Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

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

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

Village pump in Sabah, Malaysia. [add]

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

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

August 08

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd suggest that what's been done here falls within the usual range of acceptable digital clean-up. The "extra" hair isn't a fabrication in the sense of altering DeVito's likeness; it's a continuation of what's already present on the other side of his head and is consistent with the source image, where stray wisps are already visible. The key point is that the face and overall appearance are intact and not misrepresented. If the concern is about accuracy, a tighter crop that leaves part of Perlman visible is possible, but that would be less ideal for a solo infobox portrait or general use in articles as most of our other clean images of him are of a poor quality or show him much older and drastically different in appearance to how he appeared at the time of his peak fame. In comparison, the edited version provides a clear, good-faith depiction of DeVito from that era, with minimal extrapolation and with the alteration openly disclosed. That seems in line with WP:IMAGES guidance, where the priority is encyclopedic value and avoiding distortion.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"within the usual range of acceptable digital clean-up" Again: Does deVito really have two tufts of white hair on that side of his head? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Danny DeVito's hair by any means, but the tufts do look rather unnatural since they don't exist on the other side of his head in that particular image. Although he does seem to have them in others, but so what? It's like modifying an image of someone with a mohawk to have a normal haircut on one of their head. It just looks crappy and doesn't make sense. Personally, I'd put in this the category of things that we shouldn't allow for even if it doesn't technically violate a guideline or anything. I'd maybe understand it for someone who there aren't many images of to begin with, but it's Danny DeVito, one of the top actors of our time. So it's rather pointless to have AI modified images of him on here even if it's acceptable. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment IMHO this case is just at the acceptable side of the border. In the retouched image, a large and important part (face) is copied from the photo, and only a small and marginal part (shoulder) is hallucinated or extrapolated. As long as the face is not "optimized", this is acceptable, provided that the image is in scope, and there are no other usable images of same subject. The comment above don't see the required indication of the CC-BY 2.0 license, nor do I see the required attribution for the underlying photo to Flickr user "amyrod", nor the required indication of what changes were made. So as it stands, this is a copyright violation is irrelevant. User:Darkwarriorblake uploaded the image to "ibb.co" to gather feedback before uploading to commons, in order to avoid a toxic deletion debate, indeed fine behaviour, at least as long as "ibb.co" does not harass users (such as by pressuring to login, or selling malware). But again, generally AS (Artificial Stupidity) is crap. I would well accept less magic/perfect extrapolation in order to get an image while avoiding AS. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

This is acceptable, provided that the image is in scope, and there are no other usable images of same subject. Cough cough (I'm sure there's plenty more online that are public domain if someone put the time into looking. The problem is that allowing for AI modified images makes it much less likely anyone will look for or find one). --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, while that image is technically clear, it bears little resemblance to Danny DeVito during the height of his career in the 70s–90s, and honestly not much to his present appearance either. I always check for free images, but a quick search confirms that Wikipedia/Wikimedia already hosts virtually all freely available photos of him. Images from his prime years are almost exclusively professional, commercial photography, so expecting them to surface under a free license is not realistic. We have the same problem with John Candy, and he's been deceased for decades. The edit in question is minor, does not materially alter or misrepresent his physical appearance, and the unaltered original remains available for comparison, which makes it verifiable. While I understand a purist stance on image modification, in practice freely licensed, high-quality photos of older actors at their career peak are simply not always/often accessible, and when they are they are generally of very poor quality due to being incredibly small or low quality due to the cameras available at the time. Unless someone happens to donate or release such an image, responsible minor modifications are often the only way to provide readers with something reasonably accurate and representative. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

August 12

SHA-256 hash in Structured Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 16

CfD advertisements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I might add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 21

Bulk deletion nomination

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

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

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

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

August 22

GPS location

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me be absolutely clear:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At this point with my Nikon Iː

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

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

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

Drat; the Micronova Website does not list my DC-G100 as compatible. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:56, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I use a Canon EOS 250D which also isn't always reliable in its connection to my phone. What I've figured out is that it works better if the camera and phone are close to each other. In other words, if I have my phone in my jeans pocket and am holding the camera in front of my face, then that is sometimes already too big of a distance. Putting the phone in a breast pocket or hanging it on a medium-length string our neck might get better results. Another thing I've noticed is that the camera and the phone switch into "standby" mode pretty quickly. The camera switches back out of standby the second that I click the trigger and takes a photo, but the connection to the phone takes a bit longer to be reestablish itself. What seems to help is, when I know that I'm about to take a photo where I'd like to have the coordinates attached, I take a dummy shot shortly before taking the real shot. The dummy shot gets the camera out of standby and gives the Bluetooth connection a few seconds to reestablish, so that by the time I take the real shot, the GPS data is already available for the camera. Nakonana (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

m:Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Multimedia and Commons/Easy edit tool for EXIF data

Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Metadata editing tool

perennial request. RoyZuo (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• In a project where Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle applies an attitude of If an image has location information in its EXIF, then that location is public. Period. No ifs, ands or buts. and we dont negotiate is at best unhelpful and at worst offensive. The response should be how can we fix it for photos where we are holding, then choosing to publicise private addresses. We should be doing better, first step is to chose carefully what we put out there for API to scrape, and secondly how can we correct something that is inflictnig harm because 10 years ago it wasnt an issue. As @RoyZou points out this is a perpetual problem thats being ignored, if only people with the skills to ectract GPS data and put it on show could chose to use their skills hide/remove this GPS data. Gnangarra 06:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
  • I'm completely unable to see any valid connection to the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is entirely about copyright status. It does not mean we have to take the most cautious, risk-averse path in all things. - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

