Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/09

Crop tool

Is CropTool broken again? I can select my crop, but when I try to overwrite the original, I get "Upload failed! undefined". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Andy, I tested Crop tool and have the same error. --Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used it to crop this file, so it's either working again, or only failing for some users. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Working again for me, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-09

In August 2025, 1 sysop was elected; 2 sysops were removed. Currently, there are 178 sysops.

Election:

• User:Theklan was elected sysop (26/4/2) on 28 August.

Removal:

• User:Jean-Frédéric was removed on 12 August due to inactivity. He had served as sysop from 8 December 2009.
• User:JoKalliauer was removed on 6 August due to resignation. He had served as sysop from 17 June 2019.

We thank them for their service.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

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

--RoyZuo (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Watergate video copyright

Are videos such as this one produced by the federal government (and thus public domain)? The titlecard says "Org. from WETA" (this being a DC-area PBS station) but it gives no indication as to whether WETA owned the copyright or was merely the first broadcaster. Marnanel (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Marnanel: At 1:08:58 there is a spoken credit, appparently to NPACT (National Public Affairs Center for Television), which was at that time part of WETA, a PBS affiliate. So it would seem to me that WETA would be the likely copyright holder. The question would then be whether they did what was necessary in those days to secure copyright for a television broadcast. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from China by year

to move Books from China from, for example Category:1398 books into Category:1398 books from China I have to open each file, edit and save it. There are rather a lot of them. Is there any way of processing them in bulk? Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Assuming I understand what your asking about, you can use Cat-A-Lot to do bulk file moves. It can be enabled in your preferences at the top of the "tools for categories" section. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Catalot does not do what I want. All these files are already in the appropriate year category, but to get them to move they have to be opened, edited and saved. Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I see what your talking about now. I have zero idea what the problem is then. That's a weird issues. Probably it's caused by something in Template:Digitized Ancient Book in the National Library of China. Although heck if I know what. That's one of the problems with templates on here. It's darn near impossible to figure what how to fix problems with them when they go wrong. It looks like the creator of it, User:虹易 isn't really active anymore either. IMO the template should just be removed from the files and it should be deleted. It's totally pointless anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Help:VisualFileChange.js might work if you know what string you want to replace, and if you know how to write that string in Regex. Nakonana (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder, if you want to do null edits (saving without editing anything) in bulk, you can use VFC as menetioned above, select the files and then prepend/append {{subst:void}}. This should save a lot of time compared to doing it individually. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I dont need to change anything - they are are all - I think- marked as being in the category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say, as a test, I have just used VFC to do null edits on the files in Category:1398 books, so that’s why they are marked correctly. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Will null edits help? It looks like there's some template-like string in the license section which adds the general 1398 books category and prevents moving the files into a different category. I'd think that that string needs to be either deleted or replaced to move the files. Nakonana (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a null edit. But how can I do a load at once? Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to install Visual File Change. This will add a "Perform batch task" link to the tools menu on the category page. If you click that link, a window will open where you can choose the option "prepend any text" or "append any text", and there'll be a text box for the text you want to prepend/append, that's where you write {{Subst:void}}. And then select the files on which you want to perform that edit. Nakonana (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will have a try. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

VisualFileChange doesnt appear in my preferences under gadgets. Is it hidden somewhere?

and when I try Automatic: click here and follow the instructions. I just come back to the same Help:VisualFileChange.js page - I dont get any instructions Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

But Try it without installing does work! Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you might need to have a particular user status/group for it to appear in the gadgets list. You'll probably have to install it manually or use it without installing. Nakonana (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I dont understand how to use Subst:void. Is there an explanation somewhere? Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Explanations of what the templates do can be found on enwiki Wikipedia:Substitution and Template:Void. Nakonana (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

CropTool only possible of rotation by 90, 180 and 270° ?

I've noticed that it's no longer possible to rotate to any desired angle in the CropTool. Only 90, 180, and 270°. Has this been changed? Wouter (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: You are probably in "Lossless" mode rather than "Precise" mode. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!! Wouter (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Close relative created files uploaded

I was searching for some railway related picture and found some pictures which were uploaded by Santosh4118 which were not their original work, it says Uploaded a work by Arjun Arvind (Brother) from WhatsApp with UploadWizard. Is this ok to upload files of someone else without vrts.––KEmel49(📝,📤) 16:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No (unless they happen to be freely licenced, or inherited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Creating a searchable list of my Commons uploads

