Commons: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/2025/09. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
September 10
Videos of Recent murders/ violence
So the recent stabbing on the charlotte light rail has been posted to commons as cctv footage I don’t know what it contains but i do know it does show the woman being murdered unsure if it was blurred or not. I could see blood in thumbnails. I get it within policy but the video being posted of a woman’s death is cruel and i think its not really uh aligning with the purpose of commons im just wondering if others have an opinion Cyberwolf (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've watched at least one of the videos and it didn't show the actual murder. It only showed the build up (both people entering the train and sitting down) and the situation afterwards (the guy walking through the train with blood dripping from the knife as he was walking). Does this address your concerns? There's also another thread regarding those videos that is particularly asking whether the editing of the videos would make them copyright protected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#c-Rjjiii-20250909071500-CCTV_and_Iryna_Zarutska_footage_(public_domain_question). Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are other versions of the CCTV here that is uncensored and pretty much showed the whole thing. So, I don’t advise anyone to watch it. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
- As a general opinnion, i think that w:Snuff films and likes should be out-of-scope even though they could be stored to commons by copyright. If we need some visualisations for articles still images are enough. --Zache (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might not wanna look up the photos that Commons have of the Gaza genocide if the CCTV videos hurts to watch Trade (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- What is the educational value of this video? Ciell (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I guess its proof Cyberwolf (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Ciell et al.: the answer where the educational value of this documentary footage lies is not really far away. Let's use File:CCTV footage of the killing of Iryna Zarutska (1757445615Qu7sNX2vPea1Fw).webm as example. It shows the actual slashing at 00:06-00:07, the area of the body targetted (the neck near the collarbone in an upward motion, I think parallel to the en:Sternocleidomastoid muscle) and the aftermath - her collapse into unconsciousness and death beginning at 00:22, I think due to a beginning en:Hypovolemic shock. It's hard to tell whether a carotid got injured, though (IIRC, actual forensic experts said on true-crime documentaries that a wounded carotid would show for a rhythmic spray following the heartbeat in the first seconds, before the organ goes into en:arrythmia). The timeframe of the event alone is educational, as objective facts of a sad real-life example that may differ from artistic depictions of slashings, of which fictionalised representations in CSI or movies like James Bond, Kill Bill and others are widespread. Such imagery may be a counter to the en:CSI effect. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- I guess its proof Cyberwolf (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- What is the educational value of this video? Ciell (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might not wanna look up the photos that Commons have of the Gaza genocide if the CCTV videos hurts to watch Trade (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Anything that's even slightly covered in the news is de facto educational on here purely because of the stories about it. That even goes for extremely mundane things like AI generated slop memes that are posted on Twitter, as long as they are mentioned in a news story. So there's almost zero chance these videos won't be considered in scope if someone tries to nominated them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Depends how much people is gonna canvass Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your not wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Depends how much people is gonna canvass Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Is Kirk’s up yet? There has to be free media of that and its probably the most graphic clear image of an murder ever would probably be beneficial if this is true Cyberwolf (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- The videos that are currently available online are mostly filmed by people in the audience. These cannot be uploaded to Commons unless one of them released their video under a free license. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Anything that's even slightly covered in the news is de facto educational on here purely because of the stories about it. That even goes for extremely mundane things like AI generated slop memes that are posted on Twitter, as long as they are mentioned in a news story. So there's almost zero chance these videos won't be considered in scope if someone tries to nominated them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
And now a substantive part of this discussion is vitiated and meaningless because someone deleted File:CCTV footage of the killing of Iryna Zarutska (1757445615Qu7sNX2vPea1Fw).webm. The wages of deleting material about people who are no longer alive employing COM:DIGNITY. Slippery slope. XavierItzm (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
September 11
How do I request a category move?
A few days ago I've requested that category:Sao Chingcha be moved by adding a template but nothing happened so I wanna know if I'm doing it correctly. [Also this page (Commons:Village pump) is Wikimedia Common's version of en:WP:Teahouse right? I'm not very familiar with Commons] 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 07:46, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- Your template was correct.
- But giant swing can quite often refer to other things (try google images), so i dont agree that the category for the thai structure should be moved. RoyZuo (talk) 12:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
- @RoyZuo with utmost respect, I brought up the topic of renaming the article en:Giant Swing many times on English Wikipedia (en:Talk:Giant_Swing) all efforts ended with no consensus to move the page.
