I created the great uploading instrument: script for gThumb

Latest comment: 11 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

https://gitlab.com/vitaly-zdanevich/upload-to-commons-with-categories-from-iptc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitaly Zdanevich (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

European Commission Audiovisual Service

Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was clicking around and ran into 173.216 photos that seem to be freely licensed. They offer a nice api and every photo has an unique identifier. Worth uploading or not? Would need to do some clean up in relation to {{EC-Audiovisual Center}} because that's a bit messy (old naming, multiple templates adding to same category, integrated {{LicenseReview}} breaking workflows). Multichill (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Definitely useful. Also, is there an SDC property for the unique ID? I think that'd also be useful -- DaxServer (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might be useful to prevent duplicates. Multichill (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I cant propose an property without examples Trade (talk) 12:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

700 terabytes of works on Commons

Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi!

In this year, we achieved a new data milestone! On 2025-05-29, the threshold of 700 terabytes (ca. 637 TiB) was reached. It took 314 days since the 600 TB milestone from 2024-07-19; 77 days longer than the 100 TB timespan before --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great if it's because of good new content (for example, videos). Not so good if it's because of lots of photos with far more resolution than needed. This can become a storage problem, and not a minor one. Improvements in storage technologies promise a good future, unless cameras keep "improving" resolution so you can see the ants on the mountain in the background of the landscape :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Map illustrated

Latest comment: 4 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

For some centuries, maps have been decorated with figures, ornaments, fictional creatures, text banners etc. If we have an extract of such (not a cartouche) -- how should such a (new) category be named? My only idea is "non-cathographic map illustrations" (example img). --Mateus2019 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just to make sure: "cathographic" => "cartographic", correct? - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Decorative figures on maps", "decorative illustrations on maps"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Category:Map decorations. "Map marginal elements" or "map marginalia" might also be used, but those terms more typically refer to scale bars, compass roses, author/printer, and other elements located in the margins of the map proper. --Animalparty (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Exactly, and most decorations would fit under Category:Objects on maps, like Category:Ships on maps. In my opinion, the naming logic of some of these (sub)categories could be further standardized. Please ping me on the CfD if you have ideas on how to rename a category.

  The other marginalia like scales or roses can be found under Category:Map elements by the way, the parent category of the decorations. --Enyavar (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Who represents our community and liaises with other organisations

Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments6 people in discussion

Commons:Village_pump/Technical#c-S5A-0043-20250529120300-User:FlickreviewR_2_appears_to_be_down flickr review is down, presumably due to flickr.com blocking api requests from toolforge.org .

I imagine a natural solution is for someone to liaise with flickr about the situation and resolve the problem.

Question is, who is that person?

Similar problem https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T236446 involving youtube/google/alphabet. RoyZuo (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a cooperation with Flickr, have a look at Commons:Flickypedia/Team. GPSLeo (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I already emailed them about 36 hours ago, asking if there is any way they can intervene on our behalf. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Emailing Flickr to tell them something might be wrong with someone's API requests is not going to get you very far. First someone needs to confirm if API requests to Flickr are in fact being blocked from toolforge.org. And if so, what is the error message? Does it contain any helpful information about why the requests are blocked (probably not, but it's worth checking). Once those steps are done, someone with a Flickr API key could file a support request with Flickr to get it unblocked. Nosferattus (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't email Flickr, I emailed our contacts at the Flickr Foundation. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I confirm all traffic to Flickr coming from Toolforge / Cloud VPS is blocked. It doesn't matter if the request is authenticated through the API (with an active API key), or if it's just a call to the website, the error message is always plain and simple: HTTP 403. I suspect our public IP address has simply be blocked. vip (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Appears FlickreviewR_2 is working again now. - The Bushranger (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I confirm, works for me too. Looks like Andrew managed to convince Flickr support to unblock us :) vip (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Butia odorata or Butia capitata

Latest comment: 2 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The file File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg is titled and captioned as Butia capitata, is categorized into Category:Butia capitata, and is used on w:pt:Butia capitata. At the same time, it is claimed to depict Butia odorata, is used as the type illustration on Category:Butia odorata, and is presented as Butia odorata on w:Butia and several other Wikipedias' pages, like es:Butia odorata. Which is it? (I wasn't sure what the best place to raise this question was; let me know if another venue is better. I have cross-notified en.WP's science refdesk.) -sche (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notifying the uploader William Avery. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. At the time the photo was taken, the two taxa were not generally regarded as separate, and I simply took the label on the plant at face value. As the English Wikipedia article on B. odorata explains, the plants then in cultivation as B. capitata would now be assigned to B odorata. In short, that picture shouldn't be used to illustrate B. capitata. I think the file is a good candidate for renaming. William Avery (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have updated pt.WP and requested renaming of the file here (to Butia odorata; if you think the file should instead be renamed to something species-agnostic like Butia tree in Madrid, please feel free to change the requested-rename target). Thanks! -sche (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

PD-simple videos

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any examples of this? Trade (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Webdriver Torso videos have been uploaded under both PD-shape and PD-algorithm. Some of the SMPTE color bar videos as well. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Commons Gazette 2025-06

Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In May 2025, 1 sysop and 1 checkuser were elected. Currently, there are 179 sysops and 5 checkusers.

