Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/12

Freedom of panorama, Norway

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway#Freedom_of_panorama I believe this is wrong. According to the Norwegian Copyright Act (Åndsverkloven) § 23 (1), works of art that are permanently placed in or at a public space may be freely depicted, unless to be used commercially. This means that photographing and publishing such images is permitted without obtaining permission from the rights holder. Source: Åndsverkloven (Copyright Act) § 23 (1).

Because of how this has been interpreted, I've noticed that photos of a few public artworks/statues have been unnecessarily deleted. Birdesigns (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"unless to be used commercially" exactly means that we can not host the images. Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:Licensing: Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose. --Rosenzweig τ 15:04, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m commenting on my own post to point out that Norwegian law / the Copyright Act distinguishes between commercial use (press, magazines, merchandise) – which is allowed – and advertising – which is not. I was not aware (as I should have been) that Commons doesn't make this exception/distinction. Birdesigns (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Birdesigns: Can you cite something that substantiates that distinction?

I'm not sure where that distinction, if valid, leaves us. We've accepted the equivalent for pictures in the U.S. as a personality rights issue (hence non-copyright); however, this seems to be more of a true copyright matter than that. - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Files with no machine-readable source

I cannot see a difference in the source data between File:David Ogilvie 23.jpg and File:David Ogilvie 24.jpg. Yet, the #24 file pulls through a source in the information template, whilst the #23 file does not. Hence, the #23 file gets put into the Files with no machine-readable source category. Can anyone work out what's going on, please? Schwede66 22:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Schwede66: The one that works uses described at URL (P973) where the one that does not uses work available at URL (P953). - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the difference, Jmabel. I thought I was going mad. Schwede66 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a category for text files that need OCR run on them?

Do we have a category for text files that need OCR run on them? RAN (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Yes, Category:Needing transcription is that, I think. It's added with {{Transcribe here}}. Sam Wilson 23:27, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Otto Warmbier is missing

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Category:Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier is empty. I assume, it contained one or more now deleted files. But if empty, it cannot fulfull its purpose --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Arrest and death of Otto Warmbier. So the cat should be deleted, IMO --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Why did you make a thread about this? Prototyperspective (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @PantheraLeo1359531, in that case it would be best to create a deletion request for it at Commons:Deletion requests Commons:Categories for discussion :-) --SimmeD (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

No, empty categories can just be speedied. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, Well, there you got it :-) —SimmeD (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Scans of papyri

In continuation of a previous similar discussion: are scans of papyri (which are completely two-dimensional) I find online free to upload to Commons? for example this one.

Tagging Jmabel who helped me a lot in the previous discussion. פעמי-עליון (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Looks like a simple technical reproduction to me --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Fyi, Morgan Library and Museum terms and conditions states, "The Morgan will not grant permission for the reproduction or commercial use of these low resolution downloadable images." -- Ooligan (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

That last sounds to me like an unenforceable non-copyright restriction. That same terms and conditions page also claims the images are all coyrighted, which this image clearly is not. It would apply to anything copyrightable on their site, but cannot apply to public-domain images. This is exactly what {{PD-Art}} is about. - Jmabel ! talk 03:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for those details @Jmabel.

Great discovery @פעמי-עליון. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If there are follow-up questions, please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

DEMO.MID

Good afternoon! I found this file titled DEMO.MID on the Olidata Recovery Disk for Windows ME, which I actually don't know what famous 90s MIDI software it came from... Could you help me? Thank you! DanielParoliere (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

favicon.ico too dark at night

https://commons.wikimedia.org/favicon.ico is too dark on dark themed browsers. Possibly due to transparency. Jidanni (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

it just depends on which type of browser, like Opera, Brave, Firefox, Edge, etc. Because I use chrome, I have no problem with it. ₘₒd cᵣₑₐₜₒᵣ ✰ ʜᴀʙʟᴀ ⍟ コントリビューション 23:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Formatting Wikidata query