I have uploaded hundreds of photos during the past 15 years. Sometimes I want to check on one. Scrolling through pages of them to find the right one is a pain. Other than selecting a page, copying and pasting into, say, Microsoft Word, is there a solution that allows, at least, searching of the file names? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@SCHolar44: "Hundreds" should be pretty easy (says someone with about 70,000). You can easily create a user category, use Vfc or Cat-a-lot (once) on your uploads list to put them all in that category, and then use "incategory" in future searches to search within that category. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to search for InsertFileNameOrSearchTermsHere "Author SCHolar44". It however only works for files of which you indicated you are the author (it basically looks up the Author field of the Information/Summary box). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

only filenames:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&user=SCHolar44&type=upload&limit=500
2. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/commons.wikimedia.org/SCHolar44/6/noredirects/live

with thumbnails

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=SCHolar44&ilshowall=1
2. Commons:MyGallery.

RoyZuo (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And if you want to get just full list of files to copy paste you can use Quarry: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/96868 . If you need a thumbnails from filelist you can create user page with

<gallery>
image1.jpg
image2.jpg
image3.jpg
...
</gallery>

It is manual work, but best i could figure out. --Zache (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, Commons:SPARQL query service is great for finding and organizing your images. For example, it's possible to make a list of the filenames of all your images to download and search with any editor. The queries I use the most are in User:Pere_prlpz#Consultes and those should be easy to adapt for anybody else.

The only drawback is that the photographer needs to be identified in the metadata, but there are some bots doing that and they work fine most of the time - sometimes they miss a few files. Pere prlpz (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, Jmabel, HyperGaruda, RoyZuo, Zache and Pere prlpz! They are very interesting alternatives. Zache's gave me precisely what I needed and already it's saving me much time. Brilliant! :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

How to handle transitive image extractions?

It's a bit difficult to explain with words, so let me provide an example.

Suppose I want to have this portrait from the book File:Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).pdf.

It comes from Page 9 of that PDF. Logically speaking, I would have to extract an image from that PDF first before cropping into the relevant parts.

My concern is, should I upload that extracted image to Commons before cropping (File:Page 9 of Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).jpg) and if so, how should I handle using the Template:Extracted from and Template:Image extracted templates? Or does that overcomplicate things and I should just upload the cropped version?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkinslow (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You certainly can upload just the cropped image, but other people might find the uncropped version useful so if you upload it as well it makes things easier for others later. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If the uncropped image doesn't have additional value (such as this case), my usual method is to upload the uncropped version and then overwrite it with the cropped version. That way the uncropped version is available in the file history, but it doesn't have its own file page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Pi.1415926535. That is also my usual approach when I'm uploading modified version of a photo I took, as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Check categories template

This doesnt seem to be working properly. If I change any other categories as well as clicking to check I get a message "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." But that is not what happens. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you by any chance edited the "captions" of the file before editing the categories? I always get the above message after editing the captions. Nakonana (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, any structural data. I always reload the page and then add the category. Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

No I'm just editting categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons 21st anniversary

Commons is 21 years old, so some sweets for the Occasion! EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy birthday to Commons! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A user or a bot is deleting a category for mexican food

I don't know if this behavior is correct. It's erasing the Category:Cuisine of Mexico category from many images. It seems to me that having that category, or the food category from a state in Mexico, helps people find that image. But I don't know if what it's doing is correct.

this is the record of changes:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:9101:8232:2C72:EB:5C25:6C87

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffermejia (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons I hate dealing with IP edits: no edit summaries and no way to discuss edits that may or may not have a reasonable rationale.

If categories for specific foods are present, and those trace up the hierarchy to Category:Cuisine of Mexico, this may be fine. For example, File:Burrito Hermosillo.jpg => Category:Burritos => Category:Traditional food of Mexico => Category:Food of Mexico => Category:Cuisine of Mexico, so it's as reasonable to remove Category:Cuisine of Mexico from that file as it would be to remove Category:Food.

Someone might want to look at these and see if some are problematic, but on the basis of the above, I suspect they won't be. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

These generally look like good changes - in some edits like Special:Diff/1082293476, the IP is replacing Category:Cuisine of Mexico with a more specific category; in others like Special:Diff/1082301758, they're removing the category when it's redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have both these categories?

