Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/05

Movie player

Please remind me where to find the tool that acts as a steaming-service like interface for the movies we have on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: https://wikiflix.toolforge.org Belbury (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikiflix: https://wikiflix.toolforge.org/#/

I requested it to be synced with Category:Videos of films by year and since that cat now contains most films in Commons and is largely included (last time I checked at least) in wikiflix, it should also show most films on Commons. An alternative is WikidataGalleries/WikiFlix/Documentary films. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I made {{WikiFlix}} to link to it translations welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My image

My image File:DoveKHepburn.jpg of me I uploaded for my own Wikipedia sandbox. I do not give consent for its deletion on Wikimedia Commons as it's my own work. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoveTheEditor: Hi, and welcome. You want to keep it, then? Your language is confusing. Who snapped the photo? How did you acquire the copyright, since you wrote that it is your own work? You may need to use the Monty Python quote "I'm not dead yet". See also COM:HR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged the enwiki sandbox for speedy deletion there as a blatant hoax. (It claimed, among other things, that she died last year and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.) Omphalographer (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax all around, and a pretty transparent one at that. This may be a reason to block the account. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted all files as abuse of COM:WEBHOST, and sent 2 warnings. Yann (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It's just making this place toxic. Aren't editors meant to be polite and not arrogant? --DoveTheEditor (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoveTheEditor: Please read Commons policies, starting with COM:SCOPE and COM:L, and stop talking nonsense. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Unmerge files / Undo overwrite

Could someone please unmerge the two photos in the history of File:Мост через Элистинку.jpg (translation of file name: "Bridge across the Elistinka [River]")? Not sure why one photo was overwritten with a different one.
The resulting two files can be named File:Мост через Элистинку 2013.jpg (if that's the year in which the original was taken) and File:Мост через Элистинку 2015.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: The first thing to do is a revert (done), then downloading the second version and re-uploading with a new file name, using the diff as licensing evidence. As I'm currently using my tablet, I can't do that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I've uploaded the other file under a different name (got the year wrong, it's 2016, not 2015). Nakonana (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please help clean up Category:Art

There are currently 3,416 files on Commons which are categorized generically as "art". This is a lot - particularly given that the Art category is a disambiguation and should be empty!

Please help us make this number smaller by:

• Removing the category from files which already have more appropriate categories.
• Diffusing files to more specific categories, e.g. to categories for the artist, or for the subject matter of the work.
• Nominating files for deletion which are unlikely to be of educational use. There is a lot of personal artwork in this category which can probably be speedily deleted as F10.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens and TinEye does not function anymore

Lately, I have been having trouble with Google Lens and TinEye checking for copyright issues with images. For example, with File:MISS MONDE.jpg "Something went wrong. No image at the URL. Try again with a different URL or image" in Google Lens, and "TinEye could not read that image url. This may be due to an unsupported file format". What could be the cause? I use Firefox 140.10 on Mac. Wouter (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The page you linked isn't an image. If you click on the image itself tin eye copes with it. [1] Secretlondon (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You can also go into Preference > Gadgets, and enable the "Reverse Image Search" tool, which will place automatic search links to common sites in tabs above the image (different skins may have them in other locations). — Huntster (t @ c) 20:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: Are these lookups using only the thumbnail steps listed on https://w.wiki/GHai, as they are now supposed to? See also MediaWiki talk:Gadget-GoogleImagesTineye.js#Reverse Image Search - Google and TinEye failing to retrieve source images from Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Errrr the WMF messed up thumbnail URLs and inadvertently broke our gadget. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It seems that they settled on only using certain sizes for performance reasons, and our gadget doesn't use any of them. Our gadget needs to be fixed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Our gadget does need to be fixed but sizes are not the problem. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Surprise. It's working again now. Wouter (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: yes, my edit request that fixes it has been implemented. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wouter (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have the same problem since several weeks already. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: you shouldn't, it was fixed 3 hours before you said that. Did you clear your browser cache? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Unexpected category related to my own uploads

I just ran across Category:Uploaded by user Jmabel, which has apparently existed for a decade and of which I was never informed. It contains 653 files, which appear to be some arbitrary subset of my probably 3000 to 6000 Flickr uploads (many of which are my own work first uploaded to Flickr, many of which are from Seattle Municipal Archives Flickr stream, and probably 100-200 of which are from other sources). I never asked for this category, I never was informed of this category, and the only users to edit it appear to be a a bot that has not edited in years, a user who has not edited in years, and a blocked user I have some vague memories of interacting with, but not about this. Can anyone tell me what is going on here and whether this is useful to anyone? (I have some other questions, but they'd depend on the answers to those.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, I found discussions related to this in the bot's request page and a Village Pump thread from 2015. Basically, per the closing comment of the Village Pump thread, this user category was created to "delete uploader information from the source field" and the uploader information is "converted to an uploader category". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the above info solves this. Probably, it would be fine if the user that the user-cat is about empties the cat using cat-a-lot and then has it deleted. If in doubt, one could create a CfD for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. So someone unilaterally decided that for bot-uploaded files that were uploaded at the request of a particular user, the only connection between that user and the file would be a maintenance category that they didn't name clearly (nothing related to the bot-upload aspect) or explain in a hat-note on the category, nor did they explain this to the users in question, nor get their consent to remove the explicit mentions that were previously there. Brilliant.

I guess I will leave it, or maybe rename it to something that says what it is. Not pleased. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Featured galleries?

I see that the page Commons:Featured galleries proposed featured galleries nearly 20 years ago. It seems like it just slipped through the cracks and never got made? I for one would love to see this become an actual feature. I have been working on improving a lot of galleries and great galleries are few and far between — I think they ought to be recognised. Plus it would be very helpful to have community consensus on what makes for a top-notch gallery.

I think more focus needs to be placed on galleries, since they are the main namespace, and the most accessible part of Commons for casual users. LetmeEditit (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit: you may be a mile ahead of me here, but if you wanted to propose guidelines for featured galleries, you might extrapolate from Commons:Galleries, including from some of the examples there of good galleries. Also, if you think there are better examples, that would be helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll start putting some guidelines together now; when I'm done I'll put them up on Commons talk:Featured galleries. In fact, there's some old discussion on that page that may be useful.

I think the guidelines should be pretty open-ended, considering a lot can be done with galleries, so I think being too rigid would restrict creativity. I think something similar to the featured picture guidelines might be good — some sort of a vote based off personal preferences. Do you have any ideas of your own? LetmeEditit (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I just put together some basic guidelines: see Commons talk:Featured galleries#Guidelines proposal LetmeEditit (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Net sheds

Net sheds at Fishermen's Terminal, Seattle

Category:Net sheds is redirected to Category:Fishing huts, but that seems absurd for something like these industrial-scale net sheds at Fishermen's Terminal on the south side of Salmon Bay in Seattle. I would imagine other major fishing fleets have something similar, though if we have photos of them I have no guess how someone chose to categorize them. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Introducing WISE: Semantic search for Commons (we’d love your feedback)

Hello everyone,

We would love to get your feedback on a tool we have been working on: https://wise.wmcloud.org/

This is a search tool for images and videos on wikimedia. Currently is searching only on media of the day (approximately 5000 videos). It searches only the visual content of the file (not on metadata, filename, or structured data). It also does face detection and recognition.