• User:Ziv was elected sysop (31/2/0) on 20 May.
• User:Lymantria was elected checkuser (41/2/0) on 22 May.

• Poland banned photography at over 20,000 sites (over 90% of which are civilian infrastructure) under new national security law.^[1][2][3] See also Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05#Poland bans photography of military and critical sites, including bridges, tunnels, viaducts, port facilities and the National Bank.

Edited by RoyZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probable another term for FoP

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"Public place exemption" appears on pages 187, 188, 189, 190, 192, and 193 of the report on architectural copyright by former US Copyright Office director Ralph Oman, dated 1989. Should we consider this as another term for Freedom of Panorama (which in itself is a literal translation of the German term panoramafreiheit)? For example, regarding Senegal (page 187):

Article 1(vii) protects "architectural works, including both plans and models and the building itself." Article 14 provides the usual public place exemption.

I'm thinking of adding this term on the relevant enwiki and tlwiki areticles, but I am seeking second/third opinions regarding this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see the term being mentioned outside of this report. It may just be jargon like the term "copyvio" as a shorthand for copyright violations. VTSGsRock (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Haven't researched it myself, but I would agree with VTSGsRock: If the term "Public place exemption" isn't really used outside of this specific report, it's probably not worth mentioning. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please vote for new admin

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello community, I would like to take this opportunity to invite you to vote for a new administrator, Chem Sim 2001, at Commons:Administrators/Requests/Chem Sim 2001 (2). Your vote is critical to make Commons work better in the future. The poll ends in three days so please take your time when available to cast your precious vote.

Please do not reply to this message. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 02:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your participation in the vote. The result is successful.

I would like to apologize that the use of the wording for in the title may confuse users, that I am suggesting that they vote to   support the user aforementioned. I will change the title of similar ones next time to be more neutral, using links to RFAs or similar instead. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 05:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Brazil: National Archive Publishes Documents on Nearly 900 UFO Sightings (incl photos)

Latest comment: 5 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

The release was reported on early here. Seems like it's PD; Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Brazil. Could somebody upload these? The link describes how to get to the documents. When registering, make sure to select foreigner and to fill out the required fields; it seems like the password can't contain special characters. I can't get through to the documents; maybe it's because HTTPS is disabled (?). The documents including photos are in the ARQUIVO DIGITAL tab.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 09:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Public access does not equate to being freely reusable even in commercial reuses. One red flag I see based from the article: "In addition to browsing the files and materials, internet users can also contribute to the archive themselves by sending content to the email address supra_normalizacao@an.gov.br. Another option is to submit documents in person to the main office of the National Archive, located at Praça da República 173, in downtown Rio de Janeiro." This means it's a remix of images under the stewardship of the authorities and images that were submitted by private citizens. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Didn't imply that. I think it's licensed {{PD-BrazilGov}} and was told it's public domain. That people can submit new content doesn't mean the old content they collected isn't PD, the new content can be excluded albeit I'm not sure if by sending it to them one is licensing it PD and it does seem like new content is not included currently in the release (it may get added later though). Prototyperspective (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

How may one tell the difference between old and new?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The data in the date field. Also things like this: "Nome(s) do(s) Produtor(es) Nome: Ministério da Defesa (Brasil). Comando da Aeronáutica". Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prototyperspective: They don't like Google's plussed addressing or birthdates older than 2015. "Registration is not possible without a CPF" per Google Translate of https://sian.an.gov.br/sianex/consulta/problemas-com-acesso.asp but I don't have a CPF and https://faq-login-unico.servicos.gov.br/en/latest/_perguntasdafaq/contaacesso.html has "net::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

One needs to check foreigner for not having to enter a CPF; that is the right toggle box at the top of that page section iirc. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Need help properly formatting image descriptions to show publisher and photographer

Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all

I'm helping a UN agency upload some photos to Commons, I would like to know the correct formatting for the descriptions which should include two parts:

1. Credit to the agency, the agency itself holds the copyright (which is defined in the contracts as far as I understand)
2. The photographer

What is the correct way to include both of these pieces of information? Should I just include both in 'Author'? E.g Author = UN Agency name, photographed by Name of Photographer

or should the UN Agency name be the name of the 'source' with a link to the original image?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the information template I would put the photographer as author and the organization as source. In the license template you can then define the required attribution. For example "organization / photographer" or just "organization", depending on the agreements with the photographer. GPSLeo (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clearer about "In the license template you can then define the required attribution," for example, {{cc-by-sa-4.0|attribution=the UN agency in question}}. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bot for enwiki DYK stats

  Moved to Commons:Village pump/Technical#Bot for enwiki DYK stats

Locking image page

Latest comment: 4 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

To prevent vandalism, can this file of Donald Trump's official portrait be locked? Thank you. File:Official_Presidential_Portrait_of_President_Donald_J._Trump_(2025).jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomUserGuy1738 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@RandomUserGuy1738: Where's the metadata? How can we be sure Daniel Torok took it?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Question Did you upscale the photo and revert a user's edit who tried to restore the previous version? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Word and cat for

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"floor directory" of buildings? the plaques or maps listing what's on which floor. Category:Floor_plans is for a flat map of a certain floor? RoyZuo (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Floor directory" seems as good a name as any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Source for engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne

Latest comment: 3 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've often come across the images in this category[1], nice engravings of Alexander the Great by André Castaigne in the public domain. They seem to have been uploaded by Tarawneh back in 2006 from this website:[2] But looking at them now, they seem like they must exist somewhere in higher res so they can be updated, but neither the website nor Commons give any actual source for them, though they appear to have all been published in the same work, probably a book. Anyone know what that could be so higher res versions could be found on Archive.org or similar? FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@FunkMonk: Published in The Century magazine, see for example there. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, how did you find it? And I guess the images there are fairly easy to download? Also found an Archive.org version here:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

A bio of Castaigne somewhere mentioned his work about Alexander for The Century. I looked for a collection of the magazine. I don't know about downloading works from hathitrust, but there is a download button and Commons has a few thousand files from there in Category:HathiTrust book. That site has four copies of the same volume of the magazine, from different sources. You could look if there are differences in quality. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Review

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Everything they post to EN Wikipedia has copyright concerns

User talk:Kharbaan Ghaltaan

Special:Contributions/Kharbaan Ghaltaan. Moxy (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems like this should be moved here or here. Not sure what you're asking though and I checked one file the user uploaded and it has the license specified (CCBY). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merging files

Hi, would anyone be able to help me with merging some files? I did find the Merge Template, but could do with a bit of guidance (or if someone's particularly kind, for them to do it) especially with any re-directs that will be needed.

Files are: Monet - La Falaise à Fécamp, 1881 to be merged into La Falaise à Fécamp - Claude Monet - ABDAG003046

There's also: Henry Hugh Armstead - Playmates - ABDAG004807 and Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807 to be merged into Playmates - Henry Hugh Armstead - ABDAG004807

Let me know if you need to know anything else. Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FBulfin (talk • contribs)

"Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message on first login attempt

Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

From some time ago, I get an "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" message every time that I log in to Commons or any other WMF project, such as Wikipedia. Then, when I enter the same password and the captcha that is shown, login is succesful. I don't know if this is a general problem or it's because there has been some brute force attempt against my account. If it's this last case, it's good to know that WMF has good systems in place to prevent worse things from happening, but the message "Incorrect password or confirmation code entered" is not correct (the password IS the correct one; in fact, it always works at the second attempt when using the captcha), and can be a bit scary when you're sure that you are using the right password (I think it should be replaced by a more precise message, when it's the case of access with improved verification through a captcha).

Note: it happens approximately since the day that I became "extendedconfirmed" in English Wikipedia, but I think it's not likely to have any connection. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you try it with different browsers/computers, and did the nature of this error changed? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, I always tried from the same computer, and it only has one browser installed. I must say that I always use private browsing, and the problem only happens the first time that I log in at each private browsing session (that is, if I log out and then log in again, there is no problem). Coincidentally (or not, if something was detected and fixed, or if hypothetical hacking attempts ceased), just now, I've logged in succesfully at the first attempt for the first time since this started happening to me.

