This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
A photographer gave permission for an image to be released to Creative Commons 4.0. All has gone well. Permissions all done properly and the VRT are content.
However, both being newish at wiki, both the photographer and I have just noticed that the all the metadata has been uploaded - including that photographers's contact details.
While the photographer is happy to release the image under creative commons, photographer didn't mean to release personal information. (Yes, something to watch for next time.)
Now I can edit information in the "Summary" section regarding the image over at commons.wikimedia.org — however, I can't edit the metadata section. I'm guessing it can only be done by an admin.
Going off the general principles of anonymity and so on, seems right to ask if those details can be removed. Can someone tell me the right person, and the right way, to ask?
@MatthewDalhousie: Hi, and welcome. You can remove the offending metadata from your local copy of that file (perhaps with Windows Explorer's "Properties / Details / Remove Properties and Personal Information / Create a copy with all possible properties removed", jpegtran, jpegcrop, or Jimpl), overwrite it here on Commons per COM:OW, then ask at COM:AN for courtesy deletion of the first offending version. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.I tried uploading the same images - with that unwanted info removed from the metadata - but I'm afraid the process stopped with a message "This file did not pass verification." Possibly because Commons can tell it already has that image?
Must say I feel very nervous about attempting to over write existing image files with a new files, and this has made me more wary! Do you think it would be okay if I ask someone at COM:AN to remove that one line of info?
Then I have selected the Edit tab. From there, I have selected the "images and media" icon. A window pops up and from there I can upload the replacement file, which I've done.
At the point of upload, each time I get a message: Something went wrong / This file did not pass verification. / Dismiss
I hit "Dismiss" then I return to the starting point of the process.
Thanks for your patience with this - please let me know any suggestions.
@RZuothanks for persevering here - I'm persevering too.
1. I found the "upload a new version", thanks (and thank you for going to the trouble of creating a screenshot, going well beyond the call).
2. I upload the file, being careful to make sure it's the same extension and same file type (the existing file in the commons is a jpeg, and so is the replacement file, both of them ending with .jpg).
3. When I hit upload I get this message: "File extension ".jpg" does not match the detected MIME type of the file (image/png)."
4. I've then double checked the file I'm uploading, and the existing file, at the excellent MIME checker https://mime.ritey.com/
5. Done the same process, got the same result. (You're welcome to check the MIME type of the file I'm aiming to replace - it's here )
@MatthewDalhousie: If you are overwriting a JPEG, you have to overwrite it with an actual JPEG. Putting the extension ".jpg" on a PNG doesn't turn it into a JPEG, you have to convert it (e.g with GIMP, ImageMagick, GraphicsMagick, or even Microsoft Paint). - Jmabel ! talk00:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
While the MIME checking site affirmed the files were jpeg, I decided to reupload them to Apple Mac Preview then re-export them as jpegs, just to be sure. Uploaded and overwrote without any issue. Thanks for your guidance through this.
I am a Wikipedia editor. I have a photo for a biographical article about a deceased person. The person who permitted me to use the photo owns the physical copy of the photo, which was given to him by the family of the deceased person. The owner of the photo understands what a photo being on wikimedia commons entails, and is happy for this photo to be uploaded.
@Menacinglavender: you don’t say what country the photo is from or when it was taken, but the person from whom you need permission is usually the photographer (or xyr heirs). If it’s an impromptu/amateur photo that might indeed be a family member, but otherwise they have no say insofar as copyright is concerned. If the photo is old enough we can assume it to be PD, even if the creator is unknown, with no permission needed from anybody. (A “Collection of X” credit to the owner is good for provenance, aside from being courteous, but is not required for licensing.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
But "old enough" is quite old: 120 years (1903 or earlier) and/or (if it is in the U.S.) published before 19231929. (There are a few countries with shorter terms, e.g. Argentina, Italy.) - Jmabel ! talk18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
If this is for the English-language Wikipedia, it may be simpler to leave Commons out of the picture and upload the image on a non-free basis. See en:John du Pont for a good example (click through on the lead photo, you'll see how they handled this). - Jmabel ! talk19:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
From the OP’s enWP user page I guess the relevant country is New Zealand. IIUC the rights on a commissioned photo there belong to the person ordering the work unless the contract says otherwise. So even a professional portrait’s copyright might belong to a family member. Also AFAICT the 50-year term for a work of unknown authorship doesn’t start until it’s published.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
My photo was nominated to delete - but it's my property.
Ho una mia foto personale che mi ritrae in una posa di quando facevo ginnastica e gareggiavo ma non riesco a caricarla sulla pagina di Ilenia Meneghesso, nonchè la sottoscritta. Grazie Ilenia79 (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here.
Normally, the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer, not the subject, and only the owner of the copyright can grant a license. So if the photo is of you, then presumably you are not the person who can legitimately grant a license.
On the technical side: you don't say what tool you were using to upload the photo, or what went wrong, but usually the best way for beginners to upload to Commons is with Special:UploadWizard.
No, for such recent promotional works unless the creator/copyright holder specifically authorizes free license, assume it is under copyright. It cannot be uploaded here to Commons, which is for free licensed images only. (English language Wikipedia does allow limited "fair use" of copyrighted material; ask there for details.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I try uploading a picture but I cannot save it to common, why?
I try to upload as shown, I drag and drop the photo. The photo appear but I cannot save it because there is no text that tells me that surrounding my photo. When I click it, the menu that appear pertains only to my pc. but not to wikipedia media. EmerEvolve (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I got permission from the Utah Historical Society to use this image of the delegates from the Utah Constitutional Convention. They historical society said to upload it with the stipulation that it had to be used for non-commercial purposes, and credit should be given. I uploaded it like that, but upon returning to the file later on I found someone had changed it to be "public domain." I am confused and want to avoid trouble with the Utah Historical Society and would appreciate any help. Thanks. Moroni713 (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Moroni713: On what possible basis are they claiming that a U.S. image published in 1895 is still in copyright? Clearly it is {{PD-US-expired}}, no matter what they may say.
FWIW, if it were still copyrighted (and they owned the copyright), non-commercial licenses are not acceptable for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk20:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
It does, yes. The basic rule is: unless you know the specific reason something is acceptable on Commons, you should assume it isn't. DS (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
2120. I made a similar mistake a week ago. But, yes, 95 years assuming there is no identified individual author. If there is, then for U.S. works first published 2003 or later, it's life + 70 years, which of course could be earlier or later, but for works whose authors were alive at time of publication won't begin to be relevant at all before 2073. - Jmabel ! talk00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes thanks, Jmabel, year corrected :-) I was aware that there are also other factors - which is why I said "may" rather than "will" - but I wanted to give RayKVega a general sense that it wouldn't be PD any time soon. Cheers! -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the image published in the USA in 1895 is {{PD-US-expired}}, no matter what the Historical Society may say. Giving them a link or credit as a courtesy is good, but understand they cannot put a copyright restriction on something that is already public domain. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I should also point out, it's by J. W. Shipler, who died in 1937. So it'd be "-auto-expired|1937". DS (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
How to release a photo of a sketch by a dead artist.
Hello:
I am. assisting a friend of mine (Mark) in creating a wiki page. The pagee is about an artist who is no longer alive. The artists name is Eugene Chodorow.
Mark has taken a photo of a sketch that Eugene made. That sketch was used by Eugene as a guide when Eugene painted a mural. The Sketch was nevere published. Eugene's daughter, who is still alive, owns the sketch.
Do I have to get Eugene's daughter, to fill out Wikipedia's Creative Commons release form?
If Eugene's daughter has a web presence that is clearly hers, and where it is clear that she is the artist's daughter, she can just grant the license on a page clearly under her control. Then you or anyone can reference that as a source when uploading. She could even do that after-the-fact, with her permission and the Commons file page cross-linking to one another.
In theory, Eugene's daughter can create an account of her own and upload using a license like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, but I could imagine someone doubting her identity and having no way to check without going through VRT anyway, so I don't recommend that approach.
I think the simplest thing would be for Eugene's daughter to go through the process outlined at COM:VRT to grant a license.
Is there a template for "this file should be wikitext?"
I very vaguely remember that I used to tag files as "this should be wikitext, replace with the following wiki-code and delete the file later", but I forgot whether I used to use a template for these. I tried searching for "replaced by Wikitext" in Special:Search under the "general help" preset, but most of the hits were deletion requests. Artoria2e5contribs04:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In language suitable for a “dummy,” what are the steps involved in taking a file that I’ve uploaded to WikiMedia and “pasting the file name at the top of the gallery” on the January 2024 Photo Challenge page (which appears when you click the link that reads: “To submit pictures please follow this link)? Bmzuckerman (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bmzuckerman: I'm going to assume you have already uploaded the photo in question.
Assuming you are talking about Commons:Photo challenge, either (a) click on the link or (b) go to the relevant section (under "Entries") and click "Edit".
Then copy-paste the filename from the file page of your file (e.g. File:Buffalo, NY - Lake & Rail Elevator.jpg) to the top of the long list of filenames already there.
Apparently, looking at the other examples there, you can follow your filename with a pipe character ("|") and a description.
While I appreciate your prompt response, I’m afraid that it’s not “dummied down” enough for me. While I thought I knew how to “copy-paste the filename from the file page of your file,” my attempts to do so have failed to add my file to the Photo Challenge list. Do you have the patience to truly lead me, step by step, through this process (e.g., “right click on…”; “left click on…”; move the cursor to…”)? Bmzuckerman (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not taking my time to do try to teach someone how to copy-paste on a computer, but if you name the file I will add it to the list for you. - Jmabel ! talk18:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Understood! The file I wish to submit to the Silo Photo Challenge is named:
on English Wikipedia? I thought this would be easy and basic info, but I cannot find the instructions. Yesterday I added to Commons a publicly available, out of copyright photo of attorney Roslyn Litman with her client, the professional basketball player Connie Hawkins. Each of them has an article on English Wikipedia, where I am an autoconfirmed editor but not experienced in inserting a photo. Where can I find the step-by-step instructions for this process? PDGPA (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Not sure the significance of that "abuse" warning. The picture is not publicly available, to my knowledge, in any higher resolution format. In any event, it appears to now be added to Commons, and I then used that link to add it to the Wikipedia article on each of the individuals pictured. PDGPA (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Wrong "Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture control number" link generated
Good observation. You could post to Commons:Village pump/Technical also. This problem also affects other files, probably all files in the same situation. Strangely, the link to the inventory in the category links to a search page on the number, which is not as bad as in the file description pages, although not correct either. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I've lost all means of contacting the author of this photo, therefore I ask you to delete it as I won't be able to provide sufficient licensing information. Thanks! --Oleh325 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi there. I am looking to create a wikipedia page on a new political party (Brighton and Hove Independents) that was formed and registered in 2022 and contested Brighton and Hove City Council Elections on 4th May 2023, winning 2 out of 54 seats. There is no wikipedia page for it. The logo image for this party is published on the UK Electoral Commission Register. I wanted to know, does this count as being in the public domain for the purposes of a Wikimedia Commons upload? As I would like to use the logo for the page. I am not associated with the party in any way, so do not have ownership of the image. Wasp681 (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Wasp681: The English-language Wikipedia may allow the non-free logo in the article about the party, if the logo is uploaded to that Wikipedia, not to Commons. There should be an option for that at Wikipedia. However, before you put much work into the article, a first question will be to meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Please see all that with Wikipedia. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like to upload a city flag
I would like to upload a city flag, as I am currently attempting to edit a page with US city flags archives, the reason being that my desired cities flag is not listed. I am not sure if I have the ability to upload this flag, and am wondering whether I need permission to do so. Diibragimov (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, most U.S. city flags are copyrighted, but there are exceptions. Besides what Abzeronow asked, it would be very useful if you would simply say what city. - Jmabel ! talk20:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes the upload form shows clearly if there is latitude and longitude. Therefore I will pay more attention. To make sure that whatever file picker I use doesn't strip it ever again. Jidanni (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
what an entire fight. A battle. A conflict. A blood and teeth battle with the cell phone to kindly not strip the exif location data. So far I'm having success with the so-called CX file explorer. Jidanni (talk) 07:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Apart from that: The upload process will only indicate a duplicate for completely identical files (i.e. both come with exif or both come without exif). While files should contain exif, it is ok, it they don't have it. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
okay. You are both very right. By exif info I was mainly referring to the very valuable locations. The Samsung corporation, no matter via its gallery app, or its files app is probably attempting to protect the user from accidentally divulging his location. Okay fine.
Okay now I've used the CX file explorer app as a selector and successfully got all my pictures uploaded with their locations!
And indeed you were right, I saw the warnings, when I was actually unintentionally about to upload a second bad set.
Okay now all that needs to be done is for somebody to please remove the above mentioned 29 images, and the other 11 images also mentioned above.
I have used slightly different names to successfully upload a fresh set of the 29, and fresh set of the 11.
Please use the URLs I have mentioned above. If you look in my contributions you'll get confused because of similar names. So don't look there. Just use those URLs above and change the numbers at the back. Thanks! Jidanni (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Historyradio: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/281 by trying to upload one or more pdf files as a new user. Such uploads of pdf files are not allowed at all. The following applies for each file: Usually when someone uploads a pdf file as a new user, it's a copyright violation taken from the web or out of scope. What is in the file? If you were not the original file designer or photographer, that person or those people may need to license it on their official website or social media, or send the file and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the file may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F. Are you Michael Henrik Wynn? Did you write the poem? Did you write the book "Stories & Poems from the Twilight" in 2019? If you have the right to license them, please send permission via VRT. If not, please have the copyright holder send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
"It is prohibited to copy text from non-free media like copyrighted books, articles or similar works. Information itself, however, is not copyrightable, and you are free to rewrite it in your own words.
