Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/10. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 It can only be speculated that, like the modern office water cooler, the village pump must have been a gathering place where dwellers discussed ideas for the improvement of their locale. [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
October 01
Should we split by-camera categories by subject matter of photos
I am posting here to call attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/10/Category:People taken with Nikon D5200. The question here is basically whether it is desirable or not to split large categories of images taken with a particular model camera along lines of the subject matter of the images. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
- By-camera categories should be deleted and replaced with structured data. Otherwise we will just reproduce the entire Commons category tree but suffixed with "taken with Nikon Q100" and "taken with Canon XYZ". That way madness lies. Nosferattus (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
- By-camera categories should not be split into subcategories, certainly not by subject matter. Some allowance may be made for technical subcategories of camera+lens but I am not convinced even they are needed. MKFI (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- These categories shouldn't be split by subject matter, no. I added a comment in the CfD. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please pay attention to Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/09/Category:Cars taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III too --XRay 💬 13:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
October 03
Does anyone know the name of this type of shirt collar or the name of the fasteners?
Does anyone know the name of this type of shirt collar or the name of the fasteners? File:George Dewey Sanford (1898-1965) in 1925 at 63 Concord Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.png RAN (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Is there a better place to ask this question? --RAN (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Probably either the Fashion WP on EN-Wiki or the Reference desk (or the versions in other languages on other Wikis). This question seems a tad too niche for anyone here to plausibly know the answer. 19h00s (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Images from the National Museum of Wales
The National Museum of Wales (Amgueddfa Cymru) has released over 2000 images under CC-0 or CC-BY-SA licences (website here), with resolutions up to 4000px. There are many images already uploaded (e.g.) that can therefore be upgraded to a higher resolution.
Is there a centralized list of GLAM file resources that this should be added to? Dogfennydd (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
- Small side note: Actually, if they are photographs of paintings, we should either totally ignore their cc license (since they are not the copyright owners according to how the WMF views COM:PD-ART), or we can be "nice" and use {{Licensed PD-Art}} as this. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
.svg.png)
Comment I am uploading some: Category:Pictures from Amgueddfa Cymru Images. Yann (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would suggest, when uploading images from such sources, including {{Do not crop}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
October 06
Code formatting issue
I really have no clue where else to post this. I'm going to bring up the issue here considering this is where JSON data for maps and charts are chiefly stored.
When editing Scribunto modules on any wiki, tabs are used for indentation rather than spaces, and this is fine. When you publish the edit, the module is saved as-is, tab indentation included. However, when you edit .tab files on this wiki, tabs are used for indentation as before, but publishing an edit forcibly modifies the format of the file to be in a specific form and also converts tabs to four spaces or something.
I don't like this at all, and I don't understand why the two differ like this. They use the same code editor. Why does the server need to muck up my JSON when I finish writing it whereas my Lua code is always unscathed?
Again, I'm not able to think of a potentially more appropriate or relevant place to post this as it concerns a part of the software whose specifics, and therefore place to adequately question it, are completely unknown to me. If there is a better place to ask this question, I'd be happy if you could point me there. — rae5e <talk> 16:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki It's probably somewhere deep in the serverside code. The reason is because someone made it once so, either intentionally or because no one else had an opinion on it. "I don't like this at all".. sure... but does it create a problem ? Cause I don't think many people will be jumping with enthousiasme spending an hour or two figuring out where and why a whitespace decision was made. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, I just take minor issue with it and thought I would ask about it out of curiosity. It seemed strange and counterintuitive and I've been very confused about it, nothing more... I'm not necessarily jumping at the opportunity to "fix" the discrepancy, although I would if I knew where to look. I'm a pedant about these things...and files taking up 4x the amount of space because the software thought it knew better about how I should indent my code makes me sneer. Note that it very much doesn't have a clue as to how I should indent or stylize my code at all, even if other people will potentially come around and edit them themselves (which is still not a good argument for forcing code formatting on one specific part of the website when, again, modules are still left untouched). It randomly expanding my intentionally compacted list of datapoints to have no more than one value for line, so a series of
[x,y,z]becomes[<LF>x,<LF>y,<LF>z<LF>]<LF>, making it far more tedious to go back and modify the data because it singlehandedly and unnecessarily ballooned the line count from tens of lines to hundreds; and me having to press the left arrow key at least four times because it expanded my very intentional use of the TAB key to four spaces for no reason when I already have a good reason to indent my code the way I do and I find it fairly annoying – negligible, perhaps, but still annoying – that the software, using TABs in the editor and not touching then when submitting Lua modules, now desperately wants me to use four spaces. It's just plain obnoxious. I can see things that way, right? — rae5e <talk> 14:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're not wrong, I just take minor issue with it and thought I would ask about it out of curiosity. It seemed strange and counterintuitive and I've been very confused about it, nothing more... I'm not necessarily jumping at the opportunity to "fix" the discrepancy, although I would if I knew where to look. I'm a pedant about these things...and files taking up 4x the amount of space because the software thought it knew better about how I should indent my code makes me sneer. Note that it very much doesn't have a clue as to how I should indent or stylize my code at all, even if other people will potentially come around and edit them themselves (which is still not a good argument for forcing code formatting on one specific part of the website when, again, modules are still left untouched). It randomly expanding my intentionally compacted list of datapoints to have no more than one value for line, so a series of
October 07
WMC users user group
Is there a WMC user group? I thought its CPUG, but now I am hearing "we are only photographers" and I am even reading it on their main page, they deal with photographs, but the problems with file curation on WMC is not mentioned there. So who represents broad WMC curator community? Because WMC photographers, have to curate also, like many others who contribute with other type of files. Juandev (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is not. I raised the possibility of creating one at the 2023 Wikimedia Summit in Berlin and was told by several people from the Foundation that they would not like there to be user groups tied to the various "sister projects", so I dropped the idea. I still think it would be good, but expect a fight if you try to establish this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
- I see. I wonder why they dont like it. Juandev (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
United Kingdom authority area restructuring and how that will impact Commons categories
I'm not sure if this has already been asked, but the government of the United Kingdom plans on restructuring all "two-tier councils" into unitary authorities. (See [1]) I was wondering to what extent this would impact categories, i.e. whether or not existing categories for the old counties (for example, categories for when specific files were taken) would remain or if the files in those categories would be reorganized for the new established areas. Aethonatic (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
October 08
Speedy deletion of Data pages
Neither Commons:Deletion policy#Speedy deletion nor Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion give any explanation how to tag a Data page for speedy deletion. In the absence of any guidance, I used HotCat to add Data:Sdksjdksdhj.map, a test page, to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, but the edit was summarily reverted by @Johnj1995: . Could anyone in the community consider adding text to one or both pages to explain the proper process? This, that and the other (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think we never defined a method. I think the way to go should be to put the template on the talk page. GPSLeo (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- +1 - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there was a recently closed phabricator ticket T242596 that addressed the addition of categories in the data namespace.
