I created the great uploading instrument: script for gThumb

https://gitlab.com/vitaly-zdanevich/upload-to-commons-with-categories-from-iptc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly Zdanevich (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Vitaly Zdanevich thank you very much! your new tool looks amazing! RoyZuo (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Who represents our community and liaises with other organisations

Commons:Village_pump/Technical#c-S5A-0043-20250529120300-User:FlickreviewR_2_appears_to_be_down flickr review is down, presumably due to flickr.com blocking api requests from toolforge.org .

I imagine a natural solution is for someone to liaise with flickr about the situation and resolve the problem.

Question is, who is that person?

Similar problem https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236446 involving youtube/google/alphabet. RoyZuo (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a cooperation with Flickr, have a look at Commons:Flickypedia/Team. GPSLeo (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

And I already emailed them about 36 hours ago, asking if there is any way they can intervene on our behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Emailing Flickr to tell them something might be wrong with someone's API requests is not going to get you very far. First someone needs to confirm if API requests to Flickr are in fact being blocked from toolforge.org. And if so, what is the error message? Does it contain any helpful information about why the requests are blocked (probably not, but it's worth checking). Once those steps are done, someone with a Flickr API key could file a support request with Flickr to get it unblocked. Nosferattus (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't email Flickr, I emailed our contacts at the Flickr Foundation. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I confirm all traffic to Flickr coming from Toolforge / Cloud VPS is blocked. It doesn't matter if the request is authenticated through the API (with an active API key), or if it's just a call to the website, the error message is always plain and simple: HTTP 403. I suspect our public IP address has simply be blocked. vip (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Appears FlickreviewR_2 is working again now. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I confirm, works for me too. Looks like Andrew managed to convince Flickr support to unblock us :) vip (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I guess the lack of an answer means commons doesnt have a person to approach for all such needs to contact external organisations. RoyZuo (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Bot for enwiki DYK stats

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

SDC and working at cross-purposes

The most recent winner at Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges is a user who, on Commons, was admonished for adding low-quality structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Donia (WIA): care to comment? Multichill (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Jmabel, and thank you @Multichill for tagging me. Actually the main problem in the March campaign is that there were many images in the categories with high quality structured data but participants insisted on editing them so added low-quality ones. I contacted the participants who made unintentional mistakes and tried to explain the issue to them (including the 2 participants who where excluded from the campaign, and the 1st winner, who did some low quality SD). I reviewed the edits of the top participants (excluded the top 2) and found that although the 3rd one who became first winner did some low quality edits, he did more qualified ones, so he deserved the 1st place. And to avoid the repetition of this issue in the next campaigns, we will consider the categories used on ISA campaigns, advertising this page among participants (we already added this in our campaigns page but we need increase the visibility and accessibility of depicts guidance). Another point but it is related to the same problem, I want to open a discussion about future steps concerning the 2 users who were blocked because of their wrong edits on that campaign to discuss what commons admins see and if there is a way to remove the block. Where is the best place to raise this discussion please? Donia (WIA) (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Donia (WIA): I'm not sure there is one single clear best place, but Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections seems reasonable, as does just Commons:Administrators' noticeboard. - Jmabel ! talk 21:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I still dont get how this happens. Does the differentiation between abstract and concrete concepts ("depicts") simply not exist where they are from? Trade (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Upload Wizard "release rights" blurb

Choices from the "Upload Wizard" form:

• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit)

• Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license)

As written, this gives the impression that you choose the first one over the second if you want the person using this media to give appropriate credit but then be able to distribute it free of any such requirement. This would seem to allow trivial circumvention tantamount to unrestricted release (e.g. get your friend to put the media on their Facebook page with credit, and then copy it willy nilly from their Facebook page), so seems to make little sense. Even reading the "learn more" links, I still don't quite understand why you would choose the first one over the second. Is the difference relevant only if people "remix, transform, or build upon the material"? I wonder whether the distinction could be explained better in summary. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the first license doesn’t mean other people can just reupload the exact photo, give appropriate credit, and just declare the photo to be used by anyone without restrictions. The original CC license will always be applied to the original materials even if they were redistributed or adapted. The difference between the two is if you create a derivative work based on the image, under the first license you can license your own contributions under any license you want, under the second license you must license your own contributions under the same license. See https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-derive-or-adapt-material-offered-under-a-creative-commons-license-which-cc-licenses-can-i-use for more details. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