Quotations are allowed if they are limited in size and mention the source."
Is this true?
I have reproduced some quotes on WC in my own design format and was not sure if I was allowed to by way of copyright.
To follow on from my last question: I would like to upload some quotes from deceased writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck. I have added a design to them so they are not a copyright or photos from any of his books.
Can you tell me what license I should use for uploading them?
Finally - I uploaded some quotes recently from 2 authors - Michelle Paisley Reed and Gary Zukav with my own design. I have the wrong category for them though.
The copyright license may be the same as for M. Scott Peck's work, although Michelle and Gary are still alive mind - can you tell me how I change the licenses for the quotes I have uploaded?
Confusing language at a template: please clarify on DACH copyright law
{{Urheberrechtlich geschützt}} says that in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland, a creative work may be under copyright if the author has not yet been deceased for 70 years. This tag is applied to works such as File:Steamboat Willie Enters the Public Domain.jpg, which is explicitly licensed as CC BY 4.0. Is there something about the law of these three places that prohibits someone from licensing his own work as CC BY? Do they not recognize the ability of authors to release certain restrictions to their own work? This seems pretty incredible and unlikely to me, but if so, this template presumably needs to be added to tens of millions of files here or it should be removed on files that are contemporaneous and deliberately given CC (or GFDL, etc.) licenses. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯09:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Copyrighted derivatives of copyrighted previous works have two or more copyrights: the copyright of the previous work, which is owned by the copyright owner of the previous work, and the copyrights of the the additional creative works added to form the derivative work, which are owned by the copyright owners of the additional creative works added to form the final derivative work. In the case of the file in the above example, the de.wm template does not relate to the added work that is licensed CC, it relates to the previous original non-free work from which the final work is derived. See Commons:Derivative works, mutatis mutandis for the copyrights in the countries considered by the de.wm projects. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but who is that person purported to be in this case? For convenience, let's say that it's Ub Iwerks, who died in 1971. This is a work for hire, so he never personally owned the copyright to his work. In DACH places, do they just assign him the copyright anyway? What about works made for the United States federal government, which are all public domain locally? Are they given a copyright in spite of the fact that they literally never had one? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In Germany, there is no "work for hire" concept, the copyright always remains with the author (a human being, with some limited exceptions for older German works that do not apply to foreign works). And Germany has a bilateral copyright treaty with the US from the late 1800s (still in force) which says that works by American authors are given the same copyright protection in Germany as local works by German authors. So the German copyright for the works of Ub Iwerks rests with Iwerks or more precisely his heirs, until the end of 2041. The situation is probably similar in other countries. --Rosenzweigτ16:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think so, but I would have to check to be absolutely sure. Generally, Austrian copyright is very similar to German copyright, while Swiss copyright can be a bit different. --Rosenzweigτ17:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Duration of copyright based on the year of death of the author is the law in most countries, I think. However, it can coexist with concepts in some ways similar to work for hire. For example, in the Canadian law, Article 13(3), when a work is made in the course of employment, the employer is the owner of the copyright. But the duration of that copyright is still based on the year of death of the employee who is the author. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf: That's the distinction between the author of a work and the holder of the copyright on that work. The duration of the copyright is calculated on the basis of the year of death of the author. It remains fixed to that. It doesn't change everytime the copyright changes owner and becomes held by some person or another. The enforcement of the copyright is the prerogative of whoever happens to be the copyright holder at any given time, but the duration of the copyright doesn't change, it always remains fixed on the basis of the year of death of the author.
Works made for the U.S. gov are copyrighted even in the U.S., unless they are made by regular employees of the U.S. gov, in which case they are in the public domain in the U.S. only. As is specified in the official copyright notice of the U.S. gov, the U.S. gov does state that it holds the copyright on those works in the countries under whose laws they are copyrighted, even if they are not copyrighted under the U.S. law. They do have a copyright in those countries and always had one. The U.S. gov probably exercises its foreign copyrights rarely, but it can do it. By the way, that's why it is important for Commons to keep the free licenses sometimes attributed to those works, e.g. CC by or CC0 on flickr, as those free licenses make the works free worldwide, whereas an unlicensed automatic PD-US-gov applies in the U.S. only. The author is whoever is identified as such. If unknown, then it follows the rules for anonymous works. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but to be clear, I'm not talking about the existence of a copyright, but the licensing of a copyright for the new work that is that file. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯17:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Otherwise than in the USA Mickey Mouse unfortunately is still copyright-protected in Germany (and possibly many other countries that use 70 years pma). Therefore, this tag is needed for these files. -- Chaddy (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Biography of a deceased person
Hi, i am preparing my father's biography, he was an Iraqi Composer; who passed away in 2007. I have prepared the biography along with the required citations and references and links etc.. i would like to add a profile picture, which is available in the public domain and used by other online articles etc, but during the upload process it is rejected. Could you assist me or guide me on the matter. It is a photo of my deceased father. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
By the way, while the following isn't Commons' affair: you should definitely read en:WP:COI and make the relevant disclosure about your relation to the person you are writing about, because if you don't do that then you are very likely to be blocked on the English-language Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk21:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank´s Jmabel. Where do I fill in this information? It will be filled by whoever takes over from me as I don't have time to continue with this project. Sue Cosgrave (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploading images from electronic documents publically available on the Library of Congress website.
Hello, I want to upload a photograph from an electronic document hosted on the library of congress website. The book was published in the 1890s, so it's long been public domain. However, I did not digitize the document, the library of congress did. Would uploading a public domain photo from a scan available on the Library of Congress website break wikimedia's terms of use? YumeBright (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@YumeBright: I can't think of any imaginable problem here with Wikimedia's terms of use, unless the (undescribed) content would somehow violate our terms of use.
Scanning or otherwise faithfully replicating a 2-dimensional work creates no new intellectual property rights. All there are is the rights to the underlying work (which in this case is public domain, so there is no copyright involved). - Jmabel ! talk07:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that I could ask the permission to al-Hayat Media Center to use their cover song. So could I use it in it.wikipedia? 1Ciaoman1 (talk) 07:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@1Ciaoman1: Hi, and welcome. Please see it:WP:EDP if you want to upload it to Italian Wikipedia. If you want to upload it here for use there, you would have to ask the al-Hayat Media Center to send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I was notified by that a photo of myself (Akira Ikemi.jpg) that I uploaded is a copyright violation. Since the person depicted in the photo is me, and the photo was taken by my son, and uploaded on my own website (www.akira-Ikemi.net) I am the copyright holder of this photo. Why would uploading this photo on Wiki be a copyright violation, if the copyright holder is uploading it? Akira Ikemi (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I have two further questions: (1) Actually I paid my son to take a photo of me, so that I could put them on my website and on flyers. He is a photographer. Does that make me the copyright holder of this photo, or is my son still the copyright holder? I don't think I can send permission as his guardian because he is way over legal age. (2) If my son is still the copyright holder, he can send permission to use the photo (Akira Ikemi.jpg) on Wikipedia via VRT with CC to me. a) He can only communicate in Japanese. Can he write in Japanese? b) I am not clear how to send permission via VRT, I would appreciate it immensely if you can show me how. Akira Ikemi (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I know it's weird, but your son is the copyright holder. Copyright goes to the photographer, not the subject of the photo. - Jmabel ! talk00:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Japanese is fine. Ability for a person to transfer copyrights within their lifetime varies from country to country, and I don't know the rules for Japan, but I'm guessing you wouldn't have done something in writing with your own son and few countries allow this to be done orally. If you did have a written document transferring copyright, we could accept a scan of that.
Здравствуйте, я не малость удивлен и рад встрече с вами. Но имея ещё часть сомнений хотел бы задать вопросы, и предложить свои решения. Если это возможно на не гласных правах, не обмани не навреди с обеих сторон. Iso4you (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I got very confused trying to change the name of the above Commons file/image.
I tried to read your instructions - but "Gadget" made no sense to me. I did not know where to start.
I am a mature man and maybe shouldn't be trying to change the names of files. I feel helpless and hopeless!
175.38.42.6207:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I did click on the blue words - as you hoped I might - but did not know what to do. If you are able to place a more appropriate name on the file, that would be wonderful. Perhaps I can ask a technician for assistance thanks again 175.38.42.6210:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
To reduce headaches, I don't rename files that are unlikely to stick around. Also, "Matriach" ≠ "Matriarch" (note the missing "r"). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: no, unsurprisingly I was not following this user's talk page, and while it had been linked earlier in the conversation it was not linked in your remark about "unlikely to stick around". But if it is, indeed, an early 19th-century image (and it looks like it could be) it should certainly be PD. - Jmabel ! talk00:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I also believe that the portrait is genuine (by John Opie) and I also note that its strange title "Matriach" is wrong and/or makes no sense. The subject's name according to the Leodis article - see above - is Dame Sarah Martineau. I cannot change the name as I am not technically proficient enough. Can someone please do this ? Thanks in advance. 175.38.42.6201:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@175.38.42.62: No, it is not that you are "not technically proficient enough": it's that you are not a filemover (you're not even editing from a logged-in account). And, please, hold your horses. This doesn't seem to have consensus yet, still waiting to hear from Jeff G. whether he still has doubts, and if so why. - Jmabel ! talk07:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: This file appears to be a photo of a dirty glossy print of a representation of a drawing or painting from some two centuries ago. It has black defects different from the white defects in https://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/1/13/Meadows-271.jpg , which appears to be a photo or scan of a book showing a drawing or painting from some two centuries ago. Although "Matriach" is clearly wrong, I don't see a clear reason to remove maiden name "Meadows" from the filename or to add "Dame" (who gave her that title when, and what evidence do we have of that?). Which of the File Renaming Criteria would that satisfy? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that there's the typo that would justify a rename, we can as well remove the whole word. I suggest to rename as "Sarah Meadows Martineau". -- Asclepias (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Jeff G., do you still think this image is likely to be deleted? And can anyone pin down the date (we've had two different dates differing by almost a century, but both safely before 1929). - Jmabel ! talk19:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The date that was written at upload looked bogus. I think that the date written by Jeff G. (circa 1800) is reasonable. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Although the IP person may be giving too much importance to a simple filename, their dedication to this matter is remarkable and at this point I'd say, ok, let's agree with their suggested wording "Dame Sarah Martineau (née Meadows).jpg". The Dame thing, although superfluous IMHO, is apparently supported by its use by the Leeds website. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: No, I'm inclined to keep now. My estimate of circa 1800 was based on the death dates of the artist and the subject; certainly no later than 1807, so 1899 looked bogus to me, too. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Use of maiden name positioned as a middle name is a pretty common U.S. convention, still sometimes folowed. (The other convention, almost completely dropped over the last few generations, was to simply use "Mrs.", followed by the husband's full name.) I see no reason not to use it here. No reason for an honorific, we rarely use them. So it will be File:Sarah Meadows Martineau (d.1800).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk17:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
ONE SMALL ISSUE!
Good work - I am sure that any engraving - such as you say this portrait is (John Opie himself did oil paintings) - of this work would have been done in the EARLY 19th century. I'm not at all convinced that the engraving is (as the Commons page states):
Description English: Drawing of Norwich Matriarch Sarah Meadows Martineau (d.1800). This may be a late 19th-century engraving of that drawing.
Please fix to: "...may be an early 19th century engraving of that drawing".
I worked out the year of birth of Sarah from the Leodis website.
Finally, Commons has portraits of many, many subjects with their "titles". Consequently, I have placed the word "Dame" in the description believing this the correct approach. I hope you are OK with this!
(For what it's worth, to my mind, the title "Dame" should be in the actual title of the Commons page under discussion).
Thank you so much again175.38.42.6204:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
A more correct name for an old portrait on "Commons" please
Now, of course, one section above because I moved this. Please don't split a single discussion to non-adjacent sections. And don't presume that "7 sections above" will make any sense over time: sections get archived one-by-one, the intervals can change. - Jmabel ! talk06:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Where (and how) do I post template requests?
I have searched the help pages with no luck. I have made a lot of templates over the years, but now I need help creating one. Is there a specific help page for template requests? / abbedabbtalk23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything specific. If you have some specific questions, this is probably as good a place as any to ask. - Jmabel ! talk00:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I am looking for a template that works like {{Label}}, but has the ability to set custom text for the link, similar to [[link to page|display text]], but with the same functions as {{Label}} (that first tries to link to a Wikipedia page in the user's language, and secondly to Wikidata).
I am sure that any engraving of this work would have been done in the EARLY 19th century - NOT the late 19th century as it currently says: "Description English: Drawing of Norwich Matriarch Sarah Meadows Martineau (d.1800). This may be a late 19th-century engraving of that drawing."
Please fix to: "...may be an early 19th century engraving of that drawing".
I worked out the year of birth of Sarah from the Leodis website. Finally, Commons has portraits of many, many subjects with their "titles". Thus, I have placed the word "Dame" in the description believing this the correct approach. I hope you are OK with this! (For what it's worth, to my mind, the title "Dame" should be in the actual title of the Commons page under discussion).
