Shortcut: COM:AN

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

Moving a category

Could someone with the right administration tools please move Category:Göteborg and all its subcategories to Category:Gothenburg etc.? Ove Raul (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Category talk:Göteborg doesn't seem to be clearly one way or the other. Certainly I can see no reason to make this move. If only for the reason that it's a whole pile of work to move a big tree like this, and any improvement would be tiny. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

It goes against the rules to not have it under its English name and the result of the discussion is clear. If you don't want to do it, I suppose someone else will. Ove Raul (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Which rules would those be? This is a proper name. COM:Categories notes their exclusion. So we could legitimately use either form, and would resolve this according to some degree over consensus, addressing the broadest clarity that we can easily achieve. But there is no clear consensus on the discussion so far and 'Göteborg' is well recognised by English speakers. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The rule is that English names should be used, if there is an established English proper name, and there is one here. The English name of this city is Gothenburg. This is also clearly stated on the talk page, where the people opposing the move only have personal feelings, no real arguments for their case. Ove Raul (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As I point out on the talk page, a CIA map of the area that uses the names Warsaw and Copenhagen marks the city as Göteborg. Both Göteborg and Gothenburg are English names of the city, and which one is the one we should use is not trivial.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Images farfelues

Pourriez-vous vérifier la validité des fichiers de ce lien : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/EricS4147&ilshowall=1

Les titres ne correpondent pas aux images, qui sont composées de suites de charactères géométriques sans ordre apparent.

Moez ^talk 17:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Moez Bonsoir. I think you need to nominate the images for deletion, see: Commons:Deletion policy. That way a person that created the image will get a chance to respond. I'm guessing it is gibberish (random characters), but not sure (kind of looks like encoded messages). Nux (talk··dyskusja) 20:33, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated the files for deletion here. They're almost certainly text set in "dingbat" fonts, and are unlikely to be useful. Omphalographer (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I was afk. Moez ^talk 14:17, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Qiuwen Baike

Could anyone help? dringsim 09:14, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Help with an indef block

Manuel-Ambrogioni (talk · contribs) sent a mail to VRT asking to revisit their block, because they requested a global rename and the current block on Commons don't allow them to do it. Is it possible to review the block or should I tell them it is not possible? Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 17:42, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: as blocking admin. Yann (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

@Sannita and Yann: They were blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts". See also their abuse filter log and this errant edit. Have they stopped that behavior with all accounts for 6+ months and properly used the unblock template?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

VRT is not a venue for unblock requests, and that a Commons block is now inconvenient to the user on another project is not an appropriate or relevant unblock rationale. This user is welcome to make a request with their other account (Timmyp12), which is not blocked. The request will need to demonstrate an understanding of the issue and a credible commitment to discontinue, per COM:BP. Эlcobbola _talk 23:18, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Note that all of their uploads here have been mobile uploads of copyvios relating to footwear on both accounts.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:40, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@Elcobbola I think they are trying to anonimize that account, as it seems a name-and-surname account. But I'll report your response. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 14:33, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

For abusive sock accounts I see no reason why we should allow renaming of them. The only thing we can and should allow is vanishing of the account. GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible favoritism by an administrator