True, but more to the point, under the first license a reuser can reserve all rights to their own contributions and fail to license them at all. So, for example, if File:Mardi Gras Day 2019 in the French Quarter - St Anthony Ramblers on St Peter Street 09.jpg were not under an "SA" license, you could create a derivative work based on the woman in butterfly wings looking at her phone, with a small blond child over her right shoulder, credit Infrogmation, and not offer any license to republish your derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. This is totally unclear from the Upload Wizard wording, which, as I say, reads as meaning "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license" versus "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit, but allows them to redistribute it under any license, or none at all, i.e. unrestricted". Does anyone know who maintains this wording? Even though it needs to be short, surely a better job can be done than what we presently have. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That last wording as it stands is really problematic. In fact, CC-BY allows derivative works to be redistributed under a more restrictive license, but certainly not a less restrictive license. The reuser can license their own contribution as they wish, but the original work must still be licensed and attributed by any further reusers down the line.

@Sannita (WMF): how should this be fixed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, it seems that this problem varies across languages, and some of them mentioning that the SA part applies to derived works (Catalan and Basque), some of them leaving so it can be understood as applying to redistributing the original work (English, French, German) and some with ambiguous wording (Portuguese).

I suspect at some point it was intended to simplify the summary with the result of an oversimplification that still hasn't spread to all translations. However, it's hard to explain the SA part while avoiding the technical term "derivative work".

Mixing the English and Catalan versions I would suggest:

(requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute any published derivative work under the same license)

In bold my addition to the current English version. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Pernorgard.jpg marked for deletion 3 June 2025

As I understand it, the above file was uploaded in 2015, and licensed as "own work" by the author. It is now up for deletion on the grounds that the author did not additionally send a letter confirming that they give permission for the licence that they themselves have added to the file.

I have uploaded nearly 30,000 images to Commons, and a large proportion of those are "own work" with a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}} licence. Does that mean that I, too, (along with millions of other "own work" uploaders) have to write tens of thousands of permission emails? Or am I missing something here? Storye book (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I should add that I have read Commons:But it's my own work!, and as far as I can see, that page does not apply to the above image file, unless there is additional information somewhere, which the deletion tag does not tell us. Storye book (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

you can "Challenge speedy deletion start a regular deletion request/discussion instead" and write down the reason. RoyZuo (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• When there is a speedy tag, and the rationale is wrong for adding it, you can remove the tag without converting it into a regular deletion. You have to leave an explanation. If you are a contributor of a large number of self-taken images, you can add a brief paragraph on your user page that you are an amateur photographer and list some of the equipment you regularly use, and what type of events you concentrate on photographing. This way it will be obvious, even 100 years from now. You can also link to your Flickr account if you have one. If you are a large contributor, but this is controversial, you should have a wikidata entry that has your info so future users of your images will know when they convert from creative commons to public domain. --RAN (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): . Thank you for that information. I shall consider making my own Wikidata entry (although I am worried that it might look self-aggrandising?). But if I do create my own Wikidata page, isn't it too late to connect my many thousands of own-work images to the Wikidata, retrospectively? I'm not sure how that would work. I have a Flickr account, but I have never uploaded images to it. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• It would also help if you created "Category:Photographs by XXXXX", use your real name if you want or first name and last initial. Add that to each image and then connect the category to Wikidata. Again, as we both know, it is controversial, even though we all recognize the need to prevent the deletion nominations we are both seeing. Flickr limits you to 1,000 images to store without paying but nothing prevents you from creating multiple accounts each with a different email. I don't know if Google lets you create synonyms for your email account anymore, you used to be able to have three synonyms for the same account. Each synonym let you create a Flickr account that all led to the main Google email account. That may have been a beta feature not rolled out to everyone. I also make sure I add portraits of dead people to Familysearch, Geni, Wikitree, Findagrave, and Familypedia. Familypedia is by the same Wiki people, but for-profit. --RAN (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I don't really want to upload images to Flickr, unless it serves an additional useful purpose. All my useful (i.e. encyclopaedic) images are already on Commons, apart from the 300+ batch that I'm currently editing for upload. Do I really need them all to be on both sites? But I shall think about the Wikidata thing. Thank you for all your kind help so far. Storye book (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, I noticed the same problem with several files tagged for speedy deletion with "no pemission" without explanation. For some files the reason does not seem obvious at all. If there's actually a known and obvious reason, they can be tagged as copyvios with a proper reference. If it's only a vague impression, they can be tagged for ordinary discussion. Hopefully, admins will be cautious with such speedy requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The "no permission" tag is used for cases where we see a need for confirmation that the account owner and the author of the photo are the same. GPSLeo (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Storye book: If that does not reasonably explain the tagging, I encourage you to ask the tagger for their reasoning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

