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. |
 Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [add] | |||||
|
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
September 26
Which apps are using Wikimedia Commons?
If you know of any, please list them here.
With apps, I'm referring to mobile apps, desktop applications, and Web-apps.
Of course, the many Wikimedia projects use Commons (+ by extension various apps that use Wikipedia or Wikidata) as does the Commons app but what else is there? For example, maybe there is some OpenStreetMap app that enables you to see images geolocated via file coordinates or categories to the specific region one is viewing?
Commons doesn't need to be used by any other project/software to be useful but it's still interesting in the context of why Wikimedia Commons is useful. Maybe a list of such apps could be created similar to d:Wikidata:Tools/Visualize data & d:Wikidata:Wikidata front ends.
One app that I hope will add support for Commons is the free software mobile app NewPipe. It's a very popular app so many people already have it installed and it already allows watching videos and listening to audios on decentralized FramaTube and the ChaosComputerClub media server for example. (More info about that at m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Add support for Wikimedia Commons in the open source NewPipe media player app.) One could conveniently switch the site to Commons in the app with a tap and listen to e.g. spoken Wikipedia audios in the familiar app. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Prototyperspective, OsmAnd displays photos from Wikimedia Commons from wikidata=* and wikimedia_commons=*, MapComplete does the same, OrganicMaps and CoMaps provide links for the linked image/category. WikiShootMe allows users to upload photos on Wikimedia Commons or seeing existing photos about a Wikidata item. Wiki Loves Monuments app is doing quite the same. Una tantum (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- OsmAnd is interesting. I had it installed a while ago but it seemed like it can't show maps dynamically and one always needs to first download the map offline. I wonder whether that will be changed at some point since there's probably many people who don't want to always have to download large maps first. MapComplete looks really interesting, it doesn't seem to be available as a native mobile app and the Wikipedia link is a redlink. Organic Maps (typo in the wikilink) and CoMaps also look very interesting but just linking to the files or page instead of allowing users to see them in the app is at the edge of what using Commons means. Maybe this could be better enabled for apps by some lightweight module(s) for browsing Commons files across subcategories that apps like these could use. Also relevant to all the map apps: Also include files geolocated to countries/places via subcategories but not coordinates.
- WikiShootMe I think at least so far is only a tool used by Wikidata&Commons users to contribute to Commons so I wouldn't say it's an app using Commons. Same goes for the WLM app. (I would distinguish between Commons tools and apps using Commons.) Prototyperspective (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- I don't know all these things by myself; this is a collective answer from the OpenStreetMapItalia Telegram group. :D --Una tantum (talk) 07:30, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- All web maps based on OSM-Wikidata Map Framework (ex. Open Etymology Map) show images from Commons linked by Wikidata or OpenStreetMap.
- DecomissionedAircraftMap shows images from Commons linked by OSM. Danysan1 (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- Any non-Wikimedia Mediawiki (Fandom etc.) that uses mw:InstantCommons can use Commons. MKFI (talk) 08:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Here a list. Una tantum (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks; I'll probably create a page listing the apps that use Commons, not tools meant for contributing to it, and link it from here. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here a list. Una tantum (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
September 29
Batch uploading
There are a lot of requests outstanding at Commons:Batch uploading. I see some, but not much, recent activity. Are there others who could help? Could we highlight this anywhere? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- This is a very good aspect. I think the main issue is that we would need more sophisticated users who are fluent in batch uploading through different tasks. I have many ideas, too, to upload, but I think some of the expert users are already having much to do :/ --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)
- And the next thing is that we need whitelisting of URLs before batch uploading, which can take some time... --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Working on the batch upload requests would be a really impactful way to contribute. If more of these would get done, I suspect there would also be more requests and ultimately a substantially more useful Commons. I was surprised to find that page quite late and think it's way too unknown. However, at the same time only a small fraction of users are capable of implementing these roughly speaking and it probably wouldn't be the best thing to display to relative newcomers so I don't know whether mentioning it at Commons:Community portal somehow would be a good idea but that's a place that has link to places that list things one could do and backlogs.
- The page is similar to the Commons:Free media resources page linked there where there's some items that could be turned into a batch upload (for example it would be great if somebody could import the free audios on FreeSoundsLibrary but I'd prioritize e.g. the free biology-illustrations in a request there). Prototyperspective (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- I learned now a little bit to use OpenRefine. We have several issues that need to be adressed:
- How many people have the knowledge to perform batch uploads?
- What tools are available to do so? (OpenRefine may be the best tool, especially for more than 100k files and >1 TB of data
- How hard is it to get data for upload (all relevant URLs, information, description, categorization, copyright information (may be challenging when it is varying by file to file), date, restrictions on mass requests on that website, ...)
- Who wants to take responsibility for one or more tasks?
- Can we run into hardware performance issues? (especially when we may come to a data amount of >100 TB in total; what are the server limits?)