Please give it a go. Here's some taste example queries:

• for visual queries (select "Visual" on the dropdown menu next to the search box)
  • "man at a train station"
  • "एक व्यक्ति रेलवे स्टेशन पर" # this is "man at a train station" in Hindi (this tool handles multiple languages, so try on your language)
  • "horse in an airplane" # the first result is correct but it's a ogv file
  • విమానంలో గుర్రం # this is "a horse in aeroplane" in Telugu (again, try it on your own language)
  • man with a flower
  • pirate with a pistol

• for face search (select "Faces" on the dropdown menu next to the search box. Then click on the "Image" green button, and past the URL for an image)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Charlie_Chaplin.jpg (a photo with charlie chaplin face)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Neil_Armstrong_pose.jpg (a photo with neil armstrong face)

[warning: some videos are ogv videos and your brownser may not play them, so watch them on Commons, i.e., after clicking the search result, scroll down to the media metadata table, and follow the link to commons]

Key features include:

• Semantic search using natural language to find relevant images on Commons from the visual content only (not the structured data or description, only the image itself)
• Face search: upload or paste a face image, and the tool will try to identify and locate that person across images and videos, including timestamps where they appear
• Audio search: search within audio files to find relevant segments
• Multilingual search: supports queries in multiple languages

We are actively improving the tool and would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or ideas from the community. Here's some more immediate future plans:

• Search on all wikimedia images (instead of only videos / media of the day)
• Show similar images when uploading an image to suggest filenames, categories, and other relevant metadata

More technical details and a place to share feedback at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wise

Gopavasanth (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gopavasanth: aren't there privacy issues around doing a face search? I would think that if applied to (for example) crowd photos at political demonstrations, the results could be pretty terrifying. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 Agree with Jmabel --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Face search without identifying person, there is person in photo, there are some persons in photo, there is lot of persons in the photo or generic there is males/females/childrens/adults/eldery people in the photo could be more useful and most likely more robust than trying to identify a specific person. --Zache (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Jmabel. I would strongly oppose any tool that integrated facial recognition into search capacity. 19h00s (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if you are concerned about political repression, the police almost certainly have much better tools then this running on publicly available images on the internet. Bawolff (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

We can not prevent this and anyone should be aware of this when publishing photos. But we should not host such a tool, that also clearly would violate EU regulation, on the Wikimedia infrastructure. GPSLeo (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is cool and all, but I'm not sure its very useful unless it covers all the images (or at least a much larger subset). At the same time, it seems unclear there is a path forward to actually doing that. Bawolff (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Great initiative and a very compelling use of embeddings. I was wondering if you've got any ideas as to how to benchmark the retrieval quality when the corpus grows? Awinkler3 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's exciting to see projects that make it easier to discover the great contents from Wikimedia projects.

I wanted to introduce a recent initiative that may be relevant for projects like Wise that are based on Wikimedia content. The Wikimedia Attribution Framework has recently been launched, and we are looking for early adopters to learn from their experience.

The Wikimedia Attribution Framework sets guidelines on how to provide sustainable attribution when reusing Wikimedia content. It is in an early beta stage, and we want to learn from those trying to apply the guidelines provided. We'll be adding more details to the project page, but feel free to share any thoughts on the talk page.

I hope this could be a useful resource to make the Wise project even better.

Thanks! --Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Note also that the Attribution API is also available to facilitate the application of the guidelines provided in the Attribution Framework. For the case of WISE, it can be particularly useful to show license info for images.

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for developing this! I wonder if categories set on items could be used as clues as to the content of the files to improve performance and also whether this tool could be used to basically suggest categories that are missing (eg major content of video but no related set cat found). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues with FileImporter

See mw:Help talk:Extension:FileImporter#Failure to automatically add on local image page for the information and context. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thank you for the alert. Use on enwiki should be {{Now Commons}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Images and categorization

Should images in Category:San Polo (Venice) need more precise categorization (I can do this) or is enough current categorization? --Green Wave (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

See the subcategories of that category. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If you know of more precise categories for the images (and considering the available subcategories, this is quite likely), please do. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest to check out other comparable communes (like Rome or Milan?) and copy elements of the category structures there, to reach the level of precision you intend.

Some words of caution: Categories are intended to group similar things together, but in doing so, they may create uninteded divisions in other aspects. This file could be placed in a category for the specific church, but would then also need to be put into "Sculptures in San Polo" (or "...in Venice") and maybe "San Polo in the 2020s". If you create new and super-specialized categories, or chose names that deviate from regular category names, you should be able to explain your ideas in a debate. --Enyavar (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

New footage from Cleopatra (1917 film)

A couple years ago someone discovered 40 seconds of film from the famous lost 1917 film, Cleopatra, starring Theda Bara. This film is sometimes cited as the most expensive lost film of all time. Surprisingly, no one has uploaded this clip to Commons. The new footage can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwPZuyF2Th0. However, someone will need to remove the new audio track and the introduction. Unfortunately, the uploader decided to put a watermark on the footage, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that. It doesn't affect its public domain status regardless. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect Exif date

1. 1. Template:Incorrect Exif date was created as redirect to Template:Invalid Exif date by User:ŠJů, but User:Sarang made it a template. it's now a bit different https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInvalid+Exif+date&page2=Template%3AIncorrect+Exif+date . no idea why Sarang did that.
   2. i think the difference can be summarised as Template:Incorrect Exif date introduced parameter 1, but there are only 7 usage of it using any parameter https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3AIncorrect_Exif_date+insource%3A%2Ff+date%5Cs*%5C%7C%2F . i also dont understand the meanings of the introduced parameters.
   3. therefore, can it be redirected again?
2. i have some photos that have the correct date but wrong time. technically the current phrasing of Template:Invalid Exif date "Date and/or time...are incorrect" is not applicable to my files. is there another template for right date wrong time? or should this template be modified?
3. also i think there can be better documentation of best practice when exif contains errors. how do we correct the errors, identify them and label them as such? i found this template in a complicated way: typing template:exif in search bar -> Template:According to Exif data -> Category:Time, date and calendar templates, scroll down until i see -> Template:Invalid Exif date.

RoyZuo (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Redirect {{Incorrect Exif date}} per above, functionally I don't see any substantial difference between the 2 templates. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment why does Template:Invalid Exif date say "There are two possible ways to use this template" and then list only one? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see in the documentation, the supposedly second way has been struck and commented out. The text of the second way states, "Give the time difference of Exif as a parameter. The template displays the corrected date (localized by {{ISOdate}}) and renders the words "according to Exif metadata (corrected)" in the language specified in the user's preferences. (not available yet)".

As this method is "not available yet", actually only one method is possible, so I have edited the documentation to remove the confusing text. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. that offers a clue. Sarang might have planned to introduce the "time difference" parameter.

   i think, calculating the difference and then letting the template add that to exif time, is not a practical solution to correct the error.

2. i'm gonna change the wording to "Date, time, or both...are incorrect" so the template also works for right date wrong time.

RoyZuo (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Family tree date

Why does the tree at Category:Carl Suno Henrik Engström show "Category" in front of the name? --RAN (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) if you mean "Sune Engström", I added name at the corresponding Wikidata:Q131620023 page. Now the tree doesn't show "Category:" in front of the name. Deltaspace42 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! Weird thing to happen. --RAN (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Farm Security Administration images?

I want to use https://www.loc.gov/item/2017752286/ and https://www.loc.gov/item/2017719180/ in en:Big Duck. Both images are part of the LOC Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives collection which as far as I can tell means they are Public Domain. What's the right license tags to use?

