History maps of Europe

Hi, I would like to discuss the description in all categories of the scheme "Maps of <country> in the <x>th century" (see for example Italy, Belgium, Spain, Poland). There are three different points about the current system I would like to invite comments on:

• the wording of the definition in the first paragraph of the hatnote
• whether or not to include "you may also be looking for similar maps" (second and third paragraph) of the description
• whether or not to re-include a distinction between history maps (in this category group) vs. old maps (not in this category group)

For the first point, there are two proposals, the first is the current "Maps showing all or most of the territory (geographic area) of modern-day <country> - as the lands were in the 8th century (701-800 CE)" which I would prefer to replace with a simple "This category is about maps of the history of <country> in the 8th century (701-800 CE)", given that "modern-day territories" are not always the same as they were in the respective century. Another critism of mine is that "all or most" excludes history maps that only cover smaller parts of the country in question.

For the second point, my argument is that these paragraphs are not necessary, since the links to the Atlas project should be included in the respective parent category (i.e. "Maps of the history of <country>"), which is also linked via template.

For the third point, I find it essential to point out that Commons has always distinguished "current", "history" and "old" maps, formulated in Template:TFOMC: "history" maps include this map of Poland in the 16th century (created recently, depicting the past) but "old" maps include this 16th-century map of Poland (created to depict the present, back then). There are certain grey areas where these categories DO overlap, especially "old history maps", but in quite many cases they don't. The respective category names are quite similar and can be confused, so I would suggest to mention this right in the category description.

I've put my own opinion in italics to explain why I think this requires debate, but I would like for people to check out the scheme examples for themselves, and judge on their own. Peace, --Enyavar (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I'm trying to understand the first point. A couple of questions that may help me understand:

• Would there be no such thing as "maps of Germany" for any date before 1866? Or would we take "Germany" before that date to mean the German-speaking world (and, if so, would that include areas where the rulers spoke German, but most of their subject did not)? or what? (Similarly for Italy.)
• Similarly: would there be no such thing as maps of Poland or Lithuania between 1795 and 1918? If so, what would we call maps of that area in that period?

I could easily provide a dozen similar examples, but answers to those two will at least give me a clue where this proposes to head. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that question, our categories about "history of" do not really care for nation states existing. Germany's history begins quite some time before it became a nation in the 19th century, and Polish history did not stop during the times of division: Poland in the 19th century is unquestionably a valid category. Our history categories generally imply that people know the limits of a subject without exact definitions.

Your question is getting to the reason why I am uncomfortable with the current hatnote/definition of these categories. I have not checked for all countries in Europe, but I'm quite confident: We do not define the subject of "Maps of the history of Poland" with a hatnote. We do not define "Poland in the 16th century" either. So why would we define the combination subcategory of the two so narrowly and rigidly, that only 6 out of 26 files currently in the category even match that (unreasonable) definition? (And of course, Poland/16th is just a stand-in here, I would argue the same for Spain/12th and Italy/8th and all others)

I would even be okay with no definition at all, besides a template notice (my third point) that "maps of <country> in Xth century" is about history maps, and old maps have to be found in "Xth-century maps of <country>". --Enyavar (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Categories denoted as old, or historic, are not terribly useful. Much better to put dates on them. Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Please read the original post, that is not a comment on the actual questions of this topic. Old maps are not the topic here, this is about history maps (i.e. Maps showing history of specific countries/centuries) regardless of when they were produced.

The term "historic maps" that can denote both, has rightfully fallen (mostly) into disuse. --Enyavar (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

In our Commons:WikiProject Postcards we have the similar problem. Is this a "old postcard of the German Empire" or a "Postcard of Germany". There we are mostly agree, that today people often search for postcards be the locations of today. So many former German towns are now Polnish towns and so we are categorized this postcards under the polnish name of the town. See also Commons:WikiProject_Postcards#Categories. Best regards --sk (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Maps from Our World in Data

A suggestion in regards with the maps from Our World in Data: remove from each map the category <year> maps of the world.

These maps weren't published in the years referenced. In addition, it could make the categories of <year> maps of the world more easy to browse.

Thanks in advance. --Universalis (talk) 19:15, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

As with other files in these categories, that's the year of the data. This categorization has large usefulness to find and update outdated images used on Wikipedia. And the category title does not imply that's the year the map was made. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Prototyperspective. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been meaning to say something about these maps, and this is a good occasion. User:Universalis is right that these maps were not created in that year, and it IS practice on Commons to understand "<year/decade/century> maps" being the maps created in that timeframe, not the maps showing that timeframe - the latter would be better placed under "maps showing <year/decade/century>".

User:Doc James, who is creating the majority of recent OWiD maps that concern what might be called history, is producing them by the thousand each day, at least as far as I can observe. For 2026-02-24 I just checked and saw 5000 edits, most if not all of them creating and categorizing OWiD statistics/maps usually looking like this (1947), this (1664) and this (1800). That is an enormous output and just for example 1764 maps of North America is currently dominantly OWiD maps and I suspect that this is true for basically all year-maps-of-world/continent right now. Case in point: the categories for 1444 maps of Africa, 1445 maps of Europe or 1446 maps of Asia don't even exist right now, but they are already filled with OWiD maps.

With at least 300'000 OWiD maps already existing and no end in sight, I would really like to delegate all of these maps into specific OWiD-categories for each continent and year. My suggestion for File:Annual co2 cement, North America, 1764.svg would be Our World in Data maps showing North America in 1764 or Our World in Data maps of North America in 1764. These year-categories would themselves be categorized under Our World in Data maps showing 1764 and Our World in Data maps of North America in the 18th century.

The titles I suggest above are up for debate. Is it more practical to use "Our World in Data maps" or can it be shortened to "OWiD maps" ? Also, should it be "showing" (as per our category branch "maps showing <year>") or should it just be "of" ? --Enyavar (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure we can adjust the categories however folks wish. We have additionally build a tool to help with more fined toned mass categorization. See Help:Gadget-CategoryBatchManager.

With respect to numbers, yes have uploaded about 600K so far and it looks like I am maybe a third done, so maybe 1.2 million more to go. Will likely not finish until this fall. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

and it IS practice on Commons to understand "<year/decade/century> maps" being the maps created in that timeframe, not the maps showing that timeframe this is an inaccurate statement. Look into any of these categories of years of the recent few decades and you'll notice how what you said is false. What you said applies to old maps and there usually the data shown is not known better than year of map made or the same. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

So what do folks want us to do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In 2014, it has been decided that "<year> maps" should essentially be empty disambiguations, and we should use "maps created in <year>" and "maps showing <year>" instead. Practically, this rule has never been enforced, and has lead to many simmering debates ever since. I'm striking my quarrelsome nitpicks from my previous comment, in order to focus on the suggestion at hand: Creating special categories for OWiD maps. Okay? --Enyavar (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

If you'd like to these could be subcategorized in the maps by year cats...I tried to keep them as flat as possible to enable viewing all the relevant files on one page, have easier to understand standardized cat names, and not start deep nesting that can cause queries and scans to break. Many hundreds of files would be moved. If there is agreement and no objections, should they be named Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:OWID maps of the world showing 2014 data or Category:Maps of the world showing 2017 (OWID) or Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 2014 or Category:2014 Our World in Data maps of the world or Category:2014 maps of the world (OWID) or sth else? (It's mostly maps of the world that I'd move.) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Doc James has stated above that we are going to have about ~1'800'000 maps once the current run of creating these files is finished. And I don't even think that will be the end of it. So I agree, we need to have a good standardized cat structure, and I am willing to hear if Doc James also has input on good names, or input on which names are less good. With that lead:

As far as I can see, we do have the following seven regions over which these maps are distributed: "the world", "Africa", "Asia", "Europe", "North America", "Oceania", "South America". These are the seven most common frames I noticed so far, please correct me if there are more. "World" is probably going to be a bit larger, but I don't think we should neglect the other regions, which are all going to be equally densely filled.

Now, thinking about the best name structure. I would prefer to pre-fix the data source, similarly to how we do it with other major map providers like "OpenStreetMap maps of...", "USGS maps of...", "ShakeMaps of earthquakes in...": The most important qualifier gets frontloaded. For easy manual input, I would prefer the name "OWiD maps of...". However, the categories are unlikely to get assigned manually, and it is much easier to understand what the acronym means when it is written out. So right now, I would tend to go with the general Our World in Data maps of... as the prefix, then followed with the seven (?) regions identified above.

Afterwards comes the suffix. Prototypeperspektive suggested ... showing <year> data, my own ideas leaned towards ... in <year> or ... showing <year>. These suggestions all look equally good to me. Prototype's suffix has the advantage of pointing out that these maps are data-driven and not cartography-driven. So I think that would be best.

Following that idea, we could go with Our World in Data maps of <region> showing <year> data. Taking an existing map like File:States involved in state based conflicts, Oceania, 1947.svg, one would assign Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data instead of the current three categories Our World in Data maps of Oceania, Maps showing 1947 and 1947 maps of Oceania. That new category would itself be categorized directly under the existing three categories it replaces.

