This help desk is a forum for questions and help on:
How to use Commons
Anyone, from newbie to experienced, can ask a question here. Questions will be replied to here as well. Any answers you receive are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them.
Resolved sections (marked by {{section resolved|1=~~~~}}) will be archived after two days. Sections with no discussion will be archived after ten days. The latest archive is Commons:Help desk/Archive/2025/10.
Latest comment: 10 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
IM trying to use the wikimedia commons to upload a picture of a Oreo cookie but it says there is one already with the same name as the file I was trying to upload. I couldn't change the name since my account is too new. Is there any possible fix for this? (My user is Zakkgamesontwitch) Zakkgamesontwitch (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi, when I'm looking at a file on Commons, how can I tell that the process at Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator has been followed? For example, if I'm looking at a professional headshot that the uploader claims as own work released CC-BY 4.0, how can I tell that they've provided a representation to that effect via the VRT process? Is there a template or other metadata I can look at? (Is it just the presence of {{PermissionTicket}} specifically?) Thanks for any help, I know this is a basic question. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you are asking about a particular photo, and Asclepias answer isn't enough for you to work this out yourself, please link the specific photo here so that someone can evaluate it for you. - Jmabel ! talk05:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Right, although can you give instructions on how to verify that someone was formerly a VRT member? The ticket notices have often been added by a volunteer who is no longer active. For example, what do I check to make sure that User:Mhhossein was VRT? – b_jonas06:45, 17 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't have doubts about User:Mhhossein in particular, I'd just like to know if there's a simple general procedure how to check when you encounter a VRT ticket template by a user that you don't know yet. – b_jonas15:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, as I said, I don't have the answer, that was just one thing to try and that happened to sort of work with your example. A probably more simple way that comes to mind now is to look at the date when the VRT template was placed on the relevant file and then look at the history of the page meta:Volunteer Response Team/Users to find if the user was listed on that page near the same date. To continue with your previous example, it can be seen that the name Mhhossein was added to that page on 1 September 2016 [1] and was removed on 1 September 2021 [2]. That may still be a bit complex for readers who are not familiar with Wikimedia, and the updates to the page may not match exactly the dates when the VRT right was actually added or removed, but I suppose that it can work well enough. You could also ask directly to one of the VRT administrators, who might know of a better method. -- Asclepias (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I guess I just assumed the VRT had some kind of backlog or edit filter to automatically find and remove erroneous PermissionTicket templates? Otherwise, if I see PermissionTicket, I'm assuming it's an acceptable "pro" image, and if I don't I'm assuming I should nominate it for deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the large majority of cases, the templates "PermissionTicket" are indeed placed by VRT members, as they must be. But it is prudent to check who placed the template and in what circumstancesWhen the template is placed by a non-VRT member, the corresponding edit in the page history gets tagged automatically with the line "Ticket permission added by non-VRT member". As far as I can tell, the template is not removed automatically.A proportion of those tagged edits relate to templates that were initially placed by VRT members but something happened. For example, the page was blanked and was restored by a non-VRT user. Or the template was added on a Wikipedia file (not Commons) and later the file was transferred to Commons and the template was modified and translated in English.Another proportion of tagged edits are templates added by mistake by non-VRT users unaware of the procedure or, rarely, fraudulently.Sometimes, the template is placed by a bot because the bot "assumes" that a general-purpose VRT permission from an uploader is valid, and also that it is applicable to all their uploads. Such bot edits are apparently not tagged with the non-VRT line. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Hello, I am a new user on Commons and I have a question regarding uploading pictures from Flickr. Actually it's not a question but rather a case - you see, I've been wanting to upload several albums' worth of pictures, all from the same author, that I think would make a great contribution to Commons and especially for some pages I'm editing on Wikipedia. But there's a problem, they've all been uploaded with a (C) "all rights reserved" license. However, in all of these pictures' descriptions, (and by all I mean all, I checked) they say "Reproduction is allowed with a mention of the source." So is it possible for me to upload the pictures, while crediting the author of course? I should mention that I don't have a way of contacting the author (I do not have a Flickr account). Here's an example of one of the pictures I want to upload. The description is in French, so you might need to translate it.
Here's a list of all the albums I'd like to upload:
@Zach1055 Sorry. As the uploader also says, "Commercial use subject to prior special authorization." And stuff on Commons must be ok for commercial use.
@Zach1055: Some photos of this flickr account are under free licenses, for example in Category:Files from Fototak Flickr stream. Apparently uploaded to flickr in 2011-2012. Even some of those have the non commercial restriction in their descriptions, and others do not have it, so it can be somewhat confusing. You might find a few other photos that have free licenses but maybe not many and maybe not in the more recent uploads. You will have to look at the license in the flickr page of each photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Asclepias Funny thing though, at least two pics in that category, [3][4], are "All rights reserved" now. Not for example [5]. I don't know what to make of that, did the uploader change the tag later or did the flickrbot get it wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Their license history on flickr shows that those photos were under the free license from 2012 until 2021. The template Change-of-licenseFlickr-change-of-license can be added to their pages on Commons. An interesting detail is that they were copied to Commons soon after the free license was placed on flickr. That suggests that the user who requested those bot uploads to Commons might have contacted the flickr user and asked the permission of the free license for those particular photos. Notifying User:Arbalete. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Besides Crown copyright, is there any way to figure out if a photograph published in the UK during the 1960s is public domain/appropriate to Commons? StarTrekker (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
See COM:UK. It's a little complex, but as far as I can tell a photograph is going to get at least 70 years from creation, so they will be in copyright in the UK until the 2030s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, I wanted to upload a logo of a company that is no longer in business singularly. The logo is the one used by the company when it was in activity in the ‘90 wich is different from the one in use now with the new owners of the company. So i wanted to know if i can upload that logo or not. Lunovar (talk) 14:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
At Commons, we can accept media if it has an appropriate license and if it fits into an educational scope, broadly speaking (it also needs to be in a proper filetype, which most logos would be). A company's logo is almost always trademarked, meaning that how and when it is reproduced needs to not confuse possible consumers, but it is only sometimes copyrighted, meaning that the logo as a piece of art is sufficiently complex to be eligible for legal protection. So a company's logo could in principle be uploaded here, but not if that company has a logo that is as a piece of art something that is copyrighted and without a license to reproduce it. See Category:Logos, which includes many corporate logos. In case you end up uploading it here, please add {{Trademark}} on the file's page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯16:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Lunovar: I will add: none of what you've said here has any bearing on the copyright status of the logo, which is going to be more or less completely about what country it was from, when it was first created, and how visually complex it is. If you can point to a copy of the logo online, it is much more likely someone can give you a meaningful opinion. - Jmabel ! talk13:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@גודלניק: I don't read Hebrew, so I am working via Google Translate here, but you don't mention what upload tool you were using. If it is notSpecial:UploadWizard, please try that, generally the best tool for beginners. If it isSpecial:UploadWizard, can you please be more specific about what happened when you tried to upload. - Jmabel ! talk13:22, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Can I share the identity of a person whose name and identity is special on social media? That person is not popular on social media but his name is very special. He is a special person because of his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilider (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
for media that are, in a broad sense, educational. You can and will find here historical images, photographic and audiovisual documentations of the state of inanimate nature and of living beings, documentations of events, some stock photography, historical and some modern art and similar motifs.
You won't find memes, material like stuff on and from en:4chan, en:Reddit, joke collections, etc. (except for cases where these things have already gained an external recognition in the media and the pop culture, like en:Disaster Girl, en:Pepe the Frog and some en:Lolcats, but then, utmost care must be exerted in regards to the licensing status). There are other sites with user-generated content for this kind of purposes (like sharing a maybe comical name), your idea is most likely not within the purview of Commons and Wikipedia. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I uploaded a screenshot of the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 because it's published under GFDL license. But then I found information about restrictions of using this license on Commons. Please check if I did it correctly, Thanks. SkоrP2420:06, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Animeskujop: I'm guessing that by "the wiki" you mean the English-language Wikipedia, or some other WMF wiki, so this would presumably be in scope, and would come down to copyright issues.
Copyright issues are pretty much the same for logos as for anything else. Assuming this is something dating from recent decades, it is almost certainly going to be a matter of whether the logo is below the threshold of originality in its country of origin. If you can link to an online copy of the logo here, someone can probably tell you at a glance. - Jmabel ! talk13:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@SpeedyTrain6000 Details matter, but assuming this is about an existing en-WP article, and the logo can't be on Commons per COM:TOO, go to WP:FUW, pick Upload a non-free file > This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. > This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc.. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Request to merge or unify two files for Maria al Qibtiyya
Latest comment: 9 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Commons administrators, I would like to request that two image files related to Maria al Qibtiyya be merged or technically unified so that both filenames point to the same image across Wikimedia projects. The files are: The first one file:Maria_Al_Qibtiyya.png and the second one File:ماريا القبطية (تخطيط).png. The second file is an improved version that I created. It presents the name in Thuluth calligraphy with a transparent background, following the traditional Islamic artistic approach often used to express dignity and distinction for historical Islamic figures. In Islamic art, calligraphic renderings of names in Thuluth or similar scripts on decorated backgrounds are a long-established and elegant form of representation. Such designs are often used in Wikimedia projects for historical figures when no authentic portrait or coin is available. By contrast, the older file uses a simple Naskh font on a plain white background, which does not align with this traditional calligraphic style. For this reason, it would be best if both filenames were unified so that they display the same new image everywhere. I have already updated the image in the Wikidata item for Maria al Qibtiyya, and this change successfully appeared across many language versions, but several others still show the older file, so a Commons-level unification is needed. If direct merging is not possible, any alternative technical solution (for example aliasing, redirecting, or replacement under the same filename) would also be appreciated. The goal is simply to ensure that all Wikimedia projects display one consistent and culturally appropriate image. Both files are on Commons and share compatible license information. Thank you for your attention and help. Yosf22ww (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Yosf22ww: I agree that yours is superior, but it is not normally Commons approach to delete a file in this situation. SPQR10, who created the other file, remains moderately active on Wikimedia projects. If they believe your file is enough better that they would like theirs to become a redirect to yours, then that would be fine.