This unsourced version does not look like an engraving. It looks more like a photograph of a painting, see the reflected light to the left, printed on a book page. The artifacts on this reproduction look like printing artifacts, not engraving lines. Compare with the different version at wikitree.com, which is a copy of an engraving. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I still disagree with the statement that this image is an image of an engraving. I think it is not. Regarding the date to write in the description page of this file, the only rather safe estimation is for the painting, for the reasons you stated before. I think that estimating the date of the painting to "circa 1800" (or to "late 18th-century or early 19th-century" if you prefer) is fine. Given that we don't have the source of the photo, we have no basis to speculate about the date of the photo and we do not need to, unless someone finds its source. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@AhmedKhalidKhan2010 Hi, and welcome. Commons is not the place for that, neither is Wikipedia. Such stories would be out of scope for any WMF project. Try Facebook, Blogspot, or somewhere else in the blogosphere. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello X,
I requested a article Realistic MH tuhin . I cannot Understand , what happened , why you are not approve this article, Please Sir Accept it . and make me proud in wikipedia. this my urges . please ans this question . or give me your Bangladesh Office address so that i can go . Realisticmhtuhin (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Realisticmhtuhin: does this question have any bearing on Wikimedia Commons (the site you posted it on)?
@Lillkatten: You email them (using the "Email this user" link on their user page) or you leave a message on their user talk page. (To email them, you both have to have email addresses associated with your accounts.) Also: have you checked to make sure that the user in question is active (has recent contributions)? - Jmabel ! talk02:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Flag
Hi there, I wanted to upload the flag (or banner) of an ancient empire so that I can edit an article. Can I upload the image? Thespaniord (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Thespaniord: Probably. The simplest thing would be if you have a U.S.-published image of it from 1928 or earlier, which would certainly be in the public domain. - Jmabel ! talk18:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Parking images (press clippings) on Commons to serve as links for references supporting new article in Wikipedia.
Good morning!
Is it possible to upload pictures of 50 year old newspaper clippings so as to subsequently refer to them by means of a link to Wikimedia’s relevant files to support acceptance for creation of a new article for Wikipedia?
Your attention is much appreciated. In case my suggested is not accepted, kindly advise another manner in which pictures of old newspaper clippings can be submitted to support text for new article.
It depends on the country, but probably not. In many countries, the copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death, so 50 years is not old enough to be in the public domain. Yann (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@JacquesAndreNicolas: , you can only upload newspaper clippings that are out of copyright to Commons. 50 years is too young for copyright expiration in much of the world. Also, it is not necessary to upload newspaper clippings online to make references. You can always cite the newspaper when you are creating articles. Abzeronow (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply
My assumption is that it would be very difficult for the editor to verify the contents of an article published 50 years ago from a newspaper which is not the NYC or WSJ. Hence the reason for my cautious search of an alternative (Note, I have a good article but I am not at all an expert at Wikipedia). Any further discussion of the topic at hand would be helpful. JacquesAndreNicolas (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Newspapers.com can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library and some Wikipedia editors have Newspapers.com accounts separate from this. Libraries also usually have copies of local newspapers on microfiche so anyone determined to check a newspaper reference can likely do so. en:Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good resource for asking questions about English Wikipedia. Abzeronow (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@TennisPlayer67: Specifics would be helpful. It looks like you have been editing en:Abivax and you've uploaded a logo of theirs, so I will guess this is about them (tell me if I'm wrong).
Before anything else: make sure you have read en:WP:COI. If you are editing the English-language Wikipedia (en-wiki) with a conflict of interest (e.g. you have a relation to the company you are writing about, or are being paid by them or on their behalf) you need to disclose that conflict, as discussed there. If you don't do that, your account will probably be blocked on en-wiki.
When you claim File:ABIVAX Logo-RGB.png as your "own work" and offer a license to use it: does that mean you personally designed the logo and own a copyright on it? If not, then this license as currently offered isn't valid. Who actually owns the copyright? If Abivax owns the copyright, then they need to go through the process outlined at COM:VRT or COM:VRT/fr to grant a license.
Also: I doubt that logo is eligible for copyright in France, and almost certainly not in the U.S. {{PD-textlogo}} seems plausible; the currently claimed {{CC-Zero}} does not.
To answer your original question: assuming this supersedes the earlier Abivax logo, you can edit the wikisource of the Abivax page and, in the Infobox, replace the filename with the correct logo. - Jmabel ! talk22:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Suggestions on Mac utilities to rotate image before upload
Not answering the question but indeed the bot seems to be having repeatedly the problem "Error Bot locked itself after a internal problem". -- Asclepias (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "configuration pre-upload" means, but Preview.app can rotate graphics files in 90° increments. It changes the file, so I assume that whatever one uploads is the rotated one. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Specifically, my process was click "Markup" (the pencil icon), rotate the image in that tool, and then crop the image, and then hit save/done. In my image preview on Mac, the image shows up as horizontal orientation, but when I upload, it is vertical (like it was pre-rotate before Markup change). So I guess Preview.app does it differently and saves it in the image's metadata or something. Thanks, I guess I'll try that next time. I'm still a bit curious on the how/why, and where you can look to see if the rotation happened prior to uploading (hence my "configuration" verbiage). Is there a CLI way to confirm that the image has been rotated after it was created? --Engineerchange (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Am I allowed to upload an album cover if it isn't on wikimedia commons?
@Soultech99: , Commons only allows album covers if they are out of copyright, freely licensed or too simple to be copyrighted. You can upload non-free album covers to English Wikipedia if there is an article on the album there and it is used there. Abzeronow (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't actually find whether the image is out of copyright or even copyrighted in the first place, there's barely anywhere that says anything like that. What do i do? It's following EP Stretch 2 is on Wikipedia and has its album cover with it. Soultech99 (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about uploading a screenshot of another website to Commons. Do I still need to display the license of copyright? What if there's insufficient info about the license of the website? Cowboyhats12 (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Cowboyhats12: There is no general answer to your question, you'd need to give a more concrete example.
For what it's worth, well over 95% of what is on the Internet is copyrighted, does not offer a free license, and therefore is not suitable for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk20:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Assuming I understand you correctly, yes. Under the Berne Convention -- which for over three decades has been subscribed to by every significant nation on earth, and by many for over a century -- works are copyrighted at creation. So, if a site contains more-or-less contemporary content, and doesn't say anything about licensing terms, it is almost certain that its entire contents are copyrighted, with all rights reserved. The only exceptions would be things so simple they can't be copyrighted. For example, File:Microsoft Cortana - Windows 10 Mobile (February 2021) 02.png is too simple to copyright. - Jmabel ! talk04:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
How to Update a Company Logo Properly
Hi there. I am a brand manager at a large firm who has a presence here. We have recently updated the firm's logo and as a member of the team who manages the logo we would like to update across all platforms, including Wikipedia/Commons, to feature the latest logo. I want to ensure I am following proper protocol but am getting a little confused. I have the official logo files and details of the licensing that should be associated with them. Is someone able to advise on the proper way to update a company logo? I appreciate your help. Hud77 (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hud77: It would be so much simpler if you would say what in particular we are talking about rather than ask in the abstract. You don't even say what country we are talking about, and copyright laws vary considerably from country to country.
A few points will be the same no matter what we are talking about:
If the old logo is already on Commons, it should be left as it is (visually) because we are as interested in historical logos as current ones. It is, of course, reasonable to say on the file page that it is no longer a current logo.
If the logo is so simple that it is not copyrightable (thresholds vary widely from country to country), you can upload it using {{PD-ineligible}} and {{Trademarked}} in lieu of a license.
If the logo is copyrighted, then the only way we can accept it on Commons is if the copyright-holder grants a "free license"; typically this would be {{CC-BY}} or {{CC-BY-SA}}. Both of these allow reuse, including commercial use and derivative works, but require attribution. For a company logo, this would have to go through the process described at COM:VRT; when uploading, you would specify the relevant license plus {{Trademarked}}. We've found, however, that very few companies would want to grant a license like this, preferring not to license what they consider valuable intellectual property.
If none of the above apply, so it is not possible to upload the image to Commons, but you still wish to have your up-to-date logo in a Wikipedia article: some of the Wikipedias (including the English-language Wikipedia, but excluding, for example, the German-language Wikipedia) make certain allowance for non-free use. For the English-language Wikipedia, see en:Wikipedia:Logos. Note that this approach does not involve Wikimedia Commons at all.
I hope that gives you what you need. To tell you anything more useful, you'd really have to say what country we are talking about, and it would help enormously if you could link to a page that shows the new logo in question. - Jmabel ! talk19:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Jmabel, thank you for your response! Apologies for not including all the details, I wasn't sure what was appropriate to include in this forum. This is United States specific and here is the new logo on our site: https://www.morganstanley.com. There are subtle but important changes that differ from the logo currently present: File:Morgan Stanley Logo 1.svg - Wikimedia Commons. Let me know if this additional information helps? I appreciate your help! Hud77 (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, I'm guessing you will want to change this on the many relevant Wikipedia pages (which are identified in the lower portion of File:Morgan Stanley Logo 1.svg). Make sure that as a (presumably) paid editor you do all of the proper disclosures in any Wikipedia you edit. See en:WP:COI as a starting point on the English-language Wikipedia, and if you are having a hard time navigating the situation, feel free to hit me up on my user talk page either here on Commons or at en-wiki. I'll pretty much always respond within 24 hours. - Jmabel ! talk19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Thank you very much for your help. Yes, actually the File:MS Standard Logo 2022 Black.jpg is the official logo file that I was hoping to make the primary logo - are you able to update that to be so? And thank you, I will reference en:WP:COI to start updating the relevant Wikipedia pages that leverage the logo. I will message you on your user talk page if I have trouble. Again, really appreciate your help! Hud77 (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The only place I'm aware of in the WMF world that has an explicit notion of a "primary" (actually "preferred") logo is on Wikidata (Morgan Stanley (Q334204)), where I've already fixed that. That will trickle through to a lot of the smaller Wikipedias (as you can see on the lower portion of the page at File:Morgan Stanley Logo 2024.png), which draw content for infoboxes from Wikidata. It won't affect en-wiki, which does not use that approach. - Jmabel ! talk20:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel thank you! That makes sense. Appreciate the insight. Last question - For me to update the en-wiki pages that use the original logo (found in the lower portion of File:Morgan Stanley Logo 1.svg), I will just need to manually edit those to leverage the new logo, correct? Everything else will populate from Wikidata? Thank you so much for helping me navigate this. Hud77 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, you can do the replacements manually. Or if you prefer you can make a request at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands to replace the file in all the pages where the file is used directly. And yes, everything that merely mirrors the Wikidata usage will mirror whatever is currently on Wikidata. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel and @Asclepias Thank you both, I really appreciate all the insights (there is certainly a learning curve for me). Great call on the caution, what I did was look at where within en.wiki the original File:Morgan Stanley Logo 1.svg is used and double checked each usage (19 in total) and am able to confirm that none of the uses are depicting the logo at different dates, so I feel confident that it would be okay to use the https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands feature. However, when I went to do so I tried, but got worried that I was going to mess it up as I am not used to that type of editing and don't want to cause any issues. Would it be too much to ask if one of you could replace the current logo with the new one @Jmabel created above? Thank you for all of your help! Hud77 (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I still have my doubts -- it is used in some contexts in languages I don't read -- but I guess I'll go for doing it in an automated manner. I'll admit this doesn't "smell good" to me. - Jmabel ! talk18:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel I respect you as the expert on this so if it's not something you're totally comfortable with I don't want to push it. If so, could you help me just update the logo on the main Morgan Stanley page: Morgan Stanley - Wikipedia to feature the new logo where the old one sits above the image of our building? Thank you for your continued support, I really appreciate it. Hud77 (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I went ahead and requested it. At the moment, it is still in the queue. I'm just a little concerned with the followup I'll have to do to make sure it didn't do anything wrong; I'm not sure that will be a lot less than it would have been to do it by hand in the first place. - Jmabel ! talk21:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hud77: per the discussion immediately below, automated replacement is not an option here. I'm afraid this needs to be done by hand. I'll take on a few of the more prominent ones, but beyond that I'm afraid you are on your own. - Jmabel ! talk18:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
And I get that (in either direction) if it's just a different version of the same image. But in this case the old image is wrong and the new one is right. They are visually different. - Jmabel ! talk18:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Online women's magazine has gone into administration, I wish to upload their old logo advice needed?
@Greenpark79: Going out of business has no effect on copyright (except to make it difficult to identify the successor organization that may own the copyright, so it is harder to get permissions). If the logo we are talking about is the thing of the woman floating in a pink inner tube, it is certainly copyrighted.
I'm not sure what infobox you are referring to, but if the logo is copyrighted and we don't have a free license, it does not belong on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Greenpark79: you still haven't said what "infobox" you are concerned with. Is this something on Commons? If it's for en-wiki, you could certainly upload this to en-wiki for the relevant article as a [possibly] non-free logo. See en:Driving Standards Agency and its logo for a fairly good example of how to do that. - Jmabel ! talk21:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Greenpark79: Again: are we talking about the English-language Wikipedia, Commons, or somewhere else? There are several hundred WMF projects. "the magazine infobox template" tells me nothing. - Jmabel ! talk21:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What does it mean for a business to go "into administration"? It means that the business cannot pay its debts and the creditors have asked a third party to take over the running of the business while its future is decided. The administrators have three main options:
They can "streamline" the business to enable to to beome profitable which might include getting loans from the banks or asking shareholders to put more money into the business
They can sell the business as a "going concern" to a third party who might be interested in for example, for example, unfulfilled contracts.
