Jump to content

Commons:Village pump

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/04.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 10,000 files to be categorized, please 14 8 NearEMPTiness 2025-04-22 18:58
2 Updating needed ––– outdated files 3 1 Prototyperspective 2025-04-18 14:36
3 Commons:Files from studies 2 1 Prototyperspective 2025-04-20 15:52
4 What is the actual incentive for admins to refrain from out-of-process deletions? 17 7 Adamant1 2025-04-21 13:42
5 Uploading works by a third party 3 2 Jmabel 2025-04-20 00:45
6 Coordinate and Categories 4 4 Nakonana 2025-04-21 12:55
7 Flickr limiting filesize downloads from free accounts 5 5 Samwilson 2025-04-20 03:21
8 Bulk upload of Swisstopo images 11 4 Yann 2025-04-18 07:59
9 Category:English-language SVG charts etc 11 2 Jmabel 2025-04-24 20:55
10 Uploading many JPG files from Internet Archive 2 2 999real 2025-04-18 14:18
11 request for bot 7 3 JotaCartas 2025-04-20 23:12
12 PDF thumbnail not rendering 8 4 ReneeWrites 2025-04-20 13:06
13 Should every location have it's own "by year" subcategory? 11 8 Prototyperspective 2025-04-21 12:08
14 Unidentified Baden-Württemberg stations 5 2 Smiley.toerist 2025-04-21 10:34
15 Question about Commons:project scope and AI generated images 50 10 Jmabel 2025-04-24 19:26
16 Turrets 3 2 Jmabel 2025-04-20 21:18
17 Garba and Dandiya Raas 2 2 DoctorWhoFan91 2025-04-21 16:46
18 Central Notice 1 1 Manfred Werner (WMAT) 2025-04-21 18:15
19 Brief statement by HingWahStreet 1 1 HingWahStreet 2025-04-22 05:17
20 Category:Green (text) 6 5 Omphalographer 2025-04-25 04:35
21 Dating postcard with 45 cent stamp 7 6 RoyZuo 2025-04-25 07:22
22 Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps 9 4 Infrogmation 2025-04-24 16:56
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

April 06

10,000 files to be categorized, please

A small team started in November 2024 to add at least one category to the files that had been shown in Category:All media needing categories as of 2018. We have reduced the number from 40,000 to 10,000, and now we need the help of experienced users, please, to add categories to the remaining files. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you encounter files with Cyrillic descriptions or names add them to Category:Media needing categories (Cyrillic names). That's the category which I'm trying to work through systematically. (Already cleared the sub-categories for Belarusian and Ukrainian language files.) Nakonana (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: I have been working on "Media needing categories" for years, and my experience is that using Wikidata is very helpful. In the search box you can enter the name of the person or the relevant word of the topic in any language. The result can ideally be the Commons category or a link to a Wikipedia article or a page within Wikidata. If there is no result, it depends on the description of the image what should be added as a category. If there is a positive result, I add the image to Wikidata if there is no image or a very bad image. I also check if the image can be useful on a Wikipedia page if there is no direct transfer from Wikidata to Wikipedia (for example the English and German WP). Wouter (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link to its parent cat at Commons:Categorization requests. One could also build various search queries for that category by which categorization becomes easier for various subsets. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone and categorized about ten files. It might seem little help, but I don't have much time. Anyway, if all readeers entered and categorized some files, a great decrease would be done.
And don't be shy! There are stuff in Cyrillic, yeah, but quite some files are pretty straightforward to categorize. I found one from a football team in Colombia, a place clearly in Chechnya, a monument related to castellers in Barcelona... And a lot of things I don`t know, but maybe you, you or you are familiar with that tree, language, flag or ''chisme''.
Good luck!
B25es (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One can use the information contained in the image, but one misses the location and date for more extensive categories. Example: File:Homecoming (44495938).jpeg. The only location clue is the German text.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add such images to Category:Unidentified locations or a relevant subcategory, where folks including myself would be happy to try to track it down! Sam Walton (talk) 10:58, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The categorisation team is growing, but we still need to categorise 9,000 files, please, from "I" to "Z", or by adding categories to more obvious candidates in between. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides it only being up to 2018, aren't there also many files that don't have categories that aren't in these by year cats? Example: Special:Diff/1019907777. Also, many files have a category but not the category/ies most relevant / where the file would be most useful or likely to be looked for. Overall, I think on the issue of missing categories, some bot is needed that suggests categories (if not adding a subset automatically) that then only need to be checked with a short click. Otherwise it won't scale to even just the files in those by year cats and will take too much time while many cats will get missed being added. See also Suggested edits (e.g. here). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a bot would be usedful, especially for persons, whose name is listed in the file name, on Wikidata and in the article. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is useful when such a bot takes also a look in the general categories like Category:People with for example a file as File:Luiza Avetisyan phd.jpg. Or Category:Men with for example File:Kerényi Attila.jpg. In that case there is a link to Wikidata and Wikipedia. Wouter (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Start now, or you might miss the opportunity to categorise 8,000 files, please, from "K" to "Z", or by adding categories to more obvious candidates in between. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been categorizing files sporadically but mostly later years.
Please be sure to check for copyvios if applicable (if it looks suspicious). These are rather common among uncategorized files. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and advice. Now we need to categorise or delete 7,000 files, please, from "L" to "Z", or by adding categories to more obvious candidates in between. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 12

Updating needed ––– outdated files

There are many files that need an update, including many that are used a lot across mainspace Wikipedias.

Could there be some coordinated / routine efforts to update outdated things like outdated charts that are used?

I think this is really important, posting about it already even though there could be more info and guidance. Comment if you have an ideas or more queries / tools that could be useful for this.

Priority things to update (examples):

See the somewhat-new Category:Wikipedia updating.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prototyperspective (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • New WikiProject proposal for things like this on Wikipedia: Proposing a new WikiProject Data Visualization. I've linked to here from there and if you're interested in participating in this WikiProject, you could leave a comment there.
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 13

Commons:Files from studies

New meta page describing how to upload files from studies and about science media on Commons.

Scientific media (mainly datagraphics and scientific illustrations/diagrams) is probably some of the most educational and most useful and often used in Wikipedia articles. However, still nearly nobody else uploads many of these so more participation would be good.

Maybe users here have some further info to add to this page. It details the current procedure in ca 17 steps which also is relevant if people would like to improve it, e.g. to make it smoother and quicker. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Upload tool poll#Study2Commons. Such a tool could make it easier to upload such images but it seems unfeasible there will be one such in the near future. This the page linked above has some info how to find and upload them. If you know of further ways to find CCBY images in studies than the ones listed there, please add them. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 14

What is the actual incentive for admins to refrain from out-of-process deletions?

