Commons:Village pump
Latest comment: 1 hour ago by Smiley.toerist in topic Wich station in Hungary?
|
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/2026/10. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 A village pump in Burkina Faso [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
January 02
History maps of Europe
Hi, I would like to discuss the description in all categories of the scheme "Maps of
- the wording of the definition in the first paragraph of the hatnote
- whether or not to include "you may also be looking for similar maps" (second and third paragraph) of the description
- whether or not to re-include a distinction between history maps (in this category group) vs. old maps (not in this category group)
- For the first point, there are two proposals, the first is the current "
Maps showing all or most of the territory (geographic area) of modern-day
" which I would prefer to replace with a simple "- as the lands were in the 8th century (701-800 CE) This category is about maps of the history of
", given that "modern-day territories" are not always the same as they were in the respective century. Another critism of mine is that "all or most" excludes history maps that only cover smaller parts of the country in question.in the 8th century (701-800 CE) - For the second point, my argument is that these paragraphs are not necessary, since the links to the Atlas project should be included in the respective parent category (i.e. "Maps of the history of
"), which is also linked via template. - For the third point, I find it essential to point out that Commons has always distinguished "current", "history" and "old" maps, formulated in Template:TFOMC: "history" maps include this map of Poland in the 16th century (created recently, depicting the past) but "old" maps include this 16th-century map of Poland (created to depict the present, back then). There are certain grey areas where these categories DO overlap, especially "old history maps", but in quite many cases they don't. The respective category names are quite similar and can be confused, so I would suggest to mention this right in the category description.
- For the first point, there are two proposals, the first is the current "
I've put my own opinion in italics to explain why I think this requires debate, but I would like for people to check out the scheme examples for themselves, and judge on their own. Peace, --Enyavar (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Enyavar: I'm trying to understand the first point. A couple of questions that may help me understand:
- Would there be no such thing as "maps of Germany" for any date before 1866? Or would we take "Germany" before that date to mean the German-speaking world (and, if so, would that include areas where the rulers spoke German, but most of their subject did not)? or what? (Similarly for Italy.)
- Similarly: would there be no such thing as maps of Poland or Lithuania between 1795 and 1918? If so, what would we call maps of that area in that period?
- I could easily provide a dozen similar examples, but answers to those two will at least give me a clue where this proposes to head. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for that question, our categories about "history of" do not really care for nation states existing. Germany's history begins quite some time before it became a nation in the 19th century, and Polish history did not stop during the times of division: Poland in the 19th century is unquestionably a valid category. Our history categories generally imply that people know the limits of a subject without exact definitions.
- Your question is getting to the reason why I am uncomfortable with the current hatnote/definition of these categories. I have not checked for all countries in Europe, but I'm quite confident: We do not define the subject of "Maps of the history of Poland" with a hatnote. We do not define "Poland in the 16th century" either. So why would we define the combination subcategory of the two so narrowly and rigidly, that only 6 out of 26 files currently in the category even match that (unreasonable) definition? (And of course, Poland/16th is just a stand-in here, I would argue the same for Spain/12th and Italy/8th and all others)
- I would even be okay with no definition at all, besides a template notice (my third point) that "maps of
in Xth century" is about history maps, and old maps have to be found in "Xth-century maps of ". --Enyavar (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC) - Categories denoted as old, or historic, are not terribly useful. Much better to put dates on them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Please read the original post, that is not a comment on the actual questions of this topic. Old maps are not the topic here, this is about history maps (i.e. Maps showing history of specific countries/centuries) regardless of when they were produced.
- The term "historic maps" that can denote both, has rightfully fallen (mostly) into disuse. --Enyavar (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- Categories denoted as old, or historic, are not terribly useful. Much better to put dates on them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for that question, our categories about "history of" do not really care for nation states existing. Germany's history begins quite some time before it became a nation in the 19th century, and Polish history did not stop during the times of division: Poland in the 19th century is unquestionably a valid category. Our history categories generally imply that people know the limits of a subject without exact definitions.
- @Enyavar: I'm trying to understand the first point. A couple of questions that may help me understand:
In our Commons:WikiProject Postcards we have the similar problem. Is this a "old postcard of the German Empire" or a "Postcard of Germany". There we are mostly agree, that today people often search for postcards be the locations of today. So many former German towns are now Polnish towns and so we are categorized this postcards under the polnish name of the town. See also Commons:WikiProject_Postcards#Categories. Best regards --sk (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Stefan Kühn: , I have not responded before since I am not sure how this constitutes a similar problem, or what action you expect other users to take on behalf of your project. My own case is less about the exact nationality of specific locations; and more about hatnote definitions of these categories in general.
- As nobody has yet voiced any opinion on the subject matter, I'm resolved to wait a bit longer. --Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
February 22
Maps from Our World in Data
A suggestion in regards with the maps from Our World in Data: remove from each map the category
These maps weren't published in the years referenced. In addition, it could make the categories of
Thanks in advance. --Universalis (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- As with other files in these categories, that's the year of the data. This categorization has large usefulness to find and update outdated images used on Wikipedia. And the category title does not imply that's the year the map was made. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- +1 to Prototyperspective. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)
- I have been meaning to say something about these maps, and this is a good occasion. User:Universalis is right that these maps were not created in that year,
and it IS practice on Commons to understand "maps" being the maps created in that timeframe, not the maps showing that timeframe - the latter would be better placed under "maps showing ". - User:Doc James, who is creating the majority of recent OWiD maps that concern what might be called history, is producing them by the thousand each day, at least as far as I can observe. For 2026-02-24 I just checked and saw 5000 edits, most if not all of them creating and categorizing OWiD statistics/maps usually looking like this (1947), this (1664) and this (1800). That is an enormous output and just for example 1764 maps of North America is currently dominantly OWiD maps and I suspect that this is true for basically all year-maps-of-world/continent right now. Case in point: the categories for 1444 maps of Africa, 1445 maps of Europe or 1446 maps of Asia don't even exist right now, but they are already filled with OWiD maps.
- With at least 300'000 OWiD maps already existing and no end in sight, I would really like to delegate all of these maps into specific OWiD-categories for each continent and year. My suggestion for File:Annual co2 cement, North America, 1764.svg would be Our World in Data maps showing North America in 1764 or Our World in Data maps of North America in 1764. These year-categories would themselves be categorized under Our World in Data maps showing 1764 and Our World in Data maps of North America in the 18th century.
- The titles I suggest above are up for debate. Is it more practical to use "Our World in Data maps" or can it be shortened to "OWiD maps" ? Also, should it be "showing" (as per our category branch "maps showing
") or should it just be "of" ? --Enyavar (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC) - Sure we can adjust the categories however folks wish. We have additionally build a tool to help with more fined toned mass categorization. See Help:Gadget-CategoryBatchManager.
- With respect to numbers, yes have uploaded about 600K so far and it looks like I am maybe a third done, so maybe 1.2 million more to go. Will likely not finish until this fall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)
and it IS practice on Commons to understand "
this is an inaccurate statement. Look into any of these categories of years of the recent few decades and you'll notice how what you said is false. What you said applies to old maps and there usually the data shown is not known better than year of map made or the same. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)maps" being the maps created in that timeframe, not the maps showing that timeframe - So what do folks want us to do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- In 2014, it has been decided that "
maps" should essentially be empty disambiguations, and we should use "maps created in " and "maps showing " instead. Practically, this rule has never been enforced, and has lead to many simmering debates ever since. I'm striking my quarrelsome nitpicks from my previous comment, in order to focus on the suggestion at hand: Creating special categories for OWiD maps. Okay? --Enyavar (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC) - If you'd like to these could be subcategorized in the maps by year cats...I tried to keep them as flat as possible to enable viewing all the relevant files on one page, have easier to understand standardized cat names, and not start deep nesting that can cause queries and scans to break. Many hundreds of files would be moved. If there is agreement and no objections, should they be named Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:OWID maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:Maps of the world showing 2017 (OWID) or Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 or Category:2014 Our World in Data maps of the world or Category:2014 maps of the world (OWID) or sth else? (It's mostly maps of the world that I'd move.) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- Doc James has stated above that we are going to have about ~1'800'000 maps once the current run of creating these files is finished. And I don't even think that will be the end of it. So I agree, we need to have a good standardized cat structure, and I am willing to hear if Doc James also has input on good names, or input on which names are less good. With that lead:
- As far as I can see, we do have the following seven regions over which these maps are distributed: "the world", "Africa", "Asia", "Europe", "North America", "Oceania", "South America". These are the seven most common frames I noticed so far, please correct me if there are more. "World" is probably going to be a bit larger, but I don't think we should neglect the other regions, which are all going to be equally densely filled.
- Now, thinking about the best name structure. I would prefer to pre-fix the data source, similarly to how we do it with other major map providers like "OpenStreetMap maps of...", "USGS maps of...", "ShakeMaps of earthquakes in...": The most important qualifier gets frontloaded. For easy manual input, I would prefer the name "OWiD maps of...". However, the categories are unlikely to get assigned manually, and it is much easier to understand what the acronym means when it is written out. So right now, I would tend to go with the general
Our World in Data maps of...
as the prefix, then followed with the seven (?) regions identified above. - Afterwards comes the suffix. Prototypeperspektive suggested
... showing
, my own ideas leaned towardsdata ... in
or... showing
. These suggestions all look equally good to me. Prototype's suffix has the advantage of pointing out that these maps are data-driven and not cartography-driven. So I think that would be best. - Following that idea, we could go with
Our World in Data maps of
. Taking an existing map like File:States involved in state based conflicts, Oceania, 1947.svg, one would assign Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data instead of the current three categories Our World in Data maps of Oceania, Maps showing 1947 and 1947 maps of Oceania. That new category would itself be categorized directly under the existing three categories it replaces.showing data - If the above suggestion seems agreeable... how difficult is it for Doc James to change the automated exports and the templates that are currently in use? And would you be able to do an automated re-categorization of all the already existing files? Would you need help? --Enyavar (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yah I think doing this in an automated fashion should be fairly easy. This would be subcategories of what main category? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- [[:category:Our World in Data maps of
showing data]] would be subcategory of [[:category:Our World in Data maps of ]], [[:category:Maps showing ]] and [[:category: maps of ]]. At a later point, I would like to reshape the last of the three parent categories to bring the OWiD maps under the 20th-century/1940s branches of . With the example above, there is currently no sufficient subdivision of Maps of the history of Oceania, but the idea is creating Maps of Oceania in the 20th century and Maps of Oceania in the 1940s, and that would again be a subcategory of Oceania in the 1940s... But I think that work would not affect the OWiD-maps and their templates itself. --Enyavar (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC) - Plan was to categorize once the initial uploads are completed, which will not be until this fall. And work on the 1.8 million or so files at that point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- You are currently categorizing them upon upload by two mechanisms, one is the template:Map showing old data, the other is assigning regular categories. Right now, neither of these mechanisms is a bespoke template designed for OWiD content.
- I can imagine a template that works like
{{OWiD maps showing|Africa|1758}}that would create the categories we contemplated above, including links to skip forward/backward and also links to skip to the other continents/world extent. If we used such a template to create the category framework discussed above, couldn't you adapt your exporting automatism once that exists? I can only image it would take less work later. - Before I attempt working on such a template myself, I'm asking a few users who I suspect have more routine in templating, @Clusternote, AnRo0002, and Reinhard Müller: My question is how you would go about it: templates for the file descriptions; templates for creating these categories; or both? Are there pitfalls I am not aware of? We are talking here about ca. 2 million standardized files ranging from very few around the year 1021 to an abundance of such files for 2021, with hundreds of files per year per continent in 1834 already. The maps are optimized to be used in slider-frames elsewhere; for Commons I'm more concerned with handling the categorization. Thanks in advance! --Enyavar (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- Here is my suggestion: Maps of Oceania in the 1940s anro (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
- I can happily come up with a suggestion for a template based on the Navigation by system. But first let me make sure I understand correctly:
- The template would be used for categories like Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data, right?
