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:
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.
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:
For questions about copyright, technical matters, or help that does not relate to the general Commons community as well as proposals, please see the other discussion boards linked in the blue panel at the top.
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]
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
October 09
"Fictional" flags and other symbols
Latest comment: 2 days ago20 comments8 people in discussion
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 TrungGPinkertonJmabelThe Squirrel ConspiracyEnyavarDronebogus.
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:
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.
+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)Reply
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 ! talk01:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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 ! talk14:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
I agree, but there are many linked files and categories.
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)Reply
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•Contribs04:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
Latest comment: 4 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion
this is an exemple
(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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Note that you should name it "Eiffel Tower" with the correct orthography, which comes from the name of its creator (also the name of his former construction company, now a subsidiary of a larger group that owns the brand, even though it is now a public property of the City of Paris, used commercially by contractors under licence). Note however that the quite recent illuminations of the Eiffel tower are still copyrighted by its author, and there's no freedom of panorama if the tower is the central element of images taken when the tower is illuminated in a early part of the night or during some large events. verdy_p (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Data-based SVG map graph creation
Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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)Reply
@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 ! talk21:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nosferattus: This looks okay, but it seems to be US-only and it doesn't appear that I'm able to export and import data/configurations—although, this is still a good tool to have in the interim, so thank you. To reiterate, I'm looking for a tool that will let me create statistical maps (like the ones the tool you linked generates), both global (world) and local (countries, states, municipalities, etc.), without requiring me to touch Inkscape or edit the SVG output manually, preferably by taking in some configuration file or script that can be embedded as plaintext in the Igen template on the uploaded file on Commons so that it can then be easily re-generated with the exact same specifications by other users. Besides QGIS, the only other thing I can think of is ggplot2. — rae5e <talk> 14:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Theki: No such tool exists, but the source code for https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/ is public and it doesn't look very complicated. Most of the work would just be finding or creating appropriate SVG maps to start from, as the various regions in the map would need to be tagged with appropriate place names or codes to match the data. Have you considered building such a tool yourself? Nosferattus (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Nosferattus: Oh, that's a shame. I suppose I could do that. Is there a centralized location on Commons for blank map graphs whose code is consistently laid out (i.e. similarly to BlankMap-World.svg with <g id="[ISO country code]">), or would I have to create such things myself? — rae5e <talk> 14:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments4 people in discussion
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)Reply
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 "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•Contribs12:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
you're basically erasing the Scots, Welsh and Irish -- No, I think what I'm talking about is rather "Scots" vs. "Scotlandians", "Welsh" vs. "Walesians", and "Irish" vs. Irlandians", because "Scots"/"Welsh"/"Irish" are like ethnicities, while "Scotlandians"/"Walesians"/"Irlandians" are citizens of the respective countries. In other words, if "Ukrainian Kazakhs" are not a thing, then "Ukrainian Scots" are also not a thing, because the supposedly correct terminology would be "Ukrainian Kazakhstanis" and "Ukrainian Scotlandians" because, according to the "-stani" logic, Ukrainians don't belong to the Kazakh/Scottish ethnicity, but they might very well be citizens of Kazakhstan/Scotland. That's not how national adjectives work, right? We don't have different adjectives for ethnic Germans vs. non-ethnic Germans. There's only the adjective "German", there's no adjective "Germanian" for "Ukrainian Germanians" or in the sense of Category:Germanian FOP cases. It's called Category:German FOP cases. So why isn't the category called Category:Kazakh FOP cases but Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases instead? There's also Category:Russian FOP cases, but not Category:Russian Federational FOP cases. If Scotland had its own FoP rules, then we'd call the category Category:Scottish FOP cases, not Category:Scotlandian FOP cases, right? So why is it "Kazakhstani" instead of "Kazakh"? It just doesn't make sense to me why there even are different adjectives for people from Kazakhastan in the English language when there are no different adjectives for people from other countries, like Germany or Russia. Nakonana (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
@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.
@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)Reply
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).
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.
Latest comment: 4 days ago15 comments9 people in discussion
I would like to talk with you about a common practice when working with categories on Commons and, ideally, bring about a change. The way things are currently done contradicts all logic and sense. It’s about the connections between seasons and months. Why are months assigned to seasons? I criticize this for two reasons.
1. There are images—many interior shots of buildings, for example, but also many other subjects—that have no relation to any season. Why should I have to place such images in a seasonal category when the picture could just as well have been taken in another season? I think this unnecessarily clutters our categories. When I open a seasonal category, I expect to see images that show something typical for that season. Images should always be categorized as precisely as possible. So, if I upload a picture showing, say, a tree in autumn foliage, I shouldn’t leave it in the autumn category but should instead file it under the monthly category. There, however, my image gets lost among many other non-autumn pictures. Categories are supposed to help make images findable—but in my opinion, this does the opposite.
2. Take my home country, Germany, as an example. There are several months that cannot be clearly assigned to a single season. Either I leave out one season, which would be incomplete, or—more commonly—both seasons are assigned. That might simplify things, but it’s sloppy work and a bad habit that is often seen here on Commons. In practice, the problem might look like this: I upload a photo that I took at the end of September, that is, during autumn. However, the September category is also linked to summer. So my photo is also assigned to summer, which is clearly incorrect.