Apparently this isnt an valid reason for undeletion. Which means people can just delete files if they are scared that the DR will fail considering you cant make DR for delete files --Trade (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The incentive is that if someone gets things wrong a lot, they lose the community's confidence as a admin.
you cant make DR for delete files doesn't make a lot of sense, but you can always make a UDR for a deleted file, if that is what you meant. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd ask myself instead what is the actual incentive for admins to delete files?. Apparently you see administrators as people in constant need of deleting files, and never get satisfied with that. Strakhov (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...As i already said i was told that an file getting deleted for an invalid reason isn't enough reason to get an UDR accepted Trade (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted for a valid reason- namely, privacy. It was not deleted for the reason that was mentioned in the DR- it would only be the case of an invalid deletion if it was based on the DR. Out-of-process deletions might not be good in themself, but it's still a valid way to delete files when something as serious as subject consent is present. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the deleted photos were voted to be kept after being undeleted. Trade (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which photos are you talking about, because this is the only one I saw in your recent contributions. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If files are deleted for privacy reasons this is not mentioned in the deletion comment to avoid scraping of such files form caches. GPSLeo (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If was several photos of women playing sports Trade (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91 well, the file should have been DR-ed instead of speedy-ed, since anything related to privacy without an actual complaint from the subject/s is subjective and best resolved through a deletion request. We do have thousands of images by the infamous Filipino judge w:en:Florentino Floro (who goes by his now-blocked account Judgefloro (talk · contribs) and his socks like FBenjr123 (talk · contribs) and Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs)) that show people (esp. children). A couple of the subjects he took aren't apparently aware that they are being taken (e.g. File:09977jfBuga Sapang Mandili Roads San Miguel Bulacan Pampangafvf 11.JPG and File:09977jfBuga Sapang Mandili Roads San Miguel Bulacan Pampangafvf 15.JPG, as well as a couple of images under Category:Cycling men in the Philippines). Any way, these cases are best resolved through DRs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 23:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the image being talked about(the one I saw in trade's undeletion requests)- had a woman giving a blowjob, so I think that's a bigger violation of privacy than these are. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you looked at the talk page of the file you could see that the community voted to keep twice it because they found the complaint to be unfounded
Again, is this really what we want to be the new norm on Commons? Besides if there was any complaint from the subject it should go through VRT, not DR Trade (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: the prior proposed deletions were not on the basis of the privacy issue. This is just like we could have a file kept after a discussion as to whether it is in scope, but still delete it later over a copyright issue. - Jmabel ! talk 00:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Guess i was thinking on another image? Either way it's difficult to argue on reasoning when the community was never allowed to be involved Trade (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a woman giving a blowjob- the community does not need to be involved for that, pretty clear cut case. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think so but it increansingly seems like you can just put a SD template on any file for any reasoning and 9/10 times it will get deleted anyways.--Trade (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the area, but I don't see why that shouldn't be the standard if it's something like a logo where there's hundreds of thousands of them on here and most of them are unused SPAM uploaded by SPA accounts. It's impossible to deal with the large amount of SPAM garbage on here through normal DRs. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading works by a third party

We get a lot of relatively new users who either stumble when trying to upload third-party work or who ask very similar questions either here or on the help desk. I've written Commons:Uploading works by a third party as a general guide that I think covers almost all cases and pitfalls that I've seen. (Yes, there are some really weird edge cases that are not covered there, but I've tried to cover everything that I've seen come up more than a couple of times.) I'm hoping that a lot of the time we can just link this rather than need to write a bespoke help-page answer or user-talk-page comment.

Besides the possibility of linking to the document as a whole, there will be times when it is useful to link Commons:Uploading works by a third party#Is the content you want to upload already free-licensed or in the public domain? or (especially) Commons:Uploading works by a third party#If you need to obtain a license for copyrighted work, which starts with a "What not to do" section that might help head off a problem we see almost daily. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I might just by cynical but i feel like most issues from uploading works from third parties comes from the uploader neither replying to nor reading any of the templates on their talk page only to get upset when their inactivity backfires at them with the files getting deleted or a block after an complaint to AN Trade (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The templates on their talk page are not nearly sufficient to explain how to do it right. In the process of writing this, I even turned up one issue that was major enough that it is going to result in a change to the Upload Wizard because the developers of that tool hadn't properly thought through one significant scenario. If they are confused, where does that leave the average user? - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate and Categories

Hi! I think I saw a bot on Wikimedia Commons that could categorize files based on their coordinates. Could you tell me if such a bot actually existed, or am I mistaken? Mitte27 (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have bots that copy coordinates from a photo's metadata to the structured data, but as far as I know they don't add categories based on that information (except for maintenance categories sometimes, if the coordinates are 0,0 for instance). ReneeWrites (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Few categories can be added solely on the basis of coordinates, and those few are usually ones that are too general. A city or district category might be of help for those categorising the file further, but if the subject is an author, a car or a photo in a family album, we probably don't want the file hidden away there. A bot can be helpful in suggesting such categories, but there needs to be a human who determines whether the category is useful and whether additional categories are needed for the file to be findable. –LPfi (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cultural heritage sites could be added by coordinates. For example, {{Cultural Heritage Russia}} usually has the cultural heritage site number as a hyperlink to a website that has the coordinates of the heritage site in question. That website also often has a link to the relevant Commons category. And the template can also be added to the Commons category itself. So, in such a case, it would be possible to just add the heritage template and leave the categories to a bot? (Check out Category:Cathedral of the Epiphany in Tula Kremlin and File:71 Богоявленский собор Тульского кремля 2.jpg for an example of how the above template works and what info it provides. It actually adds several (hidden) categories, such as Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia with known IDs and Category:WLM/7110014001 — the heritage site's registration number.) Nakonana (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 15

Flickr limiting filesize downloads from free accounts

I just received an email from Flickr, saying:

Starting May 15, 2025, Flickr will restrict the downloading of original and large (larger than 1024px) sizes of photos owned by free accounts. If you use a free account, this update applies to both your own content and to content shared by other free members. In addition, videos stored on free accounts will no longer be downloadable once the change takes effect.

...

This restriction won't apply to Creative Commons licensed photos.

Flickr Commons members are exempt from this change and will retain access to all download sizes.

Obviously this will have an impact on us when we want to use PD images or videos from such accounts, incorrectly tagged as being in copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing, yes, I noticed this too today. This will have some important impact indeed (for example I'm uploading some hundreds of photos shot by the Romanov family and stored on their albums scanned just on Flickr by one user... and now I shall hurry up!).
What do you suggest to do?
Thanks. -- LucaLindholm (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LucaLindholm I'd recommend uploading using Commons:OpenRefine or other such tools to speed up the process -- DaxServer (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This restriction won't apply to Creative Commons licensed photos." That's oddly specific. Is there any context behind this change?--Trade (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr have a few times given special status to open licensed photos, I think. When they first started deleting extra photos (after being bought by Smugmug) I'm pretty sure they didn't delete CC ones (at least, that was my experience). I think they might just care about open content (c.f. flickr.org), or figure that they can at least start with harsher measures for closed stuff and see if that gets things as far as they need to. Sam Wilson 03:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 16

Bulk upload of Swisstopo images

Since 2021, all data (including images) from Swisstopo (Swiss Federal Office of Topography) are freely accessible, and thus can be published on Wimikedia commons. See COM:SWISSTOPO. However, looking at Template:Attribution-Swisstopo it seems like only a few hundred images were uploaded to Commons.

Swisstopo has hundreds of thousands of high quality images with rich metadata, for example terrestrial images, historical images, technical images. These could be highly valuable in general (as they are not so easily discoverable in search engines) but also for the broader Wikimedia communities, e.g., to illustrate articles, thanks to the rich metadata.