They can declare the company bankrupt.
In the case in question, (which I have not researched), the administrators might sell the title as a going concern to a publishing house who will relaunch it. The new publishing house will then own the copyright etc of the old business. Martinvl (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean "log on"? Do you have an account? If you log into Commons, normally that will log you on to Wikipedia, and vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk04:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
No se nada de computadoras pero si se que está interviniendo mi sistema y asen cambios remota mente y robo de información y restricciones todo el tiempo tengo que batallar para entrar a Inter si o a la wed no echo algún daño a nadien me an echo mas daños Ami y mi familia Josecort864 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The gallery of erect penises (File:Various size penises.jpg) only includes people with light skin. They seem to be of European and East Asian background, but this is really not a representative sample, as the goal seems to be showing diversity in what the penis looks like. There are no images of people with dark or even medium-toned skin, even though a very large number of people worldwide have dark skin. Can someone please update this to include some penises of people with dark skin? Kk.urban (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kk.urban: This is just some user's work. You can create their own, including whatever degree of overlap (or not) you may wish with the content of that file. Just make sure you license correctly. - Jmabel ! talk22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There is more to it. 3 of the files this imaage is a derivative work of, have since been deleted. Question: need they be undeleted for being inuse and/or better attribution. Or need the image be deleted if one of the files was a copyvio?
Hello, my image got flagged by the bot for possible copyright violation. I have written authorization from the author. In this case it says that I should replace the "copyvio" tag with {{Permission pending|year=2024|month=January|day=12}}, but I can't seem to find where that tag is to replace it. TyranCometh (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Koavf thank you, do you know if nccommons is the right place to upload pictures of mushroom collections? I upload them to put them in the Wikipedia articles I write about mushroom species. Also I'm not sure to understand how I can be allowed to upload there, it says that I should ask for the privileges but I'm not sure to know how. TyranCometh (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@TyranCometh: it's a completely separate website, you'd have to communicate with them, not us.
Note that you cannot use content from there in Wikipedia. Like Commons, Wikipedia considers NC licenses insufficiently free (though, unlike Commons, some of the Wikipedias including the English-language Wikipedia make certain allowances for non-free use when no free image is available). - Jmabel ! talk18:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@TyranCometh: Sorry if it's confusing. As Jmabel pointed out, it's a totally separate site, even if it looks similar to this one and has a similar mission. So 1.) yes, you can in principle upload those photos there, 2.) to get permission, you can request permission at w:en:User_talk:Doc_James, and 3.) images uploaded there cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. In the English-language Wikipedia, we can upload local files that are fair use, but that generally only happens in narrow circumstances (e.g. album cover art, but only for the article about that album). Please let me know if you have any other questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not for articles, but for multimedia content. Please read COM:SCOPE. For articles, please see Wikipedia in the language you want to write articles. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
TimedText for Tooro
It seems that the Tooro language is not supported by TimedText, as the namespace for Tooro subtitles says "ttj subtitles for clip:" instead of "Tooro subtitles for clip:" (unlike related languages such as Nyoro, Nkore and Kiga) and the CC icon will not allow you to use Tooro subtitles. Thus, for Anthem of the Tooro Kingdom.oga, only the English subtitles can be used despite the Tooro subtitles also existing.
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. Ahiise2 (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The picture should be attributed as follows: Book is entitled, "I, Flook" by George Melly and illustrations by Trog; copyright: Associated Newspapers Ltd, 1962; picture appeared in the book "I Flook" as` described published by St. Martin's Press New York, 1962, page 24 --OMbod13 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Then that is a copyright violation, unless St. Martin's Press somehow failed to renew their copyright. (This is one of the last years when someone would have had to do that in the U.S.) - Jmabel ! talk18:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Did this sort of dual publication by two publishers in the UK and the US require a renewal for the US copyright? FWIW, nothing about the book title or author in the copyright renewals database of Stanford. PD-US-not renewed? Or does Commons give preference to the UK copyright in this case? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The book bears the name of both publishers: "London Macmillan & Co Ltd, New York St Martin's Press" [2]. Can it be assumed that it is proof that the publication was simultaneous? -- Asclepias (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd say so. They were the same company, but they could not use the "Macmillan" name in the U.S. because of the American publisher of the same name (and shared origin) that later became part of Crowell Collier Macmillan. So for most other publishers you'd see something like "Harper & Roe (New York, London)" but they couldn'tdo that. - Jmabel ! talk18:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
The uploader of the file wrote a long text about the book in the article Andrée Melly on en.wikipedia [3]. After reading it, it is not clear if they are saying that this particular drawing was original to the book or that it had been previously published as part of the Daily Mail's Flook comic strips. It sounds more like previous publication. The uploader has still not placed a status tag for the file. Given the uncertainty, it is probably prudent to delete the file. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Photograms of the Year 1922 - copyright question
I have a copy of the Photograms of the Year 1922, and uploaded a few images some time ago, for images where I could ascertain year of death of the photographer, and it was more than 70 years ago. However I have just been reading info that implies the entire book might be out of copyright (https://publicdomainimagelibrary.com/copyright-rules/). There are some portraits of/photographs by notable people, but I thought I'd check with the experts before I go and upload a bunch of copyright violations!
The book was published in the UK by Iliffe and Sons, and then lists many other publishers in other countries (for instance, US: Boston, American Photographic Publishing Co; Canada: Toronto, The Musson Book Co, Ltd; Australasia: Melbourne, Kodak (Australasia) Ltd etc). Advice appreciated! DrThneed (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a similar question two sections above about publication in multiple jurisdictions. It seems that the main point for the internal policy or practice of Commons is to determine if the book can be considered published in the United States at least simultaneously with (which means, according to US law, not more than 30 days after) its publication in another jurisdiction. The US publisher on the title page can reasonably be taken as prima facie evidence of such simultaneous publication, in the absence of contradicting evidence that the US publication was delayed for more than 30 days. This book does not seem to have a copyright notice, which means that, if it is indeed considered a US publication, it might have always been in the public domain in the US (PD-US-no notice). Or, as a pre-1929 publication, it is certainly in the US public domain anyway now (PD-US-expired). If you upload files, make sure to mention the US publisher in the description pages. It would be interesting to have more of those Photograms of the year books on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Definitely needs to be removed from your Wikidata user page before you can ask for deletion. At that point, you can ask for it to be deleted as an unused personal photo. - Jmabel ! talk21:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I want to upload an image from a paper for which my group members are authors.
@Nittany XRD: that's a bit vague (especially "my group members"). Is the paper published under a COM:L free license? If so, you can just cite the paper itself as a source, use that license, and upload. If not, then because this was previously published, you'll probably have to go through the process described at COM:VRT to grant a license for the image. If there are multiple copyright-holders, then all would need to sign off, so you'd want to cc everybody on the email described at COM:VRT and expect that there might be some back-and-forth correspondence to confirm that everyone agrees. - Jmabel ! talk21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Photo
Hello!
what should be done to upload the missing photo of a non existing person whose biography has been put up in Wikipedia.
Do you mean the person is deceased or the person is fictional? Also you can reply in whichever language you natively speak if it makes things easier to understand your meaning (I can use google translate on it if necessary). Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay. Let me explain. A person who is an eminent film artist, about whom an biography is already is in our respected Wikipedia, but his photo is not there. So it is not possible to get his photo by our camera. So how can we put his photo in Wikipedia? Thanks for your Guidance. :) Dr.Mayukhjee (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, so this is a living person. You can go about this in two ways: 1. Take a photograph of this film artist or find a photograph with an explicit free license such as Creative Commons-Attribution. 2. Check m:Non-free content if the Wikipedia in your language allows non-free content and follow the guidelines on your language's Wikipedia if they allow non-free content. Abzeronow (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Or a third way: you personally don't have to take the photo; someone else can take it and either (a) create an account of their own and upload it or (b) email the photo and grant a license as described at COM:VRT. You can ask them to cc you on that email so you will be in the loop. Or someone can do the same with an existing unpublished photo (or, using VRT again, a published photo). But the permission has to come from the copyright-holder, which would almost certainly mean the photographer. - Jmabel ! talk22:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploading a new version of a file gives duplicate error.
Trying to upload a new version ([4]https://svgshare.com/i/11z2.svg) to this file. It gives me Upload error "The upload is an exact duplicate of the current version of File:Periodic table modification.svg."
Doesn't wikipedia check hashes of file uploads?ǃ
Pls help me out. Or if you can, just upload the new version to this file. Thnx in advance ː) Seeker220 (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Options for a derivative work photo to stay in Commons?
Hello, over at eswiki I've been writing a page for a video game character. However, it's been challenging to find a photo for the infobox since there aren't many cosplayers or photos available of this character that don't infringe copyright. Here in Commons, I found a photo of merchandise sold back in 2018 that featured this character and used CropTool to get a potential infobox photo. Unfortunately, it seems the photo violates COM:DW so it's been labeled for deletion.
If I understand correctly, the only way for this photo to stay up would be for the rights holder (Koei Tecmo) to grant permission via email to use this photo? Otherwise, are there other options to perhaps keep a lower res version for the infobox over at eswiki? Jotamide (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as Commons is concerned, yes, the only way to keep it is permission from the original artist. As for es-wiki policies, you'd have to take that up on es-wiki. - Jmabel ! talk22:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Thank you so much for letting me know of this template! Unfortunately, it seems that these types of crops don't play nice with infoboxes since it forces a full-sized image. I tried setting a 220px max width in this revision (Tamaki (Dead or Alive)) but it would still display at full size. Do you perhaps have any pointers in what was I doing wrong?
我看到有人對舊照片以掃描方式上傳提名刪除，僅僅是因為他認為版權與來源都不明，但是我發現一個問題，這些照片看起來像是1980、1990年代那種底片相機才拍得出來的畫面質感，依照台灣當時的科技環境，底片相機算是數位相機的前一代科技產物，智慧型手機更是2010年代普及起來，相較於底片相機，年輕人自然是熟悉數位相機、智慧型手機，因為他們可能不知道底片相機拍出來的照片會是沒有EXIF這種東西，所以我猜想所謂「版權與來源都不明」可能是來自於提名人是僅憑沒有EXIF而做出的判斷結果。如果真是如此，那種這種判斷是太大有問題，而且提名人還是一次對 154 張照片刪除。既然數量是如此龐大，那麼在提名之前是理應更加謹慎，而非直接提名，然後就丟給別人討論，提名人自己就不管了，因此我認為此風是不可長。為此，我想請各位指教看看，你們是否接受提名人此番作為與提名刪除的理由？如果不接受，你們有何辦法可以避免這種事未來再發生？ 125.230.89.1503:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Via Google translate: I saw someone nominated old photos uploaded by scanning for deletion simply because he thought the copyright and source were unclear, but I found a problem, these photos look like It is the picture quality that can only be captured by film cameras in the 1980s and 1990s. According to Taiwan's technological environment at that time, film cameras are the previous generation of digital cameras. Smartphones became popular in the 2010s. Compared with film cameras, , young people are naturally familiar with digital cameras and smart phones, because they may not know that photos taken by film cameras will not have EXIF, so I guess the so-called "unknown copyright and source" may come from the fact that the nominee is Judgment results based solely on the absence of EXIF. If so, that judgment is too big and questionable, and the nominator still deleted 154 photos at once. Since the number is so huge, we should be more cautious before nominating, rather than nominating directly and then leaving it to others to discuss, and the nominator will not care about it. Therefore, I think this trend will not last long. To this end, I would like to ask you for your advice. Do you accept this as the reason for deletion of the nomination? If not, what can you do to prevent this from happening in the future? 125.230.89.15 03:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Google translate posted by Jmabel ! talk04:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that this happened years ago and these were kept, I don't see why this needs further discussion. Yes, sometimes someone makes a bad DR nomination. - Jmabel ! talk04:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Paulen1964: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload a smaller (<50,000 bytes or <2,000,000 pixels) jpg photo as a new user. The photo you tried to upload is smaller, and you indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a smaller photo, it is a copyright violation taken from the web. If you took the photo yourself, please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including EXIF metadata. If you did not take the photo, please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the photographer post permission on their official website or social media or send the photo and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the photo may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid that filter. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Uploading a Non commercial image but with agreement of the author
Hello, can I upload the non-commercial image of an author which gave it's written and explicit consent for the image to be used in Wikipedia ? If no is there a way to do it considering that the author gave its consent but the image is non commercial ? TyranCometh (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
1) Note that this is Wikimedia Commons, not English language Wikipedia, and rules are not the same. 2)Wikimedia Commons is for free licensed images only, see COM:LICENSE for details. 3)"Non commercial" license are not free enough to be on Commons, so no, a non commercial image cannot be here. Author consent to be used in one place is not a general free license - the author would need to allow a general free license, which would include allowing commercial reuse. Hope this helps. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
@Infrogmation Thank you for the information. By chance do you know if there is a way I could upload it directly to Wikipedia or something similar that would make it okay to be used in a page as a non-commercial image with author consent to be uploaded on wikipedia? TyranCometh (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Firstly, i need to say: The topic of this question is asked by me before.