You are of course welcome to edit any of the sister wikis to use your version, and unless they disagree and revert you, that will stick. Also, you can also mark both files with {{Other version}} so that they link to each other on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk23:37, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you@Jmabel. I thought the merger would lead to both of us being related, so if I'm not mistaken, we should contact him directly to reach a compromise? But maybe I'll try to edit it manually.Yosf22ww (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Zojuist heb ik een aantal foto's van deze locatie geuplaod en toch word ik verwezen naar een fout die ik gemaakt zou hebben, maar dat is niet juist. Ik heb alle foto's op exact wijze behandeld. Correct dus. Homoarborea (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am not good in Dutch, but unless I'm very mistaken, "word ik verwezen naar een fout die ik gemaakt zou hebben" is very vague. Can you be more specific as to what you believe is a problem? - Jmabel ! talk23:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
Every statue is art that was created by SOMEONE, even if owned by, and displayed in, a public space. If I photograph a statue in a public setting, can I submit it to a Wikipedia photography contest? 3dphotoguy (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you would say what country you are talking about, we can give you much clearer guidance. Rules about publishing photographs of statues vary widely from country to country. - Jmabel ! talk23:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@3dphotoguy: The trickiest, as it happens. (Pinging @Clindberg to correct me in case I get anything wrong here, but this should at least be very close.) There is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. However, a lot of statues and other sculptures as late as the 1980s are in the public domain (whereas in most countries nothing is PD from the last 70 years, and little from even 100 years ago).
The main reason for this is that until 1 March 1989, the U.S. did not grant copyright automatically. A very large number of sculptures before 1 January 1978 are in the public domain, along with some from then until 28 February 1989. Also, for works published before 1978, the U.S. determined duration of copyright entirely from the publication date, not the death date of the creator.
Here's a breakdown to cases; much of this information can be found in Commons:Hirtle chart, but that doesn't account for the changed meaning of publication.
Prior to 1978, display of a sculpture in a public place where photography by the general public was possible constituted publication. The only way to retain copyright was to meet both of the following conditions:
The initial copyright was good only for 28 years, then copyright had to be renewed. The last year of initial publication for which renewal is relevant is 1963 (because in 1992 the requirement for renewal was dropped). See Copyright renewal in the United States for how to check for renewals. If a work published from 1930 to 1963, inclusive, was initially copyrighted, but not renewed, use {{PD-US-not renewed}}.
All works in the U.S. published before 1930 are now out of copyright. As remarked above, this would include any sculptures erected in public before that date. Use {{PD-US-no notice}}. That 1930 date will be moving year-by-year until 2073, then we will get into issues of author's death dates.
In 1978, the legal meaning of "publishing" a sculpture changed. It's not enough that it was in a place where people could take photos, there had to be authorized photos published in the more obvious sense of "published": e.g. a postcard, a museum catalog, a magazine article, etc. Still, from then until 28 February 1989, the laws did not change a lot in any other respect. The only other large difference is that it became possible to rectify the lack of a copyright notice by registering the work within 5 years. (You check for that the same way you check for renewals.) Works from this period that fail on these formalities can use {{PD-US-1978-89}}.
Everything from 1 March 1989 onward is still in copyright; we can't use photos of these without the permission of the copyright-holder of the sculpture.
As I said: the U.S. is the most complicated case in the world for this.