Hi, In the table of Paintings by Wassily Kandinsky, how to format the result of the WD query so that it looks like this instead of the current one. The external links should be within [ ] avoiding to create an oversized column. Also is the description really useful? It is always "painting by Kandinsky". Yann (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Any one please? Yann (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This appears to be about the "described at URL" column, unless I've misunderstood the question. Current version appears not to have the "description" column, which seems reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: If you want it to format just like [number]] you have to write [http://en.rusmuseum.ru/collections/painting-of-the-second-half-of-the-xix-century-beginning-of-xxi-century/artworks/siniy-greben/?sphrase_id=205947] instead of just http://en.rusmuseum.ru/collections/painting-of-the-second-half-of-the-xix-century-beginning-of-xxi-century/artworks/siniy-greben/?sphrase_id=205947 (that is, use square brackets). - Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks for your answer. Yes, I know that. I was asking how to format the result of the WD query. The description was removed by User:ReneeWrites. See the page history. Yann (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: where is the query? - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: In Paintings by Wassily Kandinsky:

{{Wikidata list |sparql=SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 . ?item wdt:P170 wd:Q61064 . MINUS { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q15727816 } } |section= |sort=571 |columns=P18,label,P195,P217,P528,P571,P276,P973,P180 |thumb=128 |min_section= |freq=30 }}

Yann (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: I believe SPARQL has a capability where you can get formatting into the return, so the brackets you want would be part of the returned column. I believe you use CONCAT, but I'm not familiar enough with SPARQL to form the query myself. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: I recommend asking at d:Wikidata:Request a query. BTW, you may also be interested in {{Wikidata Gallery}} (and/or the code at Dytaster) as an alternative way of formatting the Wikidata list output. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

TomT0m got the magic. Yann (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

P1/Sergt. Louis Gargano

Does anyone know what the "P1/Sergt." for the Louis Gargano entry corresponds to at Wikidata? I get the Sergeant part, not "P1" or is it "Pl" or maybe F1? Is it perhaps "Sergeant First Class". See here: File:Eugene Freudenberg II (1925-1945) body returned home in the Jersey Journal on January 14, 1949.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm assuming that's Platoon Sergeant. GMG^talk 13:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes perfect sense. I looked for a fuller obit and he is listed there as "Platoon Sergeant". --RAN (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

change summary

File:The-Drowsy-One-Friedrich-von-Amerling.jpg I don't know how to change the summary of this file, which refers to the painter while it should refer to the painting, and yet it looks good, with informations of the painting ! I don't understand. Io Herodotus (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

What part do you want to edit? The painter information is included from wikidata, so it needs to be edited there. The description of the painting can be edited right in the summary, there's an edit button next to the summary heading. --rimshot^talk 16:43, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

thank you. That painting should refer to Q137341778 in the summary. Io Herodotus (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I have added a link to Q137341778 in the {{Artwork}} template for File:The-Drowsy-One-Friedrich-von-Amerling.jpg. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

MP3s are allowed.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3AAbusefilter-warning-mp3#mp3_format_is_allowed.

Please turn off the warning. Jidanni (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jidanni: It's apparently restricted to users with autopatrol. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:45, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe someone from the Mediawiki Foundation could turn it off? Jidanni (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jidanni Per Commons:File types#MP3, MP3 are only allowed to be uploaded by users with the autopatrol (or higher) right. This restriction was introduced by a RFC on Commons, so this isn't something we can just "turn it off". So, please use another acceptable file type, such as ogg, or consider applying for autopatrol right at COM:RFR. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jidanni: Can you discuss what kind of mp3s you wish to upload? Sound recordings can be tricky copyright-wise. Abzeronow (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

At least someone should fix the tiny box in Phab:T411579 so people can read the message! Jidanni (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I guess the issue is that MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-mp3 is using table based layout Bawolff (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I opposed it when it was introduced and still oppose it, most definitely for this user level. It would be different if it was auto confirmed (or extended confirmed like on some wikis). I do think this is a thing we should look at. We have very little between auto confirmed and image reviewer. We are missing something like extended confirmed, or better, established community member, based on contributions on other wikis. It would be good to have something that identifies experienced community members from experienced Commons users... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Lat/Lon: DD vs. DMS

Maybe there should be a preference setting, that shows every coordinate pair, in the format preferred by the user.