- It's fine if Commons doesn't use the same naming scheme as on English Wikipedia. I just felt like bringing this up just in case. 🐲Jothefiredragon🔥talk🧨contributions✨log🐉 06:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't have an exact equivalent of the Teahouse. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
September 12
Does this policy apply to Commons as well? Or are we not allowed to make edits and decisions based on BLPCRIME? --Trade (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would assume it does as its a standard in most journalism Cyberwolf (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I count commons as photo journalism Cyberwolf (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's rather a media repository. There are all sorts of files on Commons, including books, maps, pronunciation audio files, which have nothing to do with journalism. Nakonana (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- BLPCRIME is an English Wikipedia policy about publishing criminal allegations in encyclopedia articles on living people. Commons is a media repository, not an encyclopedia, so BLPCRIME does not directly apply. Actual file content (for example images that show a criminal act) is governed by Commons’ project-scope rules (see e.g. COM:EDUSE an COM:INUSE); Commons will host files that fall within its scope and can legally be hosted, while individual Wikimedia projects decide whether and how to use those files and may apply their own local BLPCRIME rules. File metadata (captions, descriptions, filenames, categories) must not publish unsourced or defamatory allegations about living persons. Do not add claims of criminal conduct to metadata unless they are narrowly factual (who, what, where, when) and supported by reliable sources; see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- On ENWP we had issues where otherwise valid files were removed from articles because the title was violating BLPCRIME
- Do you think that's an issue we should aim to prevent from happening in the first place? Trade (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think a remaining might be warranted if bad enough per COM:FR #5 - but then based on our policies and not specific local Wikipedia policies on encyclopedic content. (Another solution could be to create a redirect from another title and include that redirect in articles instead ). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing in COM:FR#5 to suggest that it would cover the same file names that explicitly BLPCRIME. The amount of interpretation it would take to apply per COM:FR#5 is so great that you might as well not bother to bring up COM:FR in the first place Trade (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- There is nothing in COM:FR#5 to suggest that it would cover the same file names that explicitly BLPCRIME. The amount of interprentation it takes is so great that you might as well just use Administrator Trade (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think a remaining might be warranted if bad enough per COM:FR #5 - but then based on our policies and not specific local Wikipedia policies on encyclopedic content. (Another solution could be to create a redirect from another title and include that redirect in articles instead ). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- BLPCRIME is an English Wikipedia policy about publishing criminal allegations in encyclopedia articles on living people. Commons is a media repository, not an encyclopedia, so BLPCRIME does not directly apply. Actual file content (for example images that show a criminal act) is governed by Commons’ project-scope rules (see e.g. COM:EDUSE an COM:INUSE); Commons will host files that fall within its scope and can legally be hosted, while individual Wikimedia projects decide whether and how to use those files and may apply their own local BLPCRIME rules. File metadata (captions, descriptions, filenames, categories) must not publish unsourced or defamatory allegations about living persons. Do not add claims of criminal conduct to metadata unless they are narrowly factual (who, what, where, when) and supported by reliable sources; see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- It's rather a media repository. There are all sorts of files on Commons, including books, maps, pronunciation audio files, which have nothing to do with journalism. Nakonana (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- And yet despite several files naming the person arrested in connection with the Charlie Kirk shooting as the assassin/perpetrator, nobody on Commons seems to care in the slightest or take any issues with it whatsoever despite it supposedly violating our policy
- It's quite tiring to continue hearing how serious Commons is about files that violates BLPCRIME despite me being the only person who have taken any issue with files who violates BLPCRIME. Can't we just admit that Commons as a whole does not care about files accusing people of crimes that they haven't been charged or convicted for? Trade (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is a bit different on Commons. This policy doesn't apply to the images, but to the file descriptions. Yann (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- And ya know titles and categories Trade (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is a bit different on Commons. This policy doesn't apply to the images, but to the file descriptions. Yann (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- I count commons as photo journalism Cyberwolf (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
- Commons does have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (and in the backround foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people and foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people). --Isderion (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
hearing how serious Commons is about files that violates BLPCRIME
-- where did you hear that? BLPCRIME is an enwiki policy, there's no COM:BLPCRIME. Do wikis in other languages even have a similar policy to BLPCRIME?files accusing people of crimes that they haven't been charged or convicted for