Hotcat and similar tools still seem to require an update to work with this, my guess is that speedy deletion categorization would need to leverage this capability.Hotcat has support now. That being said, I think the data page documentation likely needs some updating as well. I think for speedy deletion we would need to agree on a process. Milliped (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2025 (UTC)- I feel a bit that user communication would make it preferable to show templates (such as deletion/merge/contentious content) on the item itself rather than the talk pages, but that would likely mean some adaptation of the json as has happened for the categories. Milliped (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikidata also does not have templates on items for deletion. They use a Javascript tool for marking these pages. GPSLeo (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- I feel a bit that user communication would make it preferable to show templates (such as deletion/merge/contentious content) on the item itself rather than the talk pages, but that would likely mean some adaptation of the json as has happened for the categories. Milliped (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
- Note that there was a recently closed phabricator ticket T242596 that addressed the addition of categories in the data namespace.
- +1 - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
October 09
Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees
Hello all,
The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.
To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.
When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.
The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards,
Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
(This message was sent to Commons:Txokoa and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
- If only the candidate i wanted to vote for didn't randomly get disqualified at the last moment for no clear reason. Bawolff (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- who was that Gryllida (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Category:Barker College
Would someone have a look at Category:Barker College please? The first 9 pix are OK, but the rest appear to be archival, but the uploader has claimed them as his own. Sardaka (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- Convenience link: Category:Barker College. - Jmabel ! talk 13:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've started two mass DRs (the headmasters & the crests). If anyone thinks more of these are problematic, feel free to DR those as well. - Jmabel ! talk 13:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
"Fictional" flags and other symbols
Commons hosts numerous erroneous flags, emblems, coats of arms etc which are used to spread misinformation across other projects. Something should be done here to tackle this problem, but existing mechanisms and practices seem inadequate. I've seen some users discussed this problem in the past so I'm pinging them: Donald Trung GPinkerton Jmabel The Squirrel Conspiracy Enyavar Dronebogus.
1. Commons has categories and warning templates for problematic symbols. Unfortunately, there is no existing mechanism to notify other projects about such files. Furthermore, the current structure is not up to the task. I think it's important to differentiate between:
- "Unofficial" symbols of real entities (File:Flag of the British Empire Exhibition.svg, File:Silver fern flag.svg)
- "Interpreted" symbols of real entities: banners with unknown status, reconstructions based on other symbols, descriptions, seals, coins (File:York banner penny (backside).jpg + SVG = "banner" with 1297 global uses), works of art like the Catalan Atlas (File:Flag of Ilkhanate.svg with 1285 global uses)
- "Invented" symbols of real entities (File:Flag of the Seljuks.svg - one of 16 Great Turkic Empires flags, used 874 times, primarily on Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia)
- Symbols used in works of fiction (File:Etoile de Feanor.svg)
We have warning templates {{Fictional}} and {{Fictitious flag}} which populate categories Special or fictional flags and Special or fictional coats of arms. The word "fictional" is too ambiguous, it conflates the types mentioned above, as well as the others, including obviously unserious stuff like File:Banana republic.svg. We should set up a structure which would differentiate such categories and probably have a parent category for all "problematic" symbols. The templates should use the same logic instead of clumsy current one: fictional insignia - fictitious flag - {{unsourced insignia}} - {{Disputed coat of arms}}.
Symbols with unclear status should have a separate category as well. Currently Category:Insignia without source is used for this purpose, but I'm not sure if its name is appropriate. First, is "insignia" a suitable word here? Second, it implies that files are without source, which is not necessarily true - a source might be present, but it might not substantiate what the image is claimed to be. I'm not sure if "proposed" flags tagged as own work (like File:Afro-Mexican Flag (proposal).svg) should go here or be considered as "invented" ones until the source is provided.
Categories under Category:Historical symbols should not include problematic images. They should be reserved for historical symbols, not for dubious ones connected to historical entities.
Wikidata is a way to spread the errors across multiple projects. There should be mechanisms to help withdrawing problematic files from Wikidata items.