- I think that batch uploading will play a much more important issue in the future, as the automated generation of photographs or etc. will increase much, so we will have to address it, as a part of it may be also in danger to get lost over time. I have talks, for example, about Mapillary, that may cover many million useful images. Several administrations offer maps or orthophotos of larger global areas, etc... A batch upload from the Landesarchiv Baden-Württemberg is going on, and this example shows the importance very well. Right now, we have ca. 755 TB of recent and not deleted media on Commons, it won't take a lot of time until the first petabytes are written. Have a nice evening -- PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Addendum: And we need to whitelist acceptable domains to perform batch uploading --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- "How many people have the knowledge to perform batch uploads?" Are you one of them? Trade (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- May depend on the circumstances D:. When it contains coding etc., it could get tricky :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Why would these issues need to be addressed? I don't see that in your comment. I think a question that needs addressing and is to some degree in the original question of the thread is how to get more people to implement Batch upload requests. I don't think there's many requests that would take a lot of server disk space and one could exempt these. Information on how to implement batch upload requests such as workflows and tools would be good to add to that page (well or on some page linked at the top there). Uploading some sounds or some biomedical illustrations wouldn't take more than a few GB and I think it's like that for most requests. For requests that require much more such many TBs, it may be good to get some community consent at some page but people can already comment at the BUrequests page. Photographs etc can already be generated and it's not a tangible problem so far but more methods to detect them would of course be useful – I don't see how it relates to batch requests though. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think that the datasets will get greater in the near future. Of course, a few GB aren't an issue, but some datasets may reach more than 100 TBs, like some aerial image sets. This trend may increase, as the number of imported files grows fast. More people can access more datasets at the same time, but you're right, bringing them into the process now is important. Maybe I am thinking too far right now :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I learned now a little bit to use OpenRefine. We have several issues that need to be adressed:
October 01
Should we split by-camera categories by subject matter of photos
I am posting here to call attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/10/Category:People taken with Nikon D5200. The question here is basically whether it is desirable or not to split large categories of images taken with a particular model camera along lines of the subject matter of the images. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- By-camera categories should be deleted and replaced with structured data. Otherwise we will just reproduce the entire Commons category tree but suffixed with "taken with Nikon Q100" and "taken with Canon XYZ". That way madness lies. Nosferattus (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- By-camera categories should not be split into subcategories, certainly not by subject matter. Some allowance may be made for technical subcategories of camera+lens but I am not convinced even they are needed. MKFI (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- These categories shouldn't be split by subject matter, no. I added a comment in the CfD. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:Cars taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III too --XRay 💬 13:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Diagrams by language
Here's an idea of how Commons categories could be useful for a translation campaign (to internationalize open knowledge in the Wikimedia system and make data/knowledge in Wikipedia more accessible):
- A scan with the Glamorous could show which diagrams in English are used in a specific-language Wikipedia like Spanish Wikipedia
- Users of that Wikipedia (or who speak that language well) could hold a campaign or media-edit-a-thon (or just act individually) to translate all those files
- This would mean that people reading Spanish Wikipedia can then (better) understand what those images say even if they aren't good in English or can't understand it at all (note: one could also scan for any language other than the language of the given Wikipedia but realistically that's going to be >99.0% English ones for most WPs)
- The same could also be done for data graphics like charts, like those in Category:Our World in Data (around 99.9% of these are in English but they're used heavily across many Wikipedias)
There are multiple challenges here (these aren't only about this specific problem):
- Here is the glamorous scan. Issues: One can't select which language Wikipedia to scan – one could modify the output of the tool or just jump around it via ctrl+f and a search phrase like
es.wikipediabut that's not a good option. Moreover, the height per diagram is too large, making it very cumbersome to go through it and move from one diagram to the next. - Here is the glamorous v2 scan. Issues: one also can't select which language Wikipedia to scan – I've created an issue here but the issue is not even showing in the Issues tab of that hard-to-find repo let alone being worked on and there doesn't seem to be any interest in getting volunteer devs to find and help out with the project.
- Many or most diagrams aren't yet in their language category – This is a Commons search scan one could use to categorize these starting with SVG diagrams. There are many thousands of files so many users would need to help out with this or a bot could do this, for example based on other categories of the file or via OCR. (If I just create a request at Commons:Categorization requests only very few may see it.)
- There are many files in that category that aren't diagrams. That's often because of miscategorizations that need fixing. Often, a tool to see the categorization path from the file to the diagrams category is needed or would be useful for that.
- Lastly, SVG files in specific have often been translated already to more languages than the language in the thumbnail and original first version so shouldn't just have one language category. This is generally done using the SVG Translate tool. However, that tool doesn't add any category or alike when a new language is added despite that this could be done. I've proposed this (no reaction yet) at Adding translations should automatically add the respective lang cat & other version on its talk page. Note that this is specific to SVG files and doesn't apply to PNGs; I just used the SVG diagrams search as example because it shows more files that are actually diagrams in case that some users don't know what diagrams are and/or are confused why there's so few diagrams in the results.
The challenges may seem like it would be supper difficult to do but I think it may partly sound more difficult than it is – for example one could throw very many files at once into Category:Diagrams in unspecified languages and then go on from there. Moreover, these issues would be valuable to solve in general; this is just a problem that helps illustrate these problems and why solving them can be useful.
Help with this would be appreciated. tl;dr The short and simple summary is: please help moving diagrams not yet categorized by language into Category:Diagrams in unspecified languages or from there or the search into their language category. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that the links above can already be used to find other/English-language diagrams (or charts etc) in your native language Wikipedia so that you can translate them if you're motivated or skilled in quickly and accurately translating such images so that these are more accessible to readers of your native language. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
October 02
The problem with Golden hour
Hello everyone, I wanted to hear what you have to say on this topic. Currently, the category Golden Hour is categorized under both sunrise and sunset. I'm wondering if that's correct, or whether the golden hour shouldn't be considered its own "time of day." Or does one follow the definition, which is also clarified by the brackets in the category name "photography," that it's more of an aesthetic state than a time of day like day, twilight, or night? In that case, I would again remove this category. I don't think it's appropriate to categorize it both as a time of day and as part of sunrise and sunset, not to mention that it contradicts our overcategorization policy. But that's just a side note. Regards Lukas Beck (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- Commons categorization isn't mainly about ontology, it's about helping people find things. Clearly, from its name, this is a category about photography, more than about a time of day, but it is certainly related to those two times of day. Perhaps this should just be a {{Cat see also}} from those categories, but there certainly should be a connection. - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I looked at your opinion and simply implemented my idea. I think it's more correct now. Lukas Beck (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Golden hour is when the lighting is typically the best for photographs, its not time based at all. But normally it is near sunset. THEBOSS40 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- or sunrise ;-) Lukas Beck (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- This is about natural light when the sun is low in the sky. Depending on your latitude and season this can be all day in the arctic spring or a much briefer time at dawn and dusk in the tropics. Of course here in England it is more of a mythical time when it is neither raining nor cloudy, legend has it that at such times the sky over London can even be blue, though I'm skeptical. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
at such times the sky over London can even be blue
I have seen it. Summer of 1976, I believe. - Jmabel ! talk 01:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)- I remember that year, rather warm, far too warm to be sitting in an exam hall as I was. Don't remember any unusual sky colours though. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
October 03
Categorization of colors on flags
There was an extensive discussion on categorization on flags on my talk page. My argument is a category named for certain colors should contain all files that visually contain those colors, regardless of European heraldic rules. As far as I know, categories are intended not to serve custom regional rules, but to help users from around the world search for media. This is an international site, and the rules for flag subcategories should be universal.
My argument is based on Commons:Categories policy, which states that files should be placed in the most specific category that fits them. Therefore, a flag with visible color should be in a category named with that color. It is not helpful for a user searching for flags without a color to have to navigate through flags that contain that said color.
So I ask the community here, do black outlines, borders, and other similar design choices count as color on a image of a flag? Nebula84912 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Categories for colors on flags should probably only include colors which are present as the primary color of a figure or of a field (background). Incidental colors, like black or white outlines around figures or colors present in fine details, shouldn't be included. For flags defined in heraldic terms, this should probably only include colors which are described in the blazon, or which are clearly implied with terms like "proper". Consider, for instance, the state flag of New York - the coat of arms at the center includes a complex landscape which can contain bits of many different colors. (I'm not certain if the landscape is even standardized.) Categorizing the flag based on every fleck of color present in that landscape is impractical, and dilutes the value of the color categories for more prominent colors. Omphalographer (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Nebula84912's heading to this discussion, "Categorization of colors on flags", is misleading. The issue at hand is not the categorisation of colour palettes in flags as such, the issue is the categorisation of colours in heraldic designs as represented in flags. Obviously, not all flags are heraldic in nature, but a preponderance of insignia used by territorial public bodies such as municipalities, French départements, German länder, Swiss cantons, as well as other such territorial bodies across the globe, are indeed heraldic. Such insignia can interchangeably be represented as either coats of arms or flags, and it doesn't make sense for such flags to have their colours described in colour palettes other than the ones they were created from, which are heraldic palettes.
