Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/03

Are these AI generated?

I suspect most images in Category:Butchers in Ireland are AI-generated, because I just felt that they are somehow odd-looking, but I couldn't be sure. Can someone just help take a look at these before I mass nominated them for DR? Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes and also a violation of COM:WEBHOST -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 16:42, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I went and opened a mass DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Butchers in Ireland (sorry, couldn't refrain from the tongue-in-cheek "butcher-related AI slop"...). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you Nard for your help, and also thank you to Grand-Duc for creating the mass DR and identifying the errors. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Now all deleted. I don't think it matters whether we delete this as AI slop or as copyvio. It's one or the other, or possibly (given Irish law) both. Deleting. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Mass rename/edit request

Hi. I just uploaded many audio files via Lingua Libre. I thought I had sorted out the settings so that this would not happen, but it included my old username alongside my current one in both the file names and in the "Recorder" field in the description. I would prefer that my old username was not visible like this. Please could someone with permissions rename the files and change the recorder field to Pink Bee? (If the latter cannot be done automatically, I will do it manually.)

I am sorry to have to request this again – like I say, I thought I had sorted the naming issue. I will make sure it does not happen again. Thank you. Pink Bee (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mass rename started. - Jmabel ! talk 06:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• @PinkBee: should all be done, let me know if some admin-specific task remains. - Jmabel ! talk 07:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Please could "PinkBee" be replaced with "Pink Bee"? This should put the files in Category:Lingua Libre pronunciation by Pink Bee. Pink Bee (talk) 07:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Pink Bee I have replaced them, let me know if I have missed any. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good. Thank you :) Pink Bee (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia linking back to Commons

When I used Chrome I used to get a backlink from Wikipedia to Commons in a column on the right side of the article. It would also have the link to Wikidata. What setting in Chrome/Wikimedia did I accidently change to have it gone. RAN (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton, only works on articles with a Wikidata item and sitelinks for other projects on Wikidata. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yes, but I am not getting any links when they exist. I can go from Commons to Wikipedia through the infobox, but the links back disappeared about a week ago. I must have changed a setting or updated Chrome or Wikimedia settings, but cannot work out what changed. --RAN (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Is there any "In other projects" section at all? (Search for that string within the page.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• No, let me delete Chrome and re-install it. --RAN (talk) 05:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps it collapsed into a single Tools button at the top right (next to Edit and History)? The Tools dropdown menu gives me the option to "move to sidebar". --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks!!!! That was it, most likely an errant click that collapsed the sidebar. Simple error, but drastic changes, and not obvious before you figured it out. Thank you again. --RAN (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It might have been a change on Wikipedia end. I use different language wikis (with Firefox browser) and some language wikis have the side bar while others haven't, so I'm guessing that this is not a Chrome issue. Nakonana (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

When you hide the sidebar there's just a Tools dropdown. It stays like this unless you clear cookies or open it with another browser where you haven't hidden the panel yet. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikidata Infobox

I've always had this set to 'Collapsed', as it's a nuisance. Just today, it's suddenly started being expanded each time I go to a new category, and it's getting tiresome having to click on 'Collapse' on every new link. How can I get it to stay collapsed, please? I can't find it in the Preferences. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you had them collapsed via some gadget. These scripts apparently got disabled since that problem today where wikis were changed to read-only. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective Could be; no idea, I don't remember! But I want whatever it was back again, ASAP . . . MPF (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@MPF, the collapsed Wikidata Infobox setting is at line 8 of your user JavaScript (User:MPF/common.js), but as mentioned by Prototyperspective, all user JavaScripts have been temporarily disabled. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy thanks! Is there any info on when they might get restored? - MPF (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@MPF, you can monitor phab:T419154 for updates. The site JavaScripts were re-enabled an hour ago, but currently there is no clear info on user JavaScripts, other than they will be "back online soon, with a few restrictions". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy Thanks! "due to an issue being worked on" . . . remarkably secretive! Wonder what it is??? - MPF (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe they now prevent loading of JavaScript from other namespaces or even external servers in MediaWiki namespace. I thought this was already the case, but it seems that it was not. GPSLeo (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@MPF, since the issue is related to the security of the site, I would assume it is better for them to be secretive about it until the issue is fixed. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Info, see announcement by WMF, it appears user javascripts have now been re-enabled. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tvpuppy Excellent! Thanks for the updates - MPF (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Launches to accompany racing crews

