700 terabytes of works on Commons

Hi!

In this year, we achieved a new data milestone! On 2025-05-29, the threshold of 700 terabytes (ca. 637 TiB) was reached. It took 314 days since the 600 TB milestone from 2024-07-19; 77 days longer than the 100 TB timespan before --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Great if it's because of good new content (for example, videos). Not so good if it's because of lots of photos with far more resolution than needed. This can become a storage problem, and not a minor one. Improvements in storage technologies promise a good future, unless cameras keep "improving" resolution so you can see the ants on the mountain in the background of the landscape :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The "inflation" of smartphone cameras is problematic here. I sometimes see pictures with 200 megapixels and 40 MB. There is many information that does not offer more details. But I am not so pessimistic :D. 700 TB (or approx. 1.2 PB of other content included) is not that much today (some people store that much at home :O ). If it's 10 PB or more, it might be harder to handle in some cases :). I assume there is also much cold data, that is not processed, transferred etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I sometimes see pictures with 200 megapixels and 40 MB. There is many information that does not offer more details. Very specially, for certain types of photos (for example, the interior of a room, a portrait, or any photo taken at close range, in general). MGeog2022 (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that camera sensors of smartphones are rather small (I am referring to that and I apologize for missing clarification) and are never able to offer so many details that would be possible with 200 megapixels ;). If you want to exhaust so many pixels, you need a medium format camera that's very expensive. Orthophotos of cities may take up several gigapixels, but offer details at pixel size :). --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

@MGeog2022@PantheraLeo1359531 perhaps a huge chunk of the data is also due to the thousands of document files of PDF/DJVU file types that we currently host? See also this for a related topic: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#What to do with mass uploaded PDF/DJVU which are not in use or verified?. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 Good question, Special:MediaStatistics says that DJVU files make up 4.24 TB (3.86 TiB or approx. 0.6 %), and PDF files 182.042 TB (165.57 TiB or 25.6 %) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

25.6%, including my first-ever PDF imports. All four are 2020 executive orders from the Philippine city of Baliwag pertaining to their responses vs. COVID-19 (Category:Executive orders of Baliwag). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

If they are in scope and freely licensed or in the public domain, no problem, then this is a good use of the storage space. MGeog2022 (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Bot for enwiki DYK stats

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical#Bot for enwiki DYK stats

Thousands of WLM-files risk deletion because they failed Flickr review 10 years after upload

In the 2014 WLM thousands of files were uploaded to Flickr and then moved to Commons. That was/is normal practice. Sadly User:Superzerocool moved thousands of files to Commons and added '{{flickrreview|Superzerocool|2014-10-14}}' instead of {{Flickrreview}}. As a result of that Superzerocool is now both uploader and reviewer of those files.

A few days ago User:Leoboudv noticed and reviewd some of the files. But there are so many and most are no longer available on Flickr. So Leoboudv asked if I could request a review with my bot and around 200 files were reviewed but 4,550 files failed (most because file was not found but some because license is unfree) and they are now in Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review.

Some files like File:WLM14ES - 05082012 182214 H 0065 - .jpg can be saved via web.archive.org but it will take a lot of time to check. So I would like to ask if someone can find a better solution.

Maybe someone made a list at some point with the license found on Flickr? Maybe someone can write a bot that can check the file and license on web.archive.org? Or maybe someone have another idea. MGA73 (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the uploader not also the photographer here? GPSLeo (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I note that they are still active (though not here every day) and can probably verify that. I'll let them know on their talk page (they probably get notifications when that is hit, and may not for a mention here). I'd be surprised if that is not the case (a ton of uploads for WLM, which at a quick assay are attributed to one Flickr user and taken with one camera). - Jmabel ! talk 06:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that Superzerocool should have a notice. We discussed this topic on my talk page so I just left the notice there. If it is own work it is easy to fix. --MGA73 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• Dear Jmabel,

Most of MARIA ROSSA FERRE's images by Superzerocool are trapped in this Category today with an ARR license. Maria Rossa Ferre gives her Email address on her flickr profile address over here I don't speak Spanish but you do. If you wish, you can Email here and ask if she would reconsider relicensing her images in her Flickr Album here as "Attribution-ShareAlike" in English or "Atribución-CompartirIgual" in Spanish. I Emailed someone once in France if he would be willing to change the license of his Tutankhamun treasure flickr album to a free license...and he Emailed back to say that he did so.....which I subsequently uploaded to Commons.

PS: Thee 2 images by other uploaders confirms she once licensed her image as CC BY SA 2.0: File:Vestidor Imperi - Museu Romàntic Can Papiol - Vilanova i La Geltrú - 11.jpg & File:Montserrat - 42.jpg Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Files that are now unfree are probably easy to save because File:WLM14ES - Esglèsia del Sagrat Cor, Girona Temps de Flors 2014 - MARIA ROSA FERRE.jpg for example clearly show in the license history on Flickr that the photo was licensed freely earlier. It just take a lot of time if we have to verify that manually for hundreds of photos. --MGA73 (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Could the bot somehow access that license history which is visable to humans? In oder to automate that... --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The review template outputs incorrect info though...it states "This image, originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on 13 June 2025 by the administrator or reviewer Josve05a, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the stated license on that date." Which is incorrect. I can see in the history that they distributed it under the specific license in the past, at time of upload here, but it is not being distributed under the free license there anymore (even if still possible to use it under the same license due to non-revocability). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

I hope a bot can do it. I guess you have to change the review date manually or leave a note below that the file WAS licensed freely when file was uploaded and the date above is the date you made the check. And perhaps aslo add a {{Flickr change of license}}. --MGA73 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

The few images that I've checked also had a free lincense in Flickr by the time they were uploaded to Commons.

Are there images that didn't have a free lincense when uploaded to Commons? If we can find such images or at least dobious cases, it would be safe to assume that in spite of having been reviewed by the same uploader, those images were correctly uploaded to Commons.

Anyway, if someone wants to manually check licenses, I suggest starting by 64 ones that are in use in some Wikimedia project. Pere prlpz (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

• For some reason I missed around 4,900 images in the first bot run. 175 of those passed the review. So it means there are almost twice the number of files now. So it makes it even more helpful if a bot could pass some of the files. --MGA73 (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort the files in files that are on web.archive and files that are not. But its a simple check if the URL is archived there or not. It does not check if the files are identical. When bot is done it should give us an idea how many can be saved that way and how many that can't. If all files on web.archive have a free license I think its a good indication that all the files had a free license (files were most likely moved with some sort of script so that script should validate the license). See Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-2.0 for example. --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Result:

• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-2.0 ( 6597 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc-by-sa-2.0 (6 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review cc0 (25 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review unknown (73 F)
• Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review not-found (1738 F)

So all the files where we can check the license have proven to be licensed freely (earlier the bot passed a few hundred files and around hundred (I think) files that were still on Flickr was reviewd and passed manually). So I think it is very likely that the remaining 1738 files were also licensed freely. Furthermore since the files were most likely uploaded with a script that checked the license it seems very unlikely that any of the files were free.

I therefore think that per Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/02#Add_an_outcome_of_LicenseReview we should fix the review template and add indeterminable on thos files and add a notice that files were reviewd by uploader which is not allowed but because the files are believed to be licensed as stated we will keep them.

However we need someone to help fix the review template. --MGA73 (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: I'm a bit lost here. Take File:Boats in Cadaqués - 14072008.jpg. This file was uploaded and included the review. At that point in time the user was an image reviewer. Why are you challenging this? Is the user suddenly no longer trusted? You seem to imply that self-review is not allowed. I don't think we have such a rule. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

"Please note that as of 21 February 2012, image-reviewers may not review their own uploads unless the account is an approved bot."  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   20:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill: As written above uploader should not review own uploads. The correct would have been to ask for a Flickrreview and let the bot verify. If the script used was an approved bot it would help. --MGA73 (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Meh, would be ridiculous to delete this files as a sanction. Multichill (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently 681 photos of the 8439 images in Category:Flickr file uploaded by Superzerocool pending review are used cross-wiki. We could at least try to "save" these images. Vysotsky (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The result is that, after a lot of effort, it has not been found a single image whose license review was wrong - that is, it hasn't been found a single non free image among those uploaded and reviewed by Superzerocool. Therefore, even under the most restrictive application of the precautionary principle, it's very safe and very reasonable to assume that the review was done correctly and that all the remaining images - at least those that can't be reviewed - were also free when they were uploaded.

Of course, shame should fall upon those who failed to notice in 2014 that the process wasn't following the rules and took eleven years to realise. However, that shame shouldn't make us delete valuable images that we can safely assume to be free. Pere prlpz (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

And Leoboudv just reported on my talk page that some files in the "not-found" category are in fact on web.archive. My bot just failed to find it because it checked the latest version so it did not see File:WLM14ES - Reus Casa Navas 00003 - .jpg as a good file. That means it would probably be possible to confirm the license on even more files if someone had the time. So I think that is one more reason to keep the files. --MGA73 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I have un-archived VP/P#Add an outcome of LicenseReview. There was near-unanimity on this. I don't think there is any doubt about the desirability; really, all that is missing is a concrete proposal for the name of this outcome. Concrete ideas should be placed in that un-archived discussion, and we should resolve and act. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Paul Vénel (1864-1920) Q96185647

Can someone update the death date for Paul Venel (Q96185647) or review my block at Wikidata. I come across minimally 10 errors a day that go unfixed. RAN (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin on Wikidata if you can be unblocked. An indef for doing something that isn't even against the rules to begin with is totally ridiculous. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

RAN was blocked because of an unwillingness to respect a standing community consensus and then being abrasive about it, and it is indefinite due in part to their record on Wikipedia.

Also, if you or anyone else who sees this message does make such a proxy edit, it will be construed as block evasion and result in a block of that editor's account on Wikidata. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 06:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: So this is not just a block, but a type of ban where the fact that he notes incorrect data means that no one is supposed to make the correction? That seems pretty excessive to me, and I don't see how it furthers the interest of Wikidata, nor of Commons which draws information from Wikidata in our Infoboxes. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

No. Read the discussion in question. The matter in question was his behavior after being told his interpretation of our notability policy was incorrect. While blocked he cannot engage in any editing period. If he had permission to edit we would allow it through partial blocks, but he showed no interest in contributing when we reduced it to a partial, so no, we don't entertain his attempts to get around the block. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Jasper, I appreciate that a blocked user cannot make it a point to ask for proxy edits, but in this instance, I think it would be fair to have someone fix this data point and from now let RAN know that requests for edits are not acceptable. Do you agree? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Someone who happens upon it out of their own volition without seeing this discussion is okay doing it. But yes, Richard is strictly not allowed to request WD edits unless and until they can convince our community that he will not waste their time and energy. Jasper Deng (talk|meta) 20:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

so you're saying, wikidata prefers keeping errors, even if the errors have been pointed out? RoyZuo (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There are no errors in the Wikidata element, and nothing has been pointed out. What can be done (and I may or may not do it later today, depending on the availability) the birth and death years can be replaced by the birth and death dates using the source cited in the Wikidata element. Ymblanter (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/06#c-Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)-20250605030900-https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483 . RoyZuo (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

You know, I can also make urls of links: . The element was correct but could have been more precise, which is what I have done. Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Until there are new admin people, they will not unblock me. I already asked multiple times, and there is no complaint review group like in Wikipedia. Asking the people to admit they are wrong, is not going to happen, and there appears to be no consequences for what they did. It is part of an harassment campaign, that has gone unchecked by the WMF. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC).

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2025 - Call for Candidates

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The call for candidates for the 2025 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection is now open from June 17, 2025 – July 2, 2025 at 11:59 UTC [1]. The Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's work, and each Trustee serves a three-year term [2]. This is a volunteer position.

This year, the Wikimedia community will vote in late August through September 2025 to fill two (2) seats on the Foundation Board. Could you – or someone you know – be a good fit to join the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees? [3]

Learn more about what it takes to stand for these leadership positions and how to submit your candidacy on this Meta-wiki page or encourage someone else to run in this year's election.

Best regards,

Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair of the Elections Committee

On behalf of the Elections Committee and Governance Committee

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Call_for_candidates

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Bylaws#(B)_Term.