PS: uploaded here and here RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-FSA}}. You can also add {{LOC-image}} for the |source= field. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith, you may find this tool of mine helpful in filling out file descriptions. JayCubby (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Request from a Russian

Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin

Требую по-русски объяснить, по какой причине были удалены сделанные мною фотографии объектов и архивных документов. Я, Максим Догадин, русский, гражданин России, нахожусь на территории России и общаюсь на русском языке. Maximdogadin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Там разные причины удаления от разных файлов, главные состоят в том, что есть сомнения, что Вы являетесь правообладателем на те фотографии, которые загружали, а некоторые файлы нам просто не подходят. Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I demand an explanation in Russian as to why the photographs of objects and archival documents that I took were deleted. I, Maksim Dogadin, am Russian, a citizen of Russia, I am on the territory of Russia and communicate in Russian.

translator: Bing - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin and I am unable to comply. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, various files were deleted for various reasons. It would be good if a Russian-speaker would take this on, but it's probably not going to be one single answer. - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4, Ahonc, Андрей Романенко, Butko, EugeneZelenko, George Chernilevsky, Kaganer, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: can someone help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Maximdogadin: Там было 6 номинаций, о какой конкретно вы справшиваете? Там разные причины, нужно смотреть конкретные фото.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Как я вижу, всё что угодно было загружено как собственные работы, тогда как в действительности это по большей части файлы, взятые откуда=то из Интернета. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• Здравствуйте. Под собственной работой сюда можно грузить только то что сами сфотографировали. Чтобы не было сомнений в вашем авторстве, загрузите фото в оригинальном размере и с метаданными. Но файл может быть производной работой от другого произведения, например памятник, мурал или документ. Тогда нужно изучить правила COM:DW и COM:FOP. Даже если файл находится в общественном достоянии, нельзя писать "собственная работа" как вы сделали тут, пусть даже вы сканировали сами. По возможности, автора нужно указать. Дату сканирования нужно заменить на дату создания работы, как например, здесь. Чужие работы допускается грузить только если есть явное согласие автора на одну из разрешенных лицензий. Юрий Д.К. 11:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion requests and reasonable expectations from nominator

Looking at the recent courtesy DRs i noticed that in almost every case the nominator insists that us hosting the photo is violating their legal rights and privacy yet they never seem to provide any reasoning for that accusation or even what caused them to make the accusation at all.

I know we are just deleting them out of courtesy but i still feel like we should expect something more substantial than "This photo is illegal because i say so!" reasoning that seems to plague these kind of DRs

Where do we draw the line when it comes to expectations from the nominator? Is there just simply not one? Trade (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably en:General Data Protection Regulation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I know "GDPR" have gotten it's share of criticism but the whole "no one is allowed to show me face on the internet" doesn't seem entirely accurate to the actual legislation Trade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's hard to directly "draw a line" there or make any strict rules about it; it always depends case-by-case. I personally think that we can be quite lenient towards granting such requests, especially if the images in question are unused and/or low quality and/or easily replaceable .
A common misconception in "Keep" arguments in such discussions seems to be "we won't delete it, because CC licences are non-revocable"; while that is true, it dosen't mean we can't delete the image - deleting the image won't affect it's licence, we're simply no longer distributing it under the licence. Other people can still continue using the image under the terms of that licence, even if it's no longer hosted here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

But surely we should be allowed to expect a reason at all, no? And what if the claims made by the nominator doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Like the constant insistence that they never gave any permission for us to use their photo when they are the author and we can clearly see that they did indeed uploaded the photo under a free license Trade (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So which expectations would you be willing to agree on? Trade (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples please. Privacy boundaries within public places or events, like a parade or carnival, might be within a grey area. George Ho (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: Going through my contributions for the past year:

• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gio Porta.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a selfie for privacy and as uploader and as oos in Italian. Italy presumed to be country of complaint. I !voted to delete. Ongoing.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johannes Pinna trägt Gummihandschuhe, schutzkittel, Haube und mundschutz draußen.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a photo for privacy reason in German. Germany or Austria presumed to be country of complaint. The uploader had been blocked for reasons including not respecting privacy rights. I !voted to delete. Deleted by DerHexer.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image of yuvadeepthi Smym Mammood.png, the uploader requested deletion for privacy as a part of being renamed away from a spammy username per enwiki. I fixed the subpage after an errant tag, but I didn't !vote before Herbythyme deleted. Malaysia presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa Ullyna Tarigan dan Antoni Albalat di Jakarta.jpg, a TA claiming to be a notable poet's ex-wife asked for deletion of a two-shot including her and the poet for privacy reasons. We have a crop of just the poet, which relies on the two-shot for provenance. I asked about keeping that crop. Indonesia or Catalonia (Spain) presumed to be country of complaint. Ongoing.
• In User talk:Boyprostido, the user never managed to create the subpage, despite tagging their user talk page in an L2 header citing "Personal information, incorrect identity, and privacy concerns". See my discussions with that user on that page, where they basically admitted to sockpuppetry over an extended period of time, revealing usernames that had promoted their music and music empire while explaining their motives. Nigeria presumed to be country of complaint. See en:special:diff/1315969765 for background.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:三上功太.jpg, the pictured uploader requested deletion for personal privacy reasons. I !voted weak delete. The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted for F10, despite half a dozen live edits in mainspace on jawiki. Japan presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg, the uploader subject did not "want it to be publicly visible anymore". I interpreted that to be for privacy and !voted to delete. Deleted by ChemSim. Lesotho presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:YQgNKUvs.jpg, the "model changed her mind", presumably for her privacy. I !voted to delete and IronGargoyle deleted. Nearly a year later, the uploader was indeffed as a VOA. No country presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Каганець (сувенір з Ізраїлю).jpg, the uploader cited only "Автор бажає" (The author wishes) as a reason in Special:Diff/1175675319, got blocked, and got lambasted in User talk:Петро Родим'юк#Your account has been blocked for a litany of offences, including trying to withdraw their irrevocable license. I did not !vote. Yann kept and blocked. Ukraine presumed to be country of complaint, although the object was found in Israel.
• In Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2025/10#Report by Morvran teardrop, the user wished "to remove all information relating to it from Wikipedia for copyright reasons and to allow my projects to evolve" per Google Translate. I explained that they had irrevocably licensed (among other things) and they did not respond. France presumed to be country of complaint.
• I have noted in the past that CC licenses are irrevocable.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheldon Country Park Map.png, I wrote that "the release was irrevocable", but didn't consider permission from the mapmaker. Infrogmation deleted. UK presumed to be country of complaint.
• See also Category:Privacy-related deletion requests and children and note that none of the subpages specified above were in any of those categories.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno which ones were taken at a public setting. Nonetheless, re- reading the OP, this is about self-portraits, right? George Ho (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we do and we should always delete selfies on request. But of course the request needs to come from the uploader. All other requests need to go through a VRT process, as we can not check the identity of the nominator. GPSLeo (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This is meant to be about courtesy nominations in general and what is and isn't acceptable behavior from the nominator Trade (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese. Subjects nominating photos of themselves for deletion are more often than not unaware of Commons policies and relevant laws. What matters more is that the subject does not want the photo up, and we should balance that request against the needs and scope of our projects. Was the subject aware they're being photographed? Is the photo bad or the subject being portrayed in an embarrassing situation (e.g. mid-yawn)? Is the subject notable on Wikipedia or Wikidata? Do we already have other images that can serve the same purpose? Does the photographer/uploader agree with the removal? Could broader consequences come from keeping the photo up (e.g. the photographer getting in trouble with a venue or event)? Those are the kinds of questions I think we should be thinking about with these requests, regardless of the exact justification a nominator gives. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But should they even be required to give any justification in the first place? It's hard for me to take a stance on courtesy DRs when we are essentially barely given any context or anything to work withTrade (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: It is very helpful if they mention something about privacy at the outset, rather than starting with empty "reason=" or "reason=reason". I patrol incomplete deletion requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

[Tha]t is helpful but should providing a reason be a requirement? [A]nd the ones that simply consist of "Remove or "I don't want this here anymore"? Trade (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: reason is required by {{Delete}}. If there is no valid reason, I look for a reason to delete anyway; that's how I find some copyvios (and tag them accordingly). With no imputable reason, I revert as incomplete. I warn as and when necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are telling me if the person who wants the file deleted haven't provided any reason we should add the DR to Category:Incomplete deletion requests? Trade (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: If they don't provide a reason parameter (or provide an empty one) in the delete tag, the tagged page will be automatically categorized there; the subpage will not.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese" There is a very high chance that these claims ends up running afoul of COM:NLT though Trade (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Legal threats usually include some kind of justification, or indicate what law is being allegedly broken.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This one occurred at a somewhat restrictive public place, right?: File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I also have another example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:50caliberFA.jpg - not a selfie. As far as I can determine from all our rules, we should keep this one despite the uploader's threat of now legally re-claiming the copyright they waived 19 years ago. --Enyavar (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I !voted to keep that one. COM:NLT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are we assuming that TAs are who they say they are, apparently without further checks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Checkusers are not allowed to check for us. Krd seems not to want VRT agents checking for us.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what VRT so for. I don't know why one person's view is a blockage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Purview creep, as VRT is supposed to be about media licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not what either COM:VRT or meta:VRTS say. Both have words to the affect: "[VRT] handle queries, complaints, and comments from the public by email".