Can someone take a look at User talk:Geoffroi#Wrong renamings? I've done a lot of these renames of Ukrainian government documents thinking the users work together and know what they're doing. Now I get notified about bad renames, and the person who requested the renames doesn't. I would think a Ukrainian admin like User:AhoncCategory:Commons User template with namespace, who has edited the file/s in question, would notify the user who requested the bad renames since the files are Ukrainian and the user is also Ukrainian. It would seem to make sense that Ahonc would notify the other user in Ukrainian in order to avoid further bad rename requests. Favoritism of any kind isn't good when an admin is involved. Geoffroi 01:51, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, renamers should not fulfill all rename requests, they should analyze before renaming: does request fall under rules or not. Your cases are not obvious errors, there are FRNOT 1 - new name is bit better and should not be fulfilled. I do not notify user because he does not make new requests and previous requests were fulfilled. How will I explain him that request was wrong if it was fulfilled? I think that I should firstly reject next such request and then explain it for user.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Geoffroi: Note that {{U}} does not officially support "User:" in parameter 1.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:46, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is favouritism - as the holder of a permission you are responsible for using it within policy. However the requester was active yesterday, so explaining the renaming rules to them would make sense. Secretlondon (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Geoffroi, @Ahonc: I took a look at Special:Diff/1221386123/1221748545, where a rationale ЦДІАК 1162-1нов-8. 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1881, 1883, 1884, 1887, 1889, 1890. Метрична книга єврейської громади м-ка Ківшовата. Народження.pdf; Reason: Ківшовата була у той час містечком, а не містом, що позначається скорочено "м-ко" was given. Per Google Translate, it's Reason: Kivshovata was at that time a town, not a city, which is abbreviated as "m-ko". I would expect that this kind of wording has political and legal implication. Even in standard language, there's a difference between "town" and "city" (a reference: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/town ). So, a change between "town" and "city" is not within the purview of COM:FRNOT #1, it's certainly not similar to the given examples there. Such a change doesn't make a better looking name, changing the wording from "town" to "city" actually removes an imprecision. I'd say that this is indeed covered by COM:FNC#FR3 and would also not stretch COM:FNC#FR2. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, but there are no other places with name Kivshovata, and many people do not know what status hsa it in that time, so they may not be confused. Btw, now en:Kivshovata is village. So there is also second case. It is more difficult to explain for English, so I try to explain for German: it is like you change metrisches BuchKirchenbuch die Stadt Katerynoslaw to metrisches BuchKirchenbuch der Stadt Katerynoslaws. It is only changing of form of cityname noun (Nominativ to Genitiv). Do you think it falls under FR3 too?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, because the change between "die" and "der" is actually a mandated grammatical inflection. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But it does not change meaning, it is not obvious error. For me it is good example for FRNOT #1.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

After a bit of thinking, I'd tend to removing the articles altogether, replacing if with a hyphen or so. And the S at "der Stadt Katerynoslaws" is superfluous. @Ahonc, what is actually a "Метрична книга", is that a technical term for statistical records of births and deaths? "Metric book", as given by Google Translate, looks weird, see en:metric and de:Metrik. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

It is de:Kirchenbuch.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Kirchenbuch or Stammbaum(buch), see ru:Метрика#Родословная. Nakonana (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

And about desinence s: in German it may be superfluous, but in Ukrainian desinence changes case of noun: Катеринослав — nominative, Катеринослава — genitive. So in this issue only noun case was changed: nominative to genitive.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, wikt:de:Dnipro#Substantiv,_n,_Toponym (it is modern name of Katerynoslav) gives Dnipros in Genitiv case, so why Katerynoslaw without s in Genitiv?--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Kirchenbuch der Stadt Katerynoslaw can be substituted by Kirchenbuch von der Stadt Katerynoslaw or Kirchenbuch aus der Stadt Katerynoslaw. If this test works, then no end S is allowed. Sadly, I can't explain it better, it's my native speaker instinct kicking in without knowledge about the exact grammar rule. On the other hand, Katerynoslaws Kirchenbuch is also permissible when looking at the grammar. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, now took a bit more time to actually check the renames and would say that they appear to be ok as they fix what could be considered typos/grammar fixes (м. [city] -> м-ко [town] and adding -а to the city/town name for correct declension). One could argue that they are rather minor changes and might not be worth the technical burden that renaming creates, but I don't think that those renames were inherently wrong. They could be argued to be COM:FRNOT p. 1 (as possibly minor fixes that don't justify the burden of renaming), but they could equally be argued to fall under COM:FNC#FR3 (fixing misspelled file names). So, I guess I can understand both sides here and don't think that there's anything sanctionable here on either end. Nakonana (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

No Permission Since

I'm seeing a lot of requests on UnDR that arise from a blank permission line, such as this:

|source={{Own}}

|author=Any User

|permission=

|other versions=

}}

=={{int:license-header}}==

{{self|cc-zero}}

It seems to me that this has everything we need -- author, source, and license. I'm not sure myself what I would put in the "permission =" space. This came from an UnDR today, with only the author's name changed. It is not the only one of these there.

Unnecessary UnDRs waste time for both the editors who deal with them and the Users who make the requests. I don't know whether the solution is to remove the "permission =" blank, or simply start suggesting strongly to the deleting Admins that they look more carefully at the files.      Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Many "No Permission Since" tags come from users who do not want to put in the (minimal) effort to start a DR with "I don't believe the uploader has the permission of the copyright holder because...". Many uploaders seem not want to put in the (minimal) effort to dispute them, or arrive late. Admins seem to just rubber stamp them in many cases after a week. The solutions appear to be in more attention to detail and possibly extending the time for {{subst:npd}} and perhaps the other two similar templates {{subst:nld}} and {{subst:nsd}}. And more Admins who can commit to giving sufficient attention to these matters.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:13, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G. this is a known issue with NPD cases. Someone once tagged 5k portraits as No permission, they got deleted, and it was a mess. Admin's just need to be more careful. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

But we can only work with the information the uploader gives to us. We can not make a deep research for every user who refuses to reply to the deletion warning within one week. GPSLeo (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Still, we have to be somewhat skeptical of non-obvious speedy deletion requests. Uploaders should not need to perpetually (1) remain alive, (2) remain active on Commons, (3) be vigilant over their uploads. I turn a fair number of speedy deletion requests into DRs, and while about 2/3 of those result in deletions, that means a fair number are kept. Speedy deletion is supposed to be for obvious cases, not for "I have a hunch." - Jmabel ! talk 21:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: These dated templates don't trigger speedies for 7 days; they seem to be stopgaps between normal speedies and 14 days normal DRs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: understood, but when you just say "this has no permission" to someone who has given what they think is a valid permission, and who is not steeped in the culture of this site as you and I and most active contributors to this page are, they presumably have no idea what to make of it. - Jmabel ! talk 03:01, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Is every user who happens to take a two-week vacation or spend a couple weeks in hospital being unreasonable? I've seen no permission tags that I stared at and had no idea what the tagger want; indeed, suspected that the tagger didn't believe the claim of own work, which should not be tagged with no permission.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

How about a template or DR rationale that says something like "I have seen no indication from you that you are a professional photographer, and this looks like a professional photo, so I doubt it is your own work"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that raises to the level of "significant doubt" required for deletions per COM:PCP? Contributors are not required to disclose their profession. And someone might have just managed to make a lucky shot that turned out great, or they participated in a photography workshop to improve their skills, and some hobby-photographers are just good photographers even if they are officially just "amateur photographers".

If tagging something as "no permission", I'd assume the tagger has found evidence or at least clear indicators that the file might not be the uploader's own work. Any other questioning of own work claims should probably just go through the regular DR process. Nakonana (talk) 14:47, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a professional photographer, but I doubt a professional would have taken File:Clark Humphrey 01.jpg or File:El Vez - 2009-07-25 13.jpg significantly differently. You don't have to be a professional to occasionally take a very good photo. - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Jmabel, I'm an amateur too, but I would have done some things different (if time permitted) for Clark Humphrey: focus slightly closer (jacket zipper is in focus, his eyes are not), hold the camera slightly higher to make his nose less prominent. The latter is a personal choice though. This is nitpicking obviously, it's a great photo. :-)
For El Vez, hmm.. CPL filter, reduce exposure? Find a spot where the sunlight is directly behind his hair, if possible. Again: great photo and I doubt I could have done better. I don't know if there's anything in Category:Images by Alexis Jazz that could be mistaken for the work of a professional. It's >90% iPhone pics currently. Maybe someday. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:26, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I generally try to use "no permission" if I think there's some chance VRT permission would come through as the no permission tagging steers more clearly towards VRT than a regular DR. But if I can't find an image on the web I may also use "no permission" instead of "copyvio". For example when people are uploading thumbnails.
I'm not sure myself what I would put in the "permission =" space.
Model release and FoP info maybe.
Many uploaders seem not want to put in the (minimal) effort to dispute them, or arrive late.
@Jeff G., I frequently see uploaders who respond to the notification on their talk page without responding on the actual DR or disputing a speedy tag. There is some communication problem there. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 03:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Would something like "Please do not reply here, reply on [the linked subpage] instead." suffice?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Jeff G., it already says "Please voice your opinion in the linked request above." (including the underline)
Have we ever considered just transcluding the deletion request page itself? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 12:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: That might work, perhaps ask at Template talk:idw.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)