I would populate the season categories purely on visible vegetation phenology and weather phenomena. If there is a snow storm in central Europe in November I would put these photos in the winter category despite the date is clearly not winter. Photos sowing no vegetation or naturally vegetation free areas these photos should not be in a season category. But I would include categories of events liked to seasons like Christmas or Easter. GPSLeo (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
On the one hand I agree, but on the other hand I wonder about the educational usefulness of such an approach. For example, imagine a climate researcher who wants to study climate change based on photo evidence. Wouldn't it be of interest for such a researcher to see that, let's say, winter 2050 in Germany was full of blooming trees instead of the expected snow? If we'd only put images of snow in that category, we'd give the researcher a false impression of what winter really looks like in Germany. (Currently there's hardly any snow during winter in most parts of Germany, so if we define "winter = snow", then the winter categories of Germany wouldn't have all that many photos except for photos from the mountain areas.) Nakonana (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The seasons commonly used are based on astronomical events, just like our calendar. There are other definitions for seasons, but they are not really relevant on Commons. In seasonal categories, I assign photos that are visibly dependent on the seasons, for example plants. However, I do so in accordance with the actual seasons. So, to stick with the example mentioned above, snow in November is also in autumn. And I consider months and seasons to be independent of each other—even in the categories. --XRay💬16:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Commons categories should be geared towards the typical needs of users searching for images, not for esoteric and unlikely needs like a hypothetical climate researcher. Omphalographer (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If someone is looking for images of snow in particular, we have Category:Snow in Germany, so it's not like they won't find what they are looking for. Winter does not necessarily mean that there's snow. The global south might never see snow even if it's winter. Category:Snow in Zimbabwe might not be a thing, but vegetation in Zimbabwe still goes through different seasons like blooming in spring or trees losing leaves in autumn/winter. Winter would look rather different in Zimbabwe than in Germany, so the assumption that winter = snow isn't really universal even in a non-hypothetical scenario. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't mind having months in the season categories, since it is often very subjective how people define seasons and it might be better to see the seasons as just temporal markers, as is the case now. But if done correctly, it might be best to let the different months be defined by what each country defines as being in what season. Googling for instance about "Jahreszeiten in Deutschland mit Monaten", you get to sites like this, and that doesn't correspond with Commons categories at the moment. --Cart(talk)18:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would like to join Cart in her reasoning. Commons categories are not merely navigational aids; they are also, to some extent, taxonomic and semantic frameworks that reflect how we structure knowledge. This dual nature is what makes categorization both powerful and delicate.
While I fully understand the desire for factual accuracy and scientific consistency, we must also remember that Commons is not a scientific database but a visual archive that serves a broad, international community. Our categorization system therefore has to balance taxonomic precision with practical usability and accessibility.
The current way of linking months and seasons may not be scientifically perfect, but it offers a clear and practical system that works well in many countries and situations. Local adjustments are always possible, yet the overall idea keeps things consistent and prevents unnecessary confusion.
In my view, the strength of Commons lies in its flexibility and in the collaborative refinement of its structures, not in rigid enforcement. Let us continue this discussion with an open mind and a shared commitment to clarity, balance, and mutual respect. -- Radomianin (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The intention that categories should contain the files that one might expect to find there is commendable. That's what I expect, too. But expectations vary, and one has to try to find a reasonable compromise. You'll never satisfy everyone. I've been with Wikimedia Commons for many years now and have experienced a lot during that time. I've spent a lot of time working with categories and have also become familiar with the ambiguities. I can often understand them, as greater accuracy can also lead to many categories that contain very few files. These small categories are anything but clear, but they also have the advantage that they can be placed in different category trees. As far as the seasons are concerned, I would like to deliberately cite an extreme example: Category:September in Africa. Thanks to the continent's special location, this month is assigned to all four seasons. Personally, I would separate the two category trees, months and seasons. This would also make sense from an astronomical point of view. However, there will probably be a lot of resistance to this, and even despite this discussion, the issue will not be resolved. To be honest, I have very little hope for change. --XRay💬09:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't think the discussion should revolve around useless categories like some in Category:Summer in Africa. That's just an example of taking categorization too far. It's about as useful as having a category for "Places with ice" in Category:Antarctica. You can't use season months for entire continents. It's a result of combining the countries by using continent templates. Some categories only have meaning if they are used on a regional level. --Cart(talk)10:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
And in the Tropics don’t follow Spring, Summer, Autumn/Fall and Winter as seasons. For Australia, the Tropics has a Wet and Dry season[1]Bidgee (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
And Sweden, being a long country, there is hardly any real winter in the south, while the north part actually has eight seasons according to the Sámi calendar. [2] --Cart(talk)11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support disconnecting seasons from dates, and instead having categories for seasons only be related to natural or astrological events. Seasons are a subcategory of "Nature", but this results in every photograph that is in a date or date-of-country subcategory (which is most of them, and ideally all of them) being in the "Nature" subcategory. --ReneeWrites (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
October 19
Strange behavior of rotation file
Latest comment: 3 days ago10 comments5 people in discussion
You must be looking at a cached version of the file, I think? Because the image at File:Metasequoia2.JPG is displayed in landscape format instead of portrait format for me, which doesn't look right. I think the image rotation by SteinsplitterBot just needs to be reverted to display correctly, it seems. Nakonana (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Tvpuppy: has reverted File:Metasequoia2.JPG to version as of 09:03, 28 May 2010. The strange thing I observe now is that everything is OK when using the browser Firefox 140.3 on Mac 15.6.1, but when using Safari 18.6 File:Metasequoia2.JPG is rotated 270° (the thumbnail in the history not) as well as the images in the Commons categories. Also the images in the four Wikipedia articles are rotated. Wouter (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think I figured out what is causing this issue. In the EXIF metedata, it states "Orientation: Rotate 90 CW". This is likely causing it to display the image with a rotation of 90° clockwise. However, I'm not sure how to edit the EXIF here in Commons. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for both of your suggestions, I went ahead and did it manually as Jmabel suggested. The file should be displaying correctly now, @Wouterhagens can you confirm if it's displaying correctly for you? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The file itself and both Commons categories now display correctly in Safari, but the images in the Wikipedia articles are still incorrect in Safari. Wouter (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
October 20
Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
Latest comment: 1 day ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).