[3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2025/Resources_for_candidates

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

LibriVox link template needed

There is a {{Internet Archive link}} but I cannot find anything equivalent for audio files from LibriVox. Is the syntax possible to create a link to the work page from which the recordings are accessed and downloaded from LibriVox, so that this information can be standardized for use in the |source= field of information templates? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

A LibriVox work hosted at their site (many are also hosted on the Internet Archive) is in the form of "https://librivox.org/x/" such as https://librivox.org/under-the-guns-by-annie-wittenmyer/ so making a template like "{{LibriVox link|under-the-guns-by-annie-wittenmyer}}" would be trivial, but I'm not sure what value it adds or why it's needed. If you want, I can make it. Do you think it needs any kind of tracking category as well? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: I think including a tracking category would be prudent.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure. I can do that. Let me tinker with it today. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I imagine that there could be issues I'm unaware of. But having a template allows for tracking, and also forces a link using the template to point to LibriVox, never some other site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

See {{LVs}}/{{LibriVox source}}, which (like {{LibriVox}}) categorizes files in Category:All LibriVox recordings and which has been successfully used in the wild. If users want me to do some mass substitutions with AWB, let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Category:00s BC

Category:10s BC shows a link to Category:00s BC Once there it says : This category is located at Category:0s BC

Question : Would it be possible that Category:10s BC shows a link to Category:0s BC ?

Category:0s BC shows a link to Category:00s BC and should only show 10s BC. Io Herodotus (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus I corrected the link, it should be displayed correctly now. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Gee, you're fast ! Io Herodotus

Category:1st century BC still has a link there. --Io Herodotus (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. That should now be fixed too. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo challenge April results

Meadows: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	A hill dream	Sunset over a green meadow with forest in foreground and layered mountain silhouettes in the distance, under a glowing orange sky.	Fioritura a Castelluccio di Norcia. Italia
Author	Anna.Massini	Martinovmejl	Repuli
Score	14	12	9

Camelidae: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Camel at toni's zoo - B&W	Kamel am Strand in Ägypten.	Ägyptische Motive mit Kamel. Strand des Grand Makadi Hotels am Roten Meer.
Author	Roy Egloff	Kora27	Kora27
Score	16	11	10

Congratulations to Anna.Massini, Martinovmejl, Repuli, Roy Egloff and Kora27 (twice). -- Jarekt (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Using generative AI to write your unblock request

Can we make a rule against this specifically? Trade (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this topic without a clear outcome: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/04#Do we need a policy against AI generated comments in discussions. GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of AI-generated content of any kind, but this seems almost impossible to enforce and likely to result in false positives. I've seen these comments too, but knowing it and proving it are two different things. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

We delete AI generated images all the time, even in cases where the uploader did not disclose it Trade (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Do we need a rule against it? Accepting an unblock request is at an admin's discretion, and is generally contingent on the blocked user making it clear that they understand why they were blocked, and making a credible promise to not repeat that behavior. I've seen a number of obviously AI-generated unblock requests, and they've uniformly failed to do either of those things. Omphalographer (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You literally have to sign your posts on this platform. As long as you take accountability for the words you post, I don't think we should stress about how you came by them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

As soon as we can demonstrate that we have sufficient available volunteers, fluent in every language. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think we have enough diverse admins to cover 95 % of all first and second languages worldwide. GPSLeo (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

So "not yet", then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the languages we do not cover are also the languages where machine translation totally fails. GPSLeo (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Weak oppose, I suggest to leave the AI-generated unblock requests at admins' discretion. In fact, the unblock request reason is just one factor (putting the sincerity of the request in mind). The user's prior contribution history is another important factor in determining the eligibility and sincerity of the blocked user's request. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Audio contributed by non-native or non-fluent speakers

what's the community's view on audio files (such as pronunciation) contributed by users who are not native or even not fluent at all in a language? RoyZuo (talk) 12:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, this isn’t great. At the very least, a person should be able to pronounce words correctly. For major languages, mispronunciation isn’t such a big deal — they can handle it without much harm. But for smaller languages spoken by fewer than 50,000 people, it can be a serious issue. In those cases, incorrect pronunciation can actually distort the language and harm its preservation. Incall ^talk 18:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

They can serve as a demonstration of accents IF they are clearly marked as audio files of non-native speakers. Nakonana (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