- Would we also have Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1940s data (decade) and Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 19th-century data (century) as parent and grandparent of the year category?
- Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Reinhard, regarding #1 yes that is idea.
{{OWiD maps showing|Africa|175|8}} -->Our World in Data maps of Africa showing 1748 data{{OWiD maps showing|Oceania|194|7}} -->Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data- As for #2 I would have suggested "... showing the 1940s" and "...showing the 20th-century" as parent categories. But you're right, I talked above about "
data" so " s data" and "... data" would be the logical consequence. Now I'm less sure about the format. I am not married to the idea of requiring the "data" suffix, but as long as the template could be made, I see no real problem. @Prototyperspective: , what do you think about "Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 20th century data being the respective category on the century level? Enyavar (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks Reinhard, regarding #1 yes that is idea.
- Plan was to categorize once the initial uploads are completed, which will not be until this fall. And work on the 1.8 million or so files at that point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- [[:category:Our World in Data maps of
- Yah I think doing this in an automated fashion should be fairly easy. This would be subcategories of what main category? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
- Doc James has stated above that we are going to have about ~1'800'000 maps once the current run of creating these files is finished. And I don't even think that will be the end of it. So I agree, we need to have a good standardized cat structure, and I am willing to hear if Doc James also has input on good names, or input on which names are less good. With that lead:
- If you'd like to these could be subcategorized in the maps by year cats...I tried to keep them as flat as possible to enable viewing all the relevant files on one page, have easier to understand standardized cat names, and not start deep nesting that can cause queries and scans to break. Many hundreds of files would be moved. If there is agreement and no objections, should they be named Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:OWID maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:Maps of the world showing 2017 (OWID) or Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 or Category:2014 Our World in Data maps of the world or Category:2014 maps of the world (OWID) or sth else? (It's mostly maps of the world that I'd move.) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
- In 2014, it has been decided that "
- So what do folks want us to do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
I have now created:
- Templates
- {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and century}}
- {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and decade}}
- {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and year}}
- Example use
- Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 20th-century data
- Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1940s data
- Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data
- Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 1947 data
The usage of the templates is super easy, no need for any parameters specifying the continent or the year, they take everything they need to know from the name of the category they are used in.
The names of the continents are automatically translated using Wikidata labels. The first part of the title and the text above and below the navigation blocks are just examples. These can be used as an explanation for the category which is centrally maintained and must only be changed once if something should be changed, and if the texts are final, we can also make them translatable.
Please let me know what you think. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- P.S. Looking at the currently existing category tree about maps, I really think that the OWiD categories shouldn't be in Category:1947 maps of Oceania or Category:1940s maps of Oceania. For centuries, we already have Category:Maps of Oceania in the 20th century, and I think it might be a good opportunity to introduce these categories also on a decade and year level. If you want, I can also create the templates for "Maps by continent and century/decade/year shown". And/or whatever you consider useful for building the correct parent structure for the OWiD categories. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Müller: Thanks a lot! This is even easier to apply than I thought. I populated three continents for the 1940s (Africa, Asia, Oceania) and also the world.
- The decade-template for the world in the 1940s did not work (lua template cannot find "the world"), I hope this can be fixed. Aside from that it looks pretty great. Sorry, two more nitpicks, some links only appear once some other part of the structure has been fully built up. The year-ribbon only shows up once the decade-category is in place; and it seems as if the decade template only shows up once the century-category is in place? Also, I think that the subcategories could be sorted with a space (" ") instead of the "@".
- I agree with your proposal that instead of "1947 maps of Oceania" we should have "Maps of Oceania in 1947" which would be the "maps showing"-version. "Maps of Oceania in 1947" would be a subcategory of "Maps showing 1947", "Oceania in 1947", "Maps of Oceania in the 1940s" respectively. This category would then hold the OWiD maps and all maps that show Oceania in 1947 through the historian's lens, similar to how we already have Maps of Poland in the 16th century (see also one thread above...) and Maps of the world in the 1940s.
- @Universalis, Prototyperspective, Jmabel, and Doc James: when you check the bolded links... does this new structure look okay? --Enyavar (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Very nice. Are you using a bot to apply this? Or have you tried Help:Gadget-CategoryBatchManager? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback!
- I fixed "the world" (ooh, it feels good to write this ;-))
- It is generally true that the template works best when the categories are created top down (i.e. first the centuries, then the decades, then the years). Still the navigation ribbons should appear even if the parent category does not exist (yet), I will have to investigate why they don't. But for the addition of the correct parent categories for new categories, it is important anyway that the parents pre-exist.
- FWIW, this is now also fixed. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have (years ago) thought a lot about the question of logical sort keys, currently they are used very inconsistently across commons. I've even made a page summarizing my thoughts which you may or may not agree with. About this specific case, I think the space is widely used for meta categories (Blah blah by xyz) and should be reserved for that, and that the @ has the advantage of being sorted after all the other special characters, so if for example the category key "*" is before the alphanumeric subcategories, it is also before the numeric subcategories if the numeric are sorted as @. In the end I don't think in our case it makes much of a difference as long as all the subcategories use the same key so they are sorted correctly - which is taken care of by the template.
- About the "Maps of Oceania in 1947", would you want to also create them right now? Should I create a {{Category description/Maps by continent and year}} (and decade and century), and adapt the OWiD templates to the new parents?
- I don't use a bot, and I think that the CategoryBatchManager can add parent categories, but not a template. But since you don't have to change a single letter when copying the template from one category to a similar one, it can be done very fast. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- About the "Maps of Oceania in 1947" - yes, you could create a template for that, as well. We already have parts of that, but right now they were created in a manual fashion: North America/1770s and Asia/18th and Europe/11th. I'm not yet fully eager and ready to apply this structure as long as the other treat about #History maps of Europe is still unresolved. But having the templates prepared now might help later. Once those maps-per-continent-shown-by-year exist, the OWiD template would be switched from "1940s maps of Asia"+"Maps showing the 1940s" --> "Maps of Asia in the 1940s" and so on. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I have created:
- I have not (yet) changed the parent categories for the OWiD categories. Please just let me know when I should do that.
- Also please don't forget that the texts above and below the navigation ribbons are just placeholders (in the OWiD templates and the new templates), and they should be finalized before the templates are widely used. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- About the "Maps of Oceania in 1947" - yes, you could create a template for that, as well. We already have parts of that, but right now they were created in a manual fashion: North America/1770s and Asia/18th and Europe/11th. I'm not yet fully eager and ready to apply this structure as long as the other treat about #History maps of Europe is still unresolved. But having the templates prepared now might help later. Once those maps-per-continent-shown-by-year exist, the OWiD template would be switched from "1940s maps of Asia"+"Maps showing the 1940s" --> "Maps of Asia in the 1940s" and so on. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback!
- Looks great; thanks very much. I just don't know how complete these cats currently are and will be. They could be made complete via deepcategory category intersections and moving files with cat-a-lot. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
- Very nice. Are you using a bot to apply this? Or have you tried Help:Gadget-CategoryBatchManager? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- But first, we need to categorize the OWiD maps. I populated the 1940s structure with a few hours of Cat-a-lot, but there is a catch: all these maps currently have the template
{{Map showing old data|year=1942}}. For the 1940s alone, removing that template meansmanuallyediting 17'500 files. We must use a bot to do these edits, I think. The algorithm, for all ~75'000 maps of Asia would be roughly as follows:- for all files in
[[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia]]- if "
{{Map showing old data|year=YYYY}}" occurs in the file:- take the YYYY as a variable to insert "
[[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia showing YYYY data]]" //** a single category for the location and year of the map **//- if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "
{{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and year}}" //** (as helpfully provided by Reinhard)**//
- if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "
- take the file name as the variable
topicnameand stripFile:and, Asia, YYYY.svg(or,Asia,YYYY.svg) from that variable - insert "
[[Category:Our World in Data maps showing ||topicname]]" //** for example Category:Our World in Data maps showing Absolute change co2, neatly collecting ~1800 files like this one or ~200 files like this one: a single category for the topic of the map, to have them all easily assembled **//- if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "
[[Category:Our World in Data maps by topic]]" //** in many cases, better names might be found, but that cleanup can be handled afterwards manually where needed **//
- if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "
- remove all occurences of "
{{Map showing old data|year=YYYY}}", ""[[Category:YYYY maps of Asia]]" and "[[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia]]"
- take the YYYY as a variable to insert "
- (else leave the file alone)
- if "
- repeat the same with "Africa", "Europe", ["North America" or "NorthAmerica" would need to be mapped onto "North America"], "Oceania", and so on.
- for all files in
- I do not know how exactly to program a bot, but I think this would do the trick, not only to create and populate the categories for continent-by-year, but also to have distinct categories for each topic. Right now, I don't think the latter exist yet. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
For the 1940s alone, removing that template means manually editing 17'500 files
: I haven't been following all of this, but why manually? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)- True, the bot run would also touch those files. I just wanted to emphasize that so many files cannot be realistically processed manually, and then formulated how I think this could be automated. I struck the word in my earlier response. --Enyavar (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
- I added the above request to Commons:Bots. --Enyavar (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
- This does not need a bot and does not need to edit no file, because the categorization is already made by a template on these same files , File:Death rate smoking, World, 1991.svg is in Category:Maps showing 1991 and that category is not written in its wikitext, it comes from {{Map showing old data}}, which is unprotected, I checked it today, and transcluded on 1,374,067 files, so the template can read the page name and emit the right category alone and the job queue does the rest. I have made the test with #invoke:String|match through action=parse and the names give what they should, World and 1991, North America and 1764, Africa and 1021, and no match for a file outside this corpus, but there is a trap, the covid files like ,Covid cases, Europe, Dec 11, 2020.svg, return Dec 11 as the region and there are more than half a million of them, so it needs a guard that the year in the name is equal to the |year= parameter, which kills them because they carry year=2020-12-11. And there is a second thing that worries me more than the first one, the bot request says to work over the files of Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia, which has 72,558 files, while there are 190,443 files that carry the template and have Asia in the name, and two that I took at random, File:Sugar cane yields, Asia, 1991.svg and File:Tomato yields, Asia, 1961.svg, are not in that category, so if a bot runs as it is asked in first place it does only a part of the work and everybody believes it is finished. I do not propose to save this directly, editing a template on 1.37 million pages queues 1.37 million link updates and the community has to agree before, so I can put the tested code in Template:Map showing old data/sandbox and somebody who knows this corpus better than me confirms the region names. @Enyavar, Reinhard Müller, Doc James, Prototyperspective, and Universalis: Wilfredor (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
September 20
Are galleries still useful?