I didn't find any previous discussions on this, so I was wondering: is there any concern with a bulk upload to Commons? I don't have any experience with bulk uploads, but this is something I'd be happy to look into. 7804j (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@7804j: https://www.swisstopo.admin.ch/en/legal-framework says, "Copyright and any other rights relating to texts, illustrations, photos or any other data available on the websites of swisstopo are the exclusive property of swisstopo or of any other expressly mentioned owners. Any reproduction requires the prior written consent of the copyright holder." That would seem to make the matter at least ambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 20:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in the template is only for geodata including orthophotos but not for other photos. GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: I'm completely inclined to believe you, but if you are correct then I believe Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Switzerland#Data_published_by_the_Swiss_Federal_Office_of_Topography_swisstopo is currently misleading, if not downright inaccurate. - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The description is totally correct. The term data in this context means geodata which does not include regular photos. This is a very common differentiation in European license and data usage policies. GPSLeo (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the geodata terms of use also apply to the images.
For example, the terrestrial images page's terms of use section links directly to the "Terms of use for free geodata and geoservices (OGD) from swisstopo", not the broader legal framework. Also this press release lists a lot of geoservices that are also included in the framework, including orthophotos.
I don't see any statement that would suggest images are excluded, and I agree with Jmabel that the current wording of the policy in Commons strongly suggests that it also applies to images 7804j (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have reached out to Swisstopo, who confirmed that my interpretation is correct. All images are free to use with attribution.
Pasting their response below (in French):
Nous vous remercions de votre demande et de votre intérêt pour les images historiques.
Depuis le 1er mars 2021, nos données peuvent être utilisées et publiées librement.
Géodonnées de base gratuites (OGD) (admin.ch)
Pour la publication des prises de vue terrestres, techniques, et des images historiques vous n’avez donc pas besoin d’autorisation de reproduction et aucun émolument n’est perçu.
Nous vous prions seulement de mentionner la source suivante :
Source : Office fédéral de topographie swisstopo
ou
© swisstopo
De plus amples informations et l'accès aux géodonnées gratuites sont disponibles à l’adresse
Géodonnées et applications (admin.ch)
Informations générales sur l'obtention de géodonnées (admin.ch)
Nous avons prix connaissance de votre remarque.
Nous restons à votre entière disposition pour tout autre renseignement. 7804j (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j: FYI, I already uploaded all maps in 2023. Please see Category:Swisstopo map sheets. Yann (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@7804j: I have looked at these images. They are indeed interesting and of high resolution, e.g. File:Handhabung, Doppeldecker Häfeli DH-5 (Militär) für Aerofotogrammetrie Aufnahmen, 000398822, edit.jpg. What general category do you suggest for these (Category:Images from the Swiss Federal Office of Topography?) Is there an API to retrieve all the information? You could start a request at Commons:Batch uploading if you can't upload these yourself. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They have csv files with the metadata and download links, which would work. But for some reason this metadata is missing the most important attribute, which is the description... I've reached out to Swisstopo to find out if there's another way to get the description programmatically, or if I missed something. For the category, I was thinking of Category:Swisstopo historic. 7804j (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw this. This is not really meaningful. We can do better. Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 17

Category:English-language SVG charts etc

Does it make sense to add datagraphics to it? That category

  • does not contain very many SVG datagraphics in English
  • Adding a translation using the SVG Translate tool does not add a language category like that automatically so many translated SVG files do not have such (at least for many of the langs they had been translated to)
  • In the search one can filter by the SVG filetype

--Prototyperspective (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good to have and files should be added, I'll add lots of files there. Either we have these cats and they are meant to be as complete as possible or we don't. If these exist, I think it would be best if some bot added or moved cats accordingly, so for example if it's an SVG file and somewhere in the charts category, it would be moved to Category:SVG charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "datagraphics"? The word is not in Wiktionary, and a Google search is absolutely unilluminating. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics that visualize data; and you can add a space between data and graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't clarify much. Which of the following would fall within what you mean?
Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you make this thread be about another subject that's at most tangential. That's not the subject; I think the first is clearly a datagraphic and the fifth an information graphic and all the other ones are diagrams or mathematical/physics graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all tangential. You asked, "Does it make sense to add datagraphics to it?" Almost a week later, no one had responded, probably because (like me) they could not work out what your vague term meant.
As far as I can tell, all of these in some sense provide a visual representation of data, that's why I gave them as examples; based on your response, it appears to be a question of the nature of the data and also (if the fifth does not fall in this category) the nature of the representation. Could you explain why the second and fourth one don't qualify? Is it the nature of the data? Or are you just remarking on them not being labeled in English (it would have taken a lot longer for me to find examples with English-language labels, that wasn't the thrust of my question, sorry if that was unclear). - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a good idea to have a thread about that, I mean it's a good subject, just not very relevant here: simply replace word "datagraphics" in my post with word "graphics" or when it comes to the cat linked in the thread title with word "charts".
I don't see which data the second is supposed to visualize. Data graphics are about clear data like the data in the first graphic. The fourth seems to be a schema, not actual measures of hormetic dose response, it illustrates roughly how the response is thought to be. It would be a datagraphic if it visualized say 100 people's measures with an average. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the "data" has to be data about the actual material world, not (for example) random numbers or an arbitrary test case. Correct? FWIW, for the second one I suspect it does map the data from some real-world experiment, but it is not well enough documented for us to know, so ultimately it is hard to care. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The second one may be about actual data but it doesn't visualize it an understandable meaningful way as far as I can see; I don't know if this scribbled chaotic something is supposed to make sense to people but it doesn't seem like it. I think it's not statistical. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that one is positional. So let's extrapolate a bit: let's say it represented the observed movement of a pod of whales over time, and was captioned in English with dates corresponding to a few points. Would it then qualify?
Anyway, if I now understand correctly, what you are proposing to add to Category:English-language SVG charts are SVG charts that express real-world statistical data, and have at least some captioning in English? That sounds entirely reasonable. Or is there something beyond that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 18

Uploading many JPG files from Internet Archive

Hi, is there any easy way to upload a lot of JPG files (different titles/URLs) from IA to Commons? Similar to IA-upload tool, but that tool only for PDF/DJVUs. I need something like that, but for JPGs. (I have many things to import, so downloading/manual import is out of the question). Bennylin (yes?) 13:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For this I will probably use https://url2commons.toolforge.org and use JavaScript on the pages to get the titles file links and desciptions somehow from IA  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

request for bot

Is there a bot that can insert the date/time from the exif metadata into the image? In question about 140 images from user Category:Photographs by Mark Ahsmann taken in Sintra here --JotaCartas (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, nor do I think such a bot would be accepted. Visible timestamps in images are discouraged, and considered redundant if that information is already in the EXIF data. Images with visible timestamps can be tagged with a template to have them removed, but the reverse never happens. You can read up a bit on the policy at COM:WM#What_are_not_watermarks, see also the description of Template:Watermark with the "timestamp" parameter. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you may be wright .. but .. It is not possible to use EXIF data in tools like PetScan and/or AWB (at least I don't know how to use it), thanks JotaCartas (talk) 21:02, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JotaCartas: that seems like a non-sequitur to what you originally wrote, so maybe your initial question (which ReneeWrites answered) was not quite what you meant to asked. She presumed (as did I) that you wanted a visible timestamp overwritten onto the image, like a watermark. Did you mean something else? If so, could you clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, actually what I want is to transfer the complete EXIF ​​data to the "|data=" field of the "Information" template. The reason is to be able to obtain a list of images of a of a certain user sorted by "date/hour/min" to determine their +- exact location. JotaCartas (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JotaCartas: That sounds like something that could be automated. You could ask at COM:BR to see if this is possible. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks I will try there JotaCartas (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 19

PDF thumbnail not rendering

Just checked the file File:BBC_Charter_2017.pdf and found the PDF thumbnail is not rendered, why???