The meta page discusses licensing, then continues, "There are many other queues in use within our VRTS implementation. They range in purpose but share one core purpose: to assist in facilitating communication amongst Wikimedia users, readers, customers and anybody else who has something to say!" with the Commons page saying "The main use of VRTS in relation to Commons is to verify and archive licensing permissions.". "Main use" clearly signifies "not the only use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember that some (self-claimed) owners of houses demanded deletion of pictures of their buildings in Germany. The images showed cultural heritage monuments and were mostly (probably even all) taken from public ground, without revealing sensitive information like names. They were kept usually, as the "Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache" does not exist in Germany. Many people with no are almost no legal background expect that they can decide who is allowed to take pictures of their property, but this is not true in that absolute case --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember a case where a person from a political discussion panel requested a deletion. This was valid in my mind, as the focus was on this person, and politics can be controversal. In Germany may other legal elements apply than in the US --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So let's consider this one I closed a few hours ago. I might even have supported a polite request for a courtesy deletion (not a very good photo, but in use, we'd have needed to find a substitute), but the user was making legal threats. As I said in my closing remarks, "[I] certainly see no reason to grant a courtesy deletion in the face of what looks to me like a poorly grounded legal threat." (That was probably the least polite thing I said in a paragraph of closing remarks.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As for Commons:Courtesy deletions i am not really a huge fan of "Please give more detail than "I don't want this here anymore"." It makes it sound like something optional rather than a requirement users are being expected to follow--Trade (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary sorting with numbers for categories

RFC here -> Commons_talk:Categories#Sorting_by_arbitrary_number. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: That's not an RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: why not? I was requesting for comments :-\ --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: It didn't request comments, or any input. It didn't call itself an RFC. Meta has a place and process for RFCs at m:RFC; ours is at COM:RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: well, I thought it was obvious that I am asking people what they think, if they agree with what I am saying or not :-) maybe it does not necessarily need to be in COM:RFC, otherwise the talk pages may lose part of their usefulness. It was a matter of categories, so I discussed in the talk of the pages about categories. But I see what you say, in the future I will double check where to start a discussion, thanks. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Move userpage

I would like to have my userpage deleted so that my MetaWiki page shows up in all the projects. At the same time, I would be happy if it could be kept (with all the history) as a subpage (like User:Oudeís/Archive). Unlike Wikipedia, Commons does not allow me to move the page with Special:MovePage. Is there anything I can do about it? Are subpages allowed at Commons in the first place? Oudeís·talk 18:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: Hi, and welcome. I moved it for you, as allowed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's great, thank you for the speedy help! Oudeís·talk 19:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Property owners' privacy matters

Context: Commons:Deletion requests/Brazilian church interior and privacy request (formerly as a subheading under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions).

Other relevant resources

Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules"

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography

Possibly, Commons:Paying public domain (especially if the landmarks are cultural heritage works whose architects or sculptors have died many many years ago)

Should Wikimedia Commons have a separate page discussing privacy rules and/or "house rules" of property owners, especially those related to indoors of establishments that are already in the public domain? Or should someone expand the relevant section at "COM:Non-copyright restrictions" instead?

Note that I started the discussion here, as it is not about prohibitions imposed by painters, sculptors, architects, or the copyright laws. It is about restrictions imposed by property owners or property managers of various places or establishments, many of which that are in the public domain because their designers have died for more than 50/70/100 years.

Pinging all participants of the Brazilian church deletion request: @GPSLeo, Sturm, Albertoleoncio, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Sintegrity, Ikan Kekek, and Mdaniels5757: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Do note that COM:CRSM might no longer be true. COM:CRSM claims Wikimedia Commons has no obligation to honor privacy rules: "Photographs taken by yourself in a museum or the interior of a building/monument are deemed acceptable here, provided they do not show copyrighted works. If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not mix house rules and or breaking of some kind of (informal) NDA with privacy problems. They often overlap but are something totally different. This example is not about personal information of a real person. We can discuss, when we should delete files based on house rules or non disclosure agreements, but we should not discuss this under the label "privacy". GPSLeo (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the Brazilian church deletion request thread, and what I would say in regard to it is: If you are given a tour of a building under the condition that you won't post photos online and agree to that condition, don't post photos online. Had they been COM:INUSE, the issue would have been more complicated, but since they were not, it was easy to treat the deletion request as a courtesy to the church. I doubt that we should create a broader policy than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this particular case was precisely a privacy issue, even if the privacy was that of an institution (the church) rather than an individual. This is very different than (for example) a museum that wishes to prevent photographs of its non-copyrighted artworks so that it can better exploit them economically. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is information that they want to be treated confidentially for religious or security reasons. For me the term privacy only applies to information about identifiable individuals, but never institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Wait until $cientology makes such a request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, I would apply the notion of privacy even though this does not involve a natural person. The purpose of privacy protections is often connected to security: publishing certain information can make someone more vulnerable to malicious actors. Highly visible people that already live with limited privacy usually also have the resources and infrastructure needed to manage those risks.

Thinking from this perspective, a world-famous church such as Notre-Dame has extensive visibility and security infrastructure to match. On the other hand, a historically valuable church located in a remote area and with limited resources may become significantly more vulnerable if sensitive interior details are widely shared online. In that sense, even if "privacy" is traditionally associated with individuals, I think it is reasonable to recognize that certain institutions may also have legitimate concerns that Commons should take into consideration. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons content descriptor is now a thing!

Now we just need a way to implent it @Bawolff: --Trade (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Soon users will now be able to blurry things they dont wanna see when using Commons in public @Some1, GPSLeo, Pi.1415926535, Omphalographer, Jeff G., Abzeronow, Prototyperspective, JudeHalley, Snævar, Jmabel, Bawolff, Cyberwolf, ReneeWrites, Modern primat, Ladsgroup, and RoyZuo: --Trade (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• For unregistered users, it might be wise to implement this by default for Special:MediaSearch. JayCubby (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Could you take that to Commons:Village pump/Proposals please (once Bawolff is done with adapting user:Putnik's existing gadget)? Default implementation of blurring was at no part of the property proposal discussion and i dont wish to give the appearance that Commons have already agreed to it Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayCubby: --Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

wikidata:Q138829106 is already completely clogged with false positives (maps about anti-homosexuality laws). I also started a thread on Wikidats about the fundamentally flawed nature of Wikidata:Q138829111 Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Secretlondon is right. The use of the property is not Wikidata's issue to deal with Trade (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade You added the same value for real photos of people and for illustrations. If both of these files are marked in the same way, we can not filter as we wanted to. GPSLeo (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said anything about the items being limited to photos or illustrations during the property proposal? Not sure where you got that from Trade (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The idea of this tool was to allow people to filter specific content. If two content types with different filter demands have the same tag, we can not separate these two types anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest the rule that if an image has it classification changed 3 times in a year it foreever loses the ability to have a classification attached to it ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

can you please put here the discussion about this? so, people will see how we talked about this. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 22:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheDJ: that rule would absolutely welcome being gamed by bad actors. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Placeholder Images

Hi, This looked to have been fixed but there is still the same issue on some images. See here for archived discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2026/03#Placeholder_images

Original issue: On some image pages this placeholder image : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/resources/assets/file-type-icons/fileicon-ogg.png is being incorrectly inserted into the html under the "use this file" link. example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ravenscar_-_geograph.org.uk_-_401270.jpg Ndurgom (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bawolff @Krinkle Ndurgom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Won't do much good to do "@" without links. Pinging @Bawolff, Krinkle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Better detecting bots and replacing our CAPTCHA

Hello from the Product Safety and Integrity team! After a successful trial of hCaptcha for bot detection on English, French, Japanese, and four other Wikipedias, we will be rolling out hCaptcha to all projects over the course of the next few weeks.

