Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/08. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace images with .svg version (5 August 2025) Category talk:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines#RfC: Cemetery name (18 July 2025) Discussion on Copyright law of North Korea (16 March 2025) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 05

Category:All media needing categories as of 2019

I noted that 28,000 files to be categorized, please in the Category:All media needing categories as of 2019. This is good news, as have been 50.000 files in February. Do you want to join the small team that is working on this task? If so, you may leave a note on the relevant discussion page, if you reach a funny or round number. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

All the Files from 500px.com with bad file names have ben categorized by now. Now the real work can start: 26,000 files to be categorized, please. Do you want to categorise some files yourself? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Though from what I've seen working on these, some of these are rather poorly categorized. When going through these, give some attention to whether they can be better categorized. Example 1, Example 2, Example 3. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm finding a fair number that have no categories at all, or things like Category:Unidentified airports.

There is a lot of work to do here, and very few people seem to be doing any of it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: It's totally tangential but the amount of uncategorized categories seems to be pretty large. Any plans to go through them again? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel Work is getting done, it's just slow. I used to keep stats on this but stopped keeping up because of other backlogs, but as of 1/10/25 these were the numbers:

• 2018: 28,328
• 2019: 50,751
• 2020: 51,498
• 2021: 128,464
• 2022: 82,065
• 2023: 97,302
• 2024: 188,549

Gnomingstuff (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

August 08

Are there any rules/restrictions on using magic eraser apps to get rid of objects/people surrounding the subject we want?

I ask this in regards to File:Rhea Perlman Danny DeVito 2006.jpg which allows us "to remix" the work. I've used a magic eraser app to remove Rhea Perlman to leave only Danny DeVito so that when using his image (here), it doesn't have a third of someone else's face in it when cropped. This hasn't changed his image but has filled in his shirt shoulder where Perlman was. Is this something deemed acceptable? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: on the linked page on ibb.co, I don't see the required indication of the CC-BY 2.0 license, nor do I see the required attribution for the underlying photo to Flickr user "amyrod", nor the required indication of what changes were made. So as it stands, this is a copyright violation, but entirely remediable. In general: if you are using a photo under a license, you need to conform to the terms of the license.

Are you talking about the potential of uploading this back to Commons? If so there are several more considerations, but I won't bother spelling them out unless you want to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

So the IBB one is my modified version based on the one uploaded to Wikimedia already, I didn't want to upload it to Wikipedia in case it was a violation, so there is no tag. So yes, I'm talking about the potential for adapting the work per the existing license and uploading my modified version as a derivative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

@Darkwarriorblake: Yes, this is acceptable. Photos can be cropped and retouched, and it's fine to use AI to do that. There are some restrictions placed on the use of AI itself, but they don't apply to your example.

Slightly longer answer: If you make a derivative version of a file (such as a crop or a retouched version), it should be uploaded under a license that's compatible with the original. Usually this is done by just copying the old license - this is what the crop tool does, for instance. There are some restrictions around the use of AI itself - there's a policy against old files being overwritten by versions upscaled/retouched with AI (think artificial sharpening, removing of wrinkles, etc.), but the subject in your photo has been unaffected by that. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:25, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, yes that is my intention, to upload it as a derivative and not overwrite the original. I typically do basic crops in this manner, but this is the only clear image of him close to the 80s and 90s, but because of the second subject it's not possible to crop it through normal means without having a distracting piece of another person in the cropped image. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

My issue with this is not that you have used such a tool to remove Perlman, but that it has "hallucinated" one side of deVito's head. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

I think the result he linked to looks pretty good, myself. The hair on the side of his head isn't a hallucination (which iirc refers to AI creating bizarre artifacts) but an extrapolation, same as part of his shirt/shoulder. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Does deVito really have two tufts of white hair on that side of his head? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

August 12

SHA-256 hash in Structured Data

There were attempts to compute SHA-256 hash for all Commons files, but the results are not accessible on Commons. Now that we have structured data for every file that can store just any kind of hash. Therefore, the issue that SHA-256 hash results are not supported and not accessible, is gone. As SHA-1 or SHA-256 hash is not searchable otherwise, adding them as structured data (SHA-1 hash is already being added) will make them more accessible and searchable, so it will be possible to check whether a file on disk already exists on Commons automatically. Midleading (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

+1 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Dumb question, but as a VRT agent I quite often use the COM:SHA1 tool to find images uploaded here, didn't that tool search for SHA-1 hashes? You stated "is not searchable otherwise"? How does it do it? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Tool hosted in toollabs is not an official WMF product. There is no way to search for SHA-1 hash directly on Wikimedia Commons. However, if there is an SHA-1 statement on the file page, then you can search that using "haswbstatement" keyword. Midleading (talk) 16:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Nice :) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

So is it fine to add SHA-256 hashes as structured data to many files in the same fashion SHA-1 hashes are? Midleading (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose. I see little need to add multiple cryptographic hashes, and I see a downside in watchlist annoyance. Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done. A high cost for little benefit. Glrx (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I think its really silly to have functionally dependent metadata (i.e. Metadata that is objectively calculated from the file) manually added to structured data. This is the sort of thing that should be calculated automatically by the system. That way we know its accurate, and we don't spend time maintaining it. Unfortunately I guess that is not going to happen anytime soon due to lack of devs improving structured data. p.s. There is an official way to search via SHA1. This is via the MW API. For example with today's featured picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allimages&aisha1=2b556d5ec82604e562617497b24b570fb6fb20cf&formatversion=2 Bawolff (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Watchlist annoyance is high when someone edits the file solely for such purpose. But what if this task is bundled in other tasks, like many multipurpose structured data adding bots do? Thanks for letting me know there's still an API for searching via SHA1, I couldn't find a web interface for it. Midleading (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I think in a perfect world this would still be bad - I believe technical metadata that can be calculated directly by the file should be calculated automatically by MediaWiki and automatically inserted, otherwise it can get out of sync way to easily (E.g. someone uploads a new version of the file) or have mistakes. Of course we do not live in a perfect world, so maybe what you are proposing makes sense in the context of commons as it is today. Bawolff (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, if there were such metadata produced by MediaWiki, I would not ask this question. Currently, Wikimedia Commons is already busy transferring media to text-to-image bots, so I wouldn't bother with adding huge server load just to produce a short hash. Instead, I may only add this information to some categories that I'm interested in and bundle this task with other tasks, and other people can also do the same. Midleading (talk) 11:07, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

 Support brewing SHA-256 for files, and search by it. How does commons currently identify dupes? Problem: commons seems to edit SVG files upon arrival. Taylor 49 (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons does not edit SVGs on arrival. Dupe searching is currently implemented in SHA1, which is of course problematic as its possible to construct files that share the same SHA1 but are different. In practice its not that problematic as dupe detection is meant to detect accidental dupes and not a control against malicious users. Bawolff (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Still advocate switching of all MD5 and SHA-160 to SHA-256 for consistency. Indeed cracking of SHA-160 is admittedly possible but prohibitively expensive. OTOH SHA-256 is probably safe for the eternity. Upload a SVG, download, compare -> files are NOT identical. Typical changes: LF -> CRLF WtF , repetitive spaces inside tags reduced, encoding="UTF-8" added, BOM(B)s removed. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

August 16

CfD advertisements

Hello everyone! In January there was little CfD that still has larger consequences: CfD: Flora. I only noticed this now, when seeing that "Flora distribution maps of..." are now all in the "Plant distribution maps" parent category. This is weird and probably not the only result of an action that did not have a particularly large consensus: The CfD was opened in January, got ONE (1) other voice and was then closed by the proposer. The proposal was made with the intent to weed out a mess of categories, but so far I can not see lots of progress?

My main point is that it was not transparent in the slightest. I have argued before ("Georgia", "Historical images") that large-scale category changes where controversy can get expected, should get some advertisement, so that a broad consensus can be formed. A consensus of two people is fine with absolute niche topics. The entire plant-dom is not such a niche topic, so I now opened CfD:Plants for either the reversal of the previous CfD, or for a proper full discussion of the matter.