From time to time I come across galleries while I'm trying to access the corresponding category. Most of those that I encounter haven't been updated in the last 10 years, if not longer. Are they still useful, or could we consider mass deleting them? Are there any examples of useful galleries that are still being actively maintained? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Mohandas K. Gandhi and John Ruskin may not have been updated recently, but I believe that they are still useful. Yann (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- They're showing photos from >70 years ago or so, and they are hiding many photos from the categories (I'd look at Category:Mohandas K. Gandhi by year and Category:Portraits of John Ruskin for most of what those galleries are showing). If the summaries are useful, couldn't we just move them to the top of those categories? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- The vast majority are not useful, and never were. Their only real usefulness is in providing a guide to larger categories to aid navigation; even then, galleries on the category page are often better. The Gandhi gallery page is not particularly useful; it seems to be a random collection of image without any clear relevance, and it does not provide subcategory links to help navigate the main category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Agree with @Mike Peel, they're pretty useless, as they almost never get updated with new, usually much better, photos. Because wikipedia links to commons are usually to the galleries, it means that wikipedia editors often don't realise there are newer better photos that they're not seeing. They also rarely get updated for inaccuracies (e.g. photos of misidentified organisms, the category usually gets corrected when the photo is re-identified, but any gallery page use frequently doesn't). So they are not just superfluous, but are also actively harmful. Delete the lot, particularly for categories where new photos are regularly being added (e.g. plant and animal species, places, etc.). @Yann's examples of deceased people (where there are not going to be new photos) are the only cases where galleries could remain useful. - MPF (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- I hadn't seen the "gallery on the category page" pattern before - and I like it. Perhaps we should experiment with applying that to more gallery pages? Omphalographer (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- They're certainly not for every scenario, but I agree they certainly could work on more categories. Two caveats:
- They work best when there's a clear division into subcategories for which a single image is useful for identification or finding a relevant file. Two good examples are Category:MBTA Green Line rolling stock and Category:Bridges by type. Categories where most important files are not in subcategories, where the subcategories are obvious (such as by-color subcategories), or where a single image would not be sufficient/useful (such as by-year subcategories) would not work well.
- Because users need to be able to get to the category contents easily, more than ~10 images starts to get very clunky. A partial-width gallery like on Category:Bridges by type can mitigate that, but it requires scrolling to see all the images, and seems to have to be hard-coded.
- Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- They're certainly not for every scenario, but I agree they certainly could work on more categories. Two caveats:
- No, I do not agree: gallery pages are certainly not useless at all and the use of gallery pages is much broader than only providing a guide to larger categories to aid navigation, even if they are not updated on a regular basis. I use them also to find proper categories, they might not be even a subcategories of the same main category. As a not native English speaker, I often have trouble to find categories about specific subjects and words we did not learn at school, for instance about architectural elements or herbs and spices. Or to find a castle in a file with only "castle somewhere in the Netherlands" as a description. Or find the correct categories for members of our royal family who have the same name (many Willem van Oranje-Nassau, 2x Prins Hendrik, 2x Wilhelmina van Pruisen). See my User page for examples. And someone else has set up a gallery page to use it as a slide show during a real life presentation.
- So please, let's keep them. Or propose a stricter set of rules for deleting useless ones. Otherwise this discussion will not get a clear conclusion. JopkeB (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- The vast majority are not useful, and never were. Their only real usefulness is in providing a guide to larger categories to aid navigation; even then, galleries on the category page are often better. The Gandhi gallery page is not particularly useful; it seems to be a random collection of image without any clear relevance, and it does not provide subcategory links to help navigate the main category. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- Mohandas K. Gandhi and John Ruskin cannot be replaced by current categories. They show a selection of the best images ordered chronologically. There is no way to do that with current MediaWiki categories. Yann (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- They're showing photos from >70 years ago or so, and they are hiding many photos from the categories (I'd look at Category:Mohandas K. Gandhi by year and Category:Portraits of John Ruskin for most of what those galleries are showing). If the summaries are useful, couldn't we just move them to the top of those categories? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2026 (UTC)
- The header question cannot be answered with a blanket yes or no. Legacy galleries from early Commons that aspired to be what categories became are generally not useful. Galleries with explanatory text illustrating specific points sometimes are quite useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Even if not maintained, this is not a justifiable cause for deleting any content (galleries included). Possible solutions are updating them, or, if not feasible, adding a template to warn the user that the content is not up to date. As for examples of good, useful galleries, just look here, here or here. In addition, Wikimedia Commons Atlas of the World is based on galleries (in my opinion, this would deserve its own Wikimedia project, but that's another story: it's at Commons, it's based on galleries, and it's needed, though it should be better known and have a better quality).
- Another question is for some specific galleries, especially if they have a really bad, simple content and their name matches with a category. But definitely, no, not all galleries deserve being deleted, that idea sounds really terrible: any deletion must be case by case. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is a recurring bad idea that shows up here from time to time, and it's always rejected (for very good reasons). Should it be added here? MGeog2022 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- I support adding it to Commons:Recurring proposals. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- I support adding it to Commons:Recurring proposals as well. Each time it feels like an attack to a precious thing I value much. JopkeB (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- This is a recurring bad idea that shows up here from time to time, and it's always rejected (for very good reasons). Should it be added here? MGeog2022 (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think the are wildly underutilized and potentially very useful. If you haven't already done so, have a look at Commons:Galleries and, especially, at the examples given there. We could use a lot more like those. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
- Perhaps reviving Commons:Featured galleries? We "only" need criteria. JopkeB (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- A system of sticking notices on gallery pages like "This gallery page has had no new content for 10 years" might be useful. It could be illuminating to create a view count report, as galleries of historic artworks might effectively be created and finalised years ago, but seen by large enough numbers to be of 'realistic educational value' in its own right. A page that nobody has looked at for 5 years, yes that could be worth marking as "This gallery page is no longer in use/archived" notice but I doubt there's any appetite to delete these. Fæ (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- It depends on the type of gallery. Some of them don't need any updating (a certain book or work of art, a closed collection of items, etc), while for some others, updating can make them better, but it's not strictly needed (for example, List of dog breeds: while new breeds may be recognised, I think that, in 21st century, it's highly unlikely that someone could eventually consider this gallery as outdated). MGeog2022 (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- I would find a notice like This gallery page is basically just a bunch of random images very useful. A notice like that would probably end up doing away with a considerable number of our current galleries. Hjart (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- I feel the same for numerous galleries, and I am likewise wondering about their purpose when they are the primary target of wikidata (instead of the corresponding category). There exist, however, also useful galleries that provide some overview that is otherwise hard to achieve. Here are some examples (all created and maintained by myself): Les vitraux de l'église Notre-Dame de Saint-Lô (this is not a selection but the whole set in properly sorted order), Carrowmore Megalithic Cemetery (provides references for various numbering schemes and sorts all pictures accordingly, this is helpful when trying to identify new uploads), East Window of St. Nicholas's Church of Ireland, Dundalk (stained glass window with a very complex history). --AFBorchert (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
- Is there a way these galleries can be better highlighted? They sort of just hide on the Commons. I've only ever seen these when I stumble upon them through a given files 'usage on Commons' section. Let's look at an example, Gallery/Toronto is a pure time capsule from 15-20 years ago. I'd be happy to keep it up to date, but if no one is going to be able to easily find it what's the point? Could galleries be promoted in categories, the same way the gallery promotes the category at the very top? The link to the gallery in the category is hidden under 'Pages in category "Toronto"'. Most people probably have no idea this is a link to a gallery, as there is zero mention of so. If we want people to use these and browse them, we have to make them easier to find. I'd agree that they are underutilized and have potential for many cases. PascalHD (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think a template to bring people from a category to an appropriate gallery or galleries when they exist would be fine; I would very much hope, though that if we introduce that it only gets added when the gallery is at least moderately good.
- I would be all for introducing a notion of Featured Galleries. I think it would probably get some people who are driven by getting things up to "featured" level to think a bit more about galleries. - Jmabel ! talk 07:55, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Galleries definitely are still usefull. People just need to understand which purposes they're actually good for, and unfortunately lots of our past contributors did not. Galleries which are basically just a bunch of random images are admittedly not usefull, while galleries which helps me understand and navigate complex category trees definitely are usefull.
- I've created a fair number of galleries, primarily to aid my own need for a quick overview over various things. Examples are Niels Hansen Jacobsen, Kongens Nytorv, Skibbroen (Ribe) and Løgumkloster. Hjart (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think they are generally useful (though they could be). Personally I wish the wikis allowed more images and the gallery would live there. Don't see the value in deleting them without a replacement though. BrokenSegue 22:54, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel Considering the considerable number of touristy photos all named "At London..." and similar, that you're currently dumping into Category:London and other base categories, why do you really care about a few galleries? Hjart (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart: I responded to your 'touristy photos' point at [1]. I'm coming at this topic from multiple perspectives... I created {{Wikidata Infobox}} and I operate User:Pi bot to add sitelinks from Wikidata (and hence Wikipedias) to Commons categories, and I'm trying to figure out how galleries fit in there. I also frequently come across galleries when I'm working through the backlog of categorising my photos, and they are, um, not too helpful there. And lastly, I'm trying to figure out what works best for users of Commons, particularly given my background in Wikimedia governance and the accessibility of Commons contents was a topic that came up frequently in discussions there (where galleries have pros and cons vs. categories). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, but I'm still looking for a good example of a gallery here. There have been some nice examples here for very specific topics, but none of the examples so far have good multilingual support, and none of them are up to date with the best photos that Commons has available. The best examples I've seen here would be good Wikipedia galleries, but they still hide the richer collections we have here in categories. They also don't match the quality of the galleries that I normally encounter here, where they haven't been updated in a decade or so. So the examples raised here are probably the best we have, but not the average? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:26, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
- For history or visual arts, there're definitely many useful galleries: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cappella degli Scrovegni (Padua), Villa of the Mysteries (Pompeii). They indeed have issues, but most of them should not be mass-deleted. It's hard to find super-fancy galleries, as galleries are not featured, so there's little motivation for users to put effort in them. Even if the gallery is outdated, it serves some purpose by arranging images in certain way, such as by room or section in the museum, something the categories don't provide without manual sort keys. New quality images don't arrive fast enough to make this serious issue. In other areas, like cities or nature, outdated or useless galleries might be more problematic. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- they still hide the richer collections we have here in categories: this is unavoidable: galleries can't include all the files we have (they can't even include all the better ones). But their existence should never be interpreted as "you don't need to look at related categories at all". {{Gallery page}} template should do a good job in preventing this. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- I personally think it will never be useful, and we have to make plans of doing away with it. It is unnecessary work to maintain and keep up to date; effort that could be used elsewhere. And even if a magician of a Wikimedian somehow does keep everything up to date, we should ask - why? Who is the audience for these random galleries hidden in Commons? Commons users themselves? I have been here since 2008 and have never found them useful. With automated capabilities coming in (like structured commons), in addition to existing Categories, this is just unnecessary work and maintenance. Mass tagging galleries that it needs to be updated is just going to reduce the quality of Commons as a whole. I hope this wont be dumped as a recurring proposal, because it is about time something is done about it. Cheers, Rehman 12:59, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Just look at many of the comments above, and the examples they provide. The argument for mass deletion is like mass deleting all JPEG images because some of them are bad, copyvios or out of scope: destroying everything because some problems exist. For example, where do we place the only wiki atlas Wikimedia has, then? The fact is this already is a recurring proposal that has always been rejected. I'm thinking about a good recurring proposal that keeps being rejected in Wikipedia. Changes to policies are generally rare here: if they are not changed for the good, I hope at least they are also not changed for the bad. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- And I can't know who (other than me) is the audience of such galleries, but I can tell you that it does exist: look here or here (or the visits counter for any other gallery). In fact, their number of visits is higher than for the categories with the same name (it could be argued that it's because the gallery takes attention away from the category, though): see here and here, respectively. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Just look at many of the comments above, and the examples they provide. The argument for mass deletion is like mass deleting all JPEG images because some of them are bad, copyvios or out of scope: destroying everything because some problems exist. For example, where do we place the only wiki atlas Wikimedia has, then? The fact is this already is a recurring proposal that has always been rejected. I'm thinking about a good recurring proposal that keeps being rejected in Wikipedia. Changes to policies are generally rare here: if they are not changed for the good, I hope at least they are also not changed for the bad. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- I find them useful when they sort documents or images in chronological order. --RAN (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