2. Misleading file names are perhaps the most critical factor in spreading misuse. Editors won't question the status of a "File:Flag of Foobar" from Commons because its name implies authority and authenticity. If File:Arms of William the Conqueror (1066-1087).svg is already in widespread use, other editors wouldn't know there is anything wrong with using it somewhere else. Appending the name with "alleged", "attributed", "fictional" could help but, first, the old misleading name will stay on pages as a redirect, and editors would know nothing about it, second, such renaming requests get rejected with "does not comply with renaming guidelines" given as explanation. Changes to erroneous descriptions also get reverted with the rationale "respect the original description". I'm not sure if it's the established policy or just people blocking these efforts don't understand the problem, but attempts to remedy the problem seem futile as things stand.
3. "Sources". Anything goes as sources in file descriptions: "own work", links to other files, links to external images (like FotW). Some use quotations from historical texts, like File:Flag of Northumbria.svg with Bede's "they hung the King's banner of purple and gold over his tomb" as a source. Even if something looks like proper references to academic sources, it might turn out to be a cover for an "artistic reconstruction" case. Consider File:Banner of the Kokand Khans.svg: if you check the references, they just mention that "the colour of Kokand Khans banner was white," which is poor justification for a plain 3:2 rectangle. The file was uploaded less than a year ago and it has 268 global uses. And it's awkward to use warning templates in these cases: where do you dispute if the uploader just removes it?
4. The easiest way to deal with obviously problematic files is to delete them from Commons (or at least rename them without leaving a redirect). Had this not been done to the "Flag of the Confederation of the Rhine", multiple wikis would surely be spreading this fabrication at this moment. Unfortunately for wikis, there is reluctance to delete files here, even with Community Tech bot notifying about proposed deletions. Images might have some educational purpose after all, this implicitly overrides whatever actual miseducational purpose they actively serve. And by COM:INUSE it is deliberately "educational" in any case, even if file usage stems from incorrect Commons information.
5. Identification and discussion. Established misuse is hard to overcome, it takes incomparably more effort than slapping another file link or reverting the article to a "consensus" version. If editors manage to identify and properly discuss a problematic image, the end result is often just its removal from a single article. It doesn't lead to the file's removal from other pages on the same wiki, let alone other projects. The more widespread the usage, the less likely it will be dealt with: you might manually remove an image from several articles, but it's too much of a hassle if it has hundreds of inclusions. Such discussions should be centralised, but Commons does not currently serve this function. Who would notice that someone questioned the authenticity of the "Navarra Kingdom flag" on its talk page? And it has 4551 global uses together with the alternative design. There is no effective, centralized mechanism to track, discuss, and action global removals for widely used problematic files.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbli2mHd (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- +1 that we need some better ways to deal with this issue.
- It's ridiculous that we have 4 quite different versions of an alleged National Flag of Siberian Tatars, i.e. an ethnic minority which isn't a sovereign nation (≈country) of its own (and never was) and doesn't have any official flag, and yet we have 4 flags! And it takes lengthy discussions to get just one of them deleted; see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Национальный флаг сибирских татар.jpg.
- This seems to be a very common problem for flags of ethnic minorities: there are often several versions, none of them are official, they are heavily in use, and they often have questionable copyright status because they don't fall under public domain clauses for national symbols and are usually recent works. Nakonana (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- But there are certainly ethnic groups, regions, etc. that lack a nation state or lack recognition, but have a quite consistently used flag. One good example is Category:Sami flags.
- I'd love to see something that sorted out the various cases better, but it's going to be really tough. There are enormous gray areas between an official flag of a universally recognized entity and one random user's fantasy. Commons is not usually heavily engaged in trying to work out the relative legitimacy of visual representations; we tend more to the binary judgement of "is this in scope"? I personally am not certain we (Commons) have the traditions and mechanisms that would let us tackle this well; we have traditionally left this sort of judgement to our various sister projects, with an understanding that they might not all come to the same conclusion in any given case. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- If it's a flag that is widely used in real life and/or if there's an authoritative entity that approved the flag (e.g. a leading religious group, a university that is known to be "the" expert of the field, etc.) then I don't have an issue with such flags. But a flag that has no reception in real life, is just a fantasy flag, and the fact that there are 4 different flags for a single (rather small) ethnic group makes it quite clear that the flags lack recognition.
- The problem is also that they are often used as if they are "real" flags. There's no indication in the file names and description regarding their provenance and status.
- And since they are not official symbols and recent works, they are copyright protected so that we can't actually host them on Commons (at least if we're talking about flags of minorities in Russia; Russia's TOO is too low). Nakonana (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
the fact that there are 4 different flags for a single (rather small) ethnic group makes it quite clear that the flags lack recognition
: plausible but by no means certain; consider the number of different LGBTQIA+ "Pride flags" out there that have some currency. - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)- I think the main problem with flags of ethnic minorities in Russia will simply be copyright. They are all recent works and neither of them is an official state symbol. All those flags are protected by copyright unless we find a CC license from each individual author of each flag. Nakonana (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't thinks it's the whole truth. It's hard to imagine a situation where photos with names like "King of Earth.jpg" are uploaded in hundreds and get introduced to various projects, while efforts to delete or at least to rename or even tag them as inauthentic get constantly disrupted. (User Kontributor 2K, who reverts my edits here with obscure explanations, has just started doing the same on Wikidata, which feeds erroneous images to Wikipedia infoboxes.) The specifics of this particular class of images (symbol designs are relatively easy to make, their inauthenticity is far from obvious on a glance, they get used on multiple pages trough templates and Wikidata statements, the editors assume that any group entity that ever existed must have a flag) make them especially problematic and cause a lot of disruption in other communities. The root of the problem lies in how Commons treats these files, and the solutions should exist here. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, you; btw, I usually mainly disrupt into here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- What with the "respect the original description" reverts? Why do you remove warning templates with "I agree" comments? Why did you set up your own category for fake coats of arms outside of the existing structure? All of this makes no sense to me. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Each file placed in Category:Unknown or fake coats of arms is subject to meticulous verification and is bound, after a certain period of time, to be nominated for deletion ; these are not fictional CoAs, in the sense “attributed but existing” - all of these fictional CoAs should be sourced and clearly indicate why they are fictional-, but users'original creations that rely on no reference. i.e. these are personal fiction, i.e. out of scope.
