Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 11:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Testing, maybe adding a comment will archive this thread. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Now Commons has more than 123,456,789 files :). Does somebody know what the 123,456,789th file is? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would not bother. Its the last File when the list/count was made. Better to use the xxthe File of a round number or a specific time. That last would be dificult as the count is very fast and in many places.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

When I started to write this reply, the article ID 171_332_530 was the latest file, and Special:Statistics said 123_984_404 uploaded files. That means about 72% of pages on Commons are files. (I believe this counts only the latest versions of files, and only non-deleted ones, but all pages including ones that were later deleted.) If we assume that this frequency of files among pages was uniform in the history of Commons – a rather shaky assumption –, then we can interpolate that we reached 123_456_789 files around page ID 170_603_425, which is [a photo of a page from a periodical East Boston Ledger September 22, 1849, see the middle one below. This is inaccurate enough that it's fine to fudge it to some more interesting photos uploaded at close to the same time, see below. These were uploaded on 2025-07-24.

See also Commons:Milestones.

– b_jonas 10:13, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, sounds good :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think there are some problems with this image. No sources provided, only a link to en.wiki (Basque diaspora).--Carnby (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The descriptions file doesn't just point to enwiki. It says that the map is based in the sources in that article - which has sources. Therefore, to check the sources of the image you can go to the article - and maybe to the version of the article when the map was created - and check if they back the data in the map.

Of course, copying the references to file description page would be better.

And if after checking for sources you find the use of the map objectionable, you could post a message on the talk pages of four articles in four Wikipedias that use it. Pere prlpz (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNO
PQRSTUVWXYZÅÄÖ
abcdefghijklmno
pqrstuvwxyzåäö
1234567890

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the name of the template we use to show that a caption or a file name is or the person in the image is misidentified? Should we add to it that "Versions of this image may appear elsewhere on the internet still misidentified". We correct our version but cannot correct the other versions online. RAN (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): are you talking about {{Inaccurate description}}? - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I think there was one with more text, but this one will do. I thought there was a specific one at Template:Disputed..., but I do not see it. Here it is: {{Fact disputed}}, same concept but in red text.--RAN (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  If the title is factually wrong, the best course of action is to leave a message in the file's talk page and maybe notify the uploader. If you are very sure of what the title should be - or if some consensus has been reached in the talk page - you could use {{Rename}} to ask for the name to be changed. Pere prlpz (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the category Category:Khatumo and all its subcategories will need to be renamed "Waqooyi Bari" since the state has had a rename. Is there anyone with tools, a bot or a script, or someone with knowledge thereof to do a mass rename? Or will it have to be done manually? Girligaanshub (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are tools that help with this, the main ones that come to mind are Cat-a-lot and AWB (AutoWikiBrowser). @Auntof6: has experience dealing with mass edits related to categories and might know more or be able to help. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Girligaanshub and ReneeWrites: I find 436 categories that have the string "Khatumo" in the name. Seventeen of them appear to be redirects. If someone wants to verify that all these need to be changed, I could use those search results to generate a list of rename requests to hand to the bot User:CommonsDelinker. -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

436? Seems like overcategorization to me, a lot of those categories have one or even no files. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Per en:Talk:Khatumo State#Requested move 30 July 2025, although the state was indeed renamed to “Waqooyi Bari”, the users at en-wiki are waiting to see if there is an official English name for the state. So I think we should wait to see as well before renaming all the categories. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6: "Waqooyi Bari" literally means "north east"; I don't think it needs t be anglicized because (a) there's precedence for native renderings (example here), and the currently trending English rendering "North East federal state of Somalia" is too wordy for categories. Imagine for example the verbosity of category "Category:Maps of weather and climate of North East Federal State of Somalia". That title won't fit on a smartphne screen. As such, I would appreciate it if you could hand all current categories under the title "Khatumo" including variations like "SSC-Khatumo" to the bot User:CommonsDelinker for a name change to "Waqooyi Bari". Thank you very much, and I appreciate the help. Girligaanshub (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would make more sense to keep Khatumo as a subcategory of Waqooyi Bari for that part of its history, like how Zaire is a subcategory of the DRC. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I need a map update for en:Grindr, which is under UK government restrictions were enforced under the en:Online Safety Act 2023, per source: https://www.mambaonline.com/2025/08/01/grindr-introduces-mandatory-age-verification-in-the-uk/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutiva (talk • contribs)