OK. Run out of time this morning. Will try to ping them later, unless someone else does. Storye book (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sahaib: Re the above discussion, please would you kindly give us some evidence that the uploader of the above file has a history of copyright violation? I.e. can you prove with links that the uploader has uploaded something as their own work, when the same work had a pre-existing presence online as an unknown author's work or as a named author's work? If I understand correctly, what the above commenters appear to want is hard and verifiable evidence of copyvio (not just a suspicion of copyvio). This request from me is not intended to imply that you have made a mistake; it is just that it's a big thing to delete an uploader's own work without absolute proof of copyvio, so for my part, I'm being careful. I hope that's OK? Storye book (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

See User talk:Laivakoira2015. I would also argue that it is better to delete an image suspected of being a copyright violation instead of keeping it. Sahaib (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, Sahaib. Your explanation might have been helpful if only the list of deleted images that you are referring to, on the uploader's page, had not been deleted. How are we to see confirmation that the uploader actually committed copyvio? You argue that it is better to delete due to suspicion alone, than to keep an image. But how are we supposed to check out that suspicion if we cannot see any of the suspicious images?

Can you please kindly find any not-yet-deleted images in the uploader's contributions record, that you could link for us, so that we can see what suspicious activity you are referring to? Again, I am not implying that you are wrong in any way. I'm just trying to see what you can see, and understand precisely why you are suspicious. My apologies for repeatedly asking you the same question, but I do not yet understand precisely (with evidence) what you are seeing that is suspect. Thank you for your patience. If I can see one of the uploader's existing images, with a link to a pre-existing identical image by another author elsewhere in the internet, then I will be happy to shut up, apologise, and stop pestering you for that evidence. Storye book (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Just out of interest, Sahaib, please could you kindly comment on this online image, credited to this 2015 Commons source, which was uploaded to the website in 2019. In this case, the online image does not predate Laivakoira2015's Commons upload, and I have not yet found any evidence of the image being online before the date of the Commons upload. In your opinion, is this image suspect, or not? Please give your reasons either way, so that I can understand? Storye book (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Page cleanup scripts or bots

Is there a bot or script I could run, perhaps with visual file changer that moves all the categories to the bottom of the page, removes duplicate categories, or removes all comments from a page? I have a lot of pages that I want to fix this way because of errors in my editing earlier.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Just a note: As far as I know, categories not at the bottom are not a problem. In fact, to copy-paste categories in the uploader wizard you can paste its wikicode in "other information" and they end not at the bottom, but they still work fine. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: you wrote "removes all comments from a page"; why would you want to do this? Comments are usually left for a reason. And are you talking about html-comments, invisible when reading or something else? MKFI (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI Because on my uploads I often used visual file changer and commented things out instead of properly deleting them when I made mistakes. But this accumulated a lot on my uploads. I managed to use visual file changer to get rid of the comments though. So currently just moving all the categories to the bottom is the concern. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you still want to remove comments, the simplest may be to use the "VisualFileChange" gadget that you can activate on your preferences, although you probably need to know some regex for this task.

