Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/01. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. For questions about copyright, technical matters, or help that does not relate to the general Commons community as well as proposals, please see the other discussion boards linked in the blue panel at the top. Search archives:     Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Replace images with .svg version (5 August 2025) Category talk:Heroes' Cemetery in the Philippines#RfC: Cemetery name (18 July 2025) Discussion on Copyright law of North Korea (16 March 2025) Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

December 30

Do you want to help, to categorise 34,000 media needing categories as of 2020, please?

We are currently categorizing all media needing categories as of 2020. Progress is good so far, as shown on Category talk:All media needing categories as of 2020, but the task is getting increasingly more difficult, because the 'low hanging fruit' have been harvested by now. Do you want to help us? If so, please leave a comment about your approach or your achievement either here or on the discussion page.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

One way is to categorize the trees in the pictures. Example File:954I8789 نمایی از زن و مرد گردشگر در درکه - تهران.jpg and File:954I8790 زن و مرد گردشگر در درکه - تهران.jpg. However I cannot read Arabic, so I dare not place it in a country category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

But, please, if all you can do with an image that is clearly supposed to depict a place is to categorize a tree, don't remove it from Category:All media needing categories as of 2020! - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

A few months ago I went there, categorized a few images (spent quite some time geolocating them), provided some ideas at the talk page which were fully, totally ignored by that community as if I do not exist. Not going to do it again. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that you should feel ignored, keeping in mind that "no criticism is praise enough." Implementing procedures to fight the backlog will take some time. It's a task for unsung heroes, who are sufficiently self-motivated to categorise files or to motivate uploaders to to it themselves. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I completely agree with the comment “don't remove it from Category:All media needing categories as of 2020!“, but the problem is that when using Cat-a-lot it automatically removes it. Wouter (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is false – in the preferences there is the setting "Remove {{Check categories}} and other minor cleanup" which one could uncheck. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot makes it easy to add the category Unidentified people to all photos of people, for example. The user can be proud because now so many images have a category added. Another user has then to solve the problem with "Unidentified people" with over 31,000 images. I've personally noticed that there are images with the person's full name in the description and that also have a Wikipedia article. Wouter (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a very good comment, indeed. I have subsequently categorized some of these people and found that this is easier than categorizing those grouped by dates. Thus, I think it is helpful, to put them temporarily into this category. You may skip the mass uploads starting with a number, if you want to categorize them manually. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

You can combine the research of several people and get a result: File:Bakkikayam.jpg The description is in the Malayalam language. This limits the picture to the Indian state of Kerala, or the union territories of Lakshadweep and Puducherry (Mahé district). This is a dam on some river. But I dont want to speculate.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Sometime the research is incomplete. File:Bernard Becker & wife Janet.jpg, There is an Wikipedia article about Bernard Becker. One problem is that he died in 2013, so this picture cannot have been taken in 2017.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Based on the metadata and image quality, I have the impression that the photo was not taken in 2017, but that a scan of a photo was made in 2017. Wouter (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I have added a before date.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for this effort. However, I think it's not nearly as useful and needed as for example categorizing files in Category:2020s maps of the world in unidentified languages (complete) or Category:Renewable energy charts with unspecified year of latest data (under construction) or Category:Diagrams in unspecified languages (under construction) or Category:Renewable energy charts in unspecified languages (complete) for example or any of the requested tasks in Commons:Categorization requests.

There also is the issue that most of the files in these needing-categories cats are of low quality and/or low usefulness/relevance so what categorizing them does is

• cluttering categories
• creating work for those contributors who keep these categories clean and well-subcategorized

Prototyperspective (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

We are making good progress: 25,000 media needing categories as of 2020, but we need more volunteers, to clean the backlog by reviewing these files one-by-one or by semi-automated procedures. NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Does someone know what the Italian phrase 'Coletti Gino' means? I categorized the first one, but maybe better if some Italian works on this.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

It seems to be some Italian person: it:Gino Coletti Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Warning: These four images are modern pictures taken with an i-phone, so the actual location is incorrect and all of the same place.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

January 02

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)

January 03

[REACTIONS NEEDED] User:Yug@commonswiki_(importer) - extension

Hello everyone and happy new year 2026,

Following Stewart Xaosflux's guidance and request, allow me to inform the Commons community that I requested a one month extension for my temporary importer rights to finish Lingualibre.org/wiki/'s selected imports toward Commons:Lingua Libre. See the previous discussions and votes there :

• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/10#Migration_of_Lingua_Libre_project_pages_to_Commons - scope and initial approval
• meta:Steward_requests/Permissions/2025-11#User:Yug@commonswiki_(importer)
• meta:Steward_requests/Permissions#Yug@commonswiki_(2)
• Commons:Lingua Libre#Current status

Best regards. Yug (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding 10 days temporarily while this is open. @Yug: when this closes please drop a new request at SRP. If 2 months is what you need, please express that here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello User:Xaosflux,

As discussed here, I'm depending on other users collaboration for Translations pages, we will see if 10 days will be enough. Yug (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was that it would be at least long enough for this discussion to come up with a consensus. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

[EDIT] Please express your position on this userrights extension. Yug (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

•  Support I seem another extension would be warranted given that Yug has already been able to do much of the task. ─ Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Support Given that the project has already been approved and seems to be going smoothly. Chrs (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

 Support per others above, the migration project seems to be going well and the user seems to be using their rights responsibly. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Steward note: this has been extended for 3 months. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

January 10

Copy cat names to wikidata

i think it'd be a good idea to copy cat names (if english) to en label (if empty) or en alias of the wd item it's linked to, if it's not already present in any language on the wd item.

for years i'm annoyed by this problem. now it's especially irritating when the same thing has different names for depicts and category. RoyZuo (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no clear priority among Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata for naming an article/category/item. I don't see how we can say Commons dictates to Wikidata any more than vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

In the absence of any English name for an entity in Wikidata, using one from the Commons category seems like a reasonable starting point. Omphalographer (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Bot has been doing this for years. Multichill (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

1. it didnt seem to do that for these 5000 recent edits spanning over 4 days https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Pi_bot&target=Pi+bot&offset=20260107122856&limit=5000
2. it didnt add the commons cat name back as an alias since 2015 for https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q7452846&action=history

so either it needs to do that a lot more frequently, or it needs to be restarted. RoyZuo (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Agree that this would be good to do. I think this thread about a technical subject should be moved to the Commons general discussion forum about technical subjects, COM:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Or d:Wikidata:Project chat as this concerns edits on Wikidata. Samoasambia ✎ 01:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Mass notifications

Hello, hundreds of my files have been modified like 1 or 2, making my watchlist giant to reset. User:MB-one, as the performer, do you have a solution? The problem has been evoked at COM:ANU and participants said the edits were tagged "QuickCategories", however now the tags are different ("AC/DC" or "openrefine"). My mail box is full of unread notifications, and I don't know how to reset each file without patiently clicking on all links. Help much welcome! -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Your files have not been modified, their description pages have. That is what we do here, collaboratively edit a wiki. You choose to have every edit create an email notification for you it seems, so then this one of the risks. Luckily email filtering is easy, and selecting a bunch of notifications and deleting them all at once is also pretty easy. And you can of course choose to disable the notifications. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Their description pages have... The sound of wisdom 💫 :-)

User:TheDJ, "That is what we do here": thanks, but after 14 years on this project, this is the first time I have so many notifications on the same day.

Question about your recommendation: "deleting them all at once is also pretty easy", then do you think the notifications will be maintained by the system, for example in case of vandalism, wrong edit, or just basic update? In my opinion, no. -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The notifications will not be saved, but the underlying edit history is always kept. Even for deleted files, it is still available to admins. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Basile Morin,

yes, some of these edits are created with AC/DC or Openrefine as well as QuickCategories. I am using a combination of these tools for efficiency reasons. You can filter filter out these edits on your watchlist and opt-out of e-mail notifications. If you spot errors in these edits, you can reach out to me on my watchlist and I will correct them.

Cheers, MB-one (talk) 11:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

MB-one you used "QuickCategories" at the beginning, then "AC/DC" and "Openrefine", maybe tomorrow "Nirvana" and "Whatever". Is there a full list of all the tags likely to produce the same hurricane, to filter them in advance? -- Basile Morin (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

@Basile Morin, Besides these three I'm currently working also with QuickStatements and Hotcat. All these tools tag their edits accordingly. However, I can not guarantee that I will never use any other mass edit tool. And I certainly not speak for other users. I'm not aware of there's any possibility to group all "mass edit" tools together and filter all of them at once. But maybe that's a good feature request.

Cheers, MB-one (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Aren't camera characteristics structured data usually added by bots? Bot edits are easy to filter. Nakonana (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

It could technically be done by bots. However, since there's no bot doing this work currently, I decided to do what I can. MB-one (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Probably it would be good to request the development of a bot for this or the addition of a task to an existing bot at Commons:Bots/Work requests if you haven't done so.

Another thing I forgot to mention below is that one could also hide all structured data edits, this seems to be what m:Community Wishlist/W5 is about. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@MB-one i think you should use a bot account if you make thousands of edits like this batch https://editgroups-commons.toolforge.org/b/OR/c3d78ad5204/ . RoyZuo (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

See also en:User:Nardog/RCMuter – This script allows you to "mute" users you specify, i.e. stop seeing their edits, on watchlist and recent changes. To mute a user, click "Edit muted" below the top heading on watchlist or recent changes and enter their name, or click "Show toggle buttons" and click "mute" in the list. The list of muted users is stored in your account's preferences, so it is not public and is shared across devices.. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

January 14

"Photographs"

Are edits like [1] and [2] in accord with policy or against it? I'll say it straight out: I'm against this. "Photographs" is the default and we do not need to introduce an extra layer of categories all over the place. But we certainly should go one way or the other on this, and do it consistently.

Pinging @GT1976. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm against it as well. We don't need the extra layer of useless categorization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! This structure with photographs has been standard for years, and millions of photos are categorized within it. However, I have no problem with this intermediate level being omitted. Best regards, --GT1976 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This is in accordance with policy according to COM:CAT, specifically the modularity principle. "October 2007 United States photographs" is a subcategory of "October 2007 in the United States" and it's part of a long-standing and broadly-utilized category structure, at the bottom of which you find (for the first photo) Category:United States photographs taken on 2007-10-26.

We have had similar discussions before recently, and I feel like a lot of the issues people have with photos being moved from a visible category to the hidden "country photos by day" categories would be solved if we just unhid those categories.

I also disagree that "photographs" are an unneeded layer of abstraction; the content and structure of Category:October 2007 in the United States is very different from Category:October 2007 United States photographs. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

It's reasonable to say the default is the media format images which is e.g. why Category:Images by subject was turned into a redirect (it's a subcat of the Category:Images which is linked at the very top of the very front page). However, that doesn't go for photographs vs other images. Nevertheless, in various categories photographs may be the default – probably fewer than you assume or think and imo not in this case: it makes sense to distinguish videos (and other files?) from photographs at Category:October 2007 in the United States. The issue I think comes down to what I asked about at COM:CAT – it would be better to not subcategorize things like that / create subcategories like that unless the categories are populated by the subcat-creator quite comprehensively so don't give users a wrong impression of what is there and are useful and not extremely incomplete.

The caveat here however is that with the MediaSearch one can already separate videos from images dynamically so there isn't necessarily much use of this subcategorization if the user knows that this is possible and how it is possible. It can still be useful but due to this caveat I haven't formed any personal conclusion yet on this and maybe you're right that this subcategorization shouldn't be done where I would just object to your claim "Photographs" is the default which sounds like bias from somebody who happens to be involved with lots of photographs-categories and photo-uploads but which isn't the case for other types of users, contributors, files, and categories (e.g. there is nearly no photo in the large Category:Our World in Data). For now, I'd just leave things as they are and maybe considering creating a comprehensive carefully-thought-out CfD at the relevant large-order cat and/or RfC including some ideas for changes. GT1976 and ReneeWrites make good points.

The previously mentioned way to browse or search or filter files via MediaSearch works like this (note: does not work for some categories with long chains of subcats): deepcategory:"October 2007 in the United States". Prototyperspective (talk) 12:09, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I had this issue, too in my categorization. The photographs cat is actually my category I prefer. The "October 2018 in the United States" is probably for things like events or so, but not so much needed as photographs. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

January 15

Getting logged out every ten minutes (or so)

Hi, does anyone know why I (or maybe more users) get logged out, even when I place a √ at 'keep me logged in' while login in? - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Did this happen only recently? I was wondering why sometimes I get logged out. It seems to be a technical issue (and maybe it would be good to move this to Commons:Village pump/Technical). However, for me it's very far from every ten minutes or so. Did this never happen before and now very often? Prototyperspective (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

January 16

Incorrect description/title and description incorrect on file from geograph.org.uk

Hi all. I've stumbled upon a photograph that was uploaded from geograph.org.uk File:Side of the Angel, Midhurst - geograph.org.uk - 3891742.jpg - the problem with this photo is that it is not as described in the title or description due to an error on the part of the photographer - it is actually the side of the next building along. The description etc. is pulled from a template (Template:Geograph from structured data), so can't be changed - I've added a correct summary of the subject below, so there are now two conflicting descriptions, also the title of the file remains incorrect - what would normally happen in cases like this? Is there an established way to correct photo descriptions of files imported via the geograph.org.uk project? Many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Change the structured data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

If the file name needs to be changed, use the template {{Rename}}. Nakonana (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

And if you want to preserve the old name for reference, you can use {{Original caption}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I've recently created {{Corrected metadata}} with the intent to better document factual problems in the original metadata, and document why we corrected it. I think we should be clearer about what we change from the sourced metadata than we do now, and provide links to our reasoning for doing so. Hadn't completely finished it yet, but it's out there. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Simon Burchell (talk) 10:02, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The file still has two {{Information}} when there should be only one. As far as I understood it, the solution is pointed out here in the first comment: changing the SD (this does not seem to be about the exif metadata). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank You for Last Year – Join Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026

Dear Wikimedia communities,

We hope you are doing well, and we wish you a happy New Year.

Last year, we captured light. This year, we’ll capture legacy.

In 2025, communities around the world shared the glow of Ramadan nights and the warmth of collective iftars. In 2026, Wiki Loves Ramadan is expanding, bringing more stories, more cultures, and deeper global connections across Wikimedia projects.

We invite you to explore the Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 Meta page to learn how you can participate and sign up your community.

📷 Photo campaign on Wikimedia Commons

If you have questions about the project, please refer to the FAQs:

• Meta-Wiki
• Wikimedia Commons

Early registration for updates is now open via the Event page

Stay connected and receive updates:

• Telegram channel
• Mailing list

We look forward to collaborating with you and your community.

The Wiki Loves Ramadan 2026 Organizing Team 19:44, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

January 17

South Korea FOP

User:JWilz12345 has nominated a number of photos of Korean buildings for deletion (see Category:South Korean FOP cases/pending) on the basis that "There is no commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea." So on that basis, won't most photos in Category:Museums in South Korea and Category:Buildings in South Korea by location be deleted? Is that policy even correct and being properly applied? How do South Korean media organisations publish or broadcast anything in public then? Is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea? Mztourist (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist South Korean media and broadcasters are allowed to publish buildings without architects' permissions due to Article 26 of their copyright law: In cases of reporting current events by means of broadcasts or newspapers, or by other means, it shall be permissible to reproduce, distribute, perform publicly, transmit publicly a work seen or heard in the relevant courses, to the extent justified by the reporting purpose.

Wikimedia Commons, however, is not a broadcasting organization or an information service provider. It is a media repository and archive where all content must be free for commercial reuses, in accordance with Commons:Licensing. The Korean copyright law's FoP rule is simply against this freedom. To quote in full Article 35(1 and 2), with underlined parts for emphasis of FoP rule:

Article 35 (Exhibition or Reproduction of Works of Art, etc.
(1) The holder of the original of a work of art, etc., or a person who has obtained the holder’s consent, may exhibit the work in its original form: Provided, That where the work of art is to be permanently exhibited on the street, in the park, on the exterior of a building, or other places open to the public, the same shall not apply.
(2) Works of art, etc. exhibited at all times at an open place as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (1) may be reproduced and used by any means: Provided, That in any of the following cases, the same shall not apply:
1. Where a building is reproduced into another building;
2. Where a sculpture or painting is reproduced into another sculpture or painting;
3. Where the reproduction is made in order to exhibit permanently at an open place under the proviso to paragraph (1);
4. Where the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies.

Many of the permitted licenses on Wikimedia Commons do not allow restrictions to commercial reuses, such as {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and {{Cc-zero}}. Due to the prohibition of commercial Freedom of Panorama in South Korea, Wikimedia Commons cannot host images of recent art and architecture (whose designers have not yet died for more than 70 years) from that country. Simply put, South Korean FoP under their law is not compatible with COM:Licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:31, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist additionally, thousands of images from South Korea have been deleted in the past. You can see the closed deletion requests at Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted. So for your final question, "is it useful that we would have almost no photos of buildings in Korea?" Yes and no:

No, because there will still be a couple of images of very old Korean buildings (temples and ancient Korean gates for example), even if it will inevitably misrepresent our coverage of that supposedly-democratic country. Furthermore, cityscape images where buildings and statues/monuments are incidental (de minimis, in accordance with COM:DM South Korea) are fine and can stay here. No contemporary South Korean landmark must be the main focus.