There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.
Thank you!
I do not like that today oppose votes (which have explanations) and comments which point out issues or counterpoints to proposed names have been hidden. This impedes deliberation and was done as far as I can see unilaterally obstructing rational community decision-making and good outcomes. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
(This message was sent to Commons:Txokoa and is being posted here due to a redirect.)
Crimea is Ukraine. Wikipedia cannot be above the UN!
Latest comment: 1 day ago84 comments17 people in discussion
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The discussion has reached its natural conclusion. Commons does not take a political stance on territorial or sovereignty disputes. Our mandate is to host freely licensed media with educational value, regardless of perceived "truth" or moral rightness. Files and maps may reflect both de jure and de facto (or in some cases even totally made up) situations, provided they are accurately described and properly sourced. When it comes to geographically or politically sensitive topics, Commons maintains neutrality through inclusion: multiple perspectives can coexist on the project as long as each file's context is made explicit. This approach supports our educational mission and reflects long-standing consensus across similar discussions. For copyright and Freedom of Panorama questions, Commons applies the law that is enforced de facto in the relevant territory. This is a pragmatic necessity to assess real, not theoretical, legal risk for hosted material. If you wish to nominate specific files for deletion on copyright grounds, please use COM:DR. If you wish to upload improved or alternative maps, you are welcome to do so, as long as the files comply with Commons copyright and licensing requirements. No actionable proposal to change Commons policy has emerged from this thread, and there is clear consensus among participants to maintain existing practice. Accordingly, the discussion is now closed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia Commons contains maps of Ukraine without Crimea and other territories.
They could be de facto occupied, but de jure they are still Ukrainian, according to the number of UN resolutions.
It means that the maps of Ukraine have to display the situation!
There is no Ukrainian territory without Crimea; there is Ukrainian territory with some of the parts occupied by Russia.
@Daniel Broomfield Ua: I'm not sure what exactly your are proposing here that has actual consequences for Commons. If there is something you want to have happen, you need to spell it out.
Commons' policy is generally not to take sides in international geographic disputes. We host maps that show the various disputed points of view (even when the strong international preponderance is on one side or another) and let the individual Wikipedias decide which maps to use (though of course in the extreme case where a map appears to show only an individual user's uncited view of matters, we are likely to delete that). In general, the chance of a particular map being reused outside of Commons is greatly increased by citing sources for the particular version shown. The views of the UN are, of course, taken very seriously, but so are those of a sovereign state such as Russia, regardless of what you or I may personally think of those. Commons is certainly not going to delete maps that show documented Russian claims of territory or well-cited de facto zones of control on a given date. But perhaps that is not what you are asking for; again, you need to spell it out. - Jmabel ! talk23:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
IMO, tho, the ToO map should not have been changed. Russian law is currently in effect in Crimea, no matter how the NATO, EU, or the de jure perspectives treat the status of Crimea. At most there must be two versions of maps depending on usage and context: maps that show Crimea as part of Ukraine are best used on many enWiki articles, but the original versions (like File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg) should retain Crimea as marked under Russian law for Commons purposes. The ToO map should be reverted; a new ToO map for enWiki (and other Wikipedias that do not need to follow domestic [Crimean] rules) should be created instead.
In questions about international copyright law occupied territories have to be treated as being part of the country they officially belong to. Copyright only has de jure rights and no de facto rights. GPSLeo (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia, as well as Russia, cannot decide such things as the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So the Ukrainian territory means the territory in the internationally recognized borders. Territories occupied as a result of the Russian aggression are still Ukrainian. So there cannot be "maps of Ukraine with some areas removed" or "maps with Crimea marked under Russian control" but there could be maps of the Russian aggression like this: https://deepstatemap.live/#6/49.4383200/32.0526800 There could be maps of the Russian occupational laws such as the Latin alphabet prohibition. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The closure says that Crimea is Russia, or what? Obviously Wikipedia cannot be above international law and UN resolutions. Russians could think that Crimea is Russia, but Wikipedia should be written according to the reliable sources, not the random blah-blah-blah of Putin.
My point is that there should not be maps showing Crimea belonging to Russia, because Crimea cannot belong to Russia. And I am in doubt that Russia may sue Wikipedia for violations relating to the occupied Ukrainian territories.
@Daniel Broomfield Ua: Hi, You are right that nobody except Russia recognizes Crimea as part of Russia. But on Commons, we do not take side. Our policy has always been that we can have maps showing different opinions. And it is for the projects where the maps are used to choose which one they want. That has been the case for the last 20 years. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I don't care what you have done for 20 years.
"we do not take side" -- showing Crimea as Russia means taking the Russian side.
Only the UN can decide such things, not Russia or Wikipedia.
20 years of practice do not matter if it is going against common sense and international law. As I said, to go against the UN resolutions means neutrality violation. I also don't care about Godwin's law. If Nazis have some opinion, it doesn't make their opinion equal to others.