PS: On a related note, for those disinterested in biology category discussions: There are other large-scale CfD proposals that may have evaded your attention. For those who are still waiting on reactions, this could be a good thread to advertise. I will start with five proposals that I have participated in but that have not currently been resolved:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams - including the question, what is a "diagram", in the first place?
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Statues of tortoises - the old turtle-vs-tortoise question, but to classify artworks, not biological species
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/10/Category:Heimatmuseums - a language-dependent but somewhat specific type of "local museums"
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century - quite obviously the US did not exist back then... but how to call stuff in the Americas before the US were founded as countries?
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/02/Category:Books about World War I - also in a general sense: should we categorize "Books about <topic> by year"?

Please feel free to add other CfDs that affect entire category trees, and where you think the matter should get some more attention. --Enyavar (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Enyavar, for addressing this! – In general, I agree that:

• A community vote (and the voters’ right to take part) is only as good as the notification about the vote being held. A vote that is held in the dark of the night or under the mantle of silence is not a very democratic thing.
• Obviously, voters won’t want to be called to the urn for each and every triviality. So, a notification process should probably apply to such CfDs only which are likely to have wide-reaching consequences (large-scale category changes).

I might add:

• A CfD that is likely to have large-scale consequences should also include a discussion of its extent: Which branches of the category tree should the result be applied to? Which branches should be exempted and stay "as is"?

Admittedly, I haven’t taken much part in CfDs so far. But these Flora-vs.-Plants category moves/renamings in specific do affect my work. So, I’m glad that this topic is re-opened in a new CfD:Plants. -- Martinus KE (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

It was closed by the proposer? That...strikes me as a big no-no, but maybe Commons is different with that than en.wiki... - The Bushranger (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It can depend on the situation. If it's an uncontroversial change that only effects a couple of categories then it's usually not a problem for the proposer to close the CfD. Otherwise, they shouldn't. I'd say this is the former situation. Although it's a bit of stretch to read any ill intent behind Sbb1413 closing it himself. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want to claim this is a major scandal, I just wanted to make clear that this is another occurence of a not-entirely-okay CfD that should have had more deliberation, and I wanted this to get adressed and rectified in some way. Re-reading Sbb's first proposal, I saw that he seemed to have had only the parent category in mind, and nothing else. Omphalographer, who was the one agreeing opinion a whole week later, certainly had no ill intent, and also brought up the issue of the sub-categories. Up to that point, there was nothing untoward with the whole action.

And yet, Sbb closed the CfD and determined that not only should "Flora" be renamed, but also the sub-categories should "get sorted out". Those are thousands, by the way, but at least right after closing the CfD, Sbb moved only ~200 pages around, please Ctrl+F for "flora" in the log activity around this timestamp. I just realized now that on that very same day, several other mass-moves occured. I still struggle to wrap my had around the affair: Aves -> Birds / Felis silvestris -> Cats / Canis lupus -> Wolves / Caballus -> Horses. I have now found one discussion, which is titled "Plantae" and can be found in Category talk:Cats, and there I see a total of three (3) users (MPF, Proto, Sbb) who decided just between themselves, to simplify and restructure the biologial category structure, so that for all "common" names like cats, birds, wolves and plants, Commons uses vernacular names from now on, while all the "uncommon" names may remain in Latin. Hm. I may have misunderstood this?

Reading more. I am quite stunned now. IS this a major issue? Please note, I am only assuming the very best intentions from all these participants that I identified previously. They are experienced long-time contributors and they apparently genuinely wanted to make Commons more easy to navigate for people who don't know that "lupus" means "wolf", and so on. But in the end, we have now a pretty distinct chaos that I certainly wouldn't want to touch, in fear of breaking things further.

For example, I can see that something is wrong with the wikidata connection in Animalia: [Error in Wikidata: wikidata gallery item 'animal' (Q729) property 'topic's main category' (P910) should contain 'Category:Animalia' (Q6254409) (currently 'Category:Animals' (Q7157802)).], and I suspect I know why it is broken.

"Lupus..." were moved to Wolf distribution maps. Okay... but we still have Panthera tigris distribution maps. In fact, the majority of all distribution-map category names is still using proper biological and not vernacular names. @Nova, Aristeas, Ryan Hodnett, The Bushranger, ReneeWrites, AnRo0002, and Martinus KE: please ignore this if this does not affect/interest you, I just noticed that you are major nature photography contributors, maybe you can give input on the following.

In one of the Wikipedia projects, we would have a biology portal/project to coordinate actions like this. Here on Commons, I just cannot see the whole scope. What else has changed in February? Is this part of an even larger movement? Is this okay, and I am just seeing some parts that merely have to be smoothed further? Who coordinates the rest of the mass-recategorizations? Who has the oversight over the whole taxonomy and cladistic rules, is there a forum that is suited for this debate? Please tell me that my larger concerns are completely invalid.

Oh man, so much for a quick response to calm everyone down. Yes, that was my intention when I started the first paragraph two hours ago, and I rewrote a lot of this wall of text a few times over. --Enyavar (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Just to be clear, I can understand where your coming from. I certainly wouldn't have closed the CfD myself and it should have had more participation before being closed, whomever was the one to do it. Really, CfDs that involve more then a few categories should be closed and implemented by an admin. I had actually thought about proposing a rule along those lines a while back but never got around to it. Maybe that's something to consider though since users closing controversial CfDs involving hundreds or thousands of categories has clearly been an issue.

Although I will say that there's a large problem in general with low participation on here and CfDs are no different. So I don't see the low turnout as that much of an issue. It's either that, or the status quo becomes things just can't be changed or improved on here anymore purely because there's not enough editors to agree to the changes. Which you'd have to agree wouldn't be a fair, workable way to do things (conversely it takes absolutely zero discussion what-so-ever to mass create categories however someone wants to BTW). --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Sbb was likely justified in making most of those moves. Felis silvestris is the name of the species of which the domesticated housecat is an extremely common subspecies. Most likely the files he moved were moved to the right subcategory.

Technically "wolves" refers to a group of animals consisting of several species, of which canis lupus is one. There's not necessarily a conflict here, "Wolf distribution maps" can serve as a parent category with "Canis lupus distribution maps" being a subcategory. Both categories are in use, I don't see why the canis lupus distribution maps category couldn't be put back in use.

"Horses" and "Equus caballus" were in use parallel to each other for several years. In 2009, the description of caballus was that it refers to the biological aspect of domesticated horses but that sports, equipment, toys etc. belongs in the horses category. In 2015 caballus was changed to a category redirect (by an editor named BartekChom). I feel this was the right call to make; unlike the categories mentioned earlier, caballus and horses are functionally synonymous.

I'm personally unaware of other discussions of this nature, or other category structures I've been involved with other than the plant/flora one from February. I don't see work that needs to be done as an issue if there's clarity and consensus. I consider a flawed and inconsistent status quo to be more of an issue, which is why I got to work. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: (it's more just a general comment then directed at you, but whatever). I don't personally care about the whole thing with categories for animal species myself but I don't think anyone can argue Category:Ursus arctos syriacus in Tiergarten Nürnberg is easier to say or use then Category:Syrian brown bear would be lmao. That said, if we go with the common English name for plants then it should follow with animals (and whatever else) as well per the Universality Principle. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, "Plantae" is the scientific name for plants. "Flora" refers to species that occur naturally in a particular location. All flora are plants but not all plants are flora, but right now there is no "plants (or plantae) by location" category, because they all direct back to "flora by location". In other words, flora is treated as if it means plants. "Should we use plants or plantae" is a different conversation than the one that was held before, and I would be fine with either. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar and Adamant1: the Latin names are UNIVERSAL and PRECISE, so the question is "easier for whom?". Now everyone would have to know and use not universal and not precise names in English. The names are often different in American, British or Australian English, which one to learn and use? And the same name may refer to a few deferent species. In addition, I see comments that the categories are not for regular users, as they just want to find a picture, and don't look through the structure of categories. Thus, I find such a change useless for the regular users and problematic for others. It makes harder to maintain the scientific correctness, important not only for the Commons, but also for wikidata, wikispecies and outside projects (like those building AI models). Nova (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