I said like "how can i disable autotranscode?" and got an answer like "you can look at phabricator", but i cannot got some info about phab after some research.. I even don't know what is phab.. Can anyone give me more spesific help about how to manually upload transcodes (or at least disable autos)? RuzDD (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@RuzDD: Could you please explain what you mean by "autotranscode"? I can't find that term used in any context related to mediawiki. - Jmabel ! talk00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you saying you want to have something happen differently to your uploaded audio files, or to what you get when you navigate to a the file page of an audio file? In other words, what do you want to disable? Having the transcoded files created and linked, or you seeing them? - Jmabel ! talk01:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I want to manually create and upload transcodes, or disable transcodes for my files at all if the first cannot be done. Reason: The MW engine creates transcodes with wrong ways, and transcodes are being too big for very low quality (and also distorted/changed/wrong content). RuzDD (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel and RuzDD: In the case of an audio file, a transcode is a MP3 or Ogg Vorbis file with free compression and thus a smaller filesize with lower bitrate than the original audio, created to optimally serve one of our audio files to web browsers by mw:Extension:TimedMediaHandler. After each audio file is uploaded, that extension creates a "Transcode status" section on the audio file's file description page, which contains a link to "Update transcode status" (which will purge the page) and then a table which details the following statistics for each transcode: "Format" (sorted by audio format in decreasing order); "Bitrate" (in kbps); "Download" (a link to download that particular transcode); "Actions" (a link to "Reset transcode" for that particular transcode, in case the transcoding failed); "Status" (what happened last to that transcode and when (UTC)); and "Encode time" (how long it took a backend server to finish the transcoding process). There appears to be no provision to disable transcoding or provide your own transcodes. RuzDD, what exactly do you mean by "transcodes with wrong ways" and "transcodes are being too big for very low quality (and also distorted/changed/wrong content)"? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
MP3 must be 22050Hz 64kbps, but it's 44100Hz 106akbps. OGG must be 22050Hz ~48-64akbps but it's 44100Hz. This status wastes the storage for just a very low quality audio that very different&slow than the original. RuzDD (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Can anyone disable this extension or set the extension to manually enable/disable for spesific files? Humans can create very higher quality transcodes in very low filesizes. RuzDD (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
phab is shoort for phabricator. It is the database used by MediaWiki to track bugs and feature requests. Your requst would be a feature request. To actully file one, you need an account at phabricator. That is easy: you go on the registration page of phab and select Wikipedia OAUTH, then your wiki account will be linked to a phab account of the same name. Once that is done, you can click on "create task" und choose "feature request" in the Phab GUI.
However: Do you really need that? The transcodes are automagically created for all audio and video files. They are needed by the wiki software to play media in a web browser. But if you need the original you can always link to the original uploaded file. It does not get changed and is available for download. So if you have an app that needs the 48k/s orignial, you can simply enter the download url into that app and will get the original file.
Transcodes those created by MW are sooo bad, they are giving the poorest quality of the world by a very huge filesize. Audios are getting slowed down, distorted, and destroyed during creation of automatic transcodes and these are resulting in a very large file size. I can create much more high quality transcodes in just very smaller file sizes in the same formats. I will write that to phab. RuzDD (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
The transcodes are the way they are because of standardisation and to allow for maximum compatibility with a large range of devices. If there are specific files that get incorrect results, then likely there is a small error in the pipeline that needs to be corrected. And provided examples of such will be analysed and fixed (eventually). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't consider it a "huge problem". The transcodes are used for the media player. May be you can upload a single of your "better" manual transcodes of a video already existing on commons, so that people can look, if your manual transcode works at least as good as the existing transcodes with the media player. If that is the case, it may be worth considering if it does make sense to consider changes to the transcoding.
What I do consider as a problem, is the case that one or more transcodes of a video smaller than 4GiB is/are larger than 4GiB. In such a case the transcode fails completely, even so the size limit of 4GiB for files does not need to apply to transcodes. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The maximum limit right now is 4GB, which hopefully soon can be raised to 5GB. After that our MW storage api needs to be adapted to store in chunks of 4GB. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
There's not need to upload the maximum filesize, i think a limit of 4MB (MegaBytes, not Giga) will be nice enough (and also prevents users from uploading a very large file without compressing it as another advantage). My last uploaded file is even smaller than 2MB (i'm uploading it as wav because i'm not an autopatrol, i will upload new files as maximum 64kbps MP3 when i'm an autopatrol so filesizes will be even very smaller) so a limit of 4MB is very enough in my opinion. And, to your info: I'm putted a task about that at phab. RuzDD (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@RuzDD: We are talking here about feature films in high resolution, which often get near or over the 4 GB limit. If one wants to view it in good quality, they obviously need transcodes which are also big files. Yann (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Assume the bitrate is 1MBPS (i think that's a very high quality for the standard 576 lines), the maximum video length is about 32 secs. That's much longer than most videos to my experience. For videos on a more efficient quality (for example, 256kbps on 288 lines), a length of 2:08 is available. So, i think that's very enough for videos. I think audio and video must be considered as the same in the filesizes.
Why 4K? What's not enough at 288 or 576 lines? I'd played a lot of games and watched a lot of films at 288-lined 25FPS composite PAL and they were very nice. Also, why we are putting whole feature films? That's how being "can be used for educational purposes"? Excuse me, but i can't see any educational usage for whole feature films... RuzDD (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
In Help:Searching, it suggests I can use "filemime:" to append to a search on a file type, but can I remove specific file mimes from my search? For instance, the search `stars -filemime:jpg" (similar to the example, but with a negation) does not appear to work (as there are jpgs in the results): search. Any suggestions here? --Engineerchange (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I want to put up a file made by another person (specifically the favicon of said person's site) and when I asked them if I can do that they responded with the following
technically all rights reserved i think? whatever the default that you get just by publishing work is. I'm OK with you putting that fav.gif asset up though
does this mean I can upload it? should I ask them for the "permission for anyone to use, copy, modify and sell it" (as written in the upload wizard)? Pandaqwanda (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
“does this mean I can upload it” No, it does not. We require a LICENSE that gives us permission to do just about anything we want with it, including using it outside of wikipedia wherever we want.l, while making money of it. Please read Commons:Licensing. This answer is also given in the FAQ which is listed in the box of things to read at the top of this page. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pandaqwanda: just to expand a bit, we can’t infer from the above informal statement that the person understands the implications of such consent. A specific free licence makes clear the rights & obligations involved. See COM:VRT#If you are NOT the copyright holder for how you can arrange with the owner, if willing of course, to get permission in an acceptable form.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Can someone help me on how to upload an image asset to Wikimedia Commons?
It was truncated! not by choice, I tried using some commandline tools and it did and I didn't realise until after I uploaded it. JnpoJuwan (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
the Dropbox one is the full version, that I want. unless there's someway to compress it to fit into Wikimedia, I don't know what to do. JnpoJuwan (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
I think that this question was replied to adequately based on the supplied information. If you have anything to add or a follow-up question please feel free to replace this box with your comment. This section will be archived after two days. JnpoJuwan (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
User pages shown in "Category:Interest user templates"
Some user pages (including mine) are being shown on "Category:Interest user templates", where it reads: It should not contain media files or pages outside the template namespace.. It must be due to something in the userbox templates we included in our user pages, but I have no idea about what can be. Can please somebody figure out what's happening and how can be fixed? Thanks in advance. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21, I'm not using "User all animals", but "User cartography" and "User space exploration". That last one has no visible reference to "Interest user templates" when reading its code. "User cartography" was created by me. I edited it to put the link to the category inside <noinclude>, and the same for User all animals. Then, I reloaded the category with ?action=purge, but nothing has changed. It isn't a big problem, and, for what I can see, isn't a new one either, but it would be fine to be able to fix it. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21, it's fully fixed now. I don't know if someone did anything else later (I see nothing at the templates or category's history, though), or if what I did hadn't immediate effect but worked with some delay, but the category shows no user pages now. Thanks for your help. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I have been working on an article regarding our media platform. It is a genuine Australian business and I took care to make the article informative, factual and closely resemble other Australian media company pages. As soon as I pressed publish, it was marked as spam by a user called lemonaka who is apparently inactive and mostly works in Chinese. What is wrong here??? This is my first ever attempt tom use wikipedia and I am finding this extremely confusing. RegionMediaACT (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. We don't have articles here. However you've used your userpage here to write what is basically a promotional business advert. I'm not surprised that @Lemonaka: treated it as spam.
Anticipate your account simply being blocked before long.
The problem is that this is not what Wikipedia is here for. As your actions here have been to use WP entirely for self-promotion, without even any attempt to learn some of the ground rules of editing first, then things have not gone well for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Andy, I was actually hoping for some help. This is a very aggressive answer to someone who is completely new to this. I am struggling to understand any of this. Is there someone, somewhere who could help me sort out why articles on other local media have been current for a long time, but mine is inappropriate or unusable? I totally don’t understand the aggression here. 14.201.161.17801:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it’s OK. Someone did respond with helpful practical advice I can use. Maybe rethink your approach to people asking for assistance? 14.201.161.17801:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I won't apology for what I did since your userpage is really a spam, or something promoting your own business. Mostly working in Chinese is not my fault, and if you look a little bit more, you will find I previously worked with English community. Lemonaka (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Did you even look at it? Did you read anything I wrote or follow any link? This has been a horrible experience for someone completely new to Wikipedia. Really, really distressing, ugly and confusing. A very very nasty day fir someone just trying to write about an interesting development in my industry. Wow, you people have left me speechless. 2001:8004:C40:F4E1:B81D:E161:D541:33C107:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@RegionMediaACT I assume it is you, even though you are logged out and write as an IP. You say, you are new to Wikipedia, which sounds strange, as Wikipedia exists for 23 years now and it is unlikely, that in this 23 years you never looked up something in Wikipedia. However you seem to have missed, that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, or you have missed, what an Encyclpedia is. An Encyclopeida is a number of articles about notable subjects. Your business is either not notable (for an Encyclopedia), or you described it in a way, that does not show that it is notable, or in an other way as articles in an Encyclopedia are made. In the english-language Wikipedia you will find millions of examples of encyclopedia articles about notable subjects. And there I am at the beginning again: You write as if you have never looked at a Wikipedia article in the last 23 years. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Some of the above is quite unnecessarily harsh but, @RegionMediaACT: you should definitely read the English-language Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest. You've definitely been violating policy, and if you don't want to end up with your account blocked on en-wiki (though probably not here on Commons), you need to understand this policy. Basically, writing in en-wiki about yourself or something in which you are directly involved is against policy. - Jmabel ! talk21:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for a courteous response. When I say I am new to wikipedia, I mean I am new to making a contribution. I've been an author and journalist for 35 years, but I won't be coming back.
I feel actively bullied by a community where I simply tried to post an article without fully understanding what the issues were. I've also moderated social media content on news sites for years and would have considered banning or demoting some of the above commenters for their level of aggression.
Is this what you all want wikipedia to be? Are any of you thinking about either your language or your attitude? Or is protecting how the group thinks the primary aim?
I will, however, be writing about this for the Australian Conversation site where I'm a regular contributor, now that I understand significantly more about the dynamics of the group. And no, I won't be hitting that button that urges contributions ever again, or suggesting anyone else should do so. RegionMediaACT (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@RegionMediaACT: do keep in mind, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the English-language Wikipedia. So, among other things, you started out by complaining about issues on one Wikimedia Foundation project on the site of another, which may not excuse the tone of some of the above, but may go a ways to explain it. Also: when you complain around here that someone's primary language is different than your own, you really aren't going to get mileage from that. We have contributors from all over the world, and we want it that way.
Andy Dingley, in particular, started out by letting you know why your actions on another site (the English-language Wikipedia) were likely to get you in trouble there. He did so reasonably politely, but you seem to have taken offense, and from there it deterioriated.
When you write to the help desk of one project to complain about what is happening on another project, what can you really expect? Andy told you that you were in the wrong place and could have left it at that, but took a look at what was going on and added (correctly) that what you were doing on the English-language Wikipedia wasn't appropriate there (about which he was almost certainly correct) and was likely to get you in trouble there (ditto). He probably should have cited en:WP:COI, like I did, but he was just trying quickly to get back to you, not an admin on either project (I'm an admin on both). - Jmabel ! talk23:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
counter proposal: Blocking OP
As I reconsider the case, OP is clearly touching the line, e.g. using log-out sock puppets for disruption, clearly COI, trolling or cast aspersions against us. That validates a block against OP themselves.--Lemonaka (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lemonaka and Jeff G.: are there specific diffs of problematic behavior here on Commons? I would not block based on the conversation above. Frankly, the way it looks to me, people were piling on them in an unhelpful way (on the help desk) and I don't blame them particularly for lashing out at that. - Jmabel ! talk04:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
None of this looks great, but it still doesn't look to me like a reason for a block. I won't object if another admin disagrees and blocks. - Jmabel ! talk00:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
If you are saying that your account name is present as uploader: that's simply how things work. This is why the screen to create an account says, "Your username is public and cannot be made private later." Or are you saying that there is some other sort of metadata with your name? - Jmabel ! talk04:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think they are referring to the Author field in the Metadata table of the image's page. You should be able to see it if you visit the file. BhamBoi (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
My Accountname is not the problem, in the metadata tab the author is it. I would like to override the picture with one, where I delete all
Copyright status of photographs taken by or for Navy Athletics? PD-USNavy or Copyrighted?
