Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/06.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 License reviews 18 8 Abzeronow 2023-06-13 18:02
2 Legality of Indian maps 27 12 Ooligan 2023-06-09 16:24
3 AI generated media competition 14 5 Jarekt 2023-06-10 00:18
4 Flickr Foundation adopts Flickr2Commons 31 17 C.Suthorn 2023-06-12 11:11
5 Big gap for structured_data 9 4 Nurg 2023-06-08 10:52
6 Photographing glass 3 3 Adamant1 2023-06-07 05:19
7 Category:Surnames (flat list) 9 5 Broichmore 2023-06-11 07:16
8 Let uploaders see what metadata is present as they're uploading 7 4 LPfi 2023-06-09 19:32
9 Dezoomify 2 2 Yann 2023-06-07 20:01
10 Category move 6 3 Ferien 2023-06-13 11:45
11 24 minutes to upload a picture 5 2 C.Suthorn 2023-06-07 16:22
12 About categories with "colour" in the name 3 3 Pigsonthewing 2023-06-07 11:16
13 Errors in template(s) Countryyear 1 1 JopkeB 2023-06-07 13:37
14 Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2023 1 1 MediaWiki message delivery 2023-06-07 23:25
15 Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo 8 5 Elizium23 2023-06-10 11:53
16 Using Wikimedia images in a Collage 2 2 Photo Archives 2023-06-08 17:15
17 Good? 1 1 RZuo 2023-06-08 20:12
18 Commons:AI-generated media 8 3 Omphalographer 2023-06-12 21:24
19 What is the best watermark removal AI? 2 2 C.Suthorn 2023-06-11 18:37
20 Category descriptions 3 3 HyperGaruda 2023-06-10 20:03
21 Request for comments: Category talk:Lake Chōkai#Move request 1 1 Yasu 2023-06-11 14:58
22 Use of Commons images for AI data? 2 2 Prosfilaes 2023-06-12 20:01
23 UploadStatsBot 3 2 RadioKAOS 2023-06-12 16:33
24 Category:AI images created by David S. Soriano 2 2 William Graham 2023-06-11 21:14
25 Kami Hejazi 5 4 Jmabel 2023-06-13 15:26
26 Infobox error 3 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2023-06-14 02:47
  • 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.
Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive

Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 24[edit]

License reviews[edit]

Hi, Manual license review obviously doesn't scale. We have files waiting reviewing for more than 2 years. Couldn't we have a bot reviewing licenses for files from YouTube and Vimeo, like we have for Flickr? Yann (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually there was a bot, supposed to be replaced by another bot, which stopped working more than one year ago. I could run it myself. The bot master is not active, but has anyone a copy of the code? Yann (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann I looked into this a while ago, and could not find the code. Eatcha did not reply to email either. I actually (just before seeing your comment) had requested a list of Toolforge tools for which Eatcha was owner phab:T337432, so one or both of us could hopefully adopt the tools per policy. Hopefully it was on Toolforge like some of their other tools! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i've been wanting to reform the youtube bot review process for a long time. instead of letting a bot review files by itself, i think it should be done like this:
  1. the bot reviews a file (whose source=youtube) only to verify the given youtube link is youtube-cc-by. this puts the file into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews".
  2. a human would check if the commons file does actually come from that youtube link, and pass it. then the file is put into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot and reviewer".
flickrbot can review files by itself because it verifies whether commons copy is identical to flickr copy, but it's obviously not feasible for youtubebot to do that.
"files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews" is less urgent than the current "licence review needed", because at least the given youtube link would be verified to be ccby. it doesnt matter if the licence would be changed later. the only problem would be if the video disappears before a human reviews it. then we can review the files on a case-by-case basis to decide if evidence is sufficient to establish the authenticity of the files. RZuo (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience of reviewing files from YouTube, reviewing could be tedious but we need to endure that. Not all freely-licensed YouTube videos are decent. They may look decent at first but later on one may find third-party content that the YouTube author incorporated in their video. That third-party content may come from unfree sources like screenshots from ABS-CBN newscasts or citizens' video shots that were not originally from the YouTube author but the author just included them in their video. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: Last time we discussed this (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/04#103,857_unreviewed_files) I did a suggestion on how to split up the work to make it more manageable. I was told this is a really bad idea and didn't feel like spending any energy on this anymore. I can just assume that user hasn't learned yet that the wiki way is to eat an elephant one bite at a time and for that the work needs to be bite sized so more people help out a little. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review is split up by date. is that bite-sized enough for you? now is 2023, but the oldest subcat is Files moved to Commons requiring review as of 29 April 2008‎ (28 F) from 15 years ago. notably, that subcat was created at 20:11, 5 March 2009‎ by BotMultichillT. added the file to "Twitter videos review needed" (which is small enough with only 13 files), but 3 years after this edit and 5 years after upload it remains unreviewed.
shifting files around in maintenance cats only make some users feel good, but doesnt actually help with shortening the queue. RZuo (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Files requiring license review sorted by user name has 1k gallery pages, but the review process was obviously not sped up even with this aid. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My guess is that WMF is waiting for AI to become intelligent enough to handle these reviewing tasks. Maybe 10 years later? If an AI-fortied bot can do all the tedious tasks, why humans do the same things spending their precious time? --トトト (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A video clip I uploaded from Youtube have has been deleted today. The author changed the license before it is to be reviewed here, I think. If the LicenseReviewerBot had been active, this must have been prevented. Sad to see a quality media being deleted, and I fear that people will become reluctant to upload medias from Youtube in the future. --トトト (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 0〔tekst gecorrigeerd. --トトト (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)〕Reply[reply]
dont write shorts url. use this kind of link instead . RZuo (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you for the new URL. I've requested undeletion of the file. --トトト (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] took me quite some time to find the actual webpage. is this effort to find the source worthwhile? or should we just send this to DR and let the uploader fix it properly? RZuo (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reviewer User:Howcheng adding an empty LR template to a pd file. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was adding those because the point of license review is to have someone else double-check your work. I don't think it's proper for someone to review their own uploads. holly {chat} 16:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
you're THE 2nd person handling that file. either you pass it yourself or dont add an empty template. it's pd anyway. have some consideration! RZuo (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
License review passed for File:Marian Anderson christens the liberty ship Booker T. Washington.jpg, this is a photo negative so it may have been unpublished until UCLA published it online under a free license as the inheritor of the photograph's copyright. The Daily News shows no issue renewals but we have no proof it was published before 1964. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 26[edit]

Legality of Indian maps[edit]