- Another advantage of galleries over categories is when putting files together as part of a whole. Categories are attributes of files: you can't know what files belonged to a category in the past by looking at the history of the category (in fact, you can't in any way, as far as I know). If you have a fixed set of files and want to present them as a whole, galleries are far better way to ensure the integrity of the whole. If somebody improperly adds or removes an element from the set (mistake, vandalism, etc), fixing it is as easy as reverting to the previous version of the gallery (it could even be done by someone who is completely unfamiliar with the collection). With a category, you would need to know the full set of elements that belong to the category, and their respective file names in Commons, to be able to solve the problem. So galleries have a good advantage over categories when integrity of a collection matters. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- I made some edits to Commons:Galleries to highlight their advantages and to try to express more clearly that they are not in conflict with categories. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Another advantage of galleries over categories is when putting files together as part of a whole. Categories are attributes of files: you can't know what files belonged to a category in the past by looking at the history of the category (in fact, you can't in any way, as far as I know). If you have a fixed set of files and want to present them as a whole, galleries are far better way to ensure the integrity of the whole. If somebody improperly adds or removes an element from the set (mistake, vandalism, etc), fixing it is as easy as reverting to the previous version of the gallery (it could even be done by someone who is completely unfamiliar with the collection). With a category, you would need to know the full set of elements that belong to the category, and their respective file names in Commons, to be able to solve the problem. So galleries have a good advantage over categories when integrity of a collection matters. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- Gallery pages do not have to be multi-lingual to be useful. Commons is multi-lingual itself, so the creator of a gallery page is alowed to create gallery pages in any single languge, or two (for example mother tongue and English), or put links to Wikidata-items to be multi-lingual (I have seen the last type, but do not remember were; and it is quite a lot of extra work, so I did not yet use them). It depends on the purpose of the gallery page which language(s) you use. JopkeB (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Wouldn't the 'better' (but monolingual) galleries being mentioned here better serve readers if they were on that language version of Wikipedia rather than on Commons? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
- The purpose of the better gallery pages is to aid other commons contributors and wikipedians, not ordinary readers of wikipedias. In 2024 I created Børsen for exactly that purpose. During the first month after the fire, it reached almost a thousand views, and I'm convinced that it helped a lot of wikipedians gain a much better idea of what this was all about, than they would have had from merely trying to make sense from the content of the categories. It has a bit of Danish text, because at that time I still didn't have sufficient experience to avoid that. Hjart (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, that's your personal opinion, but, for example, I don't share that view, and I don't know what the community thinks about this on average. In Wikimedia projects, all content that is not in user or talk pages, or in pages whose name begins with the project's name as a prefix (that is, in Wikimedia Commons, pages prefixed with "Commons:"), is supposed to be for the public, not only for internal community use. I had never thought about galleries as mainly for internal use (for example, some of them are linked from Wikipedia articles). One thing is that they can be very useful for the community, and a very different one is to think this is their only purpose. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @MGeog2022 All galleries that I create or contribute to, are squarely aimed at giving (mostly German) tourists to i.e. Thisted a quick idea of what to see here and where to put their photos as well as give wikipedians a basic starting point for new and/or expanded wikipedia articles. I don't have a problem with wikipedia end readers accidently stumbling upon them, but I don't really see a point in trying to present anything to them. Hjart (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, it depends on the type of gallery and other factors. Wikipedia readers who are curious about more images about a place or a topic, may browse the associated category from Wikipedia's link to Commons, and, from there, they may arrive to the gallery. In fact, for a quick view of a selection of images, the gallery would usually be better than its associated category. But there is no problem: a well-made gallery created with Wikipedia editors in mind, will also be a good one for Wikipedia readers. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @MGeog2022 "Usually"... Only maybe a handful of the gallery pages in i.e. Category:Gallery pages of churches in Denmark are actually worth visiting. The vast majority of them are straight-up nuisances and really just good for hiding the underlying categories.
- Creating a good gallery page requires serious experience and effort. Hjart (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, for galleries not hiding their associated categories, {{Gallery page}} template can do a good job. MGeog2022 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @MGeog2022 That template doesn't make them worth visiting at all. Hjart (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, obviously not, but at least it allows the reader to know that additional images are available in the associated category, so the category isn't "hidden" anymore. MGeog2022 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @MGeog2022 That template doesn't make them worth visiting at all. Hjart (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, for galleries not hiding their associated categories, {{Gallery page}} template can do a good job. MGeog2022 (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, it depends on the type of gallery and other factors. Wikipedia readers who are curious about more images about a place or a topic, may browse the associated category from Wikipedia's link to Commons, and, from there, they may arrive to the gallery. In fact, for a quick view of a selection of images, the gallery would usually be better than its associated category. But there is no problem: a well-made gallery created with Wikipedia editors in mind, will also be a good one for Wikipedia readers. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @MGeog2022 All galleries that I create or contribute to, are squarely aimed at giving (mostly German) tourists to i.e. Thisted a quick idea of what to see here and where to put their photos as well as give wikipedians a basic starting point for new and/or expanded wikipedia articles. I don't have a problem with wikipedia end readers accidently stumbling upon them, but I don't really see a point in trying to present anything to them. Hjart (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: at least for en-wiki, gallery pages like this are not in scope. I believe the same is true for es-wiki and probably most others. Would I like to see people make these more multi-lingual? Absolutely. Is that on my persona list of priority work? No, it is not, I am majorly backlogged, plus bogged down with admin and quasi-admin tasks. - Jmabel ! talk 14:37, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Hjart, that's your personal opinion, but, for example, I don't share that view, and I don't know what the community thinks about this on average. In Wikimedia projects, all content that is not in user or talk pages, or in pages whose name begins with the project's name as a prefix (that is, in Wikimedia Commons, pages prefixed with "Commons:"), is supposed to be for the public, not only for internal community use. I had never thought about galleries as mainly for internal use (for example, some of them are linked from Wikipedia articles). One thing is that they can be very useful for the community, and a very different one is to think this is their only purpose. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel, it depends on the case. A small number of images is likely to be accepted in Wikipedia as a gallery, but Wikipedia usually rejects larger galleries, while these ones can find a place in Commons. In addition, it's easier to maintain and update a gallery in all its supported languages when it is at a single, centralized place, such as Commons, when compared with doing the same across multiple Wikipedia editions. MGeog2022 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: In es.wikipedia photo galleries are generally frowned upon, since according to their rules they should be hosted in Wikimedia Commons instead («Evita insertar excesivas imágenes en un mismo artículo. Las galerías deben añadirse en Commons y no en los artículos, y deben enlazarse desde el artículo usando la plantilla {{commons}}.»). Strakhov (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
- It is always interesting how quickly Commoners say "Wikipedia should do this" and how quickly Wikipedias answer in kind. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Gone Postal A lot of contributors are both Commoners and Wikipedians. Hjart (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- This feels like a chicken-and-egg situation. If Commons had never offered galleries, would Wikipedias have hosted them there instead? I've mostly been on the side of removing galleries from Wikipedia articles in the past on the basis that Commons should have that role instead, but I'm not sure if we are delivering that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- It is always interesting how quickly Commoners say "Wikipedia should do this" and how quickly Wikipedias answer in kind. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 11:30, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- It depends on the purpose. A gallery with a clear scope like Flags of the Soviet Republics is useful; a broad topic generally isn’t. --Dronebogus (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks all, this is really helpful. I'm wondering if it's worth having a Commons:Requests for comment on this topic to try to resolve it properly rather than it continuing as a lingering issue (@JopkeB: I hear you with people attacking things you care about, I've been there, and that's not what I'm trying to do here). What I'm hearing is that we shouldn't get rid of galleries completely, but we should probably have some sort of quality assessment of them, is that reasonable? I'm also hearing that the most useful galleries are where we have broad coverage of the topic and it's useful to highlight specific media files. Does anyone want to defend the existence of narrower galleries - for example, Hals Kirke? (as a random gallery from Category:Gallery pages of churches in Denmark mentioned just above.) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Mike Peel: re
the most useful galleries are where we have broad coverage of the topic and it's useful to highlight specific media files
, I'm not really that interested in discussing whether these are "the most useful" galleries, but there are useful galleries that do not fit this description, including at least two, both my work, that are explicitly mentioned in Commons:Galleries: Floating the Skagit River from Marblemount to Rockport and Seattle and the Orient. Each of these does something useful that categories could not do readily (if at all) and which probably would not be welcome in any Wikipedia. The latter arguably could be done in Wikisource, but the text is the least interesting part of the document—a bunch of Chamber of Commerce-style puffery—so transcribing it for Wikisource would involve a large, mostly wasted, effort. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC) - @Mike Peel The gallery Hals Kirke, like so many other similar galleries, appears to be basically just doing what categories exists to do. There's absolutely no point in defending that. I find that kind of gallery annoying and unhelpful too. Hjart (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- I do not agree with Hjart. For me these kind of galleries are useful. The category has a subcategory about the interior. And in the gallery page you can see in a glance an overview of both the exterior and the interior. That is the value for me of this gallery page. You do not have to click, as you should to see images of both categories. And the categories contain more than 10 files (the subcategory even more than 20). Then for me it is OK to have a gallery page.
- I get much more annoyed by a gallery page:
- With only a few images; the lower limit is now two images; for me the limit may be higher, for example five. Perhaps such a gallery can be moved to the category if they might be useful there (like showing images of a male, female and juvenile of an animal). And/or:
- Of a category with only a few images and no subcategory; I do not see the value of such a gallery. "Few" can be "less than twenty".
Support the proposal of Mike Peel to have some sort of quality assessment. Therefor we need criteria. Let's discuss them here. I propose the two here right above. Do you agree? Does anyone know others? JopkeB (talk) 05:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- Most of us, when we see a gallery like Hals Kirke, just want to quickly skip it to check what newer images might be contained in the related categories. To be useful it must be clearly designed to better present complex things in ways that categories can clearly not do. Hjart (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm generally fine with deleting galleries that has less than 5 images, or when there's less than 12 images in category. We might need some exceptions for galleries that have specific way to organize limited amount of images. For example, if the purpose of the gallery is to show three altar panels in their physical order, it by design would have only three images. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
September 29
I seen there is some concern over the age of some of the nude models and their release of the photograph of some of the files in Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst. There is currently:
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Back Tattoo.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Male performing cunnilingus (Klahorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hello Kitty - 20120214.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:African nude female at home coming out 20110607.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Naked woman wearing Converse sneakers (crotch shot).jpg. Issac I Navarro (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Peter Klashorst was a pretty noted artist and photographer. This seems an odd allegation to make on no particular evidence. - Jmabel ! talk 07:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- He went to third-world countries and took photos of women who were almost certainly sex workers rather than professional models. Do you really think these women were vetted for their age or would want explicit photos of them published? And do you think he would have gotten away with publishing these kinds of images in the post #metoo era? Dronebogus (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Dronebogus: those of us paying attention to recent proposals could question how pointy these deletions are. Considering the exhibited artist/photographer died 2 years ago, and the photographs have been hosted on Commons for over a decade (one hosted for 18 years!) despite featuring nudity and sexual content, please consider withdrawing these. It would be helpful to have case studies of deletions but it would be far more realistic to have discussions about non-professional uploads and content where there might be more obvious doubts about model consent.