- Black is a recognised colour in heraldic palettes, but only if a field partition or a figure is coloured in it. In heraldry, black is also used stylistically to bound off adjacent fields or to distinguish figures against their repective ground more emphatically. However, such stylistic use of the colour black is not considered part of the substance of a design and conventionally has never been reported in a heraldic design's formal description.
- In effect, Nebula84912 demands that all flags, including heraldic flags, must have their colours categorised as if they were instances of graphic design, which they are not. Moreover, historically, colour categorisations on Commons have followed the long-established rule that heraldic flags have their colours described in the conventional heraldic fashion. Nebula84912's innovation of describing these artifacts in terms of graphic design would therefore involve a pointless exercise of overhauling a large body of existing work.
- Nebula84912 has started this work by recategorising a large number of heraldic flags that were previously categorised the conventional way. The flags thus recategorised are now in categories that include black among their colours, which their corresponding coats of arms do not. There is no point to creating this division between coats of arms and their respective flags, least of all when it would require a large amount of work to undo firmly established practice.
- I propose that Nebula84912 be asked to stop this project immediately. Thanks! ARK (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with both previous, and ping, at least, @Arrow303, Baseluna014, Doc Taxon, Erlenmeyer, Jpgibert, Lokal Profil, Mrmw, Snow Lion Fenian, and Thom.lanaud: since they may not receive notifications from here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree too.
- In heraldry, we don't really use colors but concepts represented by a palette of colors. The "azure" concept covers all blue nuances. If we categorizes with color, which number of blue can we have? Is cerulean is categorized like "navy", "teal" or "turquoise"? Must we have a category for each color?
- Regarding the black used as delimiter for the figures' shapes, it is only a convention not explicitly described. So it must not be taken in account. This is a choice done by the illustrator.
- Jpgibert (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Jpgibert: we actually are categorizing flags with those colors. Category:Navy blue flags and Category:Teal flags exist, along with Category:Saffron flags, Category:Maroon flags, etc. We generally don't use heraldic tinctures to categorize flags; we use primary colors like black, blue, red, and white. This is about flags, not heraldry. Why should flags of Asia be categorized under heraldic rules? Heraldry is an European tradition, not Asian. Nebula84912 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Jpgibert: "In heraldry, we don't really use colors but concepts represented by a palette of colors." So, these next flags are actually based on European heraldry, and we should categorize them according to traditional European heraldic rules?: [1] [2][3][4] [5]
- Is that what you are saying? That we should rename the color categories to those of heraldy and classify these flags as such? Nebula84912 (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- You keep talking about an imaginary consensus that simply wasn't there. For example, these flags are marked as black, and not by me: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
- There are thousands more examples that I can give. I see them categorized as such all around Commons. Therefore, that "implicit" consensus never existed. The established consensus is the explicit consensus of Commons:Categories. Nebula84912 (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- "In effect, Nebula84912 demands that all flags, including heraldic flags, must have their colours categorised as if they were instances of graphic design, which they are not" Nebula is correct. If I am looking for grey flags, I don't care if it contains a heraldic element in the center based on medieval European standards. I care if it's got a grey background or stripe or star or something. I agree that very small incidental colors may be omitted, but omitting a flag that has a huge orange chevron because it also includes a seal/coat of arms/blazon that looks similar to an arbitrary standard is not helpful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Just to be clear and avoid any confusion. The claim that I'm demanding things is totally unjustified. I'm arguing for something, not demanding something. I'm suggesting that the way we categorize flags should be comprehensive, clear, and universal. "Universal" means it must account for the international nature of the Commons project. It should also be user-friendly, meaning it should not be based on convoluted rules; one shouldn't need to be well-versed in regional heraldic or vexillology rules to find what a user is looking for.
- Whatever the consensus, I think it shouldn't contradict Commons:Categories, as that could confuse users. Categorization should be intuitive.
- If we decide that small details not visible at a simple glance should be ignored, I'm totally fine with that. However, it needs to be clear how small they need to be. Should they be invisible in the thumbnail, on the file page preview, or at the file's original size? I
Support that if they are visible at the full original size, then they should count. But I'm 
Neutral if it is decided that only what is visible on the file page is considered. However, I 
Oppose considering only what is visible in the thumbnail. I don't think a thumbnail defines a file; to me, it is just to give an idea of what the file is for navigating purpose. And that is my position. No more nor less. Whatever is the consensus here I will respect it. Nebula84912 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- "I'm suggesting that the way we categorize flags should be comprehensive, clear, and universal... It should also be user-friendly, meaning it should not be based on convoluted rules". Could not agree more, and I've tried to represent these two principles below. These simple and clear principles should be obvious. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with both previous, and ping, at least, @Arrow303, Baseluna014, Doc Taxon, Erlenmeyer, Jpgibert, Lokal Profil, Mrmw, Snow Lion Fenian, and Thom.lanaud: since they may not receive notifications from here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: How big does the figure have to be? Do small figures and inscriptions count? Do the primary colors of the boats and the sun on the New York state flag count? And what is the primary color of the boats? Is it white or brown? Or we should have to take the whole coats of arms as a figure and do not categorize the figures that form part of it at all? If we are doing that, what is the primary color of that coat of arms?
- My primary concern is with colors that are clearly visible. As I said in my talk page, why users should be forced to navigate through images of flags (like this ones [19][20] [21] [22] [23][24] [25]), that clearly contain black when they are specifically searching for flags that do not? (like these ones: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35])
- Should this flag be categorized as black because it has a black acorn, i.e a figure? Nebula84912 (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Elementary, my dear Watson: As suggested above, read the blazon!
- The coat of arms of Westernsee is blazoned thus in German:
- Von Silber und Blau schräg geteilt. Oben ein sitzendes, in den Vorderpfoten eine schwarze Nuss haltendes rotes Eichhörnchen, unten fünf silberne Wellenfäden.
- This may be translated into English as follows:
- Per bend argent and azure; in the argent field a squirrel sejant gules holding in its forepaws a nut sable; in the azure field five barrulets wavy argent.
- Observe that blazons use technical heraldic language, which is optimised for brevity and will take a bit of getting used to. The term "sable" stands for black. so a "nut sable" means a black nut.