Yep, that's a good reference. Most public statues put up in the U.S. before 1978 are fine, unless they have a copyright notice on them. You can usually find them in the SIRIS art inventories database to see if a copyright notice is mentioned. Ones put up before 1930 are definitely fine, ones with a notice put up before 1964 also needed a renewal (rare but needs searching). Statues put up since 1978, generally not. You can use your photo of those to the extent of fair use, which is pretty far, but not for commercial use generally. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
thank you. I have created a page on wikipedia for that painting. I'm now looking for information on this magnificent work, but that's another matter.--Io Herodotus (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There is a book titled Port Charlotte by Roxanne Read, and within it there are some old photos pertaining to Port Charlotte High School that were apparently provided "courtesy of Port Charlotte High School" (as well as some other public schools in Port Charlotte, including Charlotte Harbor Center). Public records in Florida are considered public domain, and apparently "public record" has a broad interpretation, so these are potentially public domain images. Would I need to try to hunt down either the author of the book or the school/school district officials that provided these to confirm their public record status (meaning that they were, in fact, government produced vs. a private individual or corporation with copyrights producing them for the government), or is the citation in the book enough to qualify them for inclusion in the Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia? PCHS Pirate Alumnus (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to know if I can upload a picture of a small pavilion building that was installed in a National Park about three years ago. The pavilion is now fairly famous, and has won a half-dozen prestigious design awards. It was designed, fabricated, and installed by faculty and architecture students from a university. I am one of the faculty members involved. I took the photo. I plan to freely give copyright and use of the photo to wikipedia or anyone. There are dozens of webpages that also have content about this award-winning project. Clipperdoug (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Can you tell where is it located in (including the country) and the name of the project? It might be copyrighted depending on the country and if it is, it can't be uploaded here. See Commons:Freedom of panorama. HyperAnd (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2025 (
@Clipperdoug: If this is United States (I'm guessing from your prior uploads), almost any building is covered by U.S. freedom of panorama. The only exception I can think of would be if it were covered by a mural, or was more of a sculpture than a building. - Jmabel ! talk14:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sekil yukleyirem yazir ki muellif huququ var.amma ozume aiddir sekil
@Jmabel, thanks for notifying. I examined the uploaded content, and I see that the uploaded images violate the F10 policy. Therefore, I deleted all of the images that were uploaded by @Sehrbazsehadet and tagged the azwiki article because of spamming.
(Translation and explanation of the request: I am uploading my own photographs, my photos were marked with copyvio tag but these are my own works.) KadıMessage18:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I submitted a photo to the July 2025 waterside structures contest. The photo shows on the entries and voting pages, but not the results page. I believe it should be showing there as well?
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Когда фото загружено, а потом есть необходимость скопировать ссылку на него или текст файла на страницу. Как вернуться спустя время назад и скопировать последний этап загрузки? Александр Водолазский (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Uploading a photo
When a photo is uploaded and you need to copy its link or file text to a page, how can you go back and copy the last upload step?
Latest comment: 3 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I know that the US doesn't protect their published governmental documents under copyright law, but does India? If I upload a random tender document will I get Wikimedia sued? Okkirae.temp (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Okkirae.temp: I have no idea on the legal side of your question, but on the technical side, assuming you are using Special:UploadWizard there is a choice when uploading licensed third-party material that should let you specify any licence or PD rationale that we have on Commons, rather than one of the small number of licenses explicitly listed. - Jmabel ! talk02:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Uploading a chart containing information from another work: what options to select when uploading?
Latest comment: 7 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I wish to upload a chart/series of charts I made showing the structure of verbs in a certain language. All the information about the structure of the verbs and the forms involved are from a particular thesis, but the layout and design of the chart are not copied from that work, but are from me collocating information about verb structure from throughout an entire chapter to put it in a chart.
What options should I select when uploading it? Both "This work is created entirely by me" and "this work contains the work of others" Don't quite seem to fit. I'm not just copying tables from the thesis, but it would be impossible for me to have made the table without the thesis; it isn't a well known language with lots of descriptions like say, Spanish or Japanese.
I assume it would be "This work is created entirely by me", since if you select "this work contains the work of others", then "the work is copyright protected", it tells you not to upload the image, which would lead it being impossible to upload a chart containing any information only found in copyrighted works, but I wanted to check to be sure, the guidelines are very unclear to me. Aristaeusapiculturist (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I have a picture of an advertisement proclaiming a world record was set with their equipment. Obviously, it is 'not my own work.' But, it was 'public domain' advertising. I do not have the source document (i.e. the newspaper or folio) it was originally posted in. The company that built the equipment and placed the advertisement has been out of business for some years. It is, to my knowledge, the only citation of the achievement. It would be similar to posting a picture of a newspaper article - but without any knowledge of the actual source document.
I also know of no way to verify/document the achievement without this picture of the advertisement.
I'm surprised that I can't find an answer for this in these archives - though they are pretty extensive. Antiquetuck (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Antiquetuck: I strongly suspect you do not correctly understand the term "public domain" which you used: please read at least the initial portion of the Wikipedia article public domain.
The fact that the company is defunct is completely irrelevant to copyright law, except for the fact that it greatly increases the difficulty of determining who owns the copyright. What country would this be from? Roughly what date? - Jmabel ! talk02:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It is U.S. related. The company went through a couple of changes and has been defunct since about 2014.
The absurdity of my plight is that this advertisement was probably produced by the original company back in the 1930's or so - it is a direct and timely reference to a record their machine set in 1922. If I can't 'use this for verification...' there isn't anything left for verification!
My reference to PD is based on the fact that it was a published advertisement - I have no idea or way to confirm which publication it was published in - and meant for public consumption. It would be like making the statement that Pantyhose Joe Namath wore some one time - there's proof positive out there - and someone saying that the existing sources of proof of that are not usable. A true circle jerk if I ever heard of one.