Pinging @999real DinhHuy2010 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DinhHuy2010: It is rendering for me, 5 hours later.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. THE THUMBNAIL RENDERED ON MY SIDE, LET'S GOOO!!!!!! DinhHuy2010 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also just add structured data too... DinhHuy2010 (talk) 10:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've had this problem with a number of files myself. Some started working again, but File:Meccano Magazine 1929-07.pdf hasn't rendered a thumbnail in months. Does anyone know why this happens or how it can be fixed? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, but pdf not rendering in initial upload (usually tied to metadata extraction failure) but then working fine after a purge, seems quite common. I've seen many reports of it. It needs someone to investigate more fully. Its probably something easy to fix once the root cause is identified, but its not clear right now what that cause is. You could try asking the WMF to investgate (ping @Sannita (WMF)) Bawolff (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone report this to phab? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 03:27, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually the opposite case here. The thumbnail rendered after the upload, but then broke after a few days. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should every location have it's own "by year" subcategory?

I take a lot of pictures in Iceland and have noticed that many of my pictures have been moved to a subcategory of when it was taken. I feel this is not very usefull information since it's already in the description. These changes are mostly done by user Hornstrandir1. I quickly found a few examples Category:Raufarhólshellir by year, Category:Snæfell by year, Category:Esjufjöll by year, Category:Bárðarbunga by year, Category:Kambabrún by year. You can see that many of the categories within them only have 1 or 2 files. What are the guidelines regarding putting images in categories regarding their year? I have found them useful when looking for pictures of individuals, because you want the most recent image of the person. But places rarely change that much over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steinninn (talk • contribs) 21:38 , 19 April 2025 (UTC)

”But places rarely change that much over the years.” I disagree, some places may not change a lot but other places do. Could be some sort of natural disaster, natural progress (new development, become abandoned ect.). Bidgee (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they don't change. I said they rarely change that much. That is still true. But you are right, over centuries you can see changes. And sometimes (rarely), there are big changes within just a few months. But my question is, should Raufarhólshellir, Snæfell, Esjufjöll and so on have a category for every year? Steinninn ♨ 23:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines are mostly "do what makes sense". For a major city, that may be a category per month. If this is resulting in categories with one or two files, though, then this is too granular; decade or even century may be more appropriate than year. For somewhere like Kambabrún where we have a grand total of two photos, date categories at this level of locality are an outright liability. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Id say no. "By year" is way to granular in most instances and just leds to images not being categorized by more meaningful criteria like "by subject." There's been of ton CfDs in the past where there was clear consensus to get rid of "by year" categories in instances where they have little or no files to. So there's clearly a consensus against them in instances like this. I'd say its not an either or thing though. If there's enough images to justify it, cool. Create or keep the categories. Otherwise don't. But one or two images in a category clearly isn't enough to justify it. People just like navigation templates to have blue links. They don't care if the categories actually makes sense or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 So should I start removing the images from the categories or contact the person that created them? Steinninn ♨ 03:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just up-merge the images to "by decade" categories or something. You can cite this conversation if they say anything. I created a list of CfDs and Village Pump discussions for "by year" categories on User talk:G.dallorto in the second to last section. You can always cite some of them if you have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Steinninn ♨ 05:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"By year" categories should be treated like any other, in that there needs to be enough media to justify the split. One or two files per category is too granular. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree what seems emerging consensus - no everywhere does not need year categories, but they are often useful for places which regularly generate large numbers of files. (I don't think we need a hard rule for exact number of files, but when there are more than 200 (default page view) files in a category I often look if there is are easy and useful ways to make subcategories.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Often, those large numbers of files should get categorised according to other criteria. For the cave, e.g., there are probably a number of features that often get photographed, and one of them might get photographed one year and another another year, based on the interests and routes of the photographers visiting. Years, or even decades, are seldom the most important criterium when searching for images – and as the original poster notes, dates are noted separately, so can be searched for regardless of categorisation. –LPfi (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all you said except that sadly dates can't be searched well regardless of categorization. See phab:T329961 (and the links in the latest comment there). They're already in the file information template but there is no way to a) search and b) date-range-filter them. Often, files belong into multiple subcategories of a category so I think they would best not be removed from the top level when put into a by year cat so they can be put into a by subject cat by others more easily/likely. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified Baden-Württemberg stations

Two unidentified stations in Baden-Württemberg:

I placed the first image in Baden-Württemberg because of the Eppingen destination and the previous slides where in the general area. Category:2003 in tram transport in Mannheim and Category:2003 in tram transport in Heidelberg (I probably started from Heidelberg).Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second station is an unidentified dead-end station, with the destination board displaying Meckesheim.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost certainly Aglasterhausen. The first could then be Meckesheim, where the railcar would return to.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first one is indeed Meckesheim, the level crossing immediately south of the train station. There are just three tracks now, but there used to be more. The platform (where the people are standing) looks similar to the one in this 1985 photo. --Rosenzweig τ 12:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The third image confirms the conclusions. ✓ DoneSmiley.toerist (talk) 10:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Is there a category for files with this technical issue?

--Trade (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: What issue? I reset the QuickTime 144p (MJPEG) transcode successfully.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the video Trade (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the same on YouTube, so it is not a bug on our end but a weird issue with the original video file uploaded. Not sure if there is such a category though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Commons:project scope and AI generated images

Hi. According to Commons:project scope "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." There was recently a DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Science Fantasy platform city on an exoplanet.png, where an AI generated image was kept because it was being used in a German language article for science fantasy since according to the closer "Commons does not override the editorial autonomy of sister projects." Normally, I'd be fine with that. The problem is that the image was added to the article by Prototyperspective, a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia. He also has a history of adding AI generated images to other projects in order to game the system. Something that he's been reported to ANU and admonished for doing multiple times. So it seems like the editorial autonomy of a sister project was already violated by him adding the image to the article.