Of course, I have no problem in using the captcha. If there have been repeated failed login attempts by attackers (naturally, I don't know if it's so), it's the right way to prevent this from becoming much worse. But, in that case, the message should be something like "We want to be sure that you are not a bot, please enter your password again, and also the captcha shown below", not "incorrect password", because that's not true. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's tricky sometimes. In some cases, the server lags, and patience is needed. Sometimes, there are issues with different browsers (as they have different settings that may interact in an undesired way), etc. :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Who knows the reason, but I didn't change browser (other than, maybe, version updates), computer or settings just before it started happening. It happened again to me just now. I have no problem: now, I know that I must enter the password twice, and use a captcha, that's all. But, before one is aware of that behaviour, the message that the password is not correct is a bit frightening when you are sure that it is. Well, even thinking about the worst case, I know that my contributions will remain there, and it's possible to begin again from scratch, if needed. No need to panic. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems like a subject for Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. In fact, it sounds like a part of this already existing subject. I'll comment there. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

AI-generated or edited images of graphics cards (again)

Latest comment: 3 days ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Unfortunately, we have many new images of NVIDIA hardware that is obviously influenced by AI, making the pictures inaccurate (with PCBs like shown, the cards would never have entered the market). We had this issue before: Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2024/10/17#Files found with Special:Search/marcusburns1977. The files may also be potential subject to copyright violations. How to proceed in this case? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

This feels like some sort of weird AI-assisted copywashing (slopwashing?) - it's extremely suspicious that all of these files are being uploaded to DeviantArt by multiple different brand-new accounts with no other activity, shortly before being imported to Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and the arrangement of the components and the components themselves look deformed :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't help that the images were added to Wikipedia articles immediately after upload. So there's really nothing we can do about it on our end since admins on here are hardliners about not deleting in images that are in use on other projects. Otherwise, I'd suggest nominating them for deletion. But it's not really worth it considering the attitudes around in use files and AI-generated images on here. Better to just let people use Commons as a launching pad for spreading obviously fabricated nonsense to other projects I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or just wait until these are removed on Wikipedia or point the issue out there. The admins aren't hardlines, we just shouldn't overstep important policy. One can also start DRs before. The hyperbole, lamenting and riling up is excessive/not needed. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Again, we were told to disengage and I wasn't talking to you. Don't respond to me when I'm writing message to other people. I don't care about or want to hear your opinion about this or anything else. It shouldn't be that hard for you to drop it and stop responding to me every time I make a comment about AI on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you were told that. Maybe soften your language, like not calling admins hardliners on a policy when policy is made to be adhered to and when that's not the case. Or not rile up people by claiming there was a huge problem when people could just simply remove these images from Wikipedia and start a DR even before that's done? If people want to cause some friction in Commons and get policy changed and undone, all they seem to need to do is upload some obviously bad problematic AI images and make it appear is if there was some huge problem.

@PantheraLeo1359531 How to proceed in this case? As usual, by filing deletion requests. In this case I'd suggest also making a thread on Wikipedia on some relevant discussion place there or multiple at the article talk page(s). Prototyperspective (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't see anyone "riled up" here. Nor was anything about my comment meant to claim there was a huge problem about anything. There are certain administrators and users who take a rather hardline stance when in use and/or AI-generated images are nominated for deletion. You clearly have a problem with facts though. But maybe disengage now. This isn't a debate even if your trying to turn into one. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Common sense. Images used in other projects can't be deleted from Commons, and that's very good as it is, but images shouldn't be in use only for them not being deleted from Commons. In fact, those images, if unused, could perhaps even be kept in Commons as showcase of AI-generated images of graphics cards, but make not any sense in Wikipedia articles about graphic cards.

AI should never be used to illustrate things already existing in the real world that have freely licensed or public domain photos available. Even without AI, an image manually drawn by a user (using software, or by hand), that doesn't add anything to what a photo would show, would be rejected in the same context for sure. Once this is solved, the discussion about whether they are or not in scope in Commons can begin. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If these images are derivative work copyvios - which seems likely, someone just needs to find a few examples of the source images - they can and will be deleted on Commons. COM:INUSE does not trump COM:LICENSING. Omphalographer (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now that you mention it the various policies in Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter would probably apply to at least a few of these images. I'm not sure how copyrighted bland photographs of products that don't contain logos or the like are though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Omphalographer: Not sure how to go about this, since a real photo of an item shot with transparency or from the same angle with a plain background could easily end up looking identical, regardless of whether it's a derivative or simply a new work based on the same product. That said, File:TITAN RTX NVIDIA.jpg appears to be an AI-generated carbon copy of the first two product photos shown on Amazon. But again, someone could take a legitimate photograph of the same item from the same angle and produce a visually identical result. I'm unsure how we’re supposed to determine whether any copyrightable differences exist—or don't. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Upon a closer look, I strongly suspect this is the same user as previously. At least one of their images (File:480 GTX PC.png) is virtually identical to one uploaded by marcusburns1977. Omphalographer (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I filed a sock report on Wikipedia. Someone else is going to have to do it on here though since I'm topic banned from administrator boards on here. But their clearly the same user. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti

Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

• File:Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti.pdf (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Proyecto Hogar de niños en Haíti. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Photo from 1918, photographer died in 1976 - is it public domain?