This discussion about the legality of Indian maps seems like it might be relevant to Commons: w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems a letter from Indian authorities was sent to WMF, mostly concerning maps at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Did we get a notice other than this?
The point is that it is illegal in India to use other borders than those India think are the correct ones (there are claims on the Pakistani and Chinese borders). The Indian authorities threatened to close down Wikipedia, but they seem to be quite understanding now that there was a dialog. There is still a list of maps where they would like warnings or disclaimers and links to official maps (in captions or on file description pages, as appropriate, I assume). Some in the en-wp community think that even that is unsustainable, as there are other similar disputes around the world, others think warnings are due on some of the maps.
At one stage, it seemed one could get a consensus, where only some files remained problematic, but at some point the more "fundamentalist" wing got more vocal. Seems not much has happened in the discussion lately.
The question for Commons, it seems, is whether to have a template to warn that a map may be illegal in India. Stating the fact that some of the borders are disputed may be a good thing to do, and a template could have a well thought-out wording translated to at least the most relevant languages, but I don't like big warning templates, and when it is about one countries (possibly unreasonable) claims, such a warning seems inappropriate (giving them undue weight).
LPfi (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should have a warning template. It should indicate that borders in this area (the relevant portion of the borders of India, Pakistan and China) are disputed, and that in India (and possibly others?) it is illegal to use a map that does not conform to India's claims.
The template should be on all maps of this area, not only the ones that India doesn't like.
Question: does Pakistan or China have parallel laws?
Question 2: does this mean that historical maps are banned in India (e.g. a map of the British Raj) or only maps that claim to show the situation after some date (and, if so, what date?). - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all,
I saw this post from the NPOV discussion, thanks for starting it! I can answer a couple things that Jmabel asked about. First, with regard to other laws, China does have similar laws ((see the enwiki article) and there's already Template:Chinese boundaries which exists. Similarly there's Template:Georgian boundaries. Pakistan iirc is less specific, though their government has also expressed past concerns about depictions of their borders a few years ago. I believe it was under a more general web hosting law when they did so. There's also the small warning related to India in the permissions field in this file. My two cents as a Foundation lawyer is that these kind of templates on Commons are helpful for us in responding to government complaints, so I encourage them so long as you all think they're a good idea and not causing other problems to users and readers.
Regarding historical maps, our understanding is that they are allowed in India because they are not actually a current map trying to assert India's present-day borders. However, that doesn't mean the Indian government will never try to identify a historical map to us as a problem either due to a mistake or as an attempt to overreach beyond what the law allows. If you look at the list in the NPOV thread, some of the ones in the full 81 URLs that MeitY sent us are historical maps, but our response to the Indian government on those particular ones has been that we don't think anything needs to be changed. - Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jrogers (WMF)
1. Please, list the "historical maps" included within the "full 81 URLs that MeitY sent us...," related to, "... our response to the Indian government on those particular ones has been that we don't think anything needs to be changed."
2. What is the Government of India's definition of a "historic map?" (For example, how many years old does the map have to be for the Government of India to not have any objection?"
3. Conversely, what is the Government of India's definition of a "current map?" (You wrote, "Regarding historical maps, our understanding is that they are allowed in India because they are not actually a current map trying to assert India's present-day borders.
4. What is the complete legal citation this Indian law?
5. So we can read this Indian law, can you provide the complete English language version of the relevant statue here for review or a link to it? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why just that area? Why not any map of Venezuela? Or Morocco? Or, hell, the United States, which has at least two disputed regions? Why does India get special treatment? Is it because they threatened us? And we're letting them? --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Golbez: because the U.S. does not have an equivalent law. If someone in India re-publishes a map of India that does not conform to the Indian government's views of its borders, they face prosecution. If someone in the U.S. re-publishes a wildly distorted map of anything, the worst they face is general derision. Templates like this are there to warn potential reusers so that they can make their own decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for replying , @Jmabel and well said.
I found this related item. Different country, but the same idea of a country's domestic laws reaching into the Wikimedia Commons project.
Please, see here: File:Xinjiang Internment Map, US-Aus Gov Assessment.jpg, yet even more interesting is this discussion on the talk page here:,_US-Aus_Gov_Assessment.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=771855220
It appears that an Australian-American government agencies joint product (this file) has a Chinese law tag applied to it.
First, is Wikipedia banned in China? (I'll look that up soon).
Second, the reason this tag was added was not about boundaries. Is it because the Chinese Communist Party does not want this information about prison camps shared. That is assuming the tag was added appropriately.
What was the process for creating this Chinese legal tag?
But this China related file illustrates the "slippery slope" or cautionary story that is relevant to the recent legal notice by the Government of India sent to the Wikimedia legal team.
1. What are the plain language of the Chinese law(s) and the law(s) of India? (English translation would be helpful.
2. The Commons is adding warnings with no links to the actual legal language, then how do editors know a tag is applied properly?
3. How can I evaluate that the tag is applied was applied properly?
4. What is the process to "challenge" a tag placed on a file here on Commons?
5. What happens when China and India (two national borders, with their national laws) disagree on a map?
6. Does Commons arbitrate between the two nations, or use two national tags?
7. or maybe we should not be tagging map files at all.
This discussion is large and complex. If someone is willing, it would be nice if there was a summary of the main points made and all the various issues raised. There so many threads on this important issue here as well as another discussion on a different page.
Which of the two discussion pages will be use to create policy? Or will they both be used? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(The issue is covered also in The Signpost issue of 5 June 2023: Wikipedia Signpost § Indian map dispute. –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

For the record: See also requests on File talk:India location map.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we already have a similar {{Chinese boundaries}}, then we should certainly have an {{Indian boundaries}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That had a very limited effect. China has no authority to decide what is allowed or forbidden outside of China. Same for India. India's threatening behavior is some kind of extortion that we should simply ignore. --Achim55 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the main aim is to warn (and protect) re-users of these maps from legal problems by these governments. --Túrelio (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it appropriate to show that some territory is disputed and use use netrl language in such cases. For example, the map File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg lables some territory as "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan" and other territory as "Pakistani territory claimed by India". A more neutral wording would be "Claimed by Pakistan; controlled by India" and "Claimed by India; controlled by Pakistan". The latter wording is, in my opinion, absolutely neutral. I notice that the german language variant File:Political_map_of_India_DE.svg already has this terminology. Unfortunately I do not read the languages used in any of the other variants of this map, so I cannot comment about those translations. Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martinvl: of course. That's not what we are addressing here, though. We are addressing putting a warning for people who might face legal ramifications for reusing a particular image in a particular country. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding warnings, it seems worth noting that Template:Chinese boundaries and Template:Georgian boundaries have not succeeded in being used. The Chinese one is used 26 times, the Georgian one 38. I would suggest that we have far more maps of both. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's likely because uploaders aren't aware of it/the problem. Also, many images which need the freedom-of-panorama-template, don't carry it, because uploaders weren't aware or didn't care. Eventually, it might help to put a bold note into the categories, in which Indian maps are usually put in.--Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should not start to create templates for every law restricting the freedom of speech. But maybe we could add these information as an additional section on the Commons:Copyright rules by territory pages. GPSLeo (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure. However, this cannot susbtitute for a warning-template on the affected images, as no re-user will look at Commons:.. pages. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, but these templates would always be incomplete or on some images a very long list of warnings. So I think a general disclaimer would be better. The disclaimer on the bottom of every page might not be visible enough for this. GPSLeo (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MediaViewer shows warning icons for certain legal problems (see e.g. here, in the lower right corner). That mechanism would be easy to extend to maps with contested territories. Tgr (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we carry a "this image might get you arrested" notice on any other content than maps? --Golbez (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually now I'm curious, is there any consensus or legal backing for the Georgian and Chinese notices? They're so underused, they appear to be a personal project without any actual backing. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Golbez: Yes, though in no case do we use the phrase "might get you arrested," nor is that how we would word it here. Probably the most extensively used such template is {{Nazi symbol}}, with {{Communist symbol}} not far behind. There are also similar considerations around {{Personality rights}} and probably others that aren't leaping to mind. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except Nazi and Communist symbols are objective things. You can look at a swastika and say hey, that's a Nazi symbol. If it's not a hammer and sickle, then it's not a hammer and sickle. Maps are by their very nature subjective. I've made maps that could apparently get me arrested in multiple countries, and we're legitimizing that kind of insane law by parroting it. --Golbez (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. @Golbez: actually, it can be very tricky what is and isn't a Nazi symbol. Swastikas, for example, have existed for millennia, and it can be very tricky in the countries where this is a legal issue to say whether a particular use of a Hindu swastika has a Nazi subtext. Similarly, and more so, for symbols not used by the Nazi Party as such, but used by their sympathizers.
  2. Also: are you saying that if a map you created could get someone in India prosecuted for reproducing it, and we should just make it available to them and not warn them of that possibility? And if you are not saying that, where am I mischaracterizing? Because that's how your remark reads to me.- Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There are thousands of things on here that could get people arrested in any number of countries for distributing it, but we decided the chilling effect only needed to be done to maps? Okay. This is my attempt at leaving the conversation. (edit: but I do want to say, you have a point on swastikas. Not as simple as I'd portrayed.) --Golbez (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 01[edit]