- "Hard cases make bad law".
- Previous discussion may not be automatically linked, possibly because they have been hosted for so long. For photographs with a long Commons record, take care to check the file page histories before nominating.
- The outcome of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst (DR created in 2023) was kept.
- One of the photos in the category was a locus for trolling and disruptive shenanigans, though many of the established Commons volunteers of that time have not been around for several years. See Deletion requests/File:Black genitalia.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- You are welcome to vote in the DRs. I will not be withdrawing them. user:Cecil’s excellent rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony lady.jpg should have been precedent; instead it’s been ignored for 17 years in favor of cries of “notable artist!” and “freeze peach!” We would not lose all of Klashorst’s photography, only the pornographic images that are not exactly unique or high quality. Why, when we are currently losing our minds over hosting explicit lolicon (i.e. fake CSAM) are we still hosting anything with even a plausible likelihood of being actual CSAM? Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Nobody should be creating public deletion requests for anything they believe is CSAM. Commons does not host CSAM and the *last* thing anyone should be doing is publicly drawing attention to illegal photographs on a village pump so that god knows who will look at it or download copies. Follow the correct WMF procedure please, otherwise it instead looks like trying to scare anyone from having a free vote on a Wikimedia Commons keep/delete discussion. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- For full context, I asked a question over on meta here.
- I asked this way, rather then doing COM:CSAM; as the files has been kept many times in the past with that same concern. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Nobody should be creating public deletion requests for anything they believe is CSAM. Commons does not host CSAM and the *last* thing anyone should be doing is publicly drawing attention to illegal photographs on a village pump so that god knows who will look at it or download copies. Follow the correct WMF procedure please, otherwise it instead looks like trying to scare anyone from having a free vote on a Wikimedia Commons keep/delete discussion. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- You are welcome to vote in the DRs. I will not be withdrawing them. user:Cecil’s excellent rationale at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony lady.jpg should have been precedent; instead it’s been ignored for 17 years in favor of cries of “notable artist!” and “freeze peach!” We would not lose all of Klashorst’s photography, only the pornographic images that are not exactly unique or high quality. Why, when we are currently losing our minds over hosting explicit lolicon (i.e. fake CSAM) are we still hosting anything with even a plausible likelihood of being actual CSAM? Dronebogus (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Comment Some allegations about Klashorst are made above and occasionally seen in comments on listings. I think actual linked information is preferred. After a few minutes web search, I found Living for the art in the face of death which has some suggestive language but not specifics. Some more details are in Peter Klashorst: Noir Artist In Phnom Penh (PDF, there is a free download option) which states "So off he went to Africa and then SE Asia where he connected with the raw unfiltered “3rd World” and its extremes of poverty, privilege, wealth, injustice, tragedy, chaos and Pure Drawinistic Survival. Often through his relationships with the Sex Workers he hired and used as Models. This became his Inspiration, what he would live and paint the rest of his life." (IMO hiring sex workers as artist models is not by itself something that demands deletion of related media; if it were such would apply to some works of the great artists of the Renaissance through 19th century Paris etc.). Later the writer states "Peter’s girlfriends were young but not too young, often lively & mischievous. He treated them well." This seems suggestive but vague, probably deliberately. More/better information would be welcome for making informed decision. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Issac I Navarro: Peter Klashorst was a professional. To suggest that he didn't have consent is ludicrous. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:05, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G., I was only made aware of Klashorst after going though a number of archive deletion requests for Commons talk:Nudity/children. Dronebogus, pointed out how their may be some concern with the lack of consent. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- There have yet to be linked one source for a "concern", instead what I see is angry and argumentative comments which will scare anyone from voting keep in the deletion requests, for example "Just delete all Klashorst’s racist, misogynistic, exploitative, pedophilic garbage."
- This gives a strong appearance of being part of a backlash from the deletion of cartoons by WMF legal, and considering the 18 year history of Commons hosting this artist's photographs, seems an exceptionally poor poster boy for a future attempt to change policies. A good deletion case book does not start with rehashing discussions so old that half of the participants have since retired from Commons. Fæ (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- As stated, I was going though a number of archived deletion requests that ended in kept for Commons talk:Nudity/children#Examples. Dronebogus, pointed out that one of the deletion requests seemed to be invalid. I wasn't sure if I should report by email as that file was kept many times in the past. I then proceed to ask a question over on meta what might be the best place to bring this matter up to. In this thread. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Well "concerns" seems to refer to yourself and Dronebogus. Perhaps that ought to be stated clearly when using that language, especially if "concerns" is quite specifically not CSAM, because as you have stated you would have followed CSAM "Never post links to where CSAM can be found in a public setting, including on-wiki.".
- Thanks for the clarification. Fæ (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Fæ, Ultimately, I just wish to do the right thing.
- If this is problematic to COM:HOST, I would like that addressed. I am taking it to the village pump as many of thoses files have already been though deletion requests ending in kept. If there is a better place to take this matter to please let me know. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's quite a jump from "paid for sex" to "had sex with underage girls" and/or "didn't care about consent." And, yes, expanding on what was remarked above, until some time in the 20th Century the largest pool of available nude models were people who also did sex work. Even now and even in the First World, there is definitely some intersection, especially in the case of nude photography. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- But the photos in question aren't the ones taken in the Netherlands, but rather the ones taken in sex tourism hotspots in Kenya, Senegal, Thailand, and Cambodia. Perhaps places chosen for a more flexible legal regime. Or maybe not; but he'd hardly be the first European sex tourist and photographer to make trips specifically for sex and photos, which while not against Commons policy does raise questions about how permission to photograph was obtained. Arlo James Barnes 18:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I went though some of the archives and found these various deletion requests. If I missed any feel free to add them;
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Too hot.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vulva 2.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Werkpauze (photo by Peter Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Can you lick it ! (Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Can you lick it ! (Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Young mother (Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Happy Dutch beauty.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gesluierd3.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Gesluierd3.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gerard Wessels.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ebony Modi.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dress (Klashorst).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Cola bottle and vulva.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Black genitalia.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Black genitalia 2.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Black genitalia 2.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bedpeace2 cut.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Nordela
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Back tattooed girl.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Two Klashorst images
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Expirimental.jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aphrodite (genitalia).jpg
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Peter Klashorst
- Commons:Deletion requests/Nudity from Flickr by Avril1975
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coming out !.jpg
- Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps places chosen for a more flexible legal regime
. Or perhaps places chosen because they are cheaper. I don't know a ton about Klashorst, but writer William Vollmann went through a portion of his life where he did a lot of the same (and wrote about it quite well); I don't get the sense from his writing that the draw had much to do with getting around laws, just getting around prices. I doubt he was unique in that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 29 September 2026 (UTC)- The DRs that have been opened should be closed and if anyone seriously wants to flag CSAM, they should follow COM:CSAM and stop making public allegations. Public deletion requests are not the right place to flag CSAM as the community cannot "vote" keep/delete when if true then it is a legal matter not for public debate. Fæ (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- I just seen en:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 216#Photographs by Peter Klashorst Issac I Navarro (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- I went though some of the archives and found these various deletion requests. If I missed any feel free to add them;
- But the photos in question aren't the ones taken in the Netherlands, but rather the ones taken in sex tourism hotspots in Kenya, Senegal, Thailand, and Cambodia. Perhaps places chosen for a more flexible legal regime. Or maybe not; but he'd hardly be the first European sex tourist and photographer to make trips specifically for sex and photos, which while not against Commons policy does raise questions about how permission to photograph was obtained. Arlo James Barnes 18:03, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's quite a jump from "paid for sex" to "had sex with underage girls" and/or "didn't care about consent." And, yes, expanding on what was remarked above, until some time in the 20th Century the largest pool of available nude models were people who also did sex work. Even now and even in the First World, there is definitely some intersection, especially in the case of nude photography. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- As stated, I was going though a number of archived deletion requests that ended in kept for Commons talk:Nudity/children#Examples. Dronebogus, pointed out that one of the deletion requests seemed to be invalid. I wasn't sure if I should report by email as that file was kept many times in the past. I then proceed to ask a question over on meta what might be the best place to bring this matter up to. In this thread. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- Just the fact photographer is professional does not mean any of photos attributed to him are safe to host. The files are sourced from Flickr, but some links give 404 now. Is it certain they are by Klashorst and were published somewhere in reputable venue that verifies consent and age of models? The deletion requests are probably in protest of recent WMF takedown of topless poster, but some of these files might be actually problematic. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself; however, I’m not trying to make any protest. I just wish to do the right thing. If there is a better venue to take this matter to, please send me a ping.
- Now that being said, I do believe there is a legitimate concern. However, I have yet to send an email to the WMF, as I don't know all that much about Klashorst and from the little I have seen on the web, I am not confident in any perspective that I have.
- Furthermore, I am not completely convinced that any of these are even underage. I’ve been going through a number of the archives, and it seems that many past deletion requests have also raised concerns about COM:PEOPLE. However, most were kept as the people were unidentifiable. Issac I Navarro (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- By protest i mean deletion requests by Dronebogus, he was recently complaining about WMF deletion of nude image, and then started these deletion requests on other old similar images. "However, most were kept as the people were unidentifiable." - Some has face partially visible, could be identifiable Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hello Kitty - 20120214.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg. Also, they depict a person not apparently posing for a camera, and composition/camera angle looks odd for professional photo, might be creepshots. COM:DIGNITY forbids non-consentual sexualized images, even when non-identifiable. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Teasing this apart slightly, DIGNITY is a guideline and so is not intended as a system of hard rules. In the guideline though it's stated that Commons is not 'required' to host any image, in the section referred to it does point out that notability is a factor in assessing whether a subject's dignity is being affected, i.e. photographs of notable or identified subjects have a higher threshold compared to anonymous subjects.
- Though folx are quick to dismiss it, the factor being a bit glossed over is that these are considered works of art by a legitimately established and deceased artist, and there's the not insignificant issue of age of the photographs and the fact that Commons has hosted these for nearly 20 years; in which time no subject has complained and no independent press article challenged the controversial artist on consent/creepshots as opposed to fairly normal candid photography. When the same photograph has had 5 deletion discussions and got kept outcomes every time, raising a sixth immediately after an attention grabbing case of CSAM has been acted on by WMF legal, does not seem a good use of the limited Wikimedia Commons capacity to discuss cases involving nudity.
- If there are volunteers wishing to establish a better case book of deletion requests to support policy changes and build a consensus, re-opening old and well hashed past deletion discussions is not the best tactic.