First of all, the file is supposed to show where restrictions were applied from the app to safeguard the lives of LGBT people in countries considered homophobic, e.g. general access restrictions. The UK restrictions are requiring age verification and do not seem to be a homophobic measure.

Based on this first observation, you need to say which new color you would like to have introduced. In my opinion however, that would be a whole new other topic: "Countries where the Grindr app is age-restricted by law", with the options of "unaccessible" (copied over from this map here), "age-restricted" (the UK), "not age-restricted" (the rest of the world). --Enyavar (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Probably just "age-restricted" then, in light green, but only Grindr safety measures were taken. Absolutiva 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

So there is a bit of a dispute over the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan and Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) being discussed at Category_talk:Lamune_Onsenkan.

I made the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan and moved 4 images from Category:Nagayu Onsen to it. I did so solely based on the fact that they were all of the same building and labelled as this same building.

They created the category Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) 11 hours later and moved all of these files from Category:Lamune Onsenkan to Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa).

Both of us independently created wikidata entries on the topics, and I erroneously merged the wikidata entries but that conflict has been resolved.

Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) is the parent organization of Category:Lamune Onsenkan.

Is there an actual formal policy on this issue? My thought is that because it does not appear that there are any photos of Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) by itself, it should be a parent category containing Category:Lamune Onsenkan and Category:People of Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa) but no images. I think having all of the images in the top level category feeds a misconception that the Lamune Onsenkan building is the entirety of Daimaru Ryokan, when in reality it is just a single building in the complex. There are not good images of the entire complex but here is a birds eye view with google maps https://earth.google.com/web/search/Daimaru+Ryokan,+7992-1+Naoirimachi+%c5%8caza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita,+Japan/@33.06941941,131.3837959,457.47335541a,119.9101215d,35y,-60.5609887h,17.48856925t,0r/data=CrQBGoUBEn8KJTB4MzU0NmM5ZGRiNDdkZTViZDoweDYzNDgxY2JlM2Y1YzI4YjkZAMPy59uIQEAha_EpAEZsYEAqRERhaW1hcnUgUnlva2FuLCA3OTkyLTEgTmFvaXJpbWFjaGkgxYxhemEgTmFnYXl1LCBUYWtldGEsIE9pdGEsIEphcGFuGAEgASImCiQJUTQCewCNQEARVD0j5ZWBQEAZWgCRL05tYEAhNYs6PEVrYEBCAggBOgMKATBCAggASg0I____________ARAA and here is street view https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0692755,131.3833934,3a,90y,109.68h,93.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sLyeojkDk85J68Ls5mTOMZA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-3.744474460873988%26panoid%3DLyeojkDk85J68Ls5mTOMZA%26yaw%3D109.68240970887084!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D so it appears to be a rather large complex, with apparently Lamune Onsen being the only building to have many photos taken of it. Looking for things I did find one image I think is of Daimaru Ryokan which was unlabelled though File:忘れられない、長湯温泉 - panoramio.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:02, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Actually I misidentified buildings and the complexes are not even connected. https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lamune+Onsen,+7676-2+Naoirimachi+%C5%8Caza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita,+Japan/Daimaru+Ryokan,+7992-1+Naoirimachi+Oaza+Nagayu,+Taketa,+Oita+878-0402,+Japan/@33.0687787,131.3811538,19z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x353f0273012d9271:0xa154c576e605447f!2m2!1d131.3800693!2d33.0683315!1m5!1m1!1s0x3546c9ddb47de5bd:0x63481cbe3f5c28b9!2m2!1d131.383545!2d33.069211?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:08, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am very tempted to be bold and add