Yes, because Wikimedia Commons should only host media that does not infringe copyrights of architects (and also, sculptors and street artists or muralists). COM:PCP policy means we must aim to reduce takedown notices and cease-and-desist letters from the artwork designers, if not totally eliminate. Proactive vs. reactive. Commons has tolerated (since late 2000s) having no high quality images of Louvre Pyramid from France, Burj Khalifa from U.A.E., and Malacañan Palace (the Presidential Palace) from the Philippines.

Note that I intentionally added "supposedly-democratic", because the Korean democracy – as far as my hunch as a WikiCommoner is concerned – does not extend to the rights of content creators, consumers, and professionals. This can be inferred from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, concerning the "public" release of alleged freely-usable media from their state media but login is still required for access, with one commenter in that Village pump forum remarking, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 07:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

So you are saying that a building is a "work of art"? In that case Art 35(2) clearly applies and any building "exhibited at all times at an open place... may be reproduced and used by any means." Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist you forgot the fourth restriction. The free use "by any means" no longer applies if "the reproduction is made for the purpose of selling its copies." Photography is a method of reproducing buildings and artworks. The law is clear that there is no exception for commercial exploitations of images. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Posting images on Commons is not "for the purpose of selling its copies" If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist and you've said it: "If someone takes a Commons image and tries to commercially exploit it then sure they're probably breaching copyright." Allowing images for non-commercial use only is against COM:Licensing policy. Non-commercial licenses are perpetually forbidden here. In fact, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} and many others are commercial-type licenses. Restrictions on commercial reuses are not allowed under CCBYSA, CCBY, CCzero, and PD terms. South Korean FoP is simply incompatible with COM:L, so modern buildings and monuments from that country are not allowed here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:03, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

So we can't have pictures of modern Korean buildings solely because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? That seems to be completely opposed to the foundational policy of usefulness of images. Why can't we create non-commercial licenses? There is nothing stopping us from doing so. Mztourist (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Because non-commercial licences do not meet the definition of free content, and per the official description of the project, Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free content, not a repository of useful content. Allowing non-commercial licences would go against the intention of the project, even if such a change is well-intentioned and has merit on the basis of being helpful for Commons' users. Greviances are better placed on South Korean law, rather than Commons, because Commons hasn't done anything wrong, it is South Korea that is the problem here. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 06:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

because Wikimedia users aren't able to exploit them commercially? @Mztourist: with due respect, I believe you are confused. This is not about what "Wikimedia users" may do.

Commons has a specific role assigned to it by the Wikimedia Foundation. We specifically host content that, with regard to copyright, may be freely used by anyone (including commercially), in any manner (including derivative works), as long as they conform to an available license. (Aside: this is specifically about copyright: many images may have their use limited in one or another country by personality rights, trademarks, etc.). Unlike any other WMF project, Commons is not free to establish an meta:Exemption Doctrine Policy that would allow exceptions to this. We simply are not allowed, as part of our charter, to host such images. This policy is not a matter of law (we could legally host such images) but, on the other hand, it is not an internal Commons policy that we could change: it is part of the basis on which Commons is funded and hosted by the WMF. Pictures of recent buildings in Korea (or France, or Romania) can conform to this criterion only by getting an additional "free license" from the architect. - Jmabel ! talk 06:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Looking at the Wikimedia Project Scope, its states: "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all, and that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The expression "educational" is to be understood according to its broad meaning of "providing knowledge; instructional or informative"." I don't see any mention of commercial there. Further down is a section "Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose". So given the educational purpose it seems contradictory that under the Non-allowable license terms it states "The following licensing terms are not allowed: Non-commercial or educational use only." How is that in compliance with the main aim? Mztourist (talk) 07:28, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

These photos are not freely-licensed even if the photographer gives a free license to their creative work, there is still the copyright of the architect, who also needs to release the work under a free license to make the photo really free. GPSLeo (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist don't look at just one aspect of COM:SCOPE. Another aspect (which is one section higher than "educational purpose", therefore more important to consider) is Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain, specifically (with underlined passages for emphases):

Required licensing terms
To be considered freely licensed, the copyright owner has to release the file under an irrevocable licence which:
- Permits free reuse for any purpose, including commercial.
- Permits the creation of derivative works.
Non-allowable licence terms
The following licensing terms are not allowed:
- Non-commercial or educational use only.
- Restrictions on the creation of derivative works, except for copyleft.
- A requirement for payment or for notification of use; these can be requested but not required.
- Restrictions on where the work may be used, e.g. use allowed on Wikipedia only.
Licences with these restrictions are allowed as long as the work is dual-licensed or multi-licensed with at least one licensing option that does not include such a restriction.
"Licences" which purport to allow fair use only are not allowed. Fair use is not a right that can be licensed by a copyright owner, and is in any event never accepted on Commons.

That's why the South Korean rule on free use of public landmarks is against both COM:Licensing and COM:SCOPE. This Commons perspective will remain unchanged until South Korean government changes their mind and become more open to digital, I.T., and new media era where everyone can exploit public landmarks even for commercial purposes. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:36, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Still falls under Aims which refers to education, with no reference to commercial use. Its educational to have photos of modern Korean buildings for use on WP pages, other Foundation projects and just for public knowledge. Instead by requiring that images must be commercially exploitable, we are, by our own policies, undermining education. Mztourist (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist read again Commons:Project scope#Must be freely licensed or public domain. A file should not only be usable for educational purpose; it must also be usable for commercial purpose. How many times will I repeat that "non-commercial or educational use only" (as listed among non-allowable license terms under "COM:SCOPE#Must be freely licensed or public domain") content is not allowed here? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

You don't need to repeat it. I am raising a bigger question of why if this is an educational project we impose policies that limit education because commerce isn't served? Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

We are not even save that no court would consider our project an commercially as we ask for donations and sell merchandise. There are interpretations of non commercial they reduce non commercial basically to personal use only. GPSLeo (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Not really relevant unless the merchandise incorporates picture(s) of modern Korean buildings. Mztourist (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Four experienced users here, two of us admins, have now told you essentially the same thing, but you keep telling us that the mandate of our site is not the mandate of our site. At some point, you either have to abide by a clear consensus, or decide that this is not the site for your work. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Neither you, nor anyone else has explained why the policy contradicts the stated educational Aim of this site, just that the policy must be obeyed. How am I not abiding by consensus in raising this? Mztourist (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

There are many educational things that are not included in the scope of Commons. Among them are original, previously unpublished academic papers; academic classes; user-written encyclopedia articles of the sort found in Wikipedia; and works that are neither in the public domain nor free-licensed (where the latter is defined to include allowing for commercial re-use) either in their country of origin or in the United States. The fact that something has educational value is not sufficient to place it in Commons's scope.

Some aspects of Commons' scope are negotiable: the degree to which we allow AI-generated or AI-enhanced works, the degree to which we host previously published text articles, the degree to which we host archives of websites that fall within our requirements for free-licensing. Other parts are basically not, and you are hitting upon one of the least negotiable, mainly because, as I wrote above, Commons charter from the WMF does not allow Commons to have an Exemption Doctrine Policy. The norm for WMF sites is to host only public-domain and free-licensed materials. Other sites are allowed to make certain limited exceptions under an approved policy. Commons literally does not have that option. What you are asking is like asking why the vegan restaurant won't serve cow's milk, or eggs, or maybe some fish. - Jmabel ! talk 06:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Allowing NonCommercial was discussed in 2019 at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/08#Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial media on Wikimedia Commons, you can see the community strongly opposed it; the reasons why and the links provided (e.g. https://freedomdefined.org/Licenses/NC) might help to further explain why why Commons doesn't allow NC. Like any policy, though, if you don't agree with it, you can propose changing it at COM:Village pump/Proposals. -Consigned (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist: Have you had a chance to review COM:LJ?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it contradicts the educational aim. Mztourist (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

@Mztourist no, it actually reinforces the aim for freely accessible educational content. Non-commercial licensing impedes the freedom to distribute, sell, and publish educational materials. Furthermore, in their 2022 policy guide, Creative Commons suggested the "exercise freedom of panorama" as one of the "minimum necessary exceptions for the Cultural Heritage Institutions and Their Users". GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) benefit from commercial Freedom of Panorama of outdoor works as well as building exteriors by the freedom to exhibit or publish images of contemporary monuments and buildings without any restrictions, further benefitting the mission of GLAMs to provide educational content on the architectural and sculptural heritages of their respective countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

for such countries, ultimately as photographers we have only 2 options:

1. upload here; let them be deleted, and then in future be undeleted and rediscovered (when the photographed objects' copyrights no longer apply).
2. upload to websites like flickr.com .

RoyZuo (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, once battery technology becomes sufficiently advanced enough, as Commons contributors we can travel to North Korea, fly a drone over the DMZ, and photograph buildings in South Korea that way. Because you are physically standing in North Korea while you are controlling the drone, North Korean law applies, and North Korean FOP is more liberal than South Korea. Seoul is only 60 kilometres from the DMZ, and I have flown my DJI Mavic 4 in a straight line for 8 kilometres without any problems, so we're nearly there. --benlisquare_{Talk•Contribs} 14:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think this strategy will fly very far (pun intended). The FoP laws were designed without thinking of drones, and may have to be updated. But the copyright should be decided by where is the camera, not where is the drone controller. For Mztourist defense, I think that that law is weirdly worded. Yann (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann or the FoP rule was meant to be worded that way, and Wikimedia Korea chapter should have a very convincing argument about why a commercial outdoor FoP in Korea (similar to Belgian or German models) or at least unrestricted architectural FoP (similar to American, Taiwanese, and Russian models) would be good for the dissemination of cultural heritage of their country, especially on foreign-hosted sites that are seen as "competitors" of South Korean ones. As I can infer from Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/09#South Korean state media may be free content now but login required, the South Korean establishments and authorities do not appear to be open ("genuine openness") to the free licensing concept. The SoKor online community has a direct "competitor" of Wikipedia, Namuwiki (enWiki article: w:en:Namuwiki), which draws more Internet traffic than KoWiki (despite having lesser quality control over their content), and is under a non-commercial CCBYNCSA licensing. SoKor politicians prioritize more on curating their entries on NamuWiki than either Kowiki or EnWiki. Connecting these dots, I have inferred that SoKor, in general, is unwilling to be submitted under free culture movement being advocated by the Wikimedia and Wikipedia communities. I can bet that within five years the non-commercial SoKor FoP will remain, even towards 2030s. It's only a miracle if the SoKor society suddenly embraces the free culture and free licensing, and follows (at the very least) the partial (architectural) FoP identical to the FoP rules of Denmark, Finland, Japan, Malawi, Norway, Russia, Taiwan, and the United States. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do also note that there is a mention of an existing casefile concerning commercial use of buildings at Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/South Korea#Add example of FOP?. Though according to @Nuevo Paso: (citing Beomnyul Sinmun), the case never concluded in court and was settled out of court, although in the first trial the architect lost because the advertiser only used a small part of the building in their commercial ad (here is the video of the incrimimated ad). The small inclusion in the video may be covered under Article 35-3 (apparently a later amendment of the SoKor law since it used the original numbering of the non-commercial FoP and artwork exhibition clause): "A work seen or heard in the courses of photographing, voice recording, or video recording (hereinafter referred to as "shooting, etc." in this Article), where it is incidentally included in the main object of shooting, etc., may be reproduced, distributed, performed in public, displayed, or publicly transmited. That where it unreasonably prejudices the interest of the holder of author's economic right in light of the type and nature of the used work, the purpose and character of use, etc, the same shall not apply." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 02:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: I was responding to Benlisquare about used of drones to circumvent the limitation. I don't dispute the interpretation. May be this wording is usual legalese text, or due to language and translation, or both. Yann (talk) 09:21, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yann it's my take on your comment "I think that that law is weirdly worded." For me, while initially "weird" for me (considering that the democratic R.O.K. does not grant liberal FoP unlike the dictatorial D.P.R.K.), I eventually understood that it may be normal after all. Not weird, just expected. SoKor, in general, isn't generally open to free culture movement. If they were, they would had allowed free exploitations of their architecture even for selling copies of images of those (just like in USA, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan). They would also had only authorized one type of {{KOGL}} (the present Type 1), and namuWiki would have been CCBYSA-licensed. But no, it seems normal to place commercial restrictions there. Even their state media website, which allegedly contains freely-licensed content, can only be accessed by logging in. As one commenter in the state media topic once said, "Do not take their so-called 'open' policy as genuine openness." I do not expect SoKor liberating their FoP anytime soon, at least within the next 5 years, except if there is a "miracle" more elaborate than the events at the w:en:Miracle in Cell No. 7. This time, "justice" for Wikimedia Korea peeps and free culture advocates there in South Korea. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 10:41, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know about South Korea, but in France, absence of FoP is mostly due to strong lobbying by architects and artists' organizations (ADAGP, etc.). Yann (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Please move threads like this to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, which is the discussion boards for topics exactly like this one. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Navigation within a category