Is it necessary to have both Category:Portland, Dorset and Category:Isle of Portland? The former is said to be a civil parish, and the latter a tied island, but in practice it is hard to know which category to use for any given image. If we look at, say, Category:Isle of Wight, this combines "island, county and unitary authority area", i.e. both geographical and administrative, into one category. Should the same be done with Portland? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Combine them No useful difference. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"AjaxMassDelete"

Is there still such a thing as AjaxMassDelete distinct from VisualFileChange (VFC)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are the same thing. Even the help page for VFC says "formerly sometimes known as AMD". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, lol, sorry then. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Digging through the page history, it seems AjaxMassDelete was originally created as a mass-deletion version of AjaxQuickDelete. Eventually, Rillke (the creator) added more features to the gadget, and renamed it to “VisualFileChange” (see diff [1]). So, I think it’s accurate to say “VisualFileChange, formerly sometimes known as AjaxMassDelete”, as it is the creator who rename the gadget. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good work all. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Finally resolving this cfd

This cfd Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha has been going for 20 months. I really want to try to resolve it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Unidentified vs. unideintifiable locations

A prickly issue

From time to time, I work my way through Category:Unidentified locations in the United Kingdom and its subcategories, and identify the locations of those I can.

However, some of the images, like the one above, are never going to be geo-located. Should the be recategorised to the highest knowable level (in this case, "Category:Edinburgh", or put into something like "Category:Unidentifiable locations in Edinburgh.

I'm sure the same issue occurs in other parts of the world, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I've been working on the unidentified locations categories too, and this thought also crossed my mind. The trouble is, every image is possibly locatable. For example, I've just added coordinates to the thistles image you linked, which I managed to figure out through a combination of looking at the Flickr user's other images from the same day and dumb luck of plonking myself down on Street View right next to it (I was trying to get the same perspective as one of their other images and noticed the stonework was similar). Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The idea of categories for unidentified images has always seemed oxymoronic to me. Most of the time they are just used as dumps for images people can't be bothered to better categorize so the parent cat can be empty. The whole idea of the category system is nonsensical and half baked though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

For images like your example, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the "unidentified locations..." category, or replace it with a category for the approximate location. It's neat that Sam Walton was able to find an exact location for this one, but it isn't something we should expect to do for every image. Precise locations only really matter for photos which depict individually notable places, objects, or events. Omphalographer (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's the problem, though. You don't want to clog up Category:Edinburgh with the detritus of dozens (or hundreds) of images where all we know about their location is that they are in Edinburgh.

I've dealt with this extensively for Category:Seattle. Over time I've been able to give at least approximate locations (e.g. neighborhood) to literally thousands of images that were in that category. At the same time, there have been a thousand or so where I couldn't do that. We don't want to lose the relationship to Seattle, but surely we do not want to throw all of what is in Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington directly into Category:Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't mean throwing images directly into location categories, but placing them into location-based categories appropriate to their content, e.g. "plants in Edinburgh" or what-have-you. And yes - distinguishing between files with unknown locations which are knowable and significant, and ones whose location is unknowable or irrelevant, is important. We don't need to locate every photo just for the sake of doing it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue I tried to raise here is the difference between "Images needing more precise location" and "Images that cannot be located more precisely". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is a potentially useful distinction. Though as Samwalton9 evidences above, sometimes you can have the surprise of precisely locating something where you never would have imagined it was possible. I've certainly had that happen now and then. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

images people can't be bothered to better categorize - I do understand Adamant was targeting mostly the uploaders, in this quote from above. If a contributor adds regularly to Commons, they definitely should do this work by themselves. But there are still those who don't know how things are properly categorized in the first place. That is why it often falls to a voluntary user group, "categorizers", who sort images in the right category. However, in this line of work I often come across images that I feel I should really not "be bothered" about much. But I can still push them in the right direction, like "unidentified plants", "unidentified politicians of India", etc., based on the obvious image content.

There ARE experts among the categorizers who specialize in biology or who can read Hindi: Why should I spend 10-30 minutes to educate myself enough to "properly" categorize an image down to the final correct category, when I can easily push it in the right direction, by assigning an "unidentified" category, and continue with 10-30 more files in quick succession?

So I say that "unidentified" categories are necessary for maintenance purposes. For truly unidentifiable locations, I would not object to a category like "unidentifiable locations", where the really tough nuts can be placed. With those thistles in Edinburgh, I think they are a good addition to "Nature of Edinburgh"... but if we had no clue where in the world they are, I also think it should be okay to just categorize them in the biological category and ignore the issue of location. --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Uploaders sure. I was mainly thinking of something like Category:Unidentified logos where we know what 99% of the logos are of (because their logos obviously), a lot of them are already in other sub-categories of the parent, but people just dump images there because they don't want the main category to be filled with images (even though it is already). I'd 100% say in that case it's just pure laziness because people don't want to bother actually putting the images anywhere else. I'd say a category for "unidentified logos" is oxymoronic though because it's inherent to a logo to know what it's a logo of.