Specifically, this will include using hCaptcha for account creation, and for edits by newer users. This replaces the use of the traditional "type in the word" CAPTCHA that is currently required of many users for these flows. hCaptcha is set up to only challenge likely-suspicious activity, so very few humans will be interrupted at all. In our trial, we estimate that only about ~2% of human users were actually challenged.

For background - as part of our focus on securing the wikis and detecting bad-faith activity, we are building stronger protections against bots carrying out activities that are generally intended for humans, such as creating accounts and editing. As the web has evolved and computers have gotten smarter, our old CAPTCHA has become both challenging for humans and easy for computers.

We recognized this and began with a trial of hCaptcha, third-party bot detection service, to replace our old CAPTCHA. Since then, eight Wikipedias, including English, French, and Japanese, have been using hCaptcha to protect account creation and certain kinds of edits. hCaptcha is a company that specializes in bot detection, with experience protecting very large online websites while prioritizing user privacy in its design. We have implemented technical safeguards to reduce the sensitivity of the information we send to hCaptcha.

It also gives us "likely bot" signals for account creation and covered edits, regardless of whether the session was challenged. Those signals inform what we show CheckUsers and stewards, who use them to find and remove bad-faith activity that was likely done by bots and which may not have been found any other way.

You can read more about this project at our recently updated project page. We welcome comments here or at that project's talk page. Subscribe to the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin to follow the most important news from the Foundation. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) We have one filter that uses a captcha to limit spam that was typically done manually in the web browser. I would assume that in such cases the new captcha does not work anymore to limit this type of spam. GPSLeo (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo The AbuseFilter showcaptcha consequence will continue to function as intended, with an "always challenge" mode being used when it is triggered. KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Location around Copenhagen 2003

• 
• 

These station must be in Kopenhagen or close by.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist It appears to be Category:Ørestad Station. The building in the first photo matches with the building here: File:Ørestad station.jpg. Also, the footbridge in the background of the second image matches with the footbridge in the background of this image: File:Freight train at Ørestad Station.jpg.

• 
• 

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. With hindsight it was logical that when I took pictures of metroline 1 (File:Kopenhagen metro 2003 3.jpg), I ended up at the train station of Ørestad. I am stil hesitating between Litra ET and Littera X31 multiple units.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ladies lounges

Ladies' lounge of the Liberty Theatre, Seattle, circa 1914

Do we have a category somewhere for the sort of room I would call a "ladies' lounge"? I can't find anything obvious under Category:Rooms by function. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked Category:Parlors? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly similar, but distinct. These have largely fallen into abeyance, although some still exist, mainly in older buildings (mainly theaters, sometimes hotels or ballrooms). Women-only spaces, usually doubling as a passage from the public circulating space to the women's rest room in the sense now used. These were still pretty common in New York City when I was a child (1950s, early 1960s). There was rarely any equivalent for men, and if there was it was on a much smaller scale. I would think it deserves a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot request

All the images in Category:Watercolor paintings in the Yale Center for British Art were uploaded a few years ago, with fairly low resolutions. It appears that Yale have now added much higher resolution versions, which could be added here. I've done 7 (see my 14 May uploads), but there's another 3,390 to check whether there's new large versions available. Can a bot be set to update them all? - MPF (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPF: You would have better luck asking at Commons:Bots/Work requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPF: You're welcome, and good luck!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Unverifiable historical documents and photos

The particular case is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Linna222 but some opinions on the issue in general are welcome.
What we have here are a bunch of photos and documents, seemingly from 1900 or so. Copyright isn't the real issue here, but all these files were uploaded as "own work", which is impossible as the oldest person ever was 122 years old. If these files were high-resolution scans with EXIF scanner information, one could argue these came from a family or municipality archive or something. Instead, we get limited resolution (~1000 pixels) images, many with visible compression artifacts and/or scaling and the source for all of them is the same: they are screenshots. Screenshots of what? The uploader explained nothing. The provenance trail is utterly non-existent. In the uploader's defense, Wikimedia set them up for failure. But that's a story for another day.
I generally AGF and if the uploader had said "I got it from this Facebook page/family archive/newspaper article" I would have probably shrugged. What gets my goat is that there is literally no statement from the uploader whatsoever and meanwhile User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) inserted {{Scan}} ("Scan from the original work") as the source in all but two of the files.
Projects like Wikipedia shouldn't accept this. What about Commons? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

for this particular case.

typical stuff related to china: sometimes getting reposted over and over on chinese websites and the source is either never acknowledged, or quickly lost due to linkrot or china's closed intranet.

you can probably sieve out something even within commons though:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Thurston+Lawrence+hunan
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Thurston+Lawrence+china

e.g. File:John Lawrence Thurston.png is also printed on p8 File:A life with a purpose - a memorial of John Lawrence Thurston, first missionary of the Yale mission (IA cu31924023494176).pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AA_life_with_a_purpose_-_a_memorial_of_John_Lawrence_Thurston%2C_first_missionary_of_the_Yale_mission_(IA_cu31924023494176).pdf&page=8 . RoyZuo (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Linna222

en:User:Linna222 "is a student editor in University_of_Pennsylvania/Medical_missionaries_to_Community_Partners_(Fall_2022)." "Uploaded while editing "User:Linna222/John Lawrence Thurston/Bibliography" on en.wikipedia.org"

what is the mw:visualeditor doing that led the user to upload files selecting {{Own}} as source? RoyZuo (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

RoyZuo, that's the "Wikimedia set them up for failure." part. Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/08#Rfc: Should we request a configuration change to shut down cross-wiki uploads? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

i just tested what it looked like in the visualeditor.

i think its instruction is simple and clear. the user is to blame in this case. they just clicked "This is my own work" even though it's not. also instructed to follow "If you do not own the copyright on this file, or you wish to release it under a different license, consider using the Commons Upload Wizard." but the user didnt even though they obviously "do not own the copyright on this file". RoyZuo (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

• Every newbie does the same thing. You wrote: "the user is to blame in this case", I disagree, the instructions are not clear when you scan or take a photo of an existing work. The form should have clear instructions to credit the original work and the new derivative work. --RAN (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Breamk RoyZuo (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ian (Wiki Ed)@Helaine (Wiki Ed)@Brianda (Wiki Ed). RoyZuo (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

COM:EVID says that provenience is typically requiring a stated source and author to be specified. That is not prescribing the only and absolute way to provide evidence of PD, as far as I interpret the policy.

Take File:Miensk. Менск (1751-1800).jpg. In that case, the "source" indicated is basically fully worthless; authorship is unknown; and even image searches won't find the original file because it was screenshotted and maximaly cropped. But from the drawing style, I have no doubt that the indicated age range is correct and that the pd-old-100-license was applied correctly. My interpretation of COM:EVID is that old age sufficiently demonstrates PD. My alarm bells on COM:PCP begin ringing once I read dates ranging from the 1920s and later; in those cases we just cannot allow sloppy documentation.