@Antiquetuck: Again, you are misusing the term "public domain" and it make the discussion very difficult. Please read at least the leading portion of the article I linked above. If the content is truly in the public domain then it can be uploaded to Commons, but the mere fact that it is "public" does not make it "public domain."
Also: I'm not at all sure what you are talking about when you say you need to "use this for verification". Do you mean citing the content in Wikipedia? Uploading the content to Commons does not make it any more (or less) citable.
"1930s or so" is a bit inconvenient for an upload to Commons. There are several ways that the advertisement could have passed into the public domain.
If you can show it was published before 1 January 1930 then it is definitely public-domain in the United States. That date (1 January 1930) will move forward one year on 1 January each year for the next several decades.
If you can show that it had an authorized publication without a copyright notice any time before 1978, then it is in the public domain.
Failing that, the only way it would have already passed into the public domain—and a quite likely one, I would add—is that they failed to renew the copyright. Unfortunately, without knowing the initial date of publication, that is very hard to determine, because you'd have to go through many years of copyright renewal records (from 27 years after the earliest possible publication date to 28 years after the latest possible publication date) and show that there is no such renewal.
I know that is not the answer you would want to hear. "Orphaned" works toward the end of their period of copyright protection are quite frankly very annoying to deal with, but they exist, and this may be one of them.
I'm going to repeat one more time: read at least the initial portion of en:Public domain. If you are are going to engage in discussions involving this legal term, especially if you are going to use it yourself, it is important that you know what it means. - Jmabel ! talk03:43, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Jmabel, Thanks again. I laud your time, knowledge and effort to ensure that this meets those specifications. This especially applies in these days of 'false news'.
I suspect that my 'reference material' - the advertisement that publicizes this manufacturers statement, verifying or vouching for the truth and fact of the statement - would pass these musters.
However, I am not going to spend hours playing games looking in every nook and cranny to prove or disprove that something as publicly available as this advertisement is not copyrighted. THAT fact and proof is not THAT important to me.
I know the facts to be true - but I guess no one else will ever get to appreciate that fact in the Wiki, because this techni-legal game is way beyond my enthusiasm. Consider my interest and willingness to share information is sufficiently and unmercifully trashed, and that I'll just sign off on this one - and any others that appear to push on this threshold. Antiquetuck (talk) 05:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Earlier this week, DART published a PDF guide for its new Silver Line, and that guide features revised "bullet" icons which use a different font than the previous guides. The font is the only change, but the new letterforms are distinct. (Compare the icons on page 15 of the PDF to the Commons files; the differences are clearest on the Green and Orange bullets.) The new icon font is also used in updated system maps and station layout maps, so it seems these are permanent replacements.
I'd like to upload the new bullets to Commons and replace them on the appropriate Wikipedia pages/templates. Should I upload the new bullets as new versions of the existing files, or should I create new files and mark the old files using Template:superseded? I'm not sure whether the changes are substantial enough to require a new file, and new versions of the exising files would require less work on the Wikipedia side. LazyCat256 (talk) 03:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@LazyCat256: There's some guidance about this given in COM:OVERWRITE. Unlike many of the local Wikipedias which allow non-free (fair use) content to be uploaded, Commons seems to prefer the retaining out-of-date or no-longer-in-use files rather than overwriting them because of the potential historical and encyclopedic value associated with such files. Typically, a minor change like straightening might be an OK reason for overwriting, but anything which might be considered significant (a crop, color change, font change perhaps) probably is best uploaded as a separate file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Hello,
I receive message that File:Andreas fredegandus hermans.jpg may be deleted. The picture is on my grandfathers death card dating from 1945. The author is anonymous. I supposed the photo is now in the public domain. He is also used (without mention of autorship) in 2 of the books I refer to in the bibliography. How can I prevent deletion of the photo? I am a new contributor. I can't figure which steps to undertake. Thanks for help. Cfreinet (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello and welcome @Cfreinet. If what you stated is true, that the photograph was published in 1945 (assuming in Belgium or Poland) and the author is anonymous. Then, you are correct that the photograph should be in public domain in Belgium or Poland from 2016 (70 years after publish).
However, per Commons policies, photos must be in public domain (or freely licensed) both in the source country and the United States. According to the Hirtle chart, the photograph is still copyrighted in the U.S. until 2041, as the photograph entered public domain in its source country after the URAA date of 1996.
Therefore, this photo is likely not allowed on Commons, but you may want to upload locally to nl-wiki instead.
Thanks for your answer. Sorry for my ignorance, but I suppose that to join the photo at my text, I have to upload it via Commons. Is it possible to do this only for nl-wiki? Cfreinet (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're correct, sorry I just realised nl-wiki does not allow for local uploads. So, I think unfortunately there isn't a way to keep this. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your idea. The photo must have been taken between 1935 and 1942. It is my grandfather, he wore the helmet until he was named police chief in 1942. I suppose that doesn't solve the problem.