- Commons is not a coat of arms registry office, nor a personnal web host.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- What with the "respect the original description" reverts? Why do you remove warning templates with "I agree" comments? Why did you set up your own category for fake coats of arms outside of the existing structure? All of this makes no sense to me. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- edit: @Qbli2mHd: Also, I agree, I've already corrected some, but there are a few many .--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- edit2: @Qbli2mHd: a category that needs maintenance, among others. Help is greatly appreciated.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "Latin Empire flag" is pure fabrication derived from Philip of Courtenay arms. They should be deleted right away, but I expect the proposal to be rejected with COM:INUSE invoked; I suggested the category to be renamed in August; my edits fixing the erroneous description of "Latin Empire coats of arms" were reverted by you. It all's not worth the hassle with existing mechanisms if we can't get any traction even with obvious cases like this one. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are many linked files and categories.
- Btw, I caught this one a couple of days ago.
- I may not have duly verified though --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- The "Latin Empire flag" is pure fabrication derived from Philip of Courtenay arms. They should be deleted right away, but I expect the proposal to be rejected with COM:INUSE invoked; I suggested the category to be renamed in August; my edits fixing the erroneous description of "Latin Empire coats of arms" were reverted by you. It all's not worth the hassle with existing mechanisms if we can't get any traction even with obvious cases like this one. Qbli2mHd (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank, you; btw, I usually mainly disrupt into here. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- One situation that Commons seems to handle particularly poorly is fictitious flags of entities that actually have no flag at all. Users of other Wikimedia projects tend to assume that if Commons has a file called
Flag of Somewhere.svg, it's the official flag of Somewhere; if that image is made up or unofficial and Somewhere doesn't have any flag at all, it can be hard to get rid of since it's in use. Omphalographer (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC) - I agree that this is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow. On larger Wikipedia language projects there is a large enough population of active users to catch the problem and revert it, but time and time again I notice on smaller Wikipedia language projects that assorted fictitious Mongol Empire flags end up being used in infoboxes as if they were historical, official flags. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 04:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- I will
Support all changes in formal or informal rules that will lead to the shunning of anachronistic flag (re)creations. Count me in, and please ping me if this comes to a vote or a decision. I'd like to present "the flag of the Bengal Sultanate in 1500, derived from a symbol shown in the roughly same region in an old map. Over there, I already stated: The hypothesis that this would be the National Flag of the Bengal Sultanate (in a time when no national flags existed yet), is entirely unsubstantiated. The color in the Cosa map doesn't tell us much about possible colors used on possible flags in the Ganges region in the 1500s; and quite similar flags are planted by Cosa in Nigeria, South Africa and Algeria. And yet, the Bengal WP lists it under "historical flags".
Any Wikipedia should treat insertions like this (and most of the other examples by other users above) as "Own Research", which is disallowed generally on our platforms. Wikimedia is doing itself a disservice by allowing such uploads being presented in projects without warnings and/or disclaimers that they are not supported by historical evidence.
The idea of systematically evaluating all these "fictional flags" depending on the 'Unofficial/Interpreted/Invented/(true)Fictional' status or some other scheme, sounds appealing to me. There are cases (like Double-headed eagles as Seljuk symbol) where wide-spread symbols can be channelled+contained in a dedicated category that explains how the symbol came to be. Other cases, like the fancy "minority flags" for oppressed ethnicities in China and Russia, often created by designers in the West, should be outright removed from projects and then be deleted here, unless a wide-spread adoption can be shown. Wikimedia is not a forge for (sub)national identities. --Enyavar (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Contrast and brightness
Is there a free online one-button contrast and brightness optimizer? There were several free ones that mimicked the tool in Photoshop, but all are no longer free, that I am aware of. RAN (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
- CapCut image editor is still free it doesn't even need sign up just go directly on https://www.capcut.com/editor-graphic. Although I find the lighting settings are not as good as some of the other features REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
October 10
WMF board reform
I'm trying to increase the visibility of m:2025 WMF Board reform petition because it's not just something that affects enwiki. People active here may be interested. Clovermoss (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Images of toys
Hello people, I have recepntly uploaded two pictures of toys: 1 & 2. Both have received a VRT notice, but I am not sure whether these pictures should require an authorization form from the manufacturer as these are just mass produced toys. Yes, it may contain tons of logotypes and some part of artist work but, these are simply household items, which have been built by the thousands. It would be the equivalent of this picture of an F1 race start requiring permission from all teams, all designers and the copyright holders of all logotypes and brands that appear on the car liveries... Do these pictures (And many more to come with similar subjects) really need a permissión? If so, a manufacturer email granting permission to upload photos of all their products will do, or do they need separate permissions? --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Please see COM:Toys --Isderion (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- So, from my understanding, I read:
- "A toy model that is an exact replica of an automobile, airplane, train, or other useful article where no creative expression has been added to the existing design" is not eligible for copyright protection in the United States.[1]
- These two pictures I have uploaded are more or less exact replicas of these Audi TT DTM, Audi Quattro & Lancia 037. I guess they do not require any kind of permission, as no extra creative expression has been added and the toys simply represent real life objects. I am currently improving articles in Spanish about slot cars and really would like to illustrate them. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- From my point of view, there is no need for a permission --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I have found this article online (Sorry, it is in Spanish). It states Red Bull sued the manufacturer because it was using their image, but no such claim was valid. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Didym: at a first glance this looks good to me. Would you remove the no permissions-tag or should this be handled via a regular deletion request Isderion (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- After User:Didym did not voice an opinion despite engaging in other discussions, I converted this into a regular deletion request, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Schumi4ever Isderion (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- From my point of view, there is no need for a permission --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- These two pictures I have uploaded are more or less exact replicas of these Audi TT DTM, Audi Quattro & Lancia 037. I guess they do not require any kind of permission, as no extra creative expression has been added and the toys simply represent real life objects. I am currently improving articles in Spanish about slot cars and really would like to illustrate them. --JJ - Schumi4ever (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
References
Can anyone work out the name of this photographer?