- Therefore: yes, the Flag of Westernsee should be described as having black among its heraldic colours. Kind regards, ARK (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- So this flag is black (sable) because a black cross is part of the coats of arms. That's correct? Nebula84912 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- And this flag is purple because it has a purple flower on one of its coats of arms. Is that accurate? Nebula84912 (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- And that flag wasn't categorized as black. So according to the consensus on the file, that means the presumed consensus, that flags wasn't a black flag. So clearly, because of that example and the other examples that I gave, the "implicit" consensus that we categorize flags according to heraldic rules wasn't a real thing. Nebula84912 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- So this flag is black (sable) because a black cross is part of the coats of arms. That's correct? Nebula84912 (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I distinguish between a flag and the figures it may contain. For me, the Albanian flag is red, not red and black. It can also be categorized as a black eagle on a red flag. The Japanese flag is white and a red sun on a white flag. The black lines on the figures are not part of the flag, but rather part of the figures. Sorry for my English.--Erlenmeyer (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Category:Flags with black animals and its subcategories are part of the broader Category:Black flags. This is based on the Commons guideline, Commons:Categories, which states: "The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories). A category can have more parent categories."
- Therefore, those flags are still considered and categorized as a black flag due to the relational and hierarchical structure of the category system. If an file is considered a black flag, it should be categorized as such. The most specific subcategory for flags that contain black in this category, for example, is this category.
- As I mentioned on my talk page, if we want to create more specific categories, we could create subcategories like "[Colors] flags of Germany with black outlines" or "Black outlines in [colors] flags of Germany." However, for now, the existing categories are the most specific ones available. Nebula84912 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- And according with your logic, this flag actually is not a black flag, it is just a white flag. Nebula84912 (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you: this is a great example. If I am looking for flags with a white background, I want to find this flag. I don't care if it has a European conventional blazon animal on it or whatever. I care that it's got a field of white with stuff on top. It's beyond bizarre to hold every flag from all time and culture to some hyper-specific arbitrary ruleset. Just use common sense and make flags find-able by the features someone would expect to use to find them. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
ːːːIndeed, for me, this flag is white with a black eagle, like this one, fleur-de-lis black on a white flag, not a black and white flag.--Erlenmeyer (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- The colours of the flag of the Swiss municipality of Seengen are not a matter of opinion. As in most heraldic flags throughout the world, they are a matter of public record, issued by an official publisher in the form of a blazon. In this case, please refer to the corresponding coat of arms of Seengen and read the blazon given and referenced to the official source in the file description:
- In Weiss rot bewehrter und gezungter schwarzer Adler.
- Which may be rendered thus in technical heraldic English:
- Argent, an eagle displayed sable, armed and langued gules.
- Which may be rendered thus in non-technical English:
- On a white field, a black eagle with red tongue, beak, and claws, its wings and legs spread.
- So, per the blazon,the colours of the flag are white, black and red.
- Therefore, the flag of Seengen is correctly filed under c:Category:Black,_red,_white_flags_of_Switzerland.
- By contrast, the flag of the Swiss municipality of Schafisheim has been incorrectly moved from the from Category:Red and white flags of Switzerland to Category:Black, red, white flags of Switzerland because the black outlines in the visual representation of the flag are accidental to the design rather than constitutive. For proof of this, read the blazon given by the same official publisher of the coat of arms of Schafisheim:
- In Rot schreitendes weisses Schaf.
- Which may be rendered thus in technical heraldic English:
- Gules, a sheep passant argent.
- Which may be rendered thus in non-technical English:
- On a red field, a white sheep walking.
- So, per the blazon, the colours of this flag are red and white. No black.
- Coats of arms and their corresponding flags are instances of the same underlying heraldic design. Categorising their colours by two separate rulesets is a mistake.
- I propose that this mistake be called out for the nmistake that it is and that Nebula84912 be asked to stop spreading it around any further. Thank you. ARK (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
About the response from Koavf:
- “In effect, Nebula84912 demands that all flags, including heraldic flags, must have their colours categorised as if they were instances of graphic design, which they are not" Nebula is correct.”
First, this stance implies that if this principle is applied to vexillology, there is no justification for not applying it, later or not, to heraldry.
In both cases, this would amount to reducing a sophisticated science to a simple “wysiwig” concept, and for what reason? Enabling as many people as possible to access an image as quickly as possible, based on the simplest possible criterion, the candor of the criterion going hand in hand with this claim to democratize science; an approach that can straightforwardly be likened to the notion of “leveling down”.
In other words, by accepting this definition, it becomes unnecessary to know the basic rules of heraldry in order to quickly access an image through a search.
The said heraldry rules define, for an example, that in this image, there is no black/brown/pink/white, but only white (“argent”), on which an element specified as “au naturel” is placed. That is how it is.
And, as a matter of fact, this principle is already within everyone's reach, although it does require, it's true, a minimum of effort and circumspection — the minimum that is probably essential in all things — which makes the option of categorizing flags or coats of arms “as if they were instances of graphic design”, based on the will of accessibility to the greatest number of people (“I don't care if it contains a heraldic element in the center based on medieval European standards. I care if it's got a gray background or stripe or star or something”), very, very questionable.
Not to mention that if it were decided to go down this this route, it would also be possible, if not essential, to take into account the foreground gradient sometimes present in these images, which result, on the screen in front of our eyes, in several shades of the same color, which one could just as easily take the trouble to specify by categorization — for search results to be increasingly accurate, fast, without the need for refinement, or reflection, i.e. instantaneous.
I make a brief aside regarding the message inserted here, which contains (too?) many examples, three of which I will comment on:
- File:Flag of Bangor University.svg
- File:Flag of the British Army.svg
- File:Flag of the Sons of Glyndwr.svg
- The first one does indeed contain black, since at least the “claws” and some “tongue” elements are filled with it.
- The second one does too, since the contour at the underside of the crown contains black ermine spots, on a white field, but as for the underside of the crown being filled with black, it's potentially resulting from an unfortunate choice by the illustrator; the other version is the one to be considered in regard of this. Let's note by the way that on these flags, possibly, there are also no green or blue, but a crown “au naturel”.
- The third example does not contain black at all: it's simply a categorization error, since what was qualified as black is actually blue — unless I have eyesight problems. That being, I corrected the category while I was at it, based on the visual and assuming that the coat of arms is correct, assumption being the only thing that can be relied on in this specific situation, since none of the associated files provides any reference.
More generally, it can be said that the implicit consensus is shared by users who have an approach based on the knowledge they have acquired in the field to which they contribute, and categorization errors are widely the result of contributors who are ill-informed, overly hasty, or overly confident.
This being, it goes without saying that, as the latter contributors are in the majority, it is very likely that the question will arise again someday, and it is even possible that the principle of categorization based on colors displayed rather than on specific rules will be accepted here in record time. in accordance with the rule of the majority.
