 and Category:June 2025 in The Hague, except for the fact that only one is hidden? If you ask me, the average user won't search for a file in either category.

Besides, many of the photographs that are categorized in these categories, because I added them. So I would say that I have a rough idea of that. Fantaglobe11 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you think that there is a real difference between the categories Category:The Hague photographs taken on 2025-06-14 and Category:June 2025 in The Hague, except for the fact that only one is hidden? Yes, there's a difference: the former only has photographs while the latter can also have documents, Coats of arms, videos, books, audios etc. Nakonana (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Ymblanter: at least for 19th and 20th Centuries, I find the "by day" categories quite useful, and find "by country" for those to be sufficient granularity because we don't tend to have overwhelming numbers of photos that can be pinned to a single day before digital photography became current. Above all, they are super-useful to help work out that some set of pictures were a single photographer walking around on a given day taking pictures; if some of those have photographer and place information, it helps to pin down the others. And while you may think that wouldn't happen (have the date lack photographer or place) it definitely does, because one archive might have things where all they know is the date and another might have a photo or two where they know a lot more. In particular, the Seattle Municipal Archive only very rarely tracks which city-employed photographer took a particular photo (even if it is someone moderately famous, such as Anders Beer Wilse or Asahel Curtis), but a museum might. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I mentioned above, this is how I can trace my own photos (I have several thousands uploads, so that going through the upload list is not an option). But if they are spread between province /city categories by day, this is becoming less and less useful. Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

we do not need the categories by date anymore. I disagree, World War II on 7 May 1945 was very different from World War II on 8/9 May 1945. It might not make a difference for every day and at every place, but sometimes it really does make a significant difference. Nakonana (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• File:Trump Is On the Epstein List (54673829027).jpg

Context: On ENWP i was told we were not allowed to use this particular photograph in any articles because it violated their BLP (specifically that of Donald Trump)

Do the Commons community share the same opinion? Keep in mind that while the photographs does not actually depict Trump per say Commons:Photographs of identifiable people still mandates that Commons are required to "consider the legal and moral rights of the subject" --Trade (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it's fine to host. The image documents a protest of a very public figure, and that falls in our educational scope. It'd be a different situation if the sign targeted a relatively unknown private individual, which could violate reasonable privacy expectations and would have little to no educational value. But this is the case of a protest directed at a U.S. president (and there are little to no legal concerns here, as the right to protest is strong in the US). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Kevin. Trump is a public figure and American rights in this case are strong. This is in scope as a photograph of a protest and public reaction to the Epstein files. BLP is a Wikipedia policy, it doesn't apply as much here since Commons doesn't write biographies. Abzeronow (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I put in the "personality rights"-template, because I thought somebody was concerned about the rights of the protesters. Wether "Trump is on the Epstein List" is a fact or an opinion can be debated, but it amuses me that in the Country of the First Amendment and where News and Entertainment are readily intermixed, anybody would make a BLP-issue, regarding Trump out of this. --Wuselig (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No but when ENWP starts making BLP issues out of it, it's useful to figure out if Commons is going to follow in suit Trade (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: I am sure we have many photos here on Commons that one or another wiki would not consider appropriate to use. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade, Can you provide the English Wikipedia link to which you refer? -- Ooligan (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

what link Trade (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: presumably for your statements "On ENWP i was told…" and "when ENWP starts making BLP issues out of it…", but neither links to anything specific. - Jmabel ! talk 07:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jmabel. @Trade, Please, provide a link(s) to what you wrote at the beginning of this thread above:

• "Context: On ENWP i was told we were not allowed to use this particular photograph in any articles because it violated their BLP (specifically that of Donald Trump) Do the Commons community share the same opinion?"