So if I write {{Location|24.17|120.72}} it will show up in DD, not DMS. Not just for Template:Location, but everywhere, and for all Wikimedia wikis too. Jidanni (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

We have this on en.wp and like 6 people make use of it. I don't really think it is worth it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Uploading cubemap projections of 360 degree panoramas

User:Sdkb recently requested I seek further discussion on this.

Recently I've been uploading cube map projections of 360 panorama images (phptospheres) as alternative versions of the image. Most of these images are currently in equirectangular format, which projects the entire 360 degree view into a single rectangle. This causes distortions similar to how a map of the earth is distorted as you cannot project a sphere on to a 2D rectangle without distortion, thus you can't really use the images directly unless you are doing so for artistic effect. Mostly they are used with {{Pano360}} to link to a viewer on toolforge. I've been uploading an alternative version of these images, where instead of one image they become 6, one for each direction - up, down, left, right, front, back (or up, down, north, south, west, east if you prefer).

The reason for doing this, is that the projected images are easier to work with on wiki without special software support. I view it somewhat similar to cropping an image for better use in an article. Like any derrivitave image, if the original changes the derrivatives would also need to be reuploaded. The six views can be used independently if applicable since they don't have distortion, however the main reason is that they can be joined together with templates to give an immersive view directly on wiki. Sometimes this is called cubeapping, because its as if your camera is inside a cube and these would be the faces of a cube.

As an example, consider, File:Panorama 360 of Basilique Saint-Patrick, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.jpg. In equirectangular projection it looks like

Splitting it up into a cube we get six images like so:

We can then combine them in to a unified view

Note, enwiki has a more complex viewer template that is better.

On english Wikipedia there is a gadget that provides a more interactive viewer. It does have some limitations though in that it doesn't support pinch to zoom or dynamic level of detail loading, but is quite a bit better than the pure wikitext commons template i used above. You can see it at w:Template:cubemap viewer. So far its been used on 34 articles. Its also been copied to fawiki and kowiki

Previously 360 panoramas were used on articles by having an external link to the panoviewer tool, but i think there is benefit to having a viewer directly in the article. It still links to the toolforge tool for a full screen view.

Thoughts? Bawolff (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm very impressed with the cubemap viewer template you linked to, great job! I wonder though what's the reason the 360 panoviewer can't be placed directly in an article like the cubemap viewer? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The basic answer is that I took this approach because all it involved was creating a template which i could do all by myself with no permissions or approvals, which is pretty freeing. The enwiki template does use a gadget, however that gadget was already approved to power w:template:Calculator, so it already existed and was live. There's something to be said about the Wiki-way of just being bold, is very motivating.

To integrate pannellum (That's the library panoviewer uses) there is basically two approaches. The first is proper integration with MediaWiki, which in the ideal world would be the best option. User:TheDJ has been on and off working on this for years (See mw:User:TheDJ/panoviewer for his work). I'm a bit unclear how much he is still working on it in the present. Getting custom MediaWiki extensions deployed on Wikimedia is often very politically difficult as a volunteer contributor. Its possible, and people have done it, but its an exhausting, uncertain process, and WMF seems to be even more reluctant these days about that sort of thing than it was in the past. Anyways, I wish anyone pursuing that the best of luck, it is definitely the ideal outcome, but I also think its unlikely to happen any time soon, and I don't really want to be involved with the politics of getting something deployed, as that's not really the sort of thing I like to do. Maybe if it wins the community wishlist that would get some momentum behind it.