The same photo was printed in 2 books I refer to in the bibliography and sources. If I ask permission to the author of the book to use the photo, would that be admitted by commons? Cfreinet (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I know the authors of the books. They don't know the author of the photo. The photo must have been taken around 1935. The photographer, if by wonder still alive,should now have the respectable age of around 120. I value the 5 pillars of wikipedia, but I do think wikipedians could pay more attention to the 5th pillar, that talks about the use of common sense... Cfreinet (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Good evening, I'm writing to ask you how I can manage to overload the files, because when I try I can't, and I get a warning with the words "Overwriting artwork", and since I heard this would be due to a block, how can I resolve the issue? Sigismondo1996 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I have recently added File:(R)-Aporphine.gif to Wikipedia Commons. I want to ask how do file information and Summary Description of a file work? Because I believe that by adding 85 notable languages (those with more than 100000 articles or depth more than 100) to the file, the file will get more and more public and accessible to everyone. Hope anyone can clear the confusion/misunderstanding of this Geoopt1234 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Geoopt1234: I'm unaware of anything called a "Summary Description". Where do you see that?
I see you have already correctly added descriptions in three languages. More would be welcome, as long as they are correct. Be very wary of adding a machine translation into a language you cannot even read to check for correctness.
Someone else may have a better suggestion than just adding these in separate templates. I was looking for something like {{Title}} that would be appropriate for the description field, but I don't see it. - Jmabel ! talk02:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
"Summary" is a completely arbitrary heading. Nothing changes if that changes. It's just the English-language value for {{int:filedesc}}. The template containing "description" is {{Information}} (or {{Art Photo}}, or any of a number of other alternatives). But it does exactly the same thing independently of {{int:filedesc}}. - Jmabel ! talk04:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Most Wikipedias completely spell out the name Indian Space Research Organisation, only a few including enwiki have the article under the acronym. I'll create a CfD for you. Thanks for the reminder to check category moves, I've helped reduce that backlog. Abzeronow (talk) 23:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I would like to know if it is possible for me to modify the metadata associated with one of my contributions.
The contribution in question is the following:
File:Drying-pants (2018).jpg
I would like to remove my name from the “Author” field. This is information I wish to delete for privacy reasons. Yo (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Toutoclic: the author field is part of the image itself, as embedded EXIF metadata (see Commons:EXIF). You should modify the image to remove the author information and then upload the new version. After you have uploaded the new version you can request that first version is revision deleted. Also note that the author is usually set in the camera, so all the photos you have taken with that camera likely have the same author information. MKFI (talk) 08:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kaenjjostlc399: your uploads have been blocked by automated filter since you tried to upload a very low resolution images as a new user, and such images are often copyright violations. Remember that if you upload an image as "own work" it means that you held the camera in your hands when the picture was taken or otherwise created the image yourself. From the file names and descriptions I wonder if they would be in Commons:Project scope. Small number of personal images are allowed but perhaps you could first get some experience editing Wikipedia before worrying about your user page. MKFI (talk) 14:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I’ve been having the same problem with all of my uploads for the past few days. Not a single one has worked properly. They are uploaded successfully, but the errors cause me some extra work every time, as I want to access the uploaded pictures to add them to a gallery. I use the "Old Vector (2010)" view, if that matters. -- Jakubhal19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have just uploaded the file
"South Australian Railways 600 class diesel locomotive – general arrangement.png". When I clicked the blue underlined filename on the "Thanks for contributing" page, an error page resulted, stating "Not Found
Key "1c6bez2tied0.psf37a.4729562.png" not found in stash." Can anybody help to resolve this, please? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at 06:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sometimes the links in the "Thanks for contributing" page (the page after using UploadWizard) will not work like you have mentioned. However, as MKFI mentioned, your uploads should be fine and uploaded correctly. You can check your uploads at Special:ListFiles/SCHolar44. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hello and welcome @YUTAN STONE. Unfortunately, Commons does not accept Word documents (.doc or .docx), Commons only accepts documents in PDF or DjVu formats. I assume your have solved your problem as I noticed you have already uploaded your files using PDF format. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is it possible to attain the full edit comment of a long edit summary? Specifically I need the full comment for the first edit made on 16 August 2019.[6]Semsûrî (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Cerco un Wikipediano per creare un profilo su Wikipedia su un altera che ha tutti i requisiti giusti per rientrare nella creazione di una pagina dedicata a lui 5.91.186.3117:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Anohthterwikipedian: I'd use {{Current}} to tag the file that's intended to be updated. It doesn't directly say that the tagged file shouldn't be deleted as a duplicate, but I think it's implicit, since a file that might change can't really be a duplicate of one that won't. --bjh21 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 hours ago13 comments5 people in discussion