AI generated media competition[edit]

I was thinking about proposing Commons:Photo challenge for AI-generated media, but I would like to use it for some ways to positively impact Commons and Wikimedia movement in general, or at the minimum shape the content in such a way as to minimize chances that many entries will be deleted. So the images would have to be within Commons scope, should not infringe on copyrights (no Disney characters). Some use cases where AI generated images could be useful:

  • images of Coats of arms based on public domain definitions (blazons)
  • images depicting hard to get subjects like displays of different human emotions, like anxiety,
  • images of different generic mythical, fantasy characters, D&D characters or some other characters have copyrighted specific renditions but which can be described in generic terms, like "wizards", "elves", "warlocks", "druids", etc.
  • images of Science fiction topics, like view of Saturn moons and rings from Saturn surface or rock-climbing robot from one of w:Stanisław Lem stories
  • images of celebrities, for whom we do not have good photographs. Can this be done without copyright infringement?
  • depictions of stigmatized topics, like w:Childhood obesity or Depression

Inviting various participants of AI related discussions and photo challenge discussions: @Kritzolina, Nosferattus, Jmabel, Yann, King of Hearts, Trade, and 1989: . Any thoughts about above use cases or about other AI friendly use cases? Jarekt (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd be very hesitant on the celebrities, unless your goal is to see how many DR fights we can start. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This was already debated many times, and no, images created by AI are usually not copyright violations (except a few specific cases). I tried to create images of personalities with AI for which we don't have images, but it didn't work (I chose Michel Audiard, a prominent figure on the French cultural scene, for which we don't have a good portrait, except one with a dubious license). Either they are famous people for which we already have many free images, or they are not so known people, and there aren't enough examples for an AI to create something resembling. Yann (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Donald Trung: The software is not all. One also needs to submit a coherent prompt, and then to choose the best images, and then reiterate the process until the desired result. Yann (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What are our guidelines on user-made art, such as depicting happiness, or obesity, or various celebrities? Fan art seems to be allowed, but otherwise I assume they are mostly deemed to be out of scope. Would they be seen as in scope if done well enough? I haven't seen such discussions, other than DRs on low-quality stuff. –LPfi (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LPfi: , We do no have guidelines yet. Commons:AI-generated media is a good start but it mostly concentrates on unacceptable cases. Category:AI generated images is full of interesting experiments which might only be usefull at demonstrating various AI engines, otherwise they are likely out of scope. I am searching for use cases where AI generated images would make positive impact. I assume that good quality user generated depictions of happiness, obesity, or various celebrities would be as welcome as user created photographs, provided that images are not clearly derivative of known copyrighted photographs, are good quality. We might need to create some additional guidelines or policies. For example, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people might need to be updated to cover issues with AI generated images. I am not sure where those future discussions will end up but I assume that we should have policy against AI depictions of identifiable people which would would be embarrassing to those people or which are depict some broadly defined falsehood or misinformation. At the same time images in the gallery at the top seem OK to me. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that art by users a priori is out of scope and I don't know of any discussion on this. A photo of "happiness" would likely be deleted as unused personal image, and a painting on the theme would be deleted as "art by non-notable artist". It is a bit odd that the discussion on those categories of media should be discussed via the AI-generated equivalents, and equally odd if an image is in scope if generated by AI but not if painted by a user – except, of course, where the in-scope rationale is about showing AI use.
I think this discussion is good to have, but I would like participants to consider also the traditional techniques. Would this competition be a way to get illustrations of happiness etc., or to showcase AI? In the former case there is no reason to discriminate against "non-notable artists" – and we may get (or already have?) a problem with works by non-notable AI artists.
LPfi (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, I feel like user generated media, be it a photograph, painting or AI generated image are in scope or out of scope based on what they are showing and is what they are showing "educational" or not. So yet another portrait of unknown person is likely to be out of scope, while depiction of a person, an object, organism, a place, a clothing or architecture style for which we have an article should be in scope no matter if it is a photo, painting or AI generated image. I do not think we discriminate against "non-notable artists", it is just that "non-notable artists" works are judged based on the content (and is it useful for us) while notable artist's works are in scope no matter the subject. I think the same criteria should apply to AI generated images. As for the monthly photo challenge, we do 2 topics for 2 challenges per month which have to be constrained somehow and my idea was to constrain it to AI generated images only, but I would like to create guidelines to minimize number of out-of-scope or copyright-violation entries. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think Jarekt has that right. - Jmabel ! talk 18:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the celebrity case: I would be quite worried about AI-generated portraits. If there are few images of that person on the net, it is quite possible that the AI version is a derivative work of some of them. It isn't enough that it is not "clearly derivative of known copyrighted photographs", it must not be a derivative work of any non-PD photo. It is also very problematic if the AI "guesses" on some details of the person. For depictions of Saint Mary, we know that they aren't based on her real appearance, but for current or 20th century celebrities, one would assume that anything in a photo-like depiction is factual. A warning similar to {{Retouched picture}} is needed, but is probably not enough. –LPfi (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I share your uneasiness about photographs of celebrities and other recognizable people. On one hand, if there were open licensed photographs of them then we would presumably have them and we would not need AI generated image based on them, so the AI image is likely based on copyrighted material even if we can not attribute it to any specific photo. On the other hand, I can imagine an approach where one takes frames from a copyrighted movie, uses them to create very realistic 3D model of someone's face. I do not think such 3D model would be legally derivative of the copyrighted work, especially if you can not tell 2 such models apart. Then based on 3D model one could create realistic images with help of AI, which should be OK to be uploaded to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr Foundation adopts Flickr2Commons[edit]

I've just received an email newsletter from the Flickr Foundation (aka; the non-profit arm of, which includes the paragraph (emboldening and links in original)):

We've partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt a tool called Flickr2Commons. We want to look after it and extend its features with the long term in mind. Keep your eyes open for "Flickypedia", which we plan to re-release towards the end of the year.