Depending on what, in the long run, logically, this should also apply to heraldry.
In any case, the prime consideration here seems to have been diluted, as the conversation often strays off course and tends to go off in several directions, with sometimes many, many examples given simultaneously, which complicates the reading and makes it difficult to provide a truly concrete answer on any specific point.
First, it is said in the conclusion of the introduction to this topic, that therefore defines the core of the discussion: “do black outlines, borders, and other similar design choices count as color on a image of a flag?”
Here, it would be difficult not to consider that this wording could be a source of confusion, encouraging future debates to stray from a specific point, since that question concerns three elements, the first two of which (“outlines, borders”) may be distinct from each other, while the third (“other similar design choices”) is rather vague, and above all dilutes the primary concern, which is whether or not to take into account the outlines when categorizing the files in colour categories.
Indeed, it was this particular point that initially led ARK to start a discussion on Nebula84912's talk page, opening that I transcribe below:
- “European municipal flags use heraldic colours. Black is one of these colours, but only if a figure or a ground are coloured in it: if a black outline is drawn around an element, that black outline does not count as one of the heraldic colours used in a flag or a coat of arms. Therefore, please stop categorising flags as containing the colour black when that colour is only used for outlines. The Flag of Hergiswil, for instance, contains only three colours: white, yellow and blue (that's "argent", "or", and "azure" in heraldic terminology). The black outlines do not count as a colour.”
“The black outlines do not count as a colour” is the primary point to discuss, before anything else including small elements, so that the discussion is not flooded.
It can already be seen here that many examples have been given, many points have been discussed, many points except this one.
From which it appears that so far, nobody has yet expressed an argument against the facts first exposed by ARK, namely “the black outlines do not count as a colour.”
I will add two very simple examples, in the form of coats-of-arms, the shape here being irrelevant and the outlines of the shield not to be taken into account, only those of the elements (for the example).
The principle proposed by Nebula84912 amounts to considering that two files representing the same figure, such as the examples below, are not composed of the same group of colors, and therefore categorized as such, meaning that both examples should no longer stand together in Argent and gules in heraldry, despite the fact that only a personal choice, linked to aesthetic constraints, or a consensual one, such as in the files of the Blazon Project of the French Wikipedia, defines the presence of this black color, which is in no way an element of the coat of arms definition, thus taking it in account for the description, or the colour categorization, is totally irrelevant in an encyclopedic concept.
One could also mention this flag, which in no way contains black, since it shows a red lion debruised by a green bend, in no way it has to be categorized in Black on flags with white fields, or simply in any wrong category.
I don't need to recall that I fully support the current categorization process, based on this principle, process that is respected by all experienced contributors, however, I would like to point out again that so far, nobody has yet expressed an argument against this process, i.e. an argument favorable to Nebula84912's way, so it seems reasonable that all subsequent arguments should not stray from this subject.
And, not only do I propose too that Nebula84912 be asked to stop this project immediately, but also that they restore all the files that were wrongfully moved.
Thank you. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is this post a joke? You wrote a preposterous wall of text and then ended that "nobody has yet expressed an argument against this process, i.e. an argument favorable to Nebula84912's way". Yes, I have: a normal person looking for a flag with a white field would want to find File:CHE Seengen Flag.svg. It's like you're deliberately not paying attention to very simple arguments and then you expect someone else to read a novel. And, also Nebula pointed out that there are a lot of flags that just don't follow European heraldic conventions in any way. Why would we apply these rules to them? It's just silly and not helpful. If you haven't noticed these arguments, it's because you're not paying attention on purpose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, in the context, “nobody has yet expressed an argument against this process, i.e. an argument favorable to Nebula84912's way” was in regard of the reason for the initial intervention on Nebula84912's talk page, namely: currently, the black outlines do not count as a colour.
-
red & white -
red & white?
-
Black, green, red, white + black/red on flags with white fields?
A question that remains wide open,
Thank you. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Whether or not black as used in an outline is included in the colors of a flag is secondary to the primary points that Nebula made, which are "I'm suggesting that the way we categorize flags should be comprehensive, clear, and universal... It should also be user-friendly, meaning it should not be based on convoluted rules". These two principles are correct. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:32, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that the question of the outlines is secondary, nor the current rule convoluted.
- This said, as long as the question remains open, at least things don't get any worse. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- Let's get to the bottom of this.
- Heraldry is an ancient art that is nearly a thousand years old. Over the centuries of its existence it has evolved a set of rules that continue to govern the often legally binding insignia of a large number of territorial bodies worldwide. One of the most fundamental heraldic rules concerns the question of what the object of description should be: should individual instances of a design be described, or should the source code be given, the specification from which any number of different renditions and representations can be created, all of which will be valid as long as they conform to that specification? Heraldry has a very clear-cut, non-convoluted answer to this question: it's the specification of the design that should be stated, it isn't an individual representation of the design that should be described. Such specifications are laid down in technical notation called blazon. Blazons enjoy legal protections in many jurisdictions, where governments either issue or approve them, or delegate their approval to chartered professional bodies.
- The relevant point for our discussion is this: the colours of a heraldic design, which is to say a coat of arms or, interchangeably, its corresponding flag, are stated in the design's blazon.
- To illustrate the practical application of this point, let's look at a heraldic design that Nebula84912 has brought up for discussion, the flag of Canillas de Albaida in Málaga, Spain. That flag features the municipal coat of arms, which depicts, among other elements, a chapel with a cross atop its steeple. As that cross is coloured black, should black therefore be counted among the colours of this flag?
- No, black should not be counted among the colours of this flag because neither the cross nor its colour are specified in the blazon of the coat of arms therein contained.
- The stand-alone version of the coat of arms on Commons has a detailed file description that includes the blazon:
- Escudo terciado en barra: 1.º y 3.º, de plata; 2.º, en barra de oro, la villa andaluza ascendente a la siniestra terminada en la ermita. Sobre el todo, una rama de albaida en flor. Al timbre, corona real cerrada.
- In English, this means that the design shows an Andalusian village rising toward the top right and ending in a chapel.
- The cross isn't mentioned, let alone its colour specified. Spain is a catholic country, so it is simply presumed that the chapel would be topped by a latin cross. The depiction of the chapel and the cross atop its steeple is left to the discretion of the artist turning the blazon into a visual representation.
- This degree of artistic leeway is demonstrated in an alternative representation of the municipal arms in which the cross on the steeple is coloured white.
- Per the blazon, both renditions of the arms are valid, as the blazon only specifies a white chapel which artists are free to interpret as they see fit.
- Once we accept the rule, which prior to Nebula84912 has always been accepted on Commons, that the object of description in a heraldic design isn't a specific implementation but its original specification, it becomes clear that the colour black should not be included in the file's categorisation.