My question is whether images taken for Navy Athletics the team for the United States Naval Academy (Twitter, Official website) would be considered Public Domain or copyrighted material? In particular there are some images hosted on the website of the recently deceased Al Cantello that are better quality then the current image. Thanks - Caddyshack01 (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Correct phrasing for attribution of inherited copyright
See File:Sugar cane plantation near Murwillumbah, November 1961.jpg for an example. My father took this photo, and I'm now the owner. I used {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs |1=I am Donald Christie's son and heir.}} as the licence, which I think I was advised to when I started uploading these, but I just noticed that leads to "Attribution: I am Donald Christie's son and heir" in the licence displayed. That doesn't seem to make any sense. And for the info template it shows "Source: I own it". Is there a better way for me to do the layout for these? I expect to upload maybe a hundred or two of his photos eventually and it would be nice to get the formatting right. Mike Christie (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Nothing wrong at all. If you're happy with Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs, it's good to use it rather than creating something else. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: What you write in the parameter of the license template is the wording you want reusers to write as the attribution when they use the image. Presumably, you might choose it to be "Don Christie". (Or, as owner of the copyright, you can choose an attribution to yourself or choose any other attribution you like.) For the source, assuming you scanned the image from the original, you can write something like, for example, "{{Self-scanned}} from original print" or "{{Self-scanned}} from slide" or whatever else factually describes where the image comes from. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello, respected. I will ask you to translate only one side of a Macedonian famous poet and doctor who has completed medicine in Bucharest. will be honored to have a Romanian version of his Macedonian page or in other language. Shviki (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shviki: I believe you are asking this on the wrong site. This is Wikimedia Commons. Perhaps you meant to ask this either on the Macedonian Wikipedia or the Romanian Wikipedia? Also, you would need to link the Macedonian-language article you are talking about! Even then, I don't imagine there are a large number of people who read Macedonian and write Romanian. - Jmabel ! talk17:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I upload a photo of a public school
I was wondering if it would violate Wikimedia Commons rules to upload a picture that I took of the outside of a public school in the United States. Skipidibodadob7 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think you are simply wrong here. U.S. effectively has F.O.P. for buildings, just not for works of art. I can't think of any situation where the copyright on a U.S. building would limit publishing photos of it. Can you spell out a scenario where this would be an issue? - 00:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
You took the photo and are willing to share it under a free license (COM:LICENSE)? Sure, sounds good, upload. Please be sure to include information about where the school (eg city, town, state) in the description. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
My page was deleted
My page about Diana Elizabeth Martinovich was deleted for strange reason :a suspicious that I wanted to create an encyclopedia page. I want to create a page with the name of this women becasue she is top best seller authro in the USA and all over the world,and I do not see the reason why I am not allowed to create a page about her. woudl you please be so kind to explain this,please. Thank you. JamesKonrad (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
@JamesKonrad: Here you are on Wikimedia Commons, a project which is only concerned by multimedia content. For articles, please ask on the relevant language Wikipedia. But with only 2.640 results for "Diana Elizabeth Martinovich", there is very little chance that she is notable enough for an article. There are 10 times more hits with my name, and I am certainly not worthy of an article. Yann (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I am trying to upload a book cover under fair use. Could you please tell me what Creative Commons license I should select in Upload Wizard? NicolasJz (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Using pictures owned by someone else and I have his permission to use them.
I am adding pictures to an existing page of a live person.
I personally asked him for pictures to use. He sent me pictures that he owns.
His instructions: He gives me permission to use, but he does not want the pictures used on any other page without his permission.
Questions:
How do I say I do not own the pictures, but I have the owner's permission?
What licensing do I use, if any, to prevent anyone else from using them without his permission?
I should point out, however - "he does not want the pictures used on any other page without his permission" - sorry, that's not an option. If he doesn't want the pictures used anywhere else, then don't put them on Commons. DS (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
And, assuming you are talking about English-language Wikipedia, for pictures of a living person you will run into more or less the same issues there. Commons simply doesn't accept non-free images, and en-wiki generally doesn't accept such images for living people. (en-wiki have been known to make limited exceptions for images that are historically important in their own right; Commons does not.) - Jmabel ! talk21:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Selim Herkmen is my grandfather and I have his photos and a document which shows his duties along his life as a state clerk/officer. Would you mind explaining me how I can add photos and document into his article?
Who took the photos? (In particular, are you the heir to the intellectual property of the photographer?)
(Similar questions for the document)
Also (this will matter in certain scenarios), what language Wikipedia are you concerned with?
Further remark: if you are writing in Wikipedia about your own grandfather then you probably need to declare a conflict of interest. See en:WP:COI for the English-language Wikipedia's policies on how to do this; there are analogous (but not necessarily identical) policies in the other Wikipedias. - Jmabel ! talk21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Здравствуйте. Хотел бы загрузить фото с картины автора, он разрешил и сообщил что неск. лет назад разрешил википедии использовать фото это свободно по лицензии. находящееся здесь на вики складе, название произведения: Вид_на_Воскресенский_храм_в_Воронеже,_2009_г.jpg (580 × 439 пкс, размер файла: 86 Кб, MIME-тип: image/jpeg)
Здравствуйте. Хотел бы загрузить фото с картины автора Пыльнева А. Н., к тексту в статью Воронеж-википедия "Вклад в культуру" он разрешил и сообщил что неск. лет назад разрешил википедии использовать фото это свободно по лицензии, находящееся здесь на вики складе, название произведения: Вид_на_Воскресенский_храм_в_Воронеже,_2009_г.jpg (580 × 439 пкс, размер файла: 86 Кб, MIME-тип: image/jpeg) Ивсем (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC) С ув.
Hello. I would like to upload a photo from the author’s painting, he allowed it and said that several. years ago I allowed Wikipedia to use the photo freely under a license. located here on the wiki warehouse, title of the work: View_of_the_Resurrection_Church_in_Voronezh,_2009_.jpg (580 × 439 px, file size: 86 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
Hello. I would like to upload a photo from the painting by the author A. N. Pylnev, to the text in the Voronezh-Wikipedia article “Contribution to Culture”, he allowed it and said that several. years ago I allowed Wikipedia to use the photo freely under a license, located here in the wiki warehouse, title of the work: View_of_the_Resurrection_Church_in_Voronezh,_2009_g.jpg (580 × 439 px, file size: 86 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)
add photo in commons to a page in English Wikipedia
I have in Wikipedia Commons a photo that I took of the Mathew Henson statue that I would like to add to his page where it is referenced. not sure how to do this? Thanks Camdenship (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding the link to this, it is an interactive map which you can search by zip code/city/image type etc that shows where photos were uploaded from geographically. send me the link if you can find it, thx! Andyneuuu (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
These two images of a salade niçoise are clearly the same photograph, even though the actual images are different because of different image sizes, compositions and white balances. They have been uploaded by different users at different times and neither of them mentions the other. Is this a case of a derivative work or something? JIP (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@JIP: From some digging into the histories on Commons, on Wikipedia and on flickr, this is apparently what happened:
A Commons user, not the author, uploaded to Commons from flickr in 2006 the file "File:Salade niçoise ingredients.jpg", which was the version of the photo that was on flickr at that point in time in 2006. The uploader correctly attributed it to the flickr user Paul Goyette and tagged it with the free license and it was flickr reviewed.
Probably still in 2006, the photographer, the flickr user Paul Goyette, noticed that the file was used in Wikipedia, as he mentioned in the comments on the flickr page.
On 31 January 2008, the photographer replaced on flickr the older version with the new better version, as he mentioned in the description on the flickr page "(1/31/08 -- improved white balance and replaced)". And the next day, 1 February 2008, he, the photographer, uploaded to Commons the file "File:Salade nicoise.jpg", which is the improved version, with his own Wikimedia account, User:Canterel. He correctly described it as his own work and he multi-licensed it with "self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all".
N.B.: We can know that the flickr user Paul Goyette and the Commons user Canterel is the same person, the photographer, from the comments by Paul Goyette on the flickr page photos/joshmt/339896457, together with this edit by Canterel on Wikipedia (which was the addition of the file "File:Half smoke with chips.jpg", correctly attributed to a flickr colleague and tagged). That requires some exploration but the conclusion seems certain.
So, Commons has the two versions and, although the information is different between the two files, the information on each file is legitimate and accurate.
Using Upload Wizard I get error: The file mwstore://local-swift-codfw/local-temp/d/dd/1an8dgb0q6ow.gr4vk6.12187057.pdf.0 does not exist. MikhasikRV (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess, I could split them in half, but it makes it less convenient for readers... The other way is to use less resolution of images inside, but again, less resolution - less details.
If you have trouble uploading a 2 MB file, readers will have trouble downloading it. Break your file down into manageable chunks (say 10 to 20 MB chunks. Remember that the Internet usually restricts e-mail messages (including attachments) to 20 MB. Martinvl (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@MikhasikRV UploadWizard will only upload files 600MB or smaller reliably and nearly never a file of more than 1.2GB. You can however upload files up to 4GiB (4.27GB) with other tools. chunkedupload by Rillke (mentioned above) is most easy, as you can use it without installing any software.
At the moment I have the same error that you get but with a webm file. It seems a new error was introduced to the Wikimedia-Server software that makes it impossible to upload some large files. I asked @TheDJ about it on their user talk page but have no answer or fix until now.
Please remember I'm a volunteer with not responsibilities and no dedicated schedule. Problems (when confirmed to be problems) should be filed in Phabricator, where I may or may not participate in analysing and/or solving them, but where it also becomes visible to people OTHER than me. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Martinvl nobody needs to download the full file. MediaWiki breaks it down into individual pages that can be selected on the file desription page (this also works for tiff and djvu. Audio and Video files get transcoded by MediaWiki software into smaller versions). There is never a need to break down a file for upload. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@CalendulaAsteraceae there is no need to split a file of 2GB and there is no guarantee that splitting the file is a workaround. May be some of the splitted files will upload but others will not. The MediaWiki software is supposed to handle every allowed (free format, free license) of up to 4GiB. If it does not, it is not the error of the user, but the error of the software and developers need to fix it. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment For what it is worth, my experience is that uploading a big file (>500 MB) works better with a fast connection. There are probably time-outs on the server side (yes, these shouldn't happen), but less time-outs make the probability to complete greater. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
A fast and reliable internet connection will ofcourse make uploading easyier and a more friendly experience. But there is a class of failed (large) uploads that fail because of a time-out at the change from the assembling stage to the publishing stage (and it has nothing to do with upload speed or reliability of the internet connection). Rillke's bigchunkeduploads will mostly avoid this class of error; my own (private) upload tool and the Android "Offroader" upload app are specifically designed to circumvent this type of upload error. However the error experienced by @MikhasikRV and me at the moment is a completetly different one (the already uploaded and assembled file on the server is not found by the server software in the server's file system) and can only be resolved by developers. It can also only be analyzed by people with access to the server logs (like @TheDJ or @Sannita (WMF)). So if someone who has this access and wants to work on it: I can offer a file that is affected by the error and that i could only upload in part, so a developer can try to upload it with Rillke's tool until them succeeds and the problem is identified and hopefully resolved. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Just FYI, I don't have access to server logs. I can ask around to understand who has access, and check, but I don't guarantee anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@MikhasikRV: As C.Suthorn already suggested, please open a Phabricator ticket about it. If you need help for it, please let me know (with a {{Ping}} here or on my talk page) and I'll draft a ticket for you so that you can revisit it. As for the solution, I cannot guarantee you anything unfortunately. I don't think it's gonna be a priority for the next ~ 6 months, but at least we can put it on the radar of our developers. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I will try to open a ticket, thank you. I have no experience in this, so if you can draft it, I would highly appreciate it. MikhasikRV (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@MikhasikRV Ok, I can give you a hand with that. Can you please describe me in detail what is the problem? I'm not sure I got it right from the discussion. Is it only a problem of dimensions of the file or something is not working with the UploadWizard? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
From the provided error message: "Using Upload Wizard I get error: The file mwstore://local-swift-codfw/local-temp/d/dd/1an8dgb0q6ow.gr4vk6.12187057.pdf.0 does not exist": That is not a problem with the file, its size or the upload tool (client side) the file was successfully uploaded to the upload stash. The upload was ready. But then there was an error server side: The server wanted to do somethings with the file that was uploaded but not yet published. But the file was lost on the server. You can search the logs of the server for "1an8dgb0q6ow.gr4vk6.12187057.pdf" and work from there. I don't know how long these logs are kept, they may already have been deleted? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
When I try to upload PDF files bigger than 1.5 GB (I cannot tell you the exact maximum size, maybe it's 1.4 GB, but definitely everything bigger than 1.5 GB) using Upload Wizard, it gives me an error "The file mwstore://local-swift-codfw/local-temp/d/dd/1an8dgb0q6ow.gr4vk6.12187057.pdf.0 does not exist." - obviously the name of the file is given randomly by server and it changes each time I upload a file.