It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata. Last month he created Wikidata:List of science fiction themes and has been uploading and adding AI generated images to Wikidata items based on it. Last year he was report to ANU for doing the same thing but on Wikibooks. I'm not going to relitigate the whole thing. It seems like an increasing issue that can't be dealt with through deletion requests because of how the policy is currently worded though. So I think it should include something like "any usage of AI generated images on sister projects by someone who isn't a regular contributor and/or where there's better (non-AI generated) alternatives is invalid." Thoughts? Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be solved on the projects where the files are used. They need to remove the file from the page and block the user. GPSLeo (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: I feel like it's our issue to deal with if there's already a line in the policy that bad faith usage isn't valid to begin with and the user doing it is from Commons. Obviously it's not on sister projects to enforce our policies. Otherwise, if no one is willing to enforce that part of the policy then it should just be removed. But it's ridiculous to put it on other projects to remove images that were added by our users in an attempt to get around our policies. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can remove it from the other project as long as you do not break any local rules by doing so. If projects fail fighting vandalism this is a task for the global admins and stewards. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: That's fair. I wasn't sure if it was allowed it or not given how people on here don't like anything that comes off as gaming the system. I'd still like to see the policy actually enforced or that part of it changed or removed if it's not going to be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Prototyperspective was actually reported at the noticeboards on en.wp for the use of AI images.
A change to policy might be good- though of course it is difficult- we don't want Commons to be overrun with slop, but we also can't ask other projects to keep an eye on file usage. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting adding useful illustrations, some of them made by AI, is vandalism? And on ENWP I was reported mostly for making a thread and replying two often in two threads, not for adding AI images against which a rule was made only after I added them. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think I've mentioned vandalism anywhere in any comment I've made about it. Nice try though. I know it's impossible for you to be honest about the subject, but come on. If your going to respond to me at least have the respect to base it on what I actually said. And just an FYI for other people, he's topic banned from anything having to do with AI generated images on English Wikipedia for exactly this type of behavior. Along with replying two often in two threads, but the endless dishonesty was a large part of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to GPSLeo when he wrote If projects fail fighting vandalism. for exactly this type of behavior and I just made one reply to clarify one misconception you had, namely that I was referring to you when I wrote this. Keeping my replies minimal. a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia is also false by the way. @GPSLeo: who replied below: okay but it does make that impression to users who read this thread. Moreover, not being fine with what a user does usually does not result in some immediate block but instead people get warned and/or discuss, you seemed to suggest like if I add images people on a project don't like they should immediately block me. I didn't add many but those stayed for over a year because they are due and useful. My contributions are good-intentioned, cost me time, and constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this doesn't quite meet the level of "bad faith". There might be better images, and projects might not want to use AI for this purpose, but ultimately it is depicting something that could realistically be described as a science fantasy scape. To me, when i think bad faith, i would think blatent vandalism (e.g. if they put this image on the article for catapillar). Seems like for this sort of thing it would be better to revisit when/if projects remove all usages. Bawolff (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bawolff: It's as much about the user doing it and their previous history around the subject then a particular image or edit. But there are other images of science fantasy that would have worked perfectly fine instead of the AI-generated one. It's bad faithed because Prototyperspective specifically picked an AI generated image that he uploaded himself over exiting ones, added it to an article on a project that he's not a contributor to, and then argued that the image can't be deleted because it's in use. All of which is something that he's already been reported to ANU for. Obviously if some random users of the German Wikipedia just put an AI image in an article for lack of anything better to use that wouldn't be "bad faithed." That's not really the issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there are other images of science fantasy that would have worked perfectly fine This is. false. And I already explained it to you in the DR. And if there is an image, it doesn't mean there can't be two or even five in the article. It's bad faithed Will you ever stop wikihounding me and making continuous unwarranted bad faith accusations? article on a project that he's not a contributor to I'm a contributor to that project.
  • What I personally think what would be appropriate: thanking me for spending lots of time and effort to close an identified media gap on a subject I'm somewhat knowledgable and interested in.
  • What is happening instead: hostility and accusations and having to justify myself in threads like this. It's totally fine if nobody thanks me but this is the exact hostility that drives other kinds of people of the Wikimedia projects and away from providing missing media and contributing constructively where contributions are most valuable.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: You were reported to ANU for adding images to Wikibooks and added the image in the DR to the German Wikipedia when you aren't a regular contributor to the project. Those aren't "accusations", those things literally happened. So What bad faithed accusations am I making here? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. I'm a regular contributor to that project. 2. I'm allowed and even encouraged to make useful Wikibooks. I don't know which ANU you refer to but making an ANU because I create a useful WikiBook is absurd in itself and not a good point and perfectly illustrates the wikihounding in my opinion. 3. You make the bad faith accusations that I do things in order to game the system and that my contributions are bad-intentioned, inappropriate and malicious. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. You've made 987 edits since 2019 and most of them were to same four or five articles having to do with science fiction or a Wikiproject having to do with AI. I wouldn't call that a "regular contributor." 3. this ANU complaint and I think it's perfectly valid to point out since it part of a pattern of problematic behavior on your end across multiple projects 3. People certainly thought you adding images to Wikibooks was gaming the system. I could care less either way but other people certainly thought that's what you were doing and you are topic banned from the area on Wikipedia for inappropriate behavior having to do with it.
Again, those are just facts and it's not wikihounding to point them out. Especially since your the one who always goes off and derails these conversations. That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions. I'd love to never talk about you again. Your the one forcing me to by endlessly making things about you and your personal grievances. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Some users make thousands of edits to fix typos, is that really worth so much more than large edits updating articles on major subjects that are read a lot with important scientific information? A thousand edits is not little and it's not just the same four or five articles but many, especially up to a year ago. It's somewhat offtopic anyway and just further shows the wikihounding behavior.
3. If I add images to a wikibook at one point when I think of creating the wikibook, people accuse me of gaming the system – do I need to wait and create it later so less people care about me creating the very useful and due wikibook?
your the one who always goes off and derails these conversations This is precisely false. I address points and dislike it a lot when people ignore mine and do not address the subject which is also why the ANU was started since I asked people to please stay ontopic right from the start. Just look at this thread: where have I gone offtopic and not addressed a point made?
I'd love to never talk about you again. Your the one forcing me to by endlessly making it about you and your personal grievances. How did I force you? You keep wikihounding me and making bad faith accusations and I doubtful you will ever stop just like I'm not so certain you will stop the personal attacks that got you to ANU multiple times. That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions I think this thread was started by you and specifically refers to me and what I did. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep wikihounding me and making bad faith accusations You mean like your comment on Wikidata about how I have a huge problem with anything AI-generated and just want to have it removed from the project when the conversation had absolutely nothing to do with you? That's literally your game. All you do is Wikihound me and make bad faithed accusations any time I say anything about AI anywhere. Be my guest and don't though.
I think this thread was started by you and specifically refers to me and what I did. Yeah, because your the one who uploaded the image that the DR was about and added it to the German Wikipedia article. Come on. I'm not going to ask a question on the Village Pump without saying why I'm asking it. That's just the way it works. It's not like I'm insulting you for no reason in a conversation that has nothing to do with me like your doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You started that discussion at the same time as this one and here you are referring to me adding some AI image(s) to another project. You are making tons of threads about AI and replied in nearly every one of them and I think it's a due mention there that you are quite opposed to these. In any case to any reader of this and the other thread that's not a bad faith accusation and it wouldn't make your continuous countless bad faith accusations against me any better or less of such. I don't wikihound you at all. You keep on making ANU threads and VP threads and whatnot about everything AI-related that I do and often refer to me and vote delete in any DR of files uploaded by me, iirc often started by you. Now this is going offtopic though since you deflect from what I said and bring up other things. your the one who uploaded the image didn't say anything else. You claimed a certain thing, I addressed it, now you as usual move the discussion toward tangential things or don't address what I said. What you quoted was a reply to That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions and you often move things out of context or sth like that which then needs to be addressed with an even further reply, resulting in a) walls of text b) misunderstandings and c) potentially too many replies on my side to address and correct these things. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had some free time and it was on my mind because of the DR. That's it. It's my prerogative to work in whatever area, when ever or as much as I want to. The fact that your acting like there's a problem with that is exactly why I said you keep making this about you and your personal grievances. Your the one who repeatedly makes these discussions about you and your need to go off on people about the subject. Just don't. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we(as in commons) needs to have a discussion about AI. It's not like Prototyperspective have technically broken rules directly- but Adamant1 does bring up good points.