Latest comment: 2 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I've done a bit of biographical sleuthing about a photographer named Clara Louise Petzoldt (1878-1976) and I see that one of her photos was uploaded here: File:KatherineEmmet1918.jpg. My question is - is that photo really public domain? It's from before 1930, but the photographer died in late 1976, about 48 years ago, which is within the 75-year copyright window. So is this image really public domain? I'd like to know this, since it affects what images I might choose to upload as public domain in the future. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Theatre Magazine was published in New York so USA copyright law applies and the image is in the public domain. --RAN (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  So it's the case that any image published in the US before 1930 is public domain, even if the author died less than 75 years ago, correct? Peter G Werner (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, if it was originally published in the USA. (Older US copyright laws were based on registrations and publications, not death date of author.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Create a Wikidata entry for Clara Louise Petzoldt. You can add in your research there. You can add in her Familysearch ID L7K3-7BT and Findagrave ID 280396473. --RAN (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Clara Louise Petzoldt (Q134710870)

  Creator:Clara Petzoldt

  Glrx (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Edit conflict; answering the original question) Yes, if a photograph was published in the United States before 1930 it is public domain in the US and, if no other countries are involved, it can be uploaded to Commons. The longer answer is Commons:Hirtle chart. Pere prlpz (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q808483

Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can someone fix the date for the image displayed. --RAN (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

done. - Jmabel ! talk 04:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Requesting further input for Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/05/Category:Survey studies inquiring input of subjects-relevant groups

Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is some debate being had on the following CFD. Could I please ask for further people to have a look to see if they can provide some feedback? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category description is as follows: This category contains media from scientific studies which have conducted surveys of people relevant to the subject(s) of the study. and the category contents may make it clearer. Concrete suggestions for other cat titles are very welcome. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

SDC and working at cross-purposes

Latest comment: 2 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most recent winner at Commons:ISA Tool/Challenges is a user who, on Commons, was admonished for adding low-quality structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Upload Wizard "release rights" blurb

Latest comment: 2 minutes ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Choices from the "Upload Wizard" form:

• Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit)

• Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 (requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license)

As written, this gives the impression that you choose the first one over the second if you want the person using this media to give appropriate credit but then be able to distribute it free of any such requirement. This would seem to allow trivial circumvention tantamount to unrestricted release (e.g. get your friend to put the media on their Facebook page with credit, and then copy it willy nilly from their Facebook page), so seems to make little sense. Even reading the "learn more" links, I still don't quite understand why you would choose the first one over the second. Is the difference relevant only if people "remix, transform, or build upon the material"? I wonder whether the distinction could be explained better in summary. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, the first license doesn’t mean other people can just reupload the exact photo, give appropriate credit, and just declare the photo to be used by anyone without restrictions. The original CC license will always be applied to the original materials even if they were redistributed or adapted. The difference between the two is if you create a derivative work based on the image, under the first license you can license your own contributions under any license you want, under the second license you must license your own contributions under the same license. See https://creativecommons.org/faq/#if-i-derive-or-adapt-material-offered-under-a-creative-commons-license-which-cc-licenses-can-i-use for more details. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

True, but more to the point, under the first license a reuser can reserve all rights to their own contributions and fail to license them at all. So, for example, if File:Mardi Gras Day 2019 in the French Quarter - St Anthony Ramblers on St Peter Street 09.jpg were not under an "SA" license, you could create a derivative work based on the woman in butterfly wings looking at her phone, with a small blond child over her right shoulder, credit Infrogmation, and not offer any license to republish your derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the replies. This is totally unclear from the Upload Wizard wording, which, as I say, reads as meaning "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute under the same license" versus "requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit, but allows them to redistribute it under any license, or none at all, i.e. unrestricted". Does anyone know who maintains this wording? Even though it needs to be short, surely a better job can be done than what we presently have. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That last wording as it stands is really problematic. In fact, CC-BY allows derivative works to be redistributed under a more restrictive license, but certainly not a less restrictive license. The reuser can license their own contribution as they wish, but the original work must still be licensed and attributed by any further reusers down the line.

@Sannita (WMF): how should this be fixed? - Jmabel ! talk 18:30, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For some reason, it seems that this problem varies across languages, and some of them mentioning that the SA part applies to derived works (Catalan and Basque), some of them leaving so it can be understood as applying to redistributing the original work (English, French, German) and some with ambiguous wording (Portuguese).

I suspect at some point it was intended to simplify the summary with the result of an oversimplification that still hasn't spread to all translation. However, it's hard to explain the SA part while avoiding the technical term "derivative work".