Does anyone know more about this "adoption", or what Flickypedia is? Or why this community was apparently not informed directly? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is f2c the first tool adopted by an established organisation?
sounds like a positive development. flickr foundation seems way better than the lame WMF.--RZuo (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The email is available online (IA snapshot). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great news Captain America but the issue that they really need to fix is the updating of their current creative commons licences (still stuck on 2.0) and the addition of more licenses such as OGL and Crown Copyright and allowing users to create their own licences using their own choices as template, might be useful if WMF worked with Flickr in doing this, might also help us improve issues elating to Flickrwashing in the future.... Stemoc 05:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "allowing users to create their own licences" sounds problematic. We don't want a zillion of vague "free" licences that may not guarantee the freedoms we want. They should instead introduce a smooth process to add Commons-, Gnu- and CC-approved free licences (with caveats about the restricted CC ones). –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could e-mail them at "" (as is listed on their homepage) and then air your concerns there. Perhaps nobody who works with copyright ©️ there has really engaged with them outside of a small bubble. Perhaps you could suggest something as "Change allowing your own license to How do you want to be attributed? so re-users aren't confused and know how to credit the photographers in a way they find desirable". License fragmentation will only make the already complex intellectual property landscape 🌆 only more complex. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kind of odd how they write "In collaboration with, we launched the first redesign of the main Flickr Commons page since 2008." As if the Flickr Foundation is an entity completely separate from SmugMug, though I assume that they do this for legal reasons as they might be separate "legal persons" / "judicial persons" for legal reasons. What strikes me as odd is the entry "The groundbreaking Flickr Commons program will be sustained and supported by the Foundation. Our work will prioritise supporting smaller cultural organisations with tools, practice, and community to develop deeper public engagement with their photography collections." (Copyright: © 2023 Flickr Foundation Foundation, subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.) which essentially acts as if they created a groundbreaking and innovative idea... In 2008, meanwhile the Wikimedia Commons was launched in 2004. But this further proves to me that in the eyes of most of the world "The Wikimedia Commons does not exist", I wrote before about how when people look for free image sources they rarely list this website and even a large amount of users here think that media files here only exist to serve Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites rather than the world. I also noticed that a lot of government and GLAM institutions have accounts over at Flickr but I can't think of that many here, the Swiss National Library comes to mind an institution which has 32,100 contributions here as of writing this and a few German museums. Anyhow, the Flickr2Commons tool is in bad need of being adopted and the software needs regular maintenance (just like a lot of other tools here), I just find it sad that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) isn't willing to bring this level of support to the Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just find it sad that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) isn't willing to bring this level of support to the Wikimedia Commons.” +1. Seeing the number of bugs and technical issues, Commons really needs more maintenance and development time and manpower from the WMF. Yann (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read through issues Phabricator sometimes just for the heck of it and I'm always surprised by how much it's neglected even on there. I assume the comment above about how most people either don't know this site exists or if they do are under the false impression it's an extension of Wikipedia probably has a lot to do with it. I've definitely found that to be true the few times I've discussed Commons with people IRL. I don't think the WMF did or does a good job of clearly differentiating it from Wikipedia like they do with Wikidata. Since it's clearly a separate, unique product compared to Wikipedia and Commons even though it interacts with both of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked a member of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE), an organisation I think is technically as beneficial as the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for a number of Wikimedia websites like Wikidata, and they've brought up that they will discuss adding more support, but I don't think that Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) will bring much support here until Wikidata is developed to a level where it doesn't need much maintenance and is easily useable by basically any website (which could take years), the Flickr Foundation stepping in here is actually a good thing, maybe it might be wise to ask if they could establish like some sort of "liaison office" or something at the Wikimedia Commons for communications between us and to them. Likewise, we're not aware of any discussions between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the Flickr Foundation because the former doesn't really publish all of its external communications online (due to a lack of transparency).
Flickr has 60.000.000+ daily users, we have 40,779 active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days). To me it makes sense that GLAM organisations and governments prefer to publish there, but I think that increased co-operation between us and the Flickr Foundation could be mutually beneficial and I'm glad that the Flickr Foundation acknowledges that (even if this website itself is largely neglected by the WMF).
Unrelated, but I was thinking of organising some outreach to developer communities, perhaps there are people who'd love to contribute to the technical capabilities of Wikimedia websites but aren't even aware that they could contribute as volunteers. If we remain an insular community we won't see much growth beyond the capabilities of the current volunteers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that Flickr has 60 Million files uploaded every day. I think the daily users are the page visits. Commons has around 35 Million page visits per day. GPSLeo (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Donald - just to be clear, the Flickr Foundation is a separate formal, legal organization from Flickr Inc (and SmugMug) and does not share engineering resources. It is also not governed directly by either of those companies, though we do have a company representative on our board (which we are absolutely fine with and welcome). We worked the design and engineering group at the company to improve the Flickr Commons page that lives on, as we are not able to change the core Flickr codebase directly. I hope that clears up why we called that work a collaboration?
I also don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Flickr Commons was a groundbreaking program when it launched. In particular, its use of the "no known copyright restrictions" assertion borrowed from the Library of Congress allowed a lot of our cultural organizations around the world to release photographs they previously may have kept hidden due to unknown or undocumented provenance.
I think the less we see WMC and Flickr Commons as competing, and the more we try to collaborate between the two platforms, as we hope to do by adopting the Flickr2Commons software, the better off we'll all be. Ukglo (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ukglo, thank you for your reply.
I very much agree with the idea that Flickr and the Wikimedia Commons aren't competitors, the goal of both websites is share visual information and make it shareable, though the Wikimedia Commons requires these media resources to have educational value and also allows for books and audio as well as other non-visual works to be uploaded.
But thank you for clearing up the difference between the Flickr Foundation and SmugMug, I mistakenly believed that the Flickr Foundation was just a subsidiary of SmugMug but now I know that it is a separate entity. And in light of what you wrote regarding the Flickr Commons I must agree with calling it groundbreaking, especially since Flickr has a better outreach to GLAM and government organisations than the Wikimedia Foundation has, so a lot of valuable archival materials found on Flickr aren't found anywhere else on the internet, my personal opinion regarding this is that the Wikimedia Commons should be "an extra back-up" for these valuable files to maximise the chances that future generations will have access to them. We had a wonderful user called "" (who is also active contributing to Flickr - Desktop) who did a lot of work in this area. I am looking forward to see a closer relationship between the Flickr Foundation and the Wikimedia Commons in the future. Face-smile.svg— Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I’m George, Executive Director at the Flickr Foundation. I’m really glad to see there’s interest in this work. The Flickr Foundation wants to adopt a tool that’s useful for both Flickr and WP communities and figure out how to care for it in the long term. I have met Magnus Manske and Frank Schulenberg to talk about it, and we’re looking forward to connecting with the wider community when our project kicks off. The WMF folks suggested we create an on-wiki page for the project so that’ll be a good spot to say hi if you’re interested. Ukglo (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ukglo, perhaps there could be a page like "Commons:Flickr Foundation" with subpages like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Flickypedia" and the latter can also have subpages for documentation (of the software development), feedback / bug report, Etc. While another page named something like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Outreach could be for direct communications to and from the Flickr Foundation with the Wikimedia Commons concerning its partnership with the community.
I'd also suggest creating specific "in role" Wikimedia SUL accounts for Flickr Foundation staff like "User:John Doe (Flickr Foundation)" and "User:Jane Doe (Flickr Foundation)" or using your on-wiki names like "User:Ukglo (Flickr Foundation)" and then work together with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to blacklist potential bad actors from registering names with such accounts unless they are certified staff, though I'm not sure to what extent this partnership will be, but such accounts could be easily identifiable as Flickr Foundation staff and I've seen some Wikipedian-in-residence accounts name themselves with the name of the institution they work for / with when acting in the role of a Wikipedian-in-residence.
I think that if such consensus exists the community here could create those pages and make it easy to maintain and interact with for your foundation. Lay out a red carpet, as you will. Face-smile.svg— Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Trung That sounds really great! I know the WMF folks are keen to be involved in the project pages' config, so I'll make sure they've seen your suggestions here. Ukglo (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh good, I guess? at least it gets improved. SeichanGant (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response from the Wikimedia Foundation[edit]

Thanks for your candid discussions about the Flickr Foundation’s announcement of their partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Flickr Foundation is a newly created 501(c)(3) dedicated to “preserving our shared visual commons for future generations.” It is exciting that they have prioritized collaboration with the Wikimedia movement for this mission.