- I'm looking forward to the time when Commons returns to the long-established principle that the object of description in a heraldic design isn't a specific implementation but its original specification. The colours of heraldic designs such as coats of arms and their corresponding heraldic flags will then be categorised under a single, non-convoluted ruleset again, ending a wasteful conflict between two competing rulesets. Regards, ARK (talk) 09:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of this type of shirt collar or the name of the fasteners?
Does anyone know the name of this type of shirt collar or the name of the fasteners? File:George Dewey Sanford (1898-1965) in 1925 at 63 Concord Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.png RAN (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a better place to ask this question? --RAN (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Probably either the Fashion WP on EN-Wiki or the Reference desk (or the versions in other languages on other Wikis). This question seems a tad too niche for anyone here to plausibly know the answer. 19h00s (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Confused categories
I do not know why there are two different categories for Category:Books from London by year and Category:Books published in London by year, but what strikes me is the strange way they behave.
The Category:1915 books from London seems to be categorized in Category:Books from London by year at the bottom of the page. However, when clicking that category, it is not found there – but it can be found in Category:Books published in London by year, although such a category is not listed at the bottom of the page.
The same applies to some other categories, like e.g. Category:1918 books from London, while others of this kind behave as expected. I suppose there must be some bug in the template {{Books from London by year}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Jan.Kamenicek: have you asked any of the people who created these categories there intention and, in particular whether they intended a distinction? - Jmabel ! talk 01:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I was more interested in the strange way in which the categories are distributed into superior categories than in the purpose of the two categories, which I wanted to discuss somewhere else once I understand this. Nevertheless I am pinging @Enyavar and AnRo0002: . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, there are two parts of the category tree that are not in accordance: "Books published in London" "(Books published in Paris", "Books published in Cincinnati, Ohio", whatever). These pre-existing categories were categorized by place of publication, which was enough until we recognized that it's a bit unhandy to group 200'000 files in the same category. That was the starting point to break them up by year; and the process is far from done. (We/I could appreciate your help, if you'd like). In my opinion, it makes sense to start subcategorize by place+year IF you can expect most of the by-year categories having more than 10 titles.
- However, there were also pre-existing "1866 books from the United Kingdom", "1866 books from Germany"... and so on, and that led me to create "1866 books from London" and similar categories in the first place. Eventually, more cities were added with the same scheme (the big centers of publication in the 19th century: London, New York, Paris, Philadelphia, Boston, Leipzig, Berlin, Rome, St. Petersburg... according to current numbers of files), and I would think that "<year> books from <city/or US state/or country>" is the preferred scheme. That is my opinion just based on the amount of categories that already exist, I'm open for a debate if necssary. So far, I hesitated to start a debate to rename the parent category that is still "published in".
- The "Books published in London by year" seems to be an early error. I was not aware; but would suggest to create a redirect to "books from London by year". All my best. --Enyavar (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I was more interested in the strange way in which the categories are distributed into superior categories than in the purpose of the two categories, which I wanted to discuss somewhere else once I understand this. Nevertheless I am pinging @Enyavar and AnRo0002: . --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Images from the National Museum of Wales
The National Museum of Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru) has released over 2000 images under CC-0 or CC-BY-SA licences (website here), with resolutions up to 4000px. There are many images already uploaded (e.g.) that can therefore be upgraded to a higher resolution.
Is there a centralized list of GLAM file resources that this should be added to? Dogfennydd (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Small side note: Actually, if they are photographs of paintings, we should either totally ignore their cc license (since they are not the copyright owners according to how the WMF views COM:PD-ART), or we can be "nice" and use {{Licensed PD-Art}} as this. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
.svg/20px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment I am uploading some: Category:Pictures from Amgueddfa Cymru Images. Yann (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest, when uploading images from such sources, including {{Do not crop}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
October 04
Photo challenge August results
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| image |  |
 |
|
| Title | Time to milk the cows. | Old style Chinese decoration | Contemporary blue and white bathroom |
| Author | Magnolia677 | Pauloleong2002 | OKJaguar |
| Score | 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| image |  |
 |
File:200130 D 9059.CR2.jpg |
| Title | Andrews Mare, Lyndhurst, New Forest, Hampshire, England, UK |
Willow trees on the bank of the river Windrush at Witney, Oxfordshire, UK |
Tree on Lake Gunn Nature Walk in Fiordland National Park in Southland on South Island of New Zealand |
| Author | JoanaImages | Scampz | Karel Stipek Austria |
| Score | 17 | 14 | 10 |
Congratulations to JoanaImages, Magnolia677, Scampz, Karel Stipek Austria, Pauloleong2002 and OKJaguar. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Names of churches
Do we have some official policy on names of churches? Is it required that the official name of the church be used as the category name instead of the common name? For example, this one. Ping involved editor Sanglahi86 for this discussion. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:03, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I have created categories for hundreds of churches, and I rather hope we don't become too prescriptive here. Sometimes when I create a category I'm aware that there is or could be a school of the same name unless we include the word church, or that we need separate categories for the new and old churches of that name in that village. Other times I add the county or state because St Mary's or Holy Trinity is a common church name and every Hereford is likely to have one - by contrast St Barnabas is pretty safe unless your city is as ubiquitous/large as Birmingham. But churches, especially interesting ones, do change their official names - and category redirects are a good solution if the current name for a church building isn't the name it had when lots of photographs were taken of it. Very occasionally we will find that we need to rename and disambiguate a church category because we now have images of two St Barnabas, Birminghams. But in my experience that's rare enough that we can do that as and when we find that our category is ambiguous and receiving images of different buildings that may be in different continents. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm never sure whether we should use St Barnabas Church, St Barnabas' Church, or Church of St Barnabas. Then there's St. Barnabas, Saint Barnabas...