U4C motion in Commons and UCoC enforcement

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

Local community should decide first on sysop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or like maybe enforce the exiting rules in a resonable way when admins violate them like your more then willing to do with regular users over minor issues. An ArbCom, and I'd argue U4C, wouldn't be neccessary if you guys held each other to 1% of standards that you do everyone else. I don't see that magically changing by appointing the same group of admins who won't sanction each other to begin with as an "ArbCom" though. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe in our last interaction I gave you a final warning in lieu of simply blocking you. GMG^talk 15:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• The saddest and the most preoccuping is not that they are doind what they do, but that we are not able to do it by ourselve. This administrator always have been incivil and intimidating, during its administratorship he made not less than 2 legal threats (prohibited by the Term of Uses), when I noticed the first (several months after he did it), I have asked for a consensus to remove its administrator tools (in 2017!!), but was never followed by this community, although such a blatant violation of the ToU is absolutly unworth of an administrator. Seriously, how can someone be administrator while they use legal treath to intimid others in personal dispute??? he now did it again a few weeks ago, and there are still peoples to defend this behavior, seriously?? that is the much worst news here. Fortunately the Wikimedia Community seems to take these responsibilities and seems to be on the way to doing what we never had the maturity to do ourselves. And please, to lose the tools of administrator is not the end of the world, particularly in case of breaking the Terms of Uses, and particularly if they can reapply one year later. Instead of supporting implicitly his behavior, you should convince him to stop, because the consequences of continuing to be uncivil could be greater in the future. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 07:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Christian Ferrer: I was blocked for intimidation and harassment a few months ago just because I said another user was being an opportunist but administrators like A.Savin can repeatedly threaten and bully users and they are still defending him. That's literally how screwed up it is on here. Their never going to hold each other accountable for anything. Period. A good portion of the drama on here is caused by administrators but their the least likely to face any consequences. So I'm glad the U4C is involved at this point. It's the only way anything will ever be done about the admins on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• Well the obvious course seems to be opening a final desysop discussion. GMG^talk 15:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 24

Gamepad controller with grips to the joystick

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

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

Steam Deck with Joystick grip

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

Steam Deck without Joystick grip

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

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

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

August 25

Wikidata automatic categorization needs to generate a different category

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 26

AI tool for inverse halftoning?

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: Improving Deletion Workflows in the Commons App

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

• Nominate Speedy Deletion option in the App

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

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

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

• Nominate for Deletion (regular DR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New sysops should not be permanent

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

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

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

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

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

Argument between two users, if you want to read it

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

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

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

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

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

I quite agree. The admins doing less would be the ones getting more supports. But it is quite ridiculous to keep admins who can't do 20 logged actions in a year. Yann (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wat are these drinking places called?

• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

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

August 27

Post Restant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Through truss bridges

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

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

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

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

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

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

August 28

Domain hijacking of sources

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

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

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

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

I usually do something like [https://archive.example.org/web/https://example.com/original https://example.com/original] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

On en.Wikipedia (and no doubt elsewhere) en:Template:Cite web has the facility to mark such a link as, for example, "usurped", either with or without a link to an archived version of the good page. We need a template to do likewise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. Does someone want to do the actual work? - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Monuments database in Russia, Redux

Prior discussions:

1. Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09#Monuments database in Russia
2. Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 17#Monuments database in Russia (January-June 2025)
3. Template talk:Cultural Heritage Russia#Update on technical categories (current)

Some time ago I summarised discussion #1 in my opening post at #2, saying that:

There are >25K sub-categories of Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia (and about 275 in its subcategory, Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Crimea) named in the format (for example) Category:WLM/1010021052. That example duplicates Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga. The corresponding Wikidata item, Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga (Q106488771), has a Wiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186) value of RU-1010021052 (note the "RU-" prefix). That Wikidata item is linked to the alphanumerically named, not numbered, category.

A bot was kindly run by User:Wikiwerner and most of the 25K categories were redirected, for example Category:WLM/1010021052 to Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.

They have (it seems) all now been recreated, under new, but still duplicative, names, with many more besides. Category:Galleries of cultural heritage monuments in Russia now redirects to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id, and that now has >41K entries, named in the format Category:Russian heritage ID 1010021052.

I note that these new categories have a header template which falsely claim that they do not "duplicate any of the existing Commons categories." That the example given clearly duplicates Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga, with images like File:Kizhi StafeevTreshingBarn 007 8510.jpg included in both, shows this to be a nonsense.

I also note that "kulturnoe-nasledie.ru ID: 1010021052" is included in the infobox on Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.

We are going to need to run a bot again, to remove and redirect all these new superfluous categories. Do we also need administrative action to prevent this from happening again? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature. As far as I understand this discussion (I was not part of it), there was a concern about the category names, and there was a concern that users may be misled by two categories with similar (but very often not identical) content. The former concern is being resolved by giving categories more understandable names. The latter concern will be resolved by adding links from 'categories by ID' to 'categories by object name'. This does, however, take time because of the large number of heritage monuments and the notorious problem of the slow cache updates at Commons. The Russian WLM team can take care of any further needed bot runs, but please bring your suggestions on the relevant talk page.

Regarding the categories being or not being duplicates, there is a quite extensive explanation of the category system at Commons:Monuments database in Russia. It would be helpful if one starts from there. The Russian cultural heritage is certainly more involved that the single threshing barn in a remote village. -- Alexander 11:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Your description does not mirror reality. Categories are not being given more understandable names; they are being created anew after a consensus was reached to redirect them.

The concern was not "users may be misled by two categories with similar (but very often not identical) content", but that redundant, duplicate categories were being created in bulk. Adding links from 'categories by ID' to 'categories by object name' does not resolve this. Again, the consensus was to redirect one set of them to the other.

I have already posted a link to this discussion, at Template talk:Cultural Heritage Russia, and included a link to it, above.