File:Colonel Alfred Jean-Marie Joseph Piales-d'Astrez (1858-1925).jpg RAN (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Not sure, but Photographie Lortet seems a possibility. [2]. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, 55 Rue Cler - we have a match. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
- They certainly deserve a Wikidata entry. I see now the "e" I thought was at the end was just a flourish at the end of the name. --RAN (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- https://portraitsepia.fr/photographes/lortet/ Glrx (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- But the other Jean-Louis Lortet https://portraitsepia.fr/photographes/lortet-3/ considering the possible year of the photo. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
October 11
Help with Category structure
(This is an exemple) I want to categorize the file "Heiffel Tower at dusk.jpg" but I don't have and don't want to create a "Dusk in Paris" category. Should I categorize it as "Dusk in France" (green) or "Twilight in Paris" (red), or both? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaCartas (talk • contribs) 00:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps I’m missing something but Category:Dusk in Paris already exist and File:Heiffel Tower at dusk.jpg doesn’t exist?
- If you are just using this as an example, then in that case, your proposed method (categorizing into its 2 parent categories when a category doesn’t exist) would be fine in my opinion. Sometimes it might not make sense just to create a category for one image, if the category will likely be used only by that image for the foreseeable future. However, it really depends on the type of category you are referring to. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, and you're right, I should have started by stating "this is an example." I really want to know if there is an Commons policy for similar cases. JotaCartas (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- IIC both except if you think it's not useful in either category / doesn't belong into either (if somebody added the cat, there's no reason to remove the cat currently so it's open to the categorizer). I'm not sure about this case and think it may not be a good example as the two named categories are barely useful, likely very incomplete, and probably not really used much but I could definitely be wrong on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've never seen "IIC" before, and Google is no help. What did you mean there? - Jmabel ! talk 14:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- If I understood correctly. I thought there was an abbreviation for it and not just for if I remember correctly (iirc) but maybe not or it's a different one. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've seen "IIUC" for that, but never "IIC". - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- If I understood correctly. I thought there was an abbreviation for it and not just for if I remember correctly (iirc) but maybe not or it's a different one. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I've never seen "IIC" before, and Google is no help. What did you mean there? - Jmabel ! talk 14:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Mailboxes
Hi, It seems Category:Mailboxes by country is redundant with Category:Post boxes by country. Opinions? Yann (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Are they synonymous or are they referring to two different things, i.e. state-run boxes where you throw in your mail to send it somewhere vs. private boxes where the letters you receive are thrown in? Nakonana (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- In Category:Mailboxes in France, there is a mention Letter boxes are for incoming mail and Post boxes for outgoing mail. Yann (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yet again, CfD on a category tree fails because there is no visibility of it up or down the tree, thus no engagement with or resolution of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Abuse of Permission pending
Hi, While patrolling Category:Media without a license, I see that there is large abuse of the {{Permission pending}} template. Quite a number of people (mostly new users), upload files with "Permission pending" with or without a license. This template is supposed to be used when the copyright holder is contacted, and the permission is forthcoming. It is obvious that in many cases, nobody was contacted (unknown, wrong, or nonsense author, etc.). So we have many plain copyright violations which are here for weeks while they should be deleted immediately. Any idea how to fix that? Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Agree a time limit, speedy deletion after that if unresolved, and make this clear beforehand from both the template docs and the template text. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the only solution (if we do not want to block new users from using this template) would be a clear warning that misuse of the template will result in a block and then also strictly enforcing this. GPSLeo (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- "Without a license" is going to happen a lot until they fix the Upload Wizard. See step 12 at Commons:Uploading works by a third party#How they can grant a license (and how you upload). It's a tricky workaround, and we cannot expect new or occasional users to be aware of it until someone tells them directly. - Jmabel ! talk 14:24, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- One of my backburnered tasks is to upload a bunch of 100 year old photographs my grandfather took. Sifting through them will take ages, but some of the miscellaneous warships may not have photographs already on commons, and if I can identify the music hall artists there may be some notable ones. I'm sufficiently patient that I might actually send an email well in advance explaining how I am in a position to release his copyright.; but I'm not a newbie. When a newbie does this sort of thing I think the worst threat we should make for first or third time offenders is that their content is likely to get deleted. What might speed up the process, apart from extra volunteers assessing such emails about copyright permissions, is to reduce the default from one month to something rather less. We already have {{tl:Permission received}} where one of the options is that we have received the email, but not yet assessed it. How about adding the option email not yet received after 7 days which could trigger reminders and encouragement to send the promised email. Then if the email has still not been received after 14 days someone with volunteer access can update the template again and start the deletion process. This shouldn't add work for the existing volunteer response team - instead it is an opportunity for a deletionist to join them and just focus on whether such permission emails have been received. If the template is updated to show that we have received an email then the urgency goes, or rather the onus is on the volunteers who are processing the email, not the uploader. If the volunteer response team doesn't have time to do this then the 30 day limit still applies, but hopefully someone would then replace the template with a {{tl:Permission received}} one with the parameter set to show we have received the email and it is waiting to be assessed. Also we need to remember that this is not a system for people who are uploading other people's copyright and requesting them for permission they can forward to us. This is a system for people to upload other people's copyrighted material where they already have permission and need to email that to us. IE I will send an email explaining how I have control of this person's copyright, not I have asked the copyright holder for permission and will email you if they say yes. WereSpielChequers (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think the only solution (if we do not want to block new users from using this template) would be a clear warning that misuse of the template will result in a block and then also strictly enforcing this. GPSLeo (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
I need confirmation that this .gif of animal torture is allowed here
(don't click) File:Crush_Fetish.gif
I am disgusted. Aloysius Jr (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- You're somewhat mistaken. A en:roach (member of the en:Blattodea) is an invertebrate, where cruelty is most often not really recognised by laws (exceptions are possible when thinking about the boiling alive of molluscs and crustaceans). The imagery does not depict a roach (en:Rutilus rutilus) which, as vertebrate, is indeed a possible subject of cruelty.