When I use User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js to upload same file, it gives error "01203: FAILED: internal_api_error_DBQueryError: [e7d19154-c94b-4562-98d6-40be70bf6b79] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" MikhasikRV (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
@Princeisrael2728: Hi, and welcome. Please see Commons:Licensing for why we can't accept it, and have the image photographer / designer and iTunes license it on their official website or social media, or send the image and permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you. If you can't get a compliant license, the image may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: it is very unlikely that en-wiki will accept an iTunes screenshot; it is unlikely to become part of an article, and so it is almost certainly out of their allowance for non-free use.
@Princeisrael2728: there is no need to upload something to Commons to use it as a reference. Just cite it correctly. You might do well to keep a copy of the screenshot for yourself in case anyone doubts your reference, but references for en-wiki articles do not need to be readily available online. For example, there is nothing unusual about citing a book. - Jmabel ! talk20:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I have recorded two binaural audio files. Unfortunately, the recorder only recorded the first second and then deleted it again. However, I have a backup and I have uploaded it. The two tracks for left and right are not next to each other but behind each other in the file. I also don't know which track is left and which is right and the beginnings are not synchronised. Is there something like an audio workshop on Commons or can someone else take care of the files and put them together properly so that they can be listened to binaurally?
@Lslopes: Permission should "look like" it was given by the person who owned the copyright. In this case that did not happen, so the image doesn't belong here on Commons. Commons accepts only images that are either in the {{Public domain}} (this isn't) or where the copyright-holder has granted a free license (they didn't). - Jmabel ! talk21:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
If, indeed, the copyright-holder wants to grant a license, then they can follow the instructions at COM:VRT, which describes what permission is needed. - Jmabel ! talk21:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: So, is it enough that the copyright-holder declares that it is ok for the image to be uploaded in Commons, and also included in Wikipedia pages, or should it be a more general permission? Lslopes (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't really imagine the scenario in which Wikipedia (in any language) would accept that image if it is not considered "free" enough for Commons.
Commons, as I said above, accepts only images that are either in the {{Public domain}} (this isn't) or where the copyright-holder has granted a free license. So we would need them to grant such a license.
The simplest way for Manuel Ferreira to grant a license would simply be to state in a comment on the thread at https://www.facebook.com/skyviewmf/photos/a.113469703519886/262372808629574/ what license he is offering (or he can go through COM:VRT, as I first suggested above, but now that I've looked more closely that would probably be overkill in this case). Do note that per COM:L it must be a license that allows derivative works and commercial use. He can require attribution. Typically, the simplest licenses for this are {{CC-BY-4.0}} or {{CC-BY-SA-4.0}}; the latter license is "viral", in that requires that any derivative works also carry that same license.
If you reach out to him, though, do make sure that he understands that if he grants such a license, it cannot be revoked later. We've had a few people not understand that, and been quite angry later. - Jmabel ! talk23:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
"I, as author of the above image, authorize that the image is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used in Wikipedia under the licence CC-BY-4.0. You are free to share and to to remix under the following conditions: You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use." ? Lslopes (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
See how many articles are using images you've uploaded
The title speaks for itself. I recall using a Wikitool or site of some kind a while back which showed a list of all images I had uploaded in order of most used on Wikipedia articles. I cannot find this anymore. Would anyone happen to know what it is? Any leads are appreciated. PascalHD (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm an enthusiastic editor and contributor, but I'm not, let's say, technically gifted.
I can see there are lots of options for automated archiving of my discussion page. But they all look difficult to me! Anyone with a recommendation for me? MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. My boss, (Justice) Elizabeth M. Rochford did a search of her name and she wants to know if she can change the photo? Stacieryan (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Stacieryan Yes, if it's done correctly, we're very strict about copyright around here.
Simplest way is probably this: YOU go and take a new picture of her with your own camera. That makes you the copyright holder of said image and you can "give it to the world", so to speak. Upload that image here (and take the time to read the info). Then you can come back here and tell us it's done, and I or someone else will add it to the WP-article, unless it's even worse or something.
If you are thinking of a specific, existing image, you have to get the copyright holder (usually the photographer) to register their own account and upload it themselves. Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Only if she actually EDITS English Wikipedia. But since I'm offering to do it, it's not necessary at this point. But yes, if you want to do stuff on en-WP, COI becomes important. Supplying us with better pictures is something we're quite happy for COI-people to do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
And if not, you can nominate if for deletion, just as if it were uploaded by anyone else. (For example, if it is a copyright violation, it will readily be deleted.) - Jmabel ! talk21:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Duitse soldaten gesneuveld op 11 mei te Hoeselt bij een treffen met Belgische soldaten van het 11de linie regiment
Hoe of waar kan ik terecht, om te achterhalen of er Duitse soldaten gesneuveld ( en ) of gewond zijn, te Hoeselt op 11 mei 1940 bij een treffen met Belgische soldaten, alwaar één Belgische is gesneuveld van het 11de Linie Regiment 2A02:1810:CC3D:1A00:CD54:40A7:98EF:A35615:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully there is an easy solution to this problem. When I create a new category I have to scroll down to make the markup buttons visible to use then I scroll back up to add the name of the category. I rarely use more than two lines in the edit window and would like to permanently shrink my window from the default (the scrolling adds time to the category creations). I see the resize icon in the lower right corner and I can resize up and also to the left but I can't find a way to save that window size as my default. Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
good suggestion. i believe this can be done with a user script, that changes the source code <div class="oo-ui-layout ext-WikiEditor-twopanes-TwoPaneLayout" style="height: 337px;"> to height:248px (smallest possible in my browser, dont know why).
I guessed that the problem was related to the WikiMedia software and searched the manuals, help pages and talk pages of help pages until I found it (using the terms resize or edit window). Although I still have the browsing history I can't retrace the exact pages I navigated. I tried the trick on my Wiki:en css and it worked, I had to create a css page here on Commons, same format as the Wikipedia one. This tip ought to be added somewhere visible to the Commons editing help pages and a further thought is that the default edit window for new users should be smaller (enough for a few lines of wikitext) and the css trick could be used to make it bigger. I'm still scrolling down when I don't need to due to muscle memory! Cheers. Nimbus227 (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding information to image summary
I just uploaded a photograph of a painting, but I don't know how to edit the summary beyond basic information like description, date, source and author. I see other uploads of paintings has information like artist, title, object type, etc. But "artist" is not listed as a parameter on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Information. How can I add information like this to the images I upload? Agoliversen (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, it's possible to add almost any named field to any of these templates, including {{Information}}, by using the "other fields" or "other fields 1" parameter (depending on desired placement), along with a filled -out {{Infi}}. - Jmabel ! talk21:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I have a idea which maximum people don't know which was created by newton and want to express how newton made easy way to find value of pi to high precision with tips how they think of Anshuman trip (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: I'm confused by your subsequent edit. Yes the original upload has a source (which I've clarified with subsequent edits, because it wasn't actually indicated what it derived from), but I don't see any source for the later upload. - Jmabel ! talk18:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, these parrot images are not artistic, creative or original. They are simple illustrations of technical limitations of specific computers.
What's going on is that user Z80Spectrum, probably frustrated by his contributions to the ZX Spectrum graphic modes article being Original Research, is now going over article images and raising these kind of issues. 4throck (talk) 22:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
You didn't explain why you still refuse to upload the source image to Commons (currently on a third-party website), and to clearly state that you are the author of the modified gradients. Are you the author of the modified gradients? Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I would like the gradients discussed by an copyright expert. In my opinion, there is substantial work required to produce those gradients, such that they match perfectly with the the ZX Spectrum color-cells. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
It might be original and creative to fit the gradient bars to exactly match the ZX Spectrum color-cells. But, I'm no expert on the matter. I would like an opinion of the expert. The composed image in question is a very good test image, much better than any of its components alone. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Source image / copyright confusion
The uploader of | this image claims it is "own work".
However, the actual source image appears to be this one: | source image.
Apparently, the source image is not uploaded to Commons. I have complained on the image discussion page, and to the uploader.
Hi, a non-Wikipedian has questioned whether one of the photos on Wikimedia Commons is mislabelled to the wrong individual. The photo is this one: File:Lt. Alexander Dunn VC, 11th Hussars 1854.jpg However, on the Talk page for the article on Dunn, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Roberts_Dunn, it's been suggested that the photo is actually of Col. John Douglas, commander of the 11th Hussars. Both Douglas and Dunn were with the British Army at the charge of the Light Brigade, so there may be some confusion. Could someone take a look at this? I don't have the historical background to make a call on it. Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Buenas, una pregunta que pasaría si la Bandera y Escudo de Armas (general) no tiene marca registrada, es posible que Wikimedia lo acepta?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Para Commons, marca registrada no tiene mucha importancia. Si una imagen tiene una marca registrada, lo indicamos con {{Trademarked}}. Lo que importa es derechs del autor (copyright). - Jmabel ! talk20:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Audio reread of SiIvaGunner article; requesting to overwrite old audio file
Hey there,
I have just reread the articled SiIvaGunner and would like to have my version published.m However, as I created a Wikimedia Commons account for this purpose, my account is too new to do so. Can someone please review my submission and update the file if it passes? Thank you! Nuiikid (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
At a quick listen, I wouldn't say either of these is particularly better or worse than the other. As with images, we can host two versions of something. I don't see any good reason to have one of these overwrite the other (and the descriptions of who is being heard would remain different in any case).
Speaking of the descriptions of who is being heard, I am a bit surprised/confused and hope you won't take offense, but the voice that is described as being "female" at File:En-SiIvaGunner-article.ogg sounds more typically male than the voice that is described as "male" at File:En-SiIvaGunner-article-Reread.ogg. Normally, I would never raise any question about gender on something like this, but I raise it because this is with reference to an article about audio pranking. - Jmabel ! talk20:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey there, I believe the person who first read the article was a transgender female, while I am a male that has not gone through puberty yet. Sory for the confusion, I just believed a reread would be needed as the article and its information have grown. Nuiikid (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
How to delete duplicate Commons category?
Hello, I just noticed that the category Garou (singer) has a duplicate on Commons, and I would like to remove one of them (one contains fewer images). You can see both here: [7]. Please help me sort this out, thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
How to determine whether Youtube Video is CC-BY or not?
Hello, I think I need some help. I just noticed that not all youtube videos are CC-BY (Originally I thought all are CC-BY). Is there any smart method for determining that? Thanks a lot XDXD EleniXDD (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@EleniXDD: Hello, Most videos on YouTube are not licensed CC. Look below the description box on the page of the video. If the video is tagged with the YouTube tag for the CC BY license, that's where it is. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Is it the filter Creative Commons during searching? Thanks a lot XDXD Like for example, I searched with the filter CC, but in the description box there's no CC tag. So is it CC or not? EleniXDD (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that the filter "Creative Commons" on YouTube searches videos with that CC BY license tag. When you go to the specific page of a video, the license tag is not in the description box, it is under it, between the description box and the comments section. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As there is no international men's rugby happening over Dec/Jan period, the rankings remain static for several weeks. They are published each Monday by World Rugby. So, it looks like someone has pushed out multiple weeks/rows to the table in one go as no changes will be happening. The problem is however, on 5 Feb 2024 - the last row in the table - this data could change as there are 7 matches taking place across 2 & 3 Feb. So, simplistically, the editor has jumped the gun by adding one more row for the "fallow" period than was required. It should have stopped at the 29 Jan row and not 5 Feb.
So, is there anyway I can alert the user of this error? As I say, I'm pretty overwhelmed by this interface and have no real idea as to how to effect a change myself. Thanks. Cardleshaw (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@FrankGrau: Barring unusual circumstances, seven days would be the minimum for a DR. A month or two is more typical. Is there an emergency here, and if so why? - Jmabel ! talk22:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, your explanation of why you want it deleted is extremely unclear. You say you "changed it for" something else (I presume another image) but don't indicate what that image is. Nor do you explain what "metadates" (presumably "metadata") here is problematic.
If it is easier for you to write clearly in German than in English, feel free to use German. But explain on the DR, not here. I'm not at all surprised that a DR with an unclear rationale has not moved forward. - Jmabel ! talk22:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@TazGPL: The answer is almost certainly yes; there are few circumstances in which a photograph of a musical instrument can raise copyright issues. - Jmabel ! talk01:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@TazGPL: correct. But there are some that would be considered artwork, and I can't see what you've got. For example, the wind sculpture at the Sound Garden in Seattle, could arguably be said to be a sculpture that is only incidentally a musical instrument. Or, I could imagine that a sufficiently decorated didgeridoo might be considered a work of art that is only incidentally a playable instrument. But the worst that happens if you upload is someone goes "too far into artwork territory, so we have to delete it." No harm, no foul. - Jmabel ! talk08:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Some countries do have copyright for “artistic craftsmanship” on utilitarian objects whose design or decoration has sufficient aesthetic quality independent of functional considerations. So a particularly ornate or ‘high concept’ instrument originating from such a jurisdiction might be protected, but even then it would be something of a judgment call based on the particulars of the case.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
(Supongo que el español sería más fácil para un hablante de portugués que el inglés, y yo no puedo escribir en portugués.) Para subir un imagen a Commons, utilice Special:UploadWizard. Luego, para usar el imagen en Wikipedia, la sintaxis más sencilla es [[File:NOMBRE DE FICHA.EXT|thumb|LEYENDA]], pero hay muchas otras posibilidades; vea pt:Ajuda:Guia de edição/Como usar imagens. - Jmabel ! talk20:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Map of the Gupta Empire.png. Yes, it appears to be copyrighted (and free-licensed). The page offers two different licenses. I would recommend that if you want to reproduce it, follow the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, because GFDL is very cumbersome. The license requires attribution, but the page is not at all clear who it should be attributed to. I'd say you are probably OK attributing to Commons user पाटलिपुत्र, but it might be simpler to provide a URL of the page (not the page of just the image itself: the one that you get when you click on the convenience link I provided). - Jmabel ! talk07:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
See also COM:REUSE. There is software to help with the credit: the “Attribution Generator” is linked on that page, and for scholarly purposes try the “Cite this page” link under “Tools” in the left margin of the file page Jmabel linked above (but note the latter cites do not include the license & attribution per se, which are necessary in this case).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean here at commons is the image of a logo and you want to upload a new depiction of the logo? You can upload that file like any other file. Just use a new name. If this logo is used in an article in one of the wikipedias you can change the use with your new upload there provided you follow the rules of that wikipdia.
