Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/10. 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. |
 Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
October 09
"Fictional" flags and other symbols
Commons hosts numerous erroneous flags, emblems, coats of arms etc which are used to spread misinformation across other projects. Something should be done here to tackle this problem, but existing mechanisms and practices seem inadequate. I've seen some users discussed this problem in the past so I'm pinging them: Donald Trung GPinkerton Jmabel The Squirrel Conspiracy Enyavar Dronebogus.
1. Commons has categories and warning templates for problematic symbols. Unfortunately, there is no existing mechanism to notify other projects about such files. Furthermore, the current structure is not up to the task. I think it's important to differentiate between:
- "Unofficial" symbols of real entities (File:Flag of the British Empire Exhibition.svg, File:Silver fern flag.svg)
- "Interpreted" symbols of real entities: banners with unknown status, reconstructions based on other symbols, descriptions, seals, coins (File:York banner penny (backside).jpg + SVG = "banner" with 1297 global uses), works of art like the Catalan Atlas (File:Flag of Ilkhanate.svg with 1285 global uses)
- "Invented" symbols of real entities (File:Flag of the Seljuks.svg - one of 16 Great Turkic Empires flags, used 874 times, primarily on Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia)
- Symbols used in works of fiction (File:Etoile de Feanor.svg)
We have warning templates {{Fictional}} and {{Fictitious flag}} which populate categories Special or fictional flags and Special or fictional coats of arms. The word "fictional" is too ambiguous, it conflates the types mentioned above, as well as the others, including obviously unserious stuff like File:Banana republic.svg. We should set up a structure which would differentiate such categories and probably have a parent category for all "problematic" symbols. The templates should use the same logic instead of clumsy current one: fictional insignia - fictitious flag - {{unsourced insignia}} - {{Disputed coat of arms}}.
Symbols with unclear status should have a separate category as well. Currently Category:Insignia without source is used for this purpose, but I'm not sure if its name is appropriate. First, is "insignia" a suitable word here? Second, it implies that files are without source, which is not necessarily true - a source might be present, but it might not substantiate what the image is claimed to be. I'm not sure if "proposed" flags tagged as own work (like File:Afro-Mexican Flag (proposal).svg) should go here or be considered as "invented" ones until the source is provided.
Categories under Category:Historical symbols should not include problematic images. They should be reserved for historical symbols, not for dubious ones connected to historical entities.
Wikidata is a way to spread the errors across multiple projects. There should be mechanisms to help withdrawing problematic files from Wikidata items.
2. Misleading file names are perhaps the most critical factor in spreading misuse. Editors won't question the status of a "File:Flag of Foobar" from Commons because its name implies authority and authenticity. If File:Arms of William the Conqueror (1066-1087).svg is already in widespread use, other editors wouldn't know there is anything wrong with using it somewhere else. Appending the name with "alleged", "attributed", "fictional" could help but, first, the old misleading name will stay on pages as a redirect, and editors would know nothing about it, second, such renaming requests get rejected with "does not comply with renaming guidelines" given as explanation. Changes to erroneous descriptions also get reverted with the rationale "respect the original description". I'm not sure if it's the established policy or just people blocking these efforts don't understand the problem, but attempts to remedy the problem seem futile as things stand.
3. "Sources". Anything goes as sources in file descriptions: "own work", links to other files, links to external images (like FotW). Some use quotations from historical texts, like File:Flag of Northumbria.svg with Bede's "they hung the King's banner of purple and gold over his tomb" as a source. Even if something looks like proper references to academic sources, it might turn out to be a cover for an "artistic reconstruction" case. Consider File:Banner of the Kokand Khans.svg: if you check the references, they just mention that "the colour of Kokand Khans banner was white," which is poor justification for a plain 3:2 rectangle. The file was uploaded less than a year ago and it has 268 global uses. And it's awkward to use warning templates in these cases: where do you dispute if the uploader just removes it?
4. The easiest way to deal with obviously problematic files is to delete them from Commons (or at least rename them without leaving a redirect). Had this not been done to the "Flag of the Confederation of the Rhine", multiple wikis would surely be spreading this fabrication at this moment. Unfortunately for wikis, there is reluctance to delete files here, even with Community Tech bot notifying about proposed deletions. Images might have some educational purpose after all, this implicitly overrides whatever actual miseducational purpose they actively serve. And by COM:INUSE it is deliberately "educational" in any case, even if file usage stems from incorrect Commons information.
5. Identification and discussion. Established misuse is hard to overcome, it takes incomparably more effort than slapping another file link or reverting the article to a "consensus" version. If editors manage to identify and properly discuss a problematic image, the end result is often just its removal from a single article. It doesn't lead to the file's removal from other pages on the same wiki, let alone other projects. The more widespread the usage, the less likely it will be dealt with: you might manually remove an image from several articles, but it's too much of a hassle if it has hundreds of inclusions. Such discussions should be centralised, but Commons does not currently serve this function. Who would notice that someone questioned the authenticity of the "Navarra Kingdom flag" on its talk page? And it has 4551 global uses together with the alternative design. There is no effective, centralized mechanism to track, discuss, and action global removals for widely used problematic files.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbli2mHd (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- +1 that we need some better ways to deal with this issue.
- It's ridiculous that we have 4 quite different versions of an alleged National Flag of Siberian Tatars, i.e. an ethnic minority which isn't a sovereign nation (≈country) of its own (and never was) and doesn't have any official flag, and yet we have 4 flags! And it takes lengthy discussions to get just one of them deleted; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Национальный флаг сибирских татар.jpg.
- This seems to be a very common problem for flags of ethnic minorities: there are often several versions, none of them are official, they are heavily in use, and they often have questionable copyright status because they don't fall under public domain clauses for national symbols and are usually recent works. Nakonana (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- But there are certainly ethnic groups, regions, etc. that lack a nation state or lack recognition, but have a quite consistently used flag. One good example is Category:Sami flags.
- I'd love to see something that sorted out the various cases better, but it's going to be really tough. There are enormous gray areas between an official flag of a universally recognized entity and one random user's fantasy. Commons is not usually heavily engaged in trying to work out the relative legitimacy of visual representations; we tend more to the binary judgement of "is this in scope"? I personally am not certain we (Commons) have the traditions and mechanisms that would let us tackle this well; we have traditionally left this sort of judgement to our various sister projects, with an understanding that they might not all come to the same conclusion in any given case. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- If it's a flag that is widely used in real life and/or if there's an authoritative entity that approved the flag (e.g. a leading religious group, a university that is known to be "the" expert of the field, etc.) then I don't have an issue with such flags. But a flag that has no reception in real life, is just a fantasy flag, and the fact that there are 4 different flags for a single (rather small) ethnic group makes it quite clear that the flags lack recognition.