-- do the files simply name the person, or do the files actually call the person "murderer" or something similar? Nakonana (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)- The problem are not our policies. It is already clear that any potentially defamatory file name or description is not acceptable. The problem is the enforcement as we do not have enough capacity for detailed check of all new uploads. If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- "If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail" Would the Commons community actually care about that, though? Even here i notice that BLPCRIME is treated as something that is irrelevant to Commons and doesn't apply to the site anyways Trade (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The enwiki policy is irrelevant. But we have COM:DIGNITY, Commons:Harassment and of course also the UCoC. The local harassment policy explicitly mentions that it does not matter if the target is an user or not. GPSLeo (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- As i said both COM:DIGNITY or Commons:Harassment are too vague and open ended to give a clear answer the issues i have ran into since the killing of Charlie Kirk. Pointing to them does not really help. Trade (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking in vague terms about whether a specific enwiki policy "applies" or not doesn’t really help anyone. If you encounter file names, descriptions or categories that are defamatory or otherwise inappropriate, please bring those specific examples forward so they can be addressed under Commons' own policies. Whether or not enwiki's BLPCRIME text is copied over here is beside the point — what matters is that problematic content gets reported and handled. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- "On ENWP we had issues where otherwise valid files were removed from articles because the title was violating BLPCRIME"
- I thought that was pretty clear.
- Obviously, it's difficult to stay on topic when most of the responses were just people complaining about me talking about an ENWP policy on Commons. Or people insisting that current policies already solves the issue (they don't obviously)
- At the end of the day we have to decide. Do we need to take BLPCRIME into consideration? Or should we just accept that Commons can no longer serve as a media repository because of the uploader's choice of title Trade (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- There probably isn't a one-size-fits-all answer since there are competing interests at play. The dignity of the murder victim and the wishes of the family not to see this stuff widely disseminated vs. the public interest in showing it and the potential educational use. I'd tend to lean towards COM:DIGNITY for individual murders and towards EDUSE for videos that depict attacks on a group of civilians or that show an armed group committing genocide. But others might disagree. I think English Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting the Abu Ghraib torture files, but that's a minority opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. I think sticking the torture files on the internet archive would be best if its extreme Cyberwolf (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Vast majority of these can already be speedy deleted as copyvio anyways so i don't see it as a pressing issue Trade (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking in vague terms about whether a specific enwiki policy "applies" or not doesn’t really help anyone. If you encounter file names, descriptions or categories that are defamatory or otherwise inappropriate, please bring those specific examples forward so they can be addressed under Commons' own policies. Whether or not enwiki's BLPCRIME text is copied over here is beside the point — what matters is that problematic content gets reported and handled. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- As i said both COM:DIGNITY or Commons:Harassment are too vague and open ended to give a clear answer the issues i have ran into since the killing of Charlie Kirk. Pointing to them does not really help. Trade (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The enwiki policy is irrelevant. But we have COM:DIGNITY, Commons:Harassment and of course also the UCoC. The local harassment policy explicitly mentions that it does not matter if the target is an user or not. GPSLeo (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- "If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail" Would the Commons community actually care about that, though? Even here i notice that BLPCRIME is treated as something that is irrelevant to Commons and doesn't apply to the site anyways Trade (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- The problem are not our policies. It is already clear that any potentially defamatory file name or description is not acceptable. The problem is the enforcement as we do not have enough capacity for detailed check of all new uploads. If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, file urls should not be constructed using a "file name", but rather generic number id. RoyZuo (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Off topic much? Go create another topic if you want to create an argument that’s probably been argued probably countless times Cyberwolf (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Ok so over the weekend I’ve been thinking. So the videos and photos of the killing should be titled killer of (victim) and mugshots and photos of the suspect (not during the killing) should be labeled suspect in the killing of (victim). I think this will solve most issues Cyberwolf (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Then when the suspect in the killing is convicted it would be killer of (victim) Cyberwolf (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- What about Persons of interest? Trade (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Why do file names need to mention specific crimes or make accusations? Just title them Joe_Shmoe_Mugshot.jpg or Dumbass_Being_Shot.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just do POI in killing of(victim) Cyberwolf (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- What about Persons of interest? Trade (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Then when the suspect in the killing is convicted it would be killer of (victim) Cyberwolf (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
September 16
Wich river?