Unter Porsche 928 ist mein Fahrzeug, Jurinek Cabrio abgebildet. Leider ist nur ein allgemein gehaltener Begleittext als Bilderklärung angefügt. Dieser Text ist fachlich unrichtig. Es gab nicht viele Cabrio-Hersteller die einen Porsche 928 gebaut haben. Das Werk hat auf der Basis eine U.S. - Exportmodells ein Exemplar gebaut (steht im Porsche-Museum).
Das abgebildete Jurinek-Cabrio ist das erste kommerziell gebaute, nach zwei Prototypen, welches Jurinek auf Kundenwunsch erstellt hat. Der auftraggebende Kunde war ein Schweizer. Bei mir sind noch die Kopien von Umbauvertrag und Rechnung vorhanden. Das Fahrzeug ist als „Veteran“ in der Schweiz zugelassen. Jurinek hat nach eigenen Angaben ca 14 Exemplare dieses Cabrios gebaut. Die Mehrzahl in Verbindung mit von Vittorio Strossek verbreiterten Karosserien. Das abgebildete grüne Cabrio ist eines der wenigen auf der Basis der ursprünglichen Karosserie. Derinsueden (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Derinsueden: Nachdem ich den Text auf Commons modifiziert habe - gibt es an der Bildunterschrift in dem deutschen Wikipedia-Artikel etwas zu verändern? Ich werde vielleicht noch den ams-Artikel-Link in den de-Artikel dazusetzen. Wenn ich das richtig sehe, ist Ihr Auto die "normalbreite" Version, und nicht die mit Karosserieverbreiterung? Pittigrilli (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
CoA local government
Buenas administradores una pregunta Alcaldías y Concejos Municipales (general) pertenece a la "CoA of local government"?? AbchyZa22 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Help wanted with two crops of a "Doors" band pic yielding two single pics of Jim Morrison
About an hour ago I realized that I did not like the image of Jim Morrison in the en-article. Looking in the Commons cat, I found that there is no better pic, but a quite decent one of the whole group named File:The Doors 1968.JPG. After happily doing two crops File:Jim Morrison 1968, from a promotion picture with The Doors.jpg and File:Jim Morrison 1968, from a promotion picture with The Doors, V2.jpg, I got an equally decent fit of rage when adapting the image descriptions of the produced files - reason: I realized that while the source file image has "1968" in the title, and the categories are like that as well, the image description of the source file speaks of "taken in 1966" and then something like "earliest day stamp 1968". Now this is what I call a bloody mess. I do not want to make things worse by any quick "solutions", as I honestly do not understand these contradictions named above. Any advice? Please feel free to do whatever seems fit to remedy this, I personally first need to get my heart rate down for the next two hours ;-) Pittigrilli (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pittigrilli: I think what's happened here is that the original uploader only knew what was actually on the print, which was a series of date stamps of which the earliest said "JUN 2 1968". You can see these in the oldest revision of the file. In November last year, Carlinal added the mentions of 1966 in a minor edit, but didn't change anything else.
My guess is that whatever the date stamps indicate, it's not when the picture was taken, so until November last year all we knew was that the photo was taken in 1968 or earlier. So that's not inconsistent with Carlinal's claim that it was actually taken in 1966. Getty claim "circa 1970"[8], which is no help.
Personally, I think I'd leave things as they are (now that I've repaired the {{Information}} template). As a filemover (albeit a mostly inactive one), I don't think there's strong enough evidence to justify renaming the original under criterion 3 (obvious error), and if the original continues to have "1968" in the name then the derivatives may as well say that too. I suppose there's something to be said for renaming the crops to not mention the year at all so that they definitely won't need renaming later, but I don't think that's necessary. --bjh21 (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned in the discussion page of the file, it is one of many photos by photographer Joel Brodsky [9]. Apparently in 1967. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thank you very much for the clarification effort. I am moderately satisfied ;-) Now my approach is this: If we leave the three files as is, for the next 10 to 200 years (who knows?), every single day somebody will recognize this and think "WTF?". Positively. Why not write a short comment summarizing the problem into the file description? Maybe "The different values for the production date of the image (from 1966 to 1968) result from the fact that the original date the picture was taken is not precisely known. Most likely seems 1967 (see homepage of photographer Joel Brodsky [10])", or the like. What do you think? Pittigrilli (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Credit Joel Brodsky as the author and date the creation from 1967. There is no apparent reason to doubt the 1967 date, which seems the consensus on the websites that speak of it (e.g. context, uncropped version). Joel Brodsky opened his studio in 1967 and the photo was published in 1967. However, the APA cropped version might have been published later, if that's worth mentioning. The 1966 date was inserted by one user on Commons and Wikipedia. Either that user knows something that most people don't, which is always possible, or, more likely, the user confused the 1967 Joel Brodsky photos with the 1966 Guy Webster photos. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
We are in agreeance (I am a fellow of the extinct word society...). So why not also rename all three files to have "1967" in the title? Pittigrilli (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
They can be renamed. Are you still satisfied with the rest of the names of your two files and you want only to replace 1968 with 1967? -- Asclepias (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Rename done for your two files. (Leaving the other file for suggestions. Might be something like "File:The Doors 1967.jpg" or "File:The Doors, 1967, by Joel Brodsky.jpg" or "File:The Doors, 1967, by Joel Brodsky (cropped version).jpg"). -- Asclepias (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Cool. I changed the year and authorship and categories in the meantime. For the original, I would propose "File:The Doors, 1967, promotional photo by Joel Brodsky.jpg". Pittigrilli (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Underground newspaper? Hippie movement? I begin to even more like this pic ;-) So these US copyright complications always gave me headaches. I already saw that User:Asclepias dug out that this picture was the sleeve cover of the single "Light my Fire", but does that somehow change the copyright status for us? (10 minutes later: I think I found it myself. As the paper ad does not have a copyright notice either, this makes the image even more (just kidding) in PD, right? Pittigrilli (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It's very clear that they were unconcerned with copyrighting it, since they weren't putting a copyright notice on the ad, which clearly comes from A&M. - Jmabel ! talk19:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyone know what this plant is?
I'd like to properly name this file, anyone know what this might be?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "resolve"? Based on past experience, i usually make things worse when i explain what is wrong with their edits. Also, if i reverted an edit, the result will be an edit war. Chinese is their native language and so is my native language, so I'm sure that this is not a communication problem caused by language differences.--125.230.88.2308:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If you two can't discuss what the problem is and come to a consensus and that editor does try to insist on edit-warring, then go to the administrator's noticeboard. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯11:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Audio file from OUDB Northern Mansi Corpus
This audio file that I wish to upload to commons, is in mp3 format. Sadly the file does not contain any information from the person being recorded only the recorder.[11]
And there is no clear statement of the usage of this file, regarding copyright. What should I do? Ewithu (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
By default, pretty much anything from recent decades is copyrighted, so lack of an explicit statement to the contrary means that it is copyrighted with all rights reserved. - Jmabel ! talk00:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Can a user help in explaining SVG/raster formatting in another language (Russian)?
Greetings. I'm not really sure where else to ask for this situation. I require the assistance of a user fluent in the Russian language to help explain to Alterbulat the issues with uploading a raster image over a vector file; in this case File:Standard of the President of the Chechen Republic.svg. As you can see in the file history, the raster version is distorted and non-scaleable. They have expressed a desire for this to be explained in another language on my talk page, and based on their previous edit summaries I believe Russian is the best option. Thanks. Fry1989eh?21:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried looking around, didn't think of checking the Russian wiki (which is stupid of me in retrospective), but that helps. Fry1989eh?14:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bigguy637: You can add an alternate license, but generally you can't revoke a license you've already granted.
Assuming you used reasonably normal ways to place the license on the files in the first place (direct use of a license template in the wikitext, as against (for example) SDC + tricky templating) you should be able to do this with VFC. There's a bit of a learning curve on the tool, but it's powerful. For example, you could use it to replace {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} with {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|cc-by-sa-4.0}} on a selected set of files. - Jmabel ! talk00:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I use the VFC often to update or standardize PD licenses, adding missing PD licenses and adding FoP notices. Great tool. Was also told about it by Jmabel a few months ago. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@UFUKLIVE: Hi, and welcome. We don't delete historical logos like File:Inönü üniversitesi logo.gif, we keep them for use in historical logo sections of Wikipedia articles. Please use internal links and upload a replacement or replacements for use in such sections and current infoboxes in such articles, and link them together via "other_versions". If you can't upload such replacements, please at least link them in the descriptions or upload to Wikipedias like English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Hi Jeff, Thank you for your detailed information. The reason for our request to remove this old unofficial logo is to prevent people from making the mistake of still using this unofficial and outdated logo from Google searches. The deletion of this unofficial logo, which is not included in İnönü University's Corporate Identity Guide, is a very sensitive issue for the İnönü University. Please respond positively to this humble request and remove this old logo from your systems.
@UFUKLIVE: I'm sorry, but this absolutely will not happen. This is like if someone asked a newspaper to remove a news story from its archives because it no longer reflected the current situations. Commons is a media repository associated with encyclopedias. Things that are of historical interest are just as important as things that are current. - Jmabel ! talk21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Dear Jeff, thank you for your significant support and interest in the matter. For the correct use of the Corporate Logo of İnönü University, you can see this page with edu.tr extension (https://www.inonu.edu.tr/kurumsal/menu/24803/ana-logolar). Removing the current outdated logo, which is old and now incorrect to use nowadays, will promote the use of the current and correct logo of İnönü University. If you continue not to remove this old logo from the system, people will continue to use this outdated and unofficial logo as a result of their google searches. Our humble request is that people are directed to the correct and up-to-date logo that is corporate (https://www.inonu.edu.tr/kurumsal/menu/24803/ana-logolar). UFUKLIVE (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Hi Jeff, Please see my following responses (1) Yes, it was official between 1975 and 2010. (2) We are not requesting to retire it, we are requesting to remove this outdated logo from your system, otherwise people are still using this outdated and unofficial logo, which damages the corporate image. (3) The official one can be found at the following address of the organisation (https://www.inonu.edu.tr/kurumsal/menu/24803/ana-logolar). (4) I'm not experienced in the use of Wikipedia, I don't know what COM:L stands for, all I'm asking is to remove this outdated logo from the system, that's all. UFUKLIVE (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I don’t think that’s fair; I’d chalk it up to a language issue. @UFUKLIVE: would renaming the file to “Inönü üniversitesi logo 1975-2010” satisfy your concerns? That would make its obsolescence more obvious to people who may not read the description. (I’ll go ahead and put it in Obsolete logos now anyway: a less prominent indication but may also reduce the likelihood of misuse.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479 Thank you Odysseus, the renaming of the logo as 1975-2010 does not help to solve our current problem, because our case is that the google search for "inönü üniversitesi logo" directly shows this image as a priority, and our demand is to prevent people from using the wrong logo and to strengthen the image of the institution by restricting the access of this image at least. We respect the past, but unfortunately, people are still accessing and using this unofficial and outdated logo that has lost its official characteristic as a result of google searches. This causes an undesirable problem for the institution. Best regards, UFUKLIVE (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I uploaded a version of this map file yesterday: File:Admiralty Chart No 3992 Hai-nan Tao to Hong Kong, Published 1961.jpg. I started to georeference it iin the warper, but discovered the file had been garbled by the stitcher. I requested speedy deletion so I could astart again. I've uploaded a good version of the file, but when I try to georeference, the warper still has the old, corrupt file. How do I delete the old file from Wikimaps Warper? Thanks. Kognos (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes. The old corrupt file is still there in the warper. I have uploaded a good version to Commons, but when I try to georeference it I get the old corrupt file, not the new one. So I need to delete the old file from the warper. Thanks Kognos (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Done Please read COM:NUDE. Yann (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks for pinging me. That was an issue in Module:Wikidata art, see the fix. Thanks for reporting it. --Jarekt (talk) 03:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
_and_local_VP_21.02.2022.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_02.png){kind=link}
![[4]](https://svgshare.com/i/11z2.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Comment For what it is worth, my experience is that uploading a big file (>500 MB) works better with a fast connection. There are probably time-outs on the server side (yes, these shouldn't happen), but less time-outs make the probability to complete greater. Yann (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
St_George_Coptic_Orthodox_Church-153.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