- The problem is also that they are often used as if they are "real" flags. There's no indication in the file names and description regarding their provenance and status.
- And since they are not official symbols and recent works, they are copyright protected so that we can't actually host them on Commons (at least if we're talking about flags of minorities in Russia; Russia's TOO is too low). Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
the fact that there are 4 different flags for a single (rather small) ethnic group makes it quite clear that the flags lack recognition
: plausible but by no means certain; consider the number of different LGBTQIA+ "Pride flags" out there that have some currency. - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)- I think the main problem with flags of ethnic minorities in Russia will simply be copyright. They are all recent works and neither of them is an official state symbol. All those flags are protected by copyright unless we find a CC license from each individual author of each flag. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't thinks it's the whole truth. It's hard to imagine a situation where photos with names like "King of Earth.jpg" are uploaded in hundreds and get introduced to various projects, while efforts to delete or at least to rename or even tag them as inauthentic get constantly disrupted. (User Kontributor 2K, who reverts my edits here with obscure explanations, has just started doing the same on Wikidata, which feeds erroneous images to Wikipedia infoboxes.) The specifics of this particular class of images (symbol designs are relatively easy to make, their inauthenticity is far from obvious on a glance, they get used on multiple pages trough templates and Wikidata statements, the editors assume that any group entity that ever existed must have a flag) make them especially problematic and cause a lot of disruption in other communities. The root of the problem lies in how Commons treats these files, and the solutions should exist here. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, you; btw, I usually mainly disrupt into here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- What with the "respect the original description" reverts? Why do you remove warning templates with "I agree" comments? Why did you set up your own category for fake coats of arms outside of the existing structure? All of this makes no sense to me. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Each file placed in Category:Unknown or fake coats of arms is subject to meticulous verification and is bound, after a certain period of time, to be nominated for deletion ; these are not fictional CoAs, in the sense “attributed but existing” - all of these fictional CoAs should be sourced and clearly indicate why they are fictional-, but users'original creations that rely on no reference. i.e. these are personal fiction, i.e. out of scope.
- Commons is not a coat of arms registry office, nor a personnal web host.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- What with the "respect the original description" reverts? Why do you remove warning templates with "I agree" comments? Why did you set up your own category for fake coats of arms outside of the existing structure? All of this makes no sense to me. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- edit: @Qbli2mHd: Also, I agree, I've already corrected some, but there are a few many .--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- edit2: @Qbli2mHd: a category that needs maintenance, among others. Help is greatly appreciated.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "Latin Empire flag" is pure fabrication derived from Philip of Courtenay arms. They should be deleted right away, but I expect the proposal to be rejected with COM:INUSE invoked; I suggested the category to be renamed in August; my edits fixing the erroneous description of "Latin Empire coats of arms" were reverted by you. It all's not worth the hassle with existing mechanisms if we can't get any traction even with obvious cases like this one. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are many linked files and categories.
- Btw, I caught this one a couple of days ago.
- I may not have duly verified though --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "Latin Empire flag" is pure fabrication derived from Philip of Courtenay arms. They should be deleted right away, but I expect the proposal to be rejected with COM:INUSE invoked; I suggested the category to be renamed in August; my edits fixing the erroneous description of "Latin Empire coats of arms" were reverted by you. It all's not worth the hassle with existing mechanisms if we can't get any traction even with obvious cases like this one. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, you; btw, I usually mainly disrupt into here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- One situation that Commons seems to handle particularly poorly is fictitious flags of entities that actually have no flag at all. Users of other Wikimedia projects tend to assume that if Commons has a file called
Flag of Somewhere.svg, it's the official flag of Somewhere; if that image is made up or unofficial and Somewhere doesn't have any flag at all, it can be hard to get rid of since it's in use. Omphalographer (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC) - I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. On larger Wikipedia language projects there is a large enough population of active users to catch the problem and revert it, but time and time again I notice on smaller Wikipedia language projects that assorted fictitious Mongol Empire flags end up being used in infoboxes as if they were historical, official flags. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 04:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will
Support all changes in formal or informal rules that will lead to the shunning of anachronistic flag (re)creations. Count me in, and please ping me if this comes to a vote or a decision. I'd like to present "the flag of the Bengal Sultanate in 1500, derived from a symbol shown in the roughly same region in an old map. Over there, I already stated: The hypothesis that this would be the National Flag of the Bengal Sultanate (in a time when no national flags existed yet), is entirely unsubstantiated. The color in the Cosa map doesn't tell us much about possible colors used on possible flags in the Ganges region in the 1500s; and quite similar flags are planted by Cosa in Nigeria, South Africa and Algeria. And yet, the Bengal WP lists it under "historical flags".
Any Wikipedia should treat insertions like this (and most of the other examples by other users above) as "Own Research", which is disallowed generally on our platforms. Wikimedia is doing itself a disservice by allowing such uploads being presented in projects without warnings and/or disclaimers that they are not supported by historical evidence.
The idea of systematically evaluating all these "fictional flags" depending on the 'Unofficial/Interpreted/Invented/(true)Fictional' status or some other scheme, sounds appealing to me. There are cases (like Double-headed eagles as Seljuk symbol) where wide-spread symbols can be channelled+contained in a dedicated category that explains how the symbol came to be. Other cases, like the fancy "minority flags" for oppressed ethnicities in China and Russia, often created by designers in the West, should be outright removed from projects and then be deleted here, unless a wide-spread adoption can be shown. Wikimedia is not a forge for (sub)national identities. --Enyavar (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)- We treat this garbage in different ways a lot, but cannot find a way to get rid of it apparently: File:Coat of arms of Socialist Moldova.png, File:MirandeseMPBflag.jpg, File:The Qulla Flag.svg, File:Флаг Тюркского каганата.jpg, File:Bendera Kesultanan Kutai Kartanegara ing Martadipura.png, ... --Enyavar (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- What if the projects ignore the warnings and decides to use the files anyways? Is the fault really still on Commons? Trade (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
October 10
Images of toys
Hello people, I have recepntly uploaded two pictures of toys: 1 & 2. Both have received a VRT notice, but I am not sure whether these pictures should require an authorization form from the manufacturer as these are just mass produced toys. Yes, it may contain tons of logotypes and some part of artist work but, these are simply household items, which have been built by the thousands. It would be the equivalent of this picture of an F1 race start requiring permission from all teams, all designers and the copyright holders of all logotypes and brands that appear on the car liveries... Do these pictures (And many more to come with similar subjects) really need a permissión? If so, a manufacturer email granting permission to upload photos of all their products will do, or do they need separate permissions? --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please see COM:Toys --Isderion (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- So, from my understanding, I read:
- "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.[1]
- These two pictures I have uploaded are more or less exact replicas of these Audi TT DTM, Audi Quattro & Lancia 037. I guess they do not require any kind of permission, as no extra creative expression has been added and the toys simply represent real life objects. I am currently improving articles in Spanish about slot cars and really would like to illustrate them. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- From my point of view, there is no need for a permission --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I have found this article online (Sorry, it is in Spanish). It states Red Bull sued the manufacturer because it was using their image, but no such claim was valid. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Didym: at a first glance this looks good to me. Would you remove the no permissions-tag or should this be handled via a regular deletion request Isderion (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- After User:Didym did not voice an opinion despite engaging in other discussions, I converted this into a regular deletion request, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Schumi4ever Isderion (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- From my point of view, there is no need for a permission --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- These two pictures I have uploaded are more or less exact replicas of these Audi TT DTM, Audi Quattro & Lancia 037. I guess they do not require any kind of permission, as no extra creative expression has been added and the toys simply represent real life objects. I am currently improving articles in Spanish about slot cars and really would like to illustrate them. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
References
October 11
Help with Category structure
(This is an exemple) I want to categorize the file "Heiffel Tower at dusk.jpg" but I don't have and don't want to create a "Dusk in Paris" category. Should I categorize it as "Dusk in France" (green) or "Twilight in Paris" (red), or both? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaCartas (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I’m missing something but Category:Dusk in Paris already exist and File:Heiffel Tower at dusk.jpg doesn’t exist?