There are two rivers in Lisieux. Wich one is it?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
- You might have more luck at the French Le Bistro, either here (Commons:Bistro) or at fr.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 20:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
September 17
license-template in need of a fix
The license tag Template:Unlicense puts all files tagged with it, not only into Category:Unlicense, which is correct, but also into Category:PD license tags, which is incorrect, as the latter cat is only for license-tags. Could someone knowledgable with template-programing, fix this template? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have changed the template so it now categorizes them to Category:Public domain instead. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
September 18
Looking for a way
I'm trying to convince an organization with interesting historical photography collections to upload material to Commons. The question is whether there's a way to ensure that each uploaded photograph can include a reference to the name of the organization and the photographer who took it. mboix (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Mboix: Absolutely. For example, if they release under CC-BY 4.0, use a licensing statement like {{CC-BY-4.0|attribution=WHATEVER IT IS THEY WANT}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Can you show me some examples? mboix (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- If the the organization plans to upload a lot of photographs, they can even use a custom template to indicate the source. For example, see the template {{Photo Araba}} in File:Hombre y grupo de niños en una aldea (ATHA-BAR-NV-015-019).jpg, you can see they included the photographer in the file description, and the custom template includes a link to their website and a direct link to the original image. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- Can you show me some examples? mboix (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- You can also make sure they include the organization info in the metadata. --RAN (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
Burls and cankers
Hi, the categories Burls and Canker included each other, creating an endless loop. After scanning the articles en:Burl and en:Canker I have removed both from the other category as the former is about monstrous growth and the latter is about diseases. Not being a native speaker I prefer to have these edits checked. Thanks! → bertux 11:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think the way it is now with catseealso is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- There are many thousands of these endless loops to resolve at Commons:Database reports/Category cycles. I just don't think VP is a place to ask about one specific categorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- So I should have asked where to ask a simple question. Overkill? Bureaucracy? Btw, could you be bothered to give some hints about a more suitable place and how I could have known about the unsuitability of the Village pump and how I could have found that better place? → bertux 15:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think it was a perfectly good place to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I would not ask the question or ask it at the talk page of the page I linked. That is because it is not so important to ask the entire community about it (overkill to make a thread here) and because there's countless of such cases if one goes through the page – I mean like many dozens of such questions. That's just my opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think they wouldn't have asked if not for the language issue. I've definitely asked questions here that might look trivial for native English speakers, like questions about category naming, just because I wasn't 100% sure about the terminology. Nakonana (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also there is no Helpdesk at Commons so I chose the Village pump as the next best. As for the talk page: is it just my home wiki (nlwik) or does nobody read category talk? → bertux 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, there is a Help desk on Commons, see Commons:Help desk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Oh. A Help desk, not a Helpdesk. Thanks! → bertux 10:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, there is a Help desk on Commons, see Commons:Help desk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also there is no Helpdesk at Commons so I chose the Village pump as the next best. As for the talk page: is it just my home wiki (nlwik) or does nobody read category talk? → bertux 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I think they wouldn't have asked if not for the language issue. I've definitely asked questions here that might look trivial for native English speakers, like questions about category naming, just because I wasn't 100% sure about the terminology. Nakonana (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- So I should have asked where to ask a simple question. Overkill? Bureaucracy? Btw, could you be bothered to give some hints about a more suitable place and how I could have known about the unsuitability of the Village pump and how I could have found that better place? → bertux 15:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
For threshold of originality enthusiasts
Could anybody at least approximate whether the logos in this article (latter two images on the right) fail the threshold of originality? I thought about vectorizing them for Commons, but I'm not entirely sure whether that would end up getting deleted because of how complex some of these are. On the other hand – they are just elaborate lettering and simple shapes. Any advice or opinion is appreciated! ☀ Rȕnolīst | þⰁč 12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Runolist: TOO questions are better asked at COM:VP/C.