Je suis l'auteur de photographies représentant le château de Mollans, (70), ainsi que de sa chapelle castrale. Bien que les vues aient été prises depuis une route publique, la propriétaire a déposé une plainte contre moi. Par souci d'apaisement, je demande la suppression de ces cinq vues. Merci. Espirat Jean E.J (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Merci de la réponse. Il s'agit de deux vues représentant la chapelle castrale de Mollans , ainsi que de trois vues représentant le château de Mollans. Elles se trouvent sur Wiki Commons de Mollans. Mollans étant un village de la Haute-Saône (70). Merci de votre aide. Espirat E.J (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Une recherche rapide sur le net aboutit bientôt à la page https://www.murielle-cahen.fr/le-droit-a-limage-quels-sont-vos-droits-et-obligations/ , qui a des références sur le problème du droit (inexistant!) sur l'image de ses biens - section N°II: "Le propriétaire du bien ne dispose plus d’un droit exclusif sur l’image de celui-ci". En principe, je pense qu'une plainte va aboutir nulle part, surtout si les images prises ne sont pas cause a un quelconque trouble anormal... Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:27, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Espirat: dénicher ces vues dans une liste de téléversements très longue, probablement dans les centaines de fichiers, sans indications sur les dates de prises de vues, n'est pas très simple... Est-ce qu'elles sont enregistrées aux alentours du 8 juillet 2024, comme File:Château de Mollans (1).jpg, ces photos? Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ces vues se trouvent dans wiki Commons, Mollans, château de Mollans et chapelle castrale de Mollans
Ces photos du château de Mollans et de sa chapelle castrale ont été envoyées, après le 06-07-2024. Je souhaite leur suppression définitive. Merci. Espirat jean E.J (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Commons n'est pas constraint à supprimer ces photos - ni les lois françaises, ni les lois américaines le demandent. Il n'y a pas de "droit à l'image de ses biens", un propriétaire d'immeuble n'a pas de moyens d'interdire les prises de vues de lieux publics.
Chacune de ces demandes de suppression a été refusée. C'est logique, mis à part ta demande, Espirat, il n'y a pas de raison pour la suppression, certainement pas de raison juridique, en tous cas. Et vu que ces fichiers sont présents depuis longtemps (2024) et utilisé pour des fins encyclopédiques, même une suppression par obligeance est plus ou moins exclue. Salutations, Grand-Duc (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Est-ce si difficile de faire retirer d de wiki , des photos dont on est l'auteur? Je souhaite faire retirer cinq vues, mais apparemment ce n'est pas possible. (J'ai fait cinq ou six demandes, toutes refusées). Je suis contributeur à hauteur de plus de dix mille photos, et bien, ce sera fini. Je vais oublier wiki et sa non coopération. Jean espirat E.J (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I uploaded 7 images yesterday, and I think I should name them differently, to include the monument name. Can you tell me whether I can change the names, and how? Or can I delete them and start over uploading, and naming correctly? And how?
You can request renaming of these files pretty easily. Go to each image and find the dropdown Tools menu just above the image. There's an option for requesting a rename. Then you just put in the new name in the first field and uploader requested in the bottom field. If you have problems, I can help further. Geoffroi18:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 hours ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I'm probably missing something obvious, but I wonder if somebody can help me understand what is happening. I have read all the stuff I can find, and I have read the messages on the pages, the messages from bots, and the email to the owner of the copyright, who has agreed to the right CC4.0 Attribution Share-Alike International. But I can't take the boxes off the pages that say that the copyright status is not clear and that they will be deleted.
The copyright owner did the online permissions form, as I asked. He forwarded the emailed reply from Martin Anderson thanking him for giving permission. And saying that we should add {{Permission pending|year=2025|month=October|day=28}} somewhere in the file description, which I did, but when I go back, it's not there.
One possible glitch: when he replied to my email telling the filename of the photos I uploaded, he forwarded the message to Martin Anderson and said he had uploaded the photos, but I don't see any evidence of copies of the photos I uploaded, but perhaps the perms got attached to them if they did get actually uploaded into Commons?
Oh, wait, I see something. So the code Martin Anderson said to include in the file description, which I had put in this message without anything to make it nowiki, is what put that box there. Ok, so the pages for both files have that message on them, so maybe everything is ok? I'm still not sure, just can't tell, tbh.
@Scogdill: As the tag said, "If you have resolved the issue by adding a valid copyright tag, you may remove the deletion template." I've done it for you this time, though. - Jmabel ! talk22:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 hours ago7 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I’ve already written in one of the threads above (several people seem to have a similar problem), but it looks like my post was overlooked since nobody replied.
The links to my uploaded files have been broken for every upload over the past few days. The files are uploaded successfully, but the links in the upload summary point to something like this. It’s a bit annoying because I want to access the uploaded pictures to add them to a gallery, and this issue causes extra work each time.