As previewed in our 2023-24 annual plan, we’re supporting the Flickr Foundation to explore a simpler Wikimedia Commons contribution experience for their photographers and cultural institutions. One of their first proposals is to maintain the Flickr2Commons tool, originally developed by Magnus Manske. ('Flickypedia' is the name they have given to the re-release of this tool.) They consulted Magnus and he is supportive.

It has been challenging for Wikimedia volunteers to maintain all of the essential tools for Commons and we’re happy that one of our open culture allies, the Flickr Foundation, would like to ‘adopt’ this important tool as part of their wider preservation effort.

Alongside this technical work, the Flickr Foundation will be researching the reuse impact of the images that have already traveled from Flickr to Wikimedia. They will also be reviewing their licenses and examining how they transfer to other platforms. The often-discussed issue of ‘license laundering’ or ‘Flickr washing’ is one of the central questions they plan to address. Consultation with the Wikimedia Commons community will be an important part of this process.

We want to reassure you that the Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to supporting and developing Wikimedia Commons. In 2023-24, our product teams will be developing more reliable and usable metrics for Commons and improved moderation workflows on Commons. You can follow that work on the WMF support for Commons page, where we’ll also post updates on the Flickr Foundation collaboration.

Please continue to share your ideas, concerns, and questions—we are here to listen, learn, and take action. We value your engagement and look forward to continued collaboration. Udehb-WMF (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Udehb-WMF @Ukglo: How about this: Flickr creates a way to import license templates from commons.wikimedia. If acflickr user wants them "own" license, the user can create a newicense template at commons.wikimedia and if it conforms to the standardscof a free license, it can be imported to Flickr.
+: how about Flickr adopts not only flickr2commons, but also video2commons and croptool? C.Suthorn ( (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure if this is the right discussion to discuss this, but I actually have an idea for "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" where trusted users could override the Flickr license-washing blacklist for uploaders who use wrong licenses and add the proper licenses. For example Flickr user "Manhhai" has 141,005 photos on Flickr! of Vietnamese history but he's blacklisted here because he uploads files with wrong licenses, for example he lists them as freely licensed when they're not or "Copyright ©️ - All rights reserved" when they are in the public domain. Because of this literally tens of thousands of public domain images of Vietnamese history cannot be imported to the Wikimedia Commons, but if a "Flickr2Commons Black" / "Flickypedia Black" exists where Wikimedia Commons users with proven knowledge of copyright ©️ could add proper licenses (for example "{{PD-Vietnam}}" for photographs published before 1948 in the case of this uploader) then this could go through a separate process and a human would have to review them rather than a bot. This feature would only be exclusive to users who request access to it and explain which albums they want to import and why they are incorrectly licensed and which licenses they would add and then that specific user would be whitelisted for specific Flickr accounts / albums. Or should something like this be proposed at the proposals village pump? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Udehb-WMF: If you get to talk with the Flickr folks again, can you tell them that the nicest thing they could do for Wikimedia Commons would be to get Flickr to update their ancient Creative Commons 2.0 licenses to the current 4.0 licenses? The 2.0 licenses have lots of problems and are much easier to use for copyright trolling. The 4.0 licenses came out 10 years ago, so it's ridiculous that Flickr still doesn't use them. Nosferattus (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all these suggestions - let's make sure they're migrated to the project pages we're planning to set up as we build out the adoption project. (I am inexperienced with having detailed discussions in the Wikiverse UIs, so please excuse me as I get situated.) Ukglo (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ukglo Commons.wikimedia is supposed to contain exactly one copy of each media file (defined by its message digest hash). But duplicates are uploaded (200 in the last 8 hours). Most duplicates come from flickr2commons. f2c duplicate check ist based on the filename, not the message digest. That is probably the most urgent issue with f2c. C.Suthorn ( (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! That's helpful to know. Let's make sure it's noted in our project page once it's up. Do you know if/how it's possible for an external service to ping the message digest? Ukglo (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an API function, that you can send a message digest to and it will answer withs the file names of all files with that message digest. If you compute the message digest of the local file, you can either use it to determine it the file already exists on commons, or after uploadd to check if the file was published and not corrupted. (Guide to API at the webssite) C.Suthorn ( (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ukglo Addition: is a small java-tool, that does check for the message digest. C.Suthorn ( (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry but there appear to be more than two things under discussion here, and some of the PR language isn't clear.
The announcement is about a tool that WMF editors developed in-house to transfer Flickr photos to Wikimedia Commons. It shall be renamed "Flickypedia". So far so good?
Flickr, or its Foundation, also runs a Commons with an exclusive membership, such as libraries and archives. While the Foundation has made this announcement, I can't discern any direct link to Flickr Commons, so far. Flickypedia, née Flickr2Commons, has been a tool to feed into Wikimedia Commons only, and not Flickr Commons.
A few things are unclear at this point:
  • the term "adoption" is not really defined, so since Flickr2Commons is GPL-2.0+, is it safe to assume that this means "we're taking over development, support and maintenance without a fork"?
  • does Flickr intend to extend the software tool to transfer images from their partners to Flickr Commons as well? Judging from the move to remove "Commons" branding, that may be a "no".
Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for these questions - it's really helpful to hear what's confusing so we can clarify our PR!
  1. Flickr Commons is a program that started in the universe in 2008. The new Flickr Foundation ( has taken over managing it now, even though the content published into it will still live on "Managing it" means looking after the members, encouraging growth. It's not directly connected into Flickypedia, or the concept of it, although we've heard again and again that it's difficult for Flickr Commons member institutions when their Flickr photos are hoovered into the Wikimedia Commons because they lose track of them and/or it's another place they have to watch/manage/maintain. As the Flickr Foundation, we're very interested in the concept of "content mobility" in general - as in, how can we know/watch/listen for activity that happens on digital copies of the same image, and report back?
  2. Adoption - good question! Honestly, I hadn't thought that far! I'd imagined that it would be a fork, as there will be some people out there who may be happy using Flickr2Commons and don't want to change(?). Or, perhaps we could do a "programmed retirement" of Flickr2Commons. Or, we could just fork, rename and be done with it. Which is better for the community, do you think?
  3. Extend to "transfer from their partners" - Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this... but, for the first few iterations of Flickypedia, I have in mind that the transmission would only be from Flickr into WM Commons, so "partners" would need to publish to Flickr first... is that what you meant?
Ukglo (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps[edit]

Hi everyone! I will be working with @Ukglo, and several others, on this project and we just would like to let you know that soon, probably in the last week of June, we’ll launch a Diff blog post about the project and a project page with even more details, where you be able to find a proper space for community feedback, consultations, updates, and many other things. We will share the links here when they are ready and available. Hope to see you all there! -- GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 02[edit]

Big gap for structured_data[edit]

big gap

Big gap for structured_data when you click on it from any entry. The gap is between the header and the listed data, it wasn't this way yesterday. Anyone else see it? --RAN (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. You should always provide an example. Multichill (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is on every Wikidata entry, just look at anyone. --RAN (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it too. I see a large area of white space in two places. When on the 'File info' tab, below 'Metadata' and before Categories. When on the 'Structured data' tab, it is immediately below the tab headings. I have noticed it under the 'File info' tab for a few days, I think. Nurg (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use Monobook with cats on top and cannot see that gap anywhere — sorry guys… -- Tuválkin 01:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My usual browser is Chrome on Windows 10 Home version 22H2, and usual skin is Vector Legacy. I get the large white space with Vector Legacy, Vector (2022), and MonoBook. I tried Edge browser and get the same when logged out and when logged in (Vector Legacy). But, when I try Firefox, the problem does not happen, neither when logged out nor when logged in. I am on the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox. Nurg (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Multichill and User:Tuvalkin. What browser are you using? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firefox 114.0 (yeah, I know…). -- Tuválkin 03:50, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the problem has gone away, finally. Nurg (talk) 10:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photographing glass[edit]

Vintage vinegar bottle

I had difficulty photographing this etched glass bottle; in the end I resorted to taking it outside and using natural light.

In the absence of professional studio equipment, how else could it be photographed? Do we have a dedicated noticeboard or other page for exchanging photography tips? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my experience, mainly a matter of lighting, and sometimes lens filters (especially a polarizing filter, sometimes just a "sky" filter). No generic answer, but those are the variables to play with. - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's some really good photographs of glass bottles on eBay if you search for "creamery milk bottle." It seems like the best ones involve either filling the bottle with white foam beads or taking the image from essentially straight in front of the bottle with a neutral background. Kind of like the image of this bottle. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 03[edit]

Category:Surnames (flat list)[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Surnames (flat list) and Category:Surnames? Both are alphabetized lists. RAN (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paging @JotaCartas, who's been busy with page moves and mass-adds. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see, a flat_list has no subcategories, so is a true list of all surnames. Very good idea. Kudos to JotaCartas for using his valuable time on this project. --RAN (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a work-in-progress, then? They seem to currently have the same content; Category:Aas (surname) has subcats Category:Monrad-Aas (surname) and Category:Wessel-Aas (surname) and yet they're all included in both the flat list, so will these latter types be weeded out of the hierarchical version? Elizium23 (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely work in progress. Should presumably end up parallel to Category:Ships by name (flat list) and Category:Ships by name. - Jmabel ! talk 04:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I confess. I created the "Surnames (flat list)" without getting any consensus (my first mistake). It was very helpful in helping me to populate "Surnames" category with about 105,000 missing surnames (red links). After that I deleted it (my second mistake?). Later, someone "recreated" the category and instead of removing about 160,000 members, I populated it with all the members of Category "Surnames". So both categories are now identical. Really, I'm not sure if we should change the "Surnames" category to be a "normal" category, so I will not take any further action for the time being, unless some meaningful consensus is reached
In fact, even if the "Surnames" category only keeps "orphan" surnames (without any other categorization), that would leave about 160,000 members out of 200,000. Also, the only valid subcategories are within "Surnames by Language", as nearly all others have been contested. Moreover, the "by language" categorization is recurrently contested, so I think the 160.000 number is unlikely to go down. Thanks and sorry for the big mess I created here. --JotaCartas (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I think it's the flat list that is most useful. If we want to turn Category:Surnames into a flat list, fine with me, but obviously not if we want to keep any of the subcats that are not simply surnames. If we want to keep Category:Surnames (flat list), fine, and then the ships are the obvious model. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good stuff, it shows that being bold can bring about good changes. I always have trouble looking for surnames because they are in subcategories. --RAN (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These flat lists were originally conceived as being a way of stopping people dumping files for others to properly categorise. In this case dumping random images in Surnames, because they are too lazy to create a Smith (surname)cat, or whatever. Creating a flat list sequence, doesn't solve that issue.
All that's happened here is we now have two cats pointlessly duplicating each other.
These flat list are the opposite of being helpful, they achieve nothing, just another layer of complication, and look ugly. I see no value, in making a basic, common and universal cat (like surnames), into a longer one. Every person represented needs to have a surname cat attached. These cats should be as short and as simple as possible. It's a cheap way of boosting the numbers of someone's edits, presumably to gain more sway over the project, inflationary ego building stuff.
What was wrong with just having a statement along the lines of don't put random files here, this cat is for cats only.
I have never experienced trouble looking for surnames because they are in sub categories, and I'm there all the time.
There is no difference between Category:Surnames (flat list) and Category:Surnames. It's pointless. The same goes for Surnames by language and ethnicity. Do we really need to cat the obvious; that Patel, used to be a hindu / Indo name, or smith was a British common name in the past, answer no.
The change to ships was even more pointless, and done against consensus by one individual. It has created needless and endless ongoing maintenance issues. As the largest contributor of (notable) ship names I never contribute to it. Broichmore (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let uploaders see what metadata is present as they're uploading[edit]

When someone uploads a file, there is a warning: "Personal data: EXIF metadata in this file may contain location or other personal data automatically added by your camera. Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata." This implies the file the user is uploading contains such identifying metadata and that a privacy-minded user would be better off not uploading that file ... when in fact that file may not actually contain any identifying metadata. After it's been uploaded, the File: page has a collapsed box at the bottom listing the metadata, which is often just the image resolution or other non-identifying things. Can we show users this metadata information at some point during the upload process, so they can a) decide "oh, that's fine, dots-per-inch data is not identifying" and not be scared off from uploading the file, and/or b) notice when a file does have identifying metadata and go use one of the linked Exif removal tools on it before uploading it? -sche (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would be possible for example in the UploadWizard before the publish stage. The metadata is stored in a field in the database and it actually gets sent to the client after assembling. The client only needs to actually display it (and maybe some formating from JSON to pretty).
Cave: The metadata entry in the file description page does NOT show all metadata that was uploaded. AND: The selection of displayed metadata fields differs by file type! C.Suthorn ( (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I very much support the suggested change, or something along the same lines. The warning is very confusing. When I in fact have tried to remove the metadata (using "exiv2 delete") I still get the warning. The natural interpretation is that my tool was deficient and some metadata is left. Is this the case?
I think the tool should identify some common non-identifying fields and leave out the warning if only those are listed. For fields such as location, camera model and copyright owner, it should note their presens and link to a discussion on privacy risks. For unknown text fields it could list the content (with a similar link), for unknown binary fields it should note their presence and link to a discussion (the discussion links could be to a single page, with the categories clearly identified, as sections or otherwise).
LPfi (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have started a feature request (T338288). -sche (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea as a feature, but I think that this should maybe be optional, if you upload using a mobile device there are already a lot of fields. I'm not sure if it should be enabled or disabled by default, it's good to help preserve privacy for those that don't wish for metadata to be published, but it could also enable abusers to use it to abusively change the metadata in their favour.
Also, would this edit the file's metadata or just the displayed metadata? That is if I'd download the full file would I see the original or the edited metadata? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The proposals I see are just about showing or not showing the warning based on the metadata, about showing the metadata and about making the tool remove certain fields of the metadata. None of them suggest the tool allowing changing content in the metadata. The upload wizard does link to tools (such as exiv2) which make it easy to edit the metadata, but those tools are available to any knowledgable user anyhow, and the user would install and use them on their own computer. –LPfi (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By "abusively change the metadata in their favour" I assume things like removing copyright and author fields from the metadata. The tool could keep the field and replace the original info with "[redacted for privacy]" or similar, showing that there has been such info. If the user is doing this offline, we cannot do anything about it. –LPfi (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 05[edit]