Please note that unclear provenience IS a big problem which we should not simply dismiss. I hate dealing with material where the uploaders don't know authors and claim ridiculous ages ("between 1700s and 1800s" is ~300 year range once you begin taking into account illiteracy). Even if we know that an image is PD-old and within our project scope; crappy documentation by the uploader can render files essentially worthless for educative purposes. We need to educate uploaders on how to best document the sources and authors; and when they begin uploading a LOT we really need to sensitize them on the issue. All that said, not everyone of our contributors is a born archivist: We should accept low-accuracy (i.e. sloppy) documentation with provable PD files. When doubt arises, of course, we have to act according to PCP. --Enyavar (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

• The uploader has not responded but most likely had access to the John Lawrence Thurston papers at Yale while researching the topic for the Wikipedia article. The archive has three photographs of Thurston, and she uploaded all three. Yale says: "much of the material in this collection is likely in the public domain" which is the same conclusion we have come to at the deletion nomination page. See: https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/resources/2971 for more information. --RAN (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Can I publish my own university transcripts on Wikimedia Commons

Dear Wikimedia Commons experts,

Please see the full question with specific use-case and details in: Category talk:Transcript certificates#Can I publish my own university transcripts on Wikimedia Commons

This includes heavy hard-baked redactions to prevent exposing personal information as well as exclude any elements that might meet the threshold for creativity.

Kindly let me know if this would be acceptable for upload, Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 10:14, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen: Obviously, such would be in scope per the existence of Category:Transcript certificates. But would it be freely-licensed or PD for some reason?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Below the threshold of originality because it's probably somewhat like an index with no lengthy prose and hardly any full sentences. Nakonana (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd stop short of saying transcripts are in scope broadly. There's the copyright issue being discussed, but I can't imagine us needing random people's (no offense!) transcripts. If it's an excellent quality scan that illustrates the concept of "transcript" then sure, I suppose, but I wouldn't generalize to say "yes we love transcripts!" :) — Rhododendrites ^talk |  18:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen: can you spell out the intended, in-scope use for these? - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmbael: : Intended in-scope use would be to have generic examples of various modern university transcripts (note that the ones currently in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Transcript_certificates are all almost 100 years old or more). There are currently none at all on Wikimedia Commons, for the last decades. I have highly redacted the transcripts, such that no copyrighted material (logos, signatures, etc... are included) and almost 0 full sentences are included, hence it would fall out of scope of copyright protection. Also, I would like to include it on my user page. Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the right thing to do is probably to upload it, with the understanding that (like almost any file) it could imaginably be deleted. Certainly you won't be in any trouble for doing so. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Free PDF maker that maps the text

When Adobe Acrobat runs OCR it stores the text in the PDF and maps the text to the image, so that when you right click and hold, you are grabbing the text from the image. Is there free software the performs the same function? RAN (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Zotero with an OCR plugin would work, but it's a bit tricky to set up. Here's a YouTube tutorial video I found on how to install it. HyperAnd [talk] 02:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will give it a try. Have you tried making djvu files yet? Equally perplexing. --RAN (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I used OCRmyPDF when cleaning up/retouching this book. The results are somewhat mixed - most of the text is accurate, but it recognizes and generates nonsense text in B&W illustrations that isn't there, and I haven't found a way to edit inaccuracies (such as the description below the first color illustration) manually. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Filippo Ferri copyright state

Hi, what's the correct copyright template for this picture? On the site, is written CC BY-NC-ND-2.5 IT, but I can't find the template. --Giorgx12 (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Giorgx12 There is no template matching that license on Commons, because that license is not compatible with Commons (that license does not allow derivatives or commercial use). 19h00s (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

So I have to request a sd? Giorgx12 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Giorgx12, correct. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:27, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Giorgx12, please read COM:L. Noncommercial (NC) and no-derivative (ND) licenses are not accepted here. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

File deleted, because of the CC BY-NC-ND-2.5 IT license זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 19:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

How to categorise the last quarter?

We started in February 2025 to categorise the 125,000 files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2021. Three quarters of the work have been done, but now the question arises: How to categorise the last quarter? I think, we need experienced volunteers, please, unless we prefer to wait for AI or useful bots:

• 30,000 media needing categories as of 2021

Do you have an idea, how to tackle this task, or could you even help us please, by manually categorizing some files? NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Only the suggestion that people try starting at pseudo-random places in the sequence. I was just able to knock off 5 of them pretty easily in about 10 minutes, down in the second page of the S's. I think there's (surprisingly) still a lot of reasonably low-hanging fruit no one has rally looked at. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel is right: There are still quite some self-explaining images that can quickly be categorised. I can confirm from my experience with "letter D" files.

On the other hand, obviously there are also images where you've got an idea (or just a whiff) of what they probably show ... and then, it takes half an hour of work to pin them down.

Identifying "nests" of "same target category" images helps both speeding up and keeping the categorisation consistent. With files that have "serial" file names, this is rather obvious. Less obvious: When an uncategorised file is used in a Wikipedia article (such as w:fr:Michel Biot, in my case), there may be more uncategorised files in the same article. -- Martinus KE (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Now down to 11,900 images, not bad progress. And every so often you find some gems in there.

• 
  This 1897 poster had been sitting uncategorized.
• 
  A little bit of work with GIMP and I got this out of it.

- Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A large number of these images are copyright violations, low quality stuff, spam, personal photos, out of scope material, etc., so don't hesitate do nominate such material for deletion. Unfortunaly there are many people simply mass-moving huge numbers of images into various top-level categories such as Category:Diagrams, Category:Logos, Category:Unidentified people, Category:Men, Category:Drawings, Category:Documents, various country-categories, Category:Buildings, Category:Screenshots, etc, causing those to be absolutely flooded with random material, which someone has to sort out later. This dosen't really solve anything, it simply moves the problem somewhere else, and it is especially problematic if a lot of the material has very questionable licencing. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Why on Earth do we (...WMF...) allow uploading files without categorising them beforehand? — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 19:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Draceane: Because categorization is tricky, and relatively new users (especially people who are here only because they need to upload an image in service of a sister project) need to have a relatively easy workflow. Also, some very valuable bot uploads from GLAMs don't have information that maps well onto our categories, and they often can't do much better than "bot upload from such-and-such archive, needs category check". For example, I'm most of the way through categorizing and otherwise curating Category:Images from the Prosch Albums, very useful stuff for Seattle history, and BMacZero did a good job uploading them for me but, honestly, other than Category:Images from the Prosch Albums to check, most of the categories in the initial upload were useless at best. Lots of Category:Business districts, lots of Category:Seattle (too generic, in any case, and often wrong), etc. No problem, I think, in this case because they were uploaded precisely with the understanding that I would work on them once the were uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 21:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

GSoC 2026: Lossless JPG Transformations Project

Hi Everyone!

I am Rishan, an Open source contributor. I have been contributing to the Wikimedia Commons App for the last couple of months and I am excited to share that I have been accepted as a Google Summer of Code(GSoC) contributor at Wikimedia Foundation for this summer. I want to take this opportunity to share about the upcoming improvements in the image editing capabilities of the app.

The Wikimedia Commons App is an Android application developed by contributors across the wikimedia movement that enables users to browse, upload, and contribute media directly to the Wikimedia Commons repository using their mobile devices.

This Project under GSoC 2026 aims to implementing the following:

1) Lossless crop feature.
2) Lossless blur feature.
3) Auto-detect and apply blur to people's faces and car number plates.

1) Lossless crop feature.
The Existing Crop feature in the Commons app when applied results in loss of information. Due to improper handling of METADATA.

The Goal: Implement a "smart" crop that preserves all original METADATA while maintaining the highest possible image resolution. This ensures that when a user crops a photo to focus on a specific subject and the resulting image is remained as its original resolution.

2) Lossless blur feature
Sometimes while uploading the photo, the contributor would want to blur out some parts of the image to preserve privacy.

The Goal: A lossless blur feature, which would let contributors blur out the regions which they don't want to be seen when uploaded, to make it lossless we apply blur to only regions required by the user and make sure we don't recompress other blocks of the image.

3) Auto-detect and apply blur to people's faces and car number plates.
When contributors capture images in public places, they often capture faces of bystanders or car number plates that won’t have privacy clearance for a global platform like Wikimedia Commons.

The Goal: Using computer vision library OpenCV, the app can automatically scan the image to identify the coordinates of human faces and car number plates these coordinates can be used to blur human faces or car number plates out of the image.

Outcomes:

• No loss in information after editing the picture.
  
• No need to depend on third-party apps instead transformation is done in the right way.
  
• Protecting people's privacy becomes easy.

This summer, I’m honored to be working under the mentorship of Nicolas Raoul and Ritika Pahwa. Excited to learn from the best!

Phabricator Link: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T421595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechi4895 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That is cool, but i'm not sure blurring people's faces is exactly something we want to encourage except in exceptional circumstances. Bawolff (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a good option to have. Some countries seem to be very strict about privacy questions like this. Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Just so long as it doesn't trigger without being requested. And I'd also be interested in understanding how it knows which faces to blur and which not. How would it make a decision about a photo like File:Snoqualmie Moondance drummers 02.jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, No it doesn't trigger as long as the user doesn't opt for it, As for how it gets to know which faces to blur is that when user triggers this option, It utilizes the OpenCV computer vision library, which uses specialized algorithms that scan the entire image and return a list of coordinates for every face identified. Those coordinates are then passed on to the blur feature to apply blur to only those region of the image. This ensures that only the identified faces are blurred while the rest of the image remains untouched Mechi4895 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I followed that; are you saying it will always attempt to blur all faces in the image? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It will blur the faces in the image only if the user selects for this option in the editing screen!

It doesn't apply by default for every images. Mechi4895 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. That is not what I asked. Let me go back to the example I linked above: File:Snoqualmie Moondance drummers 02.jpg. This shows three well-known performers plus some other people who happened to be with them in a drum circle. Do I understand correctly that the user would have no way to choose which people's faces would be blurred, and that it would blur even Lansing Scott, who is in sharp focus at right, and that there is no way for a user to control that? - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The user will be able to manually blur what they want, if they don't like the result of the automatic detection. Syced (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nakonana, You are very right about countries having strict privacy and we have only kept it as an option, which is not triggered by default. Mechi4895 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bawolff, No we are not encouraging and making every image uploaded go through this process.

Instead it's an option in the editing screen, which is triggered only by explicit user selection. Mechi4895 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

One note, blurring can be partially reversible in cases when a simple blurring algo is used. So might wanna keep that in mind. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

You are right, and to avoid taking any risk with this, we are thinking of making the whole blurred area single-color (average color of the area pre-blurring). What do you think? Syced (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Not taking a stance on that, but worth remembering single-color area creates a photo that is less likely to be used even at low resolution. Something like File:CICLOP Building (Bucharest) interior with artwork blurred.jpg or File:Frederic Storck - Regina Maria - 1912 - 03.jpg still looks pretty great even at a medium resolution. If that blur were turned into a solid color, it would not. (I realize these aren't examples of people being blurred, but the issue is more or less the same.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:50, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Syced that's one way, another might be adding an amount of random noise distortion into the blur. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Welcome bot

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I have noticed since yesterday that many new users were not welcome by the bot. Any idea what's going on? Yann (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

A decision on meta, give me a second to find the link. Nakonana (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Here: meta:Requests for comment/Welcoming policy. Nakonana (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Shit! Now the result is that some new accounts with edits are not welcomed here. How can we find a way around? Yann (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That would probably need to be addressed with/by the people who operate the welcome-bots. Nakonana (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Confusing background removal.

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The background removal on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerosene_bottle.jpg is confusing. Should it be undone or completed?

In this state, it looks very strange - like there's a grey tube/object in the bottle.

-RememberOrwell (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Liandrei as background remover.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:05, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I concurr and see what you mean! Don't know how I didn't notice that at the time. Have now brightened and reduced the shadowing to lessen the grey tube-like appearance. Hopefully it looks better, otherwise if consensus is to revert to original no qualms with that. :) ⟦ Lιᐰndrєι ⟧ ✧ talk 15:35, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

This is still a clear violation of the COM:OW guideline. Please upload the new version as a new file. GPSLeo (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's good now, oppose revert to original. I consider proper background removal minor under COM:OW. More importantly, it's a clear improvement to all the many, many pages where it's used. (Why is the v2 staying cached, despite a refresh? odd! ) Uploader User:Longhair? -RememberOrwell (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

i think a better photo can be taken of this object since tech has improved a lot.--RoyZuo (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Renaming two categories

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. I am trying to seek advice as to how it would be possible to move these two categories (1 and 2) to their previous titles. They were moved back in September 2023 without any discussion and the Wikipedia entries for the English edition as well as other editions show that the previous names were indeed the common names. I would appreciate it if a more experienced user could clarify the process on the Commons for me as it appears to be different from how it's done on Wikipedia. Thank you. Keivan.f^Talk 07:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Keivan.f:  Done I restored the two categories, thanks for bringing this to our attention. --ReneeWrites (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Book scans with Google Books cover sheets

Hi, I am currently removing these cover sheets (Category:Book scans with Google Books cover sheets (to remove)), but I time to time discover files with such cover sheets which are not in the category. Any idea how to find them all? Yann (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe could use quarry to look for pdf files where the first page has different dimensions than the other pages, and the conversion program in the metadata is google books. Personally, what i wish for was a way to tell mediawiki to use a different page than page 1 as the default page. Bawolff (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Yann, (from a sample size of a few, anyways) the cover-sheeted scans all have one of two thumbnails for page 1 of the PDF. It should be possible to scrape the thumbnails for matches

This Quarry query picks up some files with a lot of noise. This got a bunch more of them, but doesn't perfectly filter out stuff.

Overall, I think scraping the 1st page thumbnails and checking them against the known cover-sheets would work. JayCubby (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant a quary more like [2] which i believe should get most of what you want without noise. (Unfortunately its slow, I guess WMF removed the index on mime type). Bawolff (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

commonsarchive dot org still desired or required

Hi, there once was a project at Wikimedia Cloud services using a custom domain commonsarchive(dot)org. The project goal was to archive raw material e.g. from digital cameras. After the domain expired I grabbed (unfortunately missing to talking with Steinsplitter beforehand who attempted the same) it and set its A records back to the Wikimedia Cloud servers. Is the Commons Archive project still alive? If so, would it like me to update domain records or get the domain name transferred? Thanks in advance. Rillke^(q?) 08:39, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be great to have it back. Yann (talk) 08:44, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The project is not still alive. There is a list of maintainers who are still active here, but the site was shuttered and media moved to the Internet Archive. As far as I'm aware, there is no reason why in principle it could not be brought back, but there were some security issues with some upload filetypes, as I recall. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

would be great to have such a place - many files could be improved Grunpfnul (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Followup: fileimporter issue on tagging enwiki files

See also: mw:Help talk:Extension:FileImporter#Failure to automatically add on local image page.

FileImporter still fails to automatically tag local images on enWiki with w:en:Template:Now Commons tag. It has been almost 14 days since I first reported it there, yet it hasn't been fixed.

This must be treated with greater urgency, considering I am reviewing tons (and tons) of local enWiki images "dumped" by User:Patrickroque01 and transferring eligible ones here. Manually adding "Now Commons" is very tedious to begin with. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears FileImporter can now automatically add such tags, starting with some of my file transfers of Patrick Roque's drone shots of some parts of Metro Manila. However, I remain vigilant due to the tendency of some mediawiki tools to "break" or "fail" in recent months. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Earliest file created by Commons user

Just wondering, which Commons user uploaded their original works that were created the earliest? Which users are the top 10? And if we extend to people who might not have operated a Commons account by themselves but donated files expressly to Commons?

Probably Commons users who have been photographing in the 1950s, or even the 1940s / 1930s? 15:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

A related question is, who were the earliest born Commons users?--RoyZuo (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

User:GFHund, born 1932, uploaded File:Schach Jena-Erfurt 1950.jpg from 1950-07-02.