Commons:Monuments database in Russia was linked to from the very first sentence of the original discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but Commons:Monuments database in Russia has changed quite a bit since that time. -- Alexander 11:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

So? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Category «Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» may be divided in the future, for example, into «Interiors of Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» and «Exteriors of Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga» upon accumulation of the corresponding photos, which may also be achieved through a competition WLM. In this case, the category «Russian heritage ID 1010021052» will always be unified, since both interiors and exteriors are a component of the subject of protection of the cultural heritage site. A similar example can be given for almost every number and physical category of the site. There is no permanent problem of duplication here, there is only a temporary one, which will be eliminated sooner or later. Никонико962 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"may be divided in the future" Indeed. This is how Wikimedia Commons works. It does not justify duplicating the parent category. Nor does it justify dumping all the images from a set of subcategories into one meta category. That is not how Commons works. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That is not how Commons works. But ruWikivoyage works with the ID numbers. They are used in the cultural heritage lists and to create galleries. Nakonana (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, "I also note that 'kulturnoe-nasledie.ru ID: 1010021052' is included in the infobox on Category:Threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga.".

These duplicate categories are not required to work with the ID numbers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

These categories are not duplicates, they include only images which were loaded by WLM campaigne and are needed for campaigne scripts to work properly. This is the easiest way to get a plain list of images (not with subcategories) which were uploaded by WLM. Strongly oppose the deletion suggested above. Commons:Monuments database in Russia explains this situation. This is Andy (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I assume every image of a particular monument contains the Monuments Database ID in structured data and/or a template. So can't you just get a list of images by eather doing a structured data search or one for the ID number in the template? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We already have well working scripts for categories. The lists you suggested should be created massively, stored somewhere and updated too often (or generated dynamically thousands of times for an any watch of an any monuments list, which seems to be absolutely impossible), and now we have no scripts which work with such lists. There is absolutely unneeded complication. This is Andy (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@This is Andy: I'm not suggesting lists or anything like them. If you do a search for "1010021052" (the monuments ID number for the threshing barn from Berezovaya Selga) in the search box above this it provides a list of all the images on here for the threshing barn. Your the ones creating needless complication here with the extra categories, scripts, Etc. Etc. when literally all it all takes to do what you want is putting the monuments ID number in a search box. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, scripts of ru-WLM do much more work than just providing a list of images. This is Andy (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing that those scripts do that cannot be done using SDC or Wikidata; and nothing that requires the recreation of the redirected, duplicate categories. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Can SDC or Wikidata link to/create such info pages[3][4]? Can you add the name of a rather non-notable sculptor to SDC/Wikidata for whom there's no page on any wiki project? For example, there's no project page on Андрей Николаевич Костромитин, but his name can still be included in this[5] monument data sheet. That particular monument also doesn't have a Wikidata item, nor a wiki article, nor a Commons category because there's only one image of it, but it has still an informative data sheet which is accessible through the ID-link in the Cultural Heritage Russia template. Nakonana (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Something like that can essentially be done on Wikidata assuming the information is there for it. Of course you can't do a query for something that doesn't exist, but the information for monuments and artist should be stored on Wikidata anyway. Not a third party database and they have had plenty of opportunity to transfer the information over. So I don't really think the lack of information about particular monuments or artists on Wikidata is a valid excuse not to do it that way. They can't go out of their way to not put the information on Wikidata and then use their own unwillingness to put the information on there as a reason to keep using their own external system. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1 in IT sphere is proverb "If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it."
Nothing was broken here until a Pigsonthewing began to “improve.”
You can think up (and even do) a lot of things. But the main thing is to first ask those who will have to use it. --Kaganer (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kaganer: See my comment at the bottom. The only reason it "broke" (although I think your being hyperbolic) after the categories were redirected is because people from WLM Russia ignored the discussions about it and refused to transfer their external database to Wikidata. They had plenty of opportunity to do things in a way that wouldn't "break" anything though. They just weren't willing to. That's on them. Although again, I think your just being hyperbolic. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

But then again, who are you (general you) to impose your way on them? And in an area that is rather used by them than by you? Why do they have to implement a change that you have decided should be made? You are the one who wants the change, so why are they the ones who are supposed to do the work to make that change happen? Why are they supposed to transfer their external database to Wikidata when they already have a database that works for them just fine? And it's not even an "external" database. It's ruwikivoyage based database.

Even if Commons has a policy that is rather in favor of deleting AI-generated images, Commons would still not delete an AI-generated image that is in use on another wiki project because Commons does not tell other projects how to run their projects. So why is Commons now imposing on ruwikivoyage and the Russian WML team how to run and maintain their database? Nakonana (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I browse and categorize images related to Russian monuments all the time, or at least I use to. I mostly stay away from the area now because their system makes both rather convoluted. If you read the top of any category for a Russian monument it says "Please read the guidelines before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!" Personally, I reject any system on here that requires reading a small group of users "guidelines" before moving an image or modifying a category.

I don't care if it "works just fine" for the two or three gatekeepers in WLM Russia. It's just anti-user and not how things should work on here. I certainly couldn't create an external database for objects local to me, write a faux "guideline," and then force everyone else on here to follow it and ask me for permission if they want to modify images or categories related to the objects. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I browse and categorize images related to Russian monuments all the time, or at least I use to. I mostly stay away from the area now because their system makes both rather convoluted. I don't understand at all! What do you mean? What exactly is stopping you from categorizing Russian monument related images? You just use HotCat or Cat-a-lot like everywhere else. What is the problem? I do it myself all the time and I've only been active since like February 2024, so if a newbie like me has no issues categorizing such images with HotCat and Cat-a-lot then what problems could an experienced user like you possibly run into that you'd decide to stay away from that area? All I'm aware of is that one should just not temper with the Cultural Heritage Russia template and that's all, and the database remains quite unaffected. (But the template uses the IDs for the database and the initial discussion claimed that those IDs were just made up by the Russian WML team even though they are actually official IDs from the Russian government, and then proceeded to change the ID-related categories, so that's why we're here right now, I guess.) Nakonana (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: The template at the top of pages says "This template and pages using it are maintained by the Russian WLM team. Please read the guidelines before making any changes that can affect the monuments database!" Why would every category for a cultural heritage monument in Russia need a warning saying not to edit the template and pages using it when the template has nothing to do with the category or any of the files in it if that's all they care about?