- Same goes for naming Wikipedia articles, BTW. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing@WereSpielChequers for example, for the category I linked: Category:Saint Vincent Ferrer Parish Church (Bogo) vs. Category:Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Vincent Ferrer (Bogo, Cebu). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've not yet been to the Philippines, and I don't know how they name their churches, and looking at the names in our images "Bogo City Church" has less detail than I'd like. The key details that would differentiate it from any other church in Bogo would be Saint Vincent Ferrer, so I would have likely started the category as St Vincent Ferrer church, Bogo assuming either Bogo is an unusual city/town name or Vincent Ferrer is a rare saint name. St Vincent Ferrer church, Bogo, Cebu is probably overkill, based on a quick Google image search. Most of my categorisation of churches has been in England, and there we have the problem that local photographers will use names that are clear if you also know where the photograph was taken. My assumption is that the category name needs to work globally, which is fine if there is only one place called Bogo, but more detail is needed if you are in a place called Perth, Newcastle or Boston. However as long as the name works for people and other names are included in category redirects I'm not concerned as to which is the category name and which a redirect. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers what I meant is which of the two I mentioned is preferrable: the usual name "Saint Vincent Ferrer Parish Church (Bogo)" or the very formal name that highlights its status as a shrine: "Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Vincent Ferrer (Bogo)"? I would prefer the former since it is aligned with the names of other churches in other countries (like "Eglise de Saint-XXX (PLACENAME)" for those in France). IMO there is no need to highlight the church's status as a shrine through the category name, and it's best to transfer such detail in the category itself as a note (using {{En}} or other language templates). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- Basically? IMHO, if there's a name on a sign at the church, use that name, unless there is a very clear commonly used alternative that you're aware. Consistency among names is good but it's not a be-all and end-all. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm broadly with The Bushranger here, but beware of local names that may not be unique on a global site. Boston Baptist Church is a genuine church name. But in the real world, you tend to assume that anyone looking at that sign knows whether they are in England or the USA, and you'd usually be right. Here on Commons we sometimes need to add something to the category name so that it is unique globally rather than unique nationally, when we don't, things can go wrong. So I've just created category:Boston Baptist Chapel, Lincolnshire WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Basically? IMHO, if there's a name on a sign at the church, use that name, unless there is a very clear commonly used alternative that you're aware. Consistency among names is good but it's not a be-all and end-all. - The Bushranger (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @WereSpielChequers what I meant is which of the two I mentioned is preferrable: the usual name "Saint Vincent Ferrer Parish Church (Bogo)" or the very formal name that highlights its status as a shrine: "Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Vincent Ferrer (Bogo)"? I would prefer the former since it is aligned with the names of other churches in other countries (like "Eglise de Saint-XXX (PLACENAME)" for those in France). IMO there is no need to highlight the church's status as a shrine through the category name, and it's best to transfer such detail in the category itself as a note (using {{En}} or other language templates). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 11:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've not yet been to the Philippines, and I don't know how they name their churches, and looking at the names in our images "Bogo City Church" has less detail than I'd like. The key details that would differentiate it from any other church in Bogo would be Saint Vincent Ferrer, so I would have likely started the category as St Vincent Ferrer church, Bogo assuming either Bogo is an unusual city/town name or Vincent Ferrer is a rare saint name. St Vincent Ferrer church, Bogo, Cebu is probably overkill, based on a quick Google image search. Most of my categorisation of churches has been in England, and there we have the problem that local photographers will use names that are clear if you also know where the photograph was taken. My assumption is that the category name needs to work globally, which is fine if there is only one place called Bogo, but more detail is needed if you are in a place called Perth, Newcastle or Boston. However as long as the name works for people and other names are included in category redirects I'm not concerned as to which is the category name and which a redirect. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing@WereSpielChequers for example, for the category I linked: Category:Saint Vincent Ferrer Parish Church (Bogo) vs. Category:Archdiocesan Shrine of Saint Vincent Ferrer (Bogo, Cebu). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
October 06
The category explains what to do. Essentially all files in the category need a license review, to check they really are under the correct licenses, and unencumbered by copyright restrictions on any contributor to them (including illustrations and contributions.)
Commons can mobolise to resovle this :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- OK. How do I remove items from this category? I first checked Category:Prominent Jews of America; a collection of biographical sketches of Jews (1918) - which looked like an easy case as published in US in 1918, {{PD-US-expired}}. I added that. The "unverified" category remained. I looked at categories, and at the text on the file page, and didn't see how to remove it. Please pardon my ignorance, what is the specific procedure to fix this? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Add -
|reviewed=pdto the {{Internet Archive link}} or {{IA}} templates as indicated in the instructions for the categoryShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- Add -
- Thanks. I see how you edited that one. Seems to me neither obvious nor intuitive, but now I know. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Code formatting issue
I really have no clue where else to post this. I'm going to bring up the issue here considering this is where JSON data for maps and charts are chiefly stored.
When editing Scribunto modules on any wiki, tabs are used for indentation rather than spaces, and this is fine. When you publish the edit, the module is saved as-is, tab indentation included. However, when you edit .tab files on this wiki, tabs are used for indentation as before, but publishing an edit forcibly modifies the format of the file to be in a specific form and also converts tabs to four spaces or something.
I don't like this at all, and I don't understand why the two differ like this. They use the same code editor. Why does the server need to muck up my JSON when I finish writing it whereas my Lua code is always unscathed?
Again, I'm not able to think of a potentially more appropriate or relevant place to post this as it concerns a part of the software whose specifics, and therefore place to adequately question it, are completely unknown to me. If there is a better place to ask this question, I'd be happy if you could point me there. — rae5e <talk> 16:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki It's probably somewhere deep in the serverside code. The reason is because someone made it once so, either intentionally or because no one else had an opinion on it. "I don't like this at all".. sure... but does it create a problem ? Cause I don't think many people will be jumping with enthousiasme spending an hour or two figuring out where and why a whitespace decision was made. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, I just take minor issue with it and thought I would ask about it out of curiosity. It seemed strange and counterintuitive and I've been very confused about it, nothing more... I'm not necessarily jumping at the opportunity to "fix" the discrepancy, although I would if I knew where to look. I'm a pedant about these things...and files taking up 4x the amount of space because the software thought it knew better about how I should indent my code makes me sneer. Note that it very much doesn't have a clue as to how I should indent or stylize my code at all, even if other people will potentially come around and edit them themselves (which is still not a good argument for forcing code formatting on one specific part of the website when, again, modules are still left untouched). It randomly expanding my intentionally compacted list of datapoints to have no more than one value for line, so a series of
[x,y,z]becomes[<LF>x,<LF>y,<LF>z<LF>]<LF>, making it far more tedious to go back and modify the data because it singlehandedly and unnecessarily ballooned the line count from tens of lines to hundreds; and me having to press the left arrow key at least four times because it expanded my very intentional use of the TAB key to four spaces for no reason when I already have a good reason to indent my code the way I do and I find it fairly annoying – negligible, perhaps, but still annoying – that the software, using TABs in the editor and not touching then when submitting Lua modules, now desperately wants me to use four spaces. It's just plain obnoxious. I can see things that way, right? — rae5e <talk> 14:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, I just take minor issue with it and thought I would ask about it out of curiosity. It seemed strange and counterintuitive and I've been very confused about it, nothing more... I'm not necessarily jumping at the opportunity to "fix" the discrepancy, although I would if I knew where to look. I'm a pedant about these things...and files taking up 4x the amount of space because the software thought it knew better about how I should indent my code makes me sneer. Note that it very much doesn't have a clue as to how I should indent or stylize my code at all, even if other people will potentially come around and edit them themselves (which is still not a good argument for forcing code formatting on one specific part of the website when, again, modules are still left untouched). It randomly expanding my intentionally compacted list of datapoints to have no more than one value for line, so a series of
October 07
WMC users user group
Is there a WMC user group? I thought its CPUG, but now I am hearing "we are only photographers" and I am even reading it on their main page, they deal with photographs, but the problems with file curation on WMC is not mentioned there. So who represents broad WMC curator community? Because WMC photographers, have to curate also, like many others who contribute with other type of files. Juandev (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is not. I raised the possibility of creating one at the 2023 Wikimedia Summit in Berlin and was told by several people from the Foundation that they would not like there to be user groups tied to the various "sister projects", so I dropped the idea. I still think it would be good, but expect a fight if you try to establish this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I wonder why they dont like it. Juandev (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
United Kingdom authority area restructuring and how that will impact Commons categories
I'm not sure if this has already been asked, but the government of the United Kingdom plans on restructuring all "two-tier councils" into unitary authorities. (See [36]) I was wondering to what extent this would impact categories, i.e. whether or not existing categories for the old counties (for example, categories for when specific files were taken) would remain or if the files in those categories would be reorganized for the new established areas. Aethonatic (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
October 08
Speedy deletion of Data pages
Neither Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion nor Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion give any explanation how to tag a Data page for speedy deletion. In the absence of any guidance, I used HotCat to add Data:Sdksjdksdhj.map, a test page, to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but the edit was summarily reverted by @Johnj1995: . Could anyone in the community consider adding text to one or both pages to explain the proper process? This, that and the other (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think we never defined a method. I think the way to go should be to put the template on the talk page. GPSLeo (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- +1 - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there was a recently closed phabricator ticket T242596 that addressed the addition of categories in the data namespace.