So the question is "easier for whom?" @Nova: I'd say the average educator, student, or random internet user who wants to reuse an image from Commons for their personal project. Certainly Latin names are UNIVERSAL and PRECISE, but are they widely known by internet users outside of the field of biology? No. Commons:Categories#Universality principle "local dialects and terminology should be suppressed in favour of universality if possible." Again, Latin being universal is different then people universally known and/or using Latin. Although I'd argue Latin isn't universal anyway. There's this whole area of the plant called the Middle East where they use Arabic. The idea that anyone knows or cares about the Latin term for an animal or plant outside of extremely affluent English speaking white Europeans is laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: For all the average users, as you say, the photo should be properly described to be findable, and clearly state what it depicts. Not necessary categories, which sort things out. The same COM:CAT rule says, "Category names should generally be in English. However, there are exceptions such as some proper names, biological taxa and names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language.". I couldn't agree more with the vote of MPF in the Category talk:Cats. Nova (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nova: Notice that the quote says "some" though. I don't personally have a problem with using Latin in cases where the English name doesn't work or isn't common for whatever reason, but nothing in the guideline or elsewhere says that every category for every animal has to be Latin regardless of if it makes sense or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: thank you for all your arguments and trying to understand my point of view at the same time. I don't interpret the guideline that way, and I'm not surprised there is no definitive statement. Nova (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on what is to be done with regards to all the renamed species categories? I support to at least re-instate the "<biological name> distribution maps". --Enyavar (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't personally have a problem with that. It makes sense to have the categories for distribution maps as the biological names even if the other categories aren't that way since they are mostly, if not exclusively, used in biology. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

August 20

Television channels versus stations versus networks

Channels, stations, and networks. There's currently numerous categories, CfDs, and discussions having to do with all three of them on here. All of which haven't resulted in anything except for people mindlessly shuffling images around based on their personal preferences. Although "Channels" seems to be more established, widely used term out of the three. But apparently it's either "stations", "networks", or a combination of the two on Wikidata and Wikipedia, which has led to disagreements and deviations from the current system.

Definitionally the word "channel" refers to the actual numerical frequency that the (I guess) the station is being broadcast on. While a "station" is usually the company running the channel and network is an affiliation of stations. In actual reality though all three terms seem to be used pretty interchangeably to just refer to whatever someone is watching on their TV at the time and it's a distinction without a purpose on our end (or at least it should be). As there's really no actual way to know if something like a logo is for a channel, station, or network without checking legal documents or the like.

But then maybe it's worth having separate distinct category systems for the channels, companies, and networks. Who knows. It certainly over complicates things and leads to a lot of duplication. Personally, I would prefer just going with "channels" and calling it good there as the category system is complicated enough already and that seems to be the main preference on here. It would be cool if the whole thing was settled one or another though. So does anyone have an opinion about it? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

"Networks" is -as mentioned - the overall affiliation. ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, ext. "Station" and "Channel" however is more nebulous, as they're pretty much interchangably used in common useage. I'd argue that "station" should probably be preferred for individual, well, stations like, say, Category:WCTV... - The Bushranger (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: One problem with that is stations can have multiple channels. So you run into a situation where you end up with categories for stations, channels of the station, and network affiliates of the station. As well as the parent company (since I'd argue things ABC, NBC, CBS are actually media companies. Not television stations per se). Which just overcomplicates things. There's no way to know from looking at any particular image where to put it in that hierarchy. Like is File:KKCO 2023 (cropped).png a logo for a channel, station, network, network affiliate, parent company, or something else enterally and how is anyone suppose to know just by looking at the image? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the answer to that is extremely easy. You can tell just by looking at the image that "KKCO 11" identifies it as an indivdiual station (KKCO) and channel (11). It's not a network or parent company (NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, UPN, WB, and so on) because those aren't individual stations. The staton/channel is likely a network affiliate, but as the logo does not state this, it is not a logo of a network affiliate. - The Bushranger (talk) 04:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

So if a logos says "network" then its for a network. Otherwise, if it doesn't then its not. Sounds reliable. Anyway, so would that logo go in a category for stations or channels since we both seem to agree they are different things even if the words are used interchangably sometimes? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Could someone give an example from television (not radio) where a station has multiple channels, and we have content specific to the channel as against the station? Does this come up much? Not sure I've ever seen it. - Jmabel ! talk 06:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I can't think of an example myself but Category:Television stations was deleted in 2022. and a lot of the categories for them are redirects to ones for channels. Just to add to it Category:Stations is totally incoherent and should probably a DAB (it is on other projects). Looking at the raw numbers, there's 10431 files and 3854 categories on here for television channels. Whereas there's 3779 files and 1051 categories for television stations. So clearly people think there's media for television channels and that it's having categories for them even if technically it's all just "stations" or whatever.

Anyway, I assume that we can't just redirect or delete those 3854 categories whole cloth to ones named "stations" and something would have to be changed with Category:Stations if that's the direction this goes in. Really, it should be turned into a DAB regardless but that's a seperate thing. Except that it doesn't make sense to create categories for "television stations" if "stations" aren't an established category system on here and/or refer to something completely different. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Depending on how to define "channel," it could have several owners, brands, formats, etc, all of which might be considered different stations. I did a little research, and found a good example: Look through the history of en:CJNT-TV, (UHF Channel 62 from 1997-2011) which has been owned by various companies, part of various networks, and branded as ""CJNT", "CH", "E! Montreal", "CJNT" (a second time), "Metro 14" (the number representing its channel 14 slot on cable), "Citytv on Metro 14", "City Montreal", and (possibly?) "Citytv Montreal". In 2011, it also switched to digital, with a new callsign (CJNT-DT) on channel 49, and then in 2020, switched back to 62, with a duplicate high-resolution sub-channel at 62.1. Assuming we had logos and other images for all these different things, what's the best way to categorize them? If it's one channel (or one station), what are the appropriate parent categories in terms of network? In some places, a call sign might be multiplexed with multiple sub-channels from different networks. In the case of CJNT, categorizing by call sign might make more sense than by "channel" or "station" since the call sign is less ambiguous and more consistent over time. I don't know if that's true in general, but maybe? -- Themightyquill (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Responding specifically to @The Bushranger: comment above regarding KKCO, would you say that any "local" station/channel that does not use the network-affiliated mark in their logo should not be grouped as such? Perhaps someone in the business may have a better understanding, but Category:WKYC logos may be a good example. It is a mixed bag, in both previous and current versions, of logos that use the NBC logo and ones that do not.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, for the individual image (i.e. File:KKCO 2023 (cropped).png), it should only be categorised by the network the station is affiliated with if the network is mentioned/featured in the logo. For the category for the station/channel (i.e. Category:WCTV), it should be a subcategory of the appropriate network category (i.e. Category:CBS News local affiliates) even if none of the uploaded logo images have the network logo, as long as it can be reliably verified as belonging/formerly having belonged to that network of course. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

There are also things related to the organizations behind the above mentioned items, like the Columbia Broadcasting System, National Broadcasting Company, 30 Rockefeller Center, American Broadcasting Company (not to be confused with the Australian Broadcasting Company), Walt Disney Company, Capital Cities, the WB, etc. Also, FCC and other regulated broadcasting call signs and analog/digital broadcast frequencies. And then there are radio, non-profits, and websites.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:48, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe this confusion is due to the TV station-network model that is almost unique to the United States. For example, in European countries, the concepts are usually seen interchangeably, even if the network's channel or channels have a local programming section (in those cases, the station making local programming has not a specific proper name, other than the network name and the region where it operates). A rare exception to this is ITV, at least in the past. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

August 21

GLAM Batch Uploading Project Feedback

Hi everyone,

I hope nobody minds me making use of this community space to generate discussion and feedback of some of the work I have been undertaking in commons this year.

Introduction to Auckland Museum Batch Uploading Project 2025

I have gone through what I would consider a commons deep-dive in the past 6 months while undertaking a batch uploading project on behalf of the GLAM institution that I work for. I have created some reflection-based project documentation if anyone is interested in this project, with some links to some of my personal technical documentation, should anyone which to replicate any of the processes I have worked on. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dactylantha/Auckland_Museum_Batch_Uploading_Project

Request for Feedback

As a newcomer to commons this has been a steep learning curve, so I would appreciate some compassion in any constructive feedback! I understand commons is a shared space that demands respect and I have done my best to not be a nuisance in my experimentation, although I do apologise for triggering so many abuse log flags while trying to workout my GREL expression for generating wikitext.

