Commons:Help desk

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:HD

Skip to table of contents | Skip to bottom | 🌐 Help desks for other languages

This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:

How to use Commons

Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.

Ask your question

or

In order to get quick answers consider the following points:

• Have you checked the frequently asked questions, help pages and the help desk archive?
• For help regarding the Wiki Loves Monuments 2026 contest, please use the WLM help desk
• For licensing and copyright issues, please use the copyright village pump
• For proposing changes to the way Wikimedia Commons works, please use the proposals village pump
• For community-wide discussions, please use the main village pump
• For changing the name of a file, please see our file renaming guidelines
• For matters requiring the attention of an administrator, please use the administrators' noticeboard or contact an individual administrator directly
• For questions about Wikipedia content, try English Wikipedia's "Teahouse"
• For questions not about Wikimedia projects, try English Wikipedia's reference desk

Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2026/09.

For quicker help, join our live chat room. ^webchat

Translate this page

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 2 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 10 days.

Duplicates/redundant

Can someone suggest how to deal with such an images: Category:PEO Aviation emblem army.mil feature 2018-12-04 Category:PEO Ammunition emblem Flickr ASA(ALT) album? ~2026-46227-12 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46227-12: I don't know the subject matter, but either one of these should become a subcat of the other or it should become a cat redirect and all the images should be merged. In the unlikely event that they are correctly disjoint, then both should have a {{See also cat}}. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel subject it to manage/organize it accordingly, because my eyes run wild on, in fact, the number of copies that do not always correspond formally to the COM:duplicate but mostly to COM:Redundant (with minor - i.e. -1 pixel one side wide from same 1:1 ratio but with decreased resolution changes or added partial transparency, but that way deletion possibility is questionable) and it is not clear what to do with them, considering it mostly made from a single file with better quality. I mean - for me now - using exclusivelyh template for now. I.e. merging... They even have same time of creation/upload - is it possible to merge it that way? what exactly template have I use to ask about it? As of visual - if not taking in view cropping once (cutting the edges) it all looks just the same, but with inadequate number of "copies". ~2026-46227-12 (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46227-12: Sorry, I thought you were asking about the categories. On the near-duplicate files, yes this seems ridiculous. I see some are already nominated for deletion. SergeantSelfExplanatory what was your intent here? - Jmabel ! talk 03:51, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Looks like uploader make it just constantly (repeatedly) with such a presumable algorithm: only original uploaded from the source he (uploading it as separate files and spamming each of uploaded files with ostensibly same external source despite it's not as images are already modified):

• converts it to png (even if original is already png) with two versions - compressed and not compressed,
• making the edges transparent
• make 50% or 200% of original resolution.
• cuts the white indents (even if it's 1 pixel wide only)
• make the edges of resized/cutted image transparent.

that way creating a huge number of excessive images while uploading only image.

• sometimes coloring/decoloring.
• sometimes makine svg files (useful, but rare).

recent Example (8 total, most of are probably redundant): original jpeg, derivatives: to png conversion, decoloring, even more decoloring, forming svg with the black separator line around addition, making it darker, 335% resized lighter svg to png conversion, making it darker. What meaningful here is instead of 8 files here could be just 3 to not create a mess: .jpg original, .png with final size and colouring and .svg with final colouring if not talking about svg could superseed it all.

That way "cleaning" such a mess after him is worthless job (neverending story) until he'll stop doing it or, at least, upload it as file versions (except format conversions) with "best" (i.e. already cutted and with tranparent edges) on the top if he want to definitely upload all of steps of his work with images he uploads and process. sure template:extracted from (with only original file from the source uploaded as parameter here) is much more desirable with the "source" field use then repeatable (but that way deceptive) url to original file originating source using it only for exactly original file uploaded. ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Looks like he do it all not only with self-uplodaded original but with by another user's ones (i.e. original above uploaded by TexasBob85 but all the derivatives - by SergeantSelfExplanatory exactly), avoiding (re)uploading the original, but nevertheless insisting that he took the source from the URL, and not indicating that it is a derivative of a file uploaded by another user, which creates even more confusion, since finding the original in this case is practically impossible (unless it is categorized in the same place). I'll mark it now with extracted from template, but such a derivatives mess made initially and intentionally looks quite demotivating. ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-46287-00: I'd say this is pretty clearly inappropriate, except maybe to add one PNG with a transparent background. I'd suggest nominating everything they uploaded except one of each with transparent background for deletion as effective duplicates. If the user did a lot of this, it could be a reason for administrative sanctions, but the help desk is not the place to discuss that at any length. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Yep, that's what I mean (could be 3 instead of 8). And I agree have to be left 1 of a kind with best options available (transparency). What I can't get - what have I choose to leave - is "darkened" copy or same as original colored one?

As one what to do with this "black line around" that starting to appear at svgs and continue being at high-res pngs formed later... Ir there's no sense of existing of such high-res PNGs if there's already same svg exists (that can be scaled up to any size with no losses)? That's something new for me to see in derivatives. ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @~2026-46227-12 and @Jmabel!

Thank you for involving me in this discussion.

I apologize for not explaining these images' purpose, and for my laziness and ignorance relating to Commons policy. I will try to familiarize myself with it moving forward.

I'm currently drafting a reply that explains my reasoning. SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Additionally (and more importantly), I will immediately cease uploading images to Commons until we get this matter sorted out. SergeantSelfExplanatory (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello @SergeantSelfExplanatory! Thank you for your reply! I don't mean you to cease uploading - I mean you could manage it a bit better way that would avoid a mess. Case is, despite you free to upload any number of derivatives, it's very hard to guess which one to use for someone who will search, that way he's not guaranteed to select the best option available. Lowering resolution have no sense as it still can be lowered from high-res if you use exact sizing selected when use it's wikilink on anther projects (up to lowest 1x1 px) so having such ones with lower resolution is clearly unuseful. Making pngs with high resolution when you already made an .svg and just converting it to, also looks useless as .svg supersedes any resolution possible - so if you already have svg - no more high-res derivatives needed (at least I think so), as .svg can be scaled up to whatever size you want - it can be 1% or 1000000% - no any difference for image quality.

Also I've seen you sometimes trying to make resolution higher (bicubic something), but that's not a good idea - as it's quality is not become better - it just low-resolution stretched copy. i.e. if you'll see here I found PEO AMMO 600x600 image - that much better to upload instead of 2xstretching low-quality one. So sometimes your uploads just... clearly redundant. Despite I can understand your will to save whatever you created. Feel free to ask if anything's not clear or how to upload variations af current file versions and not as separate file. ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

sourcing derivatives to same external link is also looks deceptive, it much better to use it only on original uploaded, and template:extracted from, template:cropped from etc similar at "source:" of derivatives to connect it with original - that will help anyone to trace the route from what he see (at any file you created he opened) to original or any mid-step of your processing the original. ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@SergeantSelfExplanatory also have to note you was doing greatly with versions on the start (1, 2) why did you stop doing it? ~2026-46287-00 (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@SergeantSelfExplanatory here's a great example when you dealt with it right, I'd even say ideal, way. Can you please continue uploading like that exactly (sure until it's only visual changes like coloring/contrast/etc. and not some crop)? That would be just great! ~2026-46766-29 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

As a reminder: A precise answer as to why, for example, there are nearly 22 identical files in the Category:NSSC 001916 SIPE IHS ballistic shell has so far not been provided by @SergeantSelfExplanatory. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:26, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ziv working on it (already after dups deletion). Sadly uploader doesn't.

@SergeantSelfExplanatory can you please answer that question and finally start helping us elimination of your mess? As it much simpler to just delete all your files as most of them are not used anywhere, but looks mostly as archive of all your recomposition tries and failures you have to avoid using commons as. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

PDF uploaded preview

Hi, I recently uploaded this PDF but notice that on English Wikipedia it is listed as being 0x0 and does not show a proper preview when embedded onto pages. Any help?

w:File:USCSB_Report_2021_Nitrogen_Release_Foundation_Food_Group.pdf CompassNNE (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Same problem on Commons itself: File:USCSB Report 2021 Nitrogen Release Foundation Food Group.pdf. But you can access "original file" download just fine: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/USCSB_Report_2021_Nitrogen_Release_Foundation_Food_Group.pdf?utm_source=commons.wikimedia.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

That's odd, for me the preview at File:USCSB Report 2021 Nitrogen Release Foundation Food Group.pdf works perfectly fine. Which browser are you using? I'm viewing these in Brave but get the same results in the other Chromium browsers. CompassNNE (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Working correctly for me now, too. Not the first time I've seen this take a long time for a PDF to "settle." - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Uninformative title?

Hi,

My upload is refused because the title Doopsgezinde kerk at the Ds. Veenweg 61 in De Knipe (the Netherlands), with heavy moiré effect.jpg is deemed uninformative.

I am receiving the following error message (in Dutch): Schrijf alsjeblieft een meer informatieve titel (zie voorbeelden). This translates as: Please write a more informative title (see examples).

Now what am I to do? Write a novel? → bertux 19:25, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If this is automatically generated during the upload, my suggestion is: make it less informative, for example "Church in De Knipe, Netherlands", and use the long text in the description. Wouter (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't work either, but I have solved the problem: the file is a derivative .svg of De Knipe, Fermanje oan de Ds. Veenweg 61.jpg and while copy-editing that filename, I forgot to drop the .jpg part.

So the title was unsuitable, but the error message too → bertux 19:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

If its a derivative of another image, then it should be noted on the source image's page here on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

 Done → bertux 19:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Where can I file a bug report about the misleading error message? Phabricator:? → bertux 14:12, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Bertux: Commons:Upload Wizard feedback seems to indicate that Phabricator is the right place, but you might want to read the header message on that feedback page for yourself and see if you think otherwise. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Am I allowed to upload a procedurally generated planet map that I modified?

Hello, I am mostly a new user on Wikimedia, and have been uploading since 2 weeks ago. I did come into a bit of a dilemma when I uploaded this; the reason for that is because the map I used was procedurally generated on Donjon Fractal World Generator, then colour modified. I apologize for forgetting to credit. Should I credit it in the source part? Also, am I allowed to upload the map texture itself as long as I also give proper credit? ChristianPluto (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianPluto: How is that image in our project scope?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I wanted to make a hypothetical render of what the (now disproven) planet of Vulcan looks like so that way people could have an idea of what it would look like. People could also use it for educational presentations, such as a presentation on the history of observational astronomy and/or history of hypothetical planets. ChristianPluto (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianPluto: So you used a program to make an image of a theoretical planet to illustrate a real article en:Vulcan (hypothetical planet)? Are you or the Donjon Fractal World Generator notable artists?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:24, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I did not put the image of it on that article, I only uploaded it on to Wikimedia Commons. ChristianPluto (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you; but please don't upload imagined content with no apparent basis in fact or science.

Nominated for speedy deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Scope is not listed at COM:CSD.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

And yet it is one of the options in Twinkle, on this project.

Feel free to substitute "G2. Unused and implausible". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You may clarify on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulcan (hypothetical, now-disproven planet) render.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:11, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Scope is not a CSD option because questioning scope is outside the simplistic limits of CSD.

Also I'm curious as to how much of Category:Miracles has an "apparent basis in fact or science." Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Understandable. I apologize if this file was not helpful. I will use scientific data/assets (such as actual planetary maps created by probes) next time for any space/science related images I may make. ChristianPluto (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

@ChristianPluto: I just wanted to make sure you followed the main point here: imaginary stuff usually doesn't belong on Commons. The main exception is if the specific depiction (or the author of the depiction) is notable in their own right. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I will keep that in mind. Thanks for letting me know. ChristianPluto (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

How can i Fix this?

See here

Look for Category:1950 in Nova Friburgo. Instead for Category:1950 in Rio de Janeiro (state), the category says: Category:19550 in Rio de Janeiro (state).

How can I fix this? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 18:00, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

fixed. GeorgDerReisende (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

By the way, either you might want to create the parent categories, or you might want to reconsider whether there is any point to this category whose entire content is one other category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

confirm email and code sent

where do I confirm my email and put the code sent for update password Karon Matheny (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Bad quality picture

An article is saying to upload a better quality photo to replace the old one but I don't know if I can upload a new the new one since it's about a person Amw12255 (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Basically, any person who's important enough to have a Wikipedia article is enough of a public person that you do not have to bother with personality rights as long as any depiction of them is made during "official" functions. An author imaged at a book fair for instance is in their public function, same for an actor at a premiere or a professor teaching a university course.