- The image at lower right is below TOO for both Hungary and the U.S. Nothing else here looks below TOO, but some of these are presumably old enough to have lost copyright protection. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Server switch - Your wiki will be read-only for a short time soon
Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language
The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.
All traffic will switch on 24 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation. You can contribute to the translation or proofreading of this banner text.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
- You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 24 September 2025.
- If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Other effects:
- Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
- We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
- GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.
Please share this information with your community.Trizek (WMF) (Discussion) 15:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
[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)
- @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)
- @Aafi can you please help with this task? Gopala Krishna A (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. Made respective changes. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 06:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Ainali (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)- Hello @Gopala Krishna A,
- It is great to see your excitement about the CampaignEvents extension and desire to see it enabled on Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for sharing your wish!
- Fortunately, the Connection Team team has already been planning and working on this. Early next week, we will post the official announcement message about enabling the extension on Wikimedia Commons to this page. We ask you to share your thoughts on that message too. I will ping those of you here when the message is posted.
- Thanks for your engagement! GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding @GFontenelle (WMF). Looking forward for the release. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello everyone (@Gopala Krishna A, @Jmabel, @Aafi, @Ainali),
- Thank you so much for waiting patiently. As promised, I'm back with the official announcement message about enabling the extension on Wikimedia Commons. It was posted here, on Village Pump, a few minutes ago. As I mentioned before, it would be nice if you could share your thoughts on that message too.
- Looking forward to your engagement with the extension once it's enabled!
- GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Gopala Krishna A, @Jmabel, @Aafi, and @Ainali,
- Thank you so much for waiting patiently. Following up with my last message, we have launched the CampaignEvents extension on Wikimedia Commons today.
- More details are available on Commons:Event organizers. The features now available are:
- Event Registration - A tool that helps organizers and participants manage event registration directly on Commons.
- Collaboration List - A global list of events accessible at Special:AllEvents.
- Invitation List - A tool to help organizers find editors who might want to join, based on their past contributions.
- Please note the extension comes with a new user right. You will need to have this right to use the Event Registration and Invitation List features. The Collaboration List is available as Special:AllEvents.
- Regarding Invitation List, please be aware that this feature will not be as useful to Wikimedia Commons in its current form. However, this feature was made available so people can try it out and give suggestions to the team on how to improve it, especially for Commons.
- Let us know via the discussion page if you have any questions. I'm also working on an engagement plan for the extension. If you are an organizer and would like to collaborate or learn more, please reach me via gfontenelle
wikimedia.org. Thank you! GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for responding @GFontenelle (WMF). Looking forward for the release. Gopala Krishna A (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Deployment of the CampaignEvents Extension
Hi everyone,
Following up with my last message [Now un-archived, immediately above; please don't make substantive edits like this in an archived page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)], the Connection team has launched the CampaignEvents extension on Wikimedia Commons today.
More details are available on Commons:Event organizers. The features now available are:
- Event Registration - A tool that helps organizers and participants manage event registration directly on Commons.
- Collaboration List - A global list of events accessible at Special:AllEvents.
- Invitation List - A tool to help organizers find editors who might want to join, based on their past contributions.
Please note the extension comes with a new user right. You will need to have this right to use the Event Registration and Invitation List features.
Regarding Invitation List, please be aware that this feature will not be as useful to Wikimedia Commons in its current form. However, this feature was made available so people can try it out and give suggestions to the team on how to improve it, especially for Commons.
Let us know via the discussion page if you have any questions. I'm also working on an engagement plan for the extension. If you are an organizer and would like to collaborate or learn more, please reach me via gfontenellewikimedia.org.
Thank you! GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
September 19
CCTV material from problematic sources
The now-deleted full (18+ minutes) CCTV material depicting the killing of Iryna Zarutska has been uploaded from a source called WatchPeopleDie. I'd consider this source generally problematic with respect to COM:DIGNITY, meaning that material uploaded from there very likely violates it. I found Commons:Problematic_sources and Commons:Bad_sources but they are only about problematic/bad sources with respect to licensing, as far as I see. Should there be a similar list about sources problematic as to COM:DIGNITY? Is there such a list already?