- That said, the GIF is in my opinion, momentarily, in scope, pending a better quality illustration of such a fetish. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- Very informative. Thank you. Aloysius Jr (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- The insect crushed is w:Gromphadorhini. You can buy them at pet stores for feeding lizards, and they are used in most movies to impersonate a German/American cockroach. Gromphadorhini moves slowly, so can be caught on film. --RAN (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Aloysius Jr (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Data-based SVG map graph creation
I'd like to create vectorized map graphs (such as this one) but without having to do it by hand by using Inkscape or similar. Ideally I would be able to generate a graph from data alone, and then embed the plaintext script/data used to generate the graph inside of the file on Commons itself. I'm effectively looking for something like gnuplot but for making map visualizations, i.e. there are no manual drawing instructions, as it takes in instructions and data to generate an image output dynamically. Is there any software that can do this? Again, I'd like to also be able to view the data used to generate the image as plaintext and embed it in the {{Igen}} template on the file itself so that the file can be easily recreated by others later. I'd also like the SVG output to be as simple as possible, preferably no extra cruft like interactivity or scripting... — rae5e <talk> 23:57, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've realized that this question would most likely be better fit for the help desk or graphics village pump. Should I go about moving it there or is it okay for it to remain here for the time being? My apologies!! — rae5e <talk> 15:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: it depends. It is not clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for a new capability to be added to Commons, for recommendations of third-party software that can do this, or what? I can't make it out by reading what you wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I'm looking for some kind of software. I've heard of QGIS but I have yet to try it out. Do you know of any others? — rae5e <talk> 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: I'd guess your best bet for where to ask that is en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. The more clearly you focus the question on what you would want the software to be able to do, the better chance of an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: Something like https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/? Nosferattus (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: I'd guess your best bet for where to ask that is en:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing. The more clearly you focus the question on what you would want the software to be able to do, the better chance of an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I'm looking for some kind of software. I've heard of QGIS but I have yet to try it out. Do you know of any others? — rae5e <talk> 00:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Theki: it depends. It is not clear what you are asking for. Are you asking for a new capability to be added to Commons, for recommendations of third-party software that can do this, or what? I can't make it out by reading what you wrote. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
October 12
Correct English?
I just tried to add a Kazakh FoP category to a DR by just typing "Kazakh FoP", but couldn't find a category. Turns out the category is called Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases. The word "Kazakhstani" sounds extremely unusual to me. Isn't "Kazakh" the correct word? It's Kazakh language and Kazakh people, so where did "Kazakhstani" come from? From "Pakistani"? But that's not done with former Soviet "-stan" countries. It's not "Tajikistani" or "Uzbekistani", but Tajik and Uzbek. Even with non-Soviet countries that is not how the adjective is formed (e.g. it's "Afghan", not "Afghanistani", and "Kurd", not "Kurdistani"). This affects the whole category tree of Category:Kazakhstani law deletion requests, and also categories regarding Kyrgyzstan, like Category:Kyrgyzstani FOP cases. There's no such word "Kyrgyzstani", the correct adjective is Kyrgyz. Or are those "-stani" endings actually a thing aside from "Pakistani"? Nakonana (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wiktionary lists wikt:Kazakhstani as a synonym of wikt:Kazakh. While personally I have a preference for "Kazakh", and tend to see "Kazakh" used more in literature, the use of "Kazakhstani" isn't exactly poor English either. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 11:56, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- What about Kyrgyzstani, Uzbekistani, and Turkmenistani? Even wiktionary doesn't have those words, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- wikt:Kyrgyzstani, wikt:Uzbekistani, and wikt:Turkmenistani are English words. Again, personally if I were writing an article or something, I would prefer the use of wikt:Kyrgyz, wikt:Uzbek and wikt:Turkmen because these are the more commonly used English words.