@Daniel Broomfield Ua: You confuse several things. No, I don't equate Putin's opinion with the opinion of the whole world. And yes, Nazis' opinion are not equal to others. But it doesn't mean we are going to delete these files. We also have maps of Ukraine with Crimea. And hopefully, that are the ones which will be used. But it is not for Commons to decide that. Yann (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You mentioned "Godwin's law". So it is not me who confuses several things.
"It is not for Commons to decide that." Yes, because it has already been decided by the UN.
The problem is where to draw the line. If we say we remove all these maps showing the Crimea as part of Russia there will be the next party of some conflict demanding the removal of maps. The only requirement we have is that the description and file name describe what the map shows. If there is a map with the Crimea as part of Russia saying it shows the official de jure border this is obviously wrong and has to be corrected. Most of the maps in this category are election result maps they have to include every region where this "election" took place and the government published results for. Showing what the government propaganda says is needed to give context to it. But some of the maps are nonsense they can be nominated for deletion. GPSLeo (talk) 20:38, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The problem is where to draw the line. If we say we remove all these maps showing the Crimea as part of Russia there will be the next party of some conflict demanding the removal of maps.
The UN is a toothless paper tiger, you and I both know that. The UN also says that Taiwan isn't a country, but Wikimedia Commons treats Taiwan like a country. The UN couldn't prevent genocide in Rwanda, the UN couldn't prevent genocide in Myanmar, why are we pretending the UN is suddenly important now? Furthermore, Wikimedia Commons is not beholden to the UN. It does not receive UN funding, nor are its staff appointed by the UN. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs11:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
What you are saying is Russian Bolshevism. The UN is the only reliable source regarding state borders. If not the UN, Russians can say that they are "right too". In fact, Russians are repeating WWII to destroy international law and return to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact paradigm. Taiwan and China have the frozen civil war, so the Taiwanese government considers itself as a government of the whole of China. Yes, the UN has certain problems, but Wikipedia is not the place to morally judge the UN. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 11:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Again, I don't give a shit about what the UN says about Taiwan. Why does Wikimedia Commons treat Taiwan like a country here, here, here, here, and here? If Wikimedia Commons respected the UN as the sole "reliable source" on country borders, none of this would exist. Almost as if the UN isn't as authoritative in the real world compared to how you think it is? Also, stop associating what I say with "Russian apologism" in every single comment, it is a very cheap retort that holds little substance, not everybody who disagrees with you is somehow "pro-Russia". I have contributed more to Ukrainian statehood than you have, because at least I have video footage of the drones I paid for killing Russian soldiers. I have directly contributed to the deaths of Russian soldiers on the territory of Ukraine, have you? --benlisquareTalk•Contribs11:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Disrespect for law and for international law in particular is Russian Bolshevism. The UN is the only reliable source on country borders. On the other hand, we have to deal with the de facto situation as well.
It is in my geopolitical benefit to see a weakened Russia, just as it is in my geopolitical benefit to see a strengthened EU and a strengthened AUKUS. It is grim, but it is also a reality of our world. I have never been a person who operates on morals or compassion. That's as far as I'll say on the matter, as I'm now guilty of moving the discussion off-topic. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs12:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia projects are not the place to discuss moral things. So if the international community decided that Crimea is Ukraine, Wikimedia projects have to reflect this fact. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Look, I'm as pro-Ukrainian as you can possibly get, I even donated 2000 USD to the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in early 2022 so that the ZSU could purchase more Mavic drones, and I have the receipts to prove it. But your behaviour here is actively pushing people away from your cause, I'm unsure if you are aware of that? You can't just say words like "I don't care what you have done for 20 years" and expect people to like you. Rather, people might even start doing things just to spite you, if they're pissed off enough. From my perspective, we (the Commons community) have been here for 20 years, and have been doing things based on consensus and on predecent, while you are the newcomer whose account was created on 22 March 2025, and is barging in demanding that we change how things are done, yelling and screaming in the process. Do you not see the arrogance and self-importance? You might be oblivious to this fact, but your behaviour here is actively sabotaging the public image of your side, whether intentional or not. And no, I don't give a shit what the UN says, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the UN. My advice to you is, if you lack the skills to diplomatically resolve issues through persuasion, then perhaps you shouldn't be fighting online battles that you can't win. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs10:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
"And no, I don't give a shit what the UN says, this is Wikimedia Commons, not the UN." @Benlisquare really said this!!
Wikipedia has to be written according to reliable sources. The most reliable source regarding state borders is the UN. @Benlisquare, you are saying that you are "pro-Ukrainian" and violating the neutral point of view in favor of Russia. The key point is that Ukraine is fighting for international law. According to international law, Crimea is Ukraine. So if Wikipedia or Russia says that they have their own law, they are wrong. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is silly. Wikimedia Commons doesn't follow "the law", it follows community consensus. If you disagree, prove it to me - show me a Commons policy page that states otherwise. If community consensus says that the sky is pink and the grass is orange, then the sky is pink, end of story. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs11:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia has to be written according to reliable sources. You are in the wrong project: this here is not Wikipedia. This is Wiki Commons which has its own set of rules. One of those is COMMONS:SCOPE. It says that Commons serves as a media repository for media that has an educational value. The maps that depict Crimea as occupied/Russian territory clearly have an educational value. They can be easily used to illustrate the difference in perspectives regarding Crimea's status.
A teacher could use a map where Crimea is Ukrainian and contrast it with a map where Crimea is Russian to explain and illustrate to the students what territory is being disputed and to show them how Russia "sees the world" vs how the rest of the world sees the world. Since the image has such an educational value it is clearly "in scope" of the Wiki Commons project.
