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.

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

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

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

should a new template be made for scans of this magazine? Howardcorn33 (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

yes Trade (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

ok then. I created {{Computer Entertainer VGHF}} just now. Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh crud. i'm finding it difficult to manually replace all the tags. :( is there an automated way? Howardcorn33 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Howardcorn33: While I'm not clear on the specifics of what you are trying to replace with what, the usual tool for this sort of thing is VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thoughts on the change i made to the template? @Howardcorn33 and Jmabel: --Trade (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

why does it say “ This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required.” at the bottom? doesn't the CC-BY 4.0 notice suffice? Howardcorn33 (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are 3 notices in this template. The last line of the last notice refers to the second cc-by 4.0 notice being required. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

ah well, i wont debate this further Howardcorn33 (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've made some edits; shorter and communicates the same information. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 10 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

Convenience link: Category:Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection at UCLA. Yann (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

Hello! I have come across some scans of books with old Danish law text. There are 29 files at https://lokalhistoriewiki.no/wiki/Schous_forordninger (a Norwegan source). Many of the files can be downloaded in either low or high resolution. The total size of the files in low res is 5,94 GB and the size in high res is 9.93 GB. I compared 2 files and could not really see any difference. But I do not know if it will make a difference when making OCR. My question is if I should upload high res or low res. Thoughts? MGA73 (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@MGA73: always high res. - Jmabel ! talk 20:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I have uploaded a few files and added them to Category:Chronologisk Register over de Kongelige Forordninger og Aabne Breve, samt andre trykte Anordninger (1670–1849). Rest will be uploaded later. --MGA73 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I ask this in regards to File:Rhea Perlman Danny DeVito 2006.jpg which allows us "to remix" the work. I've used a magic eraser app to remove Rhea Perlman to leave only Danny DeVito so that when using his image (here), it doesn't have a third of someone else's face in it when cropped. This hasn't changed his image but has filled in his shirt shoulder where Perlman was. Is this something deemed acceptable? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Darkwarriorblake: on the linked page on ibb.co, I don't see the required indication of the CC-BY 2.0 license, nor do I see the required attribution for the underlying photo to Flickr user "amyrod", nor the required indication of what changes were made. So as it stands, this is a copyright violation, but entirely remediable. In general: if you are using a photo under a license, you need to conform to the terms of the license.

Are you talking about the potential of uploading this back to Commons? If so there are several more considerations, but I won't bother spelling them out unless you want to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

So the IBB one is my modified version based on the one uploaded to Wikimedia already, I didn't want to upload it to Wikipedia in case it was a violation, so there is no tag. So yes, I'm talking about the potential for adapting the work per the existing license and uploading my modified version as a derivative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, this is acceptable. Photos can be cropped and retouched, and it's fine to use AI to do that. There are some restrictions placed on the use of AI itself, but they don't apply to your example.

Slightly longer answer: If you make a derivative version of a file (such as a crop or a retouched version), it should be uploaded under a license that's compatible with the original. Usually this is done by just copying the old license - this is what the crop tool does, for instance. There are some restrictions around the use of AI itself - there's a policy against old files being overwritten by versions upscaled/retouched with AI (think artificial sharpening, removing of wrinkles, etc.), but the subject in your photo has been unaffected by that. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, yes that is my intention, to upload it as a derivative and not overwrite the original. I typically do basic crops in this manner, but this is the only clear image of him close to the 80s and 90s, but because of the second subject it's not possible to crop it through normal means without having a distracting piece of another person in the cropped image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hypothethically speaking if we had a freely licensed photo that showed DePaço to a meeting at the organization that he allegedly founded would we be allowed to host it on Commons? Trade (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Quoting Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), " Different communities may take different approaches to how they handle this, aligned with their content governance and editorial practices. Some language versions might have different views on the question between balancing access to information about a notable subject vs. the risk of confusion and repeat additions of material deemed illegal. Some languages may prefer a policy of deleting the entire article if something like this happens and others might prefer editor warnings or a case by case analysis. My view is that it’s good if each language makes that determination for themselves."--Trade (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see no issues to host any images not previously demanded to be removed. No need to censor more (and other projects) unless we're forced to (and if so, I suspect WMF Office will do the dirty work of deleting such an image). However, if the uploader wishes for their username to be hidden from public view as a precaution, a revision deletion of the username can be done and would be supported by me. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Does that not go against Commons:PRECAUTION? It seems like the only reason the court order only specifies ENWP/PTWP is because the judge is ignorant about the structure of Wikimedia. Keeping the photo here would essentially be exploiting that Trade (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Commons hosts freely licensed media in scope. The court order didn't demand removal of images from Commons or ban photos of the subject. WMF confirmed it concerns only specific criminal facts and related procedural issues, not lawful, freely licensed images. Commons is not a place for censorship. Commons:PRECAUTION is about licensing: we keep files with clear free licenses or public domain status. Non-copyright restrictions (COM:NCR) may apply here, but they do not justify applying COM:PRP to remove lawful images. Whether an image appears in a Wikipedia article is an editorial choice, not a Commons issue.

Until WMF receives a valid legal order explicitly targeting Commons, there's no basis to take down such images. WMF Legal or Trust & Safety would handle any such order. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jonatan. WMF would take it down via office action if a valid legal order said to do so. I as a volunteer would not or would never delete a photograph to please a government. Abzeronow (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. Mass license tagging:

• • All licenses in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons need to be changed to {{MIT|2011–2022 Wikimedia Design & OOUI team and other contributors.|Expat}}. Is there a userscript or tool I could use for this?

1. Check SVGs against GitHub for changes:

• • First rename all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons per naming convention in repository
  • Check all SVGs in Category:Wikimedia Codex icons against gerrit repo: */main/packages/codex-icons/src/; or on GitHub: wikimedia/design-codex/tree/main/packages/codex-icons/src.
  • Do the same but colorise all images as appropriate based on their actions etc. -- I know which ones need to be @color-destructive etc.

Thanks! Waddie96 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply