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)

@Stefan Kühn: , I have not responded before since I am not sure how this constitutes a similar problem, or what action you expect other users to take on behalf of your project. My own case is less about the exact nationality of specific locations; and more about hatnote definitions of these categories in general.

As nobody has yet voiced any opinion on the subject matter, I'm resolved to wait a bit longer. --Enyavar (talk) 11:29, 2 June 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)

Should we start Banning or Blocking .webp images?

Should we start banning or blocking .webp images from being uploaded on commons? Obviously the format was created for use on websites and i have not come across a single .webp images here which was free and its usually void of EXIF data (which is what it was designed for) so cannot be guaranteed as a free image and no real photographer will ever convert their images to this format intentionally so all in all, all .webp images are not free, so why do we allow them?. Atleast with .svg and other vector formats, its not photographs that are converted into them so are nearly always free and in public domain. I'm not sure if a discussion regarding this ever took place on commons and if not, why? at the very best, we could force a warning to anyone uploading .webp to confirm the image was "taken" by them and to warn them why .webp images are not a trusted format and should not be uploaded, atleast with .png, we can confirm if they were taken off a video, webp images are also hard to reverse search so will become an issue for admins and licence reviewers in the future to verify their authenticity. ....--Stemoc 06:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that assessment. At least 99% of WEBP images uploaded to Commons are copyright violations. I don't know of any device which output images in WEBP format by default. And I don't see the benefit for Commons to use it. At the very least, it should be restricted to users with some advanced rights (like MP3). Yann (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose No, @Yann ISRO and other images from India are uploaded under Webp format and thus blocking and banning should not be very good for those images Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Support — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 07:18, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Support conditional upload ban. Grant only to the admins/sysops, template admins, and autopatrolled users the privilege (not right) of uploading images with w:en:WebP format. Do note that tagging problematic files has become slow due to problems when searching images using Google Lens, see this comment of mine. That's why slowing down problematic content uploading is crucial, if we cannot eliminate it completely. I'll also add that a couple of WebP uploads, likely from regions like the Indian Subcontinent, West Asia, and Africa, are personal images that are out of COM:SCOPE. One previous discussion: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11#Restrict_webp_upload？. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:37, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I have come across many images that were free and in WebP format, such as those copied from US Government websites. I think it'd be a shame if we couldn't have copies of images from NASA or from the USACE here, amongst others. I could support requiring some level of permissions here before being allowed to upload them, such as is done with MP3, but I don't think an outright ban would be the best plan. PeterCooperJr (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The first image listed is available as a PNG at the source site - . (And it's a somewhat blurry photo, possibly captured from a video stream; nothing would be lost by converting it to a JPEG.) Omphalographer (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that probably wasn't the best example, it was just the first thing that popped up in my search of PD-USGov webp files. Just in general, WebP is an open format, that organizations and individuals can (and have) provide useful images in. PeterCooperJr (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment While it has been my own policy to convert WEBP images to JPEGs before uploading, yes, I have run into a fair number of PD images that download as WEBP. - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment WEBP has its use in tracking problematic files, as WEBP ≈ copyvio is often true. But that doesn't consider workloads of people patrolling files. On the other hand, a ban would encourage some people to simply convert their copyvios into the inconspicuous JPEG format. A middle ground could perhaps indeed be found in enforcing some restrictions, autopatrol as for MP3 could work. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

 Comment Maybe only allow upload with higher user rights. I sometimes upload WebP files from a CC0 website :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Comment Possibly only block if claimed as "own work". (As Jmabel notes, some archival public domain images can be found online only as webp - I too generally convert them to jpg or png before uploading.). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
• As for JWilz12345. We can accept these from trusted users. Otherwise we're better without, because (and only because) of the copyvio likelihood. I don't see 'own work' claims as a useful discriminator here. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose - ISRO and many other images from India are uploaded in .webp format and they very like the format. It would be very problematic for uploading as there is a good backlog of ISRO images that are not uploaded to commons and all are .webp images. Also i don't understand why .mp4 and .mp3 videos are not allowed to upload on commons as they are one of the more common use format for Video.

Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 MP3 files are actually allowed, see COM:MP3. However, you must have autopatrolled user rights first, considering that a huge chunck of MP3 media already existing online are not in the public domain or under a commercial or free licensing. For MP4, see Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 03:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

 Support, as others have already mentioned, the right should be granted starting at Autopatroller or even Patroller level. זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 18:13, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose Some uploads are copyvios, but there is not enough reason for a full ban. You say that “no real photographer will ever convert their images to [webp]”, but Commons is not only for photographs. Some illustrations will look ugly if you write them as jpeg even in good quality, and are unnecessarily large size if you write them as png. We do need a more modern format (or two really, since webp is a hybrid with separate lossy and lossless modes) even if adoption is slow. – b_jonas 07:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

  SVG is best for illustrations. A diehard editor (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

•  Oppose - Users who upload .webp images are not going to give up uploading, just because the filetype is blocked. Banning a filetype only invites the offending users to switch to a different file format (which would be .png natively, but also conversions into .jpg and .gif), and that just makes it harder to identify potential copyvios, because the files are going to be encoded differently than the original on the internet. --Enyavar (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose EU Space website now exclusively uses WEBP format for image of the day that are imported by my bot. vip (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Category: July 2026 in Amsterdam

Lately, I've noticed that this category is invariably overwritten by "Photographs taken on etc." if more photos were taken that day. I have no objection to this, but the first category was visible to everyone (and mentioned Amsterdam), while the second is invisible (and doesnot mention where the picture was taken). To see which photos are in it, you need to know the exact date, but you cannot retrieve them together. Is this intended (as it currently stands)? It seems better to me to simply continue the category "July 2026 in Amsterdam" and add "Photographs taken on" as an extra public or hidden category.Ceescamel (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I repeatedly raised this topic before, without much success. Ymblanter (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ceescamel: what you describe as "better" is how I always do it when adding {{Taken on}}. But I have no idea why the "Photographs taken on [DAY]" categories aren't simply made visible. Nor why, now that we have Template:World cat, they aren't all implemented with that template. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why "Photographs taken by day" categories aren't visible. I would be in favor of changing that, I feel like that would solve a lot of issues related to this topic. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 on making the by day categories visible. Nakonana (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Considering the revision history of the source template {{Photographs taken on navbox}}, this may be a bit more controversial than it looks. Arguments for or against seem to boil down to whether to regard these categories as meta or topical. If unhidden, I hope this will not be abused as a shortcut to clear out Category:Uncategorized files and that more descriptive categories will still be applied too. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that this absolutely should not count as a reason to remove Category:Uncategorized files. Question: has there been a problem with people adding a category that is clearly nothing like a main category for a picture, removing Category:Uncategorized files, and not substituting some more specific indicator of needing further categorization? - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, had a bit of a brainfart. I've been going through the unhidden Category:2015 photographs of Suriname lately, where many of its files, like File:Downtown Paramaribo (23486740169).jpg have only had a country&date category since their upload almost 10 years ago. And then all those unidentified plants in the equally unhidden Category:2016 in the United States, yet there is no way to search for them, let alone identify them, unless one stumbles upon that category by accident. To me, these files are essentially lost do the dark depths of Commons. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: if hidden and it is the only category, at least a bot will now flag it as uncategorized, giving it a chance of being noticed and categorized properly. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Replace main page links to search links

Today during Unpopular Talks it was proposed to replace links currently using technical and kind of confusing categories like Category:Images (something that is mostly text), with something that shows actual media to our readers.

This idea seems to have received warm feedback from the people on site (on Wikimania). So let's fix it :)

(a) The basic idea would be to replace the image link etc with a generic search of a specific type, like so:

• images
• video
• audio

Works best for images and video.

(b) Another option is to vary the links for different languages: images, search for "en" – this could maybe search using the current user's language, which should kind of give local images (most of them would be local; for example, "pt" might show a periodic table at the top, but still better than a generic category).

What do you think? Shall we engage? ;) Nux (talk··dyskusja) 21:19, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

my attempt is at commons:explore (the selection of images will change everytime you purge the page or if you wait enough time) Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I think step one would be to decide (1) who is the intended audience for those links and (2) what are we trying to communicate to them. -Jmabel (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

1) Intended audience is mostly new users and users unfamiliar with Commons. Other people know their way around and can find categories if they need to.

2) We should be trying to communicate that we have a lot of media of different types. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 23:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

So you believe it's new end users, rather than new contributors? Wondering if that is general agreement; I've never really given it much thought, myself. But if that's the case, then I agree that categories are a poor choice. - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

i would go with its for anyone who wants to browse the commons collection instead of look for a specific file. I think that can be both old and new users, but probably an emphasis on newer users. Bawolff (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Having a link to a search page would both allow browsing through everything and easily refine search to browse through topics. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 06:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

yes i raised the same thing just months ago Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2026/03#c-RoyZuo-20260305150400-Change_links_on_main_page.

Bawolff's Commons:Explore pages are very nice replacements.

the search result links could get quite stale (depending on how frequent and how many commons files get "assessment"). also assessment for videos is still not implemented, with phab:T419131 triaged LOW 🤷 and waiting forever. RoyZuo (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. The search page might be problematic for sounds and videos, and using videos without review could easily expose someone to NSFW stuff (I know we don't want to censor stuff, but you know, practical reasons).

As long as Bawolff's Explore module is updated regularly, I think that might be a better solution. @Bawolff, do you already have a bot updating the JSON files, or is that something planned for the future? If that's working, then I'd be in favor of replacing the main page links with links to Explore. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 11:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no bot yet. Mostly because nobody was really using it so there didn't seem much point. If people start actually using it, I can make a bot. Note that no attempt is made to remove NSFW images, and some featured pictures are arguably nsfw, however that is usually the type of nsfw people care less about. Bawolff (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

i didnt pay attention to how you implemented this. i thought your module got the results directly from the whole database somehow, but actually from lists you generated. but with such long lists and only less than 0.1% of a list gets shown on the pages, i dont think it's urgent or necessary to keep updating the lists frequently. even an annual update is enough. RoyZuo (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

i'm curious how you generated the video list. many of them are not "featured media" or motd. how did you find these files of good quality? RoyZuo (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There wasn't enough featured media, so i added in any video that is in use on a wikimedia wiki (excluding meta, outreach, wikimania, mediawiki.org or a chapter wiki) Bawolff (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Deleting single-page JPGs "redundant" to PDFs