Part of the background of this question is that some people argued that this material was released by reputable sources (authorities, police, government) and these would have been arguments that would really have strenghthened the position of those in favour keeping the file. But the immediate source of the material hosted on commons was not some authority or (reputable) news agency. If the material uploaded to WatchPeopleDie was originally released by some authority or reputable news agency is hard to track down but in the end: if there were official or reputable sources that released that material the material should have been taken directly from there. I don't think that Wikimedia commons (and ultimately Wikipedia) should be a hub for material from pages like WatchPeopleDie, no matter if relevant to recent events or ineligible for copyright. People can go there if interested.
I won't take part in the discussion much, but I'm interested in your opinion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- I can imagine that some people rather emphasize the historical component of this video, and disregard the importance of the source --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- "If the material uploaded to WatchPeopleDie was originally released by some authority or reputable news agency is hard to track down but in the end" The idea that the Charlotte Area Transit System had somehow lost any access to their own CCTVs and had the footage released without their consent by a third party is a bit far out i think Trade (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "lost any access to their own CCTVs", but it's entirely plausible that the video was posted without the transit authority's knowledge or consent. Information security at these sorts of agencies is hardly airtight - and I would be much more astonished if they had authorized the publication of the video to that web site. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdt4eLWaHsg (pause at 0:43 to avoid seeing the disturbing footage)
- Feel free to be astonished at CATS. Unless you wish to argue that major American news networks are all conspiring together to cover up the origin of the video Trade (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- The video you linked to does not show the sensitive footage (her being stabbed and dying).
- I don't really see reason to doubt that CATS gave the material to the third party (e.g. a news organisation) that released it themselves. But I doubt that they posted it directly to WatchPeopleDie. This is what my final point of the sentence you quoted was about: "[...] but in the end: if there were official or reputable sources that released that material the material should have been taken directly from there." The source which decided to release the material "fully" (including the sensitive footage) matters. Different news organisations weigh different aspects differently when deciding about how to release such material (human dignity, education, monetisation, politicisation, reach, ...) and not all of them align well with Wikimedia commons commitment to the depicted subject's moral rights (as expressed here Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues). This is especially important when people tend to delegate responsibility for these decisions upstream (to the source the material comes from). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Considering the name of the website and the fact that the footage had been heavily censored i doubt whoever uploader it had access to the original footage Trade (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "lost any access to their own CCTVs", but it's entirely plausible that the video was posted without the transit authority's knowledge or consent. Information security at these sorts of agencies is hardly airtight - and I would be much more astonished if they had authorized the publication of the video to that web site. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Type of Women's dresses
I there a name/category for this type of dress? Multi layered around the shoulders with lots of buttons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
- en:WP:Reference desk/Humanities is probably a better place to ask this kind of question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
September 20
Important discussion
See Commons talk:Country specific consent requirements#Take a picture column. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- It really isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Media of the day (MOTD)
Hello, anyone interesting in taking over MOTD? I have been adding most of the MOTD for the past 2 months, but I am going on a break soon and will be busy starting next month.
I have already made sure that there are MOTDs until the end of this month, so you can starting adding the MOTDs for October. It should be quite straightforward since it consists of 4 steps:
- Select a good quality, no known copyright issues, educationally useful, interesting audio/video file (I usually just choose one from Commons:Featured media, but others audios/videos are fine too)
- Find an empty slot in Commons:Media of the day and add the file to it using {{Motd filename}}
- Add an English (or other suitable languages) description to the description template using {{Motd description}} (optionally you can add some links to Wikipedia)
- Add a {{Media of the day}} tag to the file page of the selected file
Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've been adding most of the files before the last 2 months and will resume adding a few every now and then. I think for other users interested in contributing there it's important to emphasize that the videos featured there are supposed to be of high-quality (accurate, resolution, etc) and of somewhat global or international significance in some way. A good indication of quality for example is if it's used in a major article of a large Wikipedia.
- By the way, the MOTD category is one of the best places to explore interesting high-quality videos and audios on Commons in a discovery kind of way: Feed to explore interesting content on Wikimedia Commons Prototyperspective (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- Btw, thanks for your work on this. I remember years ago motd used to always be pretty boring, but lately i've been seeing plenty of really interesting things in MOTD. Bawolff (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
September 21
Palestine in "Countries of Asia" module/template
I started a discussion on moving Palestine from the partially recognised portion of the list of countries into the recognised section over at Template_talk:Countries_of_Asia#Palestine_again - ImStevan (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
How do you find copyright information about an archived newspaper photograph? What if the authors and news agencies are unreachable to you?