It's just a map like those maps that illustrate the current front line and that documents the movement of the front line throughout the war. It's just a neutral and dry attestation of fact: "on 21 October the front line is here", "on 22 October the frontline moved x kilometers to the west".
Just because someone creates a map that shows the front line moved west and that Russia thus progressed further into Ukrainian territory, does not mean that the creator of the map is siding with Russia. They are simply noting that "this is what the current situation looks like". There can even be two different maps for the front line: one could be based on reports from Ukraine while another could be based on reports from Russia. There could be even a third map that shows the current front line based on the observations from third parties. Such maps can easily co-exist and serve an educational purpose without taking anyone's side in the war. Nakonana (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
There are situations de jure and de facto, which are different. So there is no problem in showing the front live if a map reflects official borders as well, as here: https://deepstatemap.live/en/#6/49.4383200/32.0526800
There is no "educational value" in the "Russian perspective" that does not show the position of the entire world. Maps like this are just nonsense. European Union flag map of Ukraine, with Russian-occupied territories omittedDaniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Focusing specifically on the question of FoP:
Legally, the status of Crimea doesn't matter, since we need to follow US law and only US law (with the dubious but accepted-in-practice exception that public artworks from countries with freer FoP than the US are allowed). Since Russia has basically the same FoP as the US and Ukraine has no usable FoP, there is no risk of allowing images that would not be legal to host in the US regardless of which country's laws we choose.
Morally, we choose to follow the laws of the "source country" as a matter of principle. Now, this is not necessarily the legal definition of "source country" according to the Berne convention, which is only useful on Commons for things like determining first publication for the purpose of figuring out PD status in the US. Of course, we could choose to align with Berne if we want to, but that is merely an arbitrary choice made for the sake of convenience (similar to how w:WP:USPLACE chooses to follow the AP Stylebook for titling US cities). If the purpose of our policies is to ensure that works can in practice be freely used by the actual people living in the country/region they are most closely related to, then we should use Russian law. If the purpose of our policies is to make an idealistic statement about how things should be, then we should use Ukrainian law.
Physical control over a territory can not have an effect on copyright. Otherwise one could simply say that they claim control over some area to apply their FOP rules to take pictures. And the these pictures fall under their FOP rules as during the time the photos were taken is was their territory. GPSLeo (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Broomfield Ua focusing on Freedom of Panorama issue, I'd rather follow what the first point King of Hearts said: "ensuring that works can in practice be freely used by the actual people living in the country/region they are most closely related to." Since Crimean institutions since 2014 adhere to the Russian laws, this denotes the Russian copyright law is in effect in the Crimean courts. It's certain that the courts will apply the lenient Russian law, which has no restrictions on commercial exploitations of buildings without needing architects' permissions (unlike the restrictive Ukrainian law). That's why, we can host recent architecture in Crimea despite Ukrainian law not legally allowing commercial distributions of such works, because in practice (de facto) Crimean courts will side with the commercial reusers (like photographers and content creators) instead of the architects, by applying Russian FoP law. This is reflected in our FoP map: File:Freedom of Panorama world map.svg. Applying the logic of how Crimean courts will decide when an architect files a complaint vs. a photographer/content creator/postcard maker commercially using their photo of the Crimean building he designed does not equate to siding with Russian authorities. JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions)02:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Struck out, it appears Crimea is labelled as red, but slightly lightened red which denotes following Ukraine law but insufficient jurisdiction (per the map legend). File:Freedom of Panorama in Europe.svg labels Crimea as gray, without indicating either Ukrainian or Russian copyright law jurisdiction (neutral version), while the world map suggests Ukrainian law may cover Crimea de jurebut insufficient (which is true, since Crimean courts no longer abide by the Ukrainian copyright law). JWilz12345(Talk|Contributions)03:02, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why do you think that copyright violation due to the objects in Crimea is only under the Crimean courts jurisdiction? In any case, it is also not a matter Wikipedians can decide. There should be reliable sources that Crimea is under Russian copyright law. At least there should be Wikimedia's layer statement. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Why are we arguing over the price of tea in China? Stick to the main topic, the freedoms (or lack thereof) to use the Latin alphabet has nothing to do with what Commons has power over. May I remind you that this is not Wikipedia, and we are not Wikipedians, we are Commons contributors. Wikipedia policies are completely irrelevant here. Look at the address bar in your web browser, tell me what letters come after "https://", tell me if it says "Wikipedia" anywhere. Segueing back to the topic of "should maps in Category:Maps of Ukraine with some areas removed and Category:Maps with Crimea marked under Russian control be deleted", the community consensus is that we will allow users to upload the "wrong" images that contain the "wrong" opinion, and it is up to individual reusers to decide whether they use the "wrong" opinion image or the "correct" opinion image. Commons does not take sides in a dispute, it allows users from both sides of a dispute to upload their own images, and to choose which images to use. As mentioned above by GPSLeo, if Commons started actively policing files that contained the "wrong" opinion, then that's a slippery slope; should we then start policing which files to allow regarding the Falklands dispute? The Senkaku Islands dispute? The Kosovo dispute? Where does the line end? --benlisquareTalk•Contribs11:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The main topic is the Ukrainian borders. It was not me who switched it to the freedom of panorama. So I'm just surprised why the freedom of panorama has been disturbing Wikimedia so much, but freedom of languages is completely (and very aggressively) ignored. Maybe because Russia has freedom of panorama but not freedom of languages?