Recently, some editors began a project of converting series of JPGs of multi-page works that had been uploaded by bot into single PDFs and then requesting deletion of the orginals, which were uploaded by bot. I wanted raise the issue here, as it is spread across several DRs, but it seems like a discussion is warranted. See examples here, here, here, here (and there are more, some deleted, some not). There are a few concerns:

• JPG->PDF conversion is inherently lossy, and retaining originals does not preclude still creating the PDFs if they are desired
• Increased complexity to avoid re-uploading these files, when the original has had its file name and extension changed (how to then detect that the file is already on Commons, if the sha1 hash no longer matches)
• No possibility of future updates from the institution, since the bot would typically sync any changes to the original JPGs to their file pages in Commons, but now cannot do so for a generated PDF
• Difficulty for reusers in the projects outside of Wikisource, since it is not generally user-friendly to add a single page of a PDF on Commons to a Wikipedia article, like it was for the original JPG

I am trying to weigh what the value is of performing these deletions, versus maintaining the files as they in the original repository, and I have not found much in policy about this type of situation. While project scope does say something about PDFs being permitted "only in appropriate cases", it does not suggest that having converted scan files to PDF renders the originals OOS (as is being suggested). This seems to fall under the COM:REDUNDANT section of deletion policy, which doesn't clearly state such redundant files should be deleted other than "you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version" (without stating which would be considered inferior in this case)—but I did find the old discussion at Commons talk:Superseded images policy which seems to indicate a lot of opposition to deleting original files that others converted to an alternative format just because they were superseded. There was also a past VP discussion about keeping PDF and DjVu duplicates, which is analogous because it generally established that different stakeholders could have different reasons for preferring different formats, and there is not a harm in co-existence of the versions in such cases. I think a wider conversation would be good. Dominic (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Re. the first - it is technically possible to losslessly convert a set of JPEG images to a PDF. I'm sure some tools will recompress the images, but it's not inherent to the conversion.

Re. the last - individual pages of a PDF can be embedded using the syntax [[File:Example.pdf|page=2]]. It's not so difficult that we should need to keep every single-page scan just on the off-chance that someone might want to use it and might not know about this syntax. Omphalographer (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, PDF pages can be embedded that way, but, as I said, it is difficult and most editors do not know how to do this. As far as am aware, it is impossible via VisualEditor on Wikipedia, which is the default editing mode. Dominic (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In precisely zero of the examples given, hosted for several years, each with hundreds or thousands of images of scanned pages extracted from each pdf, has anyone ever used any of the individual jpeg scans of pages.

In the above example of Category:A twentieth century history and biographical record of Laporte County, Indiana, the book is 1,272 pages long and Commons benefits from hosting all the text (and blank pages) in precisely one file, uploaded from the Internet Archive. All the images from the book are available in that category just in case anyone wants to refer to them individually, even though in the six years since the DPLA uploaded all 1,272 pages as separate jpegs not a single volunteer ever has. Only the text and blank pages have been deleted, because they never were of realistic educational value.

The claim about lossless conversion is irrelevant for Internet archive uploads as the original jpg2000 scans are available at the archive should anyone wish to losslessly convert them at maximum resolution to, say, PNG images rather than the apparent DPLA default of compressed jpegs. In practice doing so is fairly useless for text pages, or fairly grainy printed copper plate etchings, as once a jpeg version at, say, around 2000px or 3000px across and at 95% quality is in a PDF, they are perfectly usable on any project, and higher resolutions could only be usable for very high resolution drawing scans, or colour photograph prints, not a thousand pages of pure text.

Interestingly for the Laporte County records all of the images are in the above category as separate jpg files (uploaded by the DPLA but clearly in a compressed format), though re-extraction from the book if anyone wanted them separated is not hard (I see this all the time with volunteers using the standard croptool on uploaded large PDFs originals to create individual image pages with very little effort, thanks to its excellent design).

The assertion that the DPLA are synchronizing details does not hold water for a book edition from 1904 that will never change, and for which the DPLA uploads do not have a currently working source and appear to not be working on fixing broken sources, or even detecting the fact they don't work. Unlike the Internet Archive upload source, which is working fine, if anyone wants to check or access an original scan for free and no barriers to access, unlike the captcha checks that the DPLA link requires and get in the way of any automation by other volunteers.

PS. It is a puzzle as to why the DPLA appear to prefer uploading 1,000 page scans as compressed jpeg images, when on most of the source websites that are referenced, downloading the PDF version is available and would be trivially easy to synchronize. It's bizarre to make claims about millions of images, if a significant fraction of these are "unbundled" books. Given the couple of million large books in our volunteer run COM:IA books projects, it would be trivial to make that ten times the file count, but that feels like the opposite of an open knowledge benefit.

Fæ (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you point me to an example of a book where we have page scans but no PDF? I'll take a stab at generating and uploading a PDF as a test case, with the intent of eventually automating the process. Omphalographer (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It varies by source. An interesting one would be 0218f5acda05411627a5166b2477e083. The source has a download all option and these can be bundled into a PDF using a tool or a simple bit of python. Alternatively books like the Scottonian febcb2fbf478fb06e55759f627098e58 have been on the internet archive for years, in that case since 2011 at https://archive.org/details/scottonian1921tole and is available in various formats. However it's worth checking if the pdf is already here on Commons. In many DPLA cases of "unbundled" books, the whole PDF was already here and the project was just creating lots of unrecognized duplicates because there appears to be no checks for that. Fæ (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

By accident today I looked at File:St. Mary's Muse (August 1916-August 1917) - DPLA - 8b87c52efef9e02538eec9fdbf0c5ae9 (page 165).jpg, and it turns out that the "DPLA" source, by navigating via the DPLA branded website and passing the CAPTCHA (to ensure automation by us volunteers is impossible), is back to the internet archive! Checking the internet archive reference then showed these pages are taken from St. Mary's Muse (IA stmarysmuse19161917sain).pdf, a 390 page single document that was uploaded in 2020 as part of the unfunded COM:IA books project.

These single page scans and the arguments to keep them all hosted on Commons when we have the original books, is baffling. This feels counter to the mission of Wikimedia Commons, not just for free educational media but open and accessible to readers and without being locked in to "branding" of our free collections. Fæ (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as VisualEditor is concerned, that sounds like it should be a feature request. That being said, as Fæ has noted, the overwhelming majority of these books and their pages are not used on any wiki page - I have a hard time getting too concerned about the possibility that it might become marginally more difficult for users to do something that they weren't doing in the first place. Omphalographer (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

BTW, while looking at examples, try the file history of File:George Washington's October 3, 1789, Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. - DPLA - 816c30bed65435e864fd1d28cd6d9b00.jpg. This was uploaded in 2018 from Flickr under a different filename.

Bot edits last month adding the branding and the long code, and changing the standard information template, deleting the Flickr link as the still working original source, to a DPLA specific "DPLA metadata" template, do not seem to help Commons in a practical way when the accurate records of this 2018 upload could have been left alone. Fæ (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons content descriptor for "sexualized nudity" etc.

Recently, File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - naked cyclists relax.jpg and File:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 wall viewing.jpg (both of them photos I took) were tagged with Wikimedia Commons content descriptor (P14416) Sexualized nudity, erotica or ecchi (Q138829111). If these are considered "sexualized nudity" it is hard for me to imagine what photo involving nudity would not be considered "sexualized". If this is a correct us of Q138829111, then we should take the word "sexualized" out of the item name. - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

ATTN: User:Jerimee, who added the SDC statement in question. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about lack of strict definitions for these properties (Which i suppose is partially my fault for making the user script). The slippery slope is real. (Edit: I wrote the previous before actually looking at the pictures. I'm not even sure this should count as nudity, let alone sexualized nudity) Bawolff (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible to use the filename to limit to certain filetypes (for example, excluding audio for which blurring does nothing)? Arlo James Barnes 04:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Why would anyone mark an audio file as containing sexualized imagery?? Bawolff (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule it out. Consider, for instance, a (hypothetical) recording of a person reading an erotic novel. Just because it isn't visual media doesn't mean that tagging it isn't useful. Omphalographer (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The label doesn't specify "imagery", and erotic/pornographic audio does exist. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

True, but my understanding is that the property was introduced to patch a sort of UX hole: that when you do a search on Commons, media are displayed including those that may be surprising; so it is good to have a method to blur potentially controversial images in such views, but then when the file page is opened it displays as normal. But an audio file would already have to be opened to access the contents, and hopefully the filename and description would be clear enough for controversial audio that anybody playing it knows what they are getting themselves into. Arlo James Barnes 06:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

but metadata is useful for it's own sake, right? Jerimee (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with removing "sexualized" from the label, if we're going to apply this to any and all nudity anyway. Pinging @Trade: as they worked on the label on Wikidata. I also wonder about the inclusion of the word "ecchi", which broadens the scope to include softcore content such as pin-ups, which doesn't typically get censored. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Just change it to “nudity”. There is no objective definition of erotica or ecchi, or what makes nudity “sexualized”, and nudity is NSFW no matter what the context is. Content descriptions should primarily be a utilitarian feature to prevent you from accidentally encountering explicit content in an inappropriate situation, not a warning that something might cause offense because of its lewd and lascivious intent or whatever. Dronebogus (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if you narrow it down to "nudity" we still have lines to draw. Which of the following should be tagged?

Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

And we've come up on the issue that I warned would happen - that there is such significant personal and cultural variation in subjective definitions, right down to what defines "nudity", that attempting to classify images as "NSFW" or "SFW" is inherently unworkable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I would actually prefer that the tag be restricted to clearly and intentionally sexualized content. Images on Commons don't exist in a vacuum; we can infer quite a bit of intent from the context that images originated from, and from the way they are described and categorized. Omphalographer (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would also prefer restricting the tag to intentionally sexualized content, or at least content likely to be construed as such (intent can be hard to work out). Offhand, I don't remember working anywhere that any of the 5 in my gallery above would have been problematic (though I suppose that in some of the workplaces a large blow-up of one over your desk might have been an issue). The same certainly applies to the "wall viewing" case in my original example; I could imagine the "naked cyclists relax" case being an issue, but simply for nudity (if you look closely, there is a partially visible penis, probably the most "taboo" body part in many Western cultures) than for anything about it being "sexualized." - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem of having to draw arbitrary lines exists regardless. Whether we tag all nudity (sexualized or not), but don't tag erotic content with dressed-up subjects (such as fetish content), or we tag sexualized content, leaving alone non-sexualized nudity, but the question becomes if we want to include technically-SFW erotica such as pin-ups and ecchi. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: I don't think any reasonable rule for this can draw clear line. Do you think it is clear which of the examples in the gallery I posted would be considered "nudity" (and, if so, which)? Because I think even that requires a judgement call. (The reason I say "reasonable rule" is that of course we could draw an unreasonable rule with a clear line, e.g. "no human flesh below the neck except hands" or such.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: "I don't think any reasonable rule for this can draw clear line." - I agree with this, which is why I was against implementing this content descriptor when it was first discussed, and I would be in favor of phasing it out now that it's here. It doesn't appear to have been defined before it was created and put in use. As for your question: I think all the images in the gallery except the shoulder would qualify as "nudity", but none contain sexualized nudity. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: sounds like we are basically in agreement about the difficulties.