I tried and failed to find a category for the launches that typically accompany racing crews during training. Nothing apparent under Category:Boats by function. E.g. File:Bainbridge Island Rowing safety launches 01.jpg or File:2024-12-20, George Pocock Memorial Rowing Center (Seattle), 081910.jpg. Do we actually lack a category for these? - Jmabel ! talk 02:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think they can be categorized under Category:Launch (boat), or perhaps you can create a new subcat under it. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll make a subcat, Category:Rowing launches. - Jmabel ! talk 07:57, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"Photographs by" categories

I notice that some of these are hidden cats and some are considered topical. I was surprised to see that Category:Photographs by Asahel Curtis was hidden when Category:Photographs by Edward Sheriff Curtis (his brother) was not, so I changed the former, but now I see Category:Photographs by Frank H. Nowell (among other things, the official photographer of the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition) is also hidden.

All of these are important enough photographers to have en-wiki articles. Do we have any criteria of how significant a photographer has to be in order to have a topical (vs. hidden) category? - Jmabel ! talk 08:58, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I thought the "hidden" criterium is more for user categories (photographs by Wikimedians who upload their images by themselves), and "topical" cats for photographers that are non-Wikimedians? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That's how I understood the split to be as well. Most "Photographs by photographer" categories are hidden because they're userspace categories. There are a few notable photographers who are also Wikimedians, who can have photographs both in main- and userspace. For the photographers mentioned by Jmabel (and others this would apply to) it doesn't seem fitting to have these categories be hidden. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Same, although there have been a couple incidents where Commons users demanded to be unhidden, and I don't recall there being consensus that it was absolutely required. User categories can get pretty expansive, though, since many of us have hidden category systems we use to organize our own stuff (doesn't make much sense to unhide "Quality images of birds by Rhododendrites" or "Photographs taken by Rhododendrites - Poland"). There's another use case that's often hidden: files from [some particular flickr account]. But in general, yeah I think photographers other than Wikimedians should be unhidden by default. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  16:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Imo category-hiding is slightly overused. Usually it's useful to be able to go to images made by the same person – these often have certain similarities such as subjects the reader/visitor may be interested in. For Commons contributors, people can go to the user-page. For photographers, a category is useful. If I'm not mistaken, hidden categories are not displayed to people who are not logged in and have enabled the display of hidden cats. So it would be best to unhide most if not all of these categories. Categories where there's just very few files in them probably aren't useful. Categories about who made a photo are not topical as they are not about the topic of the image but they're nevertheless useful and not just for maintenance purposes or useful only at the category pages instead of also at the file pages that most people would not benefit from seeing. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Btw, it may also be a good idea to link to the category page in the Author field of the information template which currently links to the Wikipedia article. One could add sth via template like (see more photos of this creator/photographer). Then there would be less need for the category to be unhidden but even that would not mean the cat is better hidden. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Typically, the Wikipedia article links (at least by the normal interwiki links via Wikidata) to the main Commons category for the person, and the "Photographs by" category is a subcat. Exactly as for any other creator and their works, if their works (or representations of their works) are on Commons. Not sure why photographers would be different from, say, painters, for this. - Jmabel ! talk 06:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how this is meant to relate to my comment – if one was looking for further photos a direct link to the page with more photos of the photographer that's easily visible to all in the Information template would be useful and the same applies also to painters. Even if that was widely done I think it would be better to unhide these categories. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like we aren't certain exactly where to draw the line, but that the people I'm asking about are certainly on the "should not be hidden" side of the line. I will unhide these and similar ones I come across. - Jmabel ! talk 06:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Μιλάς ελληνικά? Do you speak Greek?

Please add at least one more category to 1,855 files in the Category:Images with file name and description in Greek language

Today, 2,700 poorly categorized files have been added to the Category:Images with file name and description in Greek language. All of these need at least one more category, please. Can you help, to categorize them, please, or even use them in an article? Do you have any recommendations, how to achieve this more effectively? NearEMPTiness (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

What's the criteria for a new license template?