"Not native" isn't inherently bad; there is in fact potential value in recordings of people speaking a language with a foreign accent. But those recordings should be tagged clearly to make it clear that they're atypical and shouldn't be used as pronunciation audio (e.g. on Wiktionary). That being said, "not fluent" is a more serious problem. Outside of special cases like recordings of language instruction, users should probably not be contributing audio recordings in languages that they cannot speak well. Omphalographer (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It's complicated. There are no "native speakers" of Latin: all we have is a variety of non-natives. And fluency is less the issue than good pronunciation: I've known trained opera singers whose pronunciation is impeccable in a language in which they could not order a drink or carry on chit-chat. Also, for world languages like English, Spanish or French, it is less important that someone is "native" than it is clear where they are from. Québécois French is a very different thing than Metropolitan French; Rioplatense, Mexican Spanish, and Castillian are sometimes barely mutually comprehensible; "correct" English in Mumbai is a very different thing from "correct" English in Nashville, Tennessee. And surely the fluent or near-fluent non-native English of an immigrant to the U.S. from Shanghai or from Oaxaca is a thing well worth documenting, as long as it is clear what the recording represents. - Jmabel ! talk 20:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Flickr now supports CC 4.0 licenses

I noticed today that Flickr finally released support for newer 4.0 licenses on uploads; https://blog.flickr.net/en/2025/06/18/creative-commons-4-0-has-arrived-on-flickr/. However, there could be some problems. I transferred some photos to the Commons that are under a CC 4.0 license, and it seems the license is not applied properly to the files. Instead of adding the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license and Flickr Review template, it simply says 'undefined' in the licensing section. One has to manually add the appropriate licensing. Someone might want to fix that before the inevitable influx of photos occurs. Here's an example; File:The Bow Room, Ceiling by Louis Laguerre, 1697 with trompe l'oeil.jpg. Also, Category:Files with no machine-readable license will probably fill up quickly. PascalHD (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@PascalHD: I already pinged Sannita (WMF) about this elsewhere, but he may want to comment here, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Same here with File:Juneteenth cookies for sale.jpg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a CC 2.0 file that also seems affected, it's not just 4.0 ones: File:BAMF 2014 70.jpg PascalHD (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we know, I'll try to see if we can fix this in a short time. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Possible mislabel from the source

Per en:User talk:Thebiguglyalien#Question from Labonham (04:51, 19 June 2025) the file at File:Texas - Diboll through Donna - NARA - 68149189.jpg may not be the city that's named on the image. Could we get some advice on how to confirm a mislabel for the purposes of Commons? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the user's identification of the city as Lufkin, TX is sound. It's not far from Diboll, the railroad and city grid match up, and there are some distinctive details that confirm it. For instance, the pair of distinctive curvy roads right of center are a perfect match for Humason and Hoskins Ave. (The little triangle where Hoskins meets with Clinton Drive is still present today.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Flight information region boundary maps

I have put together a set of maps of ground-level flight information regions encoded in GeoJSON, and I was wondering if they would be suitable for addition to Wikimedia Commons. The base map I used for this project was this, and then I verified as much of the boundary data as I could by consulting the aeronautical information publications of each country. Wherever the AIPs called for international boundaries to be followed, I used data from OpenStreetMap to fill those in. I have already added the boundary data for one FIR, Gander Oceanic, at Data:CZWX.map, but I have had to hesitate when it came to adding the rest, because looking in the AIPs might raise some questions over copyright. Would you be okay with me adding the rest of them, or would they belong somewhere else? -- Denelson83 (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

There's a subtle copyright question here, and it might better be asked at COM:VP/C. In general, facts cannot be copyrighted, but this gets into an odd territory between a fact and the visual representation of that fact. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Cascading protection message

File:Generic Camera Icon.svg is under cascading protection, but since Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2025/03#c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20250304022700-Tech_News:_2025-10 it's now possible to edit the wikitext, while only overwrite upload is restricted, so maybe the message should be tweaked to reflect that? RoyZuo (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Can I upload a photo of a 12th century mid relief artifact from a museum

The policy is that faithful replications of 2d works count as their copyright being when the work was made. But what about mid reliefs (or bas reliefs for that matter)? I want to upload this https://www.narahaku.go.jp/english/collection/1257-0.html but I am not sure if this counts for the PD-Art or not. This is a Japan section talking about this Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs#Japan Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• The website: "These contents are protected by the Copyright Law of Japan, International Law, and the copyright laws of other countries, and utilization beyond the scope of personal usage as prescribed in the Copyright Law is prohibited." --RAN (talk) 04:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it is a 3D work of art? But it can depend on different factors. I think we had a similar case in Germany, where 2D photographs (faithful repro) of the "Himmelsscheibe Nebra" were used. But afaik a renewed law from 2021 what WMDE influenced, was applied. I suppose it's a case for COM:VP/C --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Categories for discussion has been going on for 1.5 years

Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha I think there is a consensus here too Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Or at least needs relisting or something Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Need help with conversion of CSV-like file to JSON-like *.tab page on Commons!