the initial discussion claimed that those IDs were just made up by the Russian WML team even though they are actually official IDs from the Russian government Maybe you aren't aware of it, but a lot of the IDs aren't actually based on official ones because the Russian government doesn't have a complete list of monuments in Russia. Some of them aren't 1/1 recreations of the official monument IDs either. So some of them are in fact "made up by the WML team." That's fine, but it's patently false that the IDs are official. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess the warning in the template would benefit from some rewording.

but a lot of the IDs aren't actually based on official ones How many approximately? Because the statement it's patently false that the IDs are official is also false as there are clearly at least two types of documents that assign those IDs (I have linked to such documents here). Nakonana (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I have zero idea how many aren't official. From what I understand it's not a trivial number though. A lot of the names for the monuments are made up by WLM Russia to BTW. I suspect if you were to get rid of the fake names and made up ID numbers the WLM database would be pretty small. It certainly would transferable to Wikidata. It is anyway, but all the more so if the "fake" entries and/or information was excluded from an import. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I checked the wiki page. It says [The registry] includes around 100,000 items while the local lists total in excess of 140,000. But those numbers are from 2009 and they only refer to one of the two types of documents that assign official numbers. That doesn't look like the WLM database would be small if one would remove the made-up ones. It would still contain over 100,000 official entries. That's a lot of data to transfer to Wikidata. Nakonana (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I assume a good partition of the information could be transferred with a bot. Assuming not though, four or five participants of WLM Russia could do it in a couple of months. A couple of hundred thousands entries isn't really that much if people put a concerted, group effort into it. It's not like they didn't create the database in the first place. So I'm sure they could transfer it to Wikidata if they actually wanted to. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you going to create the bot for the transfer since you are the one who wants that change to be done? Nakonana (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Называть памятники "фальшивыми" (fake) и "выдуманными" (made up) — это уже чересчур... Olksolo (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The names and IDs are made up, not the actual monuments. I'm sure you get the difference. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we've cleared up by now that at least more than 2/3 of the IDs and names are based on official documents and thus aren't made-up, so please stop making that claim. Nakonana (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

but the information for monuments and artist should be stored on Wikidata anyway But what if we don't know anything about the artist other than their last name? We can't create a Wikidata item on them with just that. And we can't add their name to the Wikidata item of the monument because Wikidata doesn't permit adding artists for whom there's no Wikidata item. For example, the sculptor of this[6] is Е.А. Рудаков and I was unable to find anything on this guy, as in we don't even know what his given name is, we only know the first letters of his given name and patronyme ("Е.А."). If I'd create a Wikidata item on him, it would be deleted instantly, so there's no way to document his authorship via Wikidata. And SDC is based on Wikidata so that also can't be used to document authorship. Nakonana (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

That's a fundamental misrepresentation of how Wikidata works

Wikidata has many items created for people with one name, or only a surname and initials. It even has specific properties to cater for such cases.

No items would be deleted on that basis. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if there's no chance that anything other than the family name will ever be added to the Wikidata item? Nakonana (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

If there is a given name and a family name, and no chance that anything other than those names will ever be added to the Wikidata item, it would be deleted anyway.

But since that scenario is hypothetical, and does not apply to anyone affected by these categories, the matter is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This is not a hypothetical scenario, I quite literally gave you a real example with that Е.А. Рудаков case. Е.А. Рудаков is the sculptor of several cultural heritage monuments located at the Novodevichy Cemetery, and all we know about him are the initials of his given name and patronyme, and we know his family name. So, you yourself are confirming that creating a Wikidata item on him is unrealistic because it would get deleted if it's all the info we have on him? Then how do we document his authorship through SDC or Wikidata? Nakonana (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I have confirmed no such thing, and "no chance that anything other than the family name will ever be added to the Wikidata item" is very much a hypothetical scenario; as you yourself have demonstrated. His family name is not the only thing that can be added to his Wikidata item.

Not only can you add the initial of his given name, you can say his occupation is sculptor. You can say when he flourished, even if only to a century. His work location was whatever region the cemetery sits in.

And if you have pictures of "several" of his works, you can create a category about him and add a link to it to his Wikidata item.

So please, if this is an indicator of the level of your understanding of Wikidata, stop claiming that it is not suitable for use for Russian monuments. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: There's plenty of Wikidata items that just have initials. Really all that would be needed in this case is a category for the person on Commons or a link to an external identifier. Both of which I assume would exist for essentially every artist in the Monuments Database, since the database itself acts as an external identifier and nothing stopping anyone from creating a category for the people on Commons. But there's essentially zero chance an item for someone with a Commons category, or who's attached to one, would get deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't know the guy's death date so we have to assume his works are still copyright protected. If we'd create a Commons category on him, it would be empty (soon) due to copyright. Nakonana (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

So what? His item would still be valid due to serving a structured need (being connected to the items for the monuments) and having an external identifier (the WLM Russia database page for him). So his item wouldn't be deleted regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

These categories are very much duplicates, as demonstrated by the example above and those in the previous discussions.

"This is the easiest way to get a plain list of images" is untrue; and is not a justification for wilfully ignoring the previous consensus to redirect these categories. Commons:Monuments database in Russia equally offers no valid justification for so doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"very much duplicates" - AFAIK only exact duplicates should be deleted. "ignoring the previous consensus" - indeed this is untrue, there was (and is) no consensus at all, the bot runner just ignored all objections. This is Andy (talk) 13:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

there was (and is) no consensus at all How come you guys created a whole new category system instead of just reverting the redirects if there was no consensus for them then? The fact that WLM Russia created a whole new system for this just makes it look like they were trying to get around the previous discussion under the radar by not editing or otherwise tampering with the exiting categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Which objections? Diffs, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Например, я возражал. То, что вы не захотели слушать мои возражения, не значит, что их нет. Olksolo (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Google translates this as "For example, I objected. The fact that you did not want to listen to my objections does not mean that they do not exist."