Removing duplicated categories could also be done with VisualFileChange but then regex becomes trickier. Anyway, I wouldn't see duplicated categories as a serious problem - I would try to avoid creating them as much as possible, but I wouldn't invest a lot of time to fix some tens or hundreds of files where the same category appears twice. As far as I know that makes the wikitext uglier but doesn't cause other problems. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you still want to move categories to the bottom, I think that it could be done with VisualFileChange and regex.

But having the categories not at the bottom is also a feature of a lot of my uploads. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pere prlpz How can it be done with the regex? I am interested in doing that. Do you have the regex code to do that? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My familiarity with regex is just basic, but I think it can be done, because you can use a pattern to capture categories and then add them to the end. Maybe somebody in Commons:Village pump/Technical can provide a pattern. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The main concern is that I have some categories inside the descriptions which is really annoying. Not so much the duplication. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: could you clarify if you are intending to change only files you have uploaded yourself, or are you planning on larger scale changes across Commons? MKFI (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI only files I have uploaded myself. This is only to fix some mistakes I made on these specific files. I actually did remove all the bad comments such as for example this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shimogamo_Shrine-90.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1041001843 so now it is just an issue of categories which are less disruptive if still annoying Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Have you looked into using User:Magog the Ogre/cleanup.js?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Jeff G. I haven't. It does not appear to have documentation so I am not sure what it does. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Would you please document that script?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:35, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Question on city-town categorization practice on Commons

This has been bothering my mind on several occasions. Perhaps the right time to ask. What's the usual categorization practice for cities and towns under topical categories, like "Category:Night in X by city", "Category:Sunrises of X by city" etcetera? Are categories of cities only permitted, or categories of towns also permitted, provided that the town is also an incorporated place (a community with mayor and municipal council and services)? I have long noticed that in places like Category:Night in France by city and Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, even certain municipalities that are de facto "towns" or rural communities by either US or the strict Philippine local government standards are also categorized, since those "towns" or "villages" are municipalities (e.g. French communes, German gemeinden, Russian goroda, Italian comuni, Dutch gemeenten, Spanish comuna, etcetera) which are "cities" in the international sense. For this reason, I also included the Philippine towns (we call those towns "municipalities") under Category:Night in the Philippines by city, based on the de facto categorization practices of similar categories concerning other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll ping also several Pinoy wiki peeps here for their comments, and if they agree to fully enforce this practice on the similar categories related to the PH; for example, categorizing categories of towns like Category:Buildings in Bangued under Category:Buildings in the Philippines by city, if applying the categorization practices for those in other countries for consistency. Ping @HueMan1, Aristorkle, Ralffralff, Ganmatthew, Sanglahi86, Borgenland, Sky Harbor, Seav, Royiswariii, and AstrooKai: . I'll also ping @P199: whom I asked on certain things on enwiki in the past. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I would not use the terms city, village or town. We should only use term they are clear to define like state, district and municipality. If the municipality is still to large there could be locality or neighborhood but there it also starts to become ambiguous. GPSLeo (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We do have categories like Category:Populated places in Pampanga for cities and towns within one of the provinces here. Should the likes of Category:Night in France by city, Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by city be moved to ... Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: it appears that, even in America, non-city incorporations are also "cities" for categorization purposes here. For instance, under Category:Streets in Pennsylvania by city, are the subcategories Category:Streets in Norristown, Pennsylvania and Category:Streets in West Chester, Pennsylvania, even if Norristown, PA and West Chester, PA are not legal cities but legal towns (Pennsylvanian towns are called boroughs). Also, under Category:People of Pennsylvania by city, are those of non-city Pennsylvanian incorporated populated places (boroughs) like Category:People of Doylestown, Pennsylvania and Category:People of McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

For the category tree of Germany on country level the city category tree is a subcategory of the municipality tree. On the state and lower levels they are separate trees with most cities being also categorized as municipality. GPSLeo (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Russian goroda are cities though? Moscow is a gorod (which is the singular form of goroda). Spontaneously I can't even think of any other Russian translation of the English word "city" than "gorod".