He also uploaded File:Vatter-25.3.23.jpg taken at 13:25, 25 March 2023. A span of over 72 years. RoyZuo (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

User:Brooksbank, born 1926, photographed File:Ashchurch Station, December 1945 (geograph 4237989).jpg on 1945-12-27.

He also photographed File:Southminster station, 2015 (geograph 4526148).jpg on 2015-06-06. A span of over 69 years.--RoyZuo (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

RoyZuo, I misread, but this is also interesting. revision 1 (14:37, 7 September 2004) just boringly says "First post!". Less than half an hour later the main page was vandalized in the second revision. Uploading apparently didn't work yet as revision 6 states "Please mail your images to tstarlingwikimedia. o r g. He knows how to use Python and will upload them for you" -- Kate ({{@}} and thin spaces added against harvesters) The first revision that shows anything file-related is revision 25, the creation of User:Node ue which transcludes Image:Quail1.PNG uploaded 19:52, 7 September 2004. I'm not sure if that's also the "earliest file created by Commons user" in the sense of the first ever uploaded file.
The oldest original work from a Commons user you'll never find. I regularly find works from 18xx claimed as own work. You'd have to determine what the oldest yet legitimate claim is. A 100-year old person who uploaded in 2004 would have been 15 in 1919, if one of their parents was a photographer they might have taught their kid how to take a photo. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:16, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Slightly tangentially, the late Don O'Brien Category:Photographs by Don O'Brien who free licensed his archives on Flickr was an avid photographer from his youth File:DevelopingFilm1937.jpg on. (I haven't uploaded any photos I took predating the 1970s - and I would have taken lots more photos in my youth had I known there was going to be a Wikimedia Commons some day.). Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

  He might be the person who posted the oldest user-generated content online, that photo of him (if it was a selfie, not his dad's photo). To beat him someone has to have made something before 1937 (photos, music by music prodigies, paintings by art prodigies...), live long enough to use the internet, and post their works somehow publicly. I think most probable people to do that are musicians, if someone wrote something before 1937, and published that by themselves or instructed people to do that online. Ennio Morricone "wrote his first compositions when he was six years old" (1934/35).

  https://twirpz.wordpress.com/2015/09/26/the-history-of-online-photo-sharing-part-1/ this article talked about earliest online image sharing. RoyZuo (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Some of us were uploading images to en:w before the existence of Commons. (Unfortunately, often deliberately as small size before the "thumbnail" feature was introduced.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Wikimedia Café meetups regarding the Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan

Hello! There will be two Wikimedia Café discussion opportunities during the last weekend of May. Both sessions will focus on the the 2026-2027 Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan. Participants may attend either or both sessions.

1. Saturday, 30 May 2026 at 15:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to the Americas, Africa, and Europe

1. Sunday, 31 May 2026 at 05:00 UTC (timestamp converter), at a time friendly to Asia and the Pacific

Café participants are highly encouraged to read in advance at least this summary of the plan. Optionally, Café participants are encouraged to read portions of the plan that interest them and ask questions or provide feedback on the Annual Plan talk page.

Please see the Café page for more information, including tables of timestamp conversions for both sessions, the agenda, and how to register!

↠Pine (✉) 19:57, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Import from cy.Wikipedia fails

I'm trying to import cy:Delwedd:Trajan.PNG (depicting a painting by someone who died in 1779), but the import fails with:

This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence.

despite the file being tagged {{PD-art}}{{PD-old}}. What can I do to fix? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Both templates are missing a PD rationale for the United States. Maybe that's the reason? Nakonana (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The former template includes the words:

Mae'r ddelwedd hon yn y parth cyhoeddus yn yr Unol Daleithiau. Mae hyn yn golygu y cyhoeddwyd hi cyn 1 Ionawr 1923...

which translates as:

This image is in the public domain in the United States. This means it was published before January 1, 1923...

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that may be true for the cywiki version of the template, but its equivalent on Commons requires a US template. Nakonana (talk) 16:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my original question—What can I do to fix? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think temporary adding a Commons license template to the cywiki file description might do the trick. It will probably break the cywiki display of the license but might be enough to trick the tool into thinking that the license is Commons-compatible. After exporting the file you could then revert the license change on cywiki. Nakonana (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Basically using something like {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-expired|deathyear=1779}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

That results in an error, because cy:Nodyn:PD-Art does not exist.

Using your code but with "PD-art" (note case) gives a different error, because cy:Nodyn:PD-old-auto-expired does not exist.

Neither version leads to a successful import. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If it's only for tricking the tool, maybe try {{PD-self}}? Nakonana (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing mw:Extension:FileImporter/Data/cy.wikipedia. RoyZuo (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Now requested, at mw:Extension talk:FileImporter/Data/cy.wikipedia#PD-art. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Fix applied as above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

AI upscaled portrait?

Upon the recent death of Brazilian footballer Geovani Silva, I have came to notice that his main portrait available on Commons looks poorly AI upscaled:

• File:GeovaniSilva.jpg with the only mentioned source being "Revista Placar"
• Original image on Placar : After some investigation, it looks to me like the original picture is this one, in a poor quality but depicting a man with a different face than the upscaled one.

Since I'm not a regular Wikimedia Commons contributor, I don't really know the usual stance on this matter (I don't even know if this discussion should take place at the Village pump or somewhere else), but from my understanding the use of AI upscaling in Commons is controversial (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/02#More_explicit_policy_against_upscaling_needed).

What actions should be taken in that case? Should we leave the AI upscaled portrait as it is, or replace it by the original? Or maybe leave both versions co-exist?

--Kawaboumga (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Kawaboumga, thank you for reporting this. Ugh, AI slop. I've overwritten the file. On this page you'll find my #Draft for an INUSE exception addendum that targets (among other things) AI upscaling but hasn't been proposed yet and we have the Commons:AI images of identifiable people guideline (which is not policy). It's a relatively new problem we are still figuring out. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:16, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick correction! Kawaboumga (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

There were 26 similar footballer images from the same user. I've opened a DR at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by WikiR26 under the COM:AIIP guideline, since they don't include links to the original images. I've also templated them all as {{AI upscaled}}. Belbury (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Photo challenge March 2026 results

Three-wheelers: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Child with a tricycle in Reggio Emilia 1982	BMW Kneeler team BJ.1973 at the mountain race in Würgau	War es so in der Steinzeit?
Author	Ermell	Ermell	Mensch01
Score	32	15	11

Town entrances: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Solitaire, Namibia	Entrance of Marigny in Jura department, France	Town sign of the city of Stralsund with common buzzard, Stralsund, Germany
Author	Choinowski	Spielvogel	Mozzihh
Score	22	12	11

Congratulations to @Ermell, @Mensch01, @Choinowski, @Spielvogel and @Mozzihh. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 01:11, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Please link my new Igbo translation for Main page

Hello! I have translated the Igbo version of the Main Page at Main Page/ig. Please i want an admin to link this page to the correct global Wikidata item for the Commons Main Page, and update the main language template so that Igbo will officially appear in the language switcher list at the bottom of the page Wmbata (talk) 10:32, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure how the Main Page is internationalized, does someone understand the mechanism? - Jmabel ! talk 14:06, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

It appears each language/translation has its own page (e.g. Ihụ Mbusụ for Igbo, Portada for Spanish), and all of their links are displayed in {{Lang-mp}}. So, I think Wmbata is asking to add the link for the Igbo version to {{Lang-mp}}. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: there most be more to it than that, though. I tried Special:Diff/1223212242 this edit and rolled it back because all it did was to produce a red link. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I think the final parameter of {{Lang-mp-loader}} is the page name, so maybe try this instead:

* <!--ig-->{{Lang-mp-loader|ig|Ihụ Mbusụ}}

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Looks like that works. Thanks for doing the analysis. - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)