Like the category contains File:A. Zerega's Sons, Inc. logo 01.png. We know that's a logo for A. Zerega's Sons. Yeah, maybe we don't know exactly what type of business it is, the country it's located in, or whatever. But so what? That doesn't make it "unidentified" and it would have taken 10 seconds to do a Google search and find out more information about the business so it could be put in a better category instead of just dumping it a meaningless category and calling it good there.

You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This was about geographic locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"images people can't be bothered to better categorize"—There are also:

• Newbies who don't know how we categorise
• People with photos that they know will be of use to us, but they genuinely don't know where they took them (maybe it was thirty or more years ago...)
• People pulling in photos from Flickr, US Government sites, etc., where the location is not clearly identified.

I have seen examples of all of these in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for that :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

reverse Flickrwashing

Have a question about what's basically the opposite of "Flickrwashing". This image is an official U.S. Navy photo - and it says as much in the image description! - but it's also listed as "All rights reserved". Given this is a goverment image, and is stated as such, it's PD-Navy. Is there anything I should do when uploading it to indicate that the "All rights reserved" on Flickr is invalid due to this? - The Bushranger (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Media that is PD allows anybody to do whatever they want with it, even declaring that they own rights when it's not the case. Of course, other people are free to ignore such a statement... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, there are statutes that define a legal meaning of the term "fraud," but not every lie is a crime.

In the U.S. (unlike France) there is no law against falsely claiming that a public domain work is your own. There is no law even against having someone pay you for the right to use it: in fact people sell good prints of PD photos all the time, often with no attribution to the known original photographer, but with the name of the individual or company (looking at you, Alamy) that is selling it. As far as I know, they could even put a © symbol on it without breaking any law. What would presumably be illegal is demanding payment from someone who used or reproduced the photo (e.g. in a book), basing your case on a false claim that you own the copyright, though even that would be a tough case to pursue without enough of a pattern of such shakedowns to show it was intentional. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger No, nothing special you need to do, just use an appropriate PD tag when uploading, and don't include a {{Flickrreview}} tag. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You could also rely upon the original publication: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6400067 Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: if you happen to involve yourself again with imagery from the US military, I think taht you can safely assume that Flickr is only a secondary source for (older) images. They should most often be available through official archives, which will provide the most extensive description possible. In the past days, I used https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc.html and https://catalog.archives.gov/ to search; there may be other addresses. In case you need it, I suggest asking on a EN-WP reference desk, there should be people more knowledgeable than me about these matters. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If-then categorization in by-year template

Looking at Template:USA-churchphotoyear, it looks like (a year ago) somebody tried to add an if-then parameter to the categories it adds when used, so that if there's a "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" category for that year, it sorts "Category:Churches in the United States photographed in year" under it, but if there is not, it categorizes in "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year". The thing is, this isn't working; it's categorizing categories using the template into both parent categories (see for instance Category:Buildings in the United States photographed in 2025, which has Category:Churches in the United States photographed in 2025 both as a direct subcategory and as a subcategory of Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in 2025). I'm not sure what's causing this to not work (or if this sort of thing can even work at all?) so if somebody with more knowledge can take a look at this? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kreuz und quer: Since their the one who added the code (personally, I'd just delete it if they don't respond). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I fixed the template, the template was checking if "Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" exist, when it supposed to check if "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year". This means the template always categorize the pages into "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year" no matter what.

The reason the church category also has the religious building category as a parent category is because it was added manually (not through the template, see edit where I removed it [2]). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

...and I feel silly for not having noticed that now. Thanks for the fix! - The Bushranger (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Everyone -- good catch and thanks for the fix! Kreuz und quer (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Desysop of A.Savin for 1 year

A.Savin has been desysopped for 1 year after the passed U4C Motion. After 1 year, they may reapply by an election/RfA on Commons. We thank A.Savin for their service. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

How do i block my myselg

im self deteriorating right now can i please be blocked Cyberwolf (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, we all do mistakes. Just tell me what the issue is, ok? Trade (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf: you can't block yourself, but if you like I can put a 6-month (or whatever) block on your account. If you change your mind, then like any block, you can appeal it and in the circumstances the appeal would readily be granted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m calm i apolize Cyberwolf (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Global discussion on Welcome messages

Sorry that this message is in English. Please help translate to your language. There is a request for comment at m:Special:MyLanguage/Requests for comment/Welcoming policy on a proposal to forbid sending welcome messages to users who have not made an edit, which is currently in practice at your wiki. Your comment on this matter would be appreciated.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)