- As an aside in the VP proposal 1 year 9 months ago linked above, Dronebogus posted "regardless of whether they actually run afoul of any laws purging creepy, exploitative pornography of third-world women is no great loss", open public vitriol and inflammatory allegations, rather than evidence, does not make them the best lobbyist. I suggest keeping this in mind for future deletion requests they create. --Fæ (talk) 10:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- 'Nothing happened yet' also isn't a good argument to keep. We as a project tend to observe our relative prominence among photo hosting sites and forget our absolute obscurity among the public at large. Arlo James Barnes 19:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- Sure, the policy even says the equivalent of that. However the history here is not irrelevant, nor is the apparent lobbying context. If there are to be deletions of established content, i.e. not drive-by dumping of out of scope porn, they should be on solid policy and fact based grounds rather than what can rapidly degrade into decisions built on shaky rhetoric and grandstanding. Fæ (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
- 'Nothing happened yet' also isn't a good argument to keep. We as a project tend to observe our relative prominence among photo hosting sites and forget our absolute obscurity among the public at large. Arlo James Barnes 19:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- By protest i mean deletion requests by Dronebogus, he was recently complaining about WMF deletion of nude image, and then started these deletion requests on other old similar images. "However, most were kept as the people were unidentifiable." - Some has face partially visible, could be identifiable Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hello Kitty - 20120214.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Horny (nude by Peter Klashorst).jpg. Also, they depict a person not apparently posing for a camera, and composition/camera angle looks odd for professional photo, might be creepshots. COM:DIGNITY forbids non-consentual sexualized images, even when non-identifiable. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Jeff G., I was only made aware of Klashorst after going though a number of archive deletion requests for Commons talk:Nudity/children. Dronebogus, pointed out how their may be some concern with the lack of consent. Issac I Navarro (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- As Jmabel notes above, "It's quite a jump from 'paid for sex' to 'had sex with underage girls' and/or 'didn't care about consent'." If there is actual indication that any media on Commons is from the latter, please share it. I'd advocate deletion of most (other than self-portraits and media demonstrably unproblematic) of Klashorst's work from Commons if shown evidence. I spent a little time doing a web search for info on Klashorst which might be relevant, linked above. I'm getting the feeling some very serious accusations here are based largely or entirely on "the vibe seems sorta decadent". If someone has specific info that the artist was involved in non-consensual &/or underage sexual photography please present here. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
- When this topic was opened, I rather expected to find some evidence for the allegations against Klashorst seen in deletion requests. A quick search found Klashorst work has been written about repeatedly. I found a couple of links I shared above about his associating with sex workers, but nothing specifying underage nor non-consensual. Apparently no one else has either. I have started closing the recent deletion requests. (Of course no prejudging relisting if new relevant information surfaces.). I suspect this topic has played out. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Agree. @Infrogmation, I took a look at what you provided, along with the past archives and a search online, and I must agree that it seems to be a lot of allegations without anything concrete to support them.- If no one else objects, feel free to close this thread that I started. Issac I Navarro (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- When this topic was opened, I rather expected to find some evidence for the allegations against Klashorst seen in deletion requests. A quick search found Klashorst work has been written about repeatedly. I found a couple of links I shared above about his associating with sex workers, but nothing specifying underage nor non-consensual. Apparently no one else has either. I have started closing the recent deletion requests. (Of course no prejudging relisting if new relevant information surfaces.). I suspect this topic has played out. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
September 30
Wich station in Hungary?
As I was travelling in the direction of Slovenia, I suspect it could be Zalaegerszeg. I have two other station wich are unidentified: File:Hungary Bzmot 2003 1.jpg and File:Hungary GySEV 2003.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:36, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist The last image is from Budapest Déli station Google image. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
- The shown image is Zalaegerszeg. GeorgDerReisende (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
- And File:Hungary Bzmot 2003 1.jpg is at Keszthely station before it got a makeover in the mid-2010s. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Could File:Hungary Bzmot 2003 4.jpg also be in Zalaegerszeg? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, the houses in the background still exist east of the station. The yellow house on the right with the slit windows for example, is located at 46°50′01″N 16°50′56″E / 46.8337°N 16.8488°E. --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- Could File:Hungary Bzmot 2003 4.jpg also be in Zalaegerszeg? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
- File:Zalaegerszeg station 2003.jpg is also Zalaegerszeg. I recognize the same tree.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
- File:Zalaegerszeg station 2003 2.jpg. Is this Zalaegerszeg? Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- No, that shadow direction would be impossible. This is Ljubljana. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks, rename in progres.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- No, that shadow direction would be impossible. This is Ljubljana. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
- File:Zalaegerszeg station 2003 2.jpg. Is this Zalaegerszeg? Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
October 01
Category:Categories of Portugal by setting
Some Categories of Portugal by setting, are not refreshing—not even with a full refresh—and always show as empty, even though they contain categories and/or files — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaCartas (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
October 05
I noticed a newly created {{Lolicon}} template that was seemingly created as a content disclaimer. It is worth noting that templates such as {{Pornography}} and {{NSFW-art}} have been deleted due to their vagueness and the fact that the general disclaimer already covers them. However, lolicon media is seemingly more controversial (see discussion), so this template might have some merit. I'm not really a template guy, so I decided to post it here to discuss the template. I previously posted here when discussing the {{NSFW-art}} template, so this seems like the right place for discussion (isn't really a proposal or copyright related).
Pinging template creator @Ahri Boy.
Edit: Some more info: the template is currently used on one file (File:Stability Matrix Inference in action.png), there is also Wikimedia Commons content descriptor (P14416) for flagging explicit content. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 04:12, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I saw this posted here and had a question. It seems that this template may only cover around four or five files that are currently hosted on all of Commons.
- My question is, since this template would cover such a low amount, is it even needed? And if it is, could/should it even, also cover general child nudity? Issac I Navarro (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- The template is factually wrong. The law is not defined this way in all these countries. It's very unlikely that making statements about what is "illegal" would be helpful and could be misleading. Fæ (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- FYI the Dabmasterars account was WMF locked on 6th October. Fæ (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Category emptying
- IMO contributors should never move all the files from a category, then call for the deletion of the category they emptied, because it is now empty...
What should contributors do if they encounter a category they think is poorly named, or which contains content they believe belongs elsewhere?
Some people will go through every item in that category, one at a time, removing the category they don't like, replacing it with a new category. And then they make the terrible mistake of placing a speedy deletion tag on the category they just emptied. Yes, a category that NEVER had any contents should be eligible for speedy deletion. A now empty category, that only had contents for a short amount of time, should also be eligible for speedy deletion. But, categories that had contents for a meaningful amount of time should be redirected to the category where their former contents were moved.
We have two choices of procedures for this. The observant contributor can place a {{Move}} tag, in the category, with a brief explanation as to why it should be moved. Or they can click on the button to start a discussion on the category. Both choices leave a heads-up for the person who started the category. Even when no-one weighs in at the discussion they opened, following one of these two choices is extremely importantː
- The discussion establishes a documented trail of what is going on.
- We are all fallible. Providing an opportunity for others to weigh in may show the concerned contributor good reasons why the original categories were the right categories, all along.
- If the administrator who closes the discussion concludes the consensus is to move the files, they initiate a robot to do the move. This saves a lot of human effort, and is not subject to human fallibility.
- A redirect is then automatically left in the now empty category. As above, this redirect is essentialː
- Commons images are served to lots of non-WMF projects. There is no mechanism to know which files and categories are being used under their original names on those non-WMF projects.
- Commons users are pasting the URLs to files and categories in the emails, in their academic papers, on their web pages.
Cheersǃ Geo Swan (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely agreed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fine with (most of) this if any of the relevant work has been done by an established user but:
- To take an extreme case, if some temporary account comes along and creates Category:Sexy, I don't want to have to go through all this to undo it.
- Also, are you saying all of this needs to be done even for obvious typographical errors? VfC is generally quite backlogged.
- When you say the admin must "initiate a robot to do the move": no, that does not save human effort compared to moving the category in the normal manner and then moving the contents with Cat-a-Lot. I see no reason in the world to have to go through Commons Delinker for this: it often has a significant backlog and it has been known to stall out for days.
- Conversely, I've been very unhappy recently with a user I will refrain from naming who in the last month has unilaterally moved over 100 categories I created with absolutely no consultation, and sometimes over my explicit objection (though I don't think he has deleted the cat redirects). - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- What's the average waiting time for a {move} request? A year would be conservatives I'd say. Not a pleasant option. Little wonder that editors are tempted to take shortcuts. The principles outlined are all very high minded, but until realistic resources are behind them, they are just a recipe for sclerosis inaction. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think you chose Category:Sexy as an obviously worthless category. Is it?
- Is Category:Sexy full of images uploaded by the same new user who created the category? Are they all questionable images -- out of scope, not properly licensed, or probable or demonstrable copyright violations? Then request the deletion of the category in the discussion where you call for the whole mess of this new user's bad images to be deleted.
- However, if some new user adds a bunch of existing in scope images to a new category, maybe they have a point? Commons has no fixed schema, laid down by a central authority. I think some people get strongly wedded to the organizational sub-tree they and other people who share their interests use. We can get tunnel vision. But all the hierarchies we use are, in the end, conventions, not natural laws.
Story time. decades ago I was the guy at my little food coop, who met our delivery truck, helped the driver unload the shipment, and then updated the rolodex cards we used for inventory. I did this for a couple of years, then I had to go away for a year. I didn't create the system, I merely updated it, and, occasionally added new cards, for new items, adding them into a dozen or so broad categories. When I left the
cerealscategory only held cards for genuine cereals, likewheat, oats, millet, barley. When I returned the coop had started carrying organic equivalents to breakfast cereals, like organic cheerios, and they had been shoehorned into thecerealscategory, and someone who found this confusing had tried to add agrainscategory. When I arrived back both categories contained both kinds of foods. This kind of mess is what happens a database has no one in authority to lay down one rigid set of rules. Commons categories are like that.Maybe the creation of a category that doesn't seem to fit, like Category:Sexy, is a clue that a disambiguation page is necessary?
- Yes, if a category, or set of categories, existed, with an obvious misspelling, for a meaningful amount of time, a redirect is required. You and I participated in Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/11/Category:Ship's bells, which I think is an example of an "obvious error".
- I am not an administrator. Are you saying setting a robot to repetitively perform the actual moves isn't easy? Yes, if the category in question only contains a half dozen or so images, using cat-a-lot only takes a couple of minutes. But individuals can't be relied on to leave meaningful edit summaries. Even a cat-a-lot edit summary is only a clue to the fact someone has decided to empty a category.
An individual recently triggered me to start this thread, when, on their sole judgement, they removed multiple dozens of files from categories I started, then placed speedy tags on those categories, with the justification that the categories he or she had emptied were now empty. Those categories had held meaningful content for nine months. They didn't use any edit summaries, they never use edit summries, and this was all part of a reorgnization that involved editing over 500 files, that took them several days.
When a robot moves it there is a meaningful edit summary.
- Cheersǃ Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- As it happens, at the moment Category:Sexy is not empty. I feel that the images there should be moved; I also feel that if someone were, instead, to create that category, no, we should not have to go through a formal process to get rid of it. I strongly suspect you have no idea how much relatively uncontroversial cleanup of utter crap admins are doing all the time, and how burdensome it would be to have a lot of formal process around it. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an obvious error, but it's one you could easily imagine a non-native speaker making. Conversely, if you are saying that when I run across someone having added a category with a name like "Bookshops in Seatattle" we need to have a formal CfD and/or keep that as a redirect to "Bookshops in Seattle" I disagree entirely. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I am saying that giving the command to the robot is slightly more more time-consuming than what I am doing with "Move" + Cata-a-Lot, generally results in a less clear summary (certainly never in a clearer summary), and also involves a delay until the robot picks up the task from its queue, usually under an hour but sometimes several days. When done by a non-admin filemover, it is tremendously slower, almost never completing on the same day (because an admin has to approve the bot use) and I've seen such things sit queued for admin review for weeks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:31, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think you chose Category:Sexy as an obviously worthless category. Is it?