Mixing the English and Catalan versions I would suggest:

(requires the person using this media to give appropriate credit and distribute any published derivative work under the same license)

In bold my addition to the current English version. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some images not displaying for quite some time

Latest comment: 2 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am having problems with some images not displaying. Seems to be happening just randomly. If I try and try and try, after many minutes they display. Is there currently a technical problem with the server(s) delivering images? Or am I the only one having this problem? Nurg (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might be related to this issue. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:01, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Yes, likely the same problem. Nurg (talk) 04:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Pernorgard.jpg marked for deletion 3 June 2025

Latest comment: 20 hours ago10 comments5 people in discussion

As I understand it, the above file was uploaded in 2015, and licensed as "own work" by the author. It is now up for deletion on the grounds that the author did not additionally send a letter confirming that they give permission for the licence that they themselves have added to the file.

I have uploaded nearly 30,000 images to Commons, and a large proportion of those are "own work" with a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0|GFDL}} licence. Does that mean that I, too, (along with millions of other "own work" uploaders) have to write tens of thousands of permission emails? Or am I missing something here? Storye book (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I should add that I have read Commons:But it's my own work!, and as far as I can see, that page does not apply to the above image file, unless there is additional information somewhere, which the deletion tag does not tell us. Storye book (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

you can "Challenge speedy deletion start a regular deletion request/discussion instead" and write down the reason. RoyZuo (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• When there is a speedy tag, and the rationale is wrong for adding it, you can remove the tag without converting it into a regular deletion. You have to leave an explanation. If you are a contributor of a large number of self-taken images, you can add a brief paragraph on your user page that you are an amateur photographer and list some of the equipment you regularly use, and what type of events you concentrate on photographing. This way it will be obvious, even 100 years from now. You can also link to your Flickr account if you have one. If you are a large contributor, but this is controversial, you should have a wikidata entry that has your info so future users of your images will know when they convert from creative commons to public domain. --RAN (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): . Thank you for that information. I shall consider making my own Wikidata entry (although I am worried that it might look self-aggrandising?). But if I do create my own Wikidata page, isn't it too late to connect my many thousands of own-work images to the Wikidata, retrospectively? I'm not sure how that would work. I have a Flickr account, but I have never uploaded images to it. Storye book (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• It would also help if you created "Category:Photographs by XXXXX", use your real name if you want or first name and last initial. Add that to each image and then connect the category to Wikidata. Again, as we both know, it is controversial, even though we all recognize the need to prevent the deletion nominations we are both seeing. Flickr limits you to 1,000 images to store without paying but nothing prevents you from creating multiple accounts each with a different email. I don't know if Google lets you create synonyms for your email account anymore, you used to be able to have three synonyms for the same account. Each synonym let you create a Flickr account that all led to the main Google email account. That may have been a beta feature not rolled out to everyone. I also make sure I add portraits of dead people to Familysearch, Geni, Wikitree, Findagrave, and Familypedia. Familypedia is by the same Wiki people, but for-profit. --RAN (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Thank you, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I don't really want to upload images to Flickr, unless it serves an additional useful purpose. All my useful (i.e. encyclopaedic) images are already on Commons, apart from the 300+ batch that I'm currently editing for upload. Do I really need them all to be on both sites? But I shall think about the Wikidata thing. Thank you for all your kind help so far. Storye book (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday, I noticed the same problem with several files tagged for speedy deletion with "no pemission" without explanation. For some files the reason does not seem obvious at all. If there's actually a known and obvious reason, they can be tagged as copyvios with a proper reference. If it's only a vague impression, they can be tagged for ordinary discussion. Hopefully, admins will be cautious with such speedy requests. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The "no permission" tag is used for cases where we see a need for confirmation that the account owner and the author of the photo are the same. GPSLeo (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there any way to automate the uploading of these images?

Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can these image be uploaded using some automation: https://conservation.academie-architecture.fr/fonds/fondsanciend Click on the first blue link on the right and scroll down to see the images on each page. Each blue link will bring you to a page of image of French architects.They all meet {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} and {{PD-1996}} RAN (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

See Commons:Batch uploading, a page that probably needs to be made more visible somehow, e.g. needing more contributors who do these batch uploads. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

They are probably in the public domain. However they can't be qualified of "no author disclosure". The photographs in most recueils are attributed to Ch. Blanc and Th. Truchelut. Commons does not have a death year for Truchelut, but PD-old-assumed can work for photos from before 1905. Is Ch. Blanc the engraver? The recueil in the first link has attributions to more photographers: "Th. Truchelut, Ch. Reutlinger, Ch. Lemayrie, P. Nadar, Bingham, P. Petit, E. Pirou, etc." Their works seem comfortably in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Page cleanup scripts or bots