If the above suggestion seems agreeable... how difficult is it for Doc James to change the automated exports and the templates that are currently in use? And would you be able to do an automated re-categorization of all the already existing files? Would you need help? --Enyavar (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yah I think doing this in an automated fashion should be fairly easy. This would be subcategories of what main category? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

[[:category:Our World in Data maps of <region> showing <year> data]] would be subcategory of [[:category:Our World in Data maps of <region>]], [[:category:Maps showing <year>]] and [[:category:<year> maps of <region>]]. At a later point, I would like to reshape the last of the three parent categories to bring the OWiD maps under the 20th-century/1940s branches of <region>. With the example above, there is currently no sufficient subdivision of Maps of the history of Oceania, but the idea is creating Maps of Oceania in the 20th century and Maps of Oceania in the 1940s, and that would again be a subcategory of Oceania in the 1940s... But I think that work would not affect the OWiD-maps and their templates itself. --Enyavar (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Plan was to categorize once the initial uploads are completed, which will not be until this fall. And work on the 1.8 million or so files at that point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You are currently categorizing them upon upload by two mechanisms, one is the template:Map showing old data, the other is assigning regular categories. Right now, neither of these mechanisms is a bespoke template designed for OWiD content.

I can imagine a template that works like {{OWiD maps showing|Africa|1758}} that would create the categories we contemplated above, including links to skip forward/backward and also links to skip to the other continents/world extent. If we used such a template to create the category framework discussed above, couldn't you adapt your exporting automatism once that exists? I can only image it would take less work later.

Before I attempt working on such a template myself, I'm asking a few users who I suspect have more routine in templating, @Clusternote, AnRo0002, and Reinhard Müller: My question is how you would go about it: templates for the file descriptions; templates for creating these categories; or both? Are there pitfalls I am not aware of? We are talking here about ca. 2 million standardized files ranging from very few around the year 1021 to an abundance of such files for 2021, with hundreds of files per year per continent in 1834 already. The maps are optimized to be used in slider-frames elsewhere; for Commons I'm more concerned with handling the categorization. Thanks in advance! --Enyavar (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is my suggestion: Maps of Oceania in the 1940s anro (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I can happily come up with a suggestion for a template based on the Navigation by system. But first let me make sure I understand correctly:

1. The template would be used for categories like Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data, right?
2. Would we also have Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1940s data (decade) and Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 19th-century data (century) as parent and grandparent of the year category?

Thanks --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Reinhard, regarding #1 yes that is idea.

{{OWiD maps showing|Africa|175|8}} --> Our World in Data maps of Africa showing 1748 data

{{OWiD maps showing|Oceania|194|7}} --> Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data

As for #2 I would have suggested "... showing the 1940s" and "...showing the 20th-century" as parent categories. But you're right, I talked above about "<year> data" so "<decade>s data" and "...<century> data" would be the logical consequence. Now I'm less sure about the format. I am not married to the idea of requiring the "data" suffix, but as long as the template could be made, I see no real problem. @Prototyperspective: , what do you think about "Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 20th century data being the respective category on the century level? Enyavar (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I have now created:

Templates

• {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and century}}
• {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and decade}}
• {{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and year}}

Example use

• Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 20th-century data
• Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1940s data
• Category:Our World in Data maps of Oceania showing 1947 data
• Category:Our World in Data maps of the world showing 1947 data

The usage of the templates is super easy, no need for any parameters specifying the continent or the year, they take everything they need to know from the name of the category they are used in.

The names of the continents are automatically translated using Wikidata labels. The first part of the title and the text above and below the navigation blocks are just examples. These can be used as an explanation for the category which is centrally maintained and must only be changed once if something should be changed, and if the texts are final, we can also make them translatable.

Please let me know what you think. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

P.S. Looking at the currently existing category tree about maps, I really think that the OWiD categories shouldn't be in Category:1947 maps of Oceania or Category:1940s maps of Oceania. For centuries, we already have Category:Maps of Oceania in the 20th century, and I think it might be a good opportunity to introduce these categories also on a decade and year level. If you want, I can also create the templates for "Maps by continent and century/decade/year shown". And/or whatever you consider useful for building the correct parent structure for the OWiD categories. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Reinhard Müller: Thanks a lot! This is even easier to apply than I thought. I populated three continents for the 1940s (Africa, Asia, Oceania) and also the world.

The decade-template for the world in the 1940s did not work (lua template cannot find "the world"), I hope this can be fixed. Aside from that it looks pretty great. Sorry, two more nitpicks, some links only appear once some other part of the structure has been fully built up. The year-ribbon only shows up once the decade-category is in place; and it seems as if the decade template only shows up once the century-category is in place? Also, I think that the subcategories could be sorted with a space (" ") instead of the "@".

I agree with your proposal that instead of "1947 maps of Oceania" we should have "Maps of Oceania in 1947" which would be the "maps showing"-version. "Maps of Oceania in 1947" would be a subcategory of "Maps showing 1947", "Oceania in 1947", "Maps of Oceania in the 1940s" respectively. This category would then hold the OWiD maps and all maps that show Oceania in 1947 through the historian's lens, similar to how we already have Maps of Poland in the 16th century (see also one thread above...) and Maps of the world in the 1940s.

@Universalis, Prototyperspective, Jmabel, and Doc James: when you check the bolded links... does this new structure look okay? --Enyavar (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Very nice. Are you using a bot to apply this? Or have you tried Help:Gadget-CategoryBatchManager? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

• I fixed "the world" (ooh, it feels good to write this ;-))
• It is generally true that the template works best when the categories are created top down (i.e. first the centuries, then the decades, then the years). Still the navigation ribbons should appear even if the parent category does not exist (yet), I will have to investigate why they don't. But for the addition of the correct parent categories for new categories, it is important anyway that the parents pre-exist.

FWIW, this is now also fixed. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• I have (years ago) thought a lot about the question of logical sort keys, currently they are used very inconsistently across commons. I've even made a page summarizing my thoughts which you may or may not agree with. About this specific case, I think the space is widely used for meta categories (Blah blah by xyz) and should be reserved for that, and that the @ has the advantage of being sorted after all the other special characters, so if for example the category key "*" is before the alphanumeric subcategories, it is also before the numeric subcategories if the numeric are sorted as @. In the end I don't think in our case it makes much of a difference as long as all the subcategories use the same key so they are sorted correctly - which is taken care of by the template.
• About the "Maps of Oceania in 1947", would you want to also create them right now? Should I create a {{Category description/Maps by continent and year}} (and decade and century), and adapt the OWiD templates to the new parents?
• I don't use a bot, and I think that the CategoryBatchManager can add parent categories, but not a template. But since you don't have to change a single letter when copying the template from one category to a similar one, it can be done very fast. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

About the "Maps of Oceania in 1947" - yes, you could create a template for that, as well. We already have parts of that, but right now they were created in a manual fashion: North America/1770s and Asia/18th and Europe/11th. I'm not yet fully eager and ready to apply this structure as long as the other treat about #History maps of Europe is still unresolved. But having the templates prepared now might help later. Once those maps-per-continent-shown-by-year exist, the OWiD template would be switched from "1940s maps of Asia"+"Maps showing the 1940s" --> "Maps of Asia in the 1940s" and so on. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I have created:

• {{Category description/Maps by continent and century shown}}
• {{Category description/Maps by continent and decade shown}}
• {{Category description/Maps by continent and year shown}}

I have not (yet) changed the parent categories for the OWiD categories. Please just let me know when I should do that.

Also please don't forget that the texts above and below the navigation ribbons are just placeholders (in the OWiD templates and the new templates), and they should be finalized before the templates are widely used. --Reinhard Müller (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Looks great; thanks very much. I just don't know how complete these cats currently are and will be. They could be made complete via deepcategory category intersections and moving files with cat-a-lot. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

But first, we need to categorize the OWiD maps. I populated the 1940s structure with a few hours of Cat-a-lot, but there is a catch: all these maps currently have the template {{Map showing old data|year=1942}}. For the 1940s alone, removing that template means manually editing 17'500 files. We must use a bot to do these edits, I think. The algorithm, for all ~75'000 maps of Asia would be roughly as follows:

• for all files in [[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia]]
  • if "{{Map showing old data|year=YYYY}}" occurs in the file:
    • take the YYYY as a variable to insert "[[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia showing YYYY data]]" //** a single category for the location and year of the map **//
      • if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "{{Category description/Our World in Data maps by continent and year}}" //** (as helpfully provided by Reinhard)**//
    • take the file name as the variable topicname and strip File: and , Asia, YYYY.svg (or ,Asia,YYYY.svg) from that variable
    • insert "[[Category:Our World in Data maps showing ||topicname]]" //** for example Category:Our World in Data maps showing Absolute change co2, neatly collecting ~1800 files like this one or ~200 files like this one: a single category for the topic of the map, to have them all easily assembled **//
      • if that inserted category does not yet exist: create it with "[[Category:Our World in Data maps by topic]]" //** in many cases, better names might be found, but that cleanup can be handled afterwards manually where needed **//
    • remove all occurences of "{{Map showing old data|year=YYYY}}", ""[[Category:YYYY maps of Asia]]" and "[[Category:Our World in Data maps of Asia]]"
  • (else leave the file alone)
• repeat the same with "Africa", "Europe", ["North America" or "NorthAmerica" would need to be mapped onto "North America"], "Oceania", and so on.

I do not know how exactly to program a bot, but I think this would do the trick, not only to create and populate the categories for continent-by-year, but also to have distinct categories for each topic. Right now, I don't think the latter exist yet. --Enyavar (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For the 1940s alone, removing that template means manually editing 17'500 files: I haven't been following all of this, but why manually? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

True, the bot run would also touch those files. I just wanted to emphasize that so many files cannot be realistically processed manually, and then formulated how I think this could be automated. I struck the word in my earlier response. --Enyavar (talk) 22:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I added the above request to Commons:Bots. --Enyavar (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Office action: Removal of file

Hello all,

Today, the Wikimedia Foundation removed the file File:An illegal Cuban migrant beheads a motel owner in Dallas, Texas (10 September 2025).webm from Wikimedia Commons in response to a legal order from the Australian government. Our attorneys determined that the order applied to the Foundation under our policy for determining applicable law.

