First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki ‒ it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

--SieBot 16:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ हिन्दी ∙ magyar ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

---

Hello, Bungle!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Image:99pstores diytools.jpg is uncategorized since 23 December 2008. BotMultichillT (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Dropped concealed 1.JPG was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Class 508 interior 1.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
• Image:Poundland stores.jpg was uncategorized on 20 September 2009.
• Image:99pstores stores.jpg was uncategorized on 23 September 2009.
• Image:Kodak Batteries.JPG was uncategorized on 19 October 2009.

File:Tjhughes_rooney_advert.jpg

File:Tjhughes_rooney_advert.jpg has been nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tjhughes_rooney_advert.jpg This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated page should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much! If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ кыргызча ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Acather96 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename request of a file you’ve uploaded

Hello Bungle, I usually grant rename requests of uploaders for their files, but your file Preston by-pass modern map.png has several issues:

• There’s a huge licence issue: For the first two file versions you must add {{ODbL OpenStreetMap}} as licence tag. I could add it myself, of course, but I think it would be better done by you.
• For the recent, active file version I do not see, where you’ve got the file. If it’s not from a free source this version must be deleted, and then your renaming request would be needless. If also this version is from a free source, you have to add an appropriate licence for this, too.
• In the last case it would be better to split the most recent version from the others. This could get the filename you requested, cf. COM:OVERWRITE.

For a version deletion or split request I could ask for you. — Speravir – 02:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Speravir: Yes, I seem to forgot to update the license! The original versions of the image are now redundant, so you may split the most recent version, plus the license amendments if you wish to a new file by the requested name, if that is the "done" thing to do? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In general there’s the template {{Split}} or, what I prefer, especially when there are more than two versions, Commons:History merging and splitting#Current requests. But: I fear your source isn’t that free as you thought. In Copyright - Map images - National Library of Scotland I read, that amongst others the Ordnance Survey, Seventh Series “… have been digitised under an agreement that restricts the release of images for certain commercial purposes.” You have to contact the library stuff then. But in Wikimedia universe all images must be suitable for commercial uses! So, either you go and ask for permission (read carefully Commons:OTRS) or your latest version has unfortunately to be deleted. Sorry for this. — Speravir – 18:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you clarify if uploading the image directly to the en.wikipedia archive, rather than wikimedia, would be more appropriate and conforming with any potential license restrictions? I appreciate the comment you make regarding the 7th series being subject to some exemptions. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You think of fair use, I guess. No, I cannot help here. You would have to ask yourself in enwiki, en:Wikipedia:Media copyright questions seems to be the right place. — Speravir – 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:Sky+HD EPG 1 - main entry screen (3408758843).jpg

العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ français ∙ hrvatski ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ slovenščina ∙ ไทย ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

This file may be deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Sky+HD EPG 1 - main entry screen (3408758843).jpg, is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such works would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a map that has been altered from the original. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work. While the description page states who made this derivative work, it currently doesn't specify who created the original work, so the overall copyright status is unclear. If you did not create the original work depicted in this image, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted. If you created the original content yourself, enter this information as the source. If someone else created the content, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

 

BevinKacon (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Granby4Streets

Sorry for the lack of photos but I've been laid rather low for a week of two and not able to walk long distances. I'm going to have a go on a short trip today and I'll get to these this week if that works out. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Hey, that's not a problem (I appreciate it was a request that is even trickier in these current conditions so did not want to press you on this at all, seeing as you're being so generous in the first place). I have been developing the article a fair bit, as you may or may not have seen; I am now just looking to try and add a photo or two of how it looks in the present day. Cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: I have now put the article up for a GA nomination. It would be great to be able to include any contemporary photos (the most recent one is of the market, taken by you as it happens!) Keep safe. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, I'm planning to go there later today. I think the article could do with some more pics of the regeneration and a "Granby4Streets" mural if there is one. Check in later. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. No sign of a mural, but I think this is a more community-lead project and it does not seem to have the finance that the Welsh Street have. Ducie Street is still all boarded up and is in the same state as 2012. The best images of refurb that I have found were in Beaconsfield Street: File:Refurbished houses on Beaconsfield Street 1.jpg & File:Refurbished houses on Beaconsfield Street 2.jpg. Jermyn Street and Cairns Street have had some work but still have tinned-up houses. Hope that's useful. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: That's great, thanks for taking the time to do this. I agree, I like those suggested photos as they clearly show the new builds contrasting to the existing architecture. I didn't think there was a mural, but this is based on what I could determine from street view and press images. I'll look at which one(s) work best, cheers. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Lon Chaney Jr.