Hi!

I would like to convert the largest file of this content (produkt_klima_tag_19470101_20241231_02261.txt) (it contains the temperatur highs and lows of every day in Hof since 1947) to a data page. I tried several ways, but I failed. Is someone experienced in creating these data pages?

The OpenData content by the Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD) is licensed under CC BY 4.0 (LIESMICH; README; Copyright notice).

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

There are a lot of online CSV-to-JSON converters, if you don't want to write your own code. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I used them, but there was still an output of errors :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

How to classify structures for building bird nests?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Postcards vs. art

Why is Category:Postcards of dogs in Category:Dogs in art by medium, when many postcards are photographic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I don't agree with it myself but a lot of categories for postcards are subcats of ones for art. The same goes with photographs. Personally, if I had my way categories for both would be separated from art except in instances where the photograph or postcard is clearly artistic (however you define that). I actually seem to remember bringing it up at some point and there was no consensus do anything about it at the time. So it's not something that's worth changing. Although I do wish things were categorized differently. There's obviously a difference between a drawing of a dog and a photograph of one. But their both "art" for some reason, which doesn't make any sense. But you'd have to start a CfD to remove Category:Photographs from Category:Works of art by medium, remove the subcats from each other, deal with the inevitable blowback, Etc. Etc. to change it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Photography is an art.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Not disputed. But that is not, in the main, how we use our "in art" categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

News Paaper cutting.jpg

I've popped into File:News Paaper cutting.jpg and I think it violates copyright rules as it is a part of a newspaper edited in the 21st century, so it's unlikely to be old and very likely to be copyrighted. I don't remmember the proper way of dealing with it (what {{}} to use) but I feel that has to be dealt with. B25es (talk) 05:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tagged as a copyvio. Take look, but be quick! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Attribution and vanished user

File x had been uploaded by user y. user y vanished. but attribution on the file page remains "user y", because it has never been changed to user y's new username.

now suppose i create a new derivative of file x. how should i put the attribution? "user y" or "vanished user ..."?

has this problem between "need to attribute" and "right to vanish" been discussed before? RoyZuo (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

What license does the file have? If it is CC-BY or CC-BY-SA the original attribution has to be used unless the author changes it. GPSLeo (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Photo source transparency

I think we should have some kind of photo source transparency tool. Of course every photo already has a source. But often it requires further research to check what king of source this is. It would be good to have around five to ten different source types like: "governmental source", "(semi) independent public broadcasting source", "independent journalistic source (including most commons photographers works)", "photographing on invite (not payed)", "NGO source", "(non publishing) company source". These levels should be shown next to the source on the file page. GPSLeo (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Given the information you are asking for, what would you do with that information?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It would de convenient for the Wikis or externals using the photos having such sometimes very important classification of the source directly next to the source. GPSLeo (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hundreds of "500px photos" incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2019" need to be categorised, please