And I will repeat myself: as for copyright, there should be reliable sources that Crimea is under Russian copyright law. At least there should be Wikimedia's layer statement. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This discussion is leading nowhere productive. @Daniel Broomfield Ua, I suggest you spend some time learning about Commons policies and guidelines before making spurious accusations against other contributors. The folks here gave you a lot of slack in indulging what is clearly a misinformed, if strongly held, opinion; but you can't expect them to keep being nice if you won't do the basic work of learning how Commons operates and how community decisions are made. The UN's positions have never been the yard stick against which Commons measures its community decisions. (And I say this as a full supporter of the Ukrainian cause) 19h00s (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The UN's positions have never been the yard stick against which Commons measures its community decisions. (And I say this as a full supporter of the Ukrainian cause)
If you think that Crimea is Russia, I don't care what you think. Disrespect for international law established at the cost of World War II means supporting Russia. The only reliable source regarding country borders is the UN, not Russia or Wikimedia Commons. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Given that the Russian Federation holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, I really don't understand this strong reverence and respect for UN institutions. But at any rate, nowhere did 19h00s say that he/she thought that Crimea is Russia. Allowing other users to upload "wrong" images doesn't mean that you support that image. Currently, Commons policy permits users to upload "wrong" images, and community consensus affirms users' rights to upload "wrong" images. Pointing out this fact doesn't make someone supportive of the Russian POV, it is merely pointing out facts of how the rules and policies work on this website. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs13:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You and @19h00s say that Wikimedia Commons doesn't respect international law and the UN decisions. Wikipedia projects are not the place to discuss the morality of the UN. BTW, de jure there is no Russia in the UN. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you're walking down a street, and you encounter one person say something wrong, then he is probably wrong. If you're walking down a street, and everyone is saying something wrong... --benlisquareTalk•Contribs13:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you're walking down a street, and everyone is saying something wrong...
If they all say that 2+2=5 they are all wrong. If they all say that the Earth is flat they are all wrong. If they all say that the sky is pink and the grass is orange they all are mentally sick.
++++++ to benlisquare's point. I don't see anyone here defending Russia, claiming Russia "justly" controls Crimea, or making any arguments about the actual conflict itself. What other contributors are saying, Daniel, is that content does not have to be "morally correct" in order to be on Wikimedia Commons. There are specific rules and standards for what is allowable on Commons, those rules do not have anything to do with the UN's position on international conflicts and borders. The hosting of maps on Commons that do not align with the UN's position is not a defense or condoning of Russia's actions, in the same way that a university library which owns a copy of Mein Kampf is not endorsing Hitler by making the text available to historians and researchers. You are accusing us, baselessly, of supporting Russia, when all we're doing is pointing out how this project works and why these maps have been retained, none of which has to do with our moral views on the conflict. At a certain point this behavior crosses the line from annoying to bad faith; I would argue you've already crossed that line. 19h00s (talk) 13:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
At a certain point this behavior crosses the line from annoying to bad faith; I would argue you've already crossed that line.
No, it is you who have crossed the line. The neutral point of view on the countries borders is the UN point of view. You think that Russia is "also right". It doesn't mean "neutrality" it means a pro-Russian position.
I would ask you again to calmly read Wikimedia Commons' rules and procedures to better understand how this project works. And as an aside, accusing the rest of us of supporting Russia, enacting "Orwellian laws", or having motives other than improving/maintaining this project is not really a good strategy for achieving your goals. Have a good rest of your week. 19h00s (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Broomfield Ua I hereby give you a formal warning: Please respect the policies on Commons and follow the procedures to change them if you think they need to be changed. Any accusations against users to support Russia are not acceptable. If you do not respect this you might be blocked for participating on this project. GPSLeo (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
OK
COMMONS:SCOPE "Commons serves as a media repository for media that has an educational value."
It educates about the view of the Russian government. You need to know the opinion of your enemies to fight them. If there is a file where you think is no educational value please give a link and I will have a look at it. I already deleted some nonsense files from this category. GPSLeo (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I already gave you an example for the educational value: the image can be used in an educational context by a teacher to illustrate what territory is being fought about.
And since you have earlier asked for reliable sources (That is, in any matter, you need to rely on reliable sources and not invent things on your own.), here's a map by Reuters where they have colored Crimea and other parts of Ukraine in gray — the same color they used for Russia: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-marking-1000-days-russian-invasion-eyes-end-war-next-year-2024-11-18/. Now feel free to take it up with Reuters to make them remove that map from their article because otherwise Reuters would be siding with Russia and going against the authority/law of the UN. I think Reuters violating UN law is a much more serious issue and one with a much bigger global reach than Commons hosting such a map, so you really should be taking it up with them first. Nakonana (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support I agree on Wikipedia, as well as Russia, cannot decide such things as the territorial integrity of Ukraine. So the Ukrainian territory means the territory in the internationally recognized borders. Territories occupied as a result of the Russian aggression are still Ukrainian.. Occupied areas could nevertheless be colored differently on maps, but they shouldn't be colored as if they were part of Russia. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Where do we draw the line? Do we colour Aksai Chin as Chinese or Indian? Do we colour the Kuril islands as Russian or Japanese? Do we colour Dokdo/Takeshima as Korean or Japanese? Do we colour Taiwan in solid colours on Chinese maps? For the aforementioned examples, do we enforce these as hard rules, irrespective of the context they are used on other Wikimedia projects? If the Hindi Wikipedia establishes a local consensus on their own language project to colour in Aksai Chin and Kashmir in solid colours as Indian territory, do we, as Commons users, have the right to override that decision and "tell those pesky Hindi Wikimedians what to do"? And if your answer to all of these is "no", then do Ukraine related maps receive special treatment that is separate to maps of the Falklands/Kosovo/the Kurils/Senkakus/Kashmir? --benlisquareTalk•Contribs15:23, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Note that the user who started the topic has zero edits outside of this topic. In the topic, literally nobody agreed with them, but they keep arguing notwithstanding. We are long ago in the IDONOTHEAR territory. People of course could keep replying to them if they want to, but I personally do not think this is as useful.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing these as well since there does not seem to be any point in continuing for anyone's sanity. Please do not start yet another discussion on the same topic (or related topic), that would be disruptive at this point. @Daniel Broomfield Ua: Consider this a topic ban from discussing anything related to legal issues in Crimea (except for actual good-faith deletion discussion) for a period of 1 month. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Only non-commercial use is permitted per your link, but Commons does not accept non-commercial use licenses.