Hello, an administrator left notice asking for copyright permission related information on my talk page regarding two photographs relating to John Gacy Wayne that I've uploaded. Both of those photographs were borrowed from newspaper archived websites, which I added in the descriptions. With one of those photographs, the Chicago Tribune affiliated photographer had died in 2022 according to his colleague memorializing him in his blog.
The other photograph was borrowed from a 1980 Pittsburg Press article, which gave no names of authors or photographers. One issue with the Pittsburg Press is that it closed down in the 90s. If the wikipedia page is to believed, its remaining assets were purchased and absorbed by the Pittsburg Post-Gazette in 2011. Another version of the "Piest relatives at Gacy trial" photograph was used by a 1980 Noblesville Ledger article published on the same day. Like the Pittsburg Press article, the Noblesville Ledger article gave no names of authors or photographers beyond crediting the UPI photo agency. I'm not certain if the photograph is under the Pittsburg Press, Noblesville Ledger, or the UPI copyright, and the name of its photographer is completely lost to me.
Although my rough assumptions are that the copyright holders are the Chicago Tribune and UPI photos respectively, what should I do if I cannot find the copyright information or the holders are simply too inaccessible for me to reach? Randomuser335S (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Randomuser335S: Hi, You have to check the newspaper archives for a copyright notice. These can't be under a Creative Commons license, which didn't exist when these images were first published. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I found the copyright information of ancestry.com copyright information of ancestry.com, the company that operates the Newspaper.com archives I took both photos from. Is this what I need to resolve the "permission notice" issue? Randomuser335S (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- When you clip a news article or an image, add in the link from Ancestry, you can add it in other_versions= . Then others can look for copyright formalities on page 1. The image belongs to UPI and they did not comply with copyright formalities. I corrected the license. The Library of Congress researched and found that they did not register for copyrights, any image after 1989 would still be under an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I greatly appreciate that help Randomuser335S (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Randomuser335S: it's hard to tell from the above what you do or don't know, but you might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party and also, for the complexity of U.S. copyright issues in respects where most other major countries are more straightforward, Commons:Hirtle chart. Also—you might want to look into this separately—press agencies such as AP and UPI often did not copyright their photographs, but it's not the easiest thing to research for an individual photo. You might search in the archives of Village pump/Copyright for several related discussions. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I greatly appreciate that help Randomuser335S (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Rules on categorizing arms of users
Are there rules on categorization of coats of arms of users?
I have uploaded a personal coat of arms for myself and I’m not sure if I should categorize it as though it is a regular coat of arms for all the elements, or abstain from categorization to avoid misleading people that it might be official. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Immanuelle Perhaps you can categorize it to Category:Coats of arms of users. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
- I have already categorized it there. But I’m asking whether it should get categories for charges and other traits.
- Arguments for inclusion: gives people a better idea of what a thing looks like and makes it easier to find svg assets
- Arguments against inclusion: Someone might be searching for a real legally recognized coat of arms with a certain property. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 01:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
September 22
Unpublished works USA
Somewhere there was a chart for what is PD. Unpublished works in the US is a special case. Protected for 120 years? I recently uploaded a lot of pictures from Belgian family albums (I have the inheritance rigths). I suppose that by the US definitions this is unpublished work. As I use the Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs license, so the files are free for use. But theoreticaly they are unpublished. I have two questions: When I upload them in the Commons, is this a publication? And does the 120 year start counting then? Does the Unpublished works rule apply outside the US? example: File:Tours bridge 1924.jpg This is not PD in Europe, as the author has died in 1967. For the US it is probably PD, because it is before 1930. Or is it not PD because it is unpublished? Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- The somewhere for the chart might be there. In short, you want to know when your copyright ends in the US? It seems it would be 70 years pma, in 2038 for this photo. As copyright holder, you are publishing the photos on Commons. Each country has its own rules. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Uploading to Commons is a form of publication, since you are distributing a copy of the photo to the public.
- See first section of Commons:Hirtle chart or {{PD-US-unpublished}}. For works that are currently unpublished, works that were created by known author are protected 70 years from their death. If death date is not known or if the works were created anonymously/pseudonymously/for hire, then it is protected 120 years from the year of creation.
- This rule only applies in US, since different countries have their own laws regarding unpublished work. For example, according to COM:CRT/Belgium, like other EU countries, it appears unpublished works are copyrighted for an additional 25 years from their first publication, if the copyright term of the works have ended.
- For File:Tours bridge 1924.jpg, it is unpublished until now, but it is created by an author with a known death date, and the date is less than 70 years ago, so it will not qualify for {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Therefore, as Asclepias mentioned above, it will not be in PD in the US until 2038.
- Tvpuppy (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- If you inherited the copyrights then {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} is valid, whether previously published or unpublished. People have been releasing old family albums since the beginning of Commons. --RAN (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
How to confirm the copyright here?
This file photo of a mayor came from this article. There is no apparent declaration of CC-BY-SA copyright. How does one decide in this case if the image is usable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsacrificer (talk • contribs) 19:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Everything is protected by copyright until you have evidence of otherwise Trade (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
"Everything is protected…"
=> "Everything is presumed protected…" - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
Portrait of Pedro Sanchez / Nicolas Maduro has corrupted file page
I am not knowledgeable enough to figure out what the problem is, but something is not right with the description of this picture: File:Obisk španskega predsednika vlade v Sloveniji (53658605930) (cropped).jpg (current Prime Minister of Spain)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
The description features another image, a portrait of Nicolás Maduro (current President of Venezuela); what is going on? TucanHolmes (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- An IP user messing around [1] it seems. Nakonana (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- A user account also. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- Reverted to the initial description. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- By the way, the requirements of that source flickr account contradict its PD mark tag. "The use of photos is free of charge and allowed for non-commercial purposes. When using, it is obligatory to mention the author of the photo." -- Asclepias (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- a lot of people don't understand the licences, have the same issue with the Indian Foreign govt flickr where they have released the images for free-use by writing that down on their profile but the images themselves are licenced under ARR or NC-ND..In this case, that flickr profile is the official one for the Govt of Slovenia so the photographers are paid for by them so they own the rights, even the exif says "Slovenian Press Agency" ...they definitely meant for it to be released under cc-by-sharealike (thus the author of the photo request)...The Non-commercial rule has hurt wikimedia Commons the most cause over the 15 years of doing this, it has been hard to get majority of this officially run govt and organisation run flickr to understand why wikipedia needs the images to be released for commercial use even though we ourselves are non-commercial.. Stemoc 04:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AObisk_%C5%A1panskega_predsednika_vlade_v_Sloveniji_%2853658605930%29_%28cropped%29.jpg&diff=1009120148&oldid=971275139){kind=link}
The person in the picture is definitely Pedro Sánchez. User:Siempreloco made several modifications I very strongly doubt their good faith. Mainly because one of them is changing "Pedro" (Peter) into "Perro" (dog), change resulting into an insult. In addition, changes to this file are the only activity of mentioned user in this project. B25es (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
September 24
Template question
A question, some of the page-header navboxes (Template:Countries of North America, for instance) don't display correctly on the "root" categories for some of the countries in them. Note for instance Category:United States, where it isn't showing the bold 'this is this category' for 'United States', because it links to Category:The United States, as most subcategories of Category:United States use "foo of the United States". I'm just wondering if there's any way to work around this aside from creating a fork of the template lacking "the" in that one? - The Bushranger (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: it should be possible in the template to determine that there is not prefix, and in that case not use "the". Might have to think about whether there is a suffix, not sure if that would need different handling, would have to look at a representative sample of places where the template is used. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Category:United States for Template:Countries of the Americas, Category:Canary Islands for Template:Countries of Africa, to give two examples. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @The Bushranger: Two cases is not a representative sample. What I'm saying is that besides coding the difference for the case of no prefix and no suffix, we need to look at a representative set of categories that have a suffix but no prefix to the country name, and make sure that none of those should have a leading "the". - Jmabel ! talk 04:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Category:United States for Template:Countries of the Americas, Category:Canary Islands for Template:Countries of Africa, to give two examples. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)