Potential for Improved Documentation for GLAMs wishing to Batch Upload

My work on this project has also had me thinking about the documentation available for GLAM or research organisations with data they are willing to donate to commons and the support and documentation available to them, this is something that I raised at a categorisation meeting at Wikimania 2025 this year and am still interested in following up: at this point as an outsider prior to the project, I would say the current situation of having three separate sites of information (categories, wikitext, and SDC) and without strong documentation about conventions acceptable to the community to transform raw data for each of these spaces, is acting as a barrier for GLAM workers to pursue batch uploading. This is something myself and others are happy to work on with feedback from others interested in contributing.

Templates

I also have found the current situation with templates to be slightly perplexing - while I enjoyed tinkering with my own custom-made templates, I believe Lua powered template usage is the most appropriate way forward to make use of the SDC work by commons users and I find it odd that only some of the mainstream templates used are Lua powered. If anyone has context for this, I would love to know what the situation is before I step on any toes.

It is also my understanding in surveying other batch uploading projects that many GLAM institutions make use of the {{Artwork}} template, but in my experience the fields are not always appropriate for items that are not artworks and it is purely a workaround to show fields such as the accession number that are important for GLAM catalogue practice - ie, human history artefacts and natural science specimens, or documentary heritage works. I would be interested in what the commons community thinks about potentially rectifying these gaps with more language appropriate templates.

Thank you

If you have read this far, thank you for your time and I hope my post has come across as I have intended it - purely in good faith and not a criticism of the community or anyone's work. It is my hope that more cultural heritage, memory, research and GLAM institutions will feel equipped and emboldened in contributing their data and content in the future and that I may assist in this effort if I can through my own experience and contributions.

Kindest, Dactylantha (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dactylantha: did you read Commons:Guide to batch uploading before you started? Multichill (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I found this documentation only after I had already started, although as a user new to batch uploading at the time it could possibly read a little easier for a GLAM worker? I understand the process, requirements, and errors I have made a lot better now, although the trial aspect of trial by error was a necessity in that. If you have any feedback it would be much appreciated, as I can see you also work within GLAM. If the template experimentation has been more harm than help, I can happily adjust them to a more universal template. Dactylantha (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Bulk deletion nomination

Do we have a tool for nominating all, or most, of the articles in a category for deletion, with a single discussion (as opposed to creating a deletion discussion for each file)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

VisualFileChange, see Help:VisualFileChange.js. --Rosenzweig τ 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If you want to see the result: Two recent DRs which I created using VFC are Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Prince Amedeo of Savoy in unidentified years and Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "Vase inscribed with text mentioning the Vergobretus" if you want to see the result. --Rosenzweig τ 11:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Good, but is has a heavily misleading name. Is should be named MassProcessHelper. Also the original question probably means files, not articles. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Risca Cuckoo 14050486 (16308088083).jpg

Inverness to Kyle, or Wales?

File:Inverness to Kyle RiscaCuckoo14050486 (16308088083).jpg's name suggests Scotland, but the categories say Wales, as does the original description on Flickr.

Which is correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Wales categories were added by Iain Bell who has been active within the last month. Have you asked him if there was any basis for them? - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I would say the description at the source, the other photos in the same group, the route of the tour. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Good spot, thank you. I have renamed all files in Category:Risca Cuckoo. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, “Inverness to Kyle” was the user name the photographer was using on Flickr. As he as since changed his ID on Flickr, should we update the file and/or category names? Iain Bell (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, right, the Category:Inverness to Kyle is about the flickr user / photographer. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I've renamed it, Category:Inverness to Kyle (photographer), to avoid confusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

(For the benefit of anyone trying to follow the above, when this discussion began the file was named File:Inverness to Kyle RiscaCuckoo14050486 (16308088083).jpg; it has since been moved.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This was a 2018 car-crash of a bulk upload: Category:Inverness to Kyle. There are a couple on the Inverness to Kyle line, but nearly all are elsewhere in Britain. Many are South Wales. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

August 22

Category:Deletion requests for files in the U.S. Copyright Office Public Records System/pending

Any protests if i convert the files in this category from regular DR to {{SD|F1}}? Once the USCO have declared a file to be under a proprietary license there isn't really any mitigating factor or circumstance that would justify us hosting them --Trade (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I stated here. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

So how do we on Commons determine the accuracy or validity of the claims then? Trade (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

By the same complex weighing of evidence as always. This is a factor, but neither necessary nor sufficient. - Jmabel ! talk 17:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

GPS location

I recently came across a bot that was adding co-ordinates from exif data. Sounds harmless and a positive contribution but when its extracting GPS data of private residences and contributors for small objects where the location has no value except to locating a contributor or private collections for nefarious types. Should because "we can" and because "we created this in 2008" still hold true as an acceptible reason for such actions in line with the Universal Code of Conduct. As well as generally recognised issues that have surfaced across the movement in recent years. This is very distinct from adding locations to buildings, parks, places and things publicly accessible. Gnangarra 10:10, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

If the bot doesn't add the data, it'll still be there, visible in the EXIF data. The bot can't add something that isn't already there. So, if anything, you'd need to remove the coordinates from the file before uploading either by disabling the addition of coordinates in your camera/phone, or with photo editing software, or, if you are uploading through the Commons app, you can disable the addition of location data in the settings. Not sure whether the browser version of the UploadWizard has this option (or whether you can disable it somewhere in your general account settings).

I think buildings aren't the only thing where location data is useful. Having the location of plants and animals is also useful. Nakonana (talk) 11:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The UploadWizard does not have any EXIF editing abilities. I think this is also not needed as every photo editing software also supports manipulation of the EXIF data. GPSLeo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It might be necessary for people who don't use photo editing software to have a simple check mark that you simply uncheck if you don't want it to be included. Idk why the UploadWizard wouldn't be able to do what the Commons app can do. Or it can be an option in the general account settings. Nakonana (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I do not know if there is any Javascript framework that can reliably handles all different variations of EXIF data. The potential damage of a bug would be huge as this could result in loss a important data impossible to recover if discovered after the person left the project. GPSLeo (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve also been somewhat annoyed by this, as with my own camera the EXIF GPS coordinates can be way off (Nikon Snapbridge is garbage, and will often fail to update GPS for 15+ minutes, resulting in very inaccurate coordinates). I usually blank the location in Upload Wizard if that happens and the coordinates are not important to the photo (e.g. I when went to a computer trade show and took pictures of a bunch of products), but now this bot is adding the inaccurate EXIF data back into the Location parameter when I intentionally

blanked it in Upload Wizard. 4300streetcar (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

For this case there is the new {{GPS EXIF ambiguous}}. GPSLeo (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Does that mean that the UploadWizard did not remove the coordinates from the EXIF data? Nakonana (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, if you use MS Windows, it is pretty trivial to edit EXIF data before uploading, using "Properties". I don't know if anything that easy is available on other OSs. Exiftool is widely available, but not as friendly in its UI. - Jmabel ! talk 18:04, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Does UploadWizard ever remove coordinates? I think if you blank out the latitude & longitude fields there, it doesn't do anything to the Exif data. Sam Wilson 02:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about the UploadWizard. I was just going off what 4300streetcar wrote, because, as far as I am aware, the Commons app does remove the location from the EXIF data if you enable that option in the settings. Nakonana (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

We are also now in a situation where both Rkieferbot and BotMultichill are doing this, and they will do it on the same file. See File:Air Line Trail bridge over Ten Mile River, July 2022.jpg where I removed incorrect camera coords added by Rkieferbot, only to have BotMultichill re-add the template. I also cannot find where BotMultichill was given community approval for the task. Pinging Rkieferbaum and Multichill. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: we have {{GPS EXIF ambiguous}} for that. Multichill (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Multichill: It should not be added twice by two different bots, one of which was never approved for the task. Please stop the bot task until it is approved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, the worst thing for privacy is when the information is out there but the victim doesn't know it. When a bot pulls out the coordinates, at least the uploader has a chance of seeing it and taking appropriate action if necessary. If we just keep it in the file but hide it, that's the worst of all worlds as its still accessible to people with malicious purposes but the victim is less likely to be aware of it. Bawolff (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I've been wondering if one of these bots should be empowered to upload new versions of files that are contain Exif coordinates but that are tagged with {{Location withheld}} or in Category:Location not applicable, although the bot would then have to be allowed to hide the old revision so that makes it slightly more complicated. And that doesn't help with files that aren't tagged with either of those things (which perhaps is the majority). Sam Wilson 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time and can’t cover everything that’s been said here, but I feel there’s an urgent need to address a fundamental misconception in this subject.

Let me be absolutely clear:

• If an image has location information in its EXIF, then that location is public. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.

The panic related to location tags is misleading and hides a more nuanced problem: people think their location information is private if a location tag isn’t present. So to answer Nakonana's question above: nope, the Upload Wizard doesn't remove coordinates from EXIF, never did.

We need to look no further than this: there are currently 137 files that simultaneously contain {{Location withheld}} and SDC location (!). One needs only to go to that category and pick an image to very likely see the text "The geocoded location of the location of this image has been withheld for privacy or other reasons" along with its actual coordinates on the same screen. This is a direct product of misinterpreting what the location tag does.

Imagine an image's EXIF carries "Author: John Smith". Someone comes along and adds Category:Photographs by John Smith. Now imagine the person who added that gets accused of "doxxing" John Smith - would it be reasonable to say this person revealed the user's identity and breached his privacy? Of course not. The location tags function in the exact same way. They're a way of organizing information, not of publicizing it. If a nefarious type wants to find one's collection, there are several ways that are both more efficient and more revealing than browsing over 30 million photographs on WikiShootMe - they'd only need to browse a category and check for coordinates, or, even more easily, batch retrieve coordinates of a set of categories within a certain radius, and no one would be the wiser. Adding or removing {{Location}} does nothing to change that.

Note that I'm not saying privacy isn't important; on the contrary, it's extremely important, which is exactly why it is so silly to think that the topic of privacy is being covered by debating the presence of location tags. It's not. Either the image's location is public or it is not; there's no such thing as making something a little less public.

If and when I have the time, I'll try to develop a script that downloads images with {{Location withheld}}, strips geotags, reuploads them and tags them for revision hiding. If I do I'll obviously get it approved before running it. Then we'd be talking about improving privacy. Until then, adding location tags, if anything, improves privacy by making people aware of its availability.

Rkieferbaum (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Related to this discussion there was a request for help once by a distressed user who uploads photos of private parts of his wife and who found one of those photos hovering over his house in one of out tools displaying photographs over satellite photos of the terrain. We helped him strip the EXIF and reupload the photo and we deleted the original photo and the edit history. So yes big privacy concerns, but I agree with user:Bawolff that it is better to know than not to know. --Jarekt (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rkieferbaum: That's all true, and I agree. I think there is one important point though: once the coords have been extracted, they can then be queried via the API. This makes them easier to find, compared to having to search by filename. But yeah, no one should be thinking that any info is being public here that wasn't already. Sam Wilson 11:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I always leave GPS on, except at home or other place where I don't want the world to know. However, GPS only works on my phone. My Nikon DC-G100 sometimes takes a better picture but its connection to my phone is unreliable and often fails to pick up the coordinates. Perhaps there's a better place to ask, but are others more satisfied with how they get their real camera to record the correct location? Jim.henderson (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

At this point with my Nikon Iː

• Use Google Maps after the fact to get the coordinates from satellite view (most common). For the latter options I usually have to validate the coordinates anyways with Google Maps, so if the location is easy to find on a map I'll just go straight to using Google Maps.
• Use a $50 Micnova GPS unit that connects to my camera (this makes the camera ungainly and harder to fit in my bag, uses more battery, and it takes about 30 seconds for it to find GPS satellites if it's the first time I power it on in a while).
• Manually restart Snapbridge on my phone, get it to Bluetooth connect with my camera, and explicitly tell it to download location data, sometimes after force-restarting it once or twice (slow, but sometimes faster than the above)
• If I'm on a bike ride and recording the bike ride with Strava I'll just grab the .gpx file from Strava, open it in a text editor, and get the coordinates corresponding to the timestamp on the photo.
• If it's say, underground and impossible to find the precise location I grab the GPS coordinates for the location from a Wikipedia article or Google Maps and reduce the decimal places down to 4 or 3 places to reflect the uncertainty.

4300streetcar (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@4300streetcar: in Lightroom (and other programs) you can import .gpx and apply the location to selected photos. If you sync the camera and mobile/smartwatch clocks, you get surprisingly good positioning with very little effort. I have a .gpx tracker on my watch and just turn it on when I’m out with my dslr. Rkieferbaum (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Mass uploaders who fail to properly categorize their uploads

Is there a policy against this? I’ve been having to do a lot of categorization work from a certain mass Flickr uploader who both lacks subject matter expertise to ID their subjects, and does not put in the effort to add categories that don’t require expertise (e.g. date or location categories when the location is clearly in the filename or Flickr caption). I’ve raised the issue on their talk page (and highlighted which categories their uploads should go into, including ones that don’t require subject ID), but I’ve got no response, no categorization, and they continue uploading several dozen barely categorized photos every day, leading to an ever-growing backlog of categorization work that I don’t have time for. Is there a policy against this? For mass uploaders this just puts a ton of work on other Commons editors. I’m personally of the opinion that if you don’t know what your subject is, don’t upload 300 photos of it.

In this case, the uploader clearly knows how to categorize (they do full-categorizations of some of the photos in the London area), which makes this more annoying. 4300streetcar (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't a policy against it per se. But it is extremely frowned on. Uploaders should at least put files in basic topical categories if nothing else. It's not even that much extra work depending on how they are uploading the images. Personally, I probably spend as much time, if not more, categorizing images I've uploaded then I do actually uploading them. I much do it myself then have someone else do it wrong later. I suspect a lot of photographers who upload their images to Commons just want the clout without having to actually do anything on here for it. Since for some reason it's pretty common for photographers in particular to use extremely vague file names, descriptions, and not categorize their uploads properly (if at all). --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I think such issues have been reported on the administration noticeboard in some instances and also led to some sanctions like blocking the user from uploading until they've sorted out their mess. Nakonana (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

We've had the occasional block over this when it reaches extremes (e.g. 100,000+ files, poor filenames, poor descriptions, gfew relevant categories).

@Adamant1: I much do it myself then have someone else do it wrong later. No matter what I do to this sentence it won't parse, but after looking at it for a few seconds I would presume that "then" should be "than", and there are some words missing.

Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

"Rather than"? Lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Cant we set up a system which demands all files are categorised? Rathfelder (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Or at least be stricter about enforcing it. There's no reason it take 100,000+ files before there's an issue. That's even assuming it becomes ones to begin with. A lot of times it doesn't. The standard should be enforced way before it gets to that point though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I made a maintenance category for files needing additional categorization uploaded by the uploader on just one particular subject area, and skimmed the thumbnails and used Cat-A-Lot to quickly add files from the last week or so into that maintenance category, and ended up with 479 files uploaded over the course of about 4 days for that one subject area alone (which also excludes the dozen or two I already categorized, and hundreds of photographs of other subject areas). For all files they uploaded about 263 files in the 24 hours before their most recent upload, and 257 files in the 24 hours before that. This is probably well beyond the rate at which it's reasonable to expect other Commons editors to categorize at. Perhaps upload rate of uncategorized/barely categorized files is one factor to consider here. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: it really doesn't work. Bad categories are worse than no categories. This is one of those things that requires common sense and good will, and if one of the two is lacking no rule makes it work. I won't name names, but we had a rather experienced user, someone who has been employed by WMF, whose initial response to an admonition about putting no categories on their uploads was to add things like Category:2017 in the United States. About all that did was make them harder to find as needing categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

U4C motion in Commons and UCoC enforcement

The U4C is currently voting on a motion to a case that involves this community. You may wish to review this motion and make any comments you would like U4C members to see on the talk page. On behalf of the U4C, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Local community should decide first on sysop

Whether a sysop should be removed should first be decided by the local community, not a bunch of other users.--RoyZuo (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Certainly the local community could have removed him. There is no question, though, that the U4C is empowered to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't even knew people were upset with A.Savin until i saw this. Was there a bunch of discussions i somehow missed? Trade (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm supprised you didn't see or otherwise look at A.Savin's case when you commented on mine a few months ago since the title specifically says it has to do with Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I just left the discussion since i was apparently using it wrongly Trade (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh. Don't feel bad. I think we all were lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The local community has still not yet had a vote or community-wide discussion about this sysop the u4c is dealing with. That should happen first before u4c does anything contrary to local community's past decisions. RoyZuo (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• I'm generally wary of U4C appointing itself as ArbCom over all projects, passing resolutions not subject to community consensus. GMG^talk 20:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  The only way to not be forced to follow the U4C decisions would be having an own ArbCom (Yes, this can also be overruled by the U4C but such a scenario is very unlikely). GPSLeo (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there a correct way to handle "bad" geoocoords?