Hello, in Category:Paintings in the National Gallery, London by inventory number I intend to list the paintings by inventory number. There are a few thousand. How do I structure this so that a table of contents allows one to navigate without clicking next umpteen times? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked Category:TOC templates or Category:Navigational templates for a suitable template? Nakonana (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Certainly, but I couldn't anything suitable/intelligible. It looks like it's easy to sort by the start of the category name, eg Category:800 births, Category:801 births, but what if the categories are named as in Category:Paintings in the National Gallery, London by inventory number? How does one apply a ?sortkey? so that the (inventory) numbers in Category:xxxxNG101 Category:xxxxNG5203 etc can be picked up by a category's table of contents? Or can one at least have a navigator to eg page 8 or page 20 of subcategories within a category? Thank you, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

We don't normally use categories this way. This would be a much better case for one or more gallery pages. - Jmabel ! talk 20:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

That would have its advantages... (Category:Objects in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens by inventory number is a similar case.) Thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Maculosae tegmine lyncis: As Jmabel pointed out, it sounds like a gallery is more likely to get you the result you're looking for (sorting by inventory number, not having pagination). The National Gallery of London has a gallery page such as that, which can be found here: Paintings in the National Gallery, London. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

As said, a gallery would probably be the right approach but you could also have the unique ID at the beginning of the subcat names and/or the file names so that one can navigate by that (there's TOC templates for cats). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

1 year per century miscategorized

(from COM:FORUM) I might be picky, but I noticed something. Let's pick Category:21st-century photographs of Berlin. The 21st-century ranges from 2001-01-01 to 2100-12-31. If we pick the subcat Category:2000s photographs of Berlin, we get the years 2000 to 2009. Yes, the year 2000 is within the 2000s, but not within the 21st-century. So we have a correct categorization of 2000 in the 2000s, but not the 21st-century. Since Category:2000s photographs of Berlin is not completely contained in set Category:21st-century photographs of Berlin, it should also be categorized in Category:20th-century photographs of Berlin, because of the last 20th-century year 2000. What do you think? :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The purpose of categories is to help people find things, not to express ontology.

While this may be technically correct from a prescriptive point of view, it goes against common usage.

Further, this would have the additional problem that every category pertaining to the first decade of a century would no longer fit neatly in a century category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose per Jmabel. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose per above. This feels particularly unnecessary given that, in practical terms, it only affects the year 2000. (There's orders of magnitude less media categorized as 1900, 1800, etc.) Hopefully we'll have better ways of representing this data before 2100 rolls around. :) Omphalographer (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses :). Yes, a new structure would be more complicated :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

we could just ditch all these intersections of time and place. instead have simplest cats like 2000-11-11 and paris. when people want to search a time period, the search automatically helps them to find files from a well defined range, e.g. 2000-01-01 to 2009-12-31 for 2000s, 2001-01-01 to 2100-12-31 for 21st century...

or people should just learn to count from 0 and use a Holocene calendar that starts from year 00000. then 0th century for year 00000 to 00099, 1st century for 00100 to 00199... 120th century for 12000 to 12099... then decades 12000s to 12090s are all well contained in the 120th century. RoyZuo (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if eg the 21st century started at 1st January 2000. I think many people and probably most think it does start at that point. Moreover, en:Category:21st century also includes 2000-related categories. Valid point and good it's raised but currently this can't really be dealt with anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree. As we don't have a year zero, the first year of the 1st century is 1, and it goes on in the next centuries, so that every century has the same length (if we ignore phenomena like leap years/leap seconds etc. ) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure what you agree with but regardless of what you mean: it would probably be good or needed to add an info about this to some categories like Category:Centuries and all top-level subcats, probably via editing template(s) including Template:centurybox. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

January 18

Invitation to Host Wiki Loves Folklore 2026 in Your Country

Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

We are delighted to invite Wikimedia affiliates, user groups, and community organizations worldwide to participate in Wiki Loves Folklore 2026, an international initiative dedicated to documenting and celebrating folk culture across the globe.

About Wiki Loves Folklore

Wiki Loves Folklore is an annual international photography competition hosted on Wikimedia Commons. The campaign runs from 1 February to 31 March 2026 and encourages photographers, cultural enthusiasts, and community members to contribute photographs that highlight:

• Folk traditions and rituals
• Cultural festivals and celebrations
• Traditional attire and crafts
• Performing arts, music, and dance
• Everyday practices rooted in folk heritage

Through this campaign, we aim to preserve and promote diverse folk cultures and make them freely accessible to the world.