I asked for diffs. The fact that your objection apparently did not sway consensus does not mean that it was not listened to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09#c-Olksolo-20240923154500-Pigsonthewing-20240922112300 and further comments. This is Andy (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

To which there was a lengthy reply; that is not "ignored". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests/Archive_17#c-Nakonana-20250615231800-Pigsonthewing-20250419162500. It also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion, so basically, a decision was made without asking or informing the actual involved parties. Nakonana (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Here's a timeline:

1. Initial discussion on VP starts: 21 September 2024
2. Bot request opened: 24 September 2024
3. Bot operator submits proposal: 20:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
4. Bot approved: 14 June 2025
5. Your post (which was phrased as a question, not an objection): 15 June 2025

The claim "t also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion" is false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing just stop it. --Kaganer (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Stop what? Do you think that you can persuade the Wikimedia Commons community of the correctness of your preferred method by silencing the voices of those who have identified flaws in it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but my question wasn't answered, so does that mean you aren't sure that the moves didn't break anything? Because if you aren't sure then nobody should be surprised that the categories got recreated. The claim ""t also doesn't look like anyone of the people who are actually maintaining the Russian cultural heritage database had participated in the previous discussion"" is false Where are you seeing anyone from the Russian WML team in the 21 September 2024 discussion? I'm not seeing anyone. Nakonana (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

...and Commons:Bots/Work requests/Archive 17#c-Nakonana-20250615231800-Pigsonthewing-20250419162500. This is Andy (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Addressed above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Convenience break

As i seen, activity of Pigsonthewing in this topic initially was built in destructivity way. It's a bad experience for everyone and it's a shame it wasn't stopped from the start.

This activity (including with the involvement of a bot) have already disrupted the rather complex coordinated process of maintaining a large array of images, several times for a long time. Before this intervention, all this did not cause any problems.

User trying to "improve" something in a topic that apparently do not understand and have no connection to, and not involved in. While there is a team that has been successfully dealing with these issues for many years. Therefore, I join in the urgent advice expressed above to stop these attempts. I don't call this activity "vandalizing" only because such epithets rarely help and destroy a friendly space of cooperation. But I am already very close to this understanding.

In my opinion (based on many years of involvement in supporting WLM processes), this category array should not be redirects under any circumstances. Nor should they be merged with the main category space.

There are no good reasons why users who are working together on something and have organized the workflow process in a way that is convenient and understandable for them should adapt their activities to someone who does not understand, is not involved in, and does not competent in it.

If any of the Commons' users need more detailed information - with templates, notices and documentations - this is may be requested in normal regular way without "common talks" like this. --Kaganer (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kaganer: I wouldn't have much of a problem with it myself if there was at least an attempt to transfer the information from their external database to Wikidata. They have done the exact opposite though. Any suggestions or attempts to get them to use Wikidata instead has just been steamrolled. They were also aware of the original discussion but intentionally stayed out of it, probably because this was the game plan all along. A small group of users can't just intentionally ignore discussions about something at the time and then later revert or otherwise ignore changes that were made as part of those conversations. That's not how this works.

They have had more then enough time and opportunities to discuss this and/or move their database to Wikidata though. It's not on Pigsonthewing or anyone else that they didn't. I really don't think it's acceptable to let them get away with it by maintaining their own off-site database or secondary category system just because they refused to do things the proper way. I certainly wouldn't be able to do something like that myself without having the edits reverted and/or being blocked if I did. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Really? But it doesn't work the other way around either. You can't just open a discussion with ideas to somehow force other participants to change everything in their work, just so that everything looks "right" to you personally. And here there is no "right" at all. What is right is what allows participants to work together - and successfully - for many years. --Kaganer (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No one was forced to do anything. They intentionally stayed out of the original discussion and didn't do anything to address people's concerns about the current system. All they had to do was acknowledge the issues and takes steps to transfer things to Wikidata. It doesn't have anything to do with "looking right." The categories based on the IDs are duplicates of exiting ones and don't do anything that can't be done through structured data. There's absolutely no reason they couldn't, or can't, slowly transfer the database over to Wikidata so the duplicate categories can be gotten rid of though. You know, the whole following the guidelines and working collaboratively with other users thing. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They intentionally stayed out of the original discussion, They were also aware of the original discussion but intentionally stayed out of it, probably because this was the game plan all along. Those are some very bold statements. Can you read their minds that you know what their intention or game plan was? What happened to AGF anyway? And why would they stay out of the discussion? What would they achieve by that? And were they even informed about the initial discussion? I've not seen any pings to the people who maintain the database on ruwikivoyage or Commons. Nakonana (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: They clearly knew about the original discussion since they have mentioned it several times now in multiple conversations related to this. Also, as I've said, they created a whole separate category system instead of just reverting the redirects. Even though by their own comments there was supposedly no consensus to redirect the categories. How about you tell me why they would do things that way if it's not intentional? Are you seriously going to tell me that they accidently recreated the whole thing without touching a single category that was redirected in process? Or maybe they did it that way on purpose so the edits wouldn't show up on the watchlists of anyone who participated in the previous discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