I frequently encounter files with geocoords that are probably accurate within a few kilometers, but are clearly not an accurate representation of the camera location for the photo. Is there any correct way to mark these as such with a template? If I'm not in the mood to do a ton of research myself to pin down the location precisely, is there anything else useful I can do short of that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: , See Template:Location "prec" parameter.--Jarekt (talk) 03:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I never noticed we had that. I'm not sure I've ever seen it "in the wild." Instead, I've just seen a lot of rather inaccurate coordinates and no indication that they are either estimated (e.g. {{Location estimated}}, which I use a lot on my own uploads) or imprecise. - Jmabel ! talk 05:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

For those wondering, geo coordinates when retrieved by the camera can be rather inaccurate, especially if the camera was started and you then immediately take photos. It takes about 20 seconds for a GPS signal to become accurate. It is also not uncommon that those photos have the coordinates of the location you visited earlier (the previous photo you took at a completely different location).

Phones are much more precise, as they fallback to, less accurate, but faster positioning information (cell towers and detected WiFi signals A-GPS) and then use gps to refine that positioning further and further. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

August 23

Photo challenge June results

One stands out: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	One purple Tulip surrounded by a few white Tulips.	Flamingos, one shakes itself after a bath, Parc Ornithologique de Pont de Gau, Camargue, France	a goose surrounded by ducks
Author	MikeBurnsPhotos	Mozzihh	Chrissieminton
Score	17	15	11

Steam: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Treno a vapore nella stazione di Pontassive in occasione della Befana	Sinter terraces full of steam in the morning sun, Lower Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone National Park	Vasca e sorgenti di acqua calda sulfurea al Parco della Mola di Oriolo Romano
Author	Repuli	Lusi Lindwurm	Albarubescens
Score	13	10	8

Congratulations to MikeBurnsPhotos, Mozzihh, Chrissieminton, Repuli, Lusi Lindwurm and Albarubescens. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Using infoboxes or creator templates in galleries

Yay or nay? I could go either way myself depending on the gallery but creator templates seem a little excessive in most, if not, all instances. Like with Louis Daguerre. I don't really see what the template adds there. At least outside of pointless extra scrolling to get to the images. BTW in case anyone wants one, България is a great example of where an infobox can go wrong in a gallery. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't they be made collapsible to only show the most important info unless one clicks expand? Nakonana (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I think there's a setting to have them collapsed by default but I can't remember ever seeing anyone use it if there is. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Like this:

Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)
	Alternative names	Pablo Diego José Francisco de Paula Juan Nepomuceno María de los Remedios Cipriano de la Santísima Trinidad Clito Ruiz y Picasso
	Description	Spanish painter, sculptor and graphic artist co-founder, along with Georges Braque, of cubism
	Date of birth/death	25 October 1881	8 April 1973
	Location of birth/death	Málaga	Mas Notre-Dame-de-Vie de Mougins
	Work location	Paris; Royan; Aix-en-Provence; Avignon; Antibes; Schoorl; A Coruña; Barcelona; Madrid
	Authority file	: Q5593 VIAF: 15873 ISNI: 0000000122755381 ULAN: 500009666 LCCN: n78086005 NAID: 10580567 NLA: 35422161 MusicBrainz: 9d5f2c22-e2d2-40be-9919-534437143bb3 Open Library: OL44790A DBNL: pica010 GND: 118594206 SELIBR: 211453 SUDOC: 027071790 BNF: 11919660r NDL: 00452768 BIBSYS: 90058585 NCL: 000093750 NKC: jn19990006541 SBN: CFIV051221 RSL: 000033155 BNE: XX1637941 CALIS: n2004366423 CiNii: DA00376731 NLP: a0000001180893 KulturNav: 87305a20-73cd-45e9-8d1e-022b0b0c29e2 RKD: 63276 J9U: 987007266685605171 BNR: 000174361 Koninklijke: 068447809 Enciclopédia Itaú Cultural: pessoa8902/pablo-picasso NLK: KAC199621663 WorldCat

creator QS:P170,Q5593

Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Restoration of buildings in Germany

How to distinguish already restored buildings and buildings during restoration process? This category should be divided into category which would contain images of restored buildings and category which would contain images of buildings during restoration. Any ideas? Eurohunter (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, we could have a subcat like Category:Restored buildings in Germany. On the other: if the restoration isn't recent, anything like this seems a bit odd. If a 16th-century castle had restoration work in the 19th Century, do we call it a "restored building"? - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

August 24

Gamepad controller with grips to the joystick

Do we have a category for this? I am not of hosting these kind of images in the main category as it misleads people into thinking what the controller actually looks like--Trade (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you give an example of the kind of image you're referring to? Omphalographer (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Steam Deck with Joystick grip

https://dbrand.com/shop/killswitch/steam-deck-cases?addons=stick-grips-steam-deck-black&design=damascus-holo-w&kit=skin#buy

Steam Deck without Joystick grip

https://scale.coolshop-cdn.com/product-media.coolshop-cdn.com/23PY7T/1c13efbfd081405886335aad2c95cd10.jpg/f/valve-steam-deck-256gb.jpg

My point is, should gamepads (and handhelds in general) that have been equipped with accessories or modifications be moved to their own category? Trade (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If there are multiple such pictures you could create a subcategory "Steam deck with third-party accessories" or similar. MKFI (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

August 25

Wikidata automatic categorization needs to generate a different category

Hello, all. Take a look at these categories for people of the German Confederation, and a redlinked automatically generated category on each of them:

• Category:Andreas Allescher, category Category:Men of German Confederation by name
• Category:Emma Jacobina Christiana Marwedel, category Category:Women of German Confederation by name

The redlinked categories there should have the word "the" after the word "of". I tried look for what would add "the", but couldn't find it. It is added correctly for some countries, such as the subcats of men/women of the United Kingdom by name (see here and here), but I couldn't find why it's correct there but not for German Confederation people.

Can anyone help? If this mystery (mysterious to me, at least) is solved, I will check to see if other countries' categories have similar issues. -- Auntof6 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Maybe an issue where a "the" parameter needs to be set to true somewhere (like in case of the Czech Republic in comparison to the other countries in that list[1] or[2]), but no clue which module or template it could be. Nakonana (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that it is Module:Wikidata Infobox#L-1572 but most likely the modules talk page is correct place to request change. --Zache (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

@Zache: Thanks! I'll follow up on that. -- Auntof6 (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

August 26

AI tool for inverse halftoning?

I'm generally not a fan of using AI to touch-up or enhance images, but it seems like one area where AI could actually be helpful is for inversing halftoning (aka descreening). Regular tools for this generally do a crappy job and lose a lot of detail. Of course, I would not want to replace any original images with AI descreened images, but it might be nice to have them as alternate versions (especially in cases where there is prominent moiré patterning). Anyway, I was just curious if anyone knows of a service (preferably free) that actually does this well. Nosferattus (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Even without AI, I've found just a slight blur often does this pretty well. And I would presume that any "detail" AI produces beyond that is just the usual upscaling garbage. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Inverse halftoning is a fairly specialized process. General-purpose image models (like the ones available through ChatGPT and similar) are not suitable for this task; they will inevitably make other changes to the image regardless of what instructions they are given. Omphalographer (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

What does ChatGPT or general-purpose image models have to do with my question? Nosferattus (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

For better or worse, that's what most people think of when they hear "AI tools", and it's what a nontrivial number of Commons uploaders have been using to retouch photos (both old and new). Omphalographer (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Improving Deletion Workflows in the Commons App

Hi all, Currently, in the Commons App we do not have a proper Speedy Deletion tagging system like on the web. Instead, there is only a "Nominate for deletion" option with a set of pre‑written reasons. I would like to propose some changes to make the process clearer and more consistent with Commons practices:

• Nominate Speedy Deletion option in the App

When a user clicks Nominate for Speedy Deletion, a menu of pre‑written standard reasons should appear, such as:

• Copyright violations – Copyright violations
• Duplicate – Duplicate
• Advertisements – Advertisements for speedy deletion
• Personal files – Personal files for speedy deletion
• Other speedy deletions – Other speedy deletions

This keeps tagging consistent with web workflows, and prevents “miscategorized” speedy nominations.