Relevant quotes from your link:
створення зображень творів архітектури та образотворчого мистецтва, що постійно розташовані у доступних для громадськості місцях, та подальше використання таких об’єктів, за умови що такі дії не мають самостійного економічного значення. (Google translation: the creation of images of works of architecture and fine art that are permanently located in places accessible to the public, and the further use of such objects, provided that such actions do not have independent economic significance.)
Мета створення зображення і те, як воно буде використане далі – надважливий елемент свободи панорами. Тепер в Україні, як і у більшості країнах ЄС (наприклад, Естонії, Латвії, Литві, Румунії), можна вільно створювати і використовувати будь-які фото та відео архітектурних об’єктів за умови їх некомерційного використання. (Google translation: The purpose of creating the image and how it will be used further is an important element of the freedom of panorama. Now in Ukraine, as in most EU countries (for example, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania), you can freely create and use any photos and videos of architectural objects, provided that they are used non-commercially.)
@Daniel Broomfield Ua: The Wikimedia projects are indeed non-commercial in their nature. But since their inception, it is the official policy that hosted media must have the ability to be used commercially, hence the restriction. Please take a look at the first bullet point in the intro at the top of this Village Pump page: 1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons[...]. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Does Wikimedia steal Ukrainian intellectual property in Crimea
@Josve05a said: For copyright and Freedom of Panorama questions, Commons applies the law that is enforced de facto in the relevant territory. This is a pragmatic necessity to assess real, not theoretical, legal risk for hosted material.[3]
Does it mean that Wikimedia steals Ukrainian intellectual property in Crimea?
All panorama in Crimea is Ukrainian panorama.
Since 2023, it has been free for non-commercial usage.
So if some Russian takes a picture of a Ukrainian panorama in Crimea and places it on Wikimedia Commons for COMMERCIAL usage, in my humble opinion it will be theft of the Ukrainian intellectual property!
The assertion that Wikimedia Commons "steals Ukrainian intellectual property in Crimea" stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law and Commons' licensing policies. Copyright is not vested in the state or territory but in the individual creator of the work. For photographs, this is the photographer; for architectural works, sculptures, and other artistic creations, it is the architect, sculptor, or original artist. This principle is enshrined in the Berne Convention, to which Ukraine is a signatory.
Wikimedia Commons operates under a strict licensing framework that requires all hosted media to be freely licensed for any purpose, including commercial use. This policy is explicitly stated in Commons' licensing guidelines. Therefore, media licensed solely for non-commercial use, as permitted under Ukrainian law since 2023, does not meet Commons' licensing requirements and cannot be hosted.
Commons does not infringe upon anyone's intellectual property; it only hosts media for which the uploader has the legal right to grant a free license. If you believe specific files violate copyright (e.g. a photo is violating COM:FOP Ukraine), you may nominate them for deletion using COM:DR. (Please note: "It is not clear if copyrighted buildings in Crimea are subject to the Russian or the more restrictive Ukrainian law. Following the Commons precautionary principle, images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/09#Buildings_in_Crimea. Nevertheless, photographic work created in Crimea before February 19, 1954 is the subject of the Russian law."
I think that the Village pump could be used to make clear some situations. As I see it, you don't understand them yourself. First you said: "Commons applies the law that is enforced de facto in the relevant territory". Now you say "knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons".
I've found that one way to find out what is generally allowed is to learn by observing, by what other people are doing. You could look for examples of photography from Ukraine in categories such as 2025 photographs of Ukraine. Discounting the official government photographs (which aren't relevant here), at a cursory glance I'm seeing a lot of photographs of animals, nature, food and cooking, landscapes that don't contain copyrighted/copyrightable material, and historical buildings in the public domain. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The point is the restriction of free panorama in Crimea. In my humble opinion, we cannot use Russian law there. So the point is not Ukrainian law but that Ukrainian law is applied to Crimea as well. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Daniel Broomfield Ua: From my experience, Ukrainians here and on the Ukrainian Wikipedia have had a lot of problems with Ukrainian FOP law. Users of the Ukrainian Wikipedia use Сумлінне використання/fair use to host thousands of images of copyrighted statues, buildings, and monuments in Ukraine on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I would suggest you post about these Ukrainian copyright questions on the Ukrainian Wikipedia at Кнайпа (політики) or Кнайпа (різне) where Ukrainian users can weigh in with their experience and expertise. Geoffroi21:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The point is that Crimea is Ukraine. @Josve05a says that there should be Russian law. I say that it means that Russian photographers illegally make their works free for COMMERCIAL use, and Wikimedia allows them to upload their works and is violating Ukrainian law. Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's probably not illegal to upload photos of works that are under a non-commercial FOP under a free license; it's misleading, but I think the commercial user would be responsible for figuring it out. At no point do I think this legally matters for the Wikimedia Foundation; the primary law that the WMF is subject to is US, which has no FoP, and I believe would treat photos of Ukrainian and Russian works the same.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Crimea is de jure Ukraine. But de facto it is occupied by Russia. @Josve05a claims that Wikimedia Commons has to use Russian law; I claim that Wikimedia Commons has to use Ukrainian law as to panorama in Crimea. You say that Wikimedia Commons uses US law. And @Geoffroi says that Ukrainian Wikipedians use the US fair use law, which is a violation of Ukrainian law! Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
So why don't you have any interest in getting consensus on these issues at the Ukrainian Wikipedia? I think it's disrespectful of you to come here with an issue that effects Wikipedia and Commons users from Ukraine without even asking them how these issues effect them and how they want this dealt with. Geoffroi22:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I have been talking about the Wikimedia Commons policies. I was explained that Wikimedia and Wikipedia are completely different things. So how can the Ukrainian Wikipedia users help with Wikimedia Commons policies?