-- Ooligan (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jeffrey Epstein client list Scrolls down and you can see the context the file was being used--Trade (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there anyway to automate the matching of these names in this list? File:Charter Members of the Ninety-Nines.jpg --RAN (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by "the matching of these names". Matching them to what? Categories? Wikidata? Wikipedia in some language? Something else? - Jmabel ! talk 00:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you mean OCRing the file to add categories. This could maybe be done using mw:Extension:Wikisource/Wikimedia OCR and then using a text editor to add "Category:" in front of each line etc. However, I don't think it would be good to add an image that shows a list of names to the categories of these names or would it? Instead one would add a category like "Charter Members of the Ninety-Nines" to these people's categories. Maybe that's what you intend to do. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Very confusing that Commons:Primi passi is completely different from Commons:First steps/it, which has the title "Primi passi". - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Same as your question from June regarding the Czech version. I think that it should be corrected globally. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi folks. In part prompted by industry concern around the future of cultural heritage data on the sketchfab.com platform, Wikimedia UK and Thomas Flynn are collaborating on a user research project UK Heritage 3D Data at Risk: Developing a Strategy for Long Term Access & Storage. The project is made possible with The National Lottery Heritage Fund, with thanks to National Lottery players.

It has a UK focus, but could have implications for 3D content more broadly.

Led by Thomas Flynn, this project will undertake a period of focused stakeholder research into the needs of the UK heritage sector with regards to management and exploitation of digital 3D data. Essentially we're seeking to answer the question:

"What would a 'Sketchfab for UK heritage' look like and how would it work to best serve cultural heritage professionals and audiences alike?"

The project activities are pretty straightforward:

• Ask stakeholders (folks in the UK producing and working with cultural heritage 3D data) what they think & need via questionnaires, interviews, and workshops.
• Survey the current online 3D data infrastructure ecosystem.
• Synthesise this information into an open access report that a) develop guidance for UK heritage organisations of all sizes on best practice related to these themes and b) suggest opportunities for solutions and infrastructure where none currently exists.

You can follow us on our Commons page and email us directly: 3Ddata wikimedia.org.uk Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:27, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This page might be interesting in this manner: Commons:Textured 3D PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Definitely! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a batch Flickr upload in Procession of the Good Friday (San Lorenzo Maggiore) - 2017. 200+ files there should be tagged with {{Watermark}}. Is there a way to process the files automatically instead of adding the template manually? Qbli2mHd (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Qbli2mHd, perhaps you can use COM:VFC. You can enter the category name, then use the "Prepend any text" option to add the {{Watermark}} tag to the selected images. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Though "prepend" might not be the best choice; we don't usually put {{Watermark}} at the top of the file page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know as I wasn't aware of that, so where should the {{Watermark}} tag be placed at? I have seen these tags being placed on top, middle (after the summary section) or at the end of file pages before, so I always thought it was just a personal preference. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Tvpuppy: I'd say ideally after {{Information}} but of course we cannot assume that template is used on every file. I'd probably start by doing a search/query to determine whether there are files in the category that lack that template. - Jmabel ! talk 22:46, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have anyone noticed the bot creating constraint errors with the SDC data it's adding? Trade (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Certainly not routinely. @Trade: can you give an example where you've seen this? - Jmabel ! talk 22:47, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Lil bitch (Markiplier video).webm#published in

The property description is explicitly referring to works published in other works ("larger work that a given work"), not random social media stuff Trade (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade Did you pick the right example there? SchlurcherBot didn't take the action you describe (see Special:diff/914006523). Instead, the "published in" claim was inserted by YouTubeBot (see Special:diff/1039529357). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Alright let us change the subject to YouTubeBot. SchurcherBot is innocent for now Trade (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I wanted to take a moment to address the recent exchange concerning SchlurcherBot and the comment that it is innocent for now. While I appreciate that the initial bug report has been resolved, I feel compelled to clarify why this phrasing is both inaccurate and inappropriate given the circumstances.

Over the past months, I have invested hundreds of hours of my own time - entirely unpaid - into the development, maintenance, and improvement of SchlurcherBot. This effort has included writing and reviewing substantial amounts of code, implementing new features, fixing issues and filling a global bot request. My contributions have been driven by a commitment to the Commons Project and idears, not by obligation or compensation.