All that tells us is that they are aware of the discussion now and/or ever since the changes were implemented. It doesn't says that they were aware of the discussion at the time that the discussion was happening. I might also note that per the time line that was posted here the discussion only lasted three days. Simple category discussions and even deletion requests receive more time than that, while the initial discussion to remodel a gigantic category system was decided in only three days. Are you seriously going to tell me that they accidently recreated the whole thing without touching a single category that was redirected in process? No, I'm not going to tell you that, because they obviously noticed that a change had happened and then they might have looked for a reason why that changed happened, and that's how they might have found the initial discussion which was already closed by then. So, them recreating the categories does not mean that they were aware of the initial discussion at the time that the discussion was happening. I still don't see why it would have been in their interest to intentionally ignore the initial discussion. It just doesn't make sense, there's nothing to achieve by ignoring it. The question is why nobody of those who have been maintaining the previous categories was pinged to the discussion of said categories. Nakonana (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nakonana: Going by Pigsonthewing's timeline the initial discussion started in September of 2024. It took 9 months for the bot edit to be approved though and the conversation was open for a longtime before that. 9 months is certainly enough time for anyone from WLM Russia to become aware of, and participate in, the conversation or raise objections to the bot edit if they had any. On the one hand it's supposedly this extremely detrimental thing that caused a lot of problems. But then on the other hand (intentionally or not) they completely ignored the discussions for 9 months until they were closed and only raised objections to it on a random talk page just for participants of WLM Russia a year later. You can't have it both ways. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion still only took three days, and it's not like anyone pinged anyone to make them aware of the bot request. So how could they become aware of it unless they happened to be following the pages where the discussion and bot request happened? I for one wouldn't even know where to make bot requests. Nakonana (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Russian WLM project was aware on 22 September 2024. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

All they had to do was acknowledge the issues and takes steps to transfer things to Wikidata.
I don't know of any real problems with the current process. I also don't understand what exactly is being proposed to "move to Wikidata". In any case, working through Wikidata requires a completely different process organization than it currently is. Everything I know about all this tells me that this is unlikely for a number of reasons.

Well, and the main thing - no matter what is "transferred to Wikidata", it will not eliminate the need to maintain the tracking categories on Wikimedia Commons, from which it all began. Because images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, and it is most convenient to look at them with the eyes in the category format.

Therefore, we need to go back to the very beginning of the discussion, and clearly formulate - what is broken? What exactly is the problem, besides the fact that two or three participants "don't like it"? --Kaganer (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It will not eliminate the need to maintain the tracking categories on Wikimedia Commons No other WLM project uses "tracking categories" (whatever those are). So I don't really buy that they are necessary. You certainly haven't articulated exactly why they are. You've just made a bunch of vague statements about how getting rid of them would cause "problems" without providing any evidence or saying exactly what those problems are. Be my guest and tell me why the "tracking categories" are necessary and what problems would be caused by getting rid of them though. As far as I know literally nothing happened when the previous categories for it were redirected. So I'm genuinely curious. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Вот пример отзыва о результате работы бота: "Что делать - не знаю. Просто руки опускаются." (https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=720497). Вот ещё — https://ru.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?diff=728761. Подобного рода сообщения приходят также организаторам на почту. Olksolo (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Cool a random user said something about their personal feelings of how the bot edit was going. I was hoping for something more that though. Like an actual issue caused by the changes. Not just some random user saying they have a personal issue with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They are saying that the change broke the bot that was maintaining the files and categories. And the change also broke some galleries and some images disappeared from the tables on Wikivoyage. Nakonana (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Also why are you so dismissive of the problems that the change created? The previous system did not create any problems for Commons, and yet people found the need to change something that wasn't problematic. But now that there is an actual problem with bot operations and maintenance you just dismiss it? Nakonana (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

They linked to a comment by another user on wikivoyage were that user said "as I understand it, after the recategorization the display of WLM galleries broke and now they are practically empty." So it's a second hand account of a second hand account of something happening that doesn't even involve an actual example of the WLM galleries being broke. That's not evidence of anything. For all we know it had nothing to do with the categories being redirected and/or there was a simple fix to it besides recreating things. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Did you miss the long post in the first link where the problems were detailed? Nakonana (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about "Турбулентность на Коммонс"? If so, I don't have time read the whole thing right now. But in the first comment on 22 September 2024 by Ymblanter they linked to the original Village Pump discussion that you've claimed they didn't know about. Then after that it's just a bunch of insults and vague comments about hypotheticals that know one actually linked to examples of.

Someone did say "it seems to me that the use of SDC should be tried to be worked out in any case, since the alternative has unclear chances of success." Which is has been my suggestion. To bad they were apparently ignored or this wouldn't be a thing right now. I do see that there's a section today involving more of the same. Like I said about the original discussion, a small group of users on a WLM Russia forum having their own discussion about it while ignoring the Village Pump discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that I am - with my 126,375 edits in ru.wikivoyage.org - a somewhat less random user than you with your ideas about how we should work in this project. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

@Екатерина Борисова: No offense, but I don't really care about how many edits you have on Wikivoyage. Different projects and all. It looks like we're about equal in that department on here though. So I'm certainly as qualified as you are to have an opinion about it if that's going to be your metric. Why not answer my question below this about what's so hard about searching for the images instead of just being snarky though? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a lot of progress, you started calling Wikivoyage a project. and not an external base. In addition, if you bothered to read my remark which was linked by my colleague, you understand that your innovations have disrupted not only our tracking galleries system, but also the categorization of cultural heritage monuments directly in the Commons, and that was my main complaint. And to answer your question: experienced users will always find a way to solve the problem somehow, but, firstly, this applies only to experienced users, and secondly, why create a problem at all? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any actual evidence that anything was screwed up. That said, I wasn't the one who started the original discussion, made the bot request, or redirected the categories. Nor did I start this. So how exactly am I disrupting anything or creating a problem by commenting on someone else's discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No other WLM project uses "tracking categories" and this creates a lot of problems for the organizers, editors and contest participants, so I would advise other countries to think about creating tracking categories. I'm a long-yime contributor and editor od Russian part of WLM, but also I participated in WLM and WLE competitions in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan as a photographer, jury member and editor, and I can confidently say that it is extremely difficult to track exactly who uploaded what and where, especially if the object has not been photographed before and does not yet have its own category. For example there are 1,402 files in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Tashkent, and each of them needs to be viewed manually in order to understand from the description which object is depicted in the photo. It seems that no one has a special desire to do this big job (maybe you have it, then welcome). While if there were tracking categories in the lists of monuments of Uzbekistan, these objects would be much easier to search and identify. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

While if there were tracking categories...These objects would be much easier to search and identify. simple search for a monument (Seriously, what's so hard about that?) --Adamant1 (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Well, try this for Tashkent now. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not only in IT, it is in Wikipedia also as essay: «If it ain't broke, don't fix it». For ten years, the system of categorization by Russian cultural heritage numbers worked and fulfilled its functions without breaking the general categorization system of Wikimedia Commons. And if you leave this issue alone, it will continue to work and not break anything (Seriously, what's so hard to do that?). Никонико962 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

>42K duplicate categories does "break the general categorization system of Wikimedia Commons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

By what? Никонико962 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"activity of Pigsonthewing in this topic initially was built in destructivity way" Please engage in good faith, and assume that I and others do also.