• Nominate for Deletion (regular DR)

When a user clicks Nominate for deletion, instead of a pre‑written menu, a text box should open where they can explain in their own words why the file needs deletion. This matches how we handle non‑speedy DR on desktop, where reasoning and evidence are needed for discussion.
Why propose this?

• Aligns Commons App workflows more closely with established Commons deletion policies.
• Makes it easier for newer contributors to choose the right process (clear distinction between Speedy vs. Regular deletion). (We can also discuss if we should allow only above 10 level users can have this or overall deletion request option)
• Reduces ambiguity and improper tagging.

Would love to hear thoughts from the community and admins on whether this distinction should be implemented in the App. There is also an enhancement proposal added to its repository (https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/6408). Gopala Krishna A (talk) 04:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

we do not have a proper Speedy Deletion tagging system like on the web We don't have any speedy deletion tagging on the web either. Or am I missing something? I only have the "nominate for deletion option" (and even that might be related to some gadget that needs to be activated in one's settings). Are you sure that the speedy deletion tagging is a regular thing on the web that is just available to everyone by default?

As for the proposal, do the two deletion processes need to be separated? Couldn't one just have a drop down menu pop-up where one chooses the reason for the deletion request, e.g. options could be "copyvio", "advertisement", "other reason" etc. If one chooses "copyvio", then a speedy deletion process is initiated. If one chooses "other reason", then a regular deletion process is initiated. One could also add options such as "FoP concerns", "scope issues" etc. which would then initiate a regular deletion process and automatically add potentially relevant categories to the DR or text proposals for one's reasoning. Nakonana (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Many possible copyvios are not speedy deletions, and reasonably often doubts about copyright turn out to be unfounded. Many advertisements aren't even out of scope (e.g. the 756 files in Category:Advertisements in Seattle), let alone speedy deletions. We would not want to drive all such toward being nominated as speedy. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Jmabel has a point but that doesn't turn off the possiblity that the app should remain as is. For example, the app doesn't let the uploaders CSD-tag their recent uploads under G7, and pushes them into unnecessarily creating a DR. We have a well defined CSD criteria at COM:CSD, and I'm sure, we as admins, do check when we delete a file under any CSD rationale or make it turn into a DR. Tagging doesn't mean deleting. Having that said, we for sure do not have proper speedy-deletion tagging system on web either (one that tags the file, and notifies the uploader). Thanks to the kind Mdaniels5757 for working on Twinkle that addresses this challenge on web. I believe that trusted users should have options for CSD-tagging on mobile app, which it currently doesn't offer. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 13:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Nakonana and Aafi there's Help:QuickDelete, available through the gadgets in your settings. It allows for customisable CSD short commands as toollinks. I'm using that quite often for NETCOPYVIOs or self-promotional selfies and wrote myself a customised link for CSD G2 "Useless redirect". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

SVG not properly displayed

File does not display

Hello all,

This is a technical issue. If there is a specific forum for this on Commons, please redirect me there.

At File:Provincie West-Vlaanderen in Belgium.svg my file version of July 25, 21:15 is not displayed in the file history thumbnail and was not displayed either when it was the file's current version, both on the file page and on the projects using it. However when I click on the small text shown in place of the thumbnail, I do get the the correct display there. I thought maybe this is an SVG to PNG conversion issue, but Inkscape is able to convert the SVG. The problem is the same for the other files I updated in this category. What is to be done?

--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Adobe Illustrator namespace declaration. File should display correctly in a couple hours (Too many requests error after change). Glrx (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Glrx, it works! Could you please also: either do the other files in the category (except Brussels, which already works for some reason, and historical Brabant which I did not edit), or explain precisely what must be changed in the code? GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@GrandEscogriffe:

When I click on the link you say displays correctly, I get not only a display but also an error message:

This page contains the following errors:
error on line 20 at column 33: xmlns:i: '&ns_ai;' is not a valid URI
Below is a rendering of the page up to the first error.

That is the key to the whole problem. The WMF rasterizer also detects the error, but it abandons the rasterization and displays nothing.

The original Adobe Illustrator SVG file starts something like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- Generator: Adobe Illustrator 13.0.0, SVG Export Plug-In . SVG Version: 6.00 Build 14948)  -->
<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd" [
	<!ENTITY ns_extend "http://ns.adobe.com/Extensibility/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_ai "http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_graphs "http://ns.adobe.com/Graphs/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_vars "http://ns.adobe.com/Variables/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_imrep "http://ns.adobe.com/ImageReplacement/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_sfw "http://ns.adobe.com/SaveForWeb/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_custom "http://ns.adobe.com/GenericCustomNamespace/1.0/">
	<!ENTITY ns_adobe_xpath "http://ns.adobe.com/XPath/1.0/">
]>
<svg version="1.1"
	 id="Belgium" xmlns:x="&ns_extend;" xmlns:i="&ns_ai;" xmlns:graph="&ns_graphs;" xmlns:svg="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
	 xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" x="0px" y="0px" width="1135.92px"
	 height="987.996px" viewBox="-0.302 -21.884 1135.92 987.996" enable-background="new -0.302 -21.884 1135.92 987.996"
	 xml:space="preserve">

The file has a DOCTYPE declaration that that defines several entities such as ns_ai. Those entities are referenced using syntax such as &ns_ai;. The svg element shows three such references.

The files at issue have removed the DOCTYPE declaration. Removing the declaration is OK, but when it is removed, all the entity references should be replaced by the entity definitions. Many XML parser routines will do that (if correctly configured) because DOCTYPE declarations are out of favor for XML that uses namespaces.

The tools you used removed the DOCTYPE but did not do the entity substitution. Furthermore, the tool got confused when it tried to output the string xmlns:i="&ns_ai;". An ampersand (&) is special XML character. The problem tools did not want to output it as a special character but rather tried to quote it by changing & to & (thereby destroying the entity reference). I think subsequent saves may introduce an arbitrary number of follow on #38; artefacts that also try to supply an & character.

The resulting nonsense will be an svg element with bogus namespace declarations such as

xmlns:i="&ns_ai;"

The fix is to edit the namespace declaration as if the proper entity substitution had been done:

xmlns:i="http://ns.adobe.com/AdobeIllustrator/10.0/"

Are you comfortable with doing that fix? It can be done by downloading the problem file, using a text editor to fix the attribute, and then uploading the changed file. I revert the bad file and use Rillke's SVG Edit to make the change.

Glrx (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

New sysops should not be permanent

or, at the very least, they should have a probation period. what do you think? RoyZuo (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I could see a probation period being useful since there's been at least a couple of admins since I started contributing who just stopped editing or weren't that active after getting the privilege. Which kind of defeats the purpose. A bigger issue IMO though is long-term admins who abuse the privilege because they get to comfortable with it and either just slack off or stop caring because there's no accountability on here for abusive administrators anyway. That's not really helped with a probation period. What might help is a recall process similar to what Wikipedia implemented recently but I don't really see anyone supporting one on here. A probation period for a new admins along with a more formal recall process outside of de-adminship would be huge improvements IMO though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

We already have a community recall process on Commons, and IMO it works better than the one on Wikipedia. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I assume your talking about the normal de-adminship process. I'm not super up on how the new recall process works on Wikipedia. From what I understand though it's different then the normal process. At least from what I've seen the current de-adminship process on here is totally ineffective because you guys will just defend each other and chalk the whole thing up to personal revenge or some nonsense. cough cough. Hence why that whole thing was even necessary in the first place when A.Savin should have lost the privilege years ago. I'd say the same thing for Yann and his love of involved editing to BTW, which there's been multiple complaints about over the years and you guys are more then willing to defend. The current de-adminship process clearly isn't effective though. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should have an "admin on probation" system but with much lower requirements to become an "admin on probation". And I also think we should have more strict inactivity rules to get are more realistic number when looking at the number of admins. GPSLeo (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Argument between two users, if you want to read it