When someone dedicates this level of effort voluntarily, it is reasonable to expect that their work is treated with respect and fairness. Suggesting that SchlurcherBot is innocent for now implies a presumption of guilt or wrongdoing that is neither justified nor constructive. It undermines the trust and goodwill that are essential for collaborative projects and open-source communities.

I take pride in the integrity of my work and that I have developed unit tests to stress test my processes. SchlurcherBot is the most active bot on Commons. If there are concerns about functionality or behavior, I am always open to addressing them. I usually respond to concerns on my talk page in days rather than weeks. However, language that casts doubt without basis does not contribute to a positive or productive environment.

Moving forward, I kindly ask that we maintain a tone that reflects mutual respect and acknowledges the effort behind these contributions.

@Trade: Thank you for taking the time to read this. I remain committed to improving SchlurcherBot and ensuring it serves its purpose effectively. If there are specific issues or suggestions you would like to discuss, I am more than willing to engage in that conversation. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment, pinging @Schlurcher, the operator of the bot. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Since the observed problem has nothing to do with SchlurcherBot: (Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC))Reply

Per Trade's report above (mistakenly about Schlurcherbot): for File:Lil bitch (Markiplier video).webm, YouTubeBot appears to have added a value for published in (P1433) that creates a constraint error. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The error constraint was introduced through this edit from @Trade: [1]. So first we should clarify if this is needed or rater be removed again. I think the restrictions should be removed, as YouTubeBot additions seem fully valid. Nothing that SchlurcherBot is not doing this, but as I got pinged, I share my opinion. --Schlurcher (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade Is the idea of the constraint that YouTube is considered a hosting platform instead of a publisher ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did anyone actually consulted with the Wikidata community to find out if it's correct to treat YouTube treated as a publisher? If not, then changing the property just to fit the whims of Commons is hardly appropriate

Almost all properties exist to facilitate the modeling of items on Wikidata as the community have decided. Their usage on other Commons is completely secondary to that Trade (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Was this constaint needed on Wikidata and where was this discussed on Wikidata? --Schlurcher (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Considering people keep insisting that social media websites are actually the publisher of every media users post on their website apparently so

4.150 days ago. Trade (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the sequence of events, YouTubeBot inserted the "published in" claim on 2 June 2025 (at the time this was a valid edit). Trade added a new constraint for "YouTube" on 29 August 2025 (thus retroactively making YouTubeBot's edit a constraint violation). The suggestion that YouTubeBot's editor failed to communicate with the "Wikidata community" to ensure the original edit was valid is unrealistic. Expecting an editor to predict that a valid edit will become invalid at some point in the future and requiring them to consult with an unspecified person before making an edit will never work. YouTubeBot and its operator have done nothing wrong here, though it may be worth engaging with the operator now so they can decide what to do about this new constraint (either to abide by it or engage in discussion if they think the constraint should change). Courtesy ping to @DaxServer as YouTubeBot's operator.

As Trade is the one to change the property, I am not sure what they mean by "Did anyone actually consulted with the Wikidata community to find out if it's correct to treat YouTube treated as a publisher? If not, then changing the property just to fit the whims of Commons is hardly appropriate" - who on Commons has made this change without consulting the "Wikidata community"? Schlurcher commented on Trade's edit and Trade was pinged to engage in discussion about it. That appears to be the Commons community "consulting" with the relevant parts of the "Wikidata community." From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping @From Hill To Shore. I've just stopped the bot. I haven't read the conversation yet, but will do over the weekend. -- DaxServer (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@DaxServer: As I understood from below, I think the suggestion is to use published in (P1433) → YouTube website (Q110227693) (an instance of website) instead of published in (P1433) → YouTube (Q866) (an instance of video streaming service). --Schlurcher (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

