Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace images with .svg version (5 August 2025) Category talk:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines#RfC: Cemetery name (18 July 2025) Category talk:Israel–Hamas war (10 July 2025) Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Explicitly expand F10 to include AI? (1 May 2025) Discussion on Copyright law of North Korea (16 March 2025) Categorization of SVG files (13 February 2025) Costumed character files (14 October 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

July 30

Create font

Alphabet for Swedish road signs of 1937.

Classic road signs using this font. Double arrow for primary roads, single arrow for secondary roads.

Can somoeone convert this image to a font that can be used, e.g. from GIMP or Inkscape? Measurements are in millimeters. Upper case E is 120 mm high, lower case e and digits are 80 mm. Or find me an existing font that looks like this? Since this image is from the Swedish law, it has no copyright. LA2 (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds more like a request to be made at COM:Graphic Lab. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

For Commons, only the SVG files fro the glyphs can be uploaded, but the font as whole might be suitable with TTF or OTF --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, we cannot upload fonts directly (yet), but if you upload a PDF with the entirety of all the characters in the font, then that would include the font as part of the archive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Does it need to be exactly that font with those text metrics? The common Helvetica condensed bold is close. Two-story a, but the O, Q, and 0 are wider and rounder, there's no slash on the q, a more acute angle on the 2, and no break in the 4.

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZÅÄÖ
abcdefghijklmno
pqrstuvwxyzåäö
1234567890

Glrx (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm just saying that that is a way to send someone a font file within a PDF. PDF is a container that can contain a lot of stuff, including scripts (!), fonts, graphics, etc. Adobe maintains the PDF standard and has some details about this topic here: https://www.adobe.com/uk/acrobat/resources/embed-fonts-in-pdf.html

ndahere: https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/pdf-fonts.html. So if someone downloaded a PDF that included some text that you want and the font embedded in it, that person would also ipso facto download the font. Now, could someone actually use that font by installing it on a local machine? That's a little more complicated than just a download. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:38, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

This requires a specialist designer. You'd do better asking on font forums, someone might have done it. Next best option: use DIN Engschrift, various adaptations of which have been created, some open-source (e.g. D-DIN). Blythwood (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Alberta road signs use a dramatic font.

It used to be possible to store fonts in SVG files with the glyph element. That functionality was removed in favor of web fonts. A graphic designer could make sure the user got the exact font by using a conventional URL or a data URL. However, web fonts using conventional URLs allow tracking, and some fonts could even be malicious, so WMF does not enable web fonts.

Getting WMF to add a font to the image servers is a slow process that may never succeed. Even if a font does get installed, it does not help the user displaying the SVG on his local machine. That leads to two alternatives. One, use the correct font and convert the text to curves (often acceptable for road signs but bloats maps). Two, use a common font that is widely available but does not have exactly the desired appearance.

Glrx (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

August 04

Can anyone research who is in the painting and where it now resides?

Can anyone research who is in the painting and where it now resides? File:Arnaldo Casella Tamburini in 1917.jpg RAN (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Victor Emmanuel III ? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asclepias: Certainly likely. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Asclepias: Brilliant! --RAN (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

August 05

Category:All media needing categories as of 2019

I noted that 28,000 files to be categorized, please in the Category:All media needing categories as of 2019. This is good news, as have been 50.000 files in February. Do you want to join the small team that is working on this task? If so, you may leave a note on the relevant discussion page, if you reach a funny or round number. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

All the Files from 500px.com with bad file names have ben categorized by now. Now the real work can start: 26,000 files to be categorized, please. Do you want to categorise some files yourself? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Though from what I've seen working on these, some of these are rather poorly categorized. When going through these, give some attention to whether they can be better categorized. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously not "own work"

What's the right thing to do with File:Golf von Mexiko NASA World Wind Globe.jpg. User:ILA-boy labeled it as "Own work", which it clearly isn't, unless they've got their own satellite in orbit. On the other hand, if it's really from NASA images, then it's PD, but still clearly not "Own work". RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

In cases when something is not a copyvio, I try to find the original source and replace it with the correct link. For something from 2008, might be challenging. If you cant, change the author to 'NASA' and the source to whatever site or software it originated from. PascalHD (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

We do have {{Wrong author}}. MKFI (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@MKFI, PascalHD, and RoySmith: We also have COM:ANU for reporting uploaders that falsely claim "Own work".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

August 06

About tagged pictures

What is Wikimedia Commons policy regarding pictures that has @names in the picture. Such as the ones uploaded by this user https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Zul_muhaimin_hmn&ilshowall=1 ? Thank you. Hysocc (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

There is no policy regarding watermarking for now, closest thing we have is a proposed policy of Commons:Watermarks. HyperAnd (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

They should generally be marked with {{Watermarked}}.

[Request] Add Special:AllEvents page to Wikimedia Commons

I request respective stakeholders add the Special:AllEvents page to Wikimedia Commons. Here is the link to Meta.-- Gopala Krishna A (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm guessing that bad link is meant to go to meta:Special:AllEvents. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Made respective changes. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi can you please help with this task? Gopala Krishna A (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

@Gopala Krishna A, this special page comes inbuilt with mw:Extension:CampaignEvents, which we don't have here, see Special:Version. This is to do with Community Configuration, and would need a consensus, and then a phabricator task. You may probably follow phab:T355666 - and imho this comes under the purview of meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes. @IFried (WMF) might have a better understanding if her team plans to deploy the extension on Wikimedia Commons anytime soon or not. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 07:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for such a detailed reply. I will follow the task and wait for @IFried (WMF) response. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support Ainali (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Video with multiple sources

I created a video based on recordings from several programmes (namely iD, JOSM and Vespucci), all of which have different licences: iD has an ISC licence, JOSM uses GNU GPL v2+ and Vespucci Apache 2.0. If I wanted to upload the video here on Commons, which licence should I use? Should I indicate all three? ----Mannivu · ✉ 12:48, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

That looks like a case of Commons:Licensing#Multi-licensing / Commons:Multi-licensing. I think that you can chose any suitable license. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's the opposite: you can't choose but you must abide to all of them, so you would need a license compatible with all of them, if it is possible.

However, you might be able to license each part under a different license, just as Wikipedia is under one license but each of its images is under its own license. Pere prlpz (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like you are going to end up with a complicated license statement, and several separate credits that must be given both by you and by any reusers. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

@Grand-Duc @Jmabel @Pere prlpz sorry for pinging all of you, bu I've found this website from the UE that gives this simple table and it seems that, if I read it correctly, I can use the CC-BY 4.0 here in Commons without any problem (in the file description I will give the proper license to each software in each part of the video). --Mannivu · ✉ 08:21, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood/overlooked the part "video based on recordings from several programmes", I thought that it was a clip where the videographer offered several licenses for his work, not that it was a compilation of parts with different licenses arranged together. My sentence with "choosing" is only valid in the former case. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

August 07

Video Game History Foundation acquires the rights to Computer Entertainer and has released the magazine under cc-by-4.0

https://gamehistory.org/computerentertainer/

Computer Entertainer is definitely an invaluable resource already for 1980s games. I wonder if anybody is going to start uploading those scans here. Obviously game screenshots would still be a COM:DW issue but it's definitely significant that this historic magazine is now released under CC-BY. Abzeronow (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

should a new template be made for scans of this magazine? Howardcorn33 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

yes Trade (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

ok then. I created {{Computer Entertainer VGHF}} just now. Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh crud. i'm finding it difficult to manually replace all the tags. :( is there an automated way? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Howardcorn33: While I'm not clear on the specifics of what you are trying to replace with what, the usual tool for this sort of thing is VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on the change i made to the template? @Howardcorn33 and Jmabel: --Trade (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

why does it say “ This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required.” at the bottom? doesn't the CC-BY 4.0 notice suffice? Howardcorn33 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

There are 3 notices in this template. The last line of the last notice refers to the second cc-by 4.0 notice being required. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

ah well, i wont debate this further Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I've made some edits; shorter and communicates the same information. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA

Do we have plans to upload the remainder of the 21,963 "Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA" from their website? We have 3,084 already loaded. I am not aware if someone created an upload template already so that the captions and other data get formatted the same way as before. I have a few I want to upload, but best if all get uploaded in same way so the captions and other identifiers get formatted the same way. See: https://digital.library.ucla.edu/catalog?f%5Bmember_of_collections_ssim%5D%5B%5D=Los+Angeles+Times+Photographic+Collection&sort=title_alpha_numeric_ssort+asc RAN (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Convenience link: Category:Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA. Yann (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Rules for revoking/invalidating a VRT permission

Hi all

I've asked a question about what rules exist for revoking a VRT permission at Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Rules_for_revoking/invalidating_a_VRT_permission. E.g if the person within the organisation didn't have permission from the organisation to share the files or didn't have the permission to share it under that specific license. I'd really appreciate it if you could answer there to keep the discussion in one place.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Are you asking for all ways that a ticket can ever be invalidated (which would be a long, cumbersome answer), or how an organization can deliberately revoke a permission that was incorrectly given in its name, or how an organization can challenge an invalid permission given by someone else for work where that organization actually owns the rights, or what? - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel, nice to hear from you :) I would say mostly 'deliberately revoke a permission that was incorrectly given in its name', but honestly its not quite that because they do want to share the images and I'm trying to help them correct the errors. John Cummings (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like you got a better discussion of this going at COM:VRT/N. Better to keep it in one place. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

August 08

Size of pdf

Hello! I have come across some scans of books with old Danish law text. There are 29 files at https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Schous_forordninger (a Norwegan source). Many of the files can be downloaded in either low or high resolution. The total size of the files in low res is 5,94 GB and the size in high res is 9.93 GB. I compared 2 files and could not really see any difference. But I do not know if it will make a difference when making OCR. My question is if I should upload high res or low res. Thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@MGA73: always high res. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have uploaded a few files and added them to Category:Chronologisk Register over de Kongelige Forordninger og Aabne Breve, samt andre trykte Anordninger (1670–1849). Rest will be uploaded later. --MGA73 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Are there any rules/restrictions on using magic eraser apps to get rid of objects/people surrounding the subject we want?

I ask this in regards to File:Rhea Perlman Danny DeVito 2006.jpg which allows us "to remix" the work. I've used a magic eraser app to remove Rhea Perlman to leave only Danny DeVito so that when using his image (here), it doesn't have a third of someone else's face in it when cropped. This hasn't changed his image but has filled in his shirt shoulder where Perlman was. Is this something deemed acceptable? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: on the linked page on ibb.co, I don't see the required indication of the CC-BY 2.0 license, nor do I see the required attribution for the underlying photo to Flickr user "amyrod", nor the required indication of what changes were made. So as it stands, this is a copyright violation, but entirely remediable. In general: if you are using a photo under a license, you need to conform to the terms of the license.

Are you talking about the potential of uploading this back to Commons? If so there are several more considerations, but I won't bother spelling them out unless you want to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

So the IBB one is my modified version based on the one uploaded to Wikimedia already, I didn't want to upload it to Wikipedia in case it was a violation, so there is no tag. So yes, I'm talking about the potential for adapting the work per the existing license and uploading my modified version as a derivative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, this is acceptable. Photos can be cropped and retouched, and it's fine to use AI to do that. There are some restrictions placed on the use of AI itself, but they don't apply to your example.

Slightly longer answer: If you make a derivative version of a file (such as a crop or a retouched version), it should be uploaded under a license that's compatible with the original. Usually this is done by just copying the old license - this is what the crop tool does, for instance. There are some restrictions around the use of AI itself - there's a policy against old files being overwritten by versions upscaled/retouched with AI (think artificial sharpening, removing of wrinkles, etc.), but the subject in your photo has been unaffected by that. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that is my intention, to upload it as a derivative and not overwrite the original. I typically do basic crops in this manner, but this is the only clear image of him close to the 80s and 90s, but because of the second subject it's not possible to crop it through normal means without having a distracting piece of another person in the cropped image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