Hotcat and similar tools still seem to require an update to work with this, my guess is that speedy deletion categorization would need to leverage this capability.Hotcat has support now. That being said, I think the data page documentation likely needs some updating as well. I think for speedy deletion we would need to agree on a process. Milliped (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)- I feel a bit that user communication would make it preferable to show templates (such as deletion/merge/contentious content) on the item itself rather than the talk pages, but that would likely mean some adaptation of the json as has happened for the categories. Milliped (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikidata also does not have templates on items for deletion. They use a Javascript tool for marking these pages. GPSLeo (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I feel a bit that user communication would make it preferable to show templates (such as deletion/merge/contentious content) on the item itself rather than the talk pages, but that would likely mean some adaptation of the json as has happened for the categories. Milliped (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there was a recently closed phabricator ticket T242596 that addressed the addition of categories in the data namespace.
- +1 - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
October 09
Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees
Hello all,
The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.
To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.
When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.
The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards,
Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
(This message was sent to Commons:Txokoa and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
- If only the candidate i wanted to vote for didn't randomly get disqualified at the last moment for no clear reason. Bawolff (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- who was that Gryllida (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Category:Barker College
Would someone have a look at Category:Barker College please? The first 9 pix are OK, but the rest appear to be archival, but the uploader has claimed them as his own. Sardaka (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Convenience link: Category:Barker College. - Jmabel ! talk 13:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've started two mass DRs (the headmasters & the crests). If anyone thinks more of these are problematic, feel free to DR those as well. - Jmabel ! talk 13:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
"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)
Contrast and brightness
Is there a free online one-button contrast and brightness optimizer? There were several free ones that mimicked the tool in Photoshop, but all are no longer free, that I am aware of. RAN (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- CapCut image editor is still free it doesn't even need sign up just go directly on https://www.capcut.com/editor-graphic. Although I find the lighting settings are not as good as some of the other features REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Saudi_Arabia.svg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Naval_flag_of_Majapahit_Kingdom.svg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alam_of_the_Mughal_Empire.svg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fictitious_Ottoman_flag_2.svg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Ming_Cheng.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Bangor_University.svg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_British_Army.svg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_the_Sons_of_Glyndwr.svg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:County_Flag_of_Warwickshire.png){kind=link}
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:County_Flag_of_Warwickshire.svg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Warwickshire-Flag.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Wessex.png){kind=link}
![[13]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Wessex.svg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Marquesas_Islands_1978-2017.svg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wyvern.svg){kind=link}
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wyvern.jpg){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Marquesas_Islands.svg){kind=link}
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Poitou-Charentes_flag.svg&action=history){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Leopoldshafen.svg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hissflagge_der_Gemeinde_Neuhausen-Spree.svg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Wolpertswende.svg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Walow.svg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DEU_Guntersblum_Flag.svg){kind=link}
![[24]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Immendingen.svg){kind=link}
![[25]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Malente.png){kind=link}
![[26]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Niendorf_(Stecknitz).svg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Landrecht.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Nienwohld_municipality.gif){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Schaalby_municipality.gif){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Holstenniendorf_municipality.gif){kind=link}
![[31]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Lohbarbek_municipality.gif){kind=link}
![[32]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Dobersdorf.png){kind=link}
![[33]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Passade.png){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Selent.png){kind=link}
![[35]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flagge_Sandesneben.png){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_in_1925_at_63_Concord_Avenue,_Jersey_City,_New_Jersey.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
October 10
image licence
Hi, is this in public domain or something similar please:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/refresh/graphics_at5+shtml/092354.shtml?radii#contents
Thanks Gryllida (talk) 02:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Gryllida: it looks to me like at least most of what is on that page would be {{PD-USGov-NOAA}}. Is there some specific image you are asking about? NOAA is usually (but sadly not always) explicit about content on their pages that comes from a third party. - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I mean the "Surface Wind And Warnings" map contents, @Jmabel, -- Gryllida (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 14:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC) WMF board reform
I'm trying to increase the visibility of m:2025 WMF Board reform petition because it's not just something that affects enwiki. People active here may be interested. Clovermoss (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
- 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
Can anyone work out the name of this photographer?
File:Colonel Alfred Jean-Marie Joseph Piales-d'Astrez (1858-1925).jpg RAN (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Not sure, but Photographie Lortet seems a possibility. [37]. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, 55 Rue Cler - we have a match. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- They certainly deserve a Wikidata entry. I see now the "e" I thought was at the end was just a flourish at the end of the name. --RAN (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- https://portraitsepia.fr/photographes/lortet/ Glrx (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
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)
Mailboxes
Hi, It seems Category:Mailboxes by country is redundant with Category:Post boxes by country. Opinions? Yann (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are they synonymous or are they referring to two different things, i.e. state-run boxes where you throw in your mail to send it somewhere vs. private boxes where the letters you receive are thrown in? Nakonana (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- In Category:Mailboxes in France, there is a mention Letter boxes are for incoming mail and Post boxes for outgoing mail. Yann (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yet again, CfD on a category tree fails because there is no visibility of it up or down the tree, thus no engagement with or resolution of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 11 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)