May I remind you that this is not Wikipedia, and we are not Wikipedians, we are Commons contributors. Wikipedia policies are completely irrelevant here. Look at the address bar in your web browser, tell me what letters come after "https://", tell me if it says "Wikipedia" anywhere. --@Benlisquare[4]Daniel Broomfield Ua (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
(Edit conflict) Whether under Ukrainian or Russian law, copyrighted works in Crimea cannot be hosted on Commons for commercial use. Sculptures under Ukrainian FOP are non-commercial only, and under Russian law not free at all (hence delete regardless). Buildings that are above COM:TOO should be deleted per the precautionary principle according to the quote from COM:FOP Russia quoted by me above ("... images of knowingly unfree Crimean buildings should not be uploaded to Commons..."). I don’t understand what you want, these are the rules Commons follows, so what outcome are you seeking? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
He hates Russia and Russians. That's why he's here. You or another admin should block him so we don't waste more time on a discussion that's obviously going absolutely nowhere. Geoffroi22:41, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Wikimedia Commons and country-specific Wikipedia projects are different projects, abiding by different standards. Files hosted on Commons can be used by any and all Wikiprojects (as well as websites outside of Commons), so they require a much more permissible license to be hosted here. This is different from "fair use", which certain Wikiprojects allow (such as the English and Ukrainian Wikipedias). Commons does not allow fair use.
If you want to argue what the Ukrainian Wikipedia allows or which laws it abides by, you need to make that argument there, not here. Furthermore, while the Village Pump is a good place to ask questions and get answers, it's not the right place to argue against Commons policy, which we all have to abide by regardless of how we feel about it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
October 21
Template TOC by page order number
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments3 people in discussion
In categories with many members (ex. more than 1 000) and almost all files starting with the same leters exemple, is there a TOC template allowing you to move by page number [ ⇱ ꞏ 2nd pag ꞏ 3rd pag ... 7th pag ꞏ ⇲ ] ? Is there another soluction to to get the same result ? .. thanks --JotaCartas (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, this is not possible. URLs for pages in MediaWiki category listings operate by specifying what filename to start at using the filefrom or fileuntil query parameters - there's no way to request a specific numbered page. Omphalographer (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I thought so. Some time ago, I used in a similar solution (exemple), but besides being impractical and very laborious, it was applied in a very stable category that's practically only loaded by me. Thanks. JotaCartas (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not by page number, but maybe one of the following might help?
However what you can do, is change the sort order: for example this edit moved one page "Starr-070616-7307-Epidendrum…" to from S to E. If this is something that would be helpful to Commons, either specifically for this category, or for several I would be happy to help. Please feel free to revert my edit if it's not useful. RichFarmbrough, 10:46 22 October 2025 (GMT).
October 22
Types of contributors
Latest comment: 1 hour ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I once stumbled upon a page that described different types of editors in terms of how they work, such as batch uploaders. Now I can't find that page. Do you know how it's called? Juandev (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
For the last 18 hours or so, when I get notified about talk page message there's a block of solid colour over the message with an information icons and a "reply…" tag.
I have to click this to see the text. The "i" icon takes me to the image page… which I suppose is a type of information about the icon.
This may, of course, have something to do with my settings. Even so it's a change in behaviour, so we should be able to track down the proximate cause. RichFarmbrough, 14:15 22 October 2025 (GMT).
October 24
Files with a strange history
Latest comment: 1 hour ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Typical vandalism. They need to be reverted back to the original version and all other files need to be hidden. The files where the permission is for need to be uploaded under a new name. GPSLeo (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I find it also strange. Users (especially new ones like the case here) should not be allowed to upload files with identical filenames. I have two explanations:
if the uploaders specifically view the existing file, they can then choose to "upload a new version" which would result in overwritten files as we can see here. But I find that explanation dubious, given how there were five different users involved in the "Freedom "file and four different users for the "Ethics" file.
I suspect instead that this pattern was created by deletion and subsequent recreation: If an admin chooses to move or delete a file because of its generic name and non-educational content ("Freedom.png" !), the file gets hidden from view by all other users. Since the file doesn't exist afterwards, another user can upload a file with the exact same name. The edit summaries of the overwrites "User created page with UploadWizard" indicate that to me. Does upload of a new file restore an old deleted file as visible content again, like the case here?
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".
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=1103450157){kind=link}