The issue will be that each country has their own definitions of what constitutes a "city" vs. a "town", so to avoid the definition issue we might really be better of by naming the categories Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place. Nakonana (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: perhaps, it's a country-specific issue after all. I've added a "blurb" on top of Category:Municipalities in the Philippines to let non-Pinoy/non-PH-based Wikimedians know that our local government law sharply differentiates cities from towns, and that towns are legally called "municipalities" here. We don't follow the international definition of a "municipality", which includes majority of the world's cities like Paris, Rotterdam, München, Madrid, Budapest, and Nizhniy Novgorod (since these cities are "municipalities" too).

Perhaps the PH-related categories may deviate from the international practice of lumping categories of their towns into city-related categories. There may be Category:Night in the Philippines by city and also Category:Night in the Philippines by municipality. Recategorization shall be made if a [Philippine] municipality legally upgrades into a [Philippine] city (the final incorporation phase of a populated place here).

It's up to the other editors of other countries if they desire to retain the categorization scheme for their respective countries (lumping cities and towns altogether into a city-related topical category), or to rename their categories to officially-appropriate ones (based on what they call to their municipalities), like Category:Night in France by commune or Category:Education buildings in Russia by gorod (though these may be "weird" and inconvenient). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

We don't follow the international definition of a "municipality", which includes majority of the world's cities like Paris, Rotterdam, München, Madrid, Budapest, and Nizhniy Novgorod (since these cities are "municipalities" too). I feel like there might be a little confusion involved here too, though. I can't speak for all cities / countries, but the city Nizhny Novgorod is not a municipality. It is more or less correct that there's also a municipality by the name "Nizhny Novgorod" but the city and the municipality are not the same administrative unit. The city Nizhny Novgorod is part of the municipality by the same name, however, the municipality also encompasses other populated places than the city of Nizhny Novgorod. Maybe this not clear because there's no separate enwiki article on the municipality? But ruwiki has separate articles on the city and the municipality: w:ru:Нижний Новгород (for the city) and w:ru:Нижний Новгород (городской округ) (for the municipality). If you visit the article on the municipality and go to the subsection "Административно-территориальное устройство" -> "Населённые пункты" ("Administrative-territorial structure" -> "Settlements") you'll see a list of settlements that belong to the Nizhny Novgorod municipality, including the city of Nizhny Novgorod. But the city is not the sole entry in that list.

And as for towns, they are called малый город (maly gorod), literally: small city, in Russian, so that they would probably still qualify for categories of the "xx in Russia by city" type. Nakonana (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana perhaps that is the case in Russia, but here, cities and municipalities (or Philippine towns) are populated places and at the same time, political units. For instance, w:en:Baliwag as a local government unit is also the city itself. The mayor of Baliwag exercises jurisdiction in the entire settlement, and there are no other settlements within Baliwag. All cities and towns here are subdivided into administrative villages or wards known as barangays, but usually the barangay that serves as the downtown or the core of a city or town is not the same name as the city or town itself. Typically, that barangay is named "Poblacion" (for example, "Barangay Poblacion, San Pedro, Laguna province). In a nutshell, the populated places here (cities and towns) are also political units themselves. A city or a town is also a political unit, as in "one is to one". Being a populated place here is also being a local-level political unit here that's equivalent to a municipality in other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Re: Nizhniy Novgorod, it may be because that, in most cases, a municipality, headed by a mayor or whoever the local chief executive is, should encompass a single populated place, with no other "towns" or "cities" inside a municipality (except China, since there are "cities" [county-level] inside "cities" [prefecture-level]). As per my example, Baliwag as a local government unit (we don' apply the international definition of municipalities) is also the city itself. The local government unit of w:en:Magalang, Pampanga is also the town itself. No other populated places contained within those settlements. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

In the Netherlands, a municipality (gemeente) typically contains several populated places. Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should take ideas on how other countries design their category trees, but not contort things to make them consistent globally. English is an official language in the Philippines so we should use "city" and "municipality" in categories. It's unfortunate that there is no single term to refer to a city/municipality but it is what it is. I wouldn't be opposed to category names like "Night in the Philippines by city/municipality" with generous redirects to help people along. —seav (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Seav I'm planning to separate towns from Category:Night in the Philippines by city into the prospective category Category:Night in the Philippines by municipality. I have already created a parallel category to Category:Categories of the Philippines by city, which is Category:Categories of the Philippines by municipality, for all topics involving the 1.4K+ PH towns. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Problem probably also involving wikidata

how to document this info? sdc?

for most buildings, i'd make a wd item, but this is just a "Distribution substation", so i dont know what wd ppl will do if an item is created for this. RoyZuo (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter as long as you create a category for it and a link to said category on Wikidata. They don't really care about any kind of actual notability or really anything else outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". This is false. Wikidata's notability policy is at d:WD:N, and items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Not ones that are connected to Commons categories. Although the bar is extremely low to the point of almost being non-exiting regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

You might not like where "The bar" sits, but contrary to your first comment you now apparently accept that it exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

What I originally said was that "they don't really care" about notability. Not that they don't care about it all. I'm sure you get the difference. Maybe it's a language issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, what you actually said was "They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". The existence of "the bar" shows that "they" do indeed really care about a kind of actual notability.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "I disagree with their notability policy". Or perhaps you just meant to dishonestly smear your fellow volunteers. I guess the difference is indeed a language issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant. Your just being pedantic and defense for no reason. Maybe drop the stick and move on. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There is no substantive disagreement here, just stop. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

When i said "i dont know what wd ppl will do", that's just trying to be nice. i'm actually pretty sure they will delete such items in spite of having an osm id and being used as sdc depicts statements, hence my original question. RoyZuo (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: I would do it the other way around: Add the image on OpenStreetMap. That's what I did on https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/555822779 . Multichill (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Items with just only a sitelink to a Commons category are usually not deemed notable in Wikidata. The good way to have the item would be to find and external source that includes the item. Until now, I haven't had any problem with items that are shown in maps with a name (not OSM but official survey maps), but some of the same items were challenged for deletion before I added the reference to the map.

Therefore I suggest either:

• Find a map or a register or a list of distribution substations in Marzahn that can be seen as a reliable source in Wikidata and use it as reference.
• Or challenge the current Wikidata notability policy and try to make accepted that any item that is in use as depicts (P180) in a Commons image is notable. However, please keep in mind that this change would make notable any place, person, car, tree, animal or whatever as long as it has a photograph on Commons. As a Commons user I can see the advantatges of this approach, but as a Wikidata user I see it very problematic, at least.

Pere prlpz (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Letterform Archive

This article is about a new online archive that might be worth mining for copyright-expired and PD-ineligible material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Crop

Can someone crop File:Dr. Pippa Malmgren.png please? If you click on the image and zoom in to the bottom left corner you'll see that the left and bottom need to be cropped a bit and I can't do it on this device. Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I have cropped off the white at left of image. I have uploaded as File:Dr. Pippa Malmgren (cropped).png. If OK you may want to overwrite the existing and get rid of the new image. Keith D (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Graphic Lab is for things like that. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Uploading a new version of a JPG file

Some upteen years ago I uploaded a photograph from the Azores File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg Today I discovered that this was a low-resolution file and I found a larger version of this image in my archive. Tried to upload the new version (size 1000x666 px) but the system is refusing. I get error messages and no clue. I uploaded the new version with a modified name File:Mosteiros sao miguel1.jpg

It is odd. I did upload low-resolution pictures some time ago and am willing to upgrade these, but the system does not accept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotoviski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski, your attempts to overwrite was blocked by the filter, since only autopatrolled users are allowed to overwrite other user’s files. Although you did originally upload File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg to en-wiki, it was later uploaded to Commons by another user. Still, you can request overwriting for this file at Commons:Overwriting existing files/Requests. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski: I added the template to File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg, you can now overwrite it with a higher-resolution version. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks.

It is all too complex for me. I do not even understand most of the lingo used on Wikipedia. For instance - what is "autopatrolled user"?

I have uploaded hundreds, or maybe more than a thousand, photographs to Wikipedia, but the instructions are getting more and more mysterious for me. Kotoviski (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Kotoviski: Autopatrolled users can overwrite existing files, and their edits are automatically marked as patrolled (meaning they're not flagged for potential abuse/vandalism that needs to be double-checked). It's one of the roles a user can have on Commons. You can find the full list on this page, but I've linked to the autopatrolled section in particular: Commons:User access levels#Patrol_and_autopatrol.