- If you are just using this as an example, then in that case, your proposed method (categorizing into its 2 parent categories when a category doesn’t exist) would be fine in my opinion. Sometimes it might not make sense just to create a category for one image, if the category will likely be used only by that image for the foreseeable future. However, it really depends on the type of category you are referring to. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, and you're right, I should have started by stating "this is an example." I really want to know if there is an Commons policy for similar cases. JotaCartas (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- IIC both except if you think it's not useful in either category / doesn't belong into either (if somebody added the cat, there's no reason to remove the cat currently so it's open to the categorizer). I'm not sure about this case and think it may not be a good example as the two named categories are barely useful, likely very incomplete, and probably not really used much but I could definitely be wrong on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've never seen "IIC" before, and Google is no help. What did you mean there? - Jmabel ! talk 14:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- If I understood correctly. I thought there was an abbreviation for it and not just for if I remember correctly (iirc) but maybe not or it's a different one. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've seen "IIUC" for that, but never "IIC". - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- If I understood correctly. I thought there was an abbreviation for it and not just for if I remember correctly (iirc) but maybe not or it's a different one. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've never seen "IIC" before, and Google is no help. What did you mean there? - Jmabel ! talk 14:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that you should name it "Eiffel Tower" with the correct orthography, which comes from the name of its creator (also the name of his former construction company, now a subsidiary of a larger group that owns the brand, even though it is now a public property of the City of Paris, used commercially by contractors under licence). Note however that the quite recent illuminations of the Eiffel tower are still copyrighted by its author, and there's no freedom of panorama if the tower is the central element of images taken when the tower is illuminated in a early part of the night or during some large events. verdy_p (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Abuse of Permission pending
Hi, While patrolling Category:Media without a license, I see that there is large abuse of the {{Permission pending}} template. Quite a number of people (mostly new users), upload files with "Permission pending" with or without a license. This template is supposed to be used when the copyright holder is contacted, and the permission is forthcoming. It is obvious that in many cases, nobody was contacted (unknown, wrong, or nonsense author, etc.). So we have many plain copyright violations which are here for weeks while they should be deleted immediately. Any idea how to fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agree a time limit, speedy deletion after that if unresolved, and make this clear beforehand from both the template docs and the template text. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the only solution (if we do not want to block new users from using this template) would be a clear warning that misuse of the template will result in a block and then also strictly enforcing this. GPSLeo (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Without a license" is going to happen a lot until they fix the Upload Wizard. See step 12 at Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload). It's a tricky workaround, and we cannot expect new or occasional users to be aware of it until someone tells them directly. - Jmabel ! talk 14:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- One of my backburnered tasks is to upload a bunch of 100 year old photographs my grandfather took. Sifting through them will take ages, but some of the miscellaneous warships may not have photographs already on commons, and if I can identify the music hall artists there may be some notable ones. I'm sufficiently patient that I might actually send an email well in advance explaining how I am in a position to release his copyright.; but I'm not a newbie. When a newbie does this sort of thing I think the worst threat we should make for first or third time offenders is that their content is likely to get deleted. What might speed up the process, apart from extra volunteers assessing such emails about copyright permissions, is to reduce the default from one month to something rather less. We already have {{tl:Permission received}} where one of the options is that we have received the email, but not yet assessed it. How about adding the option email not yet received after 7 days which could trigger reminders and encouragement to send the promised email. Then if the email has still not been received after 14 days someone with volunteer access can update the template again and start the deletion process. This shouldn't add work for the existing volunteer response team - instead it is an opportunity for a deletionist to join them and just focus on whether such permission emails have been received. If the template is updated to show that we have received an email then the urgency goes, or rather the onus is on the volunteers who are processing the email, not the uploader. If the volunteer response team doesn't have time to do this then the 30 day limit still applies, but hopefully someone would then replace the template with a {{tl:Permission received}} one with the parameter set to show we have received the email and it is waiting to be assessed. Also we need to remember that this is not a system for people who are uploading other people's copyright and requesting them for permission they can forward to us. This is a system for people to upload other people's copyrighted material where they already have permission and need to email that to us. IE I will send an email explaining how I have control of this person's copyright, not I have asked the copyright holder for permission and will email you if they say yes. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:
100 year old photographs my grandfather took
: there are several possible cases here that would be very simple to handle and wouldn't involve VRT. If you can say what country these would have been taken in, what was his country of residence, what year he died, and whether you are legally the heir to his intellectual property, I can tell you the best way to approach this. As I say, it may be very simple. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 16 October 2025 (UTC)- Thanks Jmabel, mostly in Britain, he lived in Britain but he took some photos abroad. He was in France and or Belgium circa 1915/19 but I doubt he had his camera with him then. He did go abroad to Kandersteg in the early years of the boy scout movement so there are some Swiss photos. He died nearly 60 years ago and his estate went first to my grandmother then my mother and now I'm a joint inheritor but I can probably get them into my share of her estate. One of his brothers went to what is now New Guinea and took some photos there in the 1930s, some of them were given to my grandfather, but I don't know if the copyright was formally given. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers: All his unpublished works will still be in copyright almost everywhere until 70 years after his death. If there are works that are previously published, the situation gets more complicated for the U.S. (some could have fallen into public domain; some might be copyrighted longer; it's a mess). But none of that is an impediment if you are the inheritor and want to grant a license. At worst, you will redundantly provide a free license for something that has actually fallen into the public domain.