Making the whole issue about just one editor, no matter how central they are to the issue at hand is a bad idea. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You link to a DR about a file I uploaded and write about me e.g. at It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata and then when I reply in the thread I keep making this about you and your personal grievances. Make that make sense. You started this thread. You made this to a large part about me and it's well warranted I reply to address what you said about what I did. It's this simple. Moreover, you didn't really get the point across of what I said but whatever. I kindly ask you to please not go off on people as you, unlike me (I'm always addressing specific points and never made a personal attack), did many times including with insults and bad faith accusations. I had some free time and it was on my mind because of the DR. It's similar for things I do, yet you accuse me of things like gaming the system and whatnot. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very central to DRs about keeping AI generated images- so you were an obvious first choice to start this conversation about AI topics. You actually are doing those things on sister projects though- and have even been reported for it. You do keep making it about yourself- you are supposed to defend by citing rules, not by going about how the other person is wrong or whatever. The point about gaming the system is different, and one can easily provide evidence for you doing it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it is not okay I address what the user said about me and what I do? Please check what has been said above and which points I addressed with what I said. And I have been reported on English Wikipedia for making a thread and replying too often in it, not for adding the AI images which I added before there was some sort of rule against them and which largely stayed there until recently two or so users removed them all at once for the reason that they're AI-made which I did not even challenge. Not I'm not making it about myself when a user makes a thread referring to me and writes things like It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata. I explained various things and I cited things like WP:AGF and COM:HOUND. Nothing of what I did referred to here was wrong and as said the edits were constructive. Please according to WP:AGF ask yourself what a behavior is that accuses a person who spends hours and lots of efforts to close identified important media gaps with good intent? Pretty sure other users would long have given up because of not just thanklessness but hostility and quite plain personal attack insults. I did not make this about myself, the user did and it's very due I address what has been said about what I did such as the false bad faith accusations. There is no evidence of me doing it because I'm not doing it. There is however evidence that certain people seem to want to delete any AI image, no matter how useful and good-quality. The DR'd image has been addressed in the DR so I don't need to address it here again repeating what I already said there such as that the image illustrates well what the sources in the image caption are saying. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say you are not making this about yourself, then who is this ego play about?
What I personally think what would be appropriate: thanking me for spending lots of time and effort to close an identified media gap ..and contributing constructively where contributions are most valuable.. You said you were reported for replying too much on en.wp, but the threads were related to AI images, and you trying to push a view about them. Also, personally, as someone who has seen some of your AI image contributions- the only reason i didn't nominate 80% of them is bcs they are in use on wikiversity/books. Most, if not all, of those AI images are bad slop, and you have been making bad reasonings in many places of how easy they are to make and hence should not be deleted- I have seen you mention twice to not delete on the image, but improve on the image/prompt- when yhe issue is that the image should not be AI at all. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this ego play about may I suggest not looking at every detail of my replies under some magnifier but the actual points made. I can't even correct any further replies because I'll have to stop replying to address people's points here or else I'll be accused of replying to much. The main basic point is the user made this thread much about me so it's warranted that I reply and address what has been said about me. bad slop uncivil degradation; also false; also it's not about the looks but the illustrated concept(s). bad reasonings not true how easy they are to make and hence should not be deleted that's your reasoning. Interestingly, it's usually from people who made no AI illustrations and is totally unsubstantiated claim and not a good point to begin with since the value of images is not the difficulty of creating them but whether they're good quality and useful. yhe issue is that the image should not be AI at all Thanks for making clear you're against AI images in general. Anyway, I'll try to stop to reply at this point. And maybe I should repeat that it wasn't me who made this thread to a large part about me but the person who e.g. wrote by Prototyperspective, a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia among other things.
I value reason and rationality; and I'm out. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really, a magnifier- you write a huge block of text about we should all praise you and you saying we are putting your words under a magnifier. How is me calling the images bad slop "uncivil"- likr seriously?? Wow, new information- we are supposed to judge images by what they are supposed to illustrate, and not the image itself. That was your reasoning, it was not mine. Yeah, we should not be using AI images for many things bcs LLMs can generate bad slop.
Maybe do not edit every discussion related to AI images if you do not want to be discussed as one of the primary subjects in a discussion about AI images.
No replying from me either- the AI images discussion should go to the proposals subpage, and user behaviour to ANU if anyone deems necessary- this isn't the place for it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just Prototyperspective's MO. He'll write walls of text to derail a discussion and then go off on other people about how their insulting him and over analyzing things the second they provide the most basic feedback. He clearly thinks he owns the area and that no one else is allowed to an opinion about it. At least unless their bowing at his feet about how great he and AI images are. I guess that's on me for not starting this conversation with a 40 line Phd dissertation all about how fantastic AI and his work around it is. My bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(I wish to collapse the entire above discussion as being a side discussion on user behavior, conflict, and alleged wikihounding.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1 i agree its annoying behaviour, but i consider bad faith to be a pretty high bar, and i'm not sure this crosses it. If this was a non-AI image the user took (but was subpar) and they posted it on a bunch of projects, i would not consider that bad faith per se, so i think the same logic should i apply to yhe AI case. I lean towards its up to individual projects on how to deal with it (and if it truly becomes disruptive across many projects then meta ban). I think commons should generally defer to other projects unless it is blatently obvious (like beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is just trying to game the system. I just don't think that threshold is met here. (That said, Prototyperspective's communication style on this thread really isn't helping their case) Bawolff (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given we accept these prompt images, the least Commons can do is clearly put a template on them.
{{PD-algorithm}} is used but it is about copyright and author's rights. What if the prompt, AI code and file database are cc-by-sa? Then it would need an additional licensing template that would allow use in UK and Hong Kong maybe. Copyright is messy, having {{Prompt generated}} that warns reusers doesn't have to be. Let's do that?
With a solid template it is up to sister projects to scour for, label and remove AI-gen files if they wish. I would expect big projects like English, German and French Wikipedias to mandate an AI warning template in file captions, but maybe they haven't caught on yet?
This problem isn't unique to AI-gen files, previously during a deletion discussion an uploader put their user-art on Wikidata to keep it in use.
<rant>Back when I joined Commons uploading a file involved buying a DSLR, going outside and getting accosted by the police. I should have waited 20 years to avoid all that and make nicer images.</rant>.
@Adamant1: I am not stalking you from Wikidata, we just both frequent the discussion boards it seems. You could have put some context there though. Commander Keane (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: Are you suggesting I should be blocked for doing my best to add useful images to pages such as science fiction subjects? I'm contributing constructively and Adamant1 is once again doing bad faith accusations that have no basis in reality. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only saying that blocking would be the right answer if the local project does not want such contributions. If they are fine with these contributions they of course should not block you. GPSLeo (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DoctorWhoFan91 makes a good point that we can't ask other projects to keep an eye on file usage. Even if adding the images to other project is an issue know one is going to be blocked for something that editors from said projects probably aren't going to see or deal with to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should absolutely not be our job to policy their project. That's actually the total opposite of what our role should be as described in COM:INUSE. Feel free to see my short essay User:Josve05a/AI media. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: We already "police" other projects when we delete copyrighted images that are in use. It's not like most DRs for COPYVIO are clear or that people from other projects have a say in it with most deletion request either. But I doubt you or anyone else who says we shouldn't police other projects would advocate for allowing copyrighted material on here. Your just drawing an arbitrary line in this instance and it comes to removing images from projects when it's something we're already doing literally all the time. With this specifically, people who add images to other projects often aren't contributors to those project. Your totally fine with that kind of policing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating two different things. We don't "police" other projects when we delete files for copyright violations, we enforce Commons' copyright policy, which applies regardless of whether the file is in use on zero or a thousand articles. Usage is irrelevant in such cases, because copyright status is not determined by usage. In contrast, for scope-based deletions or discussions about AI-generated files, usage may be relevant, but again, our concern is whether the file aligns with Commons policy, not whether it's appropriately used on specific articles on other wikis. We don't go around checking if a file is being misused on Wikivoyage or Wiktionary. That’s their editorial decision to make. So no, this is not "policing" other projects. It’s applying our policies here on Commons. What other projects choose to do with kept files is up to them. Feel free to read User:Josve05a/Scope and Copyright. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: You're conflating two different things. I'm really not. Know one is obligated to nominate COPYVIO for deletion on here. It could just as easily be dealt with through DCMA complaints and the like. Some users have decided that "policing" copyrighted material is something they think is worth doing though. Regardless of if the images are in use on other projects (there's certainly plenty of users who think COPYVIO that's in use shouldn't be nominated for deletion). Just like we could decide that policing AI generated slop even if it's in use is worth doing. It's a different discussion, but I'd argue both would have the same negative impact on the project if left unpoliced. It's just that some people think COPYVIO is an issue so it's dealt with. Whereas others think AI generated artwork is literally on par with the second coming of Jesus so it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we’re using very different definitions of "policing". I’m using it in the sense of actively monitoring or enforcing other projects’ editorial decisions, as in checking whether an image is appropriately used on French Wikisource and flagging it here because we think it shouldn’t be there. That’s not our role. Same thing, it's not our role to editorialize if an image "looks bad" or not in a specific article, if we are not part of that project. Enforcing Commons policy on what can be hosted here is not "policing" other projects. Whether it’s copyright, scope, or AI-related issues, we assess files based on our own criteria, not based on how other projects are using them or whether they’ve placed them in articles. That’s their job. And just to be clear, no one is stopping anyone from nominating AI-generated images for deletion. The bar is just set by Commons policy, not vibes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Josve05a: It's possible we just have different definitions. I think I understand you better now though. So thanks for explaining it. Let me say this and I'll leave it at that. But I didn't start this based on the premise that bad looking images should just be removed from other projects. The point in the discussion was to have a line added to the guideline saying that AI generated images added to other projects by people who aren't contributors to those projects should be deletable as OOS. I'm sure you get the difference. This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the image and I never said it did. Your the one making it about that.
More on point, at least IMO a user arbitrarily adding an image to another project that they aren't a contributor to is definitionally someone from Commons making an editorial decision and policing said project. Know one from the German Wikipedia wanted that image in the article or asked Prototyperspective to add an AI generated image to it. Someone from Commons adding an image that no one wants or asked for to an article is them making an editorial decision and policing the project by definition. I don't want us policing other projects either way. Your just acting like Prototyperspective had no personal say in or reasonability for the image being added to the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. Let me also try to separate out what I’m reacting to. The concern I raised wasn’t about you personally wanting to remove images for quality reasons, but about where such a proposed policy addition would lead: namely, a shift toward evaluating and deleting files based on how they are used (or by whom) on other projects. That’s the part that looks like "policing" to me.
You say: "someone from Commons adding an image to an article that no one wants or asked for is them making an editorial decision and policing the project by definition". That’s not quite how I’d frame it. Anyone can add images to any Wikimedia project, that’s how these projects are built. If local communities disagree, they’re absolutely free to remove the image, and that’s that. But saying that Commons should delete a file because of how it was added to another projects' article, and by whom, is precisely the kind of cross-project overreach I think we should avoid.
Our policies should be based on what’s in scope here, not on trying to enforce contributor conduct or editorial norms elsewhere. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Commons:Project scope also says "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion." Well, pretty much every time a company releases something of their property under a free license they are doing it to promote themselves/their products, but for example there are hundreds of free licensed promotional videos like Category:Videos by Bandai Namco which are not only educational but we need in order to replace low quality copyright violations on Wikipedia (by the way we need people to help with that as well as sorting out some videos where Bandai Namco might not own the rights to the characters). Also, almost every attribution license is a form of self promotion in a way.  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin of the above mentioned DR: I think we need to draw a clear line between intent and effect. Even if an image was added to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point, that is ultimately a matter for that project to evaluate and respond to. If the image remains in use after a reasonable time—especially on a page where it is contextually relevant—then, regardless of the uploader’s intent, the local community has effectively accepted its use. Commons should not second-guess that. We don’t patrol editorial decisions on other projects, and it's not our role to speculate whether their inaction reflects apathy, ignorance, or tacit approval. If someone believes the use is problematic, the proper route is to raise it locally on that project, not to rewrite Commons' project scope to treat “intent” as retroactively overriding demonstrable in-use status. Otherwise we risk giving ourselves an impossible task: interrogating motives and second-guessing every cross-wiki edit from a Commons user, rather than judging a file’s value by how and where it is actually being used. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an image was added to a sister project in bad faith...that is ultimately a matter for that project to evaluate and respond to. I could really care less either way but that's clearly not what the policy says. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right that the policy says “Any use that is not made in good faith does not count”, but I don’t think that line necessarily overrides the reality of sustained, in-context use on a sister project. The core problem is that Commons can't—and shouldn’t—decide unilaterally that a file’s usage on another project is “not made in good faith,” especially if the local community has seen the image and opted not to remove it. If we're going to treat that usage as "invalid" based purely on the uploader’s history or presumed motives, without any action by the local project, then we’re inserting Commons into editorial decisions we’re explicitly not supposed to override. The policy is meant to avoid abuse, not to give us veto power over content decisions on other wikis. If someone is misusing Commons-hosted files across projects, the most appropriate venue is that project's local process—otherwise we’re judging “good faith” in a vacuum, which is both unworkable and overreaching. If you feel this line of the policy is creating confusion or loopholes, then perhaps it’s worth discussing a revision to clarify how and by whom good faith is judged in cases of cross-wiki use. But until then, I’d hesitate to rewrite usage norms through deletion discussions. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point Just to be clear: it was neither added to make a point nor in bad faith. It's distressing to get nothing but hostility here for what I think are particularly valuable contributions where good-quality helpful illustrations were added where they were missing which substantially reduces the quality of articles and which is a subject I'm addressing not just by adding AI images but also by adding many other media. I'm spending lots of time and effort to contribute constructively and my edits were absolutely not bad faithed but good-intentioned, due and constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the misunderstanding in my previous comment where I suggested that the user may have added images to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point. My intent was to be circumspect in addressing the broader issue of similar image usage, not to accuse you specifically of malicious intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie, but one particular dog keeps waking up and barking. That dog is the notion that we potentially have the same flexibility about ignoring copyright that we have about making exceptions to scope. That is simply not the case.
Commons' mandate from WMF singles us out in that, unlike our sister projects, we do not have the option of creating an exemption doctrine policy. That is, Commons is unique among WMF projects in not having WMFs permission to decide to keep certain non-free content on our site. While there is some de facto wiggle room around the edges—for example, as far as I can tell, the decision that we are concerned only with copyright in the file's "home country" and in the U.S. comes from within Commons, as does the slight relaxation of the U.S. side of that with respect to Freedom of Panorama for photos taken in countries with more liberal FoP than the U.S.—that wiggle room is small.
With respect to scope, WMF is very unlikely to be concerned if we host certain images that are outside our usual scope, and (given our second mission of supporting the sister projects) is probably actively happy when we do so in service of one or more sister projects. Conversely, with respect to copyright, WMF would be very likely to intervene if they felt we were failing to seek and remove copyright violations. And, yes, any particular user can choose to work actively on removing copyvios or not, but if we collectively were to fail to do so, we would at the very least be in quite a confrontation with WMF. At this point, Commons has become essential enough to the Wikimedia ecosystem that it is hard to imagine they would simply shut us down, but it is easy to imagine that someone from outside Commons would be given power to remove files with little or no possibility of appeal. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the prompt "Tim White + Lord of the rings"? Solomonic solution: We get rid of all AI stuff on commons and the associated Wikipedia articles using AI images are instead fitted with a line of code that generates a new AI-Kitsch-image whenever somebody looks at the article. Should be doable. Alexpl (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon would be wasting a lot of energy, though. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turrets

