So on a Wikipedia page where there isn't a photo for a person, could and how can I add pictures of them to the Wikipedia page in editor?Rip5677 (talk)11:59, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiRip5677.Wikipedia:Image use policy contains more detailed information on this but whether a picture can be uploaded for use on Wikipedia depends mainly on its copyright status. Since Wikipedia's different policies on uploading images can be kind of confusing, especially for a new or newish user who has never done so before, I strongly suggest you ask for help atWikipedia:Media copyright questions before uploading any particular picture because it7s very easy to make a mistake. --Marchjuly (talk)12:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I create those Public Domain files through a script to upload book covers. Should I move all of them to Commons? I think they all may qualify based on the flowchart inWP:MTCKingsacrificer (talk)10:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiKingsacrificer. Under US copyright law (which matters most when it comes to English Wikipedia), simple combination of words (excluding prose), symbols, colors (including different degrees of shading), etc. tend to be considered not to involve sufficient creative input to warrant copyright protection independent of the final work as a whole. Of course, the person creating, for example, a book cover like the one forStarships (Traveller) might have had a reason for using certain colors or words, but you can't copyright an intent, an idea, a perception, etc.: it's only the final visual/written representation of an intent, a idea, a perception, etc. that really matters. The two files you've mentioned above didn't meet the US'sthreshold of originality in my opinion; however, that's only my opinion, and you can seek other input atWP:MCQ,WT:NFCC orc:COM:VPC if you want. There's nothing wrong with those two files being licensed as non-free per se, and you can revert back to a non-free license if you want; however, that seems like a bit of overkill to me, and it would probably be better to seek other input before doing that.Having posted that, the most reason version ofFile:Starships (Traveller) (Book Cover).webp is now definitely too creative to be considered ineligible for copyright protection, unless the image on the cover itself is within the public domain for some reason. This version needs to be treated as non-free and is correctly licensed. For reference, though, it's generally not a good idea to overwrite one file with one that's completely different like you did; in such a case, it's typically much better to upload the file as a separate new file. When you do something like this, the older version no longer ends up being used wherever the file is being used; so, essentially you de-facto deleting a version of a file without a type of discussion or third-party review. There could be cases where the older no longer used version actually still has encyclopedic value and might be preferable to the newer updated version. With non-free files, in particular, this can often lead to problems between different users because unused non-free files are eligible for speedy deletion perWP:F5 as "orphaned non-free use"; so, you will occasionally find different users edit warring over which version of a file is best. When it comes to overwriting an existing file,c:COM:OVERWRITE is generally a good guide and can be applied to English Wikipedia files too. Of course, you're unlikely going to be edit warring with yourself in this case, and the older PD version that you originally uploaded is unlikely going to be used by anyone but yourself; so, this time it's kind of a case ofwikt:no harm, no foul. Please try to keep this in mind going forward. In addition to my assessment of theStudent as N cover be too simple for copyright protection, what you uploaded is also really an image of adust jacket and isn't the cover of the book per se. Dust jacketsare treated a a separate work from the book itself (because they can be easily removed) and ones published before January 1, 1978, require their own copyright notice and other copyright formalities independent of the actual book itself under US copyright law. Similarly, a copyright notice on a dust jacket from that time period doesn't cover the book it protects. I can't see the back of the dust jacket you uploaded and, of course, there could be a copyright notice there; however, this is another reason why the file you uploaded could be PD. You can, if you want. also ask about this at WP:MCQ or COM:VPC.As for uploading files to Commons, you need to be aware ofc:COM:PUBLISH; Commons is different from English Wikipedia in that it requires the content it hosts be acceptably licensed under US copyright law and the copyright law of the country of first publication. For works first published in the US, there's no difference between Commons and English Wikipedia and you can re-upload or move such files to Commons if you want; for works first published outside the US (and not subsequently published in the US within 30 days of their original publication date), you need to considered the copyright laws of the country of first publication too. Those laws/practices could be similar to those of the US, or they could be quite different; so, if you're unsure about this, you might want to ask at COM:VPC. This was probably a longer more detailed response than you were hoping to get, but perhaps it clears up some things. --Marchjuly (talk)01:03, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I really appreciate this rundown. I'll preserve this conversation on my user page.
---
it's generally not a good idea to overwrite one file with one that's completely different like you did
I usually don't, only when I am rewriting a file I myself have created. Does this apply even in those cases where the file was created by me, and assuredly has not been used in any other page?
---
I have been using dust jackets as book covers now, and I didn't know they were separate from the book. But if the book is published before 1930, then I see that Template:PD-US-dust-jacket doesn't really apply. In cases where the book is after 1930, like the one we talked about, if I don't have the copyright notice, maybe it is better that I default to fair use. What do you think?Kingsacrificer (talk)21:42, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overwriting files only tends to create problems when a file is being used on multiple articles for (perhaps) different reasons and then different users disagree on which of the revisions/versions of the file should be used. Overwriting is frowned upon on Commons because, in some cases, many different Wikimedia Foundation projects may be using the same file; so, changing a file will change every page wherever the file is being used even if that's not desirable for some pages. Unlike English Wikipdia, though, there's really no need to worry about any non-free versions being left unused and still visible because Commons doesn't allownon-free content of any type; so, no longer used revisions/versions don't get deleted per se and can be restored without too much hassle. Older revisions/versions of a non-free file on English Wikipedia, however, are required to be deleted per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy; therefore, overwriting a non-free file is in a sense the de-facto tagging a revision for deletion without pretty much any type of discussion or assessment at all. This is probably not an issue if you're the uploader of a file, you're the only person who has used it, and you're the person who overwrites the file. It can, however, be a problem if others were involved in the process an sometimes leads to edit warring on a file's page over which version of a file to use.Books first published in the US before January 1, 1931, entered into the public domain on January 1, 2026 (assuming there are no extenuating circumstances); so, the same would apply to a dust jacket published before January 1, 1931. If, though, a new dust jacket is subsequently added to an old book, it could be possible for the dust jacket itself to still under copyright protection even if the book isn't depending on the specifics of the situation. I guess if you've got any doubts about a particular book/dusk jacket, you could seek assistance atc:COM:VPC orWP:MCQ.Defaulting to non-free use and erring on the side of caution when you're unsure about the copyright status of something isn't wrong per se, but again you could always just ask for assistance at a noticeboard too. --Marchjuly (talk)00:17, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
HiAli Sallah. I will add some general information to your user talk page; it contains links to various Wikipedia pages that you may find helpful. The most important thimg, however, when it comes to writing (I'm assuming by "writing" you mean creating a Wikipedia article) about an organization is that the organization satisfyWikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Only subject considered to beWikipedia:Notable can have articles written about them. --Marchjuly (talk)04:26, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
_(Book_Cover).webp){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}