Can someone dezoomify this image and upload it: The usual tricks aren't working for me. --RAN (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Is this not working for you? I don't see any larger image available. Yann (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 06[edit]

Category move[edit]

Hi, could a file mover or admin move the category Category:A4103 road (Great Britain) to Category:A4103 road (England)? Thanks in advance --Ferien (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh and some reasoning for why it's necessary. All the other road categories are England, Wales, Scotland or Great Britain if they cross between two of them. A4103 is labelled as Great Britain but its only in England so it should be changed from Great Britain to England like the rest of them. --Ferien (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Needs an admin, as the target already exists as a redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien: I'll do this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jmabel :) --Ferien (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Ferien (talk) 11:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24 minutes to upload a picture[edit]

For me it takes about 24 minutes to upload a picture at the moment. The most time is spent for queueing after upload and after assembling. C.Suthorn ( (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 07[edit]

About categories with "colour" in the name[edit]

Can I (or anyone else) rename categories with "colour" in the name to "color" instead of "colour"? Or should that first be discussed? The main category is Category:Colors, so according to the Universality principle all subcategories should have "color" (or "colors") in the category name also. But I see a lot of categories with "colour". JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See relevant discussion here. It appears that this universality principle does not have universal support. Wholesale changes of the kind you suggest should not take place without an RfC on the suitability of this rule, as suggested in the linked discussion, due to the likely conflict that would ensue. Dogfennydd (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories for places that use British English, and other variants with the spelling "colour" should use that spelling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Errors in template(s) Countryyear[edit]

I think there is something not quite right in Category:Categories requiring temporary diffusion and it probably has to do with the template(s) Countryyear that are used. The problems:

  1. There are far too many subcategories in this category that -in my opinion- do not require diffusion at all. My limit is ± 200 files and, at least on the first page, there are few categories that are so big. I guess the categories yyyy in country X are here because of the template that is used, but I don't know what the cause is.
  2. The template Countryyear that is used, gives a lot of errors, see for instance Template:Norwayyear, but others give the same errors. And I cannot see what is wrong, but I do not have a lot of knowledge of templates either.

Would somebody with knowledge about the templates Countryyear please look into this? JopkeB (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2023[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

WPWP logo 1.png

We are glad to inform you that the 2023 edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up in July.

This is a formal invitation to invite individuals and communities to join the campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and other relevant media files.

If you're interested in participating, please find your community or community closer to you to participate from the Participating Communities page. If you're organizer, please add your community or Affiliate to the page.

The campaign primarily aims to promote using images from Wikimedia Commons to enrich Wikipedia articles. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photos, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years. In this edition of the campaign, eligibility criteria have been revised based on feedback and campaign Evaluation Reports of the previous editions. Please find more details about these changes and our FAQ on Meta-Wiki

For more information, please visit the campaign page on Meta-Wiki.

Kind regards,

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos International Team.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 08[edit]

Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo[edit]

As a result of m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo, Leonardo José Raimundo has been banned from all Wikimedia projects. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only 20 (twenty) people on another Wikimedia website decided to speak for over 900 (nine-hundred) Wikimedia websites. Barely a representative sample, don't get me wrong this user's edits were often unhelpful, but I'm not sure if a sledgehammer is the right answer. I wouldn't really say that this is an example of "global consensus". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Trung: I'm pretty sure a "sledgehammer" was the right answer. Here's part of his defense of his actions: "Remember that you at the Wikimedia Foundation are messing with an anointed of God. Anyone who messes with me is messing with God." Does that sound like someone we can work with? - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that this doesn't sound mentally healthy, but my issue is that if a few years pass by, this person has taken the necessary steps to improve their mental health, and they want to return as a productive member of any Wikimedia website they would be barred from doing so, I don't see why a lifelong ban is the appropriate answer, especially one that de facto cannot be appealed. De jure he would need to e-mail someone, allow that person to start a RFC at the Meta-Wiki for a global unban (something which has literally never happened), and then people would have to vote him back. It is really rare for people to forgive others, even if a decade passes most people who were against his inclusion would vote against it.
My issue with global bans is always that they are permanent, if a 12 (twelve) year old girl gets globally banned because her immaturity should this ban still be enforced when she's 42 (forty-two) and hasn't edited a single Wikimedia website in three (3) decades? The only answer this process gives is "Yes", and it is a unilateral decision made for all 11,948,747 registered users of the Wikimedia Commons and millions more on all 900+ (nine-hundred plus) Wikimedia websites by only 20 (twenty) people. I agree that they currently shouldn't be editing here as they are a drain on community resources, but if they would mature, and then try to bring that passion competently into adding Bible-related content in the future I don't see why this would have to be permanent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Donald Trung, Meta has fairly rigorous standards of notification and informing all affected parties, and so if any editor was truly interested in such decisions, they would already be watching the relevant noticeboards, and they would have been duly informed in at least one place that this discussion was open. It is not surprising to me that only 20 people participated in the consensus; who really wants to stick their neck out and get involved in such drama? Furthermore, if there had been any basis for objection, controversy, or debate, it would surely have attracted far more people, lasted longer, and been more noticeable. IIRC the decision passed nearly unanimously. Elizium23 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There still is basic selection bias in these noticeboards, typically the people who are "Metapedians" / "Metamedians" (those who watch community pages like this) are likely already more involved with vandal-fighting and the like. Regardless of the numbers, the implication here is that these people speak for "the global community", the UCoc ratification process also only attracted a small minority of the eligible voters, so the low turn out is not an anomaly, rather it's the trend. I'm not defending Leonardo José Raimundo, I don't think that having such antagonistic users around is good for the content creation process as they drain time and resources of other volunteers, my issue is that this decision overrides local consensus.
If a user is a trusted or valuable contributor in one Wikimedia website another project can easily override that project's autonomy. If this user would locally appeal his block and the unblock would be granted he still be allowed to contribute here because global decisions override local decisions, no matter how many people decided it, nor are there standards (a simple majority of 51% is already a global ban, but we wouldn't accept an admin who only got 51% of the votes).
Originally the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) intended global blocks to be a thing, that is that Wikimedia SUL accounts would be globally blocked like IP addresses and IP address ranges are today. However, due to technical reasons they never implemented this and global bans (as well as global locks 🔐 which are enforced as such) became the norm, if a user is globally banned they could theoretically locally apply for an unblock, but this process which was only created out of a technical deficit overrides all local autonomy which a global block would be able to give. Plus, global blocks would be completely uncontroversial and wouldn't even require people to participate in such WikiDrama as if a globally blocked user wishes to participate anywhere they could simply request a local unblock.
Of course, I don't have as much issues with WMF Global Bans, while several Commonswiki administrators and even a bureaucrat were banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), these are only used in extreme cases, all trends suggest that the "community" bans are becoming more popular as more and more of these RFC's are started. A Dutch-language Wiktionary admin also noted in the discussion that he wasn't causing trouble there, if global blocks existed he could've been unblocked there and if he became a productive editor there slowly appeal his blocks elsewhere, but this is impossible with the current situation. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was not notified although I edit a lot in this person’s original home wiki: If I had been notified, though, I would have piled on my vote along with the overwheming majority. -- Tuválkin 11:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notifications for such proposals are typically via the public "Village Pump" type noticeboards, such as the one we're on now. You wouldn't receive a User Talk note. If you wish to be notified of such things, you watchlist the appropriate noticeboards and then you monitor them. It's not ideal, but the Message Delivery Bot isn't going through thousands of user talk pages to deliver a personal invitation. Elizium23 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Wikimedia images in a Collage[edit]