Nothing in your lengthy post makes a case why these duplicate categories are needed; much less a convincing one.

No-one needs to adapt their activities to me; I personally am irrelevant in this matter. They need to be adapt their activities to the way in which Wikimedia Commons (and the wider Wikimedia movement) chooses to work,

"requested in normal regular way without 'common talks' like this" I have no idea what this means. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in your lengthy post makes a case why these duplicate categories are needed; much less a convincing one.
As far as I know, this has been explained to you several times before. These are NOT "duplicate categories" (even if sometimes their content is duplicated in the main space). These are tracking categories, and this is normal practice for such tasks. --Kaganer (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that has not been "explained", it has been claimed; and refuted.

There are (AFAICT) no parallel categories in any other part of Wikimedia Commons; and especially not in any other country's WLM data.

This is not normal. If it is, prove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

no parallel categories
This is NO no "parallel categories", also.
And I don't understand how this discussion even started. Why are we discussing all this? What's broken? And why on earth did you decide that "it shouldn't"? Wikimedia Commons is big, and in this part it's set up like this. There's no reason why everything should be the same everywhere.
I don't think it's a absolutely perfect process, but it works that way without causing any real problems to anyone. Conversely, all your attempts to improve things have caused a lot of real problems to a lot of people involved. --Kaganer (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, we have automatically filled categories (a "flat" set, without complex hierarchical grouping). At the same time, in the setting of identifiers (and in inclusion in these categories) there are always many mistakes, and this is normal. It is for the analysis and elimination of these errors that such categories are useful. But not only for this.
And on the other hand - a complex hierarchy (principally unharmonized), filled manually, and included in the general structure of Wikimedia Commons categories. --Kaganer (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, the task of supporting the Russian monuments database is non-trivial in itself and requires solving many different problems. As far as I know, today this is the only team of wiki volunteers that independently supports such a database on a national scale. All the others rely on state-funded resources in one way or another.

At the same time, the participants' resources are limited, and when proposing any change, you must immediately offer your resources for its implementation, and very carefully firstly find out what benefit it will bring and what harm it will cause. --Kaganer (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please engage in good faith, and assume that I and others do also.
I am speaking in the most friendly way possible. This is my evaluation of this entire discussion, starting from the first discussion. I don't evaluate intentions, only results. You approached this topic carelessly, and I am telling you this as your colleague with quite a lot of experience. --Kaganer (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There is an awful lot above, and I didn't read it all, but shouldn't any categories that are only [for] images which were loaded by WLM campaign (per This is Andy) be hidden categories? Those do not appear to me to be topical categories. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Initially, these categories did not exist at all - they were "red" (and that was enough), until they were created by a bot for some reason.
Currently they are all hidden. See example: Category:Russian heritage ID 0110009000. --Kaganer (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Even if you eschew Wikidata, what does that category give us, that an ordinary search does not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It's being used for database maintenance by bot, and it's used on Wikivoyage. Counter question: what does that category take away from you that you would have if it wouldn't exist? What would you gain from removing it? Nakonana (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

"It's being used for database maintenance by bot, and it's used on Wikivoyage" doesn't answer my question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Red links

It's worse than I thought. In addition to the >42K categories mentioned above, we have an unknown number of red-linked categories, like the one on File:Збарский би.jpg, Category:Russian heritage ID 7709146000, which are applied by a template and so cannot be removed from the file page. Furthermore, a search shows only one image using that ID. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Most likely a caching problem. Will be resolved. -- Alexander 20:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Russian WLM project was aware in September 2024

On ru:Wikivoyage:Пивная путешественников; Here:

Кому-то снова не нравится система категорий и особенно красные ссылки. Вся история тут: commons:Commons:Village pump#Monuments database in Russia, плюс ссылки оттуда. Я не уверен, что сейчас требуется там что-то отвечать, но если кто-то захочет, пожалуйста, очень тщательно выстраивайте аргументацию и подвирате слова. Во-первых, не все участники обсуждения, скажем так, имеют репутацию адекватных, во-вторых, если занять радикальную позицию, то кто-нибудь решит удалить шаблоны ботом или что-то подобное, а нам потом разбираться. Ymblanter (обсуждение) 15:17, 22 сентября 2024 (MSK)

Google translates as:

Someone again doesn't like the category system and especially the red links. The whole story is here: commons:Commons:Village pump#Monuments database in Russia, plus links from there. I'm not sure that there is a need to respond there now, but if someone wants to, please build your arguments very carefully and twist your words. Firstly, not all participants in the discussion, let's say, have a reputation for being adequate, secondly, if you take a radical position, then someone will decide to delete templates with a bot or something like that, and then we'll sort it out. Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, September 22, 2024 (MSK)

...and subsequent discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Russians doing it the Russian way

We're been running the Monuments database since 2011. It's still running for quite a few countries. One of the standard functions is automatic categorization and that needs one flat tracker category like for example Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs. Russians didn't really participate in the shared service, but instead did their own stuff like Commons:Monuments database in Russia. What they build with the automatic categorization in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Russia by id is just an unneeded awful hack. It's ridiculous to say that we need both Category:Russian heritage ID 0210035000 and Category:Ust-Kanskaya cave. The key question is if the Russian folks want to work together with the Commons community or not? Multichill (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

What a nice xenophobic comment. This is Andy (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The whole Russian database is actually listed on the page you linked, and the reports by ErfgoedBot are actively used by our volunteers for adding images to the lists of monuments. As for the automatic categorization, can ErfgoedBot create a category with the English name for a Russian monument and properly assign its parent categories? I am not aware of this functionality. Likewise, I am not aware of the functionality to create information pages for individual monuments (they get information from the same database, though). -- Alexander 21:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Let me also mention that this level of automatic categorization is achieved for the Russian monuments by feeding the category name directly into the upload link if the suitable category already exists. Therefore, the shared service simply does not offer any additional benefit in our case.