We are looking for volunteers, to categorise hundreds of "500px photos" incategory:"All media needing categories as of 2019"Großer Text, please. These photos have been uploaded as part of a mass upload, and need now to be reviewed and categorized manually. Some experience on categorisation is a prerequisite, to do this effectively. Please leave a message on Category talk:All media needing categories as of 2019, when you reach the next round number. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks like at least some of the images could at least be nominated for deletion due to lacking meaningful descriptions, being extremely low quality, Etc. Etc. There's no point in categorizing images that could (or should) just be deleted though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed: "Delete and/or categorise" should be decided case by case. Howwever, a category does not protect a file from being deleted. NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I doubt some can acturately be categorized. I've seem some 500px images with incorrect coordinates, categorized under the category of "Location A" when in fact, the image was taken in and depicts, "Location B". For example, this 500px image was long thought to depict the city of w:en:Bais, Negros Occidental, but after my inspection, turned out to depict the city of w:en:Dumaguete (within the same province but located south of the claimed location), due to the presence of American colonial-era Silliman Hall. While 500px images may be good enough, categorizing several by location may be a struggle due to unreliable coordinate data. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 21:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I also suspect that many (if not all) 500px imports are not their original/highest resolutions. See, for example, File:500px photo (58562974).jpeg which turned out to be a lower resolution duplicate of File:TPLINKHQ.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I would oppose deletion but I think they might stay uncategorised / poorly described for a while. For instance, I just categorised File:Munich Josephsburg U-Bahn station 500px photo (215251323).jpg: it would have been hard to identify it just based on the description (it says nothing about the location), but having been to U-Bahn Munich in the real life definitely helped. Similarly e.g. File:Dsc 0095 Jpg (169263395).jpeg can be easily identified by a person who had been at that station, but for me it doesn't look like any station I have been to. Maybe in a few years AI will get better and will be able to identify all of them... — NickK (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Tonight, I categorised 115 photos into the Category:Sea kayaking, which was comparatively easy by searching for the photographer, after noting that he had taken several photos about this topic. I think that all photos should have at least one category and, ideally, a better title, but I do not want to oversimplify the categorisation by just entering 'unidentified men' or 'unidentified women'. NearEMPTiness (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been trying to categorize any pictures in the group and I developed an odd feeling; I was doing somebody else's task. I very strongly think that uploaders should take due care of making their uploads meaningful by stating what their files are about. And I've found that some of the uploaders are still around here uploading.
From this point, I find two ways to go. One is deleting anything that cannot be reasonably identifyable. Another one is to inform uploaders this is going to happen.
I have looked some files at random and I've found that they have been uploaded by two users, @Rodrigo.Argenton: and @DarwIn: , to whom I respectfully ask whether they would mind to kindly inform us about the contents of the files they uploaded, so they could be categorised. B25es (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd support that. The educational value of a lot of these images is questionable anyway. I'm not sure I agree that they should be dumped in the most generic category someone can find just so they are categorized either. That's a bad way to categorize images in my experience and it doesn't really resolve the scope issues or lack of meaningful descriptions. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The educational value of a lot of these images is questionable anyway. Agreed. 500px is/was a photography site; the majority of photos were uploaded to the site because they were visually interesting "art photos", not because they were clear, effective depictions of a subject. Some of these photos may happen to be usable anyway - but a lot simply aren't, and should probably be deleted. Omphalographer (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:500px licensing data and Internet Archive link

I'd like to take this opportunity to request for changing of the link on the 500px Commons page. The link, https://support.500px.com/hc/en-us/articles/360005097533, is no longer working (leads to error page), and for some reason the Internet Archive web link (web.archive.org) isn't working (at least on my part, tried both smartphone and laptop browsers, not working). It was also a struggle to review two imported files (which eventually led me to nominate these files: file1, file2). I tried the "wayback.archive.org" link, and I received a warning page stating that PH authorities blacklisted the site as violating various PH laws (like Republic Act(RA)10175/w:en:Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, Executive Order No. 13/Strengthening the Fight Against Illegal Gambling, RA9995/Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act etc.). Sometimes, repeatedly trying to access "web.archive.org" results to this same warning being shown on my screen/s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: I managed to browse for the last archived copy of the page using IA. I tried accessing "wayback.machine.org" to redirect me to "web.archive.org" via my laptop, and I immediately browsed for the last archived copy. For some reason, after updating the 500px page, revisiting the Wayback Machine page only results in error, as expected ("DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN"). I suspect there is some suppression of Internet Archive links here; if not within the entire PH, perhaps my Internet service provider at the very least. This has been the case since Sunday (Philippine Standard Time). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: AT (Archive Today/archive.ia) is still working in my case as of this writing/post. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sunday was the day when I tried verifying the licensing history of the source of File:Cephalopholis sonnerati, the tomato hind.jpg, which eventually I decided to nominate the import for deletion after all. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Hopefully, you can use User:Jeff G./500px Marketplace Transition Contributor FAQ.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)