So there's one user on a site, and on their profile they say all of their uploads are released under a CC BY 4.0 license. There's no license laundering apparent and it appears to be their own work. This user has uploaded thousands of images. Would that warrant creating a separate template and license review category for it? HurricaneZeta^C 15:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta:

Why would this entail a new license template? What different license is claimed?

Yes, this would be an appropriate maintenance category, probably one added by an appropriate, purpose-specific maintenance template. Compare {{UWash-Check-Needed}}, though that one is about needing a cat check, not a license check. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel I was thinking that the template would categorize it into the category. I have seen quite a few templates like {{Official Prime Video AU & NZ YouTube channel}} (essentially the same as {{YouTube}} with an explanatory note), although maybe something like {{YouTubeReview}} would suffice. HurricaneZeta^C 19:54, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

{{Official Prime Video AU & NZ YouTube channel}} exists because it is a special case that is valid but has some date dependencies. Yes, I a special-case variant of {{YouTubeReview}} (possibly a wrapper around that) adding a category specific to this task would be a good solution. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia Can't Explain Math

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33y9FMIvcWY

commons was mentioned too. worth a watch and lets us think about how we can better engage newcomers. RoyZuo (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Not specifically a Commons topic but as a person with degrees in both Math (including graduate-level work in topology) and Computer Science, almost every time I tried to edit a math-related article on Wikipedia to make it more comprehensible to lay readers, I was reverted on the basis of insufficient rigor. (I had not removed any existing, rigorous, content, just added paraphrases in lay terms.) Of course I stopped trying. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Questionable flags

There are quite a lot of purported flags from history on Commons, where their actual historical status is unsourced or otherwise uncertain. Most of the time these have been uploaded in good faith and they're not "fictitious", but they often reflect misconceptions that have gained popularity online. I wasn't sure which template to use, have started a thread at Template talk:Fictitious flag#Disputed flags but I was thinking perhaps to start something more specific like a flag version pf {{Lacking insignia source}}.--Pharos (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

A new Mapillary importer: Curator

Hi!

I would like to introduce Curator. It is a tool that allows the import of image sequences from Mapillary. The tool was rolled out and tested and has reached a stable state. Before you try it out, check out COM:Curator and remember issues like Freedom of Panorama. Mapillary covers many areas, which have a Wikipedia article, but no image in it. Or Mapillary maybe shows areas and structures that don't exist anymore. Happy testing! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Photo challenge January 2026 results

Hello everyone. It's my "officially" first time to announce the winners of this challenge.

Brutalist architecture: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Architectural detail on The National Theatre in London.	beautiful brutalism in Metz	Everson Museum of Art, Syracuse, New York, 1969, currently digitized
Author	Julian Herzog	KaiBorgeest	Foeniz
Score	29	12	12

Peace: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Signpost in Christiania (Copenhagen).	Artistic peace symbol at Toronto Distillery District	Menhire für den Frieden
Author	Gzzz	Muzzudan	Fischer1961
Score	10	9	9

Congratulations to @Julian Herzog, KaiBorgeest, Foeniz, Gzzz, Muzzudan, and Fischer1961. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 15:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Danke Fischer1961 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks :-)) Gzzz ^zz 20:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Congrats. The Brutalist architecture has a large number of very high-quality files – the entries/scores gallery is very much worth a visit. I found most files in the Peace challenge didn't have much to do with the subject – it seems difficult to capture this subject in photos. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Flickr upload with Upload Wizard

Is uploading free licensed files from Flickr via Upload Wizard currently down? I've repeatedly tried uploading files by long time good Flickr users with 2 different browsers on 2 different machines and can't get anything to upload. (Uploading files directly from my machine works fine.) Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, discussed in Help desk and Technical VP. Reported in phab:T419263. --Geohakkeri (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

seems to work again and this is a technical issue where it would be best to centralize further discussion at the thread in Village_pump/Technical. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

2023-01_ai_image_of_man_01.png

File:2023-01 ai image of man