- If you are the inheritor, or can arrange within the family to be allowed to be considered so, and if the materials are not previously published, then the simplest thing would be for you simply to upload from your own account and give an "heirs" license, such as {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}}. You should list your grandfather as author, and also should be explict in the license about the attribution you want (e.g. {{cc-by-4.0-heirs|attribution=THE ATTRIBUTION YOU WANT}}.
- Do me a favor and hit me up after the first one you upload, so I can check that you are doing it all correctly before any problems get propagated. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Jmabel, mostly in Britain, he lived in Britain but he took some photos abroad. He was in France and or Belgium circa 1915/19 but I doubt he had his camera with him then. He did go abroad to Kandersteg in the early years of the boy scout movement so there are some Swiss photos. He died nearly 60 years ago and his estate went first to my grandmother then my mother and now I'm a joint inheritor but I can probably get them into my share of her estate. One of his brothers went to what is now New Guinea and took some photos there in the 1930s, some of them were given to my grandfather, but I don't know if the copyright was formally given. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers:
- One of my backburnered tasks is to upload a bunch of 100 year old photographs my grandfather took. Sifting through them will take ages, but some of the miscellaneous warships may not have photographs already on commons, and if I can identify the music hall artists there may be some notable ones. I'm sufficiently patient that I might actually send an email well in advance explaining how I am in a position to release his copyright.; but I'm not a newbie. When a newbie does this sort of thing I think the worst threat we should make for first or third time offenders is that their content is likely to get deleted. What might speed up the process, apart from extra volunteers assessing such emails about copyright permissions, is to reduce the default from one month to something rather less. We already have {{tl:Permission received}} where one of the options is that we have received the email, but not yet assessed it. How about adding the option email not yet received after 7 days which could trigger reminders and encouragement to send the promised email. Then if the email has still not been received after 14 days someone with volunteer access can update the template again and start the deletion process. This shouldn't add work for the existing volunteer response team - instead it is an opportunity for a deletionist to join them and just focus on whether such permission emails have been received. If the template is updated to show that we have received an email then the urgency goes, or rather the onus is on the volunteers who are processing the email, not the uploader. If the volunteer response team doesn't have time to do this then the 30 day limit still applies, but hopefully someone would then replace the template with a {{tl:Permission received}} one with the parameter set to show we have received the email and it is waiting to be assessed. Also we need to remember that this is not a system for people who are uploading other people's copyright and requesting them for permission they can forward to us. This is a system for people to upload other people's copyrighted material where they already have permission and need to email that to us. IE I will send an email explaining how I have control of this person's copyright, not I have asked the copyright holder for permission and will email you if they say yes. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the only solution (if we do not want to block new users from using this template) would be a clear warning that misuse of the template will result in a block and then also strictly enforcing this. GPSLeo (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Data-based SVG map graph creation
I'd like to create vectorized map graphs (such as this one) but without having to do it by hand by using Inkscape or similar. Ideally I would be able to generate a graph from data alone, and then embed the plaintext script/data used to generate the graph inside of the file on Commons itself. I'm effectively looking for something like gnuplot but for making map visualizations, i.e. there are no manual drawing instructions, as it takes in instructions and data to generate an image output dynamically. Is there any software that can do this? Again, I'd like to also be able to view the data used to generate the image as plaintext and embed it in the {{Igen}} template on the file itself so that the file can be easily recreated by others later. I'd also like the SVG output to be as simple as possible, preferably no extra cruft like interactivity or scripting... — rae5e <talk> 23:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've realized that this question would most likely be better fit for the help desk or graphics village pump. Should I go about moving it there or is it okay for it to remain here for the time being? My apologies!! — rae5e <talk> 15:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: it depends. It is not clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for a new capability to be added to Commons, for recommendations of third-party software that can do this, or what? I can't make it out by reading what you wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I'm looking for some kind of software. I've heard of QGIS but I have yet to try it out. Do you know of any others? — rae5e <talk> 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: I'd guess your best bet for where to ask that is en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. The more clearly you focus the question on what you would want the software to be able to do, the better chance of an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: Something like https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/? Nosferattus (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: This looks okay, but it seems to be US-only and it doesn't appear that I'm able to export and import data/configurations—although, this is still a good tool to have in the interim, so thank you. To reiterate, I'm looking for a tool that will let me create statistical maps (like the ones the tool you linked generates), both global (world) and local (countries, states, municipalities, etc.), without requiring me to touch Inkscape or edit the SVG output manually, preferably by taking in some configuration file or script that can be embedded as plaintext in the Igen template on the uploaded file on Commons so that it can then be easily re-generated with the exact same specifications by other users. Besides QGIS, the only other thing I can think of is ggplot2. — rae5e <talk> 14:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: No such tool exists, but the source code for https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/ is public and it doesn't look very complicated. Most of the work would just be finding or creating appropriate SVG maps to start from, as the various regions in the map would need to be tagged with appropriate place names or codes to match the data. Have you considered building such a tool yourself? Nosferattus (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: This looks okay, but it seems to be US-only and it doesn't appear that I'm able to export and import data/configurations—although, this is still a good tool to have in the interim, so thank you. To reiterate, I'm looking for a tool that will let me create statistical maps (like the ones the tool you linked generates), both global (world) and local (countries, states, municipalities, etc.), without requiring me to touch Inkscape or edit the SVG output manually, preferably by taking in some configuration file or script that can be embedded as plaintext in the Igen template on the uploaded file on Commons so that it can then be easily re-generated with the exact same specifications by other users. Besides QGIS, the only other thing I can think of is ggplot2. — rae5e <talk> 14:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: Something like https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/? Nosferattus (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: I'd guess your best bet for where to ask that is en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. The more clearly you focus the question on what you would want the software to be able to do, the better chance of an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I'm looking for some kind of software. I've heard of QGIS but I have yet to try it out. Do you know of any others? — rae5e <talk> 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: it depends. It is not clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for a new capability to be added to Commons, for recommendations of third-party software that can do this, or what? I can't make it out by reading what you wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
October 12
Correct English?
I just tried to add a Kazakh FoP category to a DR by just typing "Kazakh FoP", but couldn't find a category. Turns out the category is called Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases. The word "Kazakhstani" sounds extremely unusual to me. Isn't "Kazakh" the correct word? It's Kazakh language and Kazakh people, so where did "Kazakhstani" come from? From "Pakistani"? But that's not done with former Soviet "-stan" countries. It's not "Tajikistani" or "Uzbekistani", but Tajik and Uzbek. Even with non-Soviet countries that is not how the adjective is formed (e.g. it's "Afghan", not "Afghanistani", and "Kurd", not "Kurdistani"). This affects the whole category tree of Category:Kazakhstani law deletion requests, and also categories regarding Kyrgyzstan, like Category:Kyrgyzstani FOP cases. There's no such word "Kyrgyzstani", the correct adjective is Kyrgyz. Or are those "-stani" endings actually a thing aside from "Pakistani"? Nakonana (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wiktionary lists wikt:Kazakhstani as a synonym of wikt:Kazakh. While personally I have a preference for "Kazakh", and tend to see "Kazakh" used more in literature, the use of "Kazakhstani" isn't exactly poor English either. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 11:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- What about Kyrgyzstani, Uzbekistani, and Turkmenistani? Even wiktionary doesn't have those words, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- wikt:Kyrgyzstani, wikt:Uzbekistani, and wikt:Turkmenistani are English words. Again, personally if I were writing an article or something, I would prefer the use of wikt:Kyrgyz, wikt:Uzbek and wikt:Turkmen because these are the more commonly used English words.
- However, in saying that, there is also a slight nuance that differentiates these words. This doesn't affect what name we use for category names on Commons (personally, I still prefer "Kazakh" over "Kazakhstani" for a Commons category name), but I thought I'd mention it in case people weren't aware of the distinction: some of these terms either specifically refer to a nationstate only or a culture/peoples only, or can refer to both but generally lean more towards referring to a nationstate, or lean more towards referring to a culture/peoples, in most contexts. I'll give a few examples:
- A wikt:Bosniak is a specific Muslim ethnic group from the Balkans. They wear Bosniak dress, follow Bosniak cultural norms, and there are Bosniak political parties. A wikt:Bosnian is a citizen of the country of Bosnia, who may or may not be ethnically Serb, ethnically Croat, or ethnically Bosniak; such a person may speak the en:Bosnian language, hold a en:Bosnian passport, and cheer on the Bosnian national football team.
- A wikt:Hindustani may refer to a citizen of India (called "Hindustan" in Hindi), however actual usage is more nebulous than that in literature, c.f. en:Hindustani classical music, en:Hindustani language. A wikt:Hindu is only a person who follows the Hindu religion, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Sikh cannot be a "Hindu".
- A "Kazakhstani" generally refers to a citizen of the country of Kazakhstan (though I have seen occasional edge cases where it doesn't). A "Kazakh" generally refers to the Kazakh ethnic group, its culture, its music, its traditions, its language (and again, I have seen occasional edge cases where it doesn't). If you want to be specific, you may choose to write that someone may have a en:Kazakhstani passport (the passport of the country of Kazakhstan), but speak the en:Kazakh language (the language of the ethnic Kazakh people). A citizen of Kazakhstan may not necessarily be an ethnic Kazakh, they may also be Dungan or Ukrainian. However, based on my observation of the use of the words in English, unlike Bosniak/Bosnian where the usage is more strict and concretely defined, both "Kazakh" and "Kazakhstani" can be used interchangeably to refer to both concepts, it's just that in most cases where there is a need to differentiate the two concepts, "Kazakh" will lean towards the ethnicity/culture while "Kazakhstani" will lean towards the nationstate.
- Likewise, with occasional edge cases, "Kyrgyz" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Kyrgyzstani" generally pertains to the country; "Uzbek" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Uzbekistani" generally pertains to the country; and "Turkmen" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Turkmenistani" generally pertains to the country. Usage seems to be less strict and the terms can be occasionally seen to be used interchangeably, but the general trend is that the terms will lean towards ethnicity vs country.
- In short, language is descriptive and I cannot fault people for using the words in a more nebulous manner, but for the most part there is some semblance of a rigid prescriptive structure that some people follow some of the time. In saying that, though, I have a personal preference for the Commons categories to be Kyrgyz/Uzbek/Turkmen on the basis that I see these the most often in literature, even if it breaks the systematic prescriptive "rule" mentioned earlier, as I'm a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 12:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also prefer we'd follow the common name since it's more intuitive. It's also a bit odd to have differing adjectives to refer to ethnicity vs. country for some ethnicities but not for others, e.g., Russia is a multiethnic state, but it's not like there are different adjectives for "Russian-Federational" passports vs. Russian language / people, it's just "Russian" in all instances, so using different words for a Kazakh and a Ukrainian "Kazakhstani" is some sort of othering that the English language seemingly only does for some people but not for others. And at least the Cambrdige Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary do not have any entries for any of the here listed "-stani" adjectives. Those seem rather unestablished or unofficial neologisms. Merriam-Webster has Kazakhastani and dates the first use to 1987. But even Merriam-Webster does not have any of the other "-stanis", like Uzbekistani etc. (and my spell-checking software marks them all as incorrect, too, including Kazakhstani). Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Othering? I think the other way would be more othering. It'd be like calling everyone from the UK English; you're basically erasing the Scots, Welsh and Irish. I'm not entirely clear on the conditions on the ground, but making the distinction between an ethnicity and nationality seems important when making it clear that you can have the nationality without the ethnicity (really be part of the nation) and that you can have the ethnicity without the nationality (and not be a traitor to your country / need the ethnic country to return you and your land to the mother nation.)
- Also, let's avoid the phrase "Oxford Dictionary", as there are many, many Oxford dictionaries. The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary has Uzbekistani. The Oxford English Dictionary is a slowly updated behemoth that finished its last complete overhaul in 1989. Given that these words would be first important after the Soviet breakup in 1991 and the online OED has not reached U in its systemic updates (it's slowly going forward from M, while making sporadic changes elsewhere), so I would not expect the OED to be reflective of reality here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
you're basically erasing the Scots, Welsh and Irish
-- No, I think what I'm talking about is rather "Scots" vs. "Scotlandians", "Welsh" vs. "Walesians", and "Irish" vs. Irlandians", because "Scots"/"Welsh"/"Irish" are like ethnicities, while "Scotlandians"/"Walesians"/"Irlandians" are citizens of the respective countries. In other words, if "Ukrainian Kazakhs" are not a thing, then "Ukrainian Scots" are also not a thing, because the supposedly correct terminology would be "Ukrainian Kazakhstanis" and "Ukrainian Scotlandians" because, according to the "-stani" logic, Ukrainians don't belong to the Kazakh/Scottish ethnicity, but they might very well be citizens of Kazakhstan/Scotland. That's not how national adjectives work, right? We don't have different adjectives for ethnic Germans vs. non-ethnic Germans. There's only the adjective "German", there's no adjective "Germanian" for "Ukrainian Germanians" or in the sense of Category:Germanian FOP cases. It's called Category:German FOP cases. So why isn't the category called Category:Kazakh FOP cases but Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases instead? There's also Category:Russian FOP cases, but not Category:Russian Federational FOP cases. If Scotland had its own FoP rules, then we'd call the category Category:Scottish FOP cases, not Category:Scotlandian FOP cases, right? So why is it "Kazakhstani" instead of "Kazakh"? It just doesn't make sense to me why there even are different adjectives for people from Kazakhastan in the English language when there are no different adjectives for people from other countries, like Germany or Russia. Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- Side note: the wiktionary entries on all the "-stani" adjectives are all completely unsourced. Not a single reference listed in those entries. Nakonana (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also prefer we'd follow the common name since it's more intuitive. It's also a bit odd to have differing adjectives to refer to ethnicity vs. country for some ethnicities but not for others, e.g., Russia is a multiethnic state, but it's not like there are different adjectives for "Russian-Federational" passports vs. Russian language / people, it's just "Russian" in all instances, so using different words for a Kazakh and a Ukrainian "Kazakhstani" is some sort of othering that the English language seemingly only does for some people but not for others. And at least the Cambrdige Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary do not have any entries for any of the here listed "-stani" adjectives. Those seem rather unestablished or unofficial neologisms. Merriam-Webster has Kazakhastani and dates the first use to 1987. But even Merriam-Webster does not have any of the other "-stanis", like Uzbekistani etc. (and my spell-checking software marks them all as incorrect, too, including Kazakhstani). Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- What about Kyrgyzstani, Uzbekistani, and Turkmenistani? Even wiktionary doesn't have those words, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are more affected categories:
- Nakonana (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
How can I list uploads from one user without categories?
How can I list uploads from one user that do not contain categories? Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Polarlys: depends on how you define uncategorized. As you can see on Special:UncategorizedFiles, that list is nearly empty. This is because all files will have some hidden category.
- You can search for files tagged with {{Uncategorized}} combined with username, results will vary.
- Files that only have hidden categories and no {{Uncategorized}} are hard to find. Multichill (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, files only with hidden categories and no template are my problem here. Gruß, --Polarlys (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is possible with Commons:SPARQL query service. Nemoralis (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: how? I don't think the SPARQL database contains the categories. All the examples at Commons:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Exploring_Commons_Categories use the Mediawiki API. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Lucas Werkmeister is the SPARQL wizard. Maybe he can help. Nemoralis (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: I can’t do magic though :P as far as I know @Multichill is correct and the needed information isn’t readily available in SPARQL. (I think you could get the hiddenness via Wikidata Query Service/Categories, but to access the categories of a file you’d need Wikidata Query Service/User Manual/MWAPI, and neither would be at all efficient.) But it’s probably quite possible in Quarry – @Polarlys, do you have an example user name? That way it’ll be easier to write the SQL query. (I doubt any of my own uploads are uncategorized, so I can’t use myself for testing.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- I worked on files by User:Shaun92, but I as far as I can tell right now no upload is uncategorized anymore. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Polarlys: Okay, I think this query should be correct: quarry:query/98183 – if you fork it and substitute Shaun92 in line 6, you should get a few files back (currently 15; I checked two and both indeed had no non-hidden categories). Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- I worked on files by User:Shaun92, but I as far as I can tell right now no upload is uncategorized anymore. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: I can’t do magic though :P as far as I know @Multichill is correct and the needed information isn’t readily available in SPARQL. (I think you could get the hiddenness via Wikidata Query Service/Categories, but to access the categories of a file you’d need Wikidata Query Service/User Manual/MWAPI, and neither would be at all efficient.) But it’s probably quite possible in Quarry – @Polarlys, do you have an example user name? That way it’ll be easier to write the SQL query. (I doubt any of my own uploads are uncategorized, so I can’t use myself for testing.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Lucas Werkmeister is the SPARQL wizard. Maybe he can help. Nemoralis (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: how? I don't think the SPARQL database contains the categories. All the examples at Commons:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Exploring_Commons_Categories use the Mediawiki API. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- If the uploads are all own work, you could adjust the search query Multichill linked and instead of just the username use insource:"|author=xyz" (check one file page to see what exactly that field value is).
- Also see phab:T188125 Make it possible to search by page author /contributor/ uploader. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
October 14
What is an "earth church"?
The caption of today's (October 14, 2025) Picture of the day says "Reformed earth church in Scuol". What does "earth" mean in this context? I'm a protestant myself, but I have never heard of any protestant or reformed church that had any special relationship with "earth". Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The first thing came to my mind is w:soil. Soil can be used as a construction material. Nemoralis (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Some churches in Afrika are built underground, maybe this? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Agnes Monkelbaan as the photographer, who also wrote the text description that's being used here. Belbury (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Answer: It's probably a translation error. Because I don't speak English, I have to translate everything. I can't edit the photo at the moment. But I will change the text. Best regards,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Agnes! Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Answer: It's probably a translation error. Because I don't speak English, I have to translate everything. I can't edit the photo at the moment. But I will change the text. Best regards,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm guessing a combination of a typo and a machine translation from Dutch or German, "reform aarde", "reform erde". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Edward Alfred Hopkins
Hi, I am looking for more information about this photographer (Category:Edward A. Hopkins), particularly place of birth and nationality. And whether these pictures are by the same person. The dates seem to match, and I could not find any other photographer named Edward Hopkins. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- So far I've got "Edward Alfred Hopkins (1902-1992) was employed to dismantle the rides at Luna Park in Glenelg, South Australia for transport to Sydney in 1935. Once in Sydney, Hopkins remained associated with Luna Park, eventually as its manager, until he retired in 1969. During his career he photographed the park and its rides." I'll see if I can find more. Geoffroi 17:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a good source from Australia. Still searching. Geoffroi 17:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Luna Park website refers to him as Ted Hopkins and states that he was an engineer. Geoffroi 17:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's an aricle about Luna Park that has a likely photo of Hopkins (one of the two men on the left). Geoffroi 17:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a nice photo of Hopkins. Geoffroi 17:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a photo of "Edward Hopkins" dated 1979 that looks like the same man in the photo just above. I'm not finding any bio details earlier than Luna Park. @Yann: These photos at the Getty link above might be by him. I've added appropriate categories to Category:Edward A. Hopkins. Geoffroi 18:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Geoffroi: Thanks for this research. You added the category "Photographers from Adelaide". How do you know he was from Adelaide? Yann (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- We don't know how long he was in Glenelg or where he was before that, so the Adelaide category is iffy at best. If you want to remove that until we can figure out where he was born or how long he was in Glenelg or the Adelaide area before Luna Park was moved to Sydney, that might be best.
I'd like to see if we can figure out where he got his engineering degree. He maintained dangerous rides and helped in their design for 30 years, so he had to be a very good engineer and draughtsman. Geoffroi 19:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Yann: I've removed the Adelaide category. I created Category:Photographers from New South Wales and added Hopkins to it. The majority of his photographic work was done at Luna Park in Sydney, where he worked and lived for over thirty years, so perhaps this fits. Geoffroi 20:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- We don't know how long he was in Glenelg or where he was before that, so the Adelaide category is iffy at best. If you want to remove that until we can figure out where he was born or how long he was in Glenelg or the Adelaide area before Luna Park was moved to Sydney, that might be best.
- @Geoffroi: Thanks for this research. You added the category "Photographers from Adelaide". How do you know he was from Adelaide? Yann (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
CentralNotice Banner Request - Wiki Science Competition India 2025
Hello Commons community,
This is to inform you of a CentralNotice banner campaign request for the upcoming Wiki Science Competition 2025 in India (Meta request link). The banner is planned to run for logged-in users from 1 November to 15 December 2025. For readers/anonymous users, it will run for two brief windows: 1–7 November and 9–15 December 2025, as recommended in the CentralNotice guidelines.
We welcome any community questions or comments about the request. The banner and landing page will be available in English, Hindi, and other Indian languages. Please see the Meta request page for all details and translations in progress.
Thanks and regards, Dev Jadiya (talk)
October 15
Simplest rules on Commons with which policy?
Hey! I'm currently having a discussion with a user who doesn't understand why street and building categories initially have nothing to do with each other. That is, Category: Street x (Location y) shouldn't be sorted into Category: Buildings in Location Y. The user is asking for a written guideline. It's simple logic to me, but other users seem overwhelmed. Can someone please tell me if we have this basic understanding written down somewhere on Commons? Thanks. Lukas Beck (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there's a guideline but to my knowledge, buildings belong in street categories (not the other way around). Here's a comment by an admin from a 2024 discussion that states this in a somewhat different context: [1]. Nakonana (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I completely agree with you. The user in question has now realized it and hopefully understood it. I also think there's no need for a policy for this. It's just logic. :-D Lukas Beck (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
October 16
Help needed with Categorization Requests
There are many open requests at Commons:Categorization requests, which is a new request board for categorization tasks. It would be good if more people participated in implementing these. It seems like currently nobody else is working on them. Maybe the page could also be linked at some place to make it more visible.
--Prototyperspective (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- One of the subpages linked there, Commons:Database reports/Category cycles, hasn't been updated in a year, and many of the categories linked have since been fixed. Is there a way to poke the person who made the bot to update the categories, or to have it be done automatically every few months or so? ReneeWrites (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the thread that launched this Commons report. @SD0001: Thanks again for doing that, could you update it?
- A bot updating it regularly would be best. One could request it at Commons:Bots/Work requests. But I think chances somebody could build this are fairly low and if people write which of the pages they check, I think the fraction of categories where the cycle has been fixed would be relatively low so there may be no big need for frequent updates.
This report is also not getting updated as of now: Commons:Report UncategorizedCategories with redcats (ie only red categories, no normal categories). Prototyperspective (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
October 17
Gun drawn at Wikimedia North America conference in NYC
https://www.amny.com/news/armed-man-custody-union-square-civic-hall/
I'm glad our friends there are reported to be unhurt. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
- Glad to hear no one was hurt, hope the perpetrator can get the help they needed. Tvpuppy (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
October 18
Months and seasons
I would like to talk with you about a common practice when working with categories on Commons and, ideally, bring about a change. The way things are currently done contradicts all logic and sense. It’s about the connections between seasons and months. Why are months assigned to seasons? I criticize this for two reasons.
1. There are images—many interior shots of buildings, for example, but also many other subjects—that have no relation to any season. Why should I have to place such images in a seasonal category when the picture could just as well have been taken in another season? I think this unnecessarily clutters our categories. When I open a seasonal category, I expect to see images that show something typical for that season. Images should always be categorized as precisely as possible. So, if I upload a picture showing, say, a tree in autumn foliage, I shouldn’t leave it in the autumn category but should instead file it under the monthly category. There, however, my image gets lost among many other non-autumn pictures. Categories are supposed to help make images findable—but in my opinion, this does the opposite.
2. Take my home country, Germany, as an example. There are several months that cannot be clearly assigned to a single season. Either I leave out one season, which would be incomplete, or—more commonly—both seasons are assigned. That might simplify things, but it’s sloppy work and a bad habit that is often seen here on Commons. In practice, the problem might look like this: I upload a photo that I took at the end of September, that is, during autumn. However, the September category is also linked to summer. So my photo is also assigned to summer, which is clearly incorrect.
