You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
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!
If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, 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. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
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!
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!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
This is a deletion request for the community to discuss whether the nominated contents should be kept or deleted. Please voice your opinion in the linked request above. Thank you very much!
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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!
It didn't come up in my search and I forgot to update the deletion nom. Sorry about that. Based5290 (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
No problem, it's gone now:) Renerpho (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2025 voting is open!
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because we noticed that you previously voted in the Picture of the Year contest. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favourite images featured on Commons during the last year (2025) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
In this second and final round, you may vote for a maximum of five images. The image with the most votes will become the Picture of the Year 2025.
Announcing the Winners of Picture of the Year 2025!
Hi everyone,
Wikimedia Commons is pleased to finally announce the winners of this year's Picture of the Year 2025 contest! We had some truly incredible finalists to choose from, but the community has spoken.
Here are your top three winning images:
First place: The aftermath of an Israeli airstrike in Gaza City on October 9, 2023, leaving widespread destruction in the Rimal area. Attribution: WAFA (Q2915969) / CC-BY-SA 3.0
Second place: Baby cape fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus) sleeping at Cape cross, Namibia. Attribution: Giles Laurent / CC-BY-SA 4.0
Third place: A gigantic jet photographed from the International Space Station by astronaut Nichole Ayers. Attribution: public domain
You can view the full results and see where all your favorite images placed here: Full 2025 Results
I also want to highlight what an incredible turnout we had. In the second round, we saw a massive jump in both the number of users voting and the total votes cast. We had exactly 13,979 votes cast by 3,509 users! To put that in perspective, last year we had 7,403 votes from 2,837 users. It is amazing to see that level of growth and community engagement.
Thank you to everyone who voted, helped organize, and generally made the contest such a huge success this year!
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!
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!
Question on third-party images in collective works
As I'm currently aiming to clean out my list of uploads from any plausible copyvios, I have recalled your comment here about how third-party photos in publications may still be protected by copyright even if no specific copyright notice was attached to the image in the publication (eg. news agency photos published in newspapers with copyright notice in the masthead). So, to make sure I understand the criteria for protection of such works:
the image must have been published between 1964 and Feb. 1989
the third-party image must have been initially published in all (or possibly a majority of) collective works without a copyright notice
this notice may be for the individual third-party image or for the publication as a whole
However, I still have a question for such images published 1931-1964. Do the third-party images have to be renewed separately or does a renewal for the collective work also apply for the third-party image. For example, (to the best of my knowledge) the image File:Photo of David Beresford Pratt.png was initially published in the NYT in 1960. The image is attributed to AP, but the issue bears a valid copyright notice. Assuming the NYT renewed their copyright to the issue (almost certainly the case), does that renewal also apply to the AP photo within the issue, even though the copyright to the photo was not specifically renewed? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
I can't really say much about that situation, as it's apparently an unsettled question? The best I can do is point in the direction of a previous discussion at VPC and a 1955 law journal article discussing renewals on collective works and whether they apply to the individual contributions. Wikisource suggests that renewals on the periodical do protect the contributions, while the aformentioned article suggest that if the copyright in the contribution was not owned by the owner of the periodical, the periodical's renewal could not protect the contribution's copyright. If there's any case law about this situation, I haven't been able to find it. I will note that for File:Photo of David Beresford Pratt.png, it is easier to just invoke {{PD-US-no notice}} due to republications in other newspapers (see for example The Atlanta Journal and the Lexington Herald-Leader), as a renewal cannot revive a forfeited copyright.
As a side note, Wikisource's position puts stuff like File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg, which was published with proper notice and plastered on the front page of the NYT in a weird spot. I'd argue that Wikisource is simply wrong in this case; dozens of newspapers purchased the right to use the image, so how can a renewal for just one of these republishers protect the photo in the rest? Based5290 (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
If the question for such works is unsettled, do you believe that COM:PCP still ensures deletion? – Howardcorn33 (💬) 14:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
It depends. I'd say in the cases where a periodical is the sole publisher of some work, I think COM:PCP does ensure deletion (in part because it is often unclear whether the copyright is owned by the "actual author" or the periodical publisher; in the latter case the renewal obviously applies). For example, if someone uploaded Charles Moore's photos that were published in LIFE magazine (with proper notice and renewal for the magazine), I'd favor deletion on PCP grounds. In the case of content that's syndicated to multiple newspapers, I think deletion would be stretching PCP; see my argument about File:Ruby shoots Oswald.jpg above. Based5290 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Thanks. I have sifted through my uploads to find out the probable violations and nominated them now here. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 12:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
There is a thing called unvested copyright renewals, sometimes periodical renewals don’t count for the contributions. FernWalters20 (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)