BEGIN moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this wiki "category:turrets (architecture)" seems to describe "Corbelled turrets" in some cases it describes "Ridge turret" which is something different.

I would propose "category:turrets (architecture)" to be replaced by "Category:Corbelled turrets" (a bot can do that).

Some items would have to be recategorised by hand Io Herodotus (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
END moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 21:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 21

Garba and Dandiya Raas

Someone on Flickr uploaded 156 photos of a "Garba and Dandiya Raas" (Category:Garba and Category:Dandiya Raas) in Trinidad university, but I am not sure these really have anything to do with Garba and Dandiya Raas besides the name...does anyone know  REAL 💬 ⬆   16:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

999real, well, the images where they are dancing is definitely Garba and/or Dandiya Raas. The ones where they are holding sticks can sort of come under the category of Dandiya Raas, though it would be better not to use them; the images where they are just standing taking pictures are not really usable, as that is just people standing around. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Notice

Hi!
For the second edition of the Wikidata contest Coordinate Me (May 2025) we, that is the organizing team at Wikimedia Österreich, would like to deliver central notices - request page - on several Wikimedia projects in the 27 participating countries and regions to invite people to join in. The CN shall be delivered, not permanently of course, from April 28 to May 11. --Manfred Werner (WMAT) (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Brief statement by HingWahStreet

Hello and happy Earth Day! Here I want to deliver a message to all editors who have relationship with me.

On 21 March 2025, I was blocked for a month for the dispute between another user on how to deal with sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Immediately after the block the aformentioned user have made a personal attack by searching my real-life behavior and breached my privacy. For this I condemn such actions that harm the interests of all fellow editors.

Therefore, to protect my privacy, my social media accounts will close until further notice. For this account, due to the high risk of FoP deletion issues, starting from today this account will only upload my own videos and those uploaded by LN9267 on its YouTube channel. I will stop categorizing the files and create and edit the pages (including categories) to prevent conflicts between me and the socks of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1. Anyone are welcome to do so.

And finally, I hope this conflict will come to a peaceful end. I don't want someone to make such behavior mentioned above and causing editors to leave the project.

I will release a detailed statement of this topic later. Please do not reply to this topic, but to my talk page instead. (Replies will be sent by email for privacy reasons; if no email is present in your account, I will leave my answers on your talk pages.) 〈興華街〉📅❓ 05:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Category:Green (text)

I would expect the contents of Category:Green (text) to be graphical or physical renditions of the string "green", in logos, signwriting, street name signs, etc.

However, it has been filled with works with the word "green" in the title. Is that correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parent Category:Images by text says "Files should only be included in a text category if the exact text features prominently...". From a quick look I can see the string "green" visible in images, but not obviously and it tends to be in book/document cover pages. I had the street name signs expectation also. @Ooligan who has been adding/changing a lot of "green" cats very recently. Commander Keane (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan, thanks for noting this to me.
@Commander Keane, when I added that text, I think the main thrust was that the text (in this case, "green") should be visible in the file. This was to differentiate from things that might have 'green' in the file name, or be images of the color green, or other things simply named 'green'. As for using the term prominently, I think there is room to discuss whether this is a useful qualification, and if so, exactly what constitutes 'prominence' for these categories. Josh (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notified @Joshbaumgartner on his talk page, because his written quotation was used by Commander Keane. I will repost the relevant part of that communication here.
My early, in depth experience with these categories were back in 2022 here:
The Categories for Discussion (CfD) linked above did not mention the word "prominently" nor was that subject discussed. "Prominence" should not a factor to including a file in the Xxxx (text) categories. If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text).
The 2022 CfD above contains the example link Category:747 (number), which does not require "prominence" for a number file to be included in that category and the hundreds of other similar Xxxx (number) categories. A more directly similar Category:Numbers on objects by number- also, does not require any pre-conditions to add to these categories.
Ooligan (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: over(?) populating the category doesn't bother me too much. But as an illustration, if a human was making additions they would be more selective than OCR bot, and once the OCR bot is done many uncategorised files fall off the "Files needing categories" backlog.
Ideally one day we will able to mark on files with a box where the string "green" appears and sort by percentage of frame taken up.
If consensus agrees, the wording of the parent category that I quoted should be changed to show how inclusive it is. Commander Keane (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 CfD was focused on the naming of subcategories of Category:Text; they previously had names like Category:Text:Chicago instead of the current Category:Chicago (text). The scope of what belongs in those categories wasn't a topic. Omphalographer (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dating postcard with 45 cent stamp

Out of the context this must be in the 1920s. A more precise dating (posted) is posible with the 45 cent French stamp. When was this type of stamp used in France?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hazard a guess and say: 1929. Despite its low readability, the stamp looks like it contains these ciphers at the place where the year should be, compare it e.g. to this image of this one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1939, based on the stamp first being sold in 1939. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say 1939. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The posted date would be 1939, but I hink the picture was probably from several years before. (The postcards in the shops where not renewed annualy, but replenished when needed) The tram (from line 57) is number 542, one of the original Série A build in 1899. (fr:Ancien_tramway_de_Marseille) Better to describe it as 1930s instead of 1920s. I think there are some 1930s automobile models, but I am no expert. There are no horse drawn vehicles, as I would expect in the 1920s and earlier.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:White on blue house number 3.jpg This french house number has the flat top with an angular downward stroke. That is the same shape as the partially visible "39" on the postmark. Likely, a 1930's postcard -- Ooligan (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is the point of camera roughly 43.2957, 5.3745? RoyZuo (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps

Hi, does screenshots of OpenStreetMaps and GoogleMaps that are free to use and publically available have any copyright? Can we use such screenshots in Wikipedia freely? For example, is this screenshot valid by copyright?

File:بندرگاه بوشهر 2.png

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: They have copyright in most cases, and only the copyright holders may license that copyright. You may not use them here on Commons without such licenses, as has been pointed out to you multiple times on your user talk page. Without proof that such images are free, we must consider them to be copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression on Earth under the Berne Convention. See also COM:ANU#Hooman Mallahzadeh, COM:EVID, and COM:NETC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Ok. I wanted to be sure about that. I will add speedy delete to all 4 images myself. Here are some other satellite images that should be acted the same. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I myself added Speedydelete template to all four images from GoogleMaps. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking permission from GoogleMaps for using its maps in Wikipedia

Hi, I really think that the maps of GoogleMaps have high-quality, therefore for some Wikipedia articles they are really suitable. For example, for my previous university, the map of GoogleMap is very appropriate for showing the university campus. So I propose to consult GoogleMap and get some permission for donig so. I really believe that Google would not disagree with it. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: You may go ahead and ask them, they will very probably say no, or ask for an exorbitant licensing fee. If they say you can use their maps under Fair Use, be aware of COM:FAIR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. How about OpenStreetMaps? I should note that we use OSM maps frequently in Wikipedia. Do you think they don't grant permission for using its satellite maps in Wikipedia? To be honest, I added a thread about that in English Village pump here. But my problem is about taking photos (like screenshots) from their maps and upload such images. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap does not have own aerial images, they only use images they are under a free license or with special permission. Just click on the source mentioned in the OSM editor to check what the license of the aerial images is. GPSLeo (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can get GoogleMaps to specifically grant free licenses to useful high-quality maps, GREAT! We'd look forward to receiving their explicit license permission via COM:VRT or statements on their own website. Until or unless that happens, they are still non-free copyrighted works, and don't belong here on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1024507800"