I hope I was able to express myself clearly and that my reasoning will be taken into consideration. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- For easier context, this is in regards to Category:Seasons by country, example Category:Autumn in Germany. --Cart (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would populate the season categories purely on visible vegetation phenology and weather phenomena. If there is a snow storm in central Europe in November I would put these photos in the winter category despite the date is clearly not winter. Photos sowing no vegetation or naturally vegetation free areas these photos should not be in a season category. But I would include categories of events liked to seasons like Christmas or Easter. GPSLeo (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I wonder about the educational usefulness of such an approach. For example, imagine a climate researcher who wants to study climate change based on photo evidence. Wouldn't it be of interest for such a researcher to see that, let's say, winter 2050 in Germany was full of blooming trees instead of the expected snow? If we'd only put images of snow in that category, we'd give the researcher a false impression of what winter really looks like in Germany. (Currently there's hardly any snow during winter in most parts of Germany, so if we define "winter = snow", then the winter categories of Germany wouldn't have all that many photos except for photos from the mountain areas.) Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- The seasons commonly used are based on astronomical events, just like our calendar. There are other definitions for seasons, but they are not really relevant on Commons. In seasonal categories, I assign photos that are visibly dependent on the seasons, for example plants. However, I do so in accordance with the actual seasons. So, to stick with the example mentioned above, snow in November is also in autumn. And I consider months and seasons to be independent of each other—even in the categories. --XRay 💬 16:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- Commons categories should be geared towards the typical needs of users searching for images, not for esoteric and unlikely needs like a hypothetical climate researcher. Omphalographer (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- If someone is looking for images of snow in particular, we have Category:Snow in Germany, so it's not like they won't find what they are looking for. Winter does not necessarily mean that there's snow. The global south might never see snow even if it's winter. Category:Snow in Zimbabwe might not be a thing, but vegetation in Zimbabwe still goes through different seasons like blooming in spring or trees losing leaves in autumn/winter. Winter would look rather different in Zimbabwe than in Germany, so the assumption that winter = snow isn't really universal even in a non-hypothetical scenario. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I did not say that winter requires snow. The federal weather service of Germany defines the start of the winter as the date where the oaks start loosing their leaves. This is usually in early November (File:PhänologischeUhr 61-90 91-19 Deutschland.png). GPSLeo (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- If someone is looking for images of snow in particular, we have Category:Snow in Germany, so it's not like they won't find what they are looking for. Winter does not necessarily mean that there's snow. The global south might never see snow even if it's winter. Category:Snow in Zimbabwe might not be a thing, but vegetation in Zimbabwe still goes through different seasons like blooming in spring or trees losing leaves in autumn/winter. Winter would look rather different in Zimbabwe than in Germany, so the assumption that winter = snow isn't really universal even in a non-hypothetical scenario. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I wonder about the educational usefulness of such an approach. For example, imagine a climate researcher who wants to study climate change based on photo evidence. Wouldn't it be of interest for such a researcher to see that, let's say, winter 2050 in Germany was full of blooming trees instead of the expected snow? If we'd only put images of snow in that category, we'd give the researcher a false impression of what winter really looks like in Germany. (Currently there's hardly any snow during winter in most parts of Germany, so if we define "winter = snow", then the winter categories of Germany wouldn't have all that many photos except for photos from the mountain areas.) Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind having months in the season categories, since it is often very subjective how people define seasons and it might be better to see the seasons as just temporal markers, as is the case now. But if done correctly, it might be best to let the different months be defined by what each country defines as being in what season. Googling for instance about "Jahreszeiten in Deutschland mit Monaten", you get to sites like this, and that doesn't correspond with Commons categories at the moment. --Cart (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would like to join Cart in her reasoning. Commons categories are not merely navigational aids; they are also, to some extent, taxonomic and semantic frameworks that reflect how we structure knowledge. This dual nature is what makes categorization both powerful and delicate.
- While I fully understand the desire for factual accuracy and scientific consistency, we must also remember that Commons is not a scientific database but a visual archive that serves a broad, international community. Our categorization system therefore has to balance taxonomic precision with practical usability and accessibility.
- The current approach - linking months and seasons - may not be scientifically absolute, yet it provides a coherent and intuitive framework that has proven useful across many countries and contexts. Adjustments can always be made locally, but the general principle ensures internal consistency and avoids excessive fragmentation.
- In my view, the strength of Commons lies in its flexibility and in the collaborative refinement of its structures, not in rigid enforcement. Let us continue this discussion with an open mind and a shared commitment to clarity, balance, and mutual respect. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- The intention that categories should contain the files that one might expect to find there is commendable. That's what I expect, too. But expectations vary, and one has to try to find a reasonable compromise. You'll never satisfy everyone. I've been with Wikimedia Commons for many years now and have experienced a lot during that time. I've spent a lot of time working with categories and have also become familiar with the ambiguities. I can often understand them, as greater accuracy can also lead to many categories that contain very few files. These small categories are anything but clear, but they also have the advantage that they can be placed in different category trees. As far as the seasons are concerned, I would like to deliberately cite an extreme example: Category:September in Africa. Thanks to the continent's special location, this month is assigned to all four seasons. Personally, I would separate the two category trees, months and seasons. This would also make sense from an astronomical point of view. However, there will probably be a lot of resistance to this, and even despite this discussion, the issue will not be resolved. To be honest, I have very little hope for change. --XRay 💬 09:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the discussion should revolve around useless categories like some in Category:Summer in Africa. That's just an example of taking categorization too far. It's about as useful as having a category for "Places with ice" in Category:Antarctica. You can't use season months for entire continents. It's a result of combining the countries by using continent templates. Some categories only have meaning if they are used on a regional level. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- And in the Tropics don’t follow Spring, Summer, Autumn/Fall and Winter as seasons. For Australia, the Tropics has a Wet and Dry season[2] Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- And Sweden, being a long country, there is hardly any real winter in the south, while the north part actually has eight seasons according to the Sámi calendar. [3] --Cart (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- And in the Tropics don’t follow Spring, Summer, Autumn/Fall and Winter as seasons. For Australia, the Tropics has a Wet and Dry season[2] Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think the discussion should revolve around useless categories like some in Category:Summer in Africa. That's just an example of taking categorization too far. It's about as useful as having a category for "Places with ice" in Category:Antarctica. You can't use season months for entire continents. It's a result of combining the countries by using continent templates. Some categories only have meaning if they are used on a regional level. --Cart (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- The intention that categories should contain the files that one might expect to find there is commendable. That's what I expect, too. But expectations vary, and one has to try to find a reasonable compromise. You'll never satisfy everyone. I've been with Wikimedia Commons for many years now and have experienced a lot during that time. I've spent a lot of time working with categories and have also become familiar with the ambiguities. I can often understand them, as greater accuracy can also lead to many categories that contain very few files. These small categories are anything but clear, but they also have the advantage that they can be placed in different category trees. As far as the seasons are concerned, I would like to deliberately cite an extreme example: Category:September in Africa. Thanks to the continent's special location, this month is assigned to all four seasons. Personally, I would separate the two category trees, months and seasons. This would also make sense from an astronomical point of view. However, there will probably be a lot of resistance to this, and even despite this discussion, the issue will not be resolved. To be honest, I have very little hope for change. --XRay 💬 09:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Support disconnecting seasons from dates, and instead having categories for seasons only be related to natural or astrological events. Seasons are a subcategory of "Nature", but this results in every photograph that is in a date or date-of-country subcategory (which is most of them, and ideally all of them) being in the "Nature" subcategory. --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
October 19
Strange behavior of rotation file
File:Metasequoia2.JPG was not rotated in the right position in Wikipedia pages as for example Watercipres. After using SteinsplitterBot (@Steinsplitter: ) the image is OK. The rotation in the Commons categories Category:Sequoiafarm Kaldenkirchen and Category:Metasequoia glyptostroboides (avenues) is OK, but the X and Y values of the file size has not been changed. On the Wikipedia page the rotation has not been taken place. How can that be solved? Wouter (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
- You must be looking at a cached version of the file, I think? Because the image at File:Metasequoia2.JPG is displayed in landscape format instead of portrait format for me, which doesn't look right. I think the image rotation by SteinsplitterBot just needs to be reverted to display correctly, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)