This video consisted of security camera footage of a graphic murder, reuploaded from a shock site. It was not in educational use on the Wikimedia projects. The video title suggested that its creator (on the origin site) may have originally attempted to link the violence to illegal immigration, but there was no evidence of it actually being used as political speech.

Our preferred approach is to first give community members an opportunity to evaluate content under your own policies, e.g. COM:EDUSE, but circumstances didn’t permit that in this specific and thankfully very rare case. In the future, we will endeavour to ensure the regulator understands and can accommodate that kind of community governance.

Please note that, as an Office action, we ask that you not reinstate the file and instead address questions to the Legal team via email, at legalwikimedia.org. Thank you. On behalf of the Legal team, -- Wikimedia Foundation office (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: Thank you. The public upload log for that file seems to have gone missing. It would be useful to know what else the uploader uploaded.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:30, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Will the letter/email the WMF received be added (even if it has to have redactions? Bidgee (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G., it appears the file page was archived over at Internet Archive, so you can check who was the uploader using the archived page. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy: Thanks, per this link the uploader was Illegitimate Barrister, who got the video from watchpeopledie.tv. Perhaps that domain is one worth blacklisting.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think any policy allows us to blacklist domains in the absence of any copyright issues Trade (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

While removing the footage in this case seems like the obvious choice, given its lack of use in articles and very questionable educational value, it does raise questions about the place of other footage on Commons that graphically depicts recent murders whose value isn't necessarily so clear-cut. A pertinent example is File:Hamas members attacking civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023).webm, showing a man (with his face blurred) killed by being shot in the head at close range and subsequently profusely bleeding after falling to the ground. This file was kept after a deletion discussion due to the widespread view that the footage was public domain due to being CCTV Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamas members attacking civilians in Kibbutz Mefalsim, Israel (October 2023).webm, and is now used in over 20 Wikipedia articles in over a dozen language versions. If the Australian government had requested that this file had been deleted instead, would the WMF reaction have been different? Should footage like this be hosted on Commons to begin with? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm personally curious why the Australian government thinks they have jurisdiction over a CCTV video taken from the US. For transparency reasons, I would also love to see documentation of their reasons for the takedown. Abzeronow (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's because the material on Wikimedia is published/viewed in Australia. The government of a country rules what is published or otherwise happens in that country. Commons often deals with matters of copyright, which is special because treaties establish a fiction that, in matters of copyright, material on the internet is deemed published in the country of the server, which is why Wikimedia often ignores copyright other than the U.S. (It's more complex. Also, courts have found ways to circumvent that by using tort laws.) But in matters other than copyright, there is no such fiction and the normal principle remains. It is then a matter of the ways by which the country enforces its laws. If nothing else works, it can require the service providers to block access. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If this is a particular case in that the Australian government ordered the takedown just because it could be viewed in the country, then the file should be restored as Wikimedia should not be bowing to censorship requests from any government. If it is a case that an Australian national or an Australian affiliate would face legal troubles if not removed, then obviously that is a defensible takedown. It would still be reprehensible behavior from Australia's government but then I wouldn't think in that case that restoration would be right. So we should have more details about the reasons for the takedown so this doesn't seem like WMF meekly acquiescing to a tyranny, which would have a chilling effect on the speech of Wikimedia. Abzeronow (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's certain that the Australian body required the removal of the video because it could be viewed in Australia. See section 109(1)(c) of the Act: "(c) the material can be accessed by end-users in Australia". The other conditions of section 109(1) also apply. "(a) material is, or has been, provided on [...] a designated internet service" (""service" includes a website" per the definition in section 5 of the Act). And ""(b) the Commissioner is satisfied that the material is or was class 1 material". The Commissioner was likely satisfied since at least a one-minute video of the matter was banned by the Australian Classification Board on 29 September 2025 in the case number "esafety INV-2025-05602". In a FOIA release (see at the bottom of this pdf), the specific reasons are redacted. The unredacted part of the decision merely quotes the criteria from the classification scheme. In short, the relevant part is likely that it depicts "cruelty, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in such a way that they offend against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". The Wikimedia version of the video was 5 minutes. With that, the Commissioner likely gave Wikimedia a "removal notice" per section 109 of the Act. So, at least, we can guess reasonably that that was the context. From there, the WMF, applying its policy, apparently evaluated that there were risks. As you say, absolutely, the WMF should give more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asclepias (talk • contribs) 10:45, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Asclepias, so if the UAE complains about Category:Alcohol advertisements everything in that category will be oversighted? I agree with Abzeronow. If any country takes issue with content on Wikimedia that is legal in the US and which the community refuses to remove, that country will have to filter their own internet (and several do). - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

So if Iran demanded Commons to take down highly illegal "Zionist Imperialist propaganda" would Commons obey that as well? Trade (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

A request from the w:Australian government! So errr it came from w:Anthony Albanese personally? Since you're not mentioning any particular department or subdivision..
WMFOffice, so why exactly was the file deleted? Was it a copyright violation? Seems unlikely, you have no reason to take that down without a DMCA takedown request, which the Australian government probably didn't file. Did it fail COM:EDUCATIONAL? Who knows, but if WMFOffice were to start vetoing community decisions we'd have a serious problem. Did the file violate some US COM:PERSONALITY right? If that was the issue, you'd have told us. Did this particular video end up on w:en:List of films banned in Australia which states the sale, distribution, public exhibition and/or importation of RC material is a criminal offense punishable by a fine up to A$687,500 and/or up to 10 years imprisonment. Such penalties do not apply to individuals, but rather individuals responsible for and/or corporations distributing or exhibiting such films to a wider audience? In 2025 they banned "Videos featuring deaths of Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska and Chandra Nagamallaiah". So I guess File:Charlie Kirk Assassination View.webm (NSFW) was maybe illegal in Australia (they banned two particular clips, I don't know which ones, and the ban for the clips of Kirk was later lifted)
Barrister is the UK/NZ/Ireland/Australia term for lawyer. But the user page of the uploader doesn't seem to declare their country of residence. If this is the reason, how did the AU government work out that Illegitimate Barrister fell under their jurisdiction? Is this why Legal is so vague, because they can't disseminate personal info? Or is this just coincidence? This would explain why the upload log was scrubbed though. Edit: what was I thinking, linking to their enwiki upload log??
Our attorneys determined that the order applied to the Foundation under our policy for determining applicable law.
That doesn't mean anything, does it?
but circumstances didn’t permit that in this specific and thankfully very rare case.
I know you think you're explaining yourself but you're really not.
we ask that you not reinstate the file and instead address questions to the Legal team via email, at legal@wikimedia.org.
Directing questions to your email (which will simply be answered with "we can't talk about that" - been there, done that) is just a transparency pretense.
If the reason is what I think it is, I'd have preferred a notice from WMFOffice like: "We deleted File:An illegal Cuban migrant beheads a motel owner in Dallas, Texas (10 September 2025).webm in response to a request from authorities to reduce the exposure of the uploader and local Wikimedia chapters to legal consequences. This is an office action, do not reinstate" - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:33, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it was from the eSafety Commissioner (eSafety)? This page highlights what is illegal and restricted but why just this file? There are others here that fail eSafety's illegal and restricted online content classes (1 and 2). The vagueness from the WMF leaves us with more questions than answers.

I'm certainly not saying this file should have been kept, but I just find it odd for a foreign government to get involved with something that didn't happen within that country, nor hosted there. This is a concern as what other content could be treated like this? The files (photographs/videos) from the wars that are currently happening overseas next? Bidgee (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

" but I just find it odd for a foreign government to get involved with something that didn't happen within that country, nor hosted there." Why not? If Commons obeys the order then there is literally any reason for them not to do that Trade (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It likely has to do with something like this, or more generally this. I'm guessing the WMF received something like a removal notice described there and that, according to their policy, the WMF considered that there might be "risks of project blocking [...] and/or monetary risks" in case of non-compliance. The Australian document hints that compliance can be required within 24 hours of the notice, which may be what the WMF alludes to by "circumstances didn’t permit". -- Asclepias (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The thing is, EDUSE is sometimes explained as files in use in any of the Wikimedia sites. Those files are in minority of the total files on commons. Even if we just counted files in categories where none of the files are in use, in order to facilitate choice of a different picture of the same subject, I am predicting a 54% removal rate of all files on commons. This is based on the first 1000 results from this query:

select lt_title, count(cl_from) from linktarget
join categorylinks on cl_target_id = lt_id and cl_type = "file"
left outer join globalimagelinks on gil_to = lt_title
where lt_namespace = 14
and gil_to is null
group by lt_title

Snævar (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just plain retarded. Why would we care about a request from a country where neither the Wikimedia Commons servers are located nor the video was taken? Though graphic, the video has obvious educational purpose on the article w:Killing of Chandra Nagamallaiah. Per w:WP:NOTCENSORED and COM:NOTCENSORED, the file should be restored as soon as possible, Australian Government be damned. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 15:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

@Dabmasterars: Why would we care about a request…: If you rephrase that as "Why would we care about possibly being the subject of legal action in Australia, and how would we weigh that against one file of, at best, marginal educational value?" I think the answer as to why we would care becomes self-evident (even if the decision which way to go does not). Clearly this was a legitimate question, whatever you think of the answer. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

As much as i never want to view these files, it does seem like NSFL files can sometimes serve an educational purpose, more so if they are documenting an atrocity that people deny happened. Bawolff (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Bawolff: Is "NSFL" in that last paragraph a typo for "NSFW", or is it a term I'm not familiar with? - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It stands for "Not safe for life". Sometimes its used as a term for images you don't want to look at because they are disturbing or violent or something else other than sexually explicit vs NSFW which commonly means the image is pornographic. Bawolff (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I will add that to the glossary in Commons:Editor's index to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's objectionable how large that educational value is and whether it outweighs the problems of the file. Specifically, I think such files are much more likely for the value/benefits/plausible-use to outweigh the issues if things in the area #Blurring NSFW images are implemented/improved so that one does not accidentally stumble upon such videos (or even autoplaying gifs) and maybe doesn't see it without first unblurring.

I think it has already been mentioned that the file could be renamed if the title was found to be inaccurate or missing important info or otherwise inappropriate. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

How does only showing the video when explicitly requested protect the personality rights of the people depicted in the video? GPSLeo (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair point but misaddressed to my comment to which this issue/point does not really relate. Instead of addressing this in detail or arguing in one way or another, I'd just like to note that there's all kinds of war photography and -videos that document the horrors of wars as well as war crimes that depict dead people as well as people getting killed on Commons. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

But we only should host these files if they do not violate the rights of anyone. This means that in many cases we can only host a partially blurred version anyways. That we might want to save the original version to make it available in some decades, when they are old enough, has the same challenges as undeletion when copyright expires. GPSLeo (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

The video of Iryna Zarutska was already heavily blurred and Commons deleted it anyways though Trade (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Like the inflammatory title or not but this is very clearly a relevant file depicting a highly publicised and notable event. This could severely harm our ability to host CCTV files of high-profile crimes --Trade (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out the the upload log was not intentionally scrubbed. It's just under an old name prior to a move. see the upload and rename here * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

community should decide that it is educational or not. you should undelete the file. modern primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 20:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Internet has made applicability of national laws a legitimate grey area. See the two examples I listed at meta:Talk:Wikilegal/A changing legal world for free knowledge#Probable EU examples to note for (although both cases concern French court decisions and concern intellectual property matter). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:12, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Which is why it's so vital for WMF to fight for Wikimedia Commons rather than immediately rolling over Trade (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

@Trade and perhaps the talk page of the Metawiki WikiLegal article is a good starting point for discussions concerning the international reach of national/domestic laws if a popular website or platform - with high viewership or readership in a particular country - has been involved.

By the way, some off-topic news: Wikimedia ultimately decided to register in Indonesia, guaranteeing a promise from the Indonesian government that freedom won't be curtailed.

Another off-topic news: our government withdrew the planned restriction on w:en:Roblox, provided that they set up an office here so that our government can "communicate with the companies in terms of banning illegal cyber activities." For a major reason for this formerly-planned restriction, see this Rappler report.

For some additional information, English Wikipedia gets 83 million views here, which is 73.6% of the total (2024 census) population of 112,729,484. For Wikimedia Commons, 3 million views, which is a somehow substantial number, even if it only reflects 2.66% of the total (2024) population. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It's been a week now and Wikimedia Foundation office is still ghosting us...--Trade (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Fr this is just plain out embarrasing. I've seen users get called out for refusing to show up on their AN complaints thread and you can't even be bothered for an entire week @WMFOffice: --Trade (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you are even expecting here. There isn't any questions here waiting for WMFOffice's response. Bawolff (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

On the office action, I agree with those above that we could use some additional details about the justification. On the educational value of clips depicting graphic violence, IMO unless the file documents an incident with clearly documented public interest, it does seem like there's a good case for deletion on COM:PEOPLE grounds if not COM:SCOPE. Like [CONTENT WARNING] a non-notable police shooting. Others are more complicated, like someone apparently being accidentally killed by a brick, which happens off-camera, but with disturbing audio and the names of those involved in the description. That one is probably an EDUSE problem first and COM:PEOPLE second. As an aside, I found these by searching for the website name and not user uploads, but the same user uploaded all of them. Possibly this could be solved with a request not to import any further files of non-notable incidents from sites like watchpeopledie? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  02:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the fact that Commons is now governed by Australian law is a much bigger deal than a couple of probably out of scope videos. Considering this isn't a DR, this feel rather off topic--Trade (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi all - I was one of the several lawyers and Trust & Safety staff that worked on this notice from the Australian eSafety Commissioner.

Some of you have justifiably asked whether the outcome would have been the same if the files or the jurisdiction had differed. The answer is: no, it often wouldn’t be (and you can see that for yourselves in the Transparency Reports). We look at each case individually, balancing merits and risks.

Commons is an educational project; we’re an educational charity. That means having to think carefully about how any action we take (or inaction) would affect the viability of the Projects, and their value to society. We consistently deploy vast resources (at least vast for us; our whole team is dwarfed by others) to defending takedowns (again as the Transparency Report will attest, as does some of our blogging, e.g. here and here), but we also have to think clearly about the actual merit of defending each one: Are we likely to lose, and what would be the short term and long term consequences of that, for everyone? And is it worth that, from a human rights perspective?

That analysis is especially important in the current legal environment we spoke about, here and earlier, here, which has become quite different from the one we all grew up in.

And as we said originally: the community should be the main assessor of educational value. We’re sorry that in this case you didn’t get a chance to specifically consider it. Instead, we had to look at indirect factors, like the video’s lack of current, meaningful educational use. This sometimes happens, but we strive to keep it to a minimum. We're looking at options to ensure more time for a community review. There may be cases where some of you think something does have some educational value, but our legal assessment of the broader situation still weighs in favour of an Office Action. But those cases should be extremely rare, so long as EDUSE is being diligently defined and applied by the community. That’s because community standards are often stricter than legal standards. PBradley-WMF (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Won't this just encourage the Australian eSafety Commissioner to take down even more files from Commons? Trade (talk) 11:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional context. However, I want to stress that actions like this risk creating a chilling effect on the Commons community. When content is removed via Office action without sufficient transparency, it becomes difficult for contributors to understand where the boundaries lie in practice. That uncertainty can discourage uploads and discussions around borderline but potentially educational material, especially in areas such as documentation of violence, war crimes, or other sensitive but historically relevant events. In that regard, I would strongly encourage the Foundation to publish the underlying takedown request, in redacted form if necessary, similar to how DMCA notices are routinely disclosed. Greater transparency would allow the community to better assess both the legal reasoning and the broader implications for Commons' scope and governance. I would also appreciate clarification on a forward-looking scenario: if the community were to determine, now or in the future, that this specific file (or similar material) does in fact meet the educational use threshold, would that assessment carry any weight against such legal requests? Or would the existence of an applicable removal order effectively override community consensus regardless of educational value? Relatedly, it would be helpful to understand how such cases should be treated in downstream contexts, for example if the removal itself becomes notable as part of broader discussions around Foundation governance, legal compliance, or government pressure. In such a case, could the material be reconsidered for inclusion under a clearly contextualized, encyclopedic purpose? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:09, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Jonatan Svensson Glad - we're raising the transparency point (amongst others) with the eSafety Commissioner, and we'll revert back once we've made a decision on this. To your (and other commentators') points: 1. We'll refrain from committing here and now to action/inaction on hypotheticals, because the analysis factors we mentioned above can vary substantially between cases, and over time. 2. We don't want to discourage discussions, nor valuable uploads - quite the contrary. To your question "would [the community's educational use] assessment carry any weight against such legal requests", that was already answered in earlier posts: the community's carefully-balanced views about educational value vs possible harms (including to vulnerable users) are very relevant, but they will also not be the sole consideration when there's a legal dimension. 3. To the last question you raised: we're aware of the argument, and we have tried it at least once, recently; but that was an extraordinary case, and so far, it's unclear how successful it will be. Note that courts might not always be very receptive about such arguments (more common in journalism privacy lawsuits), out of concern about encouraging artificial attempts to exploit the Streisand effect. So we're sympathetic to the argument, but at the same time, it's not always the case that things can go from "illegal" to "legal" just because people talked - even very loudly - about them. PBradley-WMF (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

You mentioned you are raising the transparency issue with the eSafety Commissioner. Could you share (even approximately) when you expect a response, and whether WMF has also considered or initiated an internal merits review or appeal under section 220 of the Online Safety Act? --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we certainly considered the provision, and others besides. We have not initiated those processes.

With apologies, I'm not able to offer a reliable time estimate for a public authority's response to extra-statutory queries. PBradley-WMF (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Looking forward to the transparency report. Abzeronow (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Bumping to prevent this from being archived. Abzeronow (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

good modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 15:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I would strongly encourage the Foundation to publish the underlying takedown request, in redacted form if necessary, similar to how DMCA notices are routinely disclosed.

1. that should certainly be published in full. why is the government issuing an order that curbs public interest and that order can remain secret?
2. by this time, has there been a petition or some collective civil action in australia started about this? who does the esafety person answer to? who appoints them?

RoyZuo (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

They may want to redact some private information that would have no impact on the argument of the takedown request if there is some. Abzeronow (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

(small bump). Abzeronow (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully, the report will be soon. Abzeronow (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I am confused as the others. You say it was an external take down request, but your arguments are that the file was deleted as the community was not able to enforce the terms of use. Of course external requests can inform you about files they should be deleted as terms of use violations anyways. Was this file deleted as a terms of use violation or because of an external take down request? If it is the second one why is the conversation not published as usual? GPSLeo (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Re: "your arguments are that the file was deleted as the community was not able to enforce the terms of use": We're sorry if that was the impression given by our post - that wasn't what we aimed to get across. We're informing the community that we removed a file before the community had an opportunity to consider its own policies first, and that this is something we regret, because it's a very valuable function. If something we said in particular gave you the opposite impression, let us know and we can perhaps clarify it. PBradley-WMF (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This no answer to my question: Is the deletion based on our terms of use or based on an external demand? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Question: If Australian eSafety Commissioner demands File:Charlie Kirk Assassination View.webm taken down would you comply with that as well? Trade (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@PBradley-WMF: I also agree with Jonatan that there needs to be a publication of the Takedown request. Allowing a government ministry to take down a file without any discussion from the community is a free speech violation and will have a chilling effect on our contributors especially those who live in countries with repressive governments. If you won't release the takedown request (in redacted form is fine if privacy is a concern), then I will ask what my venues of appeal to overturn this decision are. (So far I have refrained from taking this to social media) Abzeronow (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

How does deleting one file have a chilling effect? This is just an absurd claim. Nosferattus (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Because if we delete one file based on what a government official says is not educational, we open up a whole bunch of contentious files to be taken down by any government. The Pentagon Papers, maps that don't comply with Indian law, the Charlie Kirk video mentioned above, any file that depicts Muhammad. Censorship never ends with one file. As Sir Patrick Stewart said as Captain Jean-Luc Picard in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation: "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Abzeronow (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is frankly an embarrassingly naive post. This is a random gruesome crime against an identifiable person who is not notable, whose relatives are still alive, not the Pentagon Papers for christ's sake. Commons:Dignity is policy as well, and there is a good case for deleting the file on that basis even without a takedown order. There are files that it would be worth the legal hill to die on to defend keeping on the site, but this file just isn't it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

While I don’t disagree with you that that file had no place here (as a TOS or community view), it is just concerning that a foreign government that had no jurisdiction of the video had issued a takedown notice. Bidgee (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

This is simply the legal reality that the WMF lives in now, for better or worse, and requests like this are going to become more and more common. It has to pick its fights carefully, and if it is going to make a legal stand against an order like this, it needs to be about a file where there is far more merit in keeping it. Ultimately, Commons users can cry "censorship!", but they don't have any skin in the game or liability for hosting the file. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is, the WMF doesn’t have servers in Australia, so no legal issues for hosting such content. eSaftey Commissioner should have issued a notice to RSPs (Retail Service Providers/Internet Service Providers) to block access to the URL (it has done before).

The action taken now has set a precedent that a foreign government can demand a take down of content that it deems to be violating its laws, even if said content has nothing to do with the said country’s jurisdiction.

I don’t dispute that the file in question doesn’t belong here on other grounds but this was outside of Australia’s jurisdiction. Bidgee (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

i think many govts' arguments are that as long as a website can be accessed in that country they have jurisdiction over it.

china was probably one of the first to claim "internet sovereignty".

project gutenberg got sued in germany.

uk ofcom fined 4chan.

here australia took down wikimedia commons files. RoyZuo (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Did 4chan pay the fine? Exactly. Then why should we care? Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 16:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Because the hosting of the file on Commons has to be weighed up against 1. Having the WMF engage in a legal fight against the Australian government, which would be lengthy and expensive. 2. Commons and possibly Wikipedia likely being blocked in Australia (blocking Commons on its own would likely disable images for Australian Wikipedia users) 3. Bad PR when newspapers report on the legal dispute and Commons hosting the file, which could cause cascading legal pressure against the WMF from other countries for other Commons files. All of this for a file that really shouldn't be on Commons anyway. It's easy to complain about stuff when you don't have to deal with the consequences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Unlikely, WMF has no presence in Australia and the Australian chapter is completely independent from the foundation.

x/Twitter left Australia and the case eSaftey had was dropped.

eSaftey would be doing itself bad PR if it requested that the whole of the WM projects to be blocked. It can just request the URL to the video be blocked.

https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-vs-australia-global-content-take-down-orders-can-harm-the-internet-if-adopted-widely-228494

https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-us-congress-want-with-australias-esafety-commissioner-270273

https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-is-mad-hes-been-ordered-to-remove-sydney-church-stabbing-videos-from-x-hed-be-more-furious-if-he-saw-our-other-laws-228380 Bidgee (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia nor Commons are not major outlets of government communication, unlike Twitter/X, for better or worse, which means that the WMF has far less leverage over the Australian government and less way to strongarm out of a block. Your claim that It can just request the URL to the video be blocked. is completely wrong. Individual pages cannot be blocked on a site using HTTPS like Commons does , meaning that the entire site has to be blocked to enforce a block request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

COM:DIGNITY is, in my opinion, stupid and should've been overturned a long time ago, but that's a topic for another day. Dabmasterars [EN/RU] (talk/uploads) 14:35, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

While I agree that this probably wouldn't have survived a DR under COM:DIGNITY, the community making that decision is far less coercive than the Australian government doing it (and are likely emboldened to do in the future.) This will not be the last time a government will be able to take down a file if this decision stands, and the next case might be a file that the community would decide to keep. WMF cannot offer any excuses now to prevent government censorship if this stands. Abzeronow (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Introducing WISE: Semantic search for Commons (we’d love your feedback)

Hello everyone,

We would love to get your feedback on a tool we have been working on: https://wise.wmcloud.org/

This is a search tool for images and videos on wikimedia. Currently is searching only on media of the day (approximately 5000 videos). It searches only the visual content of the file (not on metadata, filename, or structured data). It also does face detection and recognition.

Please give it a go. Here's some taste example queries:

• for visual queries (select "Visual" on the dropdown menu next to the search box)
  • "man at a train station"
  • "एक व्यक्ति रेलवे स्टेशन पर" # this is "man at a train station" in Hindi (this tool handles multiple languages, so try on your language)
  • "horse in an airplane" # the first result is correct but it's a ogv file
  • విమానంలో గుర్రం # this is "a horse in aeroplane" in Telugu (again, try it on your own language)
  • man with a flower
  • pirate with a pistol

• for face search (select "Faces" on the dropdown menu next to the search box. Then click on the "Image" green button, and past the URL for an image)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Charlie_Chaplin.jpg (a photo with charlie chaplin face)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Neil_Armstrong_pose.jpg (a photo with neil armstrong face)

[warning: some videos are ogv videos and your brownser may not play them, so watch them on Commons, i.e., after clicking the search result, scroll down to the media metadata table, and follow the link to commons]

Key features include:

• Semantic search using natural language to find relevant images on Commons from the visual content only (not the structured data or description, only the image itself)
• Face search: upload or paste a face image, and the tool will try to identify and locate that person across images and videos, including timestamps where they appear
• Audio search: search within audio files to find relevant segments
• Multilingual search: supports queries in multiple languages

We are actively improving the tool and would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or ideas from the community. Here's some more immediate future plans:

• Search on all wikimedia images (instead of only videos / media of the day)
• Show similar images when uploading an image to suggest filenames, categories, and other relevant metadata

More technical details and a place to share feedback at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wise

Gopavasanth (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gopavasanth: aren't there privacy issues around doing a face search? I would think that if applied to (for example) crowd photos at political demonstrations, the results could be pretty terrifying. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 Agree with Jmabel --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Face search without identifying person, there is person in photo, there are some persons in photo, there is lot of persons in the photo or generic there is males/females/childrens/adults/eldery people in the photo could be more useful and most likely more robust than trying to identify a specific person. --Zache (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Jmabel. I would strongly oppose any tool that integrated facial recognition into search capacity. 19h00s (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if you are concerned about political repression, the police almost certainly have much better tools then this running on publicly available images on the internet. Bawolff (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

We can not prevent this and anyone should be aware of this when publishing photos. But we should not host such a tool, that also clearly would violate EU regulation, on the Wikimedia infrastructure. GPSLeo (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is cool and all, but I'm not sure its very useful unless it covers all the images (or at least a much larger subset). At the same time, it seems unclear there is a path forward to actually doing that. Bawolff (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Great initiative and a very compelling use of embeddings. I was wondering if you've got any ideas as to how to benchmark the retrieval quality when the corpus grows? Awinkler3 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's exciting to see projects that make it easier to discover the great contents from Wikimedia projects.

I wanted to introduce a recent initiative that may be relevant for projects like Wise that are based on Wikimedia content. The Wikimedia Attribution Framework has recently been launched, and we are looking for early adopters to learn from their experience.

The Wikimedia Attribution Framework sets guidelines on how to provide sustainable attribution when reusing Wikimedia content. It is in an early beta stage, and we want to learn from those trying to apply the guidelines provided. We'll be adding more details to the project page, but feel free to share any thoughts on the talk page.

I hope this could be a useful resource to make the Wise project even better.

Thanks! --Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Note also that the Attribution API is also available to facilitate the application of the guidelines provided in the Attribution Framework. For the case of WISE, it can be particularly useful to show license info for images.

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for developing this! I wonder if categories set on items could be used as clues as to the content of the files to improve performance and also whether this tool could be used to basically suggest categories that are missing (eg major content of video but no related set cat found). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect Exif date

1. 1. Template:Incorrect Exif date was created as redirect to Template:Invalid Exif date by User:ŠJů, but User:Sarang made it a template. it's now a bit different https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInvalid+Exif+date&page2=Template%3AIncorrect+Exif+date . no idea why Sarang did that.
   2. i think the difference can be summarised as Template:Incorrect Exif date introduced parameter 1, but there are only 7 usage of it using any parameter https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3AIncorrect_Exif_date+insource%3A%2Ff+date%5Cs*%5C%7C%2F . i also dont understand the meanings of the introduced parameters.
   3. therefore, can it be redirected again?
2. i have some photos that have the correct date but wrong time. technically the current phrasing of Template:Invalid Exif date "Date and/or time...are incorrect" is not applicable to my files. is there another template for right date wrong time? or should this template be modified?
3. also i think there can be better documentation of best practice when exif contains errors. how do we correct the errors, identify them and label them as such? i found this template in a complicated way: typing template:exif in search bar -> Template:According to Exif data -> Category:Time, date and calendar templates, scroll down until i see -> Template:Invalid Exif date.

RoyZuo (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Redirect {{Incorrect Exif date}} per above, functionally I don't see any substantial difference between the 2 templates. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment why does Template:Invalid Exif date say "There are two possible ways to use this template" and then list only one? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see in the documentation, the supposedly second way has been struck and commented out. The text of the second way states, "Give the time difference of Exif as a parameter. The template displays the corrected date (localized by {{ISOdate}}) and renders the words "according to Exif metadata (corrected)" in the language specified in the user's preferences. (not available yet)".

As this method is "not available yet", actually only one method is possible, so I have edited the documentation to remove the confusing text. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. that offers a clue. Sarang might have planned to introduce the "time difference" parameter.

   i think, calculating the difference and then letting the template add that to exif time, is not a practical solution to correct the error.

2. i'm gonna change the wording to "Date, time, or both...are incorrect" so the template also works for right date wrong time.

RoyZuo (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues with FileImporter

See mw:Help talk:Extension:FileImporter#Failure to automatically add on local image page for the information and context. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thank you for the alert. Use on enwiki should be {{Now Commons}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Images and categorization

Should images in Category:San Polo (Venice) need more precise categorization (I can do this) or is enough current categorization? --Green Wave (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

See the subcategories of that category. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If you know of more precise categories for the images (and considering the available subcategories, this is quite likely), please do. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest to check out other comparable communes (like Rome or Milan?) and copy elements of the category structures there, to reach the level of precision you intend.

Some words of caution: Categories are intended to group similar things together, but in doing so, they may create uninteded divisions in other aspects. This file could be placed in a category for the specific church, but would then also need to be put into "Sculptures in San Polo" (or "...in Venice") and maybe "San Polo in the 2020s". If you create new and super-specialized categories, or chose names that deviate from regular category names, you should be able to explain your ideas in a debate. --Enyavar (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion requests and reasonable expectations from nominator

Looking at the recent courtesy DRs i noticed that in almost every case the nominator insists that us hosting the photo is violating their legal rights and privacy yet they never seem to provide any reasoning for that accusation or even what caused them to make the accusation at all.

I know we are just deleting them out of courtesy but i still feel like we should expect something more substantial than "This photo is illegal because i say so!" reasoning that seems to plague these kind of DRs

Where do we draw the line when it comes to expectations from the nominator? Is there just simply not one? Trade (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably en:General Data Protection Regulation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I know "GDPR" have gotten it's share of criticism but the whole "no one is allowed to show me face on the internet" doesn't seem entirely accurate to the actual legislation Trade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's hard to directly "draw a line" there or make any strict rules about it; it always depends case-by-case. I personally think that we can be quite lenient towards granting such requests, especially if the images in question are unused and/or low quality and/or easily replaceable .
A common misconception in "Keep" arguments in such discussions seems to be "we won't delete it, because CC licences are non-revocable"; while that is true, it dosen't mean we can't delete the image - deleting the image won't affect it's licence, we're simply no longer distributing it under the licence. Other people can still continue using the image under the terms of that licence, even if it's no longer hosted here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

But surely we should be allowed to expect a reason at all, no? And what if the claims made by the nominator doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Like the constant insistence that they never gave any permission for us to use their photo when they are the author and we can clearly see that they did indeed uploaded the photo under a free license Trade (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So which expectations would you be willing to agree on? Trade (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples please. Privacy boundaries within public places or events, like a parade or carnival, might be within a grey area. George Ho (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: Going through my contributions for the past year:

• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gio Porta.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a selfie for privacy and as uploader and as oos in Italian. Italy presumed to be country of complaint. I !voted to delete. Ongoing.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johannes Pinna trägt Gummihandschuhe, schutzkittel, Haube und mundschutz draußen.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a photo for privacy reason in German. Germany or Austria presumed to be country of complaint. The uploader had been blocked for reasons including not respecting privacy rights. I !voted to delete. Deleted by DerHexer.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image of yuvadeepthi Smym Mammood.png, the uploader requested deletion for privacy as a part of being renamed away from a spammy username per enwiki. I fixed the subpage after an errant tag, but I didn't !vote before Herbythyme deleted. Malaysia presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa Ullyna Tarigan dan Antoni Albalat di Jakarta.jpg, a TA claiming to be a notable poet's ex-wife asked for deletion of a two-shot including her and the poet for privacy reasons. We have a crop of just the poet, which relies on the two-shot for provenance. I asked about keeping that crop. Indonesia or Catalonia (Spain) presumed to be country of complaint. Ongoing.
• In User talk:Boyprostido, the user never managed to create the subpage, despite tagging their user talk page in an L2 header citing "Personal information, incorrect identity, and privacy concerns". See my discussions with that user on that page, where they basically admitted to sockpuppetry over an extended period of time, revealing usernames that had promoted their music and music empire while explaining their motives. Nigeria presumed to be country of complaint. See en:special:diff/1315969765 for background.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:三上功太.jpg, the pictured uploader requested deletion for personal privacy reasons. I !voted weak delete. The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted for F10, despite half a dozen live edits in mainspace on jawiki. Japan presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg, the uploader subject did not "want it to be publicly visible anymore". I interpreted that to be for privacy and !voted to delete. Deleted by ChemSim. Lesotho presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:YQgNKUvs.jpg, the "model changed her mind", presumably for her privacy. I !voted to delete and IronGargoyle deleted. Nearly a year later, the uploader was indeffed as a VOA. No country presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Каганець (сувенір з Ізраїлю).jpg, the uploader cited only "Автор бажає" (The author wishes) as a reason in Special:Diff/1175675319, got blocked, and got lambasted in User talk:Петро Родим'юк#Your account has been blocked for a litany of offences, including trying to withdraw their irrevocable license. I did not !vote. Yann kept and blocked. Ukraine presumed to be country of complaint, although the object was found in Israel.
• In Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2025/10#Report by Morvran teardrop, the user wished "to remove all information relating to it from Wikipedia for copyright reasons and to allow my projects to evolve" per Google Translate. I explained that they had irrevocably licensed (among other things) and they did not respond. France presumed to be country of complaint.
• I have noted in the past that CC licenses are irrevocable.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheldon Country Park Map.png, I wrote that "the release was irrevocable", but didn't consider permission from the mapmaker. Infrogmation deleted. UK presumed to be country of complaint.
• See also Category:Privacy-related deletion requests and children and note that none of the subpages specified above were in any of those categories.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno which ones were taken at a public setting. Nonetheless, re- reading the OP, this is about self-portraits, right? George Ho (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we do and we should always delete selfies on request. But of course the request needs to come from the uploader. All other requests need to go through a VRT process, as we can not check the identity of the nominator. GPSLeo (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This is meant to be about courtesy nominations in general and what is and isn't acceptable behavior from the nominator Trade (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese. Subjects nominating photos of themselves for deletion are more often than not unaware of Commons policies and relevant laws. What matters more is that the subject does not want the photo up, and we should balance that request against the needs and scope of our projects. Was the subject aware they're being photographed? Is the photo bad or the subject being portrayed in an embarrassing situation (e.g. mid-yawn)? Is the subject notable on Wikipedia or Wikidata? Do we already have other images that can serve the same purpose? Does the photographer/uploader agree with the removal? Could broader consequences come from keeping the photo up (e.g. the photographer getting in trouble with a venue or event)? Those are the kinds of questions I think we should be thinking about with these requests, regardless of the exact justification a nominator gives. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But should they even be required to give any justification in the first place? It's hard for me to take a stance on courtesy DRs when we are essentially barely given any context or anything to work withTrade (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: It is very helpful if they mention something about privacy at the outset, rather than starting with empty "reason=" or "reason=reason". I patrol incomplete deletion requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

[Tha]t is helpful but should providing a reason be a requirement? [A]nd the ones that simply consist of "Remove or "I don't want this here anymore"? Trade (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: reason is required by {{Delete}}. If there is no valid reason, I look for a reason to delete anyway; that's how I find some copyvios (and tag them accordingly). With no imputable reason, I revert as incomplete. I warn as and when necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are telling me if the person who wants the file deleted haven't provided any reason we should add the DR to Category:Incomplete deletion requests? Trade (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: If they don't provide a reason parameter (or provide an empty one) in the delete tag, the tagged page will be automatically categorized there; the subpage will not.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese" There is a very high chance that these claims ends up running afoul of COM:NLT though Trade (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Legal threats usually include some kind of justification, or indicate what law is being allegedly broken.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This one occurred at a somewhat restrictive public place, right?: File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I also have another example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:50caliberFA.jpg - not a selfie. As far as I can determine from all our rules, we should keep this one despite the uploader's threat of now legally re-claiming the copyright they waived 19 years ago. --Enyavar (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I !voted to keep that one. COM:NLT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are we assuming that TAs are who they say they are, apparently without further checks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Checkusers are not allowed to check for us. Krd seems not to want VRT agents checking for us.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what VRT so for. I don't know why one person's view is a blockage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Purview creep, as VRT is supposed to be about media licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not what either COM:VRT or meta:VRTS say. Both have words to the affect: "[VRT] handle queries, complaints, and comments from the public by email".