The linchpin for imagery hosted here is the copyright situation. Amw12255, you will have to snap a decent picture yourself and release the rights under an allowable license for offering it to Commons. The other solution is to learn about third-party copyrights and to respect them. An amalgamated compendium and tutorial for this is available at COM:THIRD. In no case can an image that has been grabbed from a press kit or social media or a similar source be uploaded here, unless all the prerequisites stated in COM:THIRD have been fulfilled. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc and Amw1255: as long as any depiction of them is made during "official" functions is going to vary a bit from country to country. I would say that an author at book fair in France or Germany would have a pretty strong presumption of privacy if they were just walking around in the aisles or browsing books. Also, a professor lecturing in a large hall would probably be "fair game" in the U.S., but probably not while conducting a small seminar with a dozen students (especially if that seminar takes place in, say, their living room), even though the latter function is equally official. Amw1255, what country are we talking about here? - Jmabel ! talk 02:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

American content creator with 7M followers Amw12255 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

A content creator is most likely engaging with their community. Thus, they'll likely be open to the idea of providing a suitable image themselves and have a communication channel readily available. Take a look at en:Wikipedia:A picture of you and ask for such an image! Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

I have now uploaded the image but it isn't appearing when I published the article it is on Amw12255 (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Amw12255: Pictures do not magically appear in articles. (How would it know what article to appear in?) I don't know whether you edit Wikipedia with wiki markup or the Visual Editor. Here are instructions with wiki markup. Here are instructions for the Visual Editor. If you want it in a templated infobox, then that will be a bit different: look up the particular template (most commonly it will just be something like |Image = EXAMPLE.jpg within the Infobox). - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It now says that the image has been removed from Wikipedia, however someone uploaded the same image as me and it got added so I guess it's fine for now Amw12255 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Use Media Viewer instead of Slideshow for category pages?

Hi all, does anyone know how I can use the Media Viewer instead of Slideshow when in category pages? I find the former more intuitive to use compared to the latter. Plus, Slideshow doesnt load properly on my device, even if it does, it lags horribly. Thanks! Hason-LEK-SIN (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Webm file not matching MIME type

I tried uploading a webm file to Wikimedia Commons but it says: File extension ".webm" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (video/mp4).

Can you help me resolve the problem? Sanjib Chaudhary (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you do an actual file conversion? By your short description, it looks like you simply changed the file extension (assuming you're using Windows), but that's not what is needed. Please provide more details about what you did before you tried the upload (describe the device used to capture the video, any software involved for editing the clip, whatever you did to the file). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

أنا عندي المعلومات قرية تاريخ جديد نريد إضافة إلى ويكيبيديا

معلمومات Tadiganaye 11 (talk) 10:25, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tadiganaye 11: Hi, This is Wikimedia Commons, which is only concerns about multimedia documents. For articles in Arabic, please see the Arabic Wikipedia. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Can you help and assist me tò create my First articles

Dear Friends can you help me tò create and publish articles ~2026-47024-11 (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Commons is NOT for articles, only for media files. You will have to use Wikipedia for articles. But beware of local rules against advertisement, spam, texts that lack encyclopaedic relevance and other things outside of local project scopes. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:08, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Help with photos

Hi, Im trying to make an article on a serial killer, (Michele Kalina) and I was wondering is there copyright on her mugshot when she was arrested. I don’t want to get flagged but I really want to add a picture to make the article look more professional. How do I add it? ButteyFelicity (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@ButteyFelicity This photo? [1] No, you can't upload that on Commons. Commons accepts no "non-free" stuff whatsoever. More at COM:THIRD. However, English Wikipedia sometimes does, see for example the article on Lucy Letby and the info on the pic there.[2] However, you cannot try that until after the article is accepted on WP, not while its still a draft. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

How to keep file URLs from appending extra fluff

In the past couple months, whenever I open a file on Commons (not the file page, but the file itself), it's started appending fluff like ?utm_source=en.wiktionary.org&utm_campaign=index&utm_content=original to the file URL. This is immensely-irritating and needlessly adds extra steps when using the URL for external stuff (for instance, when archiving a file in the Wayback Machine); how do I get it to stop? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 04:02, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I noticed this too, have you found a bigger thread yet complaining about it? I find it absolutely infuriating that the WMF started doing these tracking URL parameters. It needs to stop. I might create this if there is none yet. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:Zhantiev 2007-12-08.jpg

--~2026-47256-28 (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC) Здравствуйте! Я - Бенедиктов Александр Александрович, автор фото Файл:Жантиев 2007-12-08.jpg Даю свое согласие на его открытую публикацию. Связь со мной по адресу entomology@yandex.ru С уважением, АБ

@~2026-47256-28, use COM:VRT/CONSENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

или Commons:Волонтёрская команда содействия на русском языке - Jmabel ! talk 06:17, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this image uploadable?

Hello! I have a question regarding if an image has the right license to be uploaded here. Susana Mendoza's 2027 campaign website has headshots of her available under the "Susana Swag" tab of her website, likely her intent for people to download the image to share. My question is, what's the difference between this image than the official portrait headshot such as her 2018 headshot or her 2014 headshot that were also uploaded based on her political campaigns? Could her 2027 headshot be uploaded just as her 2014 and 2018 headshots were? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Please do not upload unless there's an explicit authorization, as shown on File:Susana Mendoza Grey Suit.jpg (the entry on the "permission" field). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Gotcha, thank you! TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You could ask Ms Mendoza to release the images (or have her photographer do so) under an open licence, compatible with Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: But please, if you are going to ask someone for a license, first make sure you understand what you need to ask. See Commons:Uploading works by a third party, especially Commons:Uploading works by a third party#What not to do. - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Hence under an open licence, compatible with Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: yes, but anyone who would need to ask the initial question probably does not already know what that means. - Jmabel ! talk 18:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Copyright help regarding File:GIRLSET Members.jpg

I would like the file to be categorized under the "Non-free fair use" template, but am having trouble inserting the template.

I would also like the following information to be added to the file description.

|Purpose = to serve as the primary means of visual identification of the group members at the top of the article in question.

|Replaceability_text = It is a visual photo identification of the members of Girlset, whose purpose is not able to be substituted with text

|Replaceability = An alternative, free image is currently unable to be found

|Minimality = This logo will only be used once in the article and as means of primary visual identification

|Commercial = The use of a low resolution promotional image of the group, that has already been posted publicly for free online by said group's official social media, will not impact the commercial viability of the photo

--Wiki-o-media (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wiki-o-media This website, Commons, doesn't accept any fair use pics whatsoever, so the pic will be deleted. English Wikipedia sometimes does, but very rarely, and "free image is currently unable to be found" is not reason enough there, their rules are very strict on that. More info at COM:THIRD and en:Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wiki-o-media and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: And especially at en:Wikipedia:Non-free content. - Jmabel ! talk 03:36, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NFCC1, yes. Far too alive. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Upload file

I found some photos I want to use for a wiki (and they are under a license wiki can use) here here May someone please upload them for me as I'm not comfortable giving Flikr my info. Here are some others if you want! [3] [4] [5] [6] Wobs100 (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Wobs100: Hi, and welcome. You don't have to give Flickr your info.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

On upload wizard it says that it will use my IP. Wobs100 (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I uploaded 13 files from that Flickr set, which can be found in Category:Martinsburg Mall.

Please check and edit as needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Very Much :D Wobs100 (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Also last thing: for Nation Decay's photos should I just crop the as there is gray boxes at the bottom Wobs100 (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

There was also another set from 2012 as seen here Wobs100 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Uploaded; and in the same category.

Again, please check and edit as needed. See [7] for (an example of) a necessary fix. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much Wobs100 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Update: I have gotten 1/2 of the images fixed! I have even also changed the ones before the flicker upload! Also I did see one last album here if your fine uploading it! Wobs100 (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Done; same category. The templating issue seems fixed, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Every image is fixed now. Wobs100 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I cannot upload my own portrait... as I am not its "creator"

But I asked a buddy nearby to take that shot and pass it via WhatsApp to me. I don't think there EVER will be a problem with her, as I am the subject. Trilobyte47 (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Trilobyte47: You may wish to review COM:THIRD and en:Wikipedia:A picture of you with shortest shortcut en:WP:APoY.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:19, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Trilobyte47: and also COM:PCP as to why we cannot accept "I don't think there EVER will be a problem with her". - Jmabel ! talk 03:38, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect identification of photograph

Hello. The photograph in the file “te:దస్త్రం:పాలడుగు దుర్గా ప్రసాద్.jpg” is incorrectly identified as the Telugu film director Paladugu Durga Prasad (P.D. Prasad). The source listed on the file is a LinkedIn profile belonging to Durga Prasad Paladugu, an advocate in Guntur, which is a different person. Our family knows the film director personally and confirms that the person shown in this photograph is not Paladugu Durga Prasad, the film director. Please investigate the identification and remove the photograph from the film director's Wikipedia article if the identification cannot be verified. We can provide reliable evidence and an authentic photograph of Paladugu Durga Prasad if required. Thank you.This is the page Myra1208 (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You name two files; the first does not exist (your link is to an upload page); the second does not have LinkedIn as a source, Please clarify.

Please check the names, and clarify. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It could be article te:పాలడుగు దుర్గా ప్రసాద్, not a file, but that way whole the message still unclear. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

got it... She mean the photo uploaded to te:దస్త్రం:పాలడుగు దుర్గా ప్రసాద్.jpg exactly but not to commons. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

and if it's true - it looks like she's right: (LinkedIn · Durga Prasad Paladugu...Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India · Advocate · Self-employed) - photo uploaded was incorrectly identified as film director ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

According to that 6 year ago news about his wife passed away he spelled latin as "PDV prasad" that google fixes to P. D.V. Prasad showing many of his photos including that 9 years ago video from which still unclear is recently uploaded File:Telugu Film Director Paladugu Durga Prasad.jpg is photo of him or not also. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I think there’s a mix-up between two different people with similar names. The photo I reported as incorrect is the one currently on the Telugu Wikipedia article. The file that I uploaded before is the actual film director, confirmed by my uncle, who is his son. His wife is still alive, so the news report you mentioned appears to be about a different person. Myra1208 (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Myra1208 It looks like you have many same-named telugu film directors named PD(V?) Prasad...

Ok, let's stop on the fact linkedin provided really doesn't belong to any film director.

However - if you want to help the "investigation" find some sources that would confirm your version of photo really belongs to him. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the clarification. I apologise for the confusion in my first message.

I am referring to the photograph currently used in the Telugu Wikipedia article “పాలడుగు దుర్గా ప్రసాద్”. The person shown in that photograph is NOT the Telugu film director Paladugu Durga Prasad (P.D. Prasad).

The photograph appears to come from the LinkedIn profile of Durga Prasad Paladugu, an advocate in Guntur, who is a different person.

Paladugu Durga Prasad was my uncle’s father, and my uncle has confirmed that the photograph currently used is not him. His wife is also still alive, so the news report mentioned above appears to concern a different person.

I have an authentic photograph of the film director, provided to me by my uncle. I can provide further evidence if needed. Myra1208 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Myra1208 can you please clarify what the issue is about exactly? As you are free to delete it from the article on your own. So what do you need the help with by current topic? As of photo you uploaded - I can't be sure that's him exactly, but you still can claim it until someone won't deny.

As of right way of uploading photos to commons and it's right ownership licensing I bet someone else can help to you. @Jmabel, can you help here? ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I think there’s a mix-up between two different people with similar names. The photo I reported as incorrect is the one currently on the Telugu Wikipedia article. The photo I uploaded separately is the actual film director, confirmed by my uncle, who is his son. Myra1208 (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

no need to duplicate the messages. look above for the answer. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the image in the article; but File:Telugu Film Director Paladugu Durga Prasad.jpg is not your work and was not made today. Please see COM:THIRD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Myra1208, hello! Don't you the one who identified that photo as is?

What source do you mean as linkedin if you didn't provide any claiming it's your own work?

Please provide the source you mean and if you are sure that's another person - just change it on your own according to the source. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Myra1208 can you please tell what time on film he directed his credits is shown? ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

My uncle told me that Sri Venkateswara Vaibhavam was released in 1971. There was also a misconception that the idol shown in the film was filmed at the actual temple, which caused controversy. He also told me that there was a court case regarding the film’s revenue, where only 15% was to be given to the director and producer. According to my uncle, 7% came to my grandfather, and he donated that entire amount to Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams.thats all I know Myra1208 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean where is it exactly in the film. Maybe his name was written a bit another way in తెలుగు - which can help find more of his old photos for compare or upload. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

it's shown as Director PD Prasad in the movie Sri Venkateswara Vaibhavam which is available on yt andbI have more pics of him with different tfi people and a pic of him even acting in a film Myra1208 (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Does your native language a Telugu? I mean - can you read the (telugu languaged) credits in the video exactly, not english ones at it's description? Can you tell what timing (minute/second) his credits is shown in the video written telugu?

You have to understand - It's not required for you to prove anything, but it would be great to be ready for someone's doubt ever happened already. So if you have more pictures (as one as have willing to expand the article), especially ones where he's acting in the film (he was actor and film director at once?) - you are free to upload more of it. But please be aware of further right file licensing if that photos are old and not yours. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

it's between 2:03-2:05 both in English in telugu Myra1208 (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

so... he's written there as "P.D. ప్రసాద్". Still can't find anything with such a spelling. Except his films... But with no any photo. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

yeah his full name is Paladugu Durga Prasad and there are no photos of him available that's the reason I'm trying to upload them Myra1208 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, but I meant to find him with same spelling (languages mixed one) as film showed.

For now he's also noted in a couple of old books (at least @ Indian Films, 1974, page 322; Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, 1994, page 505) but same with no photos. I think it not worth more searching until you'll upload some more. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Well It's actually made by me today Myra1208 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

the author: is literally showing Myra1208 Myra1208 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

yep, it is, but you also stated it's not your photo but provided to you by his son, which means at least you are not current owher of that photo, and, taking in view, he's young there, couldn't do it on your own at the time of photo was made. That's why you have to focus on advice above to avoid photo deletion recently. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The director's son (the copyright holder/legal heir) will be sending a formal permission email to the VRT team (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org) shortly to release this photo and related family archival photos under CC BY-SA 4.0. We will update the file with the VRT ticket number as soon as it is confirmed. Myra1208 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Myra1208 great. You got everything right. Thank you. If any help more needed - feel free to ask. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Also it would be great to clarify the date when photo was done. Sure if it's possible. Sure you can use circa (ca) abbreviation with approximate years if can't remember exact date. ~2026-47407-63 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Can anyone update this map?

File:United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Member States.svg. Greatder (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd recommend that if you find an out-of-date file (inaccurate map, logo of a company that has changed, etc.), you use {{update|[What to update, possibly including a helpful link]}} on the file's page. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

This file was uploaded in 2018 was not marked as {{Current}}; the uploader has not been active for several years, so I can't verify their intent, but I will tag it accordingly so it can be more readily updated. - Jmabel ! talk 03:54, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Having issues on a re-upload not rendering.. Not updating thumbnail.

Having issues yesterday and today with re-uploads not rendering, shows previous image even after waiting 24 hours. Usually it's instant to at best 10 seconds. What's going on? For example: File:Vince Carter drives vs Gasol 2010 Magic Lakers (cropped).jpg and File:Kobe Bryant 248.jpg —JoeJohnson2 (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't know that I can replicate this, since the two revs of the files are virtually identical to my eye, but this sounds like an issue with purging. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I just realised the Vince Carter one resolved on it's own after 24 hours. I'll wait it out on the second one. Thanks for the fast response and have yourself a great day. —JoeJohnson2 (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

CPAB

We have to update our company logo and my account is blocked. Rahim.lalani (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Your account is not blocked on this wiki.

Your account will be unblocked on the English-language Wikipedia once you answer the questions put to you there while logged in. (Answer them there, that is, not here) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Someone has posted my signature on your site using the username ValentinoHolt. Please remove it.

I do not wish for my e-signature to be public knowledge. It has been uploaded by a user without my permission and I would like it taken down.

I do not know how to edit it to remove the source file or my name... but I want neither published on this page. ~2026-47816-65 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

We can't confirm that this anonymous temporary account belongs to any individual having a relationship to the uploads in Special:ListFiles/ValentinoHolt. So, this message board is not a suitable venue for your request. Please follow the guidelines shown on Commons:Contact us. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated File:Patric Elder Signature.png for deletion, on the grounds of an improper claim of "own work" and lack of valid sourcing. That's not to say it couldn't be kept if those issues are fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Painting Issue

I'm having trouble identifying the woman in this painting:

1. File:Motria Koczubej-1.jpg
2. File:Samanchi qizi 2.jpg
3. File:وێنه‌ی کێشراوی کچی کافرۆش.jpg
4. File:وێنه‌ی ڕه‌سه‌نی کچی کافرۆش.jpg

They're all listed on Wikimedia Commons without a reliable source, with different names, such as Motrona Kochubei, Samanchi qizi, Kchi Kafrosh (Kurdish Madonna), Dünya Güzeli Züleyha and etc. Google search doesn't provide accurate information about the painting or its artist. The only remotely reliable source is information (https://www.comunicazioneeforme.com/2013/06/15/articoli-e-servizi-particolari/il-quadro-della-bella-rosina/) where the artist photographed this painting in 2011 and claims it is Rosa Vercellana.

What to do? Yousiphh (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Yousiphh why do you think it's the same person? ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean first 3 and 4th.

But I got what you mean. Let me find out. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

First, I have to note 1st photo source claim is faulty as [8] didn't contain photo of Motria, but Mazepa only, so I bet it still Kchi Kafrosh or at least NOT Motria (3 VS 1 where 2 VS 0 with appropriate online sources). ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it's a portrait of Xecic Jum'a Mevlud Sekak born 1920. All names (except Motria, because it's not the same person) are Turkish/Kurdish/Azerbaijani alternatives used by storytellers later, according to [9]. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

YDo you think www.kurdistanchronicle.com is a reliable source? I don't consider it reliable. This picture has nothing to do with the Kurds or the Middle East in general. Yousiphh (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

if you want a story - you have to talk on Wikipedia instead of commons. All I know is based on sources we have and nothing more. Taking in view all of the names are translatable with almost the same meaning from neighboring languages presumption that's the same person with different nicknames looks Like a true. Only I can be sure it's not mid-aged Ukranian girl, taking in view both face, that doesn't look like her, nor her wear that is not common for Ukraine at all. And until we have no better source - I'd believe to one providing reasonable explanation about who's that lady with so many different names. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

First of all, I don't expect help from a member who isn't even registered here, but rather from experienced members. Secondly, I also don't believe this picture is of a Ukrainian woman, nor of a Kurdish woman, since both information is from unreliable sources. Yousiphh (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

that was rude, but I'm not the one to teach you ethics if parents failed.

And I'd agree with you if you'd have a queue of volunteers to investigate your doubts.

What I finally mean is commons not a place for DNA testing as one as searching for most reliable sources when there's a lack of information at only one about the object showed (except whole image licensing, if faulty) - that mostly goal of wikipedia. Commons is mostly focused on fair/proper image further use and non-repeatability 《duplicates). That's all. Images can be not named properly or meaningful at all for years or decades, but still be stored in commons if it's qualitative and legal.

So, if you don't want any help from me - luck searching for another volunteers. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Here's even more for you tu guess is it recent replica or original: [10] ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm all aware about all this sources. They are not reliable. Yousiphh (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

So what are you expecting then with current topic? Some magic like confession of a girl being abducted or officer who did it? I think you have to clarify the expectations about someone to resolve your doubts instead of you. If you know something about that girl - tell it to evaluate, cause just expressing a doubts - bad role for searching the consensus. As one as constantly repeating you don't believe. Let's start from what you believe, and then we'll continue. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm expecting to resolve this matter with more experienced members of community, not from you. Please stop commenting on this matter. Yousiphh (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47565-78: you've made your skepticism clear. You really do not need to repeat it further. - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Sure, no more scepticism. facts only. According to one wise (specialized) book it is "color picture based on a European painting of the face of the idealized beautiful woman" who was first called as Fatima in Iran (starting from the middle of 19th century... in recent years pictures of beautiful women have been woven into carpets... In the absense of concrete knowledge of the origins of that chromolithograph portrait of this unknown woman, which inspired a number of pictorial rigs made... several speculative stories have circulated in different parts of the Middle East... Iran suggested she's Turk, others believe she's represent Belkis, the Queen of Sheba,... The Kurds of Iraq call her Kichi-Kafrosh.

So then identifying it "up to DNA" based on current sources is clearly impossible as no original portrait/photo litography (what was the source of numerous reproductions) info available.

That way naming it both "Unknown woman of 19th century" as one as "Queen of SHeba" or "Fatima" or "Kichi-Kafrosh" or any other eastern story's female hero is equally valid as only we can say for sure - this is a sketch of the ideal woman as imagined in the 19th century, massively shared among the Middle East and changed from the painter to the painter in accordance with local visions, therefore later it become a portrait of "beautiful eastern woman".

Therefore I believe this is a collective image resulted by many reproductuion iterations, not a specific and identifiable woman. ~2026-47855-47 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Like Картина " Мотря Кочубей " is clear reproduction of that image with a bit changed details (probably specific for Ukraine from the view of painter) like:

• elongated painting, where you can see full set of beads on the chest
• simplified pattern on clothing
• a simplified hairstyle that also covers the left sleeve
• middle beads on the neck are smaller in size
• the face is elongated
• the nose is narrowed

despite that's not a Motria Koczubej but her representation by the artist (painter) based on the "image of beautiful woman" he probably had before his eyes when painted that.

That's why I believe that woman (many times changed on the paintings), meant by topicstarter, is not identifiable - finally it just a result of a fantasy. ~2026-47855-47 (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47855-47: thanks, that is much more substantive and useful.

Separate question: Is there any reason you have not created an account here? One string of numbers looks a lot like another. Without an account it is very unlikely that you can establish any positive reputation here at all. You will come into virtually every thread as "complete rando walked into the room." - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Let's say I have some reasons I believe as important to stay as is as long as possible. I don't need any recognition. I try to minimize your irritation with my questions, despite sometimes still don't have the answer I expected for, where possible as one as adapt to all sorts of current restrictions that sometimes seem stupid to me (like some abuse filter triggers or excessive captchas). Even if I'll register - I'll prefer to make a routine still anonymously until it will be some big project I'll be interested in where I'll really need skipping the captcha, however I'm not sure it won't force me to always edit logged in for some unclear reasons. That uncertainty also matters as of why I still not.

As of images of these two young girls (yep, I believe it's 2 different girls, no matter idealized or real) and possibility to save it from deletion because of no source template was set radically everywhere that affect rightful licensing I propose to use that link as partial licensing information showing us the images published on the poster of unknown year page (but not on the image) claimed as Türk güzelleri... by "Adatepe" (still not clear is true) named (based on the bottom of image itself): "? ??? ???? ????????     Dünya Güzeli Fatma             Dünya Güzeli Züleyha". Same (even light counterclockwise image rotation on the sheet), but clearer, is shown here, where we can see whole the text below: so it starts with: "M. Apa Klişe Atölyesi..." repeating the further.

Sure it's not initial image source as here we can see left border of the separate postcard(?) where no border had to be if it's just right side of cutted girl's duo. Same separate card all over border we can see here, where had not to be (right) border otherwise.

So what we see is different earlier images paired compilation made, if to believe that image is of real postcard, by some "M. Apa" (turkish?) publisher or painter.

One of who fits is Ressam ve klişeci; Mazhar Apa kilişe atölyesi sahibi; (Türkiye'nin ilk foto-ofset tekniğiyle baskı yapan matbaasını kuran Mazhar Apa), who, if to be short, was first who used "medieval w:copier" technics in Turkey and was qualified calligrapher (what can explain the beautiful handwriting inscriptions/signature below the girls' images), also "Kendi adına nisbetle anılan klişe atölyesini 1941 de açtı; bu atölye Cağaloğlunda Tanin gazetesinin de bulunduğu tarihî binanın içinde idi. Her nevi klişe ile ofset baskı ve fotolito kalıpları yapılan ve harp yılları içinde kurulmuş olan bu müessese birçok güçlüklerle karşılaşmış, fakat harp sonrası için parlak ve istikbal vâdetmiş ve buradan “Apa Ofset Basmevi adındaki büyük müessese doğmuştur (B. : Apa Ofset Basımevi).", which, if to be short, means that exact named after him printing house was working between 1941 and up to (not clear, but not later then, as was closed) the end of WWII. Which means, if to believe sources (who selling card with both girls) above these girls duo was printed between 1941 and 1945 in Turkey.

Tricky question here (for license reviewers/experts) is:

• looks like only we can approve/be sure is publishing date of the images combined is 1941-1945;
• On the one hand, we can say that the images of girls showed appeared both separately and much earlier then was published by Mazhar's publising house while WWII;
• from another, we have no any evidence of it to be published ever earlier (except some pictures of nor signed nor dated torn photos/cards with dubious sources like image sharing service ([11], [12]) or some blog);
• also it's unknown can he (or his printing house) be considered the author of a work (although everything points to the fact that it was he who combined these portraits, which, as it seems to me, is a new work of art, albeit a secondary/derivative one)

that way it's unknown for me while evaluating is that picture already in public domain or not have we, according to COM:TURKEY, start to count 70 (or 50?) years from the death of the company (which is 1945 or earlier) as th author (that way it's already in PD), or his one (which was 1998) as the author (and therefore it still not) or there's some not obvious law or authorship evaluation exists that still considers it already as public domain for some reason?

And finally - one more example of multiple image reproduction that make identification of original models painted impossible. ~2026-47855-47 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

this is believed to be a successor of "Apa Ofset Basmevi"/"B. : Apa Ofset Basımevi" - which was created by Mazhar Apa (and later managed by his son) after WWII finished on the base of his original printing house, however unclear was it a new outstanding company (with no copyright transfer) or not. If anyone want to put an end to this story (including with copyright), you can contact them directly for final clarification. ~2026-47855-47 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Yousiphh: I know the above is not conclusive, but it gives you about as much as anyone is going to be likely to get here other than by sheer dumb luck of finding an exact identical image in some old print work. The first one has an insufficiently proven PD claim; the others have ridiculous licensing claims; but there is a fair chance these are PD. I would certainly not myself have nominated these for speedy deletions. F1 speedy is supposed to be for "clear copyright violations". It is not at all clear that these are copyrighted. On the other hand, it might be very hard to prove either way, and I'm not sure that they are important enough images to merit any more work than what ~2026-47855-47 has already done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

My apologies, I see these weren't marked for and F1 speedy, they were marked {{No source since}}. Immediate source isn't really the issue; the issue is to prove they are PD (since the claims of CC licenses are clearly ridiculous). I suspect the clock will run out without anyone proving or disproving. Jmabel ! talk 04:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

How to add inage

Idk how AerospacesGD (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Upload tools can help. Or be more detailed about the issue ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@AerospacesGD: as a beginner, you will probably find Commons:UploadWizard the easiest way to upload.

If you are asking about adding an image to an article on a sister project such as the English-language Wikipedia, [13] is a decent place to start. Or you can just look at the syntax of the Wikitext for how an image is included in another article, and do it the same way. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 04:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

image

Talk page link:User talk:JJDemblon#File tagging File:EJ Lombardi standing at the site in Nice where the magistrate court was where he won his court case at the age of 14.png

I have an image that I have copyright to as it belongs to me, wikipedia has asked for my permission to use it , however when I follow the steps it wont let me change the picture with a different URL and just keeps saying the picture allready exists, I think it wants a URL but its my own picture. I do not have a URL or website for it, it was previously used in a book by Jane English Biography EJ LOMBARDI with the familys permission JJDemblon (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@JJDemblon: I'm not sure I follow all of that; here's where I'm confused.

wikipedia has asked for my permission to use it: are you saying that you uploaded this because someone from Wikipedia (in some language; there are several hundred different languages that each have their own Wikipedia) asked you to upload it? Because Wikipedia (in whatever language) as such has no means to make such a request. Or are you saying something else?

I follow the steps: what steps? Listed somewhere?

it won't let me change the picture with a different URL: meaning it won't let you upload the same picture to a different filename (which would be a correct behavior, we don't generally want duplicate images on Commons) or meaning something else?

I think it wants a URL: You think what wants a different URL? Different from what?

Could you please start over and be clear what has already happened and what you want to do? Don't be afraid of being more verbose, from what you've written, this may be a bit complicated. And/or: if there was in fact some user who initially contacted you to ask for the picture, it would help a lot to name them so we can get them involved in helping you, since presumably they already understand what is going on here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I think it's useful for context to link topics where he answered to automated deletion notifications half an hour before current topic and 2 hours later. ~2026-47565-78 (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47565-78: thanks. Yes, that is useful context that the user would have done well to link.

@JJDemblon: I still don't get the thing about wikipedia has asked for my permission to use it, but it looks like (1) this was in with a bunch of things you agree were copyright violations that were correctly deleted and (2) when you got a templated bot message on your talk page saying what to do if you objected to the deletion, you replied on your user talk page instead of following the directions in the template. Please reread the part (on your user talk page) that begins with "A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file…" It tells you how to proceed.

I see you wrote above, "I have an image that I have copyright to as it belongs to me" and I see you wrote on the user talk page, "this picture belongs to our family." If the photographer is no longer alive and you are the heir to the photographer's intellectual property rights, then great, and the COM:VRT process mentioned in the message on your user talk page should be able to sort this all out. However, contrary to what you wrote at the time of upload (or answered in the Upload Wizard) the source is certainly not "own work" and you are not the author, so {{self|cc-zero}} was not valid. If you really mean to place the image in the public domain, then {{Cc-zero-heirs}} would be correct. However, unless you want the photographer's name to be secret, I really would recommend that you hold on to the right of attribution to the name of whoever actually took the picture, and use {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} instead.

When you contact the VRT, you should tell the which license you want; who was the photographer and how you come to own the copyright; whether you want the photographer's name listed as author, or a pseudonym, or an indication that you prefer that the photographer's name not be published. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanx yes the one picture is a family heirloom and the user is dead, but the others are from the library, so i Just want to delete them but I am not sure how to do that, but it also says only admin can delete so I just want them to delete as I have no idea how to use these bracket things I am not very computer literate and they wont let us use AI to figure it out, but I dont think AI will be able to help me change the sources either so I dont mind its more the story than the pictures that are important hopefully admin will delete if I just do nothing they say they remove within 7 days if they dont get a response JJDemblon (talk) 12:02, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@JJDemblon: Correct: you do not have to do anything to get the rest of these deleted. In fact, given that this has been made clear in this thread, I will do that right now. However, if the one image is to be kept/restored, you need to go through the COM:VRT process. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Can i upload this?

Can I upload something based off of a Wikimedia logo, like an unofficial mascot for example Arenghtqru888 (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

@Arenghtqru888: It would help if you specified what logo (they may not all have identical licensing) but if you conform to the licensing when you derive another work from it and your contribution is within scope, then yes. Note that the scope issue could get tricky here: if you are making something up yourself, and it has no real-world presence, it might not be considered in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm trying to paint an unofficial Wikipedia mascot based off of the Wikipedia logo in MS Paint. Arenghtqru888 (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I get that. My question is whether you are trying to document an existing unofficial mascot, or or just making something up. The former would clearly be in scope, the latter may not be. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

How do I upload a profile of a public figure?

There is an accomplished doctor that is a world humanitarian and I would like to upload his information on Wikipedia. How do I do that? GPF310 (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

This is Wikimedia Commons, not Wikipedia. We don't have articles, you'll have to ask about those on Wikipedia. en:WP:Help Desk is one place to start. Others might be en:Wikipedia:Teahouse (a bit friendlier) and read en:Help:Your first article.

Note that Wikipedia has strict rules about notability and especially for biographies of living people. See en:WP:BLPN.

Personally I'd advise that anyone's first article was anything other than a biography! Biographies, especially of living subjects, are hard.

If you have image resources under a free licence (read COM:L), such as a portrait photo, then you might upload them to Commons here, and you can do that before the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Uploads

My iPad has “upload.wikimedia.org” permanently across the top of the main screen. Have never tried to upload anything.Tried rebooting. ~2026-47859-94 (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Weirdly, "upload.wikimedia.org" has almost nothing to do with uploading, don't worry about it. Long story, probably not worth going into. - Jmabel ! talk 20:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Print art

how do get to printable art? And print it off? Charliebrownnumber7 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

@Charliebrownnumber7: I have no idea what you are asking. Anything online is, in theory, printable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:03, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Broken source

While resolving issue meant here i realized we have about 45500 files with only indicated, but broken and non-recoverable, source starting with "http://www.defenseimagery.mil/imageRetrieve.action" rooted into decades ago. Some of that images even featured/picture of the day. To be fair, it should be noted it still available online via Commons:VIRIN (on the files where "virin" information attribute set), but that's no way obvious for the reader of file page as first reader try to resolve - is source link provided directly in appropriate ("Source:") field and nowhere else.

I guess it would be great and fair to delete whole the set of such dead links from the files source info so as not to distract the reader with faluty information. Especially on featured files. That way files with both no source and no VIRIN would certaintly marked as unsourced that would be clearly visible for later fixes.

Any ideas about is it worth doing and how to do it wisely? ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

As you can see on duplicates (1, 2) with similar issue links from that site was just temporary download ones therefore useless ever later (1 and 2 are completely different) as one as VIRIN codes provided sometimes are just faulty (130503-N-WL435-088 - valid, 130503-N-WL435-1088 faulty) ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48020-83: Very unlikely that it is a good idea to delete the dead links unless we have good links to add; the dead links might be useful to find these in an archive.

Presumably these are overwhelmingly correctly licensed, even if that is now hard to prove, so on the whole we should expect to keep the bulk of them unless we discover a lot of known problematic files. Obviously, duplicates can be marked for deletion, in the usual manner, and DRs can proceed for all the usual reasons (problematic derivative works, etc.). User:Fæ is one of the most prolific and capable mass-uploaders on Commons, and while no one is perfect, they probably have well over a 95% rate of getting this sort of thing right, maybe more like 99%. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I agree with you deleting USUAL dead links (which was ever working longer then a couple of hours) is a bad idea usually, but saving THESE EXACT links is same as saving captcha answer "just in case" for later use - it hardly wise ever as will never be needed again.

It no way useful for ever "searching the archive" as they all was ONE TIME USE and died before anyone ever even started to think about to make it's archived copy.

What I mean - until it will still be provided at the "source" attribute - noone ever will fresh it up (as why if something already there?).

As you said - there's no any licensing issues as it's army-related stuff, and I don't mean to delete any VIRIN or other image-specific codes, as it can be really useful being CONSTANT IN TIME.

But I don't any way mean to save that exact TEMPORARY links for that purpose.

That's the same as I'll write down all my ever-used temporary account names "for later use" if it will ever repeated for me - it clearly dumb.

So I still think it's a good idea to delete these exact url to FRESH IT UP by someone who cares and noticed by i.e. autocategorizing it with "no source".

or you mean deleting it can force massive templating it with template:nsd?

Ok. from that POV I agree deleting it is a bad idea. But to start thinking what to do with it all - clearly great one.

I don't mean User:Fæ is a bad guy (taking in view his partly clever dups searching bot), but even he's not an oracle to guess new source links based on old temporary ones. Probably he's one is great to be noticed that all about (maybe he'll even be able to do it all alone). ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48020-83: Do we know for sure these were one-time links, not just short-lived links? Do we know that there's no pattern by which more stable links aren't implied by some subset of what was in these links? (These are not rhetorical questions, I have no idea of the answers). - Jmabel ! talk 06:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I guess. based on duplicates I provided above. Check on your own sources here and here, sure it also can be some kind of file name/description (which are 1 word different) checksum also. Let me find more of such examples to be 100% sure. I'll write it here later. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at: those were uploaded just 25 minutes apart. And I see that in this case the VIRIN search link gives us nothing.

@Fæ: any thoughts on how best to proceed? Anything that can be done with a bot here to make this a less tedious task? Is it advisable to remove these URLs with the GUIDs, and if so is there something we should be adding at the same time? - Jmabel ! talk 07:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

1 and 2, but still with a bit different naming and different VIRIN codes (1 working/1 none). still unconvincingly to count guid is naming checksum (unique data/photo code you mean) and not random temporary set I mean it as. Still searching for more. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 09:59, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

The uploads using a VIRIN created by me were indeed uploaded from a DOD official website with an irrevocable license per US federal legislation. Normally on Commons the only reason we tend to delete any of these is because of a courtesy to subjects who have either left the service and now find the photos a privacy problem, or for subject who were not in the military.

I did do some significant work (a long time ago, but the same time as these uploads) on duplicate images which were *non-identical* by using perception hashing of the images. Ref User:Fæ/Imagehash and Category:Faebot identified duplicates (20,000 cases).

We are not sure why there were so many duplicates created by DOD, however their DVID database seems to have fiddled around with dates in EXIF, and/or the photographers releasing the media mistakenly uploaded more than once and the system changed the EXIF at each release. This means that the files only have different checksums because of the header data being included in it.

If there are many thousands of files where we think there's a possible mapping from old source references to a new source reference, it could be worth automatically looking them up and refreshing the sources, but a US federal source moving or vanishing altogether is now the new normal for the USA, and for Wikimedia Commons we should accept as normal that for credible uploads like these that the source information was trusted and are fine under PRP and some reasonable good faith. Even if we can 'refresh' sourcing, the absence of a current source does not mean the original upload should be up for deletion.

I'll take a look at the specific cases, I suspect that the original source has been archived even though the federal agencies have removed the live website... Fæ (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Looking at VIRIN 130503-N-WL435-088, the "guid" used in the source uniquely only points back to commons. However the image is still at DVIDS and it's easy to dial it up using the VIRIN https://www.dvidshub.net/search/2.0?q=130503-N-WL435-088, and there's already a link on the file page doing the search thanks to the old me building this in to {{milim}}. So, validating any that are questioned is easy if they still exist there.

I'm slightly confused, is there something for me to investigate further, maybe I misread the issue? Fæ (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

WRT removing GUID based links, no I'd leave the record as is. If necessary we could add a note by changing the milim template pointing out that these old source links may not be working.

WRT duplicates, potentially with different VIRINs, this can be automated and I could think about sorting it out if there are enough of them to make it worthwhile (like several thousand rather than a few hundred). Keep in mind this is now many years later, this is not a current hazard for anyone. Fæ (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Spending a few moments this morning looking back at the Faebot identified duplicates category, there's some nice cases to consider:

• 
• 

I like this example as both have working live sources and identical with different checksums, making it tricky to say which is better to keep. An automated process could start with that master category and consider each duplicate pair, making a recommendation of keep for whichever was (A) earliest uploaded to Commons (B) has current working source (C) is in global use (D) is in use on other Commons pages (like crops being made). This way we give preference to any updated website. Being in global use is probably a deal breaker for which to keep, and if both are in use or have crops or were a featured picture, it's probably better to link the two together and stick in a category for definitely needing a manual merge. For manual merging, I'm thinking such a backlog might stick around for a long time, we might even agree to keep the duplicates as they are... --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

After a short investigation it still unclear was guid used by them as temporary generated link or as identifier of exact database element (which, I suppose was the set of (1) EXACT NAME OF THE PHOTO [which @Fæ copied here as a file name] and (2) Photo itself and (3) [probably] EXACT file description and (4) [probably] some THAT DATABASE ANOTHER identifier with CAPS and NUMBERS only unlike guid) but I can agree that specific guid was not (temporary) session identifier, as I claimed above, but (constant) database identifier even despite I didn't find here any of guid coincidences except 5 (from 2 to 4 times):

0 '8fb2449cdb31f1abc48784f24af9e4132d56a3f2' 4

1 'dead9d99eb3b857431bbe4195ccd1ffaac5c9f5b' 2

2 'c8f3b13f09bd772845fd5a6266be8a4d39e733f7' 2

3 '44d62dfe59c5d37533f61a997faa38a002f088ef' 2

4 'a5cee88481a412221a1596af8766579506d1c5f9' 2

but all of it WAS NOT duplicates but derivatives of same original file. I was wondering how did they get into that category - and realized one who derivated it could just copypaste just everything inside (including cat-s) from originating file - that's how they get there.

However I also did further investigation trying to find random non-duplicate file without working VIRIN code provided at dvidshub. That was not easy, as none of searching by guid from the file's old defenseimagery link or by old ID had any positive result. Only I found the image is via partial (but not strict - as it also didn't work) file name with 2 results - 1 is image I meant to find (with no any connection to both defenseimagery link or code on the page of initial file searched) to find, 2nd - is not completely, but different.

Which means:

• GUID FROM OLD LINK (that is only difference between source in 50k+ files) is USELESS for searching that image at dvidshub.
• CAPS+NUMBERS OLD ID theoretically can be useful, but I didn't mean to delete that exactly but useless and deceptive old link only.
• ONLY thing that can help to find that exact image ANYWAY is - initial file name you (I guess) copied from old defenseimagery database. Looks like dvidshub just shortened their old names a bit leaving further text just intact - and that's the key to righful search.

So critical information for "restoring" a new source there based on dvidshub database from military oldies :where only defenseimagery left as a source is NOT OLD defenseimagery LINK, and (sometimes) even not a image code left from that time, but INITIAL FILE NAME exactly.

THat's why no matter what guid was as (temporary or constant attribute) at defenseimagery - now it clearly useless for any reason with no doubt and can be easily deleted from everywhere.

@Fæ as of your assumption after "We are not sure why there were so many duplicates created by DOD" - I completely agree. They easily could do it without creating a GUID, but checking the same thing you (or your bot) do when searching for duplicates - the file checksums ((or some image fingerprint if exifs was different but dups still didn't pass) avoding any new upload if checksum already in database with a principle - ""first come, first served" - that way oldies duplicates who "came later" just didn't fit to newly formed dvidshub with (as it looks now) unique images only.

All of found duplicates have SIMILAR names differing by literally a few words or even letters (probably that exactly was a KEY [not repeatable] element of an old database and one who for some reason [was sleepy?] uploaded a duplicate had to change the name a bit for it to fit), and, just ALWAYS - one have WORKING VIRIN code, when another - NOT WORKING one (like 130503-N-WL435-1088 above).

But still. I can conclude all of old defenseimagery links (urls exactly, not any text "over" it like CAPS-NUMBERS ID) completely useless. So why not to delete it from 50k+ files? ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

As of "Cases to consider" (same image, exifs differ) - just wow! - your bot really cool comparing not just file checksum, but image fingerprint exactly.

I'm even curious: Can it find duplicates among files of different formats (don't mean svg, but tiff-jpeg-png)? ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... It looks like dvidshub mixed 2 initial dups from above here taking:

• VIRIN VI130503-N-WL435-088 from the 1st;
• 1,29 MB sized file from the 2nd.

That have to be noted before deleting (if any) duplicates to leave only that one, which still available online.

Howver, what left intact - is shortened naming:

• All-hands call at Naval Station Mayport
• Master Chief Petty Officer of the U.S. Navy Mike Stevens, right, answers a question at an all-hands call at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., May 3, 2013 130503-N-WL435-088
• Master Chief Petty Officer of the U.S. Navy Mike Stevens, right, speaks to Sailors at an all-hands call at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Fla., May 3, 2013 130503-N-WL435-1088

Same like with above mentined:

• Mullen Lays Wreath at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow
• Russian honor guard at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Alexander Garden welcomes Michael G. Mullen 2009-06-26 2

~2026-48162-51 (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

And here:

• Pave Hawks unloaded from C-5 /EXIF "Headline" of 2nd/
• File:130125-Z-DS155-008 (8450640635) /??? non-original naming?/
• ...Members of the 22nd Airlift Squadron from Travis Air Force Base and members of the new 303rd Emergency Rescue Squadron here, unload one of three HH60 helicopters from a C5 Galaxy... /1st description, 'HH60 helicopters' is synonim of 'Pave Hawks'/
• File:Pave Hawks unloaded from C-5 130125-Z-DS155-008

here almost also:

• SEAC battlefield circulation /1st sized file used, 2nd VIRIN used/
• File:U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Bryan B. Battaglia, right, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks with Sgt. Maj. Paul A. Berry, the command sergeant major of Regional 130506-A-CL397-041 /not working VIRIN/
• File:U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Bryan B. Battaglia, right, the senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks with Sgt. Maj. Paul A. Berry, the sergeant major of Regional Command 130506-A-CL397-095.jpg /wokring VIRIN/
• U.S. Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Bryan B. Battaglia, right, the senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaks with Sgt. Maj. Paul A. Berry, the sergeant major of Regional Command Southwest, at Camp Leatherneck in Helmand province, Afghanistan, May 6, 2013. Battaglia toured facilities and met with Service members and key leaders during a battlefield circulation. /2nd description/

So then, when nothing (like guids from dead links) more works - context always do! ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, the image hash is independent of format, so tiffs and jpegs can be compared. It can also be used to find edited images, like slightly cropped or different resolutions of the same photo. However it's slow, so though thousands of images might be compared, it's the sort of thing to do where, say, a programme on toolforge could work through likely classes of images that match a dvids source. There's a limit to scaling it up just to find non-identical duplicates as generating and saving a million or more image hashes might take months rather than weeks. The mathematics behind it is that the hashes are a Hamming code which means that the "distance" between images can be worked out in a meaningful way by how many points one hash is away from another.

However given that using SDC is more common than when I last played with hashes at scale, a standard image hash could be added to SDC data. If this were done for all images using {{milim}}, that's 918,547 files.

I'm not in a rush to do something like this, just explaining how it might work. It would be large job, so would eat up volunteer time setting it up in an efficient way and picking the best methods to use. Fæ (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel@Fæ I think I found new location of these photos, including ones absent on dvids. I will provide more info here later after bringing together as for now it in the form of just 44 (already closed a couple) opened tabs. Also I can admit I was wrong supposing guid was temporary parameter (have an evidence now as one as there was another temporary one), but that don't change the fact it nowadays still useless anywhere anyway (sure until you will find some tape-saved archives with these exact guids I doubt you'll ever do).

As of bot - what's its performance like and what hardware does it use?? And where do you host it (at home? on a cloud service? somewhere else? some secret place?)? I think searching for duplicates with altered resolutions or cropped ones is a dead end in terms of time efficiency while we still have plenty of regular duplicates — I recently found 22 copies, 20 of which were the same resolution. cropped/altered usually can easily be found further by just additional naming (cropped, resized, sharpened, retouched, etc), but yes to perfect service photos reall unique on the service - one of a kind at whole the commons - someday it won't be superfluous.

And, yep, I'm not in rush too. I mostly curious about how to do something fast - especially when it become absolutely realistic without monotonous routine. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

i want to upload some pictures but i dont know if it would be allowed

I found some scans of old documents on the Chassepot dimensions. The original parchment is about 150 years old, but I found them on a historical French website, and was posted in 2020 Andrew yuill333 (talk) 22:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

If the original work is this old, it's out of copyright. Please post an example link to make sure, but I'd say that this kind of document is allowed on Commons. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

This is the link to the PDF

http://p.lacour.malvaux.free.fr/Histoire_docs/Chassepot-Gras/Fu-1866_Plans-1879.pdf Andrew yuill333 (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The technical drawings are to 99,99% {{PD-old}} in my opinion. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The 0,01 percent uncertainty stem from the notion of en:Editio princeps. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Seconded. - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Processed photos

How does Commons treat retouched photos (some deleted objects, some added objects, compiling different daytime, etc.)? While clearing the uncategorized category I found a couple of, but don't know what to do with them. I also couldn't find any explanation about this. Either explain it or link me somewhere about. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Commons does not follow journalism rules for photography, so editing and altering images is largely allowed, as long as images are educational and in-scope. This is not an enforced requirement, but ideally retouched images have the {{Retouched picture}} template applied, explaining what was altered in the image. I don't expect this disclosure on typical color grading, denoising, and the like, but I think it's best to apply it whenever things are removed, added, etc., as that fundamentally changes the contents of the original image. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kevin Payravi. So it's enough to just mark it with that template and ho on to the next? Have I provide some explanations about what exactly I believe was retouched or no need? ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes. So for example, if a concert photo has been edited to remove a distracting water bottle sitting on the stage, you could add this to the file description: {{Retouched picture|Water bottle removed from foreground}}. In the case of compilations, I probably wouldn't use the retouched template, and instead just categorize under Category:Montages (ideally a suitable subcategory). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I will also note we have separate guidelines for AI images of identifiable people and Upscaling. If you come across that type of image editing, give those pages a review for what is and isn't allowed, and how to mark them accordingly. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kevin Payravi Ok, let me be clear. 'Cause your answers out of context raise even more context-related questions.

Image I mean is File:New addition with flags.jpg, EXIF clearly shows it (could be) edited, however doesn't show how much.

used in 2 articles:

• w:Berean Academy (Kansas) (main image)
• w:Elbing, Kansas#Education described as "Berean Academy (2023)"

Based on my feelings exclusively I see not fair to illustrate with processed (montaged) picture any real object, especially some school.

Despite I found there much more signs of processing, to see what I mean you can start focusing on the what doors mirror and shadows on the ground...

So I'd even willing to nominate it for deletion, but as you tell it's allowable - I won't do it... But still can't be silent about it... So... What have I (or not) to do with it?

But sure thank you for additional information about AI images etc. - that wil be really useful to read for me about. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

to be clear - only non-processed image about that school is File:Welcome to Berean Academy.jpg ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing about that image suggests it was edited to add or subtract things. Looks like a standard wide-angle shot. Looking at Google Maps, those flag poles are there. The shadows look fine to me (if your concern is the blob on the pavement that looks like a stray shadow, that looks like an oil stain or wet spot). I don't see anything weird about the windows either (warping in window reflections is pretty normal). Many people put images through photo editing software to crop, adjust colors, etc. The reference to photo editing software in the EXIF isn't a red flag by itself.

My suggestion about applying the Retouched template is only for obvious cases where it's clear that something has been removed or added. Perhaps the file is an edited version of an existing file (e.g. before and after) -- that is a case where I would apply a retouched template. Or, say it's a photo of a location where you know where there is a transmission tower that's been photoshopped out -- that is another case where I might apply a retouched template. But we shouldn't be applying it in cases of mere suspicion. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 00:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. I already marked it with both that template and dw-nsd one. Anyway, I didn't know before today such template as retouched picture exists. So now I still know more.

As of article illustration - I really don't understand why don't Berean Academy itself being a contributor don't go outside, take a clear shot of and upload that real photo of what it is instead of using some doubtful reproductions. Appreciated. I guess issue is resolved now. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

as of example you provided with Erin Kellyman (as before and after) - yes, it's great example, but first object removed is not intersect Erin herself and noone "reimagined" i.e. her face, also that case you have original uploaded and can see what exactly was shown/removed there to evaluate how important it was. Also you have no copyright issues that case (as original file licensing can be easily checked).

Here's no original and is not clear is that image copyrighted by architectors who created that object (LZsomething - it's their only object completed and shown on their main page), by some parents, who photoed it some day, by school, who use a part of File:BereanAcademy-ByEzhini-01.jpg on their site or to anyone else. That's why I set dw-nsd now. ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

One additional remark (about uploading, not about reviewing others' uploads): except when bringing in third-party work where no original is available, best practice is: (1) upload the most "original" version there is; typically these days this means straight from the digital camera or phone. (2) overwrite that with the retouched version. Examples from my own uploads: File:Pelican on Canal Magearu 05.jpg (no need for a "retouched" template for this sort of thing, but still makes it clearer just what I did), File:Peter Lerangis 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I know you telling about own uploads, but I already familiar with that system you teached me - I representing the contribution discussed there in such a form - example (one of numerous) and one more example (here's clear what to do if original file if of other format).

Clearly agreed such a method is much better as you avoid using numerous templates and easy enough of changing source/licensing with only change instead of changing it everywhere (i.e. when you have 22+ separate derivatives ;))

Only thing I met here as questionable issue - what if different versions uploaders - are not the same persons - can it somehow affect negatively overall file licensing in that case? ~2026-48020-83 (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48020-83: Addressing only that last: not really, at least not in principle. People should make it clear what was the license (or PD justification) for the underlying work, what changes they made, whether their contribution to the derivative work is copyrightable, and if so how they are licensing that. Of course, when they fall short of that, there can be a bit of a mess, whether or not it's the same person. It gets trickier if you get multi-level derivative works with copyrightable changes by different people at each level, but all of it can be handled.

I only recently discovered {{Copyright information}}. Very useful for describing complicated copyright cases in a structured manner. I'd been doing this ad hoc until a few months ago, writing something very similar to the output of this template, but without the excellent structure it produces in the wikitext source. - Jmabel ! talk 06:24, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I see, Thank you! That question appeared when I was looking a couple of times onto that split request trying understand the reason Pre-FOP in Russia different files. Both were uploaded under free licenses, but by different authors thinking it's some way connected to licensing issue based on different uploaders' fact.

Hmm... interesting template. Didn't get how it works first, but got it looking onto example. Will try to use it on the discussed file. Only question I already have - how to mark copyright...left? (I mean copyright absense on some of these objects)? I'll try to use template:unknown despite it not intended to be used with a license. But I don't know another one to mark it with. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel is such use of template fine? And is there similar template for ownership (author) exists? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51: Before I try to answer (other than that you opened a parenthesis you didn't close)… I've gotten confused here, and there is so much above that I really don't want to have to reread it all to work it out. Do we believe this is a picture that User:Cmatzek took themself, then retouched? Or a picture taken by [someone on behalf of] the Berean Academy, published somewhere (where?) and that Cmatzek then retouched and posted to Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 22:58, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@JmabelNo we are not sure he's the photo author. I believe (based on him changing "author" at structured data from his name to "Berean Academy"). But he claim he's an author of image he uploaded, which EXIF contains no info about camera etc, but only "Software used: Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384" and "ile change date and time: 12:11, 28 January 2021" (which btw, contradicts to date provided) as only informative info in addition to a couple of graphic artifacts, which I believe means it still processed/retouched (by him exactly).

In short - I believe he's the author of that processed image only, but not of original building photo.

I don't know who's the photo author and was it published eariler anywhere or not. All i know he claimed himself the "author" is "Berean Academy" (look to the file structured data tab) - that is the reason I believe he's not own the original photo. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51: OK. (1) Usually for U.S. photos we don't even bother with {{FoP-US}}, though I guess it is harmless. (2) I probably would not have tried to edit this while the DR was still going on and we do not yet have any clear theory of a basis on which this can be kept. But, given that, I'll take a shot at expressing it more clearly. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I'm newbie here ;) So... If you suggest to just ignore US fop - I'll follow.

I got what you mean - no need to spend a time on what probably will be deleted. But I just practicing with it now. It's better then to practice with something valuable and probably make some big fail :)

Appreciated for your help! ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this image copyrighted?

https://213hoops.com/clippers-2025-exit-interviews-ben-simmons/amp/

I can't find any info on it. Sunnecas (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

You should assume all images are subject to copyright unless you can find evidence to the contrary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sunnecas: what Andy says, plus you might want to read COM:THIRD. About a 20-minute read will give you probably half of what you'll ever need to know about this sort of thing (the other half is difficult and open-ended and you could spend years on it, but that 20 minutes gives you the lay of the land). - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

How long will it take for my image to be deleted?

File:Naujosios Akmenės Šv. Dvasios Atsiuntimo bažnyčia.jpg. Domantas Milevičius (talk) 13:37, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

It seems likely that it won't be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Domantas Milevičius: about How long will it take for my image to be deleted?, The answer would most likely be: infinitely long. Read that as: "the deletion will not happen", there are no reasons to execute it in our policies or in any relevant law. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Yup. If you issue an "irrevocable license" you don't get to come back and say, "I changed my mind." - Jmabel ! talk 23:04, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Then, how do I delete it? Domantas Milevičius (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

You can't, and you've given no valid reason a Commons admin should do it. "2 years later, I changed my mind" is not a valid reason on this website, since you issued an "irrevocable license" (as does everybody who uploads their own work here). I don't think it'll actually help you get what you want, but see the guidance at Commons:Courtesy_deletions#Deletion_request.

The reason for keeping it is not to annoy you. It's a good picture of a notable building, it's used in WP-articles and we don't have many of that church: Category:Church of the Holy Spirit in Naujoji Akmenė. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

That said, this church was built 1989 forward. @Jmabel, others, what about COM:FOP Lithuania? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I also curious about how does it work, as what we see is clearly "work of architecture" as one as "the main subject" there, so it have not to be allowed for commons, if to follow licensing rules only. But not sure how COM:INUSE can affect it (despite I guess it shouldn't). Photo is fresh, that way we can't say it was allowable because FOP restrictions law was still missing time it was made. Looking forward for other answers. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

COM:INUSE has no effect if FOP "rules" here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

If someone wants to nominate this for deletion with a solid argument, especially one based on the copyright of the building, go for it. That is not the grounds on which it was requested, and no one brought that up in the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I did. Renominated, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naujosios Akmenės Šv. Dvasios Atsiuntimo bažnyčia.jpg. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Redirects deleted

Is it standard policy to to delete file redirects after a file has been moved because the nominator didn't like the old file name? I became a filemover a year ago and I noticed some redirects were nominated for deletion. I also noticed that a nominator would suggest that a redirect was empty just to speedy delete.

I guess I'm kind of annoyed with getting deletion requests on my talk page when all I did was help the nominator improve Commons. JFVoll (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@JFVoll I'm afraid I'll be scolded for answering here, but since everyone is silent... I'll answer as one of those who nominate redirections for deletion. Answer is NO. There's no such a policy as one as redirects can be useful to have access from anywhere with old link blablabla... so - NO "I don't like redirect" is no way a reason to delete it, BUT it clearly allowed and being (should?) mercilessly deleted if it still follows the next (my guess):

• violate some policy (i.e. COM:NOT) or is deceptive (i.e. "pear" refers to "apple")/inappropriate/offensive (probably also violation of some policy).

However by default G2 of COM:GCSD clearly states the speedy deletion of ONLY BOTH OF unused and implausible (i.e. deceptive) is reasonable, but (guess again) NO ANY WAY with a (not a) reason "I don't like it".

As of bot notification I read somewhere you can turn it off for it not spam your talk page if have place... But this about you have to wait for someone more competent to answer. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51 and @JFVoll: File renamers follow "When in doubt, leave a redirect." per the COM:FR#Leaving redirects guideline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:04, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. he doesn't dispute such SD nominations here; I guess he just fed up with talk page notifications about them and mostly asking about is that policy-based. And, yes, I don't mind file mover to leave a redirect if he have doubt, but when I ask for renaming because of policy violation (not like when there's just some misspell or even meaningless fix needed) I still will SD nominate the redirect created later. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

that's why I usually (but sometimes forget to) comment my renaming nominations with "not leaving redirect" when I suppose to SD nominate redirects, if it still will be created, with same reason as rename nomination (that usually some close to some policy violation). But, as I got - there's two types of file movers - who have the option to NOT create a redirect and ones who don't (you probably one of). I don't understand why there's such similar rights separation exist, but just be careful, and if the reason of a renaming request contains any notice about such name exactly unacceptable [and not some i.e. misspelling], just ignore such renaming nominations to some extent, so as not to encounter a redirect you created SD nomination (this is more of a temporary advice until you disable bot SD notifications on your talk page). ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51: There are no criteria in COM:CSD that match en:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Users who abuse deletion with such reasoning will be swiftly dealt with, and their deletion requests will be denied and opposed. In some cases, I encounter such requests in Category:Incomplete deletion requests and children.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:18, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. Am I disputing this? I claim that exactly above. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51: No, I am glad that you only try to delete such redirects when policy is on your side; thank you for that. N.B. Pears look just like apples when viewed from the bottom.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:27, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

oook... let's say... nah.. I don't know what to say - both black hole (that one massive and big in the space and not mouse's entrance in the corner or whatever else) and ping pong ball also similar within such a perspective . Anyway one, who move - have to choose right perspective to evaluate, I guess. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

I for my part, regularly ask for deletions after a COM:FR#FR3 move (if I'm unable to suppress the redirect myself) - moving to correct an error implicitly means that the resulting redirect is implausible (and, in case of e.g. erroneous biological species ID or misidentified persons, actually harmful to have, as it may promote wrong facts). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc: Thanks. Allowing obvious errors to persist would be counterproductive.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:32, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. This [14] is something I was wondering about, where a file was just moved and there's a SD|G2 because the nominator didn't like the old file name. JFVoll (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@JFVoll looks like discussion about that is very old (2021, 2025, 2025, 2026, 2026 redirect was deleted, 2026 (explanation when it can be suppressed) and most of pointing on Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects as redirects removal deny reason. Here's what policy tells about When can be suppressed and how to do it. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, if a file was on Commons for several years under a given name, even if that name is actively wrong or misleading I usually prefer to leave the redirect, because something outside the WMF world may link to it, and when we remove the redirect we break their link. I imagine many of you reading this know how frustrating it is when someone breaks a link that you may have used to refer to something on the web. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@JFVoll looks like you missed very important fact he probably want to hide so much actively requesting deletion of a redirect, that's delete request he closed in violation of COM:DP#Closure ( requests can be closed by an administrator after seven days...Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial) as only reason he provided link to itself via w:fr as source to counter "no source" initial DR claim. SO I guess his goal is to just cover up the loose ends of his strong policy violation as only page connecting him with that DR is redirect's page. I think it good idea to restore (appeal?) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tardivet du repaire portrait.jpg#File:Tardivet du repaire portrait.jpg however already on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portait de Guillaume-François Tardivet du Repaire.jpg page or at least review DR claims about file itself meant there:

• Probably wrong date, wrong source, and wrong author. Xocolatl (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

because part of it (i.e. source) is still actual as one as manilupations made are hardly valid (except of date probably). ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

They did it with File:Vicomte Mushanokoji et son épouse Fusiko.jpg too. Their account is only 10 days old.