Besides the difficulty: I can go either way on having a tag, but if it includes a lot of basically innocuous content, it becomes a liability. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Could the descriptor maybe be refined? Like: "sexual content", "sexually suggestive content including/excluding nudity", "nudity in sexual context", "nudity in non-sexual context", "nudity in art"...? And then people could choose for what degree of SFW they want to sign up by individually opting in/out on the above classifications? Nakonana (talk) 09:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: I like that idea. I think a system of tiers (graphic/sensitive/mild content) or toggles (nudity, sexually suggestive content, gore, violence) would be an improvement. Right now it seems to be either/or: something is too risqué for public view or it's not. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

If we're defining "NSFW" as "US American PG13-friendly", then I'd guess that all the example images except for the shoulder photo would be NSFW. Facebook is operating with the PG13 standard and they are known to even censor nudity in ancient Greek and Roman statues. Nakonana (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"a large blow-up of one over your desk might have been an issue" Is the desk in Kabul or Amsterdam? (rhetorical question; no answer expected). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If you reread, I was writing about my own experience of workplaces. I have, for example, worked remotely with a team from Lahore, and I was certainly aware of what was behind me on Zoom calls. So not so far from your Kabul example, in that one case. - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

we can infer quite a bit of intent from the context that images originated from, and from the way they are described and categorized. (Omphalographer) This, sadly, is how I came to have mis-assigned Wikimedia Commons content descriptor (P14416)→Sexualized nudity, erotica or ecchi (Q138829111) to Jmabel's not sexualized and rather SFW (in my opinion) examples. I added the statement to all files in Category:Topless_sitting_women. I read what Pi.1415926535 wrote about concerns that those with power wish to designate as "inappropriate" to further their own aims and I'm yet to be convinced. Their point about it being difficult to implement at scale is well taken, and I have to agree there is no universal definition of NSFW. It seems a bit early to write the whole thing off as censorship classification; there are presently only 3,400 files with any value at all for Wikimedia Commons content descriptor (P14416). Here is a link to the property proposal; I don't see that anyone has posted it yet. Jerimee (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I personally disagree that all nudity is nsfw. I suppose different people having different views is part of why these discussions go in circles, but i do find it odd how it always seems like commons has 2 extremes: Those who dont want anything, no matter how extreme or disturbing, to be censored, and those who would censor stuff that wouldn't even get a PG rating at an anerican cinema. Bawolff (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think that a gadget or userscript which isn't turned on by default could be considered censorship. Prudery, perhaps, but if an individual has the capability to adjust their own experience of Commons, who is being harmed? Arlo James Barnes 20:55, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The endless infighting is a potential harm. However i do think if people want a certain type of media hidden, but the gadget hides different media, that is a harm. I'm not opposed to a gadget (i wrote the gadget after all), but it should do what it says on the tin. Bawolff (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree these don't seem sexualized to me. User:Infrogmation had a similar concern. I would prefer a more abstract value like "potentially NSFW." A more strictly accurate value like "toplessness" might work as well. I think Bawolff's script still works if the relevant property is set to "no value" but, that's not really semantically valid. I've been ill and haven't been able to review and respond. Jerimee (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

We should just have multiple items: one for "general nudity", one for "partial nudity" and one for "sexualized nudity". GPSLeo (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Gentle reminder: not all nudity is sexual; not all sexuality involves getting naked. Content descriptors are intended to represent broad categories of objectionable content (such as sexually explicit content), not just degrees of nudity. Omphalographer (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

well taken, but the content is *not* necessarily objectionable, merely sensitive Jerimee (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jerimee: I don't understand that last remark, is there a negative missing somewhere? Depending where it is placed, you could mean to opposite things: "not necessarily objectionable, merely sensitive" or "necessarily objectionable, not merely sensitive". Since it's not clear what content you are referring to, it's hard to guess. - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

yup *not* necessarily Jerimee (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that there needs to be considerable standardization of content descriptors. Unfortunately there aren't any websites that offer a "controlled vocabulary" of sorts for content descriptors (meaning, there aren't external links that connect "depictions of nudity" content descriptors between film ratings and video game ratings, for example). I think that looking at existing content descriptors for other websites, and then making Commons content descriptors based on what they have in common, might be a better approach than arbitrarily creating content descriptors that may have vague meanings. ForeverFlying (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

oh I didnt think of that; a bet there is a librarian or library system that does have some kind of practical rubric. Maybe NYPL? At the very least one would expect libraries to be well versed in balancing the needs of children with a commitment to free speech. Jerimee (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Who can help to categorise the 60,000 media as of 2023?

So far, we have reduced the files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2023 from 95,000 to 60,000. Now we need more volunteers please, to reduce this number to zero. Who can help categorising the rest manually by going through the files one by one? Or can you make a suggestion, please, on how to do this more effectively, based on the guidance in Commons:WikiProject Minimum One Category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NearEMPTiness (talk • contribs) 07:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Still 56,000 media as of 2023 to be categorised. We need more volunteers or a better method, to clear the backlog, please. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

When you add a category, does a bot automatically remove it from the backlog? I tried a couple, but did not get the impression that would happen. Fæ (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Fæ: depends on how you add it. If you use a tool, that's going to depend on the tool. They don't all behave the same (some even pop up a choice). - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I did it by hand and then a couple using VFC. Neither way seemed to automatically recognize the 'All media needing categories' category should be removed. This feels like a bot could regularly pull the recent changes and judge if a non-hidden category was added. We also have auto-removing categories if someone was hot for those sort of active templates (I don't Lua, I'm agnostic). Fæ (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Fæ: It is correct that neither of those to methods will do it automatically.

The problem with having a bot do it is that not every visible category really counts for this, and some intuition is still needed. For example, Category:New York City in the 2020s is probably not sufficient categorization to remove the tag. Ditto for Category:Unidentified buildings. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: Moratorium on the deletion of photographs from Ukraine

I propose an immediate moratorium on the deletion of freely licensed photographs taken in Ukraine when the sole or principal reason for deletion is the absence of a Commons-compatible freedom of panorama exception under Ukrainian law.

This proposal is not based on the mistaken assumption that deletion permanently destroys a file. Deleted files can be restored through processes such as Commons:Undeletion requests, including when the copyright in the depicted work eventually expires.

The problem is that restoration may only become legally possible seventy years after the death of the architect, sculptor or other author, as described at Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine.

In many cases, the author is unknown, their date of death cannot be established, or they are still alive. The photograph may consequently remain unavailable for a century or longer.

By then, the people who knew the place may be dead, communities may have been displaced, the subject may have been destroyed, and the social and historical context required to understand the image may have disappeared. A file preserved invisibly in a deletion archive is not serving education, research, public memory or cultural preservation.

Restoring an image after the history surrounding it has been forgotten is not meaningful preservation. It is preservation after relevance.

ESO astronomy pictures

Hey everyone, I want to know why the site doesn't allow to upload images from ESO Flickr account like for example https://www.flickr.com/photos/esoastronomy/55321043227/in/dateposted/ Abdullah1099 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 sure you can. Don't know about terms on Flickr, but you can upload images from the official website providing that you will provide proper attribution (state source and author). See: https://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/privacy/ Nux (talk··dyskusja) 09:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Pasted wrong link :), this has copyright info: https://www.eso.org/public/copyright/ Nux (talk··dyskusja) 09:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Nux bro, I know that Images can be uploaded from ESO Website but what about ESO Flickr account. Also i want can request VRTS for a Template:Copyrighted free use images Abdullah1099 (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

coz User:Hedwig in Washington blacklisted it special:diff/370891134. see Commons_talk:Questionable_Flickr_images/Archive_5#c-BevinKacon-2019-08-26T19:00:00.000Z-ESO_Account. RoyZuo (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this Flickr account should be blacklisted. Is there any way to remove it from blacklist Abdullah1099 (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 please be asolutely sure that the files are not already on Commons before trying to import ESO pictures from Flickr. My bot systematically import all pictures from their website in quasi real time so there is a huge probability that you will import a duplicate if you import files from their Flickr account. vip (talk) 07:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I know that @Don-vip, I just want to know why it is not allowed as in theory Flickr can also be used as source for ESO images by there official ESO Flickr account Abdullah1099 (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abdullah1099 just find the files you want to upload on the official site. Flickr has lower quality images as is shown with examples under the link posted by Roy. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 09:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah @Nux, Thanks i know that and i am kind of ok with it Abdullah1099 (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Personality rights for children in PD US DoD photographs?

Looking at some mass uploads of DoD related photographs, and raising an album for possible out of scope duplicates, raises a secondary question I am unsure about and would welcome feedback, especially if a good consensus to refer to already exists!

The specific photograph is up for deletion, but the pdf of the album is not. Should we be concerned about photographs like this, which are not "historic" but within the last 30 years, are not outdoors or at obvious large public events but in this case might be at indoor gym training and where the subject would not have expected to give consent? Further the specific date and name of the photographer is not recorded, despite these being part of a military archive. There are other photos in this same album of younger people, ages probably about 2 to 6 years, where they could not possibly have consented or potentially understood they were being photographed and would later be published.

The related DR is here, please keep in mind that DR is on Scope grounds, not personality rights or copyright, and copies of all photos would remain on Commons, just the jpg duplicates are up for deletion not the pdf.