The meta page discusses licensing, then continues, "There are many other queues in use within our VRTS implementation. They range in purpose but share one core purpose: to assist in facilitating communication amongst Wikimedia users, readers, customers and anybody else who has something to say!" with the Commons page saying "The main use of VRTS in relation to Commons is to verify and archive licensing permissions.". "Main use" clearly signifies "not the only use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember that some (self-claimed) owners of houses demanded deletion of pictures of their buildings in Germany. The images showed cultural heritage monuments and were mostly (probably even all) taken from public ground, without revealing sensitive information like names. They were kept usually, as the "Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache" does not exist in Germany. Many people with no are almost no legal background expect that they can decide who is allowed to take pictures of their property, but this is not true in that absolute case --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember a case where a person from a political discussion panel requested a deletion. This was valid in my mind, as the focus was on this person, and politics can be controversal. In Germany may other legal elements apply than in the US --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So let's consider this one I closed a few hours ago. I might even have supported a polite request for a courtesy deletion (not a very good photo, but in use, we'd have needed to find a substitute), but the user was making legal threats. As I said in my closing remarks, "[I] certainly see no reason to grant a courtesy deletion in the face of what looks to me like a poorly grounded legal threat." (That was probably the least polite thing I said in a paragraph of closing remarks.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As for Commons:Courtesy deletions i am not really a huge fan of "Please give more detail than "I don't want this here anymore"." It makes it sound like something optional rather than a requirement users are being expected to follow--Trade (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

GSoC 2026: Lossless JPG Transformations Project

Hi Everyone!

I am Rishan, an Open source contributor. I have been contributing to the Wikimedia Commons App for the last couple of months and I am excited to share that I have been accepted as a Google Summer of Code(GSoC) contributor at Wikimedia Foundation for this summer. I want to take this opportunity to share about the upcoming improvements in the image editing capabilities of the app.

The Wikimedia Commons App is an Android application developed by contributors across the wikimedia movement that enables users to browse, upload, and contribute media directly to the Wikimedia Commons repository using their mobile devices.

This Project under GSoC 2026 aims to implementing the following:

1) Lossless crop feature.
2) Lossless blur feature.
3) Auto-detect and apply blur to people's faces and car number plates.

1) Lossless crop feature.
The Existing Crop feature in the Commons app when applied results in loss of information. Due to improper handling of METADATA.

The Goal: Implement a "smart" crop that preserves all original METADATA while maintaining the highest possible image resolution. This ensures that when a user crops a photo to focus on a specific subject and the resulting image is remained as its original resolution.

2) Lossless blur feature
Sometimes while uploading the photo, the contributor would want to blur out some parts of the image to preserve privacy.

The Goal: A lossless blur feature, which would let contributors blur out the regions which they don't want to be seen when uploaded, to make it lossless we apply blur to only regions required by the user and make sure we don't recompress other blocks of the image.

3) Auto-detect and apply blur to people's faces and car number plates.
When contributors capture images in public places, they often capture faces of bystanders or car number plates that won’t have privacy clearance for a global platform like Wikimedia Commons.

The Goal: Using computer vision library OpenCV, the app can automatically scan the image to identify the coordinates of human faces and car number plates these coordinates can be used to blur human faces or car number plates out of the image.

Outcomes:

• No loss in information after editing the picture.
  
• No need to depend on third-party apps instead transformation is done in the right way.
  
• Protecting people's privacy becomes easy.

This summer, I’m honored to be working under the mentorship of Nicolas Raoul and Ritika Pahwa. Excited to learn from the best!

Phabricator Link: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T421595 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechi4895 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That is cool, but i'm not sure blurring people's faces is exactly something we want to encourage except in exceptional circumstances. Bawolff (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's a good option to have. Some countries seem to be very strict about privacy questions like this. Nakonana (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Just so long as it doesn't trigger without being requested. And I'd also be interested in understanding how it knows which faces to blur and which not. How would it make a decision about a photo like File:Snoqualmie Moondance drummers 02.jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, No it doesn't trigger as long as the user doesn't opt for it, As for how it gets to know which faces to blur is that when user triggers this option, It utilizes the OpenCV computer vision library, which uses specialized algorithms that scan the entire image and return a list of coordinates for every face identified. Those coordinates are then passed on to the blur feature to apply blur to only those region of the image. This ensures that only the identified faces are blurred while the rest of the image remains untouched Mechi4895 (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Not sure I followed that; are you saying it will always attempt to blur all faces in the image? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It will blur the faces in the image only if the user selects for this option in the editing screen!

It doesn't apply by default for every images. Mechi4895 (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that. That is not what I asked. Let me go back to the example I linked above: File:Snoqualmie Moondance drummers 02.jpg. This shows three well-known performers plus some other people who happened to be with them in a drum circle. Do I understand correctly that the user would have no way to choose which people's faces would be blurred, and that it would blur even Lansing Scott, who is in sharp focus at right, and that there is no way for a user to control that? - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Nakonana, You are very right about countries having strict privacy and we have only kept it as an option, which is not triggered by default. Mechi4895 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Bawolff, No we are not encouraging and making every image uploaded go through this process.

Instead it's an option in the editing screen, which is triggered only by explicit user selection. Mechi4895 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

One note, blurring can be partially reversible in cases when a simple blurring algo is used. So might wanna keep that in mind. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Farm Security Administration images?

I want to use https://www.loc.gov/item/2017752286/ and https://www.loc.gov/item/2017719180/ in en:Big Duck. Both images are part of the LOC Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives collection which as far as I can tell means they are Public Domain. What's the right license tags to use?

PS: uploaded here and here RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-FSA}}. You can also add {{LOC-image}} for the |source= field. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith, you may find this tool of mine helpful in filling out file descriptions. JayCubby (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

New footage from Cleopatra (1917 film)

A couple years ago someone discovered 40 seconds of film from the famous lost 1917 film, Cleopatra, starring Theda Bara. This film is sometimes cited as the most expensive lost film of all time. Surprisingly, no one has uploaded this clip to Commons. The new footage can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwPZuyF2Th0. However, someone will need to remove the new audio track and the introduction. Unfortunately, the uploader decided to put a watermark on the footage, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that. It doesn't affect its public domain status regardless. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Family tree date

Why does the tree at Category:Carl Suno Henrik Engström show "Category" in front of the name? --RAN (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) if you mean "Sune Engström", I added name at the corresponding Wikidata:Q131620023 page. Now the tree doesn't show "Category:" in front of the name. Deltaspace42 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! Weird thing to happen. --RAN (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Request from a Russian

Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin

Требую по-русски объяснить, по какой причине были удалены сделанные мною фотографии объектов и архивных документов. Я, Максим Догадин, русский, гражданин России, нахожусь на территории России и общаюсь на русском языке. Maximdogadin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Там разные причины удаления от разных файлов, главные состоят в том, что есть сомнения, что Вы являетесь правообладателем на те фотографии, которые загружали, а некоторые файлы нам просто не подходят. Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin and I am unable to comply. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, various files were deleted for various reasons. It would be good if a Russian-speaker would take this on, but it's probably not going to be one single answer. - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4, Ahonc, Андрей Романенко, Butko, EugeneZelenko, George Chernilevsky, Kaganer, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: can someone help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Maximdogadin: Там было 6 номинаций, о какой конкретно вы справшиваете? Там разные причины, нужно смотреть конкретные фото.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Как я вижу, всё что угодно было загружено как собственные работы, тогда как в действительности это по большей части файлы, взятые откуда=то из Интернета. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• Здравствуйте. Под собственной работой сюда можно грузить только то что сами сфотографировали. Чтобы не было сомнений в вашем авторстве, загрузите фото в оригинальном размере и с метаданными. Но файл может быть производной работой от другого произведения, например памятник, мурал или документ. Тогда нужно изучить правила COM:DW и COM:FOP. Даже если файл находится в общественном достоянии, нельзя писать "собственная работа" как вы сделали тут, пусть даже вы сканировали сами. По возможности, автора нужно указать. Дату сканирования нужно заменить на дату создания работы, как например, здесь. Чужие работы допускается грузить только если есть явное согласие автора на одну из разрешенных лицензий. Юрий Д.К. 11:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Property owners' privacy matters

Context: Commons:Deletion requests/Brazilian church interior and privacy request (formerly as a subheading under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions).

Other relevant resources

Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules"

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography

Possibly, Commons:Paying public domain (especially if the landmarks are cultural heritage works whose architects or sculptors have died many many years ago)

Should Wikimedia Commons have a separate page discussing privacy rules and/or "house rules" of property owners, especially those related to indoors of establishments that are already in the public domain? Or should someone expand the relevant section at "COM:Non-copyright restrictions" instead?

Note that I started the discussion here, as it is not about prohibitions imposed by painters, sculptors, architects, or the copyright laws. It is about restrictions imposed by property owners or property managers of various places or establishments, many of which that are in the public domain because their designers have died for more than 50/70/100 years.

Pinging all participants of the Brazilian church deletion request: @GPSLeo, Sturm, Albertoleoncio, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Sintegrity, Ikan Kekek, and Mdaniels5757: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Do note that COM:CRSM might no longer be true. COM:CRSM claims Wikimedia Commons has no obligation to honor privacy rules: "Photographs taken by yourself in a museum or the interior of a building/monument are deemed acceptable here, provided they do not show copyrighted works. If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not mix house rules and or breaking of some kind of (informal) NDA with privacy problems. They often overlap but are something totally different. This example is not about personal information of a real person. We can discuss, when we should delete files based on house rules or non disclosure agreements, but we should not discuss this under the label "privacy". GPSLeo (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the Brazilian church deletion request thread, and what I would say in regard to it is: If you are given a tour of a building under the condition that you won't post photos online and agree to that condition, don't post photos online. Had they been COM:INUSE, the issue would have been more complicated, but since they were not, it was easy to treat the deletion request as a courtesy to the church. I doubt that we should create a broader policy than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this particular case was precisely a privacy issue, even if the privacy was that of an institution (the church) rather than an individual. This is very different than (for example) a museum that wishes to prevent photographs of its non-copyrighted artworks so that it can better exploit them economically. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is information that they want to be treated confidentially for religious or security reasons. For me the term privacy only applies to information about identifiable individuals, but never institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Wait until $cientology makes such a request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, I would apply the notion of privacy even though this does not involve a natural person. The purpose of privacy protections is often connected to security: publishing certain information can make someone more vulnerable to malicious actors. Highly visible people that already live with limited privacy usually also have the resources and infrastructure needed to manage those risks.