- However, in saying that, there is also a slight nuance that differentiates these words. This doesn't affect what name we use for category names on Commons (personally, I still prefer "Kazakh" over "Kazakhstani" for a Commons category name), but I thought I'd mention it in case people weren't aware of the distinction: some of these terms either specifically refer to a nationstate only or a culture/peoples only, or can refer to both but generally lean more towards referring to a nationstate, or lean more towards referring to a culture/peoples, in most contexts. I'll give a few examples:
- A wikt:Bosniak is a specific Muslim ethnic group from the Balkans. They wear Bosniak dress, follow Bosniak cultural norms, and there are Bosniak political parties. A wikt:Bosnian is a citizen of the country of Bosnia, who may or may not be ethnically Serb, ethnically Croat, or ethnically Bosniak; such a person may speak the en:Bosnian language, hold a en:Bosnian passport, and cheer on the Bosnian national football team.
- A wikt:Hindustani may refer to a citizen of India (called "Hindustan" in Hindi), however actual usage is more nebulous than that in literature, c.f. en:Hindustani classical music, en:Hindustani language. A wikt:Hindu is only a person who follows the Hindu religion, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or a Sikh cannot be a "Hindu".
- A "Kazakhstani" generally refers to a citizen of the country of Kazakhstan (though I have seen occasional edge cases where it doesn't). A "Kazakh" generally refers to the Kazakh ethnic group, its culture, its music, its traditions, its language (and again, I have seen occasional edge cases where it doesn't). If you want to be specific, you may choose to write that someone may have a en:Kazakhstani passport (the passport of the country of Kazakhstan), but speak the en:Kazakh language (the language of the ethnic Kazakh people). A citizen of Kazakhstan may not necessarily be an ethnic Kazakh, they may also be Dungan or Ukrainian. However, based on my observation of the use of the words in English, unlike Bosniak/Bosnian where the usage is more strict and concretely defined, both "Kazakh" and "Kazakhstani" can be used interchangeably to refer to both concepts, it's just that in most cases where there is a need to differentiate the two concepts, "Kazakh" will lean towards the ethnicity/culture while "Kazakhstani" will lean towards the nationstate.
- Likewise, with occasional edge cases, "Kyrgyz" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Kyrgyzstani" generally pertains to the country; "Uzbek" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Uzbekistani" generally pertains to the country; and "Turkmen" generally pertains to the ethnicity while "Turkmenistani" generally pertains to the country. Usage seems to be less strict and the terms can be occasionally seen to be used interchangeably, but the general trend is that the terms will lean towards ethnicity vs country.
- In short, language is descriptive and I cannot fault people for using the words in a more nebulous manner, but for the most part there is some semblance of a rigid prescriptive structure that some people follow some of the time. In saying that, though, I have a personal preference for the Commons categories to be Kyrgyz/Uzbek/Turkmen on the basis that I see these the most often in literature, even if it breaks the systematic prescriptive "rule" mentioned earlier, as I'm a descriptivist rather than a prescriptivist. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 12:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also prefer we'd follow the common name since it's more intuitive. It's also a bit odd to have differing adjectives to refer to ethnicity vs. country for some ethnicities but not for others, e.g., Russia is a multiethnic state, but it's not like there are different adjectives for "Russian-Federational" passports vs. Russian language / people, it's just "Russian" in all instances, so using different words for a Kazakh and a Ukrainian "Kazakhstani" is some sort of othering that the English language seemingly only does for some people but not for others. And at least the Cambrdige Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary do not have any entries for any of the here listed "-stani" adjectives. Those seem rather unestablished or unofficial neologisms. Merriam-Webster has Kazakhastani and dates the first use to 1987. But even Merriam-Webster does not have any of the other "-stanis", like Uzbekistani etc. (and my spell-checking software marks them all as incorrect, too, including Kazakhstani). Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Othering? I think the other way would be more othering. It'd be like calling everyone from the UK English; you're basically erasing the Scots, Welsh and Irish. I'm not entirely clear on the conditions on the ground, but making the distinction between an ethnicity and nationality seems important when making it clear that you can have the nationality without the ethnicity (really be part of the nation) and that you can have the ethnicity without the nationality (and not be a traitor to your country / need the ethnic country to return you and your land to the mother nation.)
- Also, let's avoid the phrase "Oxford Dictionary", as there are many, many Oxford dictionaries. The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary has Uzbekistani. The Oxford English Dictionary is a slowly updated behemoth that finished its last complete overhaul in 1989. Given that these words would be first important after the Soviet breakup in 1991 and the online OED has not reached U in its systemic updates (it's slowly going forward from M, while making sporadic changes elsewhere), so I would not expect the OED to be reflective of reality here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Side note: the wiktionary entries on all the "-stani" adjectives are all completely unsourced. Not a single reference listed in those entries. Nakonana (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also prefer we'd follow the common name since it's more intuitive. It's also a bit odd to have differing adjectives to refer to ethnicity vs. country for some ethnicities but not for others, e.g., Russia is a multiethnic state, but it's not like there are different adjectives for "Russian-Federational" passports vs. Russian language / people, it's just "Russian" in all instances, so using different words for a Kazakh and a Ukrainian "Kazakhstani" is some sort of othering that the English language seemingly only does for some people but not for others. And at least the Cambrdige Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary do not have any entries for any of the here listed "-stani" adjectives. Those seem rather unestablished or unofficial neologisms. Merriam-Webster has Kazakhastani and dates the first use to 1987. But even Merriam-Webster does not have any of the other "-stanis", like Uzbekistani etc. (and my spell-checking software marks them all as incorrect, too, including Kazakhstani). Nakonana (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- What about Kyrgyzstani, Uzbekistani, and Turkmenistani? Even wiktionary doesn't have those words, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- There are more affected categories:
- Nakonana (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
How can I list uploads from one user without categories?