Project page on Wikimedia Commons

Host a Local Edition

As we celebrate the eight edition of Wiki Loves Folklore, we warmly invite communities to organize a local edition in their country or region. Hosting a local campaign is a great opportunity to:

• Increase visibility of your region’s folk culture
• Engage new contributors in your community
• Enrich Wikimedia Commons with high-quality cultural content

Sign up to organize:

If your team prefers to organize the competition in either February or March only, please feel free to let us know.

If you are unable to organize, we encourage you to share this opportunity with other interested groups or organizations in your region.

Get in Touch

If you have any questions, need support, or would like to explore collaboration opportunities, please feel free to contact us via:

• The project Talk pages
• Email: support@wikilovesfolklore.org

We are also happy to connect via an online meeting if your team would like to discuss planning or coordination in more detail.

Warm regards,

The Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 13:34, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Group travel category

i'm looking for a category for the kind of tourist activity where a group of individual people book and join a multi day trip organised by an agency guided by a tour guide.

it could correspond to en:Package_tour en:Escorted_tour de:Gruppenreise, which exist as 3 different wikidata items now. i'm confused about which of these fits the popular kind of activity i describe, and whether some of these wd items should/could merge. RoyZuo (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I would to only use a group category if there is a clear group interaction in the picture. If you fotograph a group of travellers, these can be connected or not. For example travellers with a Flixbus. These could be individual travellers. I would the principle: wat you see in the picture, you can categorise.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Seconding this. Media from a tourist activity, such as photos or videos, is probably best categorized based on the specific activity occurring or places depicted in the media. The fact that the photographer was there on a package tour probably isn't all that important. Omphalographer (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

"Package tour" seems to be a separate subject. Group tours can be part of a package tour but not all packages are for groups. Escorted tour and "Gruppenreise" (Group travel) seem to be synonymous. I also think Smiley.toerist has the right idea that you should only categorize what you see in the image, to keep things simple. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Seconding that package tour appears to be different. It's more about organizing/selling a bundle consisting of accommodation and transport, and doesn't seem to be linked to groups or guided tours.

We have Category:Groups of tourists, but that is not particularly for fixed groups that travel together. However, it could be a parent category for group travel. Nakonana (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

i decided to go with cat:escorted tours. i'm surprised that such a category has not been created and not many files exist yet. RoyZuo (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

AI images

I came across File:Carlos Lacerda 80 anos com IA.jpg, showing him at the age of 80. Actually he died when he was 63. Should we have images like this? Rathfelder (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Carlos Lacerda 80 anos com IA.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

(obviously not and already deleted) Prototyperspective (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

January 19

Unidentified train stations in Sweden

I have added a new file to Category:Unidentified train stations in Sweden (116 items). This is on a travel from Umeå centralstation to Stockholm.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Unclear what the question is Prototyperspective (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Wich station? The question is now solved.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Annual review of the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 9 February 2026. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk)

21:01, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

(This message was sent to Commons:Txokoa and is being posted here due to a redirect.)

January 20

Detecting meaningless captions such as "DSCF1234" or "qwerthjkl" right before uploading, using local-only embedded LLM

Hi all,

I often see titles such as "DSCF1234" or "qwerthjkl" on Commons.

I also happen to develop an upload tool for Commons.

What do you think about the opt-in experiment below?

• Detect such titles using a local-only (thus privacy-friendly) small LLM.
• If it is such a title, show a tooltip such as "Make sure to write descriptive names, see Commons:File_naming".
• This would be a separate version of the app, that only people who really want to try this experiment would download.
• If the experiment goes well, I would consult the community again and possibly let more people use it.

I know the community feels strongly about AI, which is why I am consulting here. To be clear, the LLM resides on the local device, and never uses the Internet, nor reports query content to anywhere.

Any feedback welcome, thanks! :-) Syced (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea, but wouldn't a local LLM (or a SLM/small language model) use up significant amount of RAM/CPU? Leaderboard (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does take RAM! CPU, not so much: less than a second for this detection, possibly doable while the user does something else like picking depictions. This project is focused on the long-term horizon, and in the future an embedded LLM will probably sit in memory of the OS, ready to use by any program, so using it will not take more RAM. :-) Syced (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

i think people who care enough to use such apps dont write gibberish captions in the first place? RoyZuo (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The app in question actually does get some gibberish (sigh). I try to monitor all uploads and warn such users, but I believe that explaining in realtime (before the upload) is more efficient. Also, realtime explanation increases chances of turning a "silly" newcomer into a long-term contributor. Banning them or admonishing them after the upload(s) decreases chances of them becoming a long-term contributor. Syced (talk) 10:37, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

no i dont mean the app you are already using, but "separate version of the app, that only people who really want to try this experiment would download". those who would enter the experiment dont write gibberish in the first place.

i agree with you about being nice and helpful to new users. i have also made several proposals in this direction over the years. RoyZuo (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

The Upload Wizard is actually already catching some of those generic filenames, especially the "DSC_" or similarly styled ones, and warns about their use. That may only be a reminder, not a prohibition, which could explain that some uploads still sport such names. The other, more probable, reason is found in imports from Flickr et al., where the names aren't really filtered. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I think reminder is the best way to go, because some common names from my region may look like gibberish to an English speaker haha. By the way, an LLM would probably be able to tell the difference (further testing will be needed to confirm this). Syced (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like sth for Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements. I don't know if your proposal is about file titles or captions or both (the latter would probably make most sense). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

file titles or captions: both :-) Syced (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Reply function failure

something's wrong with Commons:File requests/header such that it makes the reply function fail on pages transcluding it, but i cant figure out why. could someone more skilled take a look please? this problem has been bugging Commons:File requests for years. RoyZuo (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what the cause is but it's one of the things I requested to be fixed at m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/Fix the issues breaking the Reply tool (voting open!) where I will add your example.

Either way, please do not post more threads about technical issues/subjects to general VP but to the board about technical issues, Commons:Village pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Murder suicides

Do we have a category for Murder suicides? I see the individual categories but no intersecting one. RAN (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Category:Murder–suicides --ReneeWrites (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Ha! The dreaded m-dash/n-dash foils me again. I will make a few redirects to make it easier to find. Thanks! --RAN (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

January 21

Historical photographer's studio marks

For File:Anchors and displays of model ships, A-Y-P, 1909.jpg, I see {{Watermark}}, presumably because of the photographer's mark at lower right. Is this really desired? While there would be no legal ramifications in overwriting such an image and removing the photographer's mark, is that really desirable? It seem to me more like removing an artist's signature from an oil painting.

Pinging @HerrAdams who added the template here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Agreed; I don't think this is helpful. For that matter: how often is it actually useful to apply {{Watermark}} to an image? In most situations, it's probably more effective to contact the uploader directly, through their talk page or email, and request that they not watermark their images. Sticking a template on the file page seems much less likely to yield results. Omphalographer (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• I think the {{Watermark}} warning should be reserved for destructive watermarks, I would remove it. --RAN (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Why is it so hard to upload images?.

Isee people go through gymnastics to upload files. Could the instructions be improved? Krok6kola (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Could you please give more details about how you try to upload photos and what specifically you find difficult? Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Probably sth for Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements but lacking explanation. The upload buttons are well-visible. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

The primary reason it is difficult, is because we need to know a lot about a file before we can host it. This is very uncommon to most people and not really an experience people are used to or questions that people have ever had to think about before doing it here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Usurped URLs

Do we have a page like en:Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests fr reporting usurped URLs that are linked from multiple Commons pages?? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Researchgate.net

Can someone please help me out? I try to read their copyright page and as far as I can find they use CC-BY. Before making a mistake, please confirm this if possible. Thanks! Harold Foppele (talk) 22:39, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no single license for all content on ResearchGate. Freely licensed publications will usually display the license on the main page for the publication, e.g. "License · CC BY-NC 4.0" on https://www.researchgate.net/publication/399867697 (chosen at random). Omphalographer (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Thank you! Harold Foppele (talk) 06:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

January 22

Question about copyright status of a 1905 family photograph

I have a question about the copyright status of this 1905 family photograph in this newspaper article.

• Maurice, Maggie (1977-07-21). "She Loves the Town She Hasn't Seen in 50 Years". The Burlington Free Press: 1C.

So, this has an unnamed photographer, is a US photo from 1905 & over 120 years old, & was published in a news paper article in 1977 with no mention of source. This also happens to be a photograph of Frank Albert Waugh, Frederick V. Waugh, Albert Waugh, Dorothy Waugh (artist), & Sidney Waugh. I am trying to determine if this would be in an acceptable PD status for Commons. This is above my pay grade knowledge level of copyright. Peaceray (talk) 00:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This newspaper has No copyright notice on it and it is public domain ({{PD-US-no notice}}), even up to 1989 there was some newspapers and magazines with no copyright notice like The Baltimore Sun, that photo is also {{PD-old-assumed}}  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   02:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Peaceray (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

American football players who died by suicide

Do we track this with a category? It is an intersection of two categories, but one that is being actively tracked by other organizations because of the connection between concussive brain damage and suicides. RAN (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think so. I agree that it's a potentially interesting intersection from an encyclopedic perspective, but it's not relevant to the media we host of these people. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

We have images of news articles on American football players who died by suicide, I think that is what people may be looking for. We also have images of people where too little is known about them to create a Wikipedia article, it would just be a few sentences, and be a perma-stub. --RAN (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Technically it's not relevant for the media we host to categorize people by when or how they died in general, unless the category contains media related to that death (very few of them ever do). But seeing as the parent category exists and is used in this manner, I wouldn't be opposed to an intersecting category about this being made. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to this category (I've definitely found examples of this while doing my uploads of 1920s photographs). Abzeronow (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If we do this, we need to define what level of playing football qualifies someone to belong in the category. I wouldn't want to see this include, for example, someone who played high school football for a year and then killed themself in their 70s. - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Category:John Smith

Do disambiguation categories belong in the surname categories? Should Category:John Smith be in Category:Smith (surname)? They do not appear to be in them currently. RAN (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories are navigational tools, and often group different kinds of subjects that merely share a name (people, places, fictional characters, etc.), which makes them unsuitable to be categorized like this. The John Smith disambiguation page for instance not only includes people, but also a publishing company and a film with this name. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Visual disambiguation

Should disambiguation categories also contain images of the people listed? When looking for the correct person, sometimes it is easier to visually identify the correct person, rather than just looking at occupations and birth and death dates. Disambiguation categories currently read: "This category page should not hold any files." I think they should contain a single image of each person being disambiguated, preferably a close crop of the face. RAN (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Neutral, but if we do this it should be a <gallery> element after the text. Absolutely opposed to categorizing images in a disambiguation category, almost guaranteed to be a maintenance nightmare. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Do we already have a bot that removes all images from the disambiguation categories? If so, your solution would be perfect. I find uncategorized images of people, where the name of the person in the title or description, and have been trying to assign them to the correct person. Visually this is a lot easier. Think of how many John Smiths we have. As we grow, the number of uncategorized people with similar names grows. Anyone that does category maintenance on people, knowns the problem of people assigned to the wrong category, because they have a similar/same name. --RAN (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn't a bot that removes images from disambiguation categories as it's uncertain which category they belong to, but disambig categories with media do get put in a maintenance category for manual (human) review (Category:Non-empty disambiguation categories). There are bots that move content from redirects, though. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

To categorize people, I first search Wikipedia for their name. If the description is in Spanish, I search the Spanish Wikipedia page. Based on the estimated age of the person in the image, I can select the most likely candidates and view the corresponding pages. If there's an image, it's easy. Otherwise, the sources can provide a clue. Wouter (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Galleries for visual identification for subcategories aren't uncommon - see Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories. I don't see any reason why we couldn't extend it to disambig pages, though I'm not sure how useful it would be. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2026 (UTC)