No; the suggestion is that P1433 should not be used on YouTube videos at all. YouTube website (Q110227693) denotes the web interface to YouTube (e.g. its user interface, help pages, etc), not a conceptual collective work consisting of every video which has ever been uploaded to the service. Omphalographer (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In that case, some are incorrectly used (sparql query). Flickr should also not be a valid claim? -- DaxServer (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Have you read the description of the property or the property proposal? I can try and elaborate if you are still confused what the issue is Trade (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I did (highlight by me): larger work that a given work was published in, like a journal, a website, a collection, a book or a music album. --Schlurcher (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

A change to the description which was added by a WMF banned user without any discussion and which has only existed half a year out of the 8 years the property have existed Trade (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is also completely disingenuous from you. The constraint doesn't prevent websites from being publishers at all. It only stops YouTube and Twitch. Both the name, the description and the property proposal itself explicitly talks about larger works that a given work was published in. YouTube is not a work and they do not the videos on their website (unless we are talking about YouTube of course but none of that is freely licenses anyways) Trade (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thanks. --Schlurcher (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I want to perform mass edits on subcategories of Category:Toki Pona logograms by word. What kinds of tools could I use to do such mass edits? The subcategories are a mess coming from a very inefficient workflow I had a while ago and they contain a lot of fluff. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think I will need AWB to do this correctly Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:04, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think I will need to use AWB Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:07, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:Village pump/Technical#How to move (rename) many categories? and MediaWiki talk:Gadget-VisualFileChange.js#VisualFileChange for category text content changes?. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the difference between a MetaCat and CatCat I'm reffering specifically to Category:Apple Stores in Singapore and Category:Apple Stores in Thailand. I tagged them with metacat, because they shouldn't contain files, only categories, but that was reverted. I then looked into it and saw that there were both metacats and catcats and don't really understand the difference.–DMartin (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Dmartin969: Definitely not metacats. Metacats are things like Category:Buildings by country or Category:Illuminated manuscripts by place of creation: they group other categories by a specific criterion. But I don't see why these should even be catcats: if we have a photo of an Apple store in Thailand that doesn't have a category for the particular store, why wouldn't it belong directly in Category:Apple Stores in Thailand? - Jmabel ! talk 07:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey All, we at Wiki Med funded software to record how many times a video or audio file has been played and how much of the file gets played. It is live for all users on EU WP currently.[2] Is this something the Commons community would be interested in?

To activate one needs to add to this MediaWiki:Common.js this script[3]. The code itself being here User:Yaron Koren/tmh-engagement.js

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

See for example: File:Stavropol. Celebrating the 200th anniversary of the city. Gorbachev M.S., Suslov M.A. 1978.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 06:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): mark it with {{Discolored}}. MKFI (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Thanks! --RAN (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made a lot of categories with interwikis with the intention of them being linked on wikidata. However I am concerned this might not actually work this way. Is there a bot like EmausBot that does the thing? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Specifically it is subcategories of Category:Toki Pona logograms by word which all have interwikis to toki pona wikipedia. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 11:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, is there a rotate/straighten tool for images somewhere? If not, can I request one please! ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a tool. There should be a "Request rotation" link underneath the image. If not, you might need to activate the Gadget in your settings. Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or it might work via inserting {{Rotate}}. Nakonana (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, unfortunately it isn't what I'm looking for. Rotate through 90, 180, 270 degrees, fine, but otherwise no, it's impossible (or impractical) to know exactly how many degrees (probably not even a whole number) to e.g. get the horizon level. It needs something interactive. I have a photo editor on my PC that does this fine, but this involves downloading and then re-uploading, which is a disincentive to fixing e.g. sloping horizons when I encounter them. An interactive tool in-Wiki would be highly useful. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ITookSomePhotos: CropTool can do arbitrary rotation without having to download. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

{{Offene Kurzbahnmeisterschaften des Landesschwimmverbandes Brandenburg 2018}}

Is there a way we can most these Wikimedia Deutschland templates to a different category?

I'm not a fan of how much these type of templates are currently cluttering Category:Non-copyright restriction templates making actual restriction templates harder to find. These are not actual restriction templates like {{Islamic terrorism symbol}} is. They are just a collection of already existing templates with some flavor text for context Trade (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply