Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Commons Gazette 2025-01

Happy New Year! Happy Public Domain Day!

Volunteer staff changes

In December 2024, 2 sysops were elected; 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 181 sysops.

Election:

Removal:

  1. ↑ en:Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2024#JarrahTree

Edited by Abzeronow and RoyZuo.

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

How can Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format be removed from Help:Biology wikidata glossary?

How can Category:Gallery pages with a wrong format be removed from Help:Biology wikidata glossary as a parent? The format is OK now (User:Prototyperspective have moved it to the Help format) and he already removed this parent category, but it still is popping up. JopkeB (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@JopkeB: it is presumably on one or more of the pages that are included there in their entirety, all of which are still in gallery space. - Jmabel ! talk 18:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Jmabel: . I renamed Biology wikidata glossary/Double Taxonomic Wikidata Items, and gave a Hard purge to Help:Biology wikidata glossary and now it is gone. Problem solved. JopkeB (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Mirroring request

See the billboard behind the U and the BBVA building to the right

Hi, where can I post a mirroring request for File:3D bUENOS aIRES - jUL 2019.jpg?

RotationBot offers no mirroring and I cant't find anything in Category:Gadget scripts → bertux 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As the image is in use by two Wikipedias that might prefer the current version I´d rather recommend to keep it unmirrored and to upload a new version under a different file name. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! The question is still: where can I get the mirroring done? We are discouraged from rotating with a photo editor; is mirroring always lossless? → bertux 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd just flip it with GIMP. It's not like this was some gem of high-res photography. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Isn't this what {{Flopped}} is for? Thuresson (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Applied. Also removed the photo from article space in eswiki and nlwiki as there are plenty of better alternatives available for es:Letrero gigante de ciudad and nl:Lettermonument → bertux 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I want to upload this photo of Dap Chhoun to Commons. It was taken at the Geneva Conventions in 1954, seems to be PD in Switzerland and Cambodia. I still don't really understand URAA, so a simple explanation won't hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 12:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not clear where the image was published first. Ruslik (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Not sure what you meant here, if you meant where the image was sourced, reverse image search points to this image being used on this website and this random Facebook post.
If you meant the country where the image was first released to the public, then yeah, it's unclear. However, it's probably either France or Switzerland, but I can't find a definite answer. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Most likely, the URAA makes in unfree until 2050. Ymblanter (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

No thumbnail

Any idea why File:Vittore Carpaccio - la vie et l'uvre du peintre (1910) (14596474918).jpg won't generate a thumbnail? Underlying file looks fine. - Jmabel ! talk 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Art Safari 2024 at the Dacia Building, Bucharest - 05.jpg, too, and I know that used to work. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Both files work for me. I think there's currently a bug with thumbnail generation on Commons, though. I ran into a similar problem with a number of files I've uploaded which I requested a speedy deletion for. I suspect the files looked fine to The Squirrel Conspiracy, who left a message on my talk page about it. ReneeWrites (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Deletion requests/pending

Is there a reason why we dont use a bot to automate the categorizing of the subcategories? Trade (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably as much as anything, no one having defined the rules by which a bot would know what is needed. If it can be simply described, and you can describe it, then a bot might be in order. - Jmabel ! talk 06:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Something as simple as "If the images in the category are deleted after the discussion have been closed, move the page to the /deleted category and remove it from the pending category. Trade (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
As everything in the deletion request is only in Wikitext a bot needs to parse the Wikitext and needs check for the deletion status of the linked pages. It is not that simple to build such a bot that does this without many errors. GPSLeo (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

License change at source

I've incidentally found this image (File:Mendebaldeko Sahararen aldeko Iruñeko elkarretaratzea 2020 2.jpg) with a license-review template. It was uploaded on 1 December 2020. I've checked the source and it says "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0". In Wayback-Machine, as of 3 December 2020 license was CC BY-SA 3.0 though (but I can not see every image there, only 2 of them). Is it reasonable assuming good practice, this image being properly uploaded? Do we have a templates in order to register this license incidents? Strakhov (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

If it's OK in Wayback Machine, you can approve it and link the Internet Archive page in the permissions and/or the edit summary. I'm not sure what to do about the pages that don't show up there, though. - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Magic word for SDC date of creation

Isn't there a magic word for SDC date of creation? If such thing exists, I don't have to input the date manually in an edit like this. In this case, I had to copy 2011-04 of the date field and paste it in {{Japanc|so|2011-04}}, which is quite tiresome. --トトト (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@トトト: If "inception" property is present in SDC, and you leave the date blank, then {{Information}} will use the value in the "inception" property. However, that won't give you any Japan-related date category. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Commons conversation about tool investment priority on January 15

Hello everyone! The Wikimedia Foundation will be hosting the third round of a series of community calls to help prioritize support efforts from Wikimedia Foundation for the 2025-2026 Fiscal Year.

The purpose of these calls is to support community members in hearing more from one another - across uploaders, moderators, GLAM enthusiasts, tool and bot makers, etc. - about the future of Commons. There is so much to discuss about the general direction of the project, and we hope that people from different perspectives can think through some of the tradeoffs that will shape Commons going forward.

Our third call will focus on tool investment priority. There are constant calls from the community for the Foundation to adopt community-made tools in order to maintain workflows for the contributors that depend on them. The range of these tools varies widely, and includes media upload (e.g. Video2Commons), editing (e.g. CropTool), curation (e.g. Cat-a-lot) and metrics (e.g. BaGLAMa) tools. Batch upload and metrics tools are said to be critical for the affiliates and Wikimedians in Residence who partner with libraries and other cultural institutions to illustrate Wikipedia. They need to be able to contribute files efficiently at scale, and report on the impact of these contributions. However, community surveys have identified more than 30 different tools that are used for content partnerships.

More specifically the questions will be:

  1. Does it make sense for the Foundation to invest in supporting the wide range of community-developed tools that don’t have active maintainers, or should a smaller set of critical workflows be enabled through new or improved features in core products?
  2. Which tool would you recommend to prioritise? Something community-facing or GLAM-facing or video-related or something else?

The call will take place at two different time slots:

If you cannot attend the meeting, you are invited to express your point of view at any time you want on the Commons community calls talk page. We will also post the notes of the meeting on the project page, to give the possibility to read what was discussed also to those who couldn’t attend it.

If you want, you are invited to share this invitation with all the people you think might be interested in this call.

We hope to see you and/or read you very soon! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Until recently the logo used in the infobox of FIDE was en:File:Fidelogo.svg. This file has a lengthy discussion of licensing, the outcome of which is that it can be used at FIDE but nowhere else in Wikipedia.

With this edit an editor, Bildersindtoll, changed FIDE to use instead Logo FIDE International Chess Federation.svg. The new logo is/was apparently identical except that the silhouette is reversed, i.e. blue replaced by white and white replaced by blue. I do not know why the logo was replaced (no edit summary), but I note that the FIDE website, FIDE.com, is currently using the logo that Wikipedia changed to, rather than the logo that was changed from.

However, the new logo must not have had the same lengthy discussion of licensing as the old. As a result it was deleted from Commons, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo FIDE International Chess Federation.svg. This doesn't seem right. I think licensing of both logs should have been identical.

As a temporary measure, I have restored FIDE to use the old logo. What I would like to see, however, is for the new logo to be undeleted, and the same licensing text added to it as is used in the old. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The old logo was hosted on en.Wiki under fair use. The new logo was hosted on Commons which does not allow fair use. The new logo could be hosted on en.Wiki under fair use.
The only way the logos could be hosted on Commons is if they have a free license. The crux of that DR was whether the silhouette of the knight is public domain. That argument did not carry the day but it could be revisited.
Glrx (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox

Is there any way to control which statements shows up? On some categories the statements in the infobox are largely useless while excluding actual useful ones Trade (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Please see Template:Wikidata Infobox and be more specific on the talk page there.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Need of pictures

Dear all, is it possible for someone to take free pictures of the new building 7 Hudson Square building, aka Robert A. Iger Building in Manhattan ? I would illustrate the article i've created on french wikipedia. One of the adress is 310 Hudson St, New York, NY 10013. If possible it would be fine. For your information, the buidling is opened since December 4th 2024 accoridng to this article --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 10:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gdgourou: You can request pictures at COM:PR. You can also leave a message at WikiProject New York City as NYC has a sizeable and highly active Wiki community. I did notice that on the Wikidata page for the building Q111600151 the address is listed as 137 Varick Street, and there is an image of that: File:137 Varick Street.jpg. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Dear Renee, This one is a previous building shamelessly razed in 2018. Thanks I will post on PR and NYC project page. --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 11:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Importing files from de-wikipedia

On the German-language Wikipedia there arfe two files (de:Datei:Boskop-Schädel.jpg and de:Datei:Boskop-Schädel (2).jpg) which the German page says should be checked before transfer. However, they were published in the US before 1918 and should therefore be free. But commons file importer does not want to do this, saying "This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is marked as Vorlage:NoCommons." Joostik (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Joostik: Good to know that the file importer works as designed. Why are you stating that here? Or do you have a question? Questions usually end with a question mark.
Oh great, a grammar nazi ... Joostik (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
The date of publication is 1918 so well before the URAA date (1930 now) and author died more than 70 years ago so should be ok to transfer. Multichill (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gerbil: You tagged each file {{Bild-PD-alt}} using de:Vorlage:Bild-PD-alt, which indicates (translated from German): "Due to URAA problem(disk.) for the time being:", "This file may not with the policies of Wikimedia Commons.", "It should be checked individually whether it may be moved to Wikimedia Commons.", and "Do not transfer this file to Wikimedia Commons without an individual review!". Is there a more appropriate tag?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The license I used is specified in the rules of the German-language Wikipedia for “old works”, see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bildrechte#Alte_Werke According to German law, both drawings are in the public domain 70 years after the death of the artist. However, I am not familiar with image licenses and will therefore not make any changes. Sorry. Gerbil (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gerbil: Thanks. Perhaps other users of German Wikipedia will weigh in.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I have transferred both files to Wikimedia Commons, same file names. You have to tweak the license tag at de.wp first (using the parameter Commons=Ja) to be able to do this. --Rosenzweig τ 04:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I actually tried to modify the license tag, but could not because it did not show up when clicking on "modify". Joostik (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

help needed from Spanish speaker

Hi, Recently {{PD-AR-Photo}} was changed and the old translations are no longer valid. Can a Spanish speaker go to Template:PD-AR-Photo/i18n and help translate this template. Previous version which likely can be altered to match the current English text can be found at Template:PD-AR-Photo/es. Thanks in advance. Jarekt (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

To-do list created

Per a comment at phab:, I have created Commons:Very large files to upload (COM:2UPLOAD, COM:VLF) to keep a running list of files that could be uploaded here were it not for technical limitations on file sizes. I did search ahead of time but did not see any other such list. Pardon me if I duplicated efforts. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think storing such large files for mundane things where resolution is not important even if it wasn't mundane makes much sense. Thus, I already oppose the large file-size of those videos without being merged and think their size should be reduced and people asked to upload smaller-sized videos for such things where the current file-size limit now seems more reasonable seeing what people would upload if the limit was larger. I'm not referring to the "The Black Watch" film but the other files linked on that page. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Especially for files like File:CSD Hamburg 2022 001 part 1 of 26.webm - the solution for these video files is to downscale them to a more reasonable resolution and upload that. Hardware which can play back and display 8k (at ~140 Mbps!) video is essentially nonexistent, and Wikimedia's video transcoding services would probably choke on a single file of that size. (As it stands, some of these segments consumed over 24 hours of CPU time to transcode to other formats - for less than five minutes of video which isn't even referenced from any content pages.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
140 Mbps for 8K is actually rather low (Video cameras can take 8K with 400 Mbps, 600 Mbps or more), and there are many hardware products which are able to play files with these bitrates (I tested back in 2019 with an RTX 2080; the bitrate alone is not enough; it also plays a role what type of chroma subsampling, bit-depth, frame rate, color space and more it uses (4:0:0 or 4:4:4)). Furthermore, I assume that the device that captured in 8K is not able to catch that much details 8K would be able to --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
What I mean is that almost nobody has an 8K display to watch it on - even if you have a 4K monitor and you're viewing this video full screen (which, realistically, most users won't do), it's still being scaled down by 50%. Omphalographer (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The internal resolution can be set to be 8K, and an original 8K video is played as such (so the whole bitstream must be decoded), but only screen output itself would be in 4K. The rendering process is not smaller --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the point of uploading 8K for news type videos. I could find it useful for content where we can zoom in (i.e. scientific, etc.), but a street parade? Yann (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
It has the same utility as uncompressed TIFF images or WAV audio that has frequencies that literally can't be heard. 8K video is not really useful for my purposes, but if someone is projecting a video on the side of a building, that's handy. If we think the content of a piece of media is valid, then the highest quality of that file seems obviously useful to me, particularly since the servers create downgraded versions of thumbnails and videos that can be used in cases where extremely high quality is not needed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I think using modern codecs like AV01 could reduce 8K videos a lot in filesize and preserving the higher quality, but it could take some time until this is mainstream procedure --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
There aren't that many TIFF images on here to begin with. It would be interesting to see how many of those files are even being used anywhere, or at least how many are being used in a way that can't be done just as well with a JPEG image. If I we're to guess TIFF is a fairly niche format that's hardly utilized by anyone looking for images on Commons. I can't even get them to load properly half the time myself. But I don't really see the point in having 8k videos on here if TIFF files aren't even loadable or being used by anyone at this point. There should at least be support of, and valid uses for, basic image formats on here before supporting high definition videos. Otherwise it's just putting the horse before the cart. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Steps to getting three images undeleted

Hello, I was looking at the page User_talk:Xeroporcellio, and I noticed three images they uploaded have been deleted. I noticed this after believing that File:Armadillidium atticum mating.jpg was a copyright violation, because it's marked as 'Own work' by Xeroporcellio but in fact is also on iNaturalist by the user agapakisgeorgios under a CC BY-NC license. However, I got in touch with agapakisgeorgios, who confirmed: "Xeroporcellio is the username I have in various forums. As a result, all these photos are uploaded by myself and there is no need for flagging." They further elaborated that I could link them to this account on their user page (I have done so) and that "I had in mind that they are both by default CC BY 4.0, but now I see that iNaturalist uses CC BY-NC 4.0." Thus, while 100% understandable, I believe these removals were done in error and that, if possible, these three images should be reinstated. These are truly this user's own work and were only licensed off-site under a noncommercial license by accident. A link to a screenshot of our conversation (this image will expire after three days) can be found here as verification. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: Commons:Undeletion requests. Otherwise you can ask a random admin. Doing an undeletion request is probably the better way to go about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
And I would recommend that you copy that PNG to somewhere it won't disappear after three days. - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Problems with Double MetaCat template

I started a deletion request for Template:Double MetaCat a while ago at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Double MetaCat and there seemed to be enough support to delete it at the time. @Bastique: subsequently decided to close the DR as keep because the template is involved in so many things and I supposedly didn't layout a clear enough way to deal with it.

There's many reasons why the template is clearly problematic though. Just to a name a few, it's placing a bunch of categories in Category:Countries by city by country that have nothing to do with "countries by city by country" for unclear reasons. Not to mention the whole idea of a category system based on "countries by country" is totally nonsensical to begin with. The same goes for similar categories that it's using like Category:Countries by color by country. There's also Category:Countries by city by year, which it seems to be populating with subcategories for states by year for some reason. It also populates non-exiting categories like Category:Buildings by function by condition for reasons that don't really make sense either.

Anyway, the template is clearly a problem. But I guess it can't be deleted without a clear way to do so and I'm not seeing a way to do it without a lot of work and creating a bunch of red links. The template is extremely complicated and the original creator doesn't seem to know how to fix it themselves. So I'm wondering what other options exist for dealing with it outside of just letting it continue causing issues. So is there someone on here who can rewrite the template to fix things or does anyone have another idea about how to deal with it? Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that template certainly looks more complicated than it needs to be. If we're going to keep it, it would be good to remove some of the functionality.
If we want to eliminate the template, maybe the effort could start by identifying the categories where the template causes problems and replacing the template with hardcoded things. Some of these cases might use {{AutoDMC}}. Category:AutoDMC double meta categories even has a note that says that template might give "wrong or garbage parameters to" to {{DMC}}. To me, that says that the template isn't ready to be used. Maybe we could start cleanup efforts with use of the auto template. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Stepping back a bit, I think part of the problem here isn't just {{DMC}} itself, but also that most of the categories it's used in tend to fall into a couple of common, frequently overlapping, patterns:
This all feels like we're slicing the same files into dozens of different categories based on different combinations of properties it has. There's got to be some better way to handle this without this explosion of categories - the fact that DMC is needed at all is a symptom. Omphalographer (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that. From what can tell all of these categories are multiple subcats deep before you get to anything meaningful. So at the end of the day most, if not all, of the top level categories as well as the subcats are meaningless trivia that aren't actually useful beyond being created by the template for whatever reason. Its questionable a lot of these categories would be created or retained to begin with if not for the template. I'm not sure how to deal with it outside of getting rid of template though. Since I think it will just recreate the categories. There's really no consensus to not have an explosion of categories either. People seem to be perfectly fine with this this type obtuse nonsense in general. So I'm not really sure how to deal with it outside of getting rid of the template and then fixing whatever issues that might cause afterwords. Its a screwed up situation without a simple solution either way though. I thought about doing a couple of thousand CfDs for every subcat but that's clearly a non-starter lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to change/remove information in metadata?

Hi, I noticed by chance that some files I uploaded some years ago accidentally has my personal name in their meta data. I'm not very comfortable with that, and I cannot see that it actually adds anything of importance to the file, so I am wondering if it is possible to somehow change or remove this information? I've been trying to find the answer already by searching on my own but couldn't find an answer, but apologies beforehand if I am cluttering this forum with already well-known issues. Thanks beforehand anyway, Yakikaki (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

upload it to imgur and download and then upload here. very easy to do it and higher resolution compared to other solutions. @Yakikaki modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
☝️that was about removing, if you just remove your name or camera model you can do it on your OS. for example win 10. just check specifications and do it. i dont know too much about that so i suggest you to research about this solution. + with this way no loss for resolution. modern_primat ඞඞඞ ----TALK 17:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Yakikaki: Assuming it's a JPEG file and you're looking at the "Metadata" section on the image page, what you need to do is to upload a new version of the file with the Exif data suitably modified. See Commons:Exif for a list of potentially useful editing tools. Once you've uploaded the new version, you can ask for the old one to be deleted. Commons:Revision deletion might be relevant, but I'd just go for sticking a speedy deletion template at the top with a clear note that you only want the old version deleted. Something like {{SD|G7|Please delete ONLY the oldest version, which has inappropriate personal information in the metadata}}. If the data are so private that you don't want to draw attention like that, you might want to contact the Commons:Oversighters instead. --bjh21 (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Or if you have anything like a working relationship with some admin, provide that admin with a list of the files that need this.
You give no indication here whether this is, like, a dozen files or hundreds. If it's only a dozen or so, feel free to email me the list once you've uploaded the versions without the problematic metadata. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I'll do that. It's just a few files. Yakikaki (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about "cast members" categories

I started a CfD on this topic here. Considering the scope of the discussion (it would affect more than 300 subcats), and the fact that previous discussions on this topic went stale, I'd like to draw a bit more attention to it. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Old men wearing vests

Hi, I have found this strange category — Category:Old men wearing vests — which seems to be dedicated for photos of Modi. I'm no expert but I feel like this should contain other examples to be useful? Given that it is for one person I feel like it is redundant and could be deleted Carlinmack (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

1946 BBC programme

The oldest television programme on the BBC's iPlayer (possibly not available outside the UK, at least without a VPN) is First-year Flashbacks, a compilation of clips marking the anniversary of the resumption of transmissions after WWII.

Some questions:

  1. Can we determine which clips - if not the whole programme - are no longer in copyright in the UK?
  2. Would that include the sound, or just images?
  3. When does the content fall out of copyright in the US?
  4. Do we have someone with the video chops (not my forte!) to edit them into stand alone files? At the very least, the modern intro would need to be removed.

I'm happy to assist with metadata and descriptions, if someone can do the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Out of copyright in the UK is complex; COM:UK is life+70, and the best I can find for film is Copyright law of the European Union: "For films and other audiovisual works, the 70-year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work." That would include the whole video.
Out of copyright in the US is also complex, but for different reasons. It's 95 years from publication, and transmission is not publication. If they weren't first published before 2002, they could be life+70. Clearest form of publication would be by sale of physical copies, on 35mm, VHS, or DVD. CopyrightData lists several cases where broadcast programs were deemed not to be published, so I don't know what would exactly be publication before sale of actual copies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Discrepancy

On File:CDGexpSchema.jpg, this message appeared "There is a discrepancy of 1815 meters between the above coordinates and the ones stored at SDC (49°0′36″N 2°32′53″E, precision: 11 m). Please reconcile them."

On this file the coodinates are the terminal of a train, perhaps the bot refers to the airport itself. How to reconcile that ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Both should use a point roughly at the centre of the line. SDC has separate properties for the coordinates of the end points. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand you. What line are you talking about ? At the moment there is no link between this file and the airport. Io Herodotus (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@Io Herodotus: The railway line. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
We are talking about a railway line and an airport. I choose the terminal of the railway line which is different from the SDC of the airport. Anyway the SDC has been removed. Io Herodotus (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Revert the bot, it should come back and fix the SDC. In principle, there is interface for fixing the coordinates in SDC manually, but I did not figure out how to use it, for me the "save" button is not clickable. Reverting the bot is easier. Ymblanter (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Apparently this bot is looking for airport data? Why and how is it doing this? Io Herodotus (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
To be honest, I do not understand which data the boot took. @Schlurcher and Multichill: can one of you explain this to us please? Ymblanter (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
A map with a camera location????
@Ymblanter: In this case the map seems to be using {{Location}} which seems quite incorrect. Multichill (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Updating the coordinates manually in the Structured Data tab works for me, but depends on the internet browser: Firefox no, Edge yes. Has not been fixed for a very long time now... --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I have indeed Firefox. Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Public Domain Image Archive launched

From our good friends at the Public Domain Review: https://pdimagearchive.org/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, good luck to them, but they claim "10,046 out-of-copyright works" We have more PD works from the UK alone. Do they have anything we don't? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by You for Me and Me for You

One user nominated the photos without explaining what rules they were breaking, I told him they what they were, he didn't respond, and now they get deleted? I don't understand this. The pictures were valid. There are hundreds of variations of the flags which are allowed on here, such as this one. But no, an altered hammer and sickle to be viewable from the size of a flagicon in an infobox is unacceptable. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@You for Me and Me for You: the nominator referred to the "rules they were breaking" as "Out of scope". A courtesy link to Commons:Scope would have probably come in handy. Fictional flags (except notable/famous ones) tend to be seen as non-educational, hence probably the deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, but the Soviet flag was useful. You for Me and Me for You (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@You for Me and Me for You: Then please see COM:REFUND.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Upload multiple files

Hello.

The upload form doesn't allow upload multiple files.

Please repair this bug.

Thanks.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a known bug, see this topic and this page. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

St Marylebone and East Finchley cemeteries

Is Category:St Marylebone Cemetery the same cemetery as Category:East Finchley Cemetery? On OSM as far as I can tell, all the photos of the former (which is East Finchley Cemetery (Q1277838)) are located in the latter (which doesn't have a Wikidata item). Is St Marylebone Cemetery a part of East Finchley Cemetery, or is it an older/alternative name for the same place? Sam Wilson 12:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

de:East Finchley Cemetery and en:East Finchley Cemetery suggest that it is the same cemetery, opened in 1854/1855 as St Marylebone Cemetery, and that the name was changed to East Finchley Cemetery in 1965. --Rosenzweig τ 19:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig: Thanks! I'm not sure why I didn't go and check the Wikipedia articles. :-) I'll merge them to Category:East Finchley Cemetery. Sam Wilson 22:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

de:Datei:Stater Agathokles Wien-2.jpg

I'm wondering why this file can't be imported from de.wiki to commons. It is a photo of an ancient coin, which was published in 1903 (122 years ago) in a book by George Hill, who died in 1948 (77 years ago). But when I try to use the "import to commons" function, the import is denied. Furius (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll have to tweak the license template a bit to be able to transfer it to Commons. I've transferred the file to Commons, same file name. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Which station in France?

This is a French electric train of the Nord region (TER Nord-Pas-de-Calais logo), but I cant place the station. I looks very similar to Brussel South station (the modern westside with a roof, but this cant be it.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible that back then the TER network had trains running all the way into Belgium, meaning this is really a French train in Brussels? --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Very unlikely as this would have been big news in railhobby circles. Technicaly it is also a problem. These French trains run on 25 kV alternate current, While in Brussels it is 3000 V direct current. There are no known international bicurrent versions. The train control systems are also very different. Theoreticaly it could be an exposition or transfer train, not under its own power.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible loss of file meta information when deleting duplicate or redundant files

Just a question. When we look at the duplicate or redundant file deletion policy, here and here, it's said that the file must not be in use, and any existing usages can be replaced by the new file if the project’s policies are met. The best quality file is always the one to be preserved, but, what about the quality of the information in the file's pages? What if the file with lower resolution is the one with the best description page? The thing is even more serious for duplicates, since they can be speedy deleted. Very useful information about the file can be lost if a good description is replaced by a worse one. The problem is even worse if one of the files has poor references to the author, the source, its license, is missing an attribution or license review template, etc, since this could cause to eventually lose both versions of the file. Yes, I'm doing my paranoid job again, but it's also a needed job :-). Maybe before deletion of duplicate and redundant files, the administrator always carefully reviews the file page (and its history) and takes care to move the missing parts to the page of the file that is to remain, but perhaps some improvement would be convenient here. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

When I do a redirect like this, I always try to merge relevant Commons metadata first. That is certainly what I recommend, but not everyone is that careful. - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel, thanks for taking care of it. That sounds like something should probably be done to improve this. A policy to focus attention on that when this type of deletion is performed would be good. But the main issue here is to avoid losing publicly visible history. That is, if, for example, a vandal removes content of a description, that old content remains publicly accessible to power users who view the history, and could be easily restored even years later. When a file is deleted, all its history is gone from public view. Categorization and license information may be gone. Could the history of a file deleted as a duplicate or redundant be kept visible as a kind of “parallel history” from the file that is kept? I think this is highly convenient: deletion of duplicate and reduntant files should be more of a "merge" than a true deletion. Could this functionality be asked to WMF? MGeog2022 (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Or at least a clear notice of the type "this file once had a duplicate/redundant file under the name XYZ. Don't delete it as copyvio before checking the deleted duplicate file first", to make sure that a file with full attribution and license information cannot be lost due to a silly thing like someone uploading a slightly higher quality version, but not paying attention to those details, and that “increase in quality” resulting in the destruction of the file. I think it is very unfortunate that this could happen without being able to prevent it. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@MGeog2022: I think it is very rare that anything like that arises. Do you have even two examples of where you think that might have happened? - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel, I don't have even one, but better to be safe than sorry. I'm not thinking about bad things that necessarily happened, but that the current operating mode allows to happen. Certainly we have very good things in place to prevent problems, but more can always be done. User 1 converts a SVG or PDF to PNG (the SVG or PDF is never uploaded to Commons). User 2 converts it to WebP, with less size and more quality, but doesn't cite source (for example, the typical case of selecting "own work" when it isn't). The PNG is deemed redundant and is deleted. Then, the WebP is nominated for deletion as "copyvio - not own work". That's a formidable way to potentially destroy a file that we were considering very safe to remain here. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
This concern is far from hypothetical. I've seen multiple cases where good metadata was carelessly discarded in the deletion of a duplicate file. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, @Jmabel, at least, I think the point "If there are varying descriptions in the different image description pages, ensure all the relevant information is merged into the copy to be preserved" should also be included in the official policy for redundant files, not only duplicates, to ensure that it is always an official policy not to be breached. But I maintain that history of the "merged" (removed) duplicate or redundant files should remain visible. I'd have made a proposal for this, but, from past experiences, I have very low faith that it would succeed. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, trying to comfort me with what we have, PNG and JPEG files have very different purposes, and any good file in one of those formats is usually very unlikely to be replaced by one in the other. Any file taken at full resolution from the original source, will never be replaced by another better one in the same format. When reading the deletion policy, I had some kind of WebP paranoia, because it's a format that allows smaller files than both PNG and JPEG, with the same quality (it allows both lossy and lossless compression), but WebP files, at least for the moment, seem to be a very rarely chosen option in Commons (0.0339% of files). Even if they become more widespread, having a smaller WebP file with the same content as an existing PNG or JPEG, probably won't be enough to delete a years old file only because of that, and the file deemed to be redundant would be the newer, WebP file. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

After reading the title of this section, I thought it was about loosing the EXIF, XMP, IPTC metadata of a file. But reading through the section, this does not even seem to be considered at all. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Tips on scanning books

Do we have a guide for people who want to scan and upload books, on how to do the former, well? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Pigsonthewing, we have Help:Scanning and Help:Converting. --Ratekreel (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Useful but well hidden; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Date of work

Am I the only one who hates having to spell out the date when a photo was taken when I upload it? Whose idea was this? We got on perfectly well without it, and I've been here 18 years. Sardaka (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A lot of modern digital photographs will have the time and date in the metadata, in which case the date is already filled in when you upload it to Commons. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
There's also a calendar picker, so the date does not need to be "spelled out". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Your earliest upload, in October 2007, included the "spelled out" date (indeed, it did so twice, the second time completely unnecessarily). So "We got on perfectly well without it" seems to be false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Plates

What is the distinction between Category:Decorative plates and Category:Plates? Is the former for plates that are purely decorative, or is it intended to include plates that are decorated, but serve a function as tableware? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That's the impression I get based on the Wikidata infobox, etc.: a plate is a general device and decorative plates are a subset of them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I asked "Is it A or B", you sad "yes". I can't make sense of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Excuse me: I misread what you wrote. I believe that "decorative plates" are ones that are purely decorative and not fit for use as serving plates. I do not believe they are plates which may be used for serving food. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Koavf about the intent of the categories, except that of course almost any plate can be used for serving, so the line isn't totally clear. If it's old enough, even a lead-based glaze isn't proof it was never intended for serving.
Often, but not always, decorative plates are made with a protrusion on the back with a pair of small holes to hold a wire or string for the specific purpose of attaching the plate to a wall. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

crosspost from en-wiki: plans by the Heritage Foundation to "identify and target" wiki editors

Flagging this discussion on enwiki about some reporting by The Forward, with a leaked Powerpoint, indicating that the Heritage Foundation (a US-based conservative organization) plans to "identify and target" -- i.e., out/dox -- wiki editors active in certain political topics. (I'm sure you can guess which ones, this isn't meant to be a political discussion but an opsec one.)

The relevance to Commons is that some of those plans including cross-referencing usernames across platforms, and running facial recognition software against people's photos. Given that we host many meetup photos as well as photos of users, and other associated data, this is a potential ticking time bomb of a security risk.

Granted I have no idea what a concrete actionable solution here is -- besides adding any malicious/IP-grabbing links to the spam blacklist -- but I wanted to bring it to people's attention, maybe someone reading this could be affected, maybe someone can think of something I can't. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't currently participate at en.wp but I am willing to help editors on any other WMF wiki who for some reason may want to post sensitive information or are afraid of being a target of these reactionary chuds. I welcome their hatred. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the main message for now is that it is good that we are very careful with granting bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight rights. With the technical fingerprinting mentioned we might need to block known external domains from being linked. GPSLeo (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
If I was the heritage fooundation, I would start by downloading the MW archive at dumps.wikimedia.org. Therefore I see no point in blocking IPs. This may actually be counter productive. Wikipedia is written with a cc-by-sa license and this license says you are not allowed to use technical barriers to block people from downloading the licensed content. Doing it never the less would open a way to the Heritage foundation to sue WMF to get access to the information.
Starting from 20th the new president or his DOGE watchdog can effectivly force the WMF to give US government bureaucrat, checkuser and oversight rights. AFAIK US law allows this to be done in secret.
WMF could stop to record the IP numbers of people editing MW and they can move the WMF out of the US, but otherwise the identity of people editing MW (at least in the US but probably everywhere in five eyes territory) must be considered known to friends of US government. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
No, the president is limited in what they can force WMF to do. See McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995) ("The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment, and, as Talley indicates, extends beyond the literary realm to the advocacy of political causes.") and NAACP v. Alabama (1958) ("We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.") And the WMF will have the ACLU and EFF aggressively on their side. I have a hard time believing that this would push this button right off the top; courts are not going to be thrilled with such a hostile intrusion into privacy of random Americans.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Not just Americans, I think. They could collect data from non-American wiki editors, and, if they are really hostile, forward the data to non-democratic regimes. Imagine they'd send data about Saudi Arabian editors to the Saudi Arabian state: those wiki editors might end up in prison because of the heritage foundation (or face even more severe consequences for editing wikis). Nakonana (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Day categories hidden

Why are categories like Category:1936-01-28 hidden? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably because of this change. At least I guess so. --Rosenzweig τ 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I know how they are hidden; my question was why. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I added the hiddencat template to be consistent with Template:Photographs taken on navbox and Template:Country photographs taken on. There has been some discussion (and edit warring) about the hiddencat in the past in the first template, you can find a bit more about that in the template's edit history and on the talk page. A number of comments reference an even older discussion, but I don't know when or where that one was held. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Why on earth do you think the day categories need to be consistent with those templates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
They're all templates that pertain to dates down to the specific day, one for each country and one for pictures that have a date but not a location. These were already hidden, so it made sense for me for the parent category to be hidden as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree. I don't agree that the categories emitted by the templates need to be hidden. Nor does the (scant) discussion you referred to show any consensus that they need to be hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I was here to explain my reasoning. I saw a bunch of templates that do roughly the same thing, two of them were hidden, one was not, so I made the third one hidden too. I didn't make the original decision and I'm not here to argue about that. If you feel so strongly that the hiddencat should be removed then you can just do that.
I'm also not going to continue this conversation. You've taken on a condescending tone from the jump for no discernible reason. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I think it should be undone. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I concur. Date-categories have little to do with "photographs-by-date" categories.
Dates are used to categorize all sorts of events besides "I took a photo at that time": Dates are used to document festivals, demonstrations, battles, treaties, elections... I still hope that we will eventually use them to sort newspapers that were published on given dates.
Hiding these categories will make people think that nobody should categorize stuff by dates. --Enyavar (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Broken file link on Anna Karenina title page

File:AnnaKareninaTitle.jpg

I'm hoping someone can fix this as I don't know how to. The largest file size (1994x3200) for this Anna Karenina title page has a broken link that prevents the file from loading. The correct file link is https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/AnnaKareninaTitle.jpg/1994px-AnnaKareninaTitle.jpg

--ThePinkShoes (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Chapelle du Rosaire de Vence

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We seem to have two categories:

Is there any reason for there being two categories, or is this just a mistake? I'm unsure what the difference between them is supposed to be. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They're duplicate categories. Sometimes people make a second category by accident. Are you okay with them being merged, with Category:Chapelle du Rosaire (Vence) being the main one (as it's more than a decade older) and the newer one being turned in a category redirect? ReneeWrites (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Forgot to ping. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
To me it looks as if the categories are dupes which should be merged. I have no opinion on which title to use. Just make sure that Wikidata points at the correct one. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done ReneeWrites (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Censored by lack of FOP / blacked out relying on FOP categories

I suggest major harmonization of the categories that related to censoring or blurring of copyrighted works in public spaces (due to no-FoP rules of those countries), since categorizations are becoming inconsistent. My proposal:

Some discussion is needed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary or useful to have separate categories for different styles of redaction (blacking-out, blurring, pixelation, cropping, strategically placed fingers, etc). The redaction isn't the subject of the image; the specific techniques used are entirely incidental to the image.
Having country-specific subcategories for FoP redactions is potentially useful for advocacy reasons. But let's not overdo it; these are basically maintenance categories, so we shouldn't be spending too much time setting up or maintaining them. Omphalographer (talk) 05:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
@Omphalographer perhaps limit to two categories per censored image (if the method used is blurring)? For example, one for Category:Censored by lack of FoP in Romania and the other for Category:Gaussian blurs by lack of FoP. No coutry-specific subcategories under Gaussian blur by lack of FoP to avoid overdoing and potential COM:SCOPE issues. We already have Category:Images with Gaussian blurs in Japan, though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Or, since countries like Germany and China have FoP, but we have images of blurred/blacked-out images from these countries, suggest to rename "Censored by lack of FoP" to "Censored versions of images relying on FoP" (and "Censored versions of images relying on FoP in Germany/in China/in France et cetera). Then, abolish category instances of "blacked-out versions of images...". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Closing this thread now. All discussion will continue at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/11/Category:Censored by lack of FOP.
This section was archived on a request by: 06:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC) JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Printing photographs on ceramics

For File:Bucharest - 9 Strada Colței storefronts.jpg I was looking for (and failing to find) a category about printing photographs on ceramics. I'm guessing it would belong somewhere under Category:Photographic processes, but looking at the categories there I can't readily find even an appropriate place to add such a thing. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Given that in Central Europe this is something of an industry, I'm really surprised not to find anything. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:De minimis

Category:De minimis

Files are automatically placed into this category by placing a template. Is there any process used to determine these files actually "de minimis" or can any user tag a file as de minimis? Also, are these files subject to a deletion request, if they appear not to be de minimis? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ooligan: There's no process, as with any other user-applied template, it's based on the user's best judgment - which can be lacking. Yes, you can start a deletion request if you find de minimis doesn't apply to some of these files. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank for your prompt response. Best regards, -- Ooligan (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Launching! Join Us for Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025!

Dear All,

We’re happy to announce the launch of Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025, an annual international campaign dedicated to celebrating and preserving Islamic cultures and history through the power of Wikipedia. As an active contributor to the Local Wikipedia, you are specially invited to participate in the launch.

This year’s campaign will be launched for you to join us write, edit, and improve articles that showcase the richness and diversity of Islamic traditions, history, and culture.

To get started, visit the campaign page for details, resources, and guidelines: Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025.

Add your community here, and organized Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 in your local language.

Whether you’re a first-time editor or an experienced Wikipedian, your contributions matter. Together, we can ensure Islamic cultures and traditions are well-represented and accessible to all.

Feel free to invite your community and friends too. Kindly reach out if you have any questions or need support as you prepare to participate.

Let’s make Wiki Loves Ramadan 2025 a success!

For the International Team 12:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/01&oldid=987099392"