- What's the average waiting time for a {move} request? A year would be conservatives I'd say. Not a pleasant option. Little wonder that editors are tempted to take shortcuts. The principles outlined are all very high minded, but until realistic resources are behind them, they are just a recipe for sclerosis inaction. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- While I agree in general, I have to push back a little bit on the last bit (point 4). Commons categories are largely internal to Commons - as far as I am aware, they are not exposed to external projects in the same way that files are. External users linking to categories do so with the implicit understanding that the names or contents of categories may change at any time. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- They are used in some competitions (like WLM stats). Sometimes might be hardcoded in tools that are more or less external. Also as Tim said Cool URIs don't change ;) (which applies to most old cats) Nux (talk··dyskusja) 18:40, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Other projects, non-WMF projects, use Commons files and categories. I think you are mistaken if you believe these are stealth uses. If they were stealth uses they could easily be shut down. I think this is a deliberate policy. I know Justapedia uses them. So, I stand by point 4. You wrote "External users linking to categories do so with the implicit understanding that the names or contents of categories may change at any time." If this were true it would very strongly undermine the use of Commons resources by outsiders. Maybe someone with the WMF could weigh in here, over whether Commons allowing external projects to rely on Commons images is a deliberate choice? Geo Swan (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- the problem of deleting rightful cat pages (including redirects) is obviously the sysop's fault.
- some sysops keep doing this despite being told not to. they should be removed. RoyZuo (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2026 (UTC)
- Should we really say it is the administrator's fault when the category system was not designed with a history mechanism? Is there a reliable way for an administrator, encountering an empty category, to determine if it has always been empty, or whether some ill-advised contributor covertly emptied it? I don't think there is. Short of deprecating categories, and introducing a tool for building hierarchies that does keep a history, I think doing our best to pressure those who want to move all the files in a category to follow best practices and to do so via a {{Move}} tag, or a CrD. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- There is an category watch method, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked?hidebots=1&translations=filter&hidepageedits=1&hidenewpages=1&hideWikibase=1&hidelog=1&hidenewuserlog=1&target=Commons%3ACategories_for_discussion%2F2026%2F10&limit=100&days=7&urlversion=2 , see also mw:Manual:CategoryMembershipChanges. Probably not as good as you wanted, but probably a step in the right direction. People should always try to talk as a first resort. Snævar (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Should we really say it is the administrator's fault when the category system was not designed with a history mechanism? Is there a reliable way for an administrator, encountering an empty category, to determine if it has always been empty, or whether some ill-advised contributor covertly emptied it? I don't think there is. Short of deprecating categories, and introducing a tool for building hierarchies that does keep a history, I think doing our best to pressure those who want to move all the files in a category to follow best practices and to do so via a {{Move}} tag, or a CrD. Geo Swan (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Conditional support but subject to exempted cases. One example was given by Jmabel, for typo errors or names in non-conventional spellings (like "Category:Buildings in Bukawe" and "Category:Buildings in Cabalogan" which a regular user with Cat-a-lot usage right should be able to summarily move the categories to Category:Buildings in Bocaue and Category:Buildings in Catbalogan, respectively. Another thing, even for some established users who tend to create "legalese"-type categories or nonsensical categories, like several made by Judgefloro (talk · contribs) (e.g. Category:Museo ni Baldomero Aguinaldo y Baloy (facade, fences and interior & tombs of Baldomero and Petrona Reyes - Binakayan, Kawit, Cavite) and Category:Manila–Cavite Expressway, 2018), it is fitting to transfer files to a category with reasonable name and either convert the old category to redirect or nominate the old category for deletion (COM:CFD, which is quite backlogged). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:47, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- WRT your examples "Category:Buildings in Bukawe" and "Category:Buildings in Cabalogan"... I suggest that, when a category had a name that included a typographical error, or was non-conventional, yet it contained meaningful content for a period of time, it should not be deleted. A redirect should be left, because we have no way of knowing how many people bookmarked it under the original imperfect name.
- Cat-a-lot is an imperfect tool, because it does not explain the reasoning. More than a decade ago I uploaded some images related to a river, in Africa. The river's name was in Arabic, which I don't speak, so I created a category for them in English transliteration. A year or two later someone else followed the bad practice of moving the existing images from the category I started, to a brand new category they started using a different transliteration Yeah. Cat-a-lot's edit summary didn't explain their reasoning.
When I contacted them they claimed the name I used was "wrong", because the site where they found an additional image used a different transliteration. Unlike Chinese there is no single reliable way to transliterate Arabic. After I insisted on a CfD I found at least one more way that river's name was transliterated into Engligh. In the long run it wouldn't matter which transliteration we put the base name at, so long we leave redirects at the other transliterations.
FWIW, the government of the country where the river flowed used the transliteration i picked on its government's website. Geo Swan (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- One user in particular, whom I also shall not name, comes to my mind, fitting the introductory description perfectly in an encounter I had a few years ago. Now with filemover rights, it seems moving without redirect also applies to categories, so not even a second pair of eyes is involved anymore to otherwise follow up on a cat. speedy delete request. However, I am in favour of being bold to prevent adding to the infamous CfD backlogs, especially for silly little things. But leaving the old title as redirect is then pretty much essential to easily enable reverting in case of disagreement. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:12, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
October 06
Request for volunteers to lead on COM:CSAM
In a recent high profile deletion discussion (here) we were reminded that Commons:Child protection is at proposed status, originally based on text copied from the English Wikipedia in 2012.
It would take an open mind as reviewing past discussion shows vacillation between wanting publication or withdrawing as no consensus. It may be that Commons does not need a separate policy as our project might default to the WMF policy, but even that default and deciding it's unnecessary to have a Commons specific policy should be based on a consensus, probably with a VPP vote.
Lastly a consensus would be best encouraging viewpoints from regular Commons contributors. Commons is not terribly interested in policies, especially a negative topic, but this is an area that a majority might expect to mostly share the same concerns. Fæ (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- To use ThunderingTyphoons!' changes to the English Wikivoyage's equivalent page as inspiration, perhaps the page should be overall more child-oriented. Right now it's rather technical, which is fine to get into after the most important points are conveyed. Arlo James Barnes 01:24, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
October 07
Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Educacao nao se faz de cima para baixo, História no Museu da Pessoa (194872)
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Wikimedia projects. Please note that this is an official action of the Wikimedia Foundation office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.
The takedown can be read here.
Affected file:
To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Educacao nao se faz de cima para baixo, História no Museu da Pessoa (194872). Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2026 (UTC)
October 08
Simultaneous US publication
Does {{Simultaneous US publication}} accurately describe Commons practice? If so, should that practice also be codified at COM:L?
The incoming links to the template from project space are generally favorable, but are limited to file-specific discussion posts. For something that represents, on the face of it, a major derogation from the general principle that non-freely-licensed files must be in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work
, it seems like it might be good to have more thorough documentation than what seems to be only a free-floating and recently-created template. For my part, I like the template and the position it represents; it enhances the educational value we can provide by allowing the inclusion of a lot of content that would otherwise be locked away for decades to come. But I'm curious to get a better sense of how broad the consensus is on this topic. -- Visviva (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I think the short answer is that it only ends up being used where simultaneous U.S. publication would come as a surprise. For example, we wouldn't typically put it on an agency press photo from a war zone, with a citeable PD U.S. publication source within 30 days after the event: we'd just cite that as a source. - Jmabel ! talk 08:13, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- The template "Simultaneous US publication" is recent, but the associated template {{PD-URAA-Simul}} is much older, having been created in 2008. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 20:04, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- The point is that according to US law when something has been simultaneously published (within 30 days) in the US it is a US work. It might be dubious that any other country would treat it this way given several factors like the US was not a member of the Bum Convention and didn't comply with their rules. On the other hand the template is correct for files like Pro Wrestling Illustrated which is a US magazine that just happened to be published in the UK and Canada. 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:40, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks to all for the input. I wonder if the following would work as an explanation of why this is OK and not really an exception to the rule? In evaluating the source country of a work for Commons purposes, the Commons community generally follows the scheme established by the Uruguay Round Amendments Act, at 17 U.S. Code § 104A. Accordingly, if a work was first published in a country outside the US but was then published in the US within 30 days, then Commons will consider the work's source country to be the US, and the work only needs to be public domain under US law. -- Visviva (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Protected by Pixsy
I've found images, for example File:Adam Woods - Melodifestivalen 2024, Malmö (Torsdag)-2.jpg, that have "Protected by Pixsy" warning in permissions field. Is this allowed? I feel it's needless intimidation of reusers and promotion of Pixsy services. It also equates copyright violation to theft, which might be legally inaccurate. Template where this comes from: User:Adjoka/Pixsy. --MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 10:31, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
-2.jpg){kind=link}
- I also think this is problematic. I am also confused if Wikimedia Sweden allows the usage of such services for works where they supported the creation. Other chapters explicitly prohibit automated copyright enforcement in the project funding policy. GPSLeo (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I won't comment on whether it's "needless intimidation" or "promotion", but that template seems like a very useful warning to help re-users avoid a shakedown by Pixsy. Most people who find things on Commons don't totally understand free license rules and requirements, that's just the way it is. I would definitely sleep better knowing those people have been told as clearly as possible that they risk legal action if they don't follow the rules as described in the license. Better, in my view, to put up with that template than see re-users get bombarded with takedown orders and requests for payment because they didn't understand what was required of them.
- In this specific instance though, I would agree with GPSLeo that it seems odd for Wikimedia Sweden to fund the creation of these images without some sort of contractual clause barring automated enforcement from services like Pixsy. 19h00s (talk) 10:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I would support deletion of the template and mass deletion of all images that require the template unless the uploader agrees to remove it.
- Wikimedia Commons is not a tool to help literal shakedowns and pseudo legal threats (see Copyright troll). "Technical" arguments to justify official looking threats do not make sense if they are intended to work around free use, these fail COM:L which states in plain English "Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that are not subject to copyright restrictions which would prevent them being used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose." Courtesy ping @Adjoka: Fæ (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think that violates COM:L. It warns about mishandling images, but you can still use it anytime, for any purpose, as long as you obey the license. Which is what the existing license templates already say anyway ("you are free to X, Y, Z, under the license conditions"). The Pixsy warning, as I understand it, is just more direct and practical. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 21:14, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I do not think this is any sort of "intimidation". Every licence apart from CC0, WTFPL, and the like has a clause warning that violating the terms of licence has consequences. It is normal. As for promotion, it maybe a little bit of a promotion. But in a way so is the termplate that I add to my photos that promotes my camera manufacturer. I would support making this Pixsy template smaller, it takes disproportionate amount of space. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Unfortunately "recover compensation" is a legal threat for reusers, especially those that are inexperienced with copyright law and might pay a demand, rather than call their bluff. I'd go a step further and if there are uploaders that are going beyond using take downs to request attribution, but using Commons to copyright troll and successfully get demands for cash paid, we should block them from uploading to the project.
- For those unaware, pixsy takes a 50% commission on settlements. They have a history of aggressive legal action but almost invariably settle out of court. One of their targets has been Cory Doctorow, friend of Wikimedia Commons, who wrote about the experience here in 2022 and described their demands as "baseless legal threats".