Hello Bungle, I wanted to upload this file on ebay of American actor Lon Chaney Jr., but the problem is that I don't know if it is available for uploading on Commons or if it's copyrighted, so can you check for me please? Kensoup (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

@Kensoup: Hi, although the resolution offered by the seller is quite low, it's enough to work out that it has a copyright notice dated, I think, 1945 to Universal Pictures, so that rules out Template:PD-US-no notice. Based on many similar images of that time, it's quite likely it may be public domain under Template:PD-US-not renewed if it wasn't renewed after 28 years. Any renewal after that period should have been "around" 1973 and be listed in the renewal database, available for 1973 here (or a year before/after). It's worth checking anyway which contributes towards due diligence as it shouldn't be "assumed" to be PD (even though publicity film shots didn't usually have renewals, and some didn't even get released with copyright initially). It isn't my speciality though, so I can't say absolutely this to be the case. A good place to get some further clarity may be at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Please tag AI upscaled/enhanced images

Hello. Several of the images you've uploaded appear to be enhanced/upscaled by AI (e.g. File:Lillian Kemble-Cooper - Our Betters.jpg and File:Louise Groody 1928 Hit The Deck.jpg). This is controversial, as in the aim of making an image look 'nicer', it risks distorting what a subject actually looked like, with artifacts and elements not present in the original. It also has the common effect of making pictures of people look like eerie, subhuman caricatures (e.g. this man looks like a rat), because it's literally software trying to guess what a human face should look like. {{AI upscaled}} should be applied to your uploads where appropriate, but even so many people will choose to avoid reusing AI-upscaled images with obvious AI distortions altogether. See some background at Commons:AI-generated media. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

@Animalparty, thanks and yes, some recent images I had taken from poorer quality newspaper photos I had processed upscaling on to provide some enhancements. In some cases, the effect was more a sharpening, although I wasn't necessarily aware of the "AI upscaled" tag, so will be mindful of that. The portrait you noted "looks like a rat" is largely in part due to a blur effect being pre-processed to try and remove the halftone you can clearly see in the original, rather than exclusive upscaling, although I did try and enhance this a little thereafter.

I appreciate the topic of "AI generated" media is a controversial one, as is an image which has been "significantly altered" by an AI-powered engine (especially in the modelling industry for instance). I remain mindful about keeping faithful to an original production and have taken a pause the past few months to consider if further such uploads are viable and appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi, do you intend to add the {{AI upscaled}} tag to your earlier uploads? I've applied it to some obvious cases today, but it's not always apparent without comparing each photo to the original source. It would be better if you could add these templates yourself, if you're able to make these calls more quickly based on your own knowledge of the images.

Also bear in mind that if you're using other forms of digital enhancement on historical photos, these should ideally be noted with a {{Retouched}} template. Belbury (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury, yes absolutely, it's on my list to do. Thanks for reminding me, i'll expedite it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! And apologies for any mistakes I made while categorising. Belbury (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Belbury, I see you have made a start on quite a few and besides the revert I did, I can't argue with the others I have checked so far. I am going to do another round of searching to see if I can find better quality originals of those I have uploaded, without any processed enhancements. I'll also re-review some of the ones I did some time ago and consider if there is much value added (I appreciate that's rather subjective). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If you have the original files saved, it's always worth uploading both to Commons so that individual users and projects can choose which version to use. The manual of style on the English Wikipedia is to always use original photographs over AI upscales, so for images which are in use there, somebody will get around to uploading the original as a replacement eventually anyway (there's a backlog at en:Category:Articles containing AI-upscaled images). Belbury (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Animalparty and Belbury: in relation to this from a few months ago, I found some better quality originals of some earlier uploads, and in 2 cases uploaded a fresh rather than replacing. I then tagged two for deletion here and here. It doesn't seem like there has been any activity at all (in 3 months), so just wanted to check if this is/was the best approach? I'm less familiar with commons protocol than enwiki so forgive me if it isn't quite the right avenue to have gone down. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:05, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, that seems like the best way to handle it. It might be okay to just COM:OVERWRITE the upscaled versions with better quality originals if the files aren't in use anywhere, but this could be considered to have gone beyond "minor improvements". Belbury (talk) 08:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)