Thinking from this perspective, a world-famous church such as Notre-Dame has extensive visibility and security infrastructure to match. On the other hand, a historically valuable church located in a remote area and with limited resources may become significantly more vulnerable if sensitive interior details are widely shared online. In that sense, even if "privacy" is traditionally associated with individuals, I think it is reasonable to recognize that certain institutions may also have legitimate concerns that Commons should take into consideration. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons content descriptor is now a thing!

Now we just need a way to implent it @Bawolff: --Trade (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Soon users will now be able to blurry things they dont wanna see when using Commons in public @Some1, GPSLeo, Pi.1415926535, Omphalographer, Jeff G., Abzeronow, Prototyperspective, JudeHalley, Snævar, Jmabel, Bawolff, Cyberwolf, ReneeWrites, Modern primat, Ladsgroup, and RoyZuo: --Trade (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• For unregistered users, it might be wise to implement this by default for Special:MediaSearch. JayCubby (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Could you take that to Commons:Village pump/Proposals please (once Bawolff is done with adapting user:Putnik's existing gadget)? Default implementation of blurring was at no part of the property proposal discussion and i dont wish to give the appearance that Commons have already agreed to it Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayCubby: --Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

wikidata:Q138829106 is already completely clogged with false positives (maps about anti-homosexuality laws). I also started a thread on Wikidats about the fundamentally flawed nature of Wikidata:Q138829111 Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Secretlondon is right. The use of the property is not Wikidata's issue to deal with Trade (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade You added the same value for real photos of people and for illustrations. If both of these files are marked in the same way, we can not filter as we wanted to. GPSLeo (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said anything about the items being limited to photos or illustrations during the property proposal? Not sure where you got that from Trade (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The idea of this tool was to allow people to filter specific content. If two content types with different filter demands have the same tag, we can not separate these two types anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest the rule that if an image has it classification changed 3 times in a year it foreever loses the ability to have a classification attached to it ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

can you please put here the discussion about this? so, people will see how we talked about this. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 22:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Placeholder Images

Hi, This looked to have been fixed but there is still the same issue on some images. See here for archived discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2026/03#Placeholder_images

Original issue: On some image pages this placeholder image : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/resources/assets/file-type-icons/fileicon-ogg.png is being incorrectly inserted into the html under the "use this file" link. example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ravenscar_-_geograph.org.uk_-_401270.jpg Ndurgom (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bawolff @Krinkle Ndurgom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Better detecting bots and replacing our CAPTCHA

Hello from the Product Safety and Integrity team! After a successful trial of hCaptcha for bot detection on English, French, Japanese, and four other Wikipedias, we will be rolling out hCaptcha to all projects over the course of the next few weeks.

Specifically, this will include using hCaptcha for account creation, and for edits by newer users. This replaces the use of the traditional "type in the word" CAPTCHA that is currently required of many users for these flows. hCaptcha is set up to only challenge likely-suspicious activity, so very few humans will be interrupted at all. In our trial, we estimate that only about ~2% of human users were actually challenged.

For background - as part of our focus on securing the wikis and detecting bad-faith activity, we are building stronger protections against bots carrying out activities that are generally intended for humans, such as creating accounts and editing. As the web has evolved and computers have gotten smarter, our old CAPTCHA has become both challenging for humans and easy for computers.

We recognized this and began with a trial of hCaptcha, third-party bot detection service, to replace our old CAPTCHA. Since then, eight Wikipedias, including English, French, and Japanese, have been using hCaptcha to protect account creation and certain kinds of edits. hCaptcha is a company that specializes in bot detection, with experience protecting very large online websites while prioritizing user privacy in its design. We have implemented technical safeguards to reduce the sensitivity of the information we send to hCaptcha.

It also gives us "likely bot" signals for account creation and covered edits, regardless of whether the session was challenged. Those signals inform what we show CheckUsers and stewards, who use them to find and remove bad-faith activity that was likely done by bots and which may not have been found any other way.

You can read more about this project at our recently updated project page. We welcome comments here or at that project's talk page. Subscribe to the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin to follow the most important news from the Foundation. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) We have one filter that uses a captcha to limit spam that was typically done manually in the web browser. I would assume that in such cases the new captcha does not work anymore to limit this type of spam. GPSLeo (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary sorting with numbers for categories

RFC here -> Commons_talk:Categories#Sorting_by_arbitrary_number. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: That's not an RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: why not? I was requesting for comments :-\ --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: It didn't request comments, or any input. It didn't call itself an RFC. Meta has a place and process for RFCs at m:RFC; ours is at COM:RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: well, I thought it was obvious that I am asking people what they think, if they agree with what I am saying or not :-) maybe it does not necessarily need to be in COM:RFC, otherwise the talk pages may lose part of their usefulness. It was a matter of categories, so I discussed in the talk of the pages about categories. But I see what you say, in the future I will double check where to start a discussion, thanks. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Move userpage

I would like to have my userpage deleted so that my MetaWiki page shows up in all the projects. At the same time, I would be happy if it could be kept (with all the history) as a subpage (like User:Oudeís/Archive). Unlike Wikipedia, Commons does not allow me to move the page with Special:MovePage. Is there anything I can do about it? Are subpages allowed at Commons in the first place? Oudeís·talk 18:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: Hi, and welcome. I moved it for you, as allowed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's great, thank you for the speedy help! Oudeís·talk 19:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Unverifiable historical documents and photos

The particular case is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Linna222 but some opinions on the issue in general are welcome.
What we have here are a bunch of photos and documents, seemingly from 1900 or so. Copyright isn't the real issue here, but all these files were uploaded as "own work", which is impossible as the oldest person ever was 122 years old. If these files were high-resolution scans with EXIF scanner information, one could argue these came from a family or municipality archive or something. Instead, we get limited resolution (~1000 pixels) images, many with visible compression artifacts and/or scaling and the source for all of them is the same: they are screenshots. Screenshots of what? The uploader explained nothing. The provenance trail is utterly non-existent. In the uploader's defense, Wikimedia set them up for failure. But that's a story for another day.
I generally AGF and if the uploader had said "I got it from this Facebook page/family archive/newspaper article" I would have probably shrugged. What gets my goat is that there is literally no statement from the uploader whatsoever and meanwhile User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) inserted {{Scan}} ("Scan from the original work") as the source in all but two of the files.
Projects like Wikipedia shouldn't accept this. What about Commons? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 06:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

for this particular case.

typical stuff related to china: sometimes getting reposted over and over on chinese websites and the source is either never acknowledged, or quickly lost due to linkrot or china's closed intranet.

you can probably sieve out something even within commons though:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Thurston+Lawrence+hunan
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Thurston+Lawrence+china

e.g. File:John Lawrence Thurston.png is also printed on p8 File:A life with a purpose - a memorial of John Lawrence Thurston, first missionary of the Yale mission (IA cu31924023494176).pdf https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AA_life_with_a_purpose_-_a_memorial_of_John_Lawrence_Thurston%2C_first_missionary_of_the_Yale_mission_(IA_cu31924023494176).pdf&page=8 . RoyZuo (talk) 06:41, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Linna222

en:User:Linna222 "is a student editor in University_of_Pennsylvania/Medical_missionaries_to_Community_Partners_(Fall_2022)." "Uploaded while editing "User:Linna222/John Lawrence Thurston/Bibliography" on en.wikipedia.org"

what is the mw:visualeditor doing that led the user to upload files selecting {{Own}} as source? RoyZuo (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

RoyZuo, that's the "Wikimedia set them up for failure." part. Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/08#Rfc: Should we request a configuration change to shut down cross-wiki uploads? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

COM:EVID says that provenience is typically requiring a stated source and author to be specified. That is not prescribing the only and absolute way to provide evidence of PD, as far as I interpret the policy.

Take File:Miensk. Менск (1751-1800).jpg. In that case, the "source" indicated is basically fully worthless; authorship is unknown; and even image searches won't find the original file because it was screenshotted and maximaly cropped. But from the drawing style, I have no doubt that the indicated age range is correct and that the pd-old-100-license was applied correctly. My interpretation of COM:EVID is that old age sufficiently demonstrates PD. My alarm bells on COM:PCP begin ringing once I read dates ranging from the 1920s and later; in those cases we just cannot allow sloppy documentation.

Please note that unclear provenience IS a big problem which we should not simply dismiss. I hate dealing with material where the uploaders don't know authors and claim ridiculous ages ("between 1700s and 1800s" is ~300 year range once you begin taking into account illiteracy). Even if we know that an image is PD-old and within our project scope; crappy documentation by the uploader can render files essentially worthless for educative purposes. We need to educate uploaders on how to best document the sources and authors; and when they begin uploading a LOT we really need to sensitize them on the issue. All that said, not everyone of our contributors is a born archivist: We should accept low-accuracy (i.e. sloppy) documentation with provable PD files. When doubt arises, of course, we have to act according to PCP. --Enyavar (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Location around Copenhagen 2003

These station must be in Kopenhagen or close by.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)