How can I list uploads from one user that do not contain categories? Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Polarlys: depends on how you define uncategorized. As you can see on Special:UncategorizedFiles, that list is nearly empty. This is because all files will have some hidden category.
- You can search for files tagged with {{Uncategorized}} combined with username, results will vary.
- Files that only have hidden categories and no {{Uncategorized}} are hard to find. Multichill (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, files only with hidden categories and no template are my problem here. Gruß, --Polarlys (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- I think it is possible with Commons:SPARQL query service. Nemoralis (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: how? I don't think the SPARQL database contains the categories. All the examples at Commons:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Exploring_Commons_Categories use the Mediawiki API. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Lucas Werkmeister is the SPARQL wizard. Maybe he can help. Nemoralis (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: I can’t do magic though :P as far as I know @Multichill is correct and the needed information isn’t readily available in SPARQL. (I think you could get the hiddenness via Wikidata Query Service/Categories, but to access the categories of a file you’d need Wikidata Query Service/User Manual/MWAPI, and neither would be at all efficient.) But it’s probably quite possible in Quarry – @Polarlys, do you have an example user name? That way it’ll be easier to write the SQL query. (I doubt any of my own uploads are uncategorized, so I can’t use myself for testing.) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Lucas Werkmeister is the SPARQL wizard. Maybe he can help. Nemoralis (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- @Nemoralis: how? I don't think the SPARQL database contains the categories. All the examples at Commons:SPARQL_query_service/queries/examples#Exploring_Commons_Categories use the Mediawiki API. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- If the uploads are all own work, you could adjust the search query Multichill linked and instead of just the username use insource:"|author=xyz" (check one file page to see what exactly that field value is).
- Also see phab:T188125 Make it possible to search by page author /contributor/ uploader. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
A new help desk has opened and needs volunteers!
After a successful proposal, Commons:Permission requests has been launched! This is a desk where users can request experienced contributors reach out to rightsholders to secure the release of specific media works via the VRT process. It's a great new way to make information on the web more open, and will help less-experienced contributors navigate releases without having to make contact, explain WMC licensing, and execute the VRT process.
This desk could use VRT-literate volunteers to respond to requests! Zanahary (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
October 13
Why do I not see the surname category?
I created Category:Denise Lioté, but I don’t see the category “Lioté (surname)” although in the wikidata page the surname is mentioned. What can be the cause? Wouter (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- There is no such category on Commons? Nemoralis (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Normally, a category is created via Wikidata. That category doesn't yet exist in Commons and is therefore highlighted in red. I then create the category for the surname using the red link. Wouter (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You can create the category now. It needs P373. Nemoralis (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Wouter (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- You can create the category now. It needs P373. Nemoralis (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
- Normally, a category is created via Wikidata. That category doesn't yet exist in Commons and is therefore highlighted in red. I then create the category for the surname using the red link. Wouter (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Tvpuppy (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC) October 14
What is an "earth church"?
The caption of today's (October 14, 2025) Picture of the day says "Reformed earth church in Scuol". What does "earth" mean in this context? I'm a protestant myself, but I have never heard of any protestant or reformed church that had any special relationship with "earth". Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 09:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The first thing came to my mind is w:soil. Soil can be used as a construction material. Nemoralis (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Some churches in Afrika are built underground, maybe this? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Agnes Monkelbaan as the photographer, who also wrote the text description that's being used here. Belbury (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Answer: It's probably a translation error. Because I don't speak English, I have to translate everything. I can't edit the photo at the moment. But I will change the text. Best regards,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you, Agnes! Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Answer: It's probably a translation error. Because I don't speak English, I have to translate everything. I can't edit the photo at the moment. But I will change the text. Best regards,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I'm guessing a combination of a typo and a machine translation from Dutch or German, "reform aarde", "reform erde". -- Asclepias (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Edward Alfred Hopkins
Hi, I am looking for more information about this photographer (Category:Edward A. Hopkins), particularly place of birth and nationality. And whether these pictures are by the same person. The dates seem to match, and I could not find any other photographer named Edward Hopkins. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- So far I've got "Edward Alfred Hopkins (1902-1992) was employed to dismantle the rides at Luna Park in Glenelg, South Australia for transport to Sydney in 1935. Once in Sydney, Hopkins remained associated with Luna Park, eventually as its manager, until he retired in 1969. During his career he photographed the park and its rides." I'll see if I can find more. Geoffroi 17:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a good source from Australia. Still searching. Geoffroi 17:05, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- The Luna Park website refers to him as Ted Hopkins and states that he was an engineer. Geoffroi 17:29, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's an aricle about Luna Park that has a likely photo of Hopkins (one of the two men on the left). Geoffroi 17:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a nice photo of Hopkins. Geoffroi 17:43, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Here's a photo of "Edward Hopkins" dated 1979 that looks like the same man in the photo just above. I'm not finding any bio details earlier than Luna Park. @Yann: These photos at the Getty link above might be by him. I've added appropriate categories to Category:Edward A. Hopkins. Geoffroi 18:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
CentralNotice Banner Request - Wiki Science Competition India 2025
Hello Commons community,
This is to inform you of a CentralNotice banner campaign request for the upcoming Wiki Science Competition 2025 in India (Meta request link). The banner is planned to run for logged-in users from 1 November to 15 December 2025. For readers/anonymous users, it will run for two brief windows: 1–7 November and 9–15 December 2025, as recommended in the CentralNotice guidelines.
We welcome any community questions or comments about the request. The banner and landing page will be available in English, Hindi, and other Indian languages. Please see the Meta request page for all details and translations in progress.
Thanks and regards, Dev Jadiya (talk)