Hi @DAS1950: Thanks for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments! You can request deletion of photos you upload within seven days (so all the photos you've uploaded in the last day qualify). You can add the following "speedy deletion" (SD) template to the files you wish to be deleted:
{{SD|Author/uploader request within 7 days of upload}}
I see all your files are tagged as Wiki Loves Monuments, so no action is needed there. We can take care of updating the state parameter in the template. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Kevin Payravi: This user asked how to rename these files in a section just above "renaming or deleting and uploading correct ones". These are good quality photos that need renaming not deleting. We don't want this user to have these files deleted just to reupload them with a new name. Geoffroi00:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
saya didieth adalah admin yang di percayakan oleh muhammad hasan abdillah untuk membuat profilenya di wikipedia, dan foto yang saya upload di hapus karna ada unsur hak cipta.. untuk fotonya saya dapet dari sumbernya langsung atau dari muhammad hasan abdillah yang di kirim via whatsapp ke saya, dan yang bersangkutan filenya di ambil saat dari IGnya dan takeshootnya ketika yang bersangkutan di lantik sebagai anggota DPRD PROV DKI JAKARTA. Mohon tanggapannya dan petunjuknya agar gambar tersebut tidak di bilang melanggar hak cipta Didieth Dengoh (talk) 07:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Kita harus mempunyai izin tersurat dari pemegang hak cipta foto tersebut (orang yang menekan tombol kameranya, belum tentu pemegang hak ciptanya Hasan sendiri!) untuk memberi lisensi bebas.
Perizinan itu dilakukan dengan melewati email/surel. Kita mempunyai Commons:Volunteer Response Team (bahasa Indonesia) yang akan mengonfirmasi perizinan lisensi bebas tersebut. Anjurkan pemegang hak ciptanya untuk membuat perizinan di Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator dan mengirim teks perizinan ke alamat surel yang didaftarkan di situ, melalui alamat surel kerja/utama milik dia. Jika dia tidak mengirim surat perizinan, baik karena ditolak ataupun tidak bisa dikontak, sayangnya kita tidak bisa menerima foto tersebut. HyperAnd (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 20 hours ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This image of a fighter jet is by a French military photographer, but has an own work claim and license from the uploader. Can someone change this to the proper license? Thanks. Geoffroi23:21, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
ভাষা সৈনিক ঝারু মিয়া ঐতিহাসিক ভাষা আন্দোলনের সংগঠন তমদ্দূন মজলিস "এর তৎকালীন বৃহত্তর কুমিল্লায় সংগঠক হিসেবে যারা ভূমিকা রেখেছেন।১৯৯৪ সালের ১২ ই মে ইন্তেকাল করেছেন। আজাদ সোবহানী (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I often use fultonhistory.com as a source for Wikipedia articles because it has newspaper records not available anywhere else, but there are two problems with the site. Firstly, it isn't possible to isolate clips from a page, the entire page has to be used as the source link, which can be problematic because it can make the relevant facts hard to find for somebody looking to confirm the information. Secondly, it's a private, basically one-man website, which like many other such websites could disappear overnight, taking all its data with it.
I am wondering then, if it would be permissible to upload public domain newspaper clippings from the site to Commons to ensure the preservation of the information and make it much easier for users to verify the facts? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion
নোয়াখালী বিভাগ চাওয়াটা কি অপরাধ
নোয়াখালীর মানুষ বিভাগ পাওয়া কি যোগ্য নয় তাহলে সরকার কেন নোয়াখালী বিভাগ দিচ্ছেনা এই প্রশ্ন রেখে গেলাম বাংলাদেশের সবচেয়ে ধনী জেলা নোয়াখালী Zero Kawsar (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 hour ago1 comment1 person in discussion
আমি সরকারের কাছে আবেদন জানাচ্ছি অতি দ্রুত নোয়াখালী বিভাগ ঘোষণা দাবী করা হোক সরকার এই বিষয় নজর রাখা দরকার নোয়াখালী ভৌগলিক উপকূলিয়ন বঙ্গোপসাগর সব দিকে এগিয়ে আছে তাহলে কেন নোয়াখালী বিভাগ দেওয়া হচ্ছে না আমি চাই নোয়াখালী বিভাগ হোক নোয়াখালী মানুষের হয়রানি দূর হোক নোয়াখালীর মানুষ যেনো শান্তি ভাবে আগামী দিনগুলো কাটে সে বিবেচনা সরকারের করা দরকার Zero Kawsar (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
_File_information_and_Summary_description.png/250px-(FISD)_File_information_and_Summary_description.png)
_File_information_and_Summary_description.png)
.png){kind=link}
-Aporphine.gif){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
OK --Chatsam 
(coucou) 20:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Diplomatic_relations_of_Cambodia.svg&offset=20210516213813){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