On the other hand, Commons:Monuments database in Russia mentions various gadgets that were created for editing monument lists and adding images therein. Such tools never existed as any shared service. They have been developed by our volunteers, and they do require suitable tracking categories. -- Alexander 21:30, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Waterschout uniform

This uniform is used by the head of the waterschout office. see wasserschout and Zeelui(Dutch). The function was a sort of police function and could force people who had signed a contract as a seaman on the ships and solve ofshore discipline problems of seaman. Its not naval and coast guards uniforms, but closely related function. d:Q17054093 what classification? Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Possibly an intersection of Category:Merchant marine and Category:Law enforcement uniforms? - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I created a new Category:Harbour uniforms. I am also thinking for civil uniforms such as naval pilots (guiding ships to the harbour). And I classified the uniform to be a law enforcement uniform.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Just an FYI but "civil uniforms" usually refers to uniforms used during the civil war. Other possible terms though are corporate uniforms, work uniforms, or service uniforms. Probably "work uniforms" is the better of those three depending on what the uniform is for. As "service uniforms" could also go for people in civilian services (whatever you want to say those are). --Adamant1 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I have never heard "civil uniforms" used that way (and the civil war in what country?).

"Civil service uniforms" might be better, though. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Jmabel}] I don't know. When I looked into it last night that's the Google AI thing said and a lot of the top results were for American Civil War outfits. Now it's saying something different but a lot of the results on Google Image Search still look like military, or civil defense uniforms. Like for Civil Air Patrol Cadets. I'm not sure if that's an actual official military position or more informal though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

August 30

Category:Animal fur-skin-covering-dermis-material

Surely this has been brought up before but we have literally hundreds of categories (e.g. Category:Tiger fur-skins & Category:Felidae fur-skins) and subcategories (e.g. Category:Tiger fur-skins in art & Category:Wild cat fur-skin manufacturing) using the nonword "fur-skin" (OED, Wiktionary, Ngram) created by the extremely eager and generally helpful but non-English-speaking Kürschner (talk · contribs) c. 2010.

Yann (talk · contribs) & others: Do admins or sysops have any global replace tools that would simplify this? It's a straight one-to-one replacement that's necessary ("fur-skin"/"fur-skins" to the actual word "pelt"/"pelts") but it's obviously prohibitively time consuming for editors to move all these things around and recategorize all their contents by hand or it would have happened a decade ago. (Yup. Cursory poking around seems to show Kramer Associates (talk · contribs) got geared up in 2011 and then stopped, realizing that "fur-skin" meant "pelt" but apparently not realizing that "fur-skin" isn't a thing but that it wouldn't be necessary to distinguish "hide", "skin", and "fur" from the categories that had been created.)

Side note: "pelt"/"pelts" is safer than the more inexact but more common "fur" or "skin" since it's possible that for some of these animals other categories already exist that distinguish the fur specifically against the skin-&-fur combo covered by these categories. If it's clear upon review that isn't an issue anywhere, a global replace with "fur"/"furs" would also work. — LlywelynII 07:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember how I came up with the term "fur-skins," or whether it wasn't used that way in the trade literature. The key is to use a term that distinguishes skins which are processed into fur from finished fur clothing. It would be important to have a statement from an native English-speaking member of the fur industry.-- Kürschner (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Auntof6 is active in the category space and is able to do quick work using AWB. She might be able to answer this question. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

August 31

Another possible case of copyleft trolling

Hi, per ticket:2025082810009119, we might have seen another case of copyleft trolling, unfortunately. The user Patrick Ashley seems to have hired Pixsy. They're not on Commons, and they haven't uploaded new images since 2012. Luckily, two of the images on Commons are not very used so we can delink them pretty easily. However, delinking File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.jpg will be a lot harder, we probably need to replace it with File:Rochester NY Skyline.jpg using CommonsDelinker. Proposing the following remedies:

• I replace the two images which are only used in enwiki with alternatives, and an appropriate edit summary
• We either don't delink File:Downtown Rochester, NY HDR by patrickashley.jpg and leave it to individual projects, or we replace it with an alternative (discuss below)
• I add forced watermarks to warn reusers per Commons:Copyleft trolling and upload-protect.

Thoughts? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Simply using Pixsy is not against COM:Copyleft trolling. I do so myself as well. I don't see in the ticket that any violations has been made, it's a commercial usage by a company and we don't have any indication if they ever tried to attribute at all. (Please note that you can't reveal much info from the ticket in public, os be sure to write in general terms). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

@Josve05a: Thanks for the input, I feel like this might be copyleft trolling per Commons:Copyleft_trolling#Copyright_enforcement_vs._copyleft_trolling due to the specific circumstances of the ticket (small company). Just wanted to bring it up, maybe I was a bit aggressive in the opening message. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Without seeing any actual evidence of the alleged violation, I don’t think it’s proportional to immediately jump to remedies like delinking or mass replacement. Nor do I think we should be taking sides in favour of a reuser who clearly hasn't demonstrated much understanding of the licensing conditions we apply here. In cases like this, a first step should be to explain the requirements of our free licenses and point them to relevant guidance (e.g. COM:L or COM:REUSE), rather than only framing it through the lens of COM:Copyleft trolling. Clarifying the rules and the reason behind them should come before assuming bad faith or proposing sweeping actions, in my view. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Simply using Pixsy is not against COM:Copyleft trolling

OK. Should it be? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2025 (UTC)