The second approach would be a gadget for specifically embedding pannellum. It would probably be a large gadget, historically that would have been less than ideal, but with the advent of category gadgets, maybe that's less of a concern now. Of course someone would have to make such a gadget which might be a non-trivial effort, but at the same time not super hard (There are some previous attempts at just iframing toolforge like d:MediaWiki:Gadget-Panoviewer.js however that is not really what i mean. I think a proper tool would embed the viewer directly in the page and not just iframe toolforge). I think panellum has a native "pyrimid" image format, which is what it considers ideal and the panoviewer toolforge tool converts images to that in the background. In gadget form that wouldn't be viable, but it seems like panellum also supports normal equirectangular images, just without as much support for zooming in. Bawolff (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to give an update on the other route that Bawolff was talking about. The basic status is at: User:TheDJ/panoviewer. The tool works, but there are some downsides. Primarily... it's still an issue to deal with large resolution images. That really needs tiling (like the Panoviewer toolforge tool does), but adding a tiling service to Wikimedia is ... PAIN. Secondly, you need some support to override angles etc for when that is not correctly provided by the metadata of the image (pretty common) and ideally serve those up via some sort of private API or something. Either magic words or Wikidata properties are an option for that, but I haven't been able to work on that for a while. Lastly.. the quality of tools in this space is... very low. A lot of the libraries are more suited for special dedicated websites and not so much for bigger websites, that have higher demands on quality and maturity. However, the extension does work, I updated it and verified this two months ago. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Overall, {{Pano360}} has some very significant limitations, and I'd love to see us using more photospheres overall in Wikimedia projects, so I share the praise for the technical work improving the viewer.

That said, we also currently have very poor infrastructure in place for relating files to one another, which is already a concern with cropped versions, and creating a cubemap results in even more files than a crop (a six-fold increase rather than just a doubling). This has the potential to add substantially to Commons' maintenance burden, especially as the use of photospheres increases over time, since with a cubemap e.g. each additional category has to be added in six places rather than just one.

Trying to think in a future-facing way, I wonder whether adding cubemaps to all 20,000 photospheres on Commons would really make them more accessible to Commons users (in which case it's more justified), or whether we ought to stick to the seemingly more common equirectangular projection format, and focus on technical improvements to the panoviewer rather than the stopgap solution of a cubemap viewer. I don't have a strong enough view about that to !support or !oppose the creation of future cubemaps. But given the number of files affected I do think it's a topic that could use some discussion/attention from interested editors, so I appreciate Bawolff following up from the discussion on their talk page to bring this here.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 23:51, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, i support making new ones on an as needed basis, when a file is being used. I don't necessilary think doing this for every photosphere file makes sense. As you say its a ton of files and if its not being used in an article i don't think there is much benefit. Bawolff (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I love it --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That looks quite interesting. -- SimmeD (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Near-empty Category:Statistics about communication

Adoption of communication technologies, World

This cat has a problem that only a small fraction of categories has and it's not really a subject for a CfD: the category scope and title seems fine; it's just that there's many files on Commons that would belong into it but the cat is nearly empty.

Assuming there is indeed no better solution such as merging the cat somehow: could some other user(s) help populating it?

A difficulty and also sth where input here would help is that probably not all of Category:Internet statistics should go into it but only a fraction that is actually about the communication and not e.g. the share of Web browsers used. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Don't forget {{See also cat}} for categories that are related, but neither exactly belongs as a child of the other. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes; in this case of Internet statistics I think soon a subcat of that cat should become the subcat of the Statistics about communication and this is why I didn't link that cat as see also.

There's of course also other categories relevant to it where it needs some thought how they relate to each other (make it a subcat, add one of its subcats, create a new subcat and add it, or add files from there and only link cat as see also) such as Category:Media statistics.
Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Attention filemovers

Please see Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass rename requests with Criterion #4. Posting here so other filemovers have a chance to weigh in on use and scope of filemoving criterion #4 (harmonizing). Geoffroi 21:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Add a Like button to each image

When we see an image that we like, we have the urge to click a like button. But there is none. Jidanni (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

That's because this is not a social media site. - Jmabel ! talk 06:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Nor is a like button a feature unique to social media sites. See my common gripe about this argument at w:WP:Facebookization. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

A similar feature briefly existed on the English Wikipedia, where users could rate articles with a moodbar, but it was disabled. Is there a reason why you made this thread? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Having an "urge" for something is not a good reason. There was a wish in the Wishlist about this where you can see feedback and discussion about this idea: m:Talk:Community Wishlist/W108.

There is a way to "favorite" files publicly using a gadget or to download them into a private local folder. Engagement functionality / indicators for creators and uploaders are: 1. file uses (visible e.g. via the glamorous tool) 2. page-views or media views and 3. featured pictures and other community highlighting. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

You can thank people for edits, which includes the original edit of a file being uploaded. You can also create a gallery in your user space for images you like. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

There is a "Favorite" button which adds images to a personal gallery (and thanks the uploader, iirc). But you might have to enable that button in your settings (Gadgets). Nakonana (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

functional alternatives have now been listed – if you'd like to propose this, see Commons:Village pump/Proposals or the (wish in the) m:Community Wishlist. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

List of "good" sources for PD works

I seem to recall coming across a policy or guideline here with a list of institutional sources where we automatically accept content tagged as public domain, "no known copyright restrictions", etc. I can't seem to find it. Was I hallucinating? Phillipedison1891 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I think there is no such list. Generally all public archives, libraries and museums should have correct copyright information. Every institution of course sometimes has incorrect data in their database. GPSLeo (talk) 17:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

There are certainly some institutional sources, like the Internet Archive, which we know to be more unreliable than others. (In IA's case, this is because many of their holdings are unverified user uploads.) Omphalographer (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

@Phillipedison1891: perhaps you mean Commons:Free media resources such as Commons:Free media resources/Photography? MKFI (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

By the way, questions like this is what users could ask a tool suggested in W442: Adopt Wikipedia-trained WikiChat LLM & make it learn about help pages & categories to help newcomers (if it comes up with no link, one could still ask here). I don't think there is a page like you're describing; just some for bad sources and the free media resources pages which aren't what you're describing but only partly similar (e.g. most works on US gov resource pages like NASA & CDC are PD). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Or you may be thinking of MediaWiki:Copyupload-allowed-domains, although it's not really what you describe either. For context, see Commons:Upload tools#Uploading by URL. See also Commons:Upload tools#From specific external websites. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. I think either I came across something on another WMF project, or I literally imagined it while dreaming. (I have been confined indoors due to weather and have spent long hours online lately.) Phillipedison1891 (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• A few images uploaded to Gallica that were "no known copyright restrictions" have been found to still be under an active copyright, when a death date for the creator was found. Gallica, when contacted, has changed the license when notified. --RAN (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I assume that some users may have created sort of lists about that topic. I know about Poly Haven and ambientCG spontaneously, which create CC0 assets --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Free media resources is lists about the topic you mean and it has been linked/named here twice (1,2) (before your comment). Prototyperspective (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Your support for colored 3D models on Wikipedia needed

You can show your support for colored 3D models on Wikipedia and Commons here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist/W326. As this topic is becoming more urgent, it should get some attention to finally implement a new file format. Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It's now the top wish in the Wishlist by votes. I also mentioned this wish in the thread above which briefly summarizes some further listed wishes and includes links to see more Commons-related wishes. I'll mention that a key topic/need is not just filing wishes and supporting them, but also sufficient software development capacity so that (more) wishes are getting implemented such as via what's proposed here and here. Thanks, Prototyperspective (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Car identity to date image

See: File:Manoir_de_Vaumurier_(entrée).png. RAN (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It can be a clue. At least, it tells that it was after 1901 or 1902, depending when this model was first sold. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2025 (UTC)