{{En|'''Lamune Onsenkan''' is a building of [[:Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa)|Daimaru Ryokan]] in [[:w:en:Taketa, Ōita|Taketa City]], [[:w:en:Ōita Prefecture|Ōita Prefecture]], [[:w:en:Japan|Japan]].}} [[Category:Daimaru Ryokan (Taketa)]]

to the category Category:Lamune Onsenkan. But I do not want to engage in edit warring.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:20, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You really should have pinged Japaneseviewtifullsaitoshiingu about this discussion. I am doing so now. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) has recently put out a call for people interested in becoming a non-voting member. Through last year's annual review, the community approved appointment of up to 4 non-voting members, and the U4C has now created a place and process for volunteers to express their interest. If you know of anyone who might be interested please point them out way. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask us (or ask me here). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

Hi, Please see en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#Possible misidentification of astronauts. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the context of addressing the recent overuse of "under section" templates (see discussion), I plan to replace all remaining uses of the {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} template with {{Non-Nazi swastika}}, because the two countries mentioned in the former (China and Russia) are authoritarian regimes that block or restrict Wikimedia projects anyway (see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Chinese sensitive content and Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Extremist symbol in Russia): however, the [edit: non-Nazi] swastika disclaimer still applies.

This is not yet a deletion request, because a number of files still use the {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} template and would need to be updated to use {{Non-Nazi swastika}} instead. --Minoa (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me that the Falun Gong swastika is quite different from the Nazi swastika. File:Falun Gong Logo.jpg, for example, is currently tagged with both of these templates. It is precisely an image of the Falun Gong swastika, and could not readily be mistaken for a Nazi swastika except by someone who thinks that all swastikas are Nazi symbols. - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the Falun Gong swastika looks quite different from a Nazi swastika and the Falun Gong swastika is not that different from a manji. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not to worry, I am aware of the difference between religious and political swastikas: the proposal relates to a template that appears to apply only to China and Russia, both authoritarian regimes that block or restrict Wikimedia projects anyway. I also realise that duplication may be a second reason for phasing out {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}}, since {{Non-Nazi swastika}} also covers religious contexts (e.g. Hinduism and Jainism). --Minoa (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

How on earth did we end up in a situation where {{Non-Falun Gong swastika}} is used on File:Falun Gong Logo.svg? Surely the swastika in the Falun Gong logo is a Falun Gong swastika? In any case,  Support the removal of this template per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Zionist symbol, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Chinese sensitive content, and a number of other related discussions. The correct replacement is probably {{Non-Nazi swastika}}. Omphalographer (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The U4C is re-opening our investigation into the Commons and UCoC enforcement case following the six month pause. We note that the Commons community incorporated the UCoC into their desysop procedures. We are re-opening this for any new evidence for 2 weeks, after which we will decide if any further action is needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

The following image is likely incorrectly dual-licensed. I did not find a relevant discussion for what the appropriate licence should be File:(Enhanced Version) Manal Awad Mikhail 1.png.

As it stands it is both licensed under {{youtube}} and {{PD-algorithm}}. I believe there are more cases of this at Category:PD-algorithm. CFCF (talk) 17:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of slop here, and some images like File:1663Bowerie.jpg just seem to be entirely incorrectly licensed. CFCF (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

The RFC is here: User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace_images_with_.svg_version, please answer there. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://gamehistory.org/computerentertainer/

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

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

I have created a new category, , removed the redirect and enabled the category and moved the pictures from into their corresponding subcategories. I would like to ask for some help since the two subcategories don't seem to find their corresponding wikidata item. I would like to ask for a revision of the work I have done myself in order to improve the outcome. Thank you in advance!

Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

•  Done. @Buran Biggest Fan: Here are the steps you left out: [1], [2]. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you very much! Buran Biggest Fan (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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