On File:Mosteiros sao miguel.jpg's page, below "File history", there should be a link "Upload a new version of this file", which takes you to the upload form where you can upload a new version. You can ignore all the text in the light blue box on top of the form, and scroll to the bottom. The only things you need to do here is provide a source file and a small description of the file changes. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

File was successfully overwritten. I've granted autopatroller status to Kotoviski since they are an experienced user and to prevent future issues with files they've uploaded originally to other wikis. Abzeronow (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Providing information to viewers about distressing content

Hi all

I've recently been working with a part of the UN who have a lot of content they are considering sharing with Commons. A lot of it is what I'd describe as war photography including very distressing images of war crimes; dead bodies including children, graphic injuries including of children, famine conditions etc. My question is are there ways of providing information to people navigating Commons that a folder includes distressing images so they can make an informed decision about wether to look at them? I'm wondering if there is anything similar to a notice for the top of categories etc?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: The closest thing we have to a category disclaimer about potentially offensive/illegal imagery is {{Nazi symbol}} and its derivatives, but as far as I know there are no templates for categories that contain images that depict graphic violence or death. The template I linked earlier is more concerned with legality rather than warning people that content ahead could be shocking, which is (for better or worse) not something Commons does currently. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

One step you can take is to make sure that images are in suitable subcategories, so instead of, say, putting such a picture in "Category:Toyota ambulances", you would put it in "Category:Toyota ambulances in war crime pictures", or some such. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings I agree with the above idea of choosing appropriate categories. There are things like Category:War crimes, Category:Children in war, Category:Dead children, Category:Wounded children, Category:Dead people, Category:Emaciation, etc.

If you put the images in such categories, the name of the category itself will serve as content warning. Nakonana (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks both Pigsonthewing and ReneeWrites, I'm really suprised no one has made some kind of notice before. Has there been a previous RFC or anything similar? I guess the number of photos of modern war crimes available under an open license is quite limited, although there are a lot of distressing war photos from the American government from the Vietnam War etc. John Cummings (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, by the time someone sees the notice, they will already be seeing the image(s). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

A bot on wikidata is moving pages to useless interwikis

This category Category:Three_Enclosures and its subcategories all got randomly moved by a bot from useful wikipedia articles on many wikipedias, to a wikidata that is connected to just one category on Chinese wikipedia. What is going on there and is there a way to stop this? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I added interwikis to the enwiki articles that are actually useful for reference Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:31, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Diff(s), please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1131585&diff=2358526140&oldid=2358440980

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145862&diff=2358526639&oldid=2358376529

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145852&diff=2358527206&oldid=2358370167

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q1145944&diff=2358526728&oldid=2358375617 Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 10:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The bot, which is operated by User:Mike Peel, appears to be acting correctly and in line with the consensus of the Wikidata community (and far from "randomly").

In future, if you wish to criticise the work of another contributor, you should inform them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Yes, that is the correct behaviour. See d:User:Mike Peel/Commons linking for an overview. The Commons category links should be on Category items when they exist. The Wikidata Infobox auto-includes the sitelinks to articles here (you do not need to manually include them), and MediaWiki fetches the Commons category link from the category item as needed. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Mike Peel it appears to be much better than I had thought. The interwikis work well now. But it was very misleading before the wikidata infobox was added. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

"Could not acquire lock. Somebody else is doing something to this file."

I've just uploaded 33 files at the same time, using Upload Wizard (maybe it was a really bad idea). For 2 of them ("Ortofotomapa_Asturias_2010-BELMONTE_DE_MIRANDA.pdf" and "Ortofotomapa_Asturias_2010-CASTRILLON.pdf"), I get the error message "Could not acquire lock. Somebody else is doing something to this file." Those files aren't publicly visible in Commons. If I try to upload them again, I get the same error.