I also noticed one person will actually delete the redirect and then file a speedy deletion saying the file is empty [15]. JFVoll (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

and, voilla, he did it with 2nd file with portrait of same person also:

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Durepaire 2 copie (2).jpg#File:Durepaire 2 copie (2).jpg spamming the same answer, but there redirect was deleted successfully with G2 reason 11 hours later file was moved.

It looks like current topic is no more for help desk but for COM:AN. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd say here's not COM:CSD#F7 as: "unless they are being used as redirects" ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

but who cares ([16], [17])... @The Squirrel Conspiracy - just curious - why did you still delete it with F7 reason when it was working redirect? It would be good to hear and understand in view of so hot discussion taking place here. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Sub-license authority question

Hello -

I'm a documentary filmmaker working on a long-term project. As part of that, I have scanned hundreds of photos and documents, some of which are relevant to various Wikipedia pages. The vast majority of these photos/documents have been licensed to me (my company) by the original copyright holders. The license permits me to sub-license to 3rd parties. I believe it is within my rights for certain materials to release those with a compatible license to Wikimedia (such as creative commons attribution variants), so that those images can then be used on Wikipedia and in other places.

Before I go to that trouble, I'd like to know what documentation needs to be provided to show that I have the ability to properly sub-license, and if there's specific language Wikimedia is looking for. (I want to avoid having a bunch of images rejected and/or getting banned.)

In some cases, I may be able to go back to the original parties and have them amend their release forms, if the language they have already agreed to doesn't meet Wikimedia's requirements.

(I have searched the help desk and the Commons Wiki but I couldn't find mention of specific license terms for this sort of situation.)

Thanks for your advice and assistance. Diaphone Productions (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Additional detail: These are the clauses in the materials license agreements that I have obtained, which I believe allow me to sub-license selected materials to Wikimedia or other entities. (My company is "Producer" and the original copyright-holders are "Licensor".) -

"Licensor hereby irrevocably grants to Producer the non-exclusive right to photograph, exhibit or otherwise reproduce and use the Materials as part of the Picture and to distribute, exhibit and otherwise exploit (and to authorize others to distribute, exhibit and otherwise exploit) the Picture and its related advertising, publicity and promotion (including, without limitation, “making of” and “behind the scenes” programs, “trailers”, and “webisodes”) incorporating the Materials throughout the world in perpetuity in all media and by all means, now known or hereafter developed."

"Producer may assign this agreement and any or all its rights and obligations to any party or entity." Diaphone Productions (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

(Others may disagree with this but) Commons does not usually accept permissions based on some party that is not the copyright-holder having an unlimited but non-exclusive license. Further sublicensing like that (by you) would probably stand up in court if it came to that, but I think the rationale for our decision (some 20 years ago) was that the party that gave you a license probably didn't consider the scenario of you passing on such a wide-open license to the world at large. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

If I were to go back to the various copyright-holders and get an amendment specifically authorizing an open license (such as Creative Commons) so that the images can be placed in repositories such as Wikimedia commons, what specific language would you recommend? (Most of these folks are not computer-savvy so it's not easy to direct them to upload these materials themselves.) Diaphone Productions (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Hmm... Assuming that by "what specific language" you're asking about the wording / contents and not about English vs. Spanish vs. French vs. German etc., I have the idea that you try to build upon the extant agreement: Based upon our previous agreement, I "NAME" explicitly agree/state that this agreement also covers a licensing of my material under the Creative Commons license CC-By-SA 4.0. But we also have a crew of volunteers tasked with arranging and documenting licensing agreements, see COM:VRT. You may ask for further guidance there. Generic text templates are offered at Commons:Email templates. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I will check those out. (And yes, by "language" I meant "wording".) Diaphone Productions (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

@Diaphone Productions: I think Grand-Duc's suggestion for wording is a good one, and if you bring this matter to the VRT it would be good to suggest that wording. Also, you'll probably want to ask the VRT if there is something in particular that they may want to see by way of documentation for that process, because I know from experience that they are always a bit loath to accept things they think of as "forwarded," and the copyright-holder's responses would necessarily be just that, from their point of view. Unless you need confidentiality, you might want to discuss the "how to" publicly at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard instead of in private email correspondence with the VRT. That lets contributors here (like me) who are experienced but are not members of the VRT also get involved in hashing things out if the VRT people are being excessively sticklers about this (which, in my opinion, they can be). - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks - I will take your advice and start a public discussion in the near future. Diaphone Productions (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

معلومات تاريخ قرية

Notes for an article (in Arabic)

سلام عليكم ورحمه الله وبركاته تقديم المعلومات التاريخية والمحلية التالية الخاصة بقرية Tadiganaye (Tadi Ganaye) لتوثيقها: 1. التعريف بالقرية: تقع قرية Tadiganaye في إقليم كانم بجمهورية تشاد، ويعود تاريخ تأسيسها بحسب الروايات المحلية إلى عام 1900. 2. النشأة والسكان الأوائل: وفقاً للمعلومات المحلية، قدم السكان الأوائل للقرية من منطقة (Touvou)، وتعتبر عائلة "أبنع عبد الله غارسو" من أوائل العائلات التي استقرت وسكنت في القرية. 3. أصل التسمية: يرتبط اسم القرية (Tadiganaye) باللهجة القرعانية بعبارة تعني تقريباً "امشِ فتع أول"، وهي بحاجة إلى ضبط لغوي دقيق وتدقيق إضافي من المتخصصين باللغات المحلية. 4. الإدارة التقليدية والسلطنة: من أبرز سلاطين القرية السابقين الشيخ عبد الله غارسو مصطفى. وبعد وفاته، انتقلت السلطنة التقليدية إلى ابنه الشيخ محمد عبد الله غارسو مصطفى (المعروف بلقب الحاج ماعيسا) بتاريخ 15 أغسطس 2024. 5. المكون الاجتماعي والقبيلة: ترتبط القرية اجتماعياً بقبيلة القرعان (فرقة أيا). 6. الجغرافيا والقرى المجاورة: وفقاً للمعلومات الجغرافية المحلية، تحدها من جهة الشرق قرية (Tadi)، بينما تقع قرية (Teleri) إلى الغرب منها. 7. السكان والخدمات: يُقدر عدد سكان القرية حالياً بأكثر من 100 نسمة. وتعتمد القرية في إمدادات المياه على محطة مياه عامة تعمل بالطاقة الشمسية. أرجو من فريق المساعدة أو المحررين إرشادي حول كيفية تحويل هذه البيانات إلى مقالة موسوعية رسمية، وتوضيح المصادر المطلوبة لاعتمادها. وشكراً لكم. Tadiganaye 11 (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Tadiganaye 11 مساء الخير وأهلاً وسهلاً! لا يدعم المشروع الحالي المقالات، بل صُمم خصيصًا لتخزين المحتوى الإعلامي. إذا كانت لديك أي استفسارات، يُفضل التواصل مع فريق مشروع آخر. على سبيل المثال، يمكنك الكتابة هنا. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Selfie Reflections

Images produced through glass, water, or other reflective surface other than a mirror. Beemarts (talk) 07:19, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Beemarts hello! I don't think any selfie (or other object until photo is real) natural distorsions can be a problem for storing it on commons. Issue can be it's total usefulness for commons. Read COM:SELFIE for more. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Art with their artists.

A piece of art work, proudly displayed by and with its artist. Beemarts (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Beemarts Here and above, it's unclear what you're asking, if you're asking anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång I guess he's asking about storing allowance of.

@Beemarts until you are not the author of the art you mean, depends on the country it (both artwork and photo of) made at as there's different copyright restrictions about works of art in different countries. It would be helpful you to clarify at least the country of artwork origin or current placement to clarify the rest. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I erroneously thought this was the place to suggest topics. I’m at sea and internet is spotty. Beemarts (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

If you're trying to search for images on Commons, you may do so at Special:Search. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks ! Beemarts (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

copyright

Hollander published his book Origins and Excursions in Pigeon Genetics with the information page specifically stating that it was not copyrighted. Would this be considered as a cc0 1.0 license? You can see the book now at https://pigeoncote.com/books/medical/origins_and_excursions_in_pigeon_genetics.pdf The notice is on the third page. thanks JohnVerburg (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@JohnVerburg: assuming the date given there is accurate, {{PD-US-1978-89}}. At that point in the U.S. you would have had to actively give notice for a published work to have copyright, so this is a very clean case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you I will upload it soon with that tag. JohnVerburg (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Version history cleanup

I uploaded new versions removing OCR layers in File:續修四庫全書第1615冊.djvu File:續修四庫全書第1617冊.djvu because I thought the original files were broken and causing Commons to not being able to resolve the contents; as it turned out, the original version works just fine and the errors were transient. I have reverted both files to the originals, and I'm requesting to delete the second versions with incomplete OCR layers. PacmanD (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

No need to do that, accomplishes nothing of value and requires admin time to do it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Categorization

Can someone tell how to differ really non-categorized files (no visible cats) from fake-"uncatorized" ones? i.e. File:Fbi index form1.png was categorized from the time of upload, but somewhy was marked as uncategorized here What have I believe to - template or my eyes? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Very few, if any files here actually have no categories. There are teens of millions of files that have categories added automatically as part of a template (such as the example you gave) or via hidden, tracking categories that are not visible to users who are not logged in. So while a file like the one you gave is not literally uncategorized, it would help to add categories for navigation. The edit that added {{Uncategorized}} was done in a semi-automated or entirely automated fashion and just saw that the file lacked [[Category:foo]]. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Justin, let me clarify the question. I understand, that it's much better when file have more then one appropriate categories. However I focused now on categorizing totally empty (or with hidden categories only) ones and such files much confuse me. Can I just remove the "uncategorized" template when I see that the minimum categorization already have been done so that it doesn't pop up in the uncategorized files category anymore? I want to understand the rightful algorithm in case such files will be met often. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 19:55, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

This is a judgement call, ultimately. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks!{{section resolved|[[Special:Contributions/~2026-48162-51|~2026-48162-51]] ([[User talk:~2026-48162-51|talk]]) 20:48, 6 September 2026 (UTC)}}

I just "unresolved" the section. @~2026-48162-51: I just want to make sure you understand the parameters of that "judgement call": that should only be removed if the file has at least one highly relevant non-hidden category. Not just (for example) Category:May 2026 in the United States or Category:Male humans. It is a judgement call where "highly relevant" begins (just a city for a picture of a building? Just Category:Shops with no geographic information? I'd still call those uncategorized myself).

The only non-hidden category on that FBI file is one that indicates where it came from. I would not usually consider just a source category sufficient. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Now I understand the idea better. Thanks. However that raises some more questions, i.e. what is the best of categorizing of next postcards I did:

• (what is it exactly with name of the photo) File:Coyotero Apache scouts, at Apache Lake - DPLA - f7c598f99427cca35d5d13045f77a99e (page 1).jpg with Category: Coyotero Apache Scouts at Apache Lake (Timothy H. O'Sullivan)
• (where's location illustrated current location) File:City Creek Canon, near City Creek Falls. - DPLA - 098c4a077151f46382f2aea5b5f6312a.jpg with Category: Salt Lake City
• (what's current naming of object illustrated) File:Explorers Column, Cañon de Chelle, Arizona - DPLA - 53c0fe559007d7222cacc06e7113716a (page 1).jpg with Category: Canyon de Chelly National Monument

or all 3 are equally valid? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

If I can step in: a category like Category:Salt Lake City is a pretty hi-level one that should get diffused to subcategories in almost all instances. In this case, something like Category:Salt Lake City in art (or even one of its subecategories) would be appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@Justin yes, you helped greatly! That have a logic - changed it now to suggested. However I usually don't see how much crowded as searching it on guess, so... probably I'll still make such mistakes. Hope it's not critical.

What about other 2? Are they fine enough? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

It's not critical: there is literally no one on Earth who knows the entire category scheme here, so if you just do the best you can placing media in appropriate categories, you're doing a good job. If you decide to keep on sticking with it, you will learn the tree more and have a better sense of where files go. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

also, as of "source category - is not a category" - why not to make the source category hidden - if it not worth to be sign of categorizing (that's usual for many files I categorized - source cats were always hidden). ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that the FBI source category probably should be hidden.

@~2026-48162-51: If you look at Category:Coyotero Apache Scouts at Apache Lake, Sierra Blanca Range (Timothy H. Sullivan) you can see that it has a lot of parent categories. Basically, its a group of files that have almost all of their likely categories the same, so they are placed on the parent category. I can't offhand think of anything I'd add further to any of the individual files (though I didn't think particularly hard about it).