Latest comment: 28 minutes ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Is there a bot or script I could run, perhaps with visual file changer that moves all the categories to the bottom of the page, removes duplicate categories, or removes all comments from a page? I have a lot of pages that I want to fix this way because of errors in my editing earlier.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:42, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just a note: As far as I know, categories not at the bottom are not a problem. In fact, to copy-paste categories in the uploader wizard you can paste its wikicode in "other information" and they end not at the bottom, but they still work fine. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Immanuelle: you wrote "removes all comments from a page"; why would you want to do this? Comments are usually left for a reason. And are you talking about html-comments, invisible when reading or something else? MKFI (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MKFI Because on my uploads I often used visual file changer and commented things out instead of properly deleting them when I made mistakes. But this accumulated a lot on my uploads. I managed to use visual file changer to get rid of the comments though. So currently just moving all the categories to the bottom is the concern. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict)

If you still want to remove comments, the simplest may be to use the "VisualFileChange" gadget that you can activate on your preferences, although you probably need to know some regex for this task.

Removing duplicated categories could also be done with VisualFileChange but then regex becomes trickier. Anyway, I wouldn't see duplicated categories as a serious problem - I would try to avoid creating them as much as possible, but I wouldn't invest a lot of time to fix some tens or hundreds of files where the same category appears twice. As far as I know that makes the wikitext uglier but doesn't cause other problems. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you still want to move categories to the bottom, I think that it could be done with VisualFileChange and regex.

But having the categories not at the bottom is also a feature of a lot of my uploads. Pere prlpz (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Pere prlpz How can it be done with the regex? I am interested in doing that. Do you have the regex code to do that? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 05:27, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My familiarity with regex is just basic, but I think it can be done, because you can use a pattern to capture categories and then add them to the end. Maybe somebody in Commons:Village pump/Technical can provide a pattern. Pere prlpz (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

The main concern is that I have some categories inside the descriptions which is really annoying. Not so much the duplication. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 08:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Immanuelle: could you clarify if you are intending to change only files you have uploaded yourself, or are you planning on larger scale changes across Commons? MKFI (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MKFI only files I have uploaded myself. This is only to fix some mistakes I made on these specific files. I actually did remove all the bad comments such as for example this one https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Shimogamo_Shrine-90.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1041001843 so now it is just an issue of categories which are less disruptive if still annoying Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 09:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Question on city-town categorization practice on Commons

Latest comment: 7 hours ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This has been bothering my mind on several occasions. Perhaps the right time to ask. What's the usual categorization practice for cities and towns under topical categories, like "Category:Night in X by city", "Category:Sunrises of X by city" etcetera? Are categories of cities only permitted, or categories of towns also permitted, provided that the town is also an incorporated place (a community with mayor and municipal council and services)? I have long noticed that in places like Category:Night in France by city and Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, even certain municipalities that are de facto "towns" or rural communities by either US or the strict Philippine local government standards are also categorized, since those "towns" or "villages" are municipalities (e.g. French communes, German gemeinden, Russian goroda, Italian comuni, Dutch gemeenten, Spanish comuna, etcetera) which are "cities" in the international sense. For this reason, I also included the Philippine towns (we call those towns "municipalities") under Category:Night in the Philippines by city, based on the de facto categorization practices of similar categories concerning other countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'll ping also several Pinoy wiki peeps here for their comments, and if they agree to fully enforce this practice on the similar categories related to the PH; for example, categorizing categories of towns like Category:Buildings in Bangued under Category:Buildings in the Philippines by city, if applying the categorization practices for those in other countries for consistency. Ping @HueMan1, Aristorkle, Ralffralff, Ganmatthew, Sanglahi86, Borgenland, Sky Harbor, Seav, Royiswariii, and AstrooKai: . I'll also ping @P199: whom I asked on certain things on enwiki in the past. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would not use the terms city, village or town. We should only use term they are clear to define like state, district and municipality. If the municipality is still to large there could be locality or neighborhood but there it also starts to become ambiguous. GPSLeo (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

We do have categories like Category:Populated places in Pampanga for cities and towns within one of the provinces here. Should the likes of Category:Night in France by city, Category:Education buildings in Russia by city, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by city be moved to ... Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo: it appears that, even in America, non-city incorporations are also "cities" for categorization purposes here. For instance, under Category:Streets in Pennsylvania by city, are the subcategories Category:Streets in Norristown, Pennsylvania and Category:Streets in West Chester, Pennsylvania, even if Norristown, PA and West Chester, PA are not legal cities but legal towns (Pennsylvanian towns are called boroughs). Also, under Category:People of Pennsylvania by city, are those of non-city Pennsylvanian incorporated populated places (boroughs) like Category:People of Doylestown, Pennsylvania and Category:People of McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:59, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the category tree of Germany on country level the city category tree is a subcategory of the municipality tree. On the state and lower levels they are separate trees with most cities being also categorized as municipality. GPSLeo (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Russian goroda are cities though? Moscow is a gorod (which is the singular form of goroda). Spontaneously I can't even think of any other Russian translation of the English word "city" than "gorod".

The issue will be that each country has their own definitions of what constitutes a "city" vs. a "town", so to avoid the definition issue we might really be better of by naming the categories Category:Night in France by populated place, Category:Education buildings in Russia by populated place, and Category:Sunrises of the Philippines by populated place. Nakonana (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nakonana: perhaps, it's a country-specific issue after all. I've added a "blurb" on top of Category:Municipalities in the Philippines to let non-Pinoy/non-PH-based Wikimedians know that our local government law sharply differentiates cities from towns, and that towns are legally called "municipalities" here. We don't follow the international definition of a "municipality", which includes majority of the world's cities like Paris, Rotterdam, München, Madrid, Budapest, and Nizhniy Novgorod (since these cities are "municipalities" too).

Perhaps the PH-related categories may deviate from the international practice of lumping categories of their towns into city-related categories. There may be Category:Night in the Philippines by city and also Category:Night in the Philippines by municipality. Recategorization shall be made if a [Philippine] municipality legally upgrades into a [Philippine] city (the final incorporation phase of a populated place here).

It's up to the other editors of other countries if they desire to retain the categorization scheme for their respective countries (lumping cities and towns altogether into a city-related topical category), or to rename their categories to officially-appropriate ones (based on what they call to their municipalities), like Category:Night in France by commune or Category:Education buildings in Russia by gorod (though these may be "weird" and inconvenient). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 01:03, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Template:President.az vs. FoP

Latest comment: 49 minutes ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The president of Azerbaijan seems to really like traveling his country and being photographed while doing so, and his website shares those photos under a Creative Commons license (license text from the website: The are no restrictions on the full or partial use of textual, photographic, video and audio material featured on the official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan by the media outlets, internet resources and information carriers. This also applies to television channels, radio stations, newspapers, magazines, scientific publications and encyclopedias (including online encyclopedias).All materials on the website are available under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.). That's what {{President.az}} is for. However, unfortunately Azerbaijan has no Commons compatible FoP regulations (see COM:FOP Azerbaijan), which leads to a lot of DRs for photos that are sourced to the president's website (and there are still plenty of files that have not been nominated yet but probably should, e.g. File:Aghdam Mugham Center - 01.jpg and Category:Ilham Aliyev arrived in Aghjabadi district for visit). So, my question is, how to go about this problem? I guess the photos must be deleted even if the president licenses them as cc-by-4.0, but shouldn't we at least add some text blurb to the President.az-template to make uploaders aware that the presidential license does not overrule the country's lack of FoP? There are often dozens of DRs listed per day that are all a result of President.az-files ignoring FoP. Nakonana (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Support the suggestion. This is similar to the notice on {{PD-Highsmith}}, it is appropriate to add notice to that template, considering that the President seems unaware of the single clause in their copyright law concerning non-commercial use of copyrighted public landmarks of their country. We should also start adding such "blurbs" to some high-use PDGov or CCGov templates from countries with insufficient FoP. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 14:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Support abd I also think that much of the President's uploads are puffery / propoganda / politicking / self advertising. Should it be reined in?

Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Problem probably also involving wikidata

Latest comment: 12 hours ago9 comments4 people in discussion

how to document this info? sdc?

for most buildings, i'd make a wd item, but this is just a "Distribution substation", so i dont know what wd ppl will do if an item is created for this. RoyZuo (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't really matter as long as you create a category for it and a link to said category on Wikidata. They don't really care about any kind of actual notability or really anything else outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

"They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". This is false. Wikidata's notability policy is at d:WD:N, and items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Items are regularly deleted for not meeting it. Not ones that are connected to Commons categories. Although the bar is extremely low to the point of almost being non-exiting regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

You might not like where "The bar" sits, but contrary to your first comment you now apparently accept that it exists. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

What I originally said was that "they don't really care" about notability. Not that they don't care about it all. I'm sure you get the difference. Maybe it's a language issue though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, what you actually said was "They don't really care about any kind of actual notability". The existence of "the bar" shows that "they" do indeed really care about a kind of actual notability.

Perhaps what you meant to say was "I disagree with their notability policy". Or perhaps you just meant to dishonestly smear your fellow volunteers. I guess the difference is indeed a language issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

No, that's not what I meant. Your just being pedantic and defense for no reason. Maybe drop the stick and move on. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is no substantive disagreement here, just stop. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Letterform Archive

Latest comment: 13 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article is about a new online archive that might be worth mining for copyright-expired and PD-ineligible material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 7 June 2025 (UTC)Reply