Note more generally, that in my own upload projects are a very large collection of DVIDs and DoD related photographs, I have no idea at this point how to identify which have detailed portraits of children, however the use of AI to help with subject identification and estimating age is making this possible for volunteers to work out and better retrospectively classify if this is a hosting problem for Commons. Fæ (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In the example the subject looks at the camera. I would therefore assume that there was consent for publication. It is not something like a birthday party where the people might assume the photos to be used only within family and friends. GPSLeo (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Given the age of these photos (I think they're substantially older than Fæ estimated), these children are probably in their 40s or 50s by now, if not older. Coupled with the fact that the photos will remain publicly accessible through DPLA / DVIDS, I wouldn't get too concerned about the personality rights issue. Omphalographer (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The date at the source is given as "10/2/1994 - 1999". So the photographs in the album may be 27 to 32 years old^*. There's no estimation, these are the dates in the archive. I'll add a second image better to illustrate the younger models used. There issue is there cannot be consent at that age, further the archive has no record about consent or even a named photographer, despite this being recent enough to expect the models to still be living.

^*Recognizing some inconsistencies I'm doubting this analysis. Effectively these are like badly organized shoe boxes of holiday photos with years written on the label, however with so little information, like a named photographer or specific dates, there seems reason to distrust even these date ranges. If we are going to make assumptions about personality rights or similar, all the information needs to be taken as effectively absent. --Fæ (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But they are definitely government works and therefore public domain? If they are that bad organized my main concern would be that DPLA does not have the rights to publish these files as public domain. GPSLeo (talk) 17:23, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep in mind that on a military base, especially before the ramp-up of contractors in the 2000s, just about everyone likely to be around with a camera is a government employee. - Jmabel ! talk 00:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

This particular album has family accommodation, family events and portraits of families with children. There is no information on the archive record for who took these photographs, it could easily have been someone living on the base who was not a government employee but married to one. It is another assumption that the photographs were taken by the same person, given the unreliability of the dates which is the only consistent bit of information, but even that has been shown to be wrong. Fæ (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Personality rights in the U.S. are very limited. Mostly, they have to do with not implying an endorsement of a product or company; some states have rules against certain kinds of deepfakes, but there is nothing at a federal level. As long as we are not talking about CSAM (and clearly in these examples we are not), I'm not aware of anything that makes a legal distinction for photographs of people who are underage, so unless someone's got something they can point to, any issue of this sort would be one of Commons policy, not one based in personality rights. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought Commons:Personality rights was a useful reference and does not limit Commons to only being concerned about extremes like CSAM. The statement "A child or a person judged incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction should be considered with even greater care, as they probably cannot give valid consent even if they appear to." is relevant and is clearly how organizations like NSPCC define these situations, refer to the section on consent at https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/online-safety/photographing-filming-children. These photos may have been taken 30 to 50 years ago, but these same considerations apply if the sources we are harvesting have no records about consent, or who took the photograph, or the date, or the context. Everything being assumed is just that, assumptions in the absence of facts, which is not a good basis for judging if there has been appropriate consent from a child. Fæ (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

We can choose to have a more restrictive policy, but that is not a right, it's a courtesy. - Jmabel ! talk 22:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy is fine. Nobody has mentioned rights. This is more about making the best ethical choice for potentially intrusive photographs of children and how we apply our understanding of the need for consent when photographs of potentially identifiable children are hosted. It seems appropriate to reconsider whether hosting close up photographs of children that have no realistic educational value, are not "historical", and are not of superior quality as portraits, is what Commons is for. Fæ (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If the photo had first been posted by a random person, I might share the concern about consent, but presumably the DoD made such evaluations before posting. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: with Personality rights in the U.S. are very limited, you're certainly right, but only for scenes shot in the US, no? It's funny that this issue about personality rights came up again, as I opened Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2 girls in Japan which includes File:Navy Misawa sailors participate in Career Day 140328-N-DP652-002.jpg and File:Brought together through music 130420-M-PZ610-505.jpg. Both are DoD images from a foreign base used by the US. I harbour the apprehension that US military photographers may operate only with US laws in mind, not regulations from abroad. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know in what degree Japanese civil law applies on a U.S. base in Japan. Do you have anything substantive on that? - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I did some quick googling and found en:U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement: Although the Japanese court system has jurisdiction for most crimes committed by American servicemembers in Japan, there are exceptions if the American was "acting in official duty," or if the victim was another American. In those cases the American system has jurisdiction, unless it is voluntarily waived.

That indicates that indeed US laws take precedence for military photographers, and your sentence "any issue of this sort would be one of Commons policy, not one based in personality rights." is all the more true: Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Legal issues unmistakably states Commons requires photos to respect the legal rights of the subject in all of the following countries: (a) the country in which the photo was taken; (b) the country from which the photo was uploaded; (c) the United States (where Commons images are stored)., and military bases aren't embassies or the like, so definitively part of whichever country they are situated in, not some extraterritorial part of the country/countries using the base. It would have us follow the table in Commons:Photographs of identifiable people#Country specific... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Should the commons logo be changed?