For another 2 files, I got another error message, and the captions were lost (I could solve it manually, later). Although I hadn't done massive uploads recently, I perceive a certain deterioration in the working of Commons, I don't know if I'm the only one who perceives it that way (years ago, I uploaded, I believe, even more files at once).

Returning to the precise issue, I'd like to be able to upload the 2 files again (maybe they where partially published, or something like that?) MGeog2022 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Weird, someone else reported a similar error... Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is a longer eixsting error --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

@Yann and @PantheraLeo1359531, thanks for your responses. I uploaded them again now, and it worked! MGeog2022 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Usually, when an upload is hanging while publishing, it should publish after 20 or 30 minutes or so (after retrying) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorting out the Memory of the World Register categories

I'm doing a project, funded by the Khalili Foundation and in consultation with UNESCO, to update/improve the Wikimedia representation of the Memory of the World International Register. I have been working mostly on Wikidata and English Wikipedia: taking a look at the Commons category system for this important cultural heritage, it's clear drastic recategorisation is needed, hence I'm seeking community input.

The Memory of the World Programme includes a number of heritage registers: the International Register which has nearly 600 inscriptions of global importance, plus regional registers and national registers. There is an explainer document on the UNESCO site. We have Category:Memory of the World Register which is an ambiguous name but whose content almost entirely relates to the International Register. We also have lots of "Memory of the World in [Country]" categories. That's a confusing naming system: does Category:Memory of the World in New Zealand mean 1) heritage on the NZ national register, 2) NZ heritage on the Asia/Pacific regional register, or 3) NZ heritage on the international register? There are instances of heritage being on all three registers, so we need to be able to apply multiple categories.

I propose that there needs to be a new overarching category, Category:Memory of the World Programme, which will contain the current Category:Memory of the World Register, renamed to Category:Memory of the World International Register, alongside separate categories for the other registers. The country categories such as Category:Memory of the World in New Zealand probably should be empty apart from three sub-categories for the national register, the NZ content in the regional register, and the NZ content in the international register, which would mean creating a set of categories named something like Category:Memory of the World International Register in New Zealand.

Does this sound like a sensible set of changes? Thanks in advance for any feedback, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

•  Support. Yes, it does. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support sounds like a reasonable approach. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Per Pigsonthewing and Jmabel. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

...things look...different?

Does the site (in Monobook) look different to anyone else? I noticed that on here there's now, instead of "section header above a horizontal rule", it's now "horizontal rule, then section header, then "Latest comment: | number of comments| number of people in discussion". And I came here because I noticed the "Open in Media Viewer" button on images looked more crowded in... (...and ah, it is Wednesday... I don't think this is an improvement.) - The Bushranger (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not a bug, but a feature (really), see COM:VPT#Tech News: 2025-24: “The appearance of talk pages will change at almost all Wikipedias. [...]” You can deactivate it in your preferences. --Rosenzweig τ 07:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

...still has the "edit" just to the right of the topic and "subscribe" way over to the right where "edit" should be, but that's mostly better - thanks for letting me know about that. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It looks a little silly in Vector Legacy - the date heading has a horizontal rule under it, and there's a second horizontal rule above the section header. So the first discussion under a date (like this one) has two separate lines above it. Omphalographer (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

Vote now in the 2025 U4C Election

Crop for Wikidata

Dear people,

I addition to uploading files, checking descriptions and updating categories, another was to help is to crop some images.

Category:Crop for Wikidata lists 12,000 photos that could be cropped, especially group pictures.

These pictures can be cropped easily with https://croptool.toolforge.org – would you like to help?

Sulov Jondauss 76 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2025 (UTC).

At least some of these are for Wikidata items that already have good images (in some cases better images), so this calls for some care. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Maps per year shown BC

How to create category:maps per year 31BC ?

Category:Maps showing 31BC (as a try)

{{MapsYearShown|3|1}}...with BC somewhere Io Herodotus (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The template {{MapsYearShown}} only work for AD years, so it cannot be used for BC years. For now, the simplest thing you can do is just add the navbox and categories directly to the category page. I will see if I can modify the template so it works or maybe just create a new template for them. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus I made one for the BC years, see {{MapsBCYearShown}}. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)