August 10

Caesar DePaço

Hypothethically speaking if we had a freely licensed photo that showed DePaço to a meeting at the organization that he allegedly founded would we be allowed to host it on Commons? Trade (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Quoting Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), " Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves."--Trade (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I see no issues to host any images not previously demanded to be removed. No need to censor more (and other projects) unless we're forced to (and if so, I suspect WMF Office will do the dirty work of deleting such an image). However, if the uploader wishes for their username to be hidden from public view as a precaution, a revision deletion of the username can be done and would be supported by me. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Does that not go against Commons:PRECAUTION? It seems like the only reason the court order only specifies ENWP/PTWP is because the judge is ignorant about the structure of Wikimedia. Keeping the photo here would essentially be exploiting that Trade (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons hosts freely licensed media in scope. The court order didn't demand removal of images from Commons or ban photos of the subject. WMF confirmed it concerns only specific criminal facts and related procedural issues, not lawful, freely licensed images. Commons is not a place for censorship. Commons:PRECAUTION is about licensing: we keep files with clear free licenses or public domain status. Non-copyright restrictions (COM:NCR) may apply here, but they do not justify applying COM:PRP to remove lawful images. Whether an image appears in a Wikipedia article is an editorial choice, not a Commons issue.

Until WMF receives a valid legal order explicitly targeting Commons, there's no basis to take down such images. WMF Legal or Trust & Safety would handle any such order. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Jonatan. WMF would take it down via office action if a valid legal order said to do so. I as a volunteer would not or would never delete a photograph to please a government. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass license tagging & Check SVGs against GitHub for changes

1. Mass license tagging:

• • All licenses in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons need to be changed to {{MIT|2011–2022 Wikimedia Design & OOUI team and other contributors.|Expat}}. Is there a userscript or tool I could use for this?

1. Check SVGs against GitHub for changes:

• • First rename all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons per naming convention in repository
  • Check all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons against gerrit repo: */main/packages/codex-icons/src/; or on GitHub: wikimedia/design-codex/tree/main/packages/codex-icons/src.
  • Do the same but colorise all images as appropriate based on their actions etc. -- I know which ones need to be @color-destructive etc.

Thanks! Waddie96 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Why does the readme license differ (CC BY 4.0)? Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeh I was wondering the same thing! If you look at the blame for LICENSE, it was created in Feb 2022 by User:Volker E. (WMF) with the comment:

icons: Set to MIT license

Icons have been originated in MIT license repo and might also be
used in distributed closed source applications.
Also add all 'LICENSE' files to '.stylelintignore'.

Waddie96 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Sjoerddebruin Waddie96 (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

August 11

User having trouble accessing this site from Pakistan

User talk:SohaibAhmadu#Unable to Open Wikimedia Commons in Desktop Mode from Pakistan. It's sheer dumb luck that I ran across this post on the user's own talk page.

Basically, he can access it on a mobile device, but not on a PC (and has tried several PCs). If he accesses with a VPN he can get in but gets a message that "Editing is blocked."

If someone can help him, including just an explanation of what might be going on, please either answer here and ping SohaibAhmadu, or answer on his user talk page.

Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 05:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

"Sunsets" vs "Sunsets on Earth"

Hi, Can someone explain me the difference between Category:Sunsets and Category:Sunsets on Earth. @Sbb1413: --JotaCartas (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Seven letters and a space? Someone being pedantic? To be fair, we do have Category:Sunset from space, Category:Sunset on Mars, Category:Sunsets on Titan (moon), but if that is the rationale, then surely Category:Sunsets by country would belong under Category:Sunsets on Earth. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Hehe, maybe you're right, but in that case, all the photos and a lot of categories under the "Sunsets" category could/should be in the "Sunsets on Earth" category or vice versa. It's not a big problem, it's better to keep quiet. JotaCartas (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Mascot costumes

I would have thought that a lot of mascot costumes would raise copyright issues, but I see no warning on this category, and it has a fair deal of content that I would expect was a problem (at least half of its direct content). Am I missing something? I ask because if I can upload [1], I'd like to. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Would mascot costumes fall under cosplaying? We have a lot of cosplay photos and it seems like Commons is ok with that. Nakonana (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

CSD reason for crops of deleted copyright violations

Under which speedy deletion reason should we delete files that are cropped versions of images already deleted for copyright violations?

For example, File:1997 Filippo Inzaghi (cropped).jpg is a crop of File:Brescello v Juventus, 4 September 1997 - Filippo Inzaghi, Pierluigi Prete.jpg, which was deleted due to copyright issues (missing permission). Should the crop be deleted under G8 (page dependent on deleted or non-existent content), F1 (clear copyright violation), F3 (derivative work of non-free content), or another existing reason?

Alternatively, should a new specific CSD criterion be created for this case, or should such files go through regular deletion requests if the cropped version was not deleted within (for example) 7 days of the original image? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

I typically go with F1. G8 isn't always accurate; in some cases crops can be kept after the original is deleted (such as if the original was deleted because of a copyrighted background not visible in the crop), though usually it's better to simply crop and revdel the original. F3 wouldn't apply; it's for cases like freely-licensed photographs of non-free artworks.

I don't think we need a separate CSD criterion. Unless there is a reasonable chance that the crop isn't a copyvio (such as my example above), F1 speedy is fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Well in my example above, it was never proven to be a copyvio, only that no permission was sent or verified VRT within 30 days of tagging. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, bit unrelated, if someone were to get around to fix this issue we could possibly have a parameter as |checked=unrelated and |checked=delete within {{Extracted from}} to mark if the source image's issues were unrelated to the extracted image or if the extracted image should be deleted (and thereby tagged for speedy deletion). Currently it behaves as {{Extracted from deleted}} and makes it sound as if the file has already been reviewed as fine. Ping RoyZuo & Andrew Gray. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't admins see the deleted image (and related deletion discussion / rationale) to asses whether the source image issues are unrelated to the crop? Nakonana (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes of course, but for a random user, looking at File:1997 Filippo Inzaghi (cropped).jpg right now it states "The source file was deleted for reasons that do not affect this image, like a derivative work which is not a part of this cropped image." despite no-one having made that review - it's defaulting to "it's fine", whne it should through big alarm bells. I wanted to go through all such files now, but wanted to know which CDS reason to best use for easier handling. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

August 12

For your amusement and edification (Disney and AI)

https://www.techdirt.com/2025/08/08/disney-scraps-deepfake-dwayne-johnson-after-lawyers-panic-about-the-public-domain/

Looks like Disney is having some problems with the issues of AI and intellectual property, too. - Jmabel ! talk 04:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It's so ridiculous and absurd what corporate greed can lead to :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

SHA-256 hash in Structured Data

There were attempts to compute SHA-256 hash for all Commons files, but the results are not accessible on Commons. Now that we have structured data for every file that can store just any kind of hash. Therefore, the issue that SHA-256 hash results are not supported and not accessible, is gone. As SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash is not searchable otherwise, adding them as structured data (SHA-1 hash is already being added) will make them more accessible and searchable, so it will be possible to check whether a file on disk already exists on Commons automatically. Midleading (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Dumb question, but as a VRT agent I quite often use the COM:SHA1 tool to find images uploaded here, didn't that tool search for SHA-1 hashes? You stated "is not searchable otherwise"? How does it do it? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Tool hosted in toollabs is not an official WMF product. There is no way to search for SHA-1 hash directly on Wikimedia Commons. However, if there is an SHA-1 statement on the file page, then you can search that using "haswbstatement" keyword. Midleading (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Nice :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Uhhh, 503 HTTP error on file sometimes?

Just happen today, some files (upload.wikimedia.org) are returning 503 error(s) Does anyone the same issue? DinhHuy2010 (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@DinhHuy2010 same, also impacts the Commons images as viewed on enwiki articles where those are being used. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 15:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed; images now load when I visit Commons pages after waking up. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:27, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

August 13

SiIvaGunner template

Every video on the SiIvaGunner YouTube channel is free-use according to the Highquality.rip website, with a unique non-commercial license not based on any Creative Commons license - this has in the past been almost useless for Commons given how much the channel depends on derivative works, but recently the channel released a Kevin MacLeod tribute album - the remixes will all have to checked for samples and melodyswaps, but this should theoretically be fine to post on Commons for the most part, at least assuming Commons doesn't fall under the definition of a "streaming platform", which I assume it doesn't given the license immediately after says "*otherwise* aim to profit" - would it be worth creating a devoted SiIvaGunner license template? Some of the original KFAD music could maybe also be posted under this (though BE THE KING ends with a Flintstones melody so that would have to be cropped).

https://sgfr.highquality.rip/sgfr-0012/ --RockosModernLifeFan848 (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)