I am surprised that you still have a grudge against me, although I didn't interact with you for weeks. Yann (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC) @Yann: Didn't you make a snide comment about me and edit waring in the ANU complaint a few weeks ago? That's just the game you guys play. You can make backhanded remarks about me all day when the conversation had nothing to do with you and there was no reason to but if I bring up your conduct as an administrator in conversation specifically about that I just have a grudge or some nonsense. Right. Anyway, I don't personally care about you or any other admin. Your the one who target me and refused to back off it. I just want you guys to follow basic standards when you use the tools. I don't really see what's wrong with that. Your clearly a gilded class who can't be bothered with it though. Hence my comment here and why I think there needs to be something besides the normal de-adminship process. Since it clearly isn't an effective way to deal with chronic tool abusers like you or A.Savin. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC) No, I didn't target you. You were harassing people, and you still refuse to admit it. That is YOUR problem, not mine. And you will be accountable for your unproven accusations of chronic tool abusers. Yann (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC) I have zero problem laying out the evidence if anyone wants me to but you and another user targeted me years ago for voting to keep some false flags and you've been harrasing me ever since. That's why you had to be told to piss off my talk page. What happened with your request to be VRT agent to Yann? From what I remeber it was shot down and you were roundly critized for being unrealible. Including by other admins. Must have been because your aperfect angel and all those people who think you can't be trusted with anything outside of basic rights that my cat could get are just axe grinders with grudges. Whatever helps you cope. More on topic, its not a functional system IMO if the only way to deal with clearly horrible admins like Yann or A.Savin is to have the U4C deal with it. The project should be able to clean up its own messes and the current process clearly isn't an effective way to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Stop making things up as you write. I will report you again if you continue. No, my VRT right was only removed because I was inactive. I request an apology. Yann (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC) @Yann: The search isn't working so I can't find the exact discussion but what did you request recently that was shot down because people didn't think you should have the privilege due to your actions as an admin? Was it checkuser or something else? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC) Never mind I found it. Commons:Checkusers/Requests/Yann 2. Apparently I'm making things up though lmao. Really, enjoy the cope. Admins are clearly there own special class on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC) @Yann and Adamant1: do you think you can take this elsewhere rather than derail discussion of someone else's proposal? - Jmabel ! talk 19:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC) @Jmabel: Sure, but I'm including Yann's first comment in the collapsed part. Otherwise it's kind of unfair to me since that's what started it and I should be able respond without the message being hidden if someone is going to throw around false accusations like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't think a probation period would accomplish much. Most admins make a few mistakes at first. Conversely, most really egregious behavior by admins does not occur early in their adminship.

If we want something like this, I think it would be better to have adminships be for a term, and have a routine review/vote after some period (probably 2 or 4 years). In transitioning to that, we'd probably want to roll it out, so that longtime-admins like myself would initially be reviewed over a period of years rather than all at once; otherwise the transition will be like drinking from a firehose.

Since all admins inevitably are going to piss off someone (in my opinion, an admin who never makes anyone angry is probably not doing the job), we'd need a lower threshold in a vote to keep an adminship than to gain one in the first place, but it should certainly still require majority support, or even 60%.

To put my money where my mouth is, I will gladly face such a vote myself whether this is adopted as a general policy or not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Should variations of real flags be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category?

Hello! I would like to ask if variations of real flags that differ only in shade of color or small details (such as the arrangement of elements) should be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category? I have noticed that in general, such variations are not included in this category, but are instead placed either in the main flag category or in the "Variations of X flag" category. However, there is currently a conflict with Freedoxm regarding a File:Syrian Flag العلم السوري.svg. Freedoxm insists that this file should be included in the "Special or fictional flags" category, since this version has never been used in real life. I object, pointing to the aforementioned practice of not including variations of real flags in this category. However, Freedoxm stubbornly continues to return Template:Fictitious flag to its place. In this regard, I would like to know the community's opinion on this issue. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Probably they should be both categorized and labeled as such. There's seems to be a real resistance with some users who uploaded fictional flags to that though. So I don't think it would actually work even if there was a consensus to do things that way. Really, any clearly "ficitional" flag should just be nominated for deletion as OOS on sight. That's the only way to actually deal with the problem IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There are some *notable* fictional flags (eg used in a famous work of literature that has Wikipedia articles about). So there can be such a thing as an in-scope fictional flag. But if it can't be shown to have notability, agree, it should be deleted. (I remember going to school in pre-internet era, when some kids found it fun to make up flags and draw them on paper. Unfortunately some contemporary counterparts seem to think that Wikimedia Commons is an appropriate place to put their fantasies, which it is not.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

If the variation is actually used in the real world and has some notability, it may not be "fictional". If the variation is just something someone or some group on the internet made up, it should be labeled as fictional (if it should be on Commons at all, which per COM:SCOPE would often be not). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Infrogmation just said what I was about to say. For example, the Thin Blue Line flag and the flag substituting a peace symbol for the stars on the U.S. flag are certainly not fictional. - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

The key questions that I tend to consider about flags are "what does this flag represent", "who has used this flag to represent that thing", and "who recognizes the flag as representing that thing". Flags which are in scope typically have broad use and recognition, including by people outside the group identified by the flag. Omphalographer (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Wat are these drinking places called?

• 
• 
• 

This is typical drinking bar in some local stations in Austria. Mostly wooden structures.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen similar ones in Romania, where I haven't heard any term more specialized than "bar". - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The building looks like a former railway building, maybe originally used for cargo and/or for technical purposes, and when it was repurposed for Bahnhofskneipe (Beiz, Beisl), they expanded it by adding the part with the windows.

As to DE-AT names, let's see what the others can tell us. -- Martinus KE (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I almost want to call them pop up bars. That doesn't seem quite correct though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

August 27

Post Restant

In the pre-digital age, people where often traveling/working in a far away places, with no fixed adres. So a Poste restant was a solution to forward the mail to. Are there any other examples and is there a category for it? Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps Category:Poste restante? Tvpuppy (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks,  Done Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

How to disable categorization using a template for one of the pages?

Hello! I would like to know how to disable categorization using a template for one of the pages? The reason for my question is the following: I tried to disable categorization using a Template:Shahada for Category:Flags with shahada, since the categorization in this case was recursive, but none of the methods I tried worked. Therefore, I am contacting here again. Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

{{Suppress categories}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   11:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Поль Крол Злой Диктатор (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Through truss bridges

1. I am not a mechanical or civil engineer.
2. I believe a "through truss bridge" specifically means one where the truss extends both above and below the roadway.
3. In Category:Through truss bridges, not only do a lot of the images appear to me not to be through truss bridges, but File:Through Truss.png, used as an illustration at the top of the page, does not appear to be a through truss bridge. Ronaldino, who added it there, is long gone, so presumably not available for discussion.

I hesitate to make changes in an area where I am very far from expert. Can someone who knows more about this please have a look? - Jmabel ! talk 19:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also not an engineer, but the impression I got from looking through Category:Through truss bridges is that those bridges have a "roof", while the bridges in Category:Half-through truss bridges don't have a "roof", and the description of Category:Pony truss bridges seems to confirm my impression: pony truss bridges are half-through truss bridges (the top is not connected by cross braces above the deck, as is for through types). Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/bridges/historic-bridges/bridge-types/Pages/truss.aspx

For File:Through Truss.png, I see a left and right truss, the roadbed on the bottom chord, and the tops of the trusses connected. Looks like a through truss bridge. However, the two views of the bridge are inconsistent.

Glrx (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

August 28

Domain hijacking of sources

Five years ago i uploaded a bunch of PD-simple logos from a site. I looked at the files again and i found out that the URL in the source= field have been domain hijacked by a porn site. What is the appropriate way for Commons to deal with this issue? Trade (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you know if the original sources were archived? If they were, then you can link to the archives instead. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

You mean having the archive in parentheses? Or just removing the unarchived URL entirely and replace it with the archived version? Trade (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to leave a hijacked link in a clickable state; I'd probably remove the "https//:". - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)