- I don't think Wikimedia Commons should support or condone this type of behaviour in any way, including denying the use of templates that promote Pixsy. Fæ (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- After rereading Doctorow's experience with this firm, gone ahead and created Deletion requests/User:Adjoka/Pixsy. Fæ (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- I can understand both sides. The municipality of Trogen used this file without any attribution on their homepage (next to my SVG creation of their COA). I had to write three E-mails with the request to add the attribution to complay with the license conditions. The first E-mails was sent to the direct municipality with no reaction. The second to the upper level administration, they would check that. After almost 3 weeks, no furthe reaction, so I reminded them. Instead of complying with the license conditions, they used another image. So, the problem is, that often the respect for the work isn't there, and a proper "reminder" of the circumstances is not that bad idea, I think --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- PS: For clarification, I did not bring up any legal threats, but it proves that the awareness of attribution for using free media is not always present, even at state administration entities --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Adjoka/Pixsy: :
Delete both User:Adjoka/Pixsy and User:Josve05a/Pixsy: bad faith copyright trolling, blackmailing for profit, links to malware sites, destructive business model, malicious spying on peope using AS (Artificial Stupidity). If your f**king image is strictly yours and you are so afraid of "theft", then do NOT upload it anywhere, problem solved. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/User:Adjoka/Pixsy: :
nappy.co
Nappy.co is a site that offers CC0 1.0 licensed photos of black and brown people. They have recently announced that they are shutting down. There are a handful of these photos on Commons already. I think it would be useful to include these photos in Commons as many are of high quality and could be useful in an educational context. I unfortunately have neither the skills or time at the moment to do this myself, so I bring it to the VP for others to be aware and consider. Ckoerner (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing here. Sad to see it shutting down. I've reached out to them to see if they can provide a dump of all the photos and their data, and have otherwise also started working on a script to download everything from the site (but of course a dump would be best if they can provide one). ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
October 09
An Ukrainian Trizub Legal Disclaimer
Since I noticed an imbalance in Wikimedia's disclaimers, I would like to discuss creating a Template:Ukrainian Tryzub symbol template. I don't support anyone—neither Russia nor Ukraine—but if a
 |
Legal disclaimer This image shows (or resembles) a symbol used by the Russian Federation and its Armed Forces, an organization closely associated to it, or another party advocating or glorifying wars of aggression or aggressive conduct. The use of these insignias may be prohibited by law in the Czech Republic, Germany, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Ukraine and other countries, depending on context. |
exists, there should be a counterpart to balance it out, like
 |
Legal disclaimer The display or use of the Israeli flag or related insignia may be restricted or prohibited under local laws in the following countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen. Before redistributing or publicly displaying this image, please verify applicable regulations in your jurisdiction. |
and
  |
Legal disclaimer This image shows (or resembles) Palestinian insignia such as flags, coats of arms, etc. Such usage may be subject to official restrictions in Israel if the purpose of the flag is to "identify with a terrorist organization or show sympathy for it, or if it is highly likely this act will lead to a grave disruption of public peace", according to a 2014 statement by the Attorney General. |
|
So, I’d like to ask for your thoughts on creating a Template:Ukrainian Tryzub symbol—one that wouldn't damage the country's reputation, nor be offensive or delegitimize the State, but would instead serve to warn the average user that printing or publicly distributing a file containing these symbols in Russia could lead to imprisonment or a heavy fine in their own country. — 20Prox 09:25, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- There's a new thread at VPP about this kind of template. — Arlo James Barnes 18:42, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, OK thanks, I didn't know that before 20Prox (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Another categorization issue (sigh...)
I just initiated Commons:Categories for discussion/2026/10/Category:Births in Tennessee by municipality. There's a bigger-picture issue arising from this category's creation, which would have distracted from that discussion, so I'm bringing it up separately. For the United States, it's been understood that categorizing someone's birth by county is preferable for lesser-populated places, while more specific by-city subcats should be created for, well, cities. There are a number of editors who have chosen to disregard this, apparently believing that we need an unlimited number of one-entry subcats for every little fucking tiny place. This includes places incorporated as towns and villages, CDPs, and even places that aren't enumerated by the Census Bureau! Several years ago, I attempted to redirect these subcats and their content to the by-county subcats. I had to stop when an admin tried to interfere, claiming that I didn't ask permission to do so (what the fuck?), while many of the editors who created these tiny subcats have since undone those efforts. If we're going to permit another free-for-all here, is "by city" the most appropriate naming convention? The cat I CFD'ed was apparently created because its sole subcat relates to a place incorporated as a town, not a city. Allowing that to blossom would create another free-for-all. If it's considered permissible that every little fucking tiny place gets its own tree of tiny subcats instead of a logically-constructed tree, shouldn't we replace "by city" with "by populated place", following the lead of Wikipedia's recent actions? Such a move would be a lot more broad-ranging than the subset of cats I discuss above, since we already mix in cities with CDPs/towns/etc. in a lot of trees. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:31, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- I would agree that "People born in" categories are pretty useless for place where very few people have been born. They are also often inaccurate: I imagine that the majority of births in Tennessee, at least in the last 75 years, are in maternity wards, and while most people were born in the county where their mother resides, plenty of them were not born in the village/hamlet/etc. where they lived and were raised. I'm a good example of this last, in suburban New York. I suspect someone would be liable to say I was "born and raised in Freeport," but actually I was not born there, because the maternity ward was in Oceanside. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- I am not sure how any of these "Births in" categories could help a user locate relevant media. "People from" is fairly easy to imagine a use case for (and has a use value that increases with specificity), but having a separate category tree just for people born in a place seems more likely to hinder discovery than to help it. I agree that these categories under discussion don't seem useful at all. If we're going to have "Births in" at all, I think that if anything it should be even more hyperspecific -- "Births at X hospital", "Home births in Y", etc. -- with higher levels in the tree existing solely as container categories. -- Visviva (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- A person's place of birth (P19) is a property which is tracked at Wikidata. If we have categories for this at all, surely they should be autopopulated from Wikidata? Maintaining a system of categories for that locally seems like a lot of duplicated effort with no clear benefit. Omphalographer (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Converting single page jpg into a PDF
Category:Memoiren einer arabischen Prinzessin (Ruete) contains 204 single page jpg files from a book. Is there any protocol for combing them into a PDF? Eievie (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Well, you can compile these into a pdf, there are several tools to do it. However this was an old scan and there are better around.
- Here's the same jpgs recompiled as one pdf File:Memoiren einer arabischen Prinzessin (Ruete).pdf
- Here's a better scan File:Memoiren einer arabischen Prinzessin , 1886.pdf
- For accessibility, here's an edition in English File:Memoirs of an Arabian princess - an autobiography (IA memoirsofarabian00ruetuoft).pdf
- Unless the jpg scans of text are inuse on wikisource or similar, they should be put up for deletion as being out of scope, see COM:NOT. -- Fæ (talk) 17:14, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Using w:ImageMagick and w:PDFtk, it's as easy as downloading the JPGs to a working directory and using
convert *.jpg *.pdfand thenpdftk *.pdf cat output foobar.pdf. — Arlo James Barnes 19:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)- img2pdf can be preferable to ImageMagick, as it doesn't re-encode the JPEGs. Similar usage but can do it in one step:
img2pdf *.jpg -o foobar.pdfSam Wilson 03:55, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- img2pdf can be preferable to ImageMagick, as it doesn't re-encode the JPEGs. Similar usage but can do it in one step:
- For img2pdf can you rearrange the pages before output to a pdf? On some I have used, output depends on the order I load them, and cannot be rearranged. --RAN (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The pages are added to the PDF in the order you give them in the output. So if you use a glob like
*.jpgit'll put them in alphabetical order, but if you specify each file like002.jpg 001.jpgit'll put them in whatever order you give. Sam Wilson 01:10, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The pages are added to the PDF in the order you give them in the output. So if you use a glob like
- Thanks! --RAN (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Category does not show up
I go to Category:Number 05001 on stamps and I observe that it is inside Category:Number 05001 on objects, but when I follow the link, I see that the parent category is somehow empty. How can it be? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Problem vanished for this cat ... but the BUG undeniably exists. For example this cat contains 13 pages. Yet when going one level up, the number 10 is showed instead. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- @Gone Postal and @Taylor 49: Purging the lower cat fixes it's representation in the upper cat by forcing some back-end work. I needed to do that for the cat Taylor 49 wrote about, but that or something like it was already done for the cat Gone Postal wrote about. See COM:PURGE and action=purge. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:44, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Comment, see discussion for this problem at Commons:Village pump/Technical#Category gallery count shows negative number. It seems the problem is still ongoing, and as Jeff G. mentions above, purging the category page seems to fix it. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
- Purging the SUBcategory page is the operative step here. Null editing it (by prepending {{subst:void}}) may work, too. Then force-refreshing or one of the preceding steps on the parent may work too. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:29, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Endangered free media repository
A few days ago, I received an Email that MorphoSource has problems with keeping up the web page. It contains also freely CC licensed 3D models of skulls or CT scans, etc. Pinging also @Fæ: :3. Maybe some users with experience can collect some models? See also Category:Files from MorphoSource --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
October 10
Redundancy among almost identical images from the same source
Usually, I am engaged with copyright issues, so I do not know the community standards on other issues as well as I might. However, when patrolling new PD uploads (mainly to check copyright license tags) I sometimes come across situations like this: File:Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 26 K. 537 - autograph, The Morgan Library & Museum, f. 1r.jpg shows a higher resolution version of the much-used File:Mozart - Piano Concerto No. 26 - Opening Page of the Autograph Manuscript.jpg from the same source, albeit with a slightly different crop of the black framing edges. It seems to me that if the original had been overwritten with the newer version, this would have been in keeping with Commons:Overwriting existing files; however, now that it was uploaded separately, I am not sure what to do with it. If only the better one is to be kept, is the new or the established title to be preferred? Or, if both are kept as they are not exact duplicates, should the links in the various Wikipedias changed manually to use the higher-resolution version? Or should a DR be opened to decide the issue? Any guidance would be welcome! Felix QW (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- There's one thing that can be done without any harm whatsoever: mentioning such finds in each other's "other version" field in the {{Information}}, perhaps with a descriptive image legend ("higher resolution, slight crop difference" would be possible for instance in your Mozart example). So, even if you do not want to open a DR with the rationale "nearly duplicate of XY", your research and finds will stay documented. If you settle for a DR, put that always on the smaller file, if something gets deleted als duplicate, its page becomes a redirect, so no project uses get lost. In fact, duplicates are a valid COM:Speedy deletion rationale, but if something is not an exact duplicate or scaled down, then a standard DR (if a deletion is sensible at all) is certainly better. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- I suggest uploading the original source with its wide border for reference, then keep the best cropped one for general use (by sticking {{duplicate}} on the fairly obviously inferior crop). This removes any doubt about what was cropped and there's no point in keeping multiple crops for the sake of it.
- Ideally the original uncropped version could have been the first version then overwritten, that way it's permanently in the file history if anyone wants to verify it. Fæ (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
October 12
Photo Challenge August 2026 results
| Rank | image | Title | Author | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 #1 |
 |
Leaving the Seine estuary (Le Havre harbor) into English Sea |
Pedemann | 11 |
 #2 |
 |
Confluence du Rhin et de la Moselle à Coblence en 1988 - Confluence of Rhine and Moselle at Sunshine, Coblence, Germany, 1988 - Zusammenfluß von Rhein und Mosel in Koblenz im 1988 |
Jean-Marie Vugnon (2) | 11 |
 #3 |
 |
The mouth of the Sava into the Danube | Krigore | 9 |
| Rank | image | Title | Author | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 |
 |
A threaded needle | Krigore | 17 |
| #2 |
 |
Knitting needles | Tn.kuvat | 11 |
| #3 |
 |
IV Needle & Sodium Chloride Water Drops (Black and White) |
Zwiebackgesicht | 8 |
Congratulations to @Pedemann, @Jean-Marie Vugnon (2), @Krigore, @Tn.kuvat and @Zwiebackgesicht. Sekidoki (aka Taiwania Justo) is speaking (Reception Room) 06:23, 12 October 2026 (UTC)