File:Explorers Column, Cañon de Chelle, Arizona - DPLA - 53c0fe559007d7222cacc06e7113716a (page 1).jpg probably has its single most important category already (so it would not be wrong to say it's been categorized) but certainly it could use categories that convey that it's a stereo card, when it dates from, and probably who is the photographer (anyone taking stereo cards was a professional); maybe more. If I was working on it, I'd probably try to fill those in before saying it was categorized, but I know I set that bar a little higher than some (though by no means do I set it the highest of anyone here). Jmabel ! talk 03:49, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Hid cat and catted the file. Will hide source cats further if will meet ever. Think now it's clear what to do if any. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Is it advertising?

There's some company uploaded photos of their products. Can it be nominated with COM:G10 or COM:G10 or there's nothing about? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 20:42, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Special:ListFiles/Appetite_sa is probably an easier way to look at these.

@~2026-48162-51:

• I think those are fine in terms of scope. Unlike most of our sister projects. Commons doesn't really view that particular sort of connection as a conflict of interest. The pictures look like they are probably all in scope. FWIW, there are some sorts of files we are most likely to get precisely from someone very close to the topic at hand.
• I would be concerned if they made their user page something all about the company and product.
• There are some duplicates among those photos, and in each case one of the two should be deleted; mark in the usual manner with {{Duplicate}}.
• I wish these had been done by a better photographer, but they are still good enough to keep.

Jmabel ! talk 03:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Good for them! We should encourage more companies to donate, or at least open licence, product shots. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel Thank you! I will be more relaxed about it then.

@Andy but I still not sure how to feel about their extremely promotional descriptions like here.

It's like it's part of a presentation made up of all the photographs, where that exact photo is that piece of the puzzle where they explain why using a regular saucepan is much worse than using their device. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

So fix it! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done;) ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Error in original source of image

I came across this image titled "Moderne architectuur in Helsinki". Now this image was obviously not uploaded directly to Commons but was copied from an external source with full attribution.

The name and description of the image correspond fully to the original source, but contradict reality.

The place where the picture was taken in has never been in Helsinki. It was at the time, and still is, in Espoo, which is a separate city.

Should the name and description be fixed on Commons? JIP (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

@JIP: As it happens, three years ago at WikiConference North America 2023 I gave a talk on handling just this sort of thing: User:Jmabel/Final draft of talk for WikiConference North America 2023. I'm sorry it's not concisely focused on your particular question, but pick up at the paragraph that starts, "That said: it actually can be pretty remarkable how many errors there are in library metadata" and read for about three paragraphs. Then look through the file histories of File:Yesler Way after the fire, July 1889 - DPLA - 2f7a378be1beb2503847ed93e38e7fd9 (page 1).jpg and File:1st Ave. S. north from S. Washington St., ca.1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg. You won't want just to look at the current versions of those, because the library made changes based on my feedback, then their changed text made its way into our system. It's mostly the history up to the end of April 2026 that is relevant.

If you spend about 20 minutes looking into that and it still isn't clear, feel free to come back here, but I may be only minimally available the next 72 hours or so. (Someone else might be able to help sooner.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Category merging

Can someone suggest where to read about the subject? There's 2 similar ones:

• Category:Coyotero Apache Scouts at Apache Lake, Sierra Blanca Range (Timothy H. Sullivan)
• Category:Coyotero Apache Scouts at Apache Lake (Timothy H. O'Sullivan)

where content is just the same (photo #1 and photo #2 of the same-named serie).

I'm not sure what have I do with it. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Taken care of. This doesn't need an admin :) PacmanD (talk) 03:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@PacmanD That's why I write here and not to COM:AN ;) So... next time I can just follow you and use Cat-a-lot or just recat all files to one chosen and redirect another one? Good there's no any strict regulations about it. Appreciated! ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

However what I see is you also exactly merging it sometimes. What is the difference from where's no such note? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

If the new category name does not exist I prefer using "move" to preserve history. Then the old name becomes a redirect.

If both entries exists, and only admins can "merge". PacmanD (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Duplicate files

Specifically File:Amazing Stories Annual 1927.jpg (low quality) and File:Amazing Stories Annual (1927).jpg (much better quality). What should happen? Nighfidelity (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Someone might want the more saturated colors, so I wouldn't necessarily delete the lower-res one. I'd probably cross-link in the "other versions" portion of {{Information}} using {{Other version}}. {{Other version}} can take a second parameter to describe the other version; in the lower-res one I would certainly say when I point to the higher-res, "higher resolution, better scan". - Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

Hello. I tried to archive my talk page, using this page as my target archive. However, the target page isn't showing up in my archive box on my main talk page. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: It seems that you forgot parameter "auto=yes". I added {{subst:User:Jeff G./usertalksetup}} for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:50, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Screenshots

I was adviced to DR a couple of files as COM:SS, however while further review of that set I found even more. Can someone evaluate is it delete elidgible per COM:SS (I'll list all of them I noticed as):

• file:Adding more maize meal during the cooking process.jpg
• file:Adding more maize meal during the cooking process 2.jpg
• File:Rendering of the First Generation Automatic Pap Maker.jpg
• File:Rendering of the Second Generation Automatic Pap Maker.jpg

All these files, depending of scale level, have distorsions in view of curves, so I suppose it was photoed from CRT screen. Am I alone who see it or there's some another explanation except being COM:SS can be about those curves clearly visible? ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

As was discussed above, the source of these appears to be the company that made them; presumably they are screenshotting their own copyrighted materials, so I don't think that is a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Ah! So SS mostly licensing issue and not like "we don't need non-qualitive pictures!"? Got it.

However I can agree with you about their product's renderings (2 of 4), but I can't agree with you about a saucepan on the stove - it obviously not their product (It has welded handles on the sides, which is not usually found in multicooker cookware as component), so if that's some kind of TV show (and looks like it is - probably some way... paused one? - on 2 photos shot with 13 minutes difference the steam didn't even move) probably it still the issue. Or still not? I just try to understand and learn how it all works. I don't ask you just to ask. ~2026-48162-51 (talk) 00:08, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48162-51: They were probably just doing a comparison in a video. You can't copyright a saucepan (or their cooker), the issue would only be if it was someone else's video/photography. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I'm not insisting on their removal. Of course, I'm not reviving the license for a pot. I was specifically referring to the case where it's some unrelated TV show frame shot. I simply want to consider the situation and how to proceed if such a situation occurs. What should I verify before even attempting to nominate a "screenshot from a TV show" for removal? Should I find the specific show and prove the shot is from there? Or is it enough to just assume? ~2026-48770-67 (talk) 02:39, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-48770-67: yeah, usually (like >95% of the time) we assume screenshot of copyrightable video content => probable copyvio, but in this case we have the context of this set of uploads that (as discussed above) appear to be self-interested but in scope. By far the most probable scenario is that they made a video showing off their product by comparing it to what people traditionally use for the purpose, then uploaded & licensed some screenshots from that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel got it. Thank you. I'll leave it alone. Now it can be marked as resolved (I don't dare to do it myself anymore). ~2026-48770-67 (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Resolved

I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Grand-Duc (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Video game screenshots

Hi, I'm experienced on Wikipedia but completely new to Commons. I noticed most video game articles are tagged as needing screenshots, and wondered if I just take a screenshot of a game I own can I freely upload it to Commons, is there something else I have to do, is it a complete no go (if so, why does the tag exist?). Thanks! Edlectro28 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Edlectro28: for Commons, it's a nearly complete No-Go, because of copyrights. While there are games out there where the visual art is licensed in a way that is suitable for Commons (e.g. things like en:0 A.D. (video game)), most offerings aren't. The English Wikipedia can get illustrations by reliance upon their fair use rules, but Commons can't (COM:FAIR). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm an English Wikipedia editor, so I'll look into the fair use there. Thanks Edlectro28 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Puzzle

While processing (checking/restoring/fixing/updating details) recently merged photos I stuck on one of it and can't pass it by for a long time already. Here's the quest:

1. Content: Initial description left intact and there's only about plane, crew, place (that I can believe as that exact UN 3677 plane was based there exactly) and date, I can alter (as very similar to showed on the photo guy was also flying that exact plane year later and further), but can't critically deny (as Garrison was wearing almost the same these years). However later someone claimed there's "Dr. Ralph Bunche with F/L Lynn Garrison" that raises a questions as:
   1. There's 6 men on the photo - all in the military uniform. w:Ralph Bunche is hardly believable wearing it when was there. However looks like one of these men is a pilot (wearing shorts and rolled-up sleeves). And If about Dr Ralph Bunche I (or someone other, as changing the caption usually triggers abuse filter for me) can just edit the desription/caption to delete him, that raises the 2nd question (see 2. below).
   2. However without photo source provided we can't be sure about both date and pilot name provided, only we can - the place and the plane name itself, as UN 3677 plane piloting (with more then one pilot) by canadians is widely known as servicing there exactly in 1957-1967 but photo about anything. So, based on widely known info it have to be renamed/descripted something like that "UNEF Otter (tail number 3677) with a crew on the El Quasema airfield, Sinai Peninsula, Egypt, circa 1957-1967" and not an inch more precisely.
2. License: Uploader claimed initially LynnGarrison9281 as the author, but if to believe it's Lynn's shift and it's Otter's crew - looks like Lynn Garrison is on the photo, so he can't be the photo author any way. That way authorship claim looks faulty because in fact it's some unknown person with a camera, not Lynn. Also uploader claimed self-ownership and put a self-CC40 license that I can believe as applicable to derivative work (scan/crop/etc before upload) he did with photo original. However I also can't understand what it the license on the object photoed? There's Canadian militaries with (probably) Canadian plane under UN jurisdiction (tale/wings stickers, UN blue caps etc.) photoed probably 1962 (however period can be wider - as mission was there all the ~1957-1967 years) on the territory of Egypt (El Quasema). What is the photo "objects" licensing?.
   1. LynnGarrison9281 have (or had?) no any problems with VRT (1 → 2) however he's on the photo - so I guess he can't be considered the author of a photograph. So who exactly to I have to address my doubt (and what with - nsd or dw-nsd?) - uploader or LynnGarrison9281 - to clarify the photo authorship licensing?

~2026-48770-67 (talk) 02:19, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

How to change the featured page of the PDF?

The featured page is 1, the cover. Would the title page, page 5 be more appropriate? I think it would look better. I don't see how to change it.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Likutei_Moharan_Jerusalem_1874.pdf

Nissimnanach (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Why Creative Commons Public Domain Mark is so misleading and confusing

Hey everyone, Does anyone know why Template:Flickr-public domain mark is marked as non allowed while there is Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM and put as allowed at Commons:Flickr files and there is also Template:PDM announcement. But then why uploading images from Flickr under PDM is so messy and incorrect sometimes and why there is no license tag present for PDM while CC has one https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/pdm/, PD-author-FlickrPDM is the nearest and it seems PDM is allowed on commons like Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions but not used and other problems Abdullah1099 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

The Public Domain Mark was created for purposes that don't correspond well to how we do things on Commons. It just says, "this is in the public domain." Sites like Flickr are OK with someone just saying that. Of course, often the person saying that is wrong, but it's that person's responsibility, and Flickr isn't a collaborative project, and compared to Commons they are pretty lax about copyright. Commons, on the other hand, requires a tag that gives a rationale as to why something is in the public domain.

If we are pretty confident that the person saying the file is PD holds a copyright for the file, we use Template:PD-author-FlickrPDM. Really, the Flickr user misused this tag—they should have used CC-0, a PD dedication, rather than just saying "the image is in the public domain," but their intent is clear and they have the right to put the image in the public domain.

Similarly, Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions means the file was posted to Flickr with the PD mark by an organization that we generally trust to make that judgement well. We are saying it is PD based on the word of a trusted organization.

Otherwise, all we have is "some random Flickr user says this file is in the public domain." That's not an acceptable basis to host a file on Commons. In this case, we can only keep it if someone can come up with an acceptable rationale as to why the file is PD.

So I agree it is (inherently) confusing, but the only thing here that is (at least by Commons standards) misleading is that Flickr lets any random person assert that a file is in the public domain, and as far as I know it can sit that way indefinitely unless an actual copyright-holder objects. - Jmabel ! talk 06:48, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Picture uploading

Hello I wanted to upload a picture of "Minutka" teabag boxes on a shelf in a grocery store in Poland. The boxes contain a copyrighted "Minutka" logo (Minutka is the brand of the tea), however the picture itself was taken by me. Can I upload it to Wikimedia Commons? Thank you in advance. Groveek567 (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2026 (UTC)