The wikipedia logo is easy to understand, an incomplete global library translated into many cultures where you can help put the pieces together, while the commons logo is harder to understand. Maybe the logo should be changed to a DVD (digital image library) with images on it and different languages??? idk, maybe the commons logo SHOULD remain the same Anonymsiy (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it could be challenging to change a logo, after these many years. A logo means identity 🥺 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

well wikipedia's has much more of it! Anonymsiy (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Logos are seldom superb, but if it is adequate, unproblematic, and in long use, there's generally no pressing need to change them. IMO that's the case here. So the answer to your question would be "no". (Though if you think you can create an amazingly splendid new logo and freely license it to Wikimedia, fell free to submit it for discussion.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Commons logo variants has some useful alternatives. The logo could evolve if there was a really popular new version, we would just run a consensus vote on it. "Should" is a harder question. Fæ (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! also, are there any wikimedia projects without logos i could make one for? Anonymsiy (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If you're good at making images, I'm sure COM:Graphic Lab could help with finding logo requests. Arlo James Barnes 07:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be a waste of resources to go about the process of changing the logo. It's good enough as it is. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 16:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

1949 Clothing

I am not an expert on clothing and fashion and could use some help in classifying clothes. I notice that all three have visible legs beneath the knees. I also find that the boy wearing a skirt is unsual. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Plus fours are below the knees. Though it's common enough for schoolboys to wear a kilt, this case looks like baggy shorts. Fæ (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Security personnel at Wikimania 2026, Paris

Wikimania ISS video

Has the video made aboard the ISS, for the Wikimania 2026 opening ceremony, been uploaded to Commons, or will it be?

I can't find it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There is this category Category:Sophie Adenot video at Wikimania 2026 opening ceremony, but it doesn't seem the actual video is in there. However, the video can be seen at the opening ceremony's full recording File:Wikimania 2026 – Opening Ceremony featuring Wikimedian of the Year.webm around 18m20s. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope we can soon have the full, standalone video at high res.

Meanwhile at least we now have Category:Wikimedia aboard the International Space Station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There is also a better quality video on YT. Starts here as far as I can understand French ;) https://www.youtube.com/live/jcFHu20jtgI?si=VlUPZCRjrHkRUwiw&t=24524 Nux (talk··dyskusja) 20:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Bad action by "Túrelio"

• Cold_District_heating,_schematic_function.svg&action=history
• Cold_District_heating,_schematic_function.svg&action=log
• de.wikipedia
• other file: page=File:Italy_1864_ca.svg&action=log

Taylor 49 (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Taylor 49: You are going to have to spell out what was "bad" here. I only looked at the first of four items in your list, but it seems reasonable. When a file is deleted as a duplicate, it is perfectly normal to redirect it to the file it duplicated. If that is not the reason for deletion, then the deletion log is misleading. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that these SVGs (at least one of which was in use) were actually duplicates of the test SVG. Omphalographer (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, indeed. Looks like an error on Túrelio's part. You really could just have contacted him rather than bring it here, or at least pinged him, but Pinging @Túrelio, you probably want to look into this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@User:Jmabel Sure: "Túrelio" deleted at least two files that were both INUSE and INSCOPE, apparently even without any discussion. There should not be any redirects to garbage File:Test.svg. Claiming that something is dupe of File:Test.svg is nonsense. Taylor 49 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Taylor 49, why didn't you notify me directly on my talkpage?

Anyway, I've restored File:Cold District heating, schematic function.svg in order to be able to understand what happened back then (deletion was on May 10th!). As you can see from the version-history, the file had been tagged by OptimusPrimeBot as a duplicate of File:Test.svg, which was technically accurate at this time (Test.svg from May 9, 2026: ). My fault seems to be that I didn't check whether the Bot-edit/tagging made sense. Sorry for that.

Now for File:Italy 1864 ca.svg. That file had been tagged by its creator, User:Manlleus, for speedy deletion on december 23, 2024, which I then performed on december 24, 2024.

Generally, FYI: files may be tagged as duplicate of an existing file by the system (MediaWiki) itself, by OptimusPrimeBot (and other Bots) or manually. Duplicate is a speedy-deletion rationale (F8) and does not require discussion. However, as of recently it seems that these Bots sometimes duplicate-tag files which aren't actually duplicates, but that is different issue than the one discussed here.--Túrelio (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now.

> been tagged by OptimusPrimeBot as a duplicate of "File:Test.svg", which was technically accurate at this time

YES but duplicates of "Test.*" obviously should be excluded from the process. And maybe there should be a harder policy against using "Test.*" in serious wiki pages.

> file had been tagged by its creator, User:Manlleus

Well then the deletion was justified, but not the redirect to "File:Test.svg".

Taylor 49 (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

See all my deletion requests

Hi, is there any possibility to see every deletion request I have issued with my account? I currently keep track of it manually, but this is getting kind of annoying. Also, is there a possibility to get a notification when someone answers to a specific deletion request (without getting notifications for every edit on the whole deletion requests page)? Kind regards, Aciarium ⚒ (talk) 09:49, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Put the deletion subpage on your watchlist and check your watchlist regularly.

(The part about subscribing to the whole deletion request page upon creating a deletion request is a bug.) Nakonana (talk) 10:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not precisely what you're asking about, and I don't know of a way to filter these results further within Commons' interface, but this returns every page creation in the Commons space for your account, and if you filter (with CTRL+F for instance) for "N Commons:Deletion requests" it highlights all created deletion + mass deletion requests (of which there are 18 currently). ReneeWrites (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Saudi Arabia's new copyright law and new FoP rule

Kindly visit Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#New_Saudi_Arabia_copyright_act_-_an_update for the still-open discussion. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)