I have a collage to upload. It is my collage but not my images, they were found on Wikimedia Commons. Do I fill in the "It's mine" link with appropriate photo credits or do I fill in the "It's not Mine" explaining the use of Public Domain images and in the lower box, giving credit to where the images were found? ̴̴ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 June 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Photo Archives: to upload to Commons, you do have to list where each image comes from (and what its rights are). If they are all PD, then you can license your collage as you wish; otherwise, you must conform to any licensing, and any license you offer cannot be less restrictive than the ones you "inherit".
If you are uploading with Special:UploadWizard, it is probably best to start by saying "own work" and then immediately after uploading edit to get in all the details.
See File:Seattle Collage White.jpg, File:Nectarine Fruit Development.jpg, and File:Doctor Who actors.png for various examples of getting it right. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK Thanks i will start with that. ̃ Photo Archives (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


i think even among similar images that show changes of a city's metro network, this gif's quality is pretty bad. File:Evolution of the MRT.gif, for example, is a good one of this kind of gif. RZuo (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we move the page onto the main space or let it stay as a work in progress for now? --Trade (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that is looks quite good now, but as this is still developing I am not sure if it should be a guideline / policy yet. Perhaps we should wait for WikiLegal? Either way, it could probably already be tagged as an essay (provisionally) until we've had some direct answers from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department.
Are there still pending court cases concerning AI-generated art? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We got a response from WikiLegal last month @Donald Trung: --Trade (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For context: "If an AI model is trained on millions of images and used to generate new images, it may not constitute copyright infringement in the United States if the method of training rises to the level of fair use. However, considering the most recent USCO decision, if a human modifies an AI-generated work, it is possible that the human can have copyright in their modification of a public domain AI work. This would follow the standard rules for derivative works, with the primary question being whether the human modifications are adequately creative to qualify for their own copyright." Not really all possible use cases and that's mostly a rather vague and open ended letter directed towards Wikipedia's, but for the current legislation it would suffice.
But as AI-generated works only just receive legal attention in the world I am not sure if it should immediately become a policy / guideline or if we should wait for more court cases to appear, does AI fall under the UK's "Sweat of the brow" doctrine? As I know that even very simple works or even full reproductions can be considered to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Because as usual, they in fact are copyrighted there Copyright protection for computer-generated works without a human author. These are currently protected in the UK for 50 years. (Source). And the page also states "For computer-generated works, we plan no changes to the law. There is no evidence at present that protection for CGWs is harmful...", So we probably need more information about where CGW's / AIGW's are copyrighted and where they aren't. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we at least agree that people marking AI works as own works should be considered copyfraud and a ban reason for repeat offenders? Trade (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trade, That is already covered under "Commons:Copyfraud". — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, apparently that's a redirect. Anyhow, license laundering is always against the rules, with or without an AI policy license laundering is a blockeable offense. -- To make matters more complicated, in the United Kingdom these works are considered to be the works of the human director. -+ — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soft disagree on the use of the term "fraud", hard disagree on your proposed remedy. AI-generated works are still an emerging area in copyright law; it is entirely understandable if some uploaders don't fully align with the Commons consensus position on these works. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 10[edit]

What is the best watermark removal AI?[edit]

Can anyone do a better job of watermark removal: File:Olive Jones, President Of National Education Association.webp? --RAN (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uploaded image is a 69KB webp file: that is a strong lossy compression and not an ideal starting point for any foto editing. Maybe find a better copy of the original fotograph? C.Suthorn ( (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category descriptions[edit]

Does Commons have a MOS-style policy on category descriptions? ReneeWrites (talk) 07:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ReneeWrites: I have no idea what "MOS" means in this context. Basically, the policy is to keep it brief and neutral. You can go a little longer if you have information that will help date photos (e.g. when an addition was made to a building), and we tend to be a bit looser when there is no Wikipedia article, because the category description is a reasonable place to provide some context. - Jmabel ! talk 14:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MOS would be a Manual of Style and the closest thing to a policy about category descriptions is probably the second bullet point in Commons:Categories#Creating a new category. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 11[edit]

Could anyone help the discussion move out of deadlock? It started 2+ months ago but, with only 2 active participants (including myself), a consensus haven't been reached yet. A short summary of the discussion is available here.

Many thanks in advance. Yasu (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Use of Commons images for AI data?[edit]

Remarks here and there about the legal status of AI output in this recent official questionnaire re: adoptables on deviantArt are bringing me to wonder: To stave off further legal complications, how about AI firms look past fully copyrighted material for their datasets and turn more to Commons' catalogue--exclusively--for all it matters? (Pardon if I can't think of anywhere else on Wikimedia to discuss this idea other than at this pump. If I chose the right place, then so much the better.) --Slgrandson (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you mean fully copyrighted material? Using "fully" in this context is just asking for confusion; most works on Commons are copyrighted material, even if they have open source licenses. Even something like the CC-BY license would be unusable if you use the 3 million files in Commons under that license and have to properly attribute all of them on everything that the AI produces. PD/CC-0 are really the only licenses that wouldn't have these legal complications.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Is there anyone willing to fix and run that bot? It was blocked in May 2020 for malfuntioning, and Rillke is not active since October 2022. Yann (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another broken bot stats without a maintainer is [1]. Yann (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While we're at it, User:Aconcagua/Alaska new was last updated seven months ago. Last I checked, Aconcagua hasn't edited in several years, which may explain why the interruptions and false positives had become more common.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAICT unused out of scope images, badly categorized. Mass DR? Yann (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems reasonable to delete all images in this category. I checked the uploader's older uploads that aren't in this category and most if not all are out of scope, too. -- William Graham (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kami Hejazi[edit]

Error, edit not published.

You have to log in to create new pages. Please log in or sign up if you would like to create this page. If you can not or do not want to sign up, you can ask at the Village pump (community), the Help desk or the Administrators' noticeboard for help.

In case you were actually making an acceptable contribution, please report this error here. Thank you. 23:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply], this is not Wikipedia, please don't try to publish articles here. See "COM:SCOPE". -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or are IP address users blocked from making gallery pages? As they might have gotten a notification while trying to create one, I commonly see IP editors make new categories and deletion requests (DR's), so I am sure that it's not one of those. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This seems to be Special:AbuseFilter/105 "New page creation by anonymous users". It disallows creating galleries and pages in certain other namespaces, with some exceptions (e.g. deletion requests are handled by another filter). The warning is at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users. I suggest that the IP user either logs in (after creating an account if they have none) or explains what they are trying to do, so that somebody else might create a page for them to publish the gallery on. The "here" in the message refers to Commons:Abuse filter/Error reporting, which I know nothing about. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can say what page you were trying to create, and it is within reason, someone will almost certainly create it for you. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 14[edit]

Infobox error[edit]

How do I resolve the infobox error at: Category:Yangtze Patrol. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I don't see an error there. Can you be more specific? - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It looks like someone fixed it already at the Wikidata end. Someone created the category entries improperly, now fixed and the wikidata box appears instead of an error message. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Picture wanted of Fyllingsdal tunnel[edit]


I don't know if this is the right chapter for my request. If not please let me know where to ask.

I have written the article Fyllingsdal-Tunnel at Sadly I have not found images of this Tunnel opend in 15th April 2023 in Bergen/Norway. Maybe a norwegian Commons User can make some images of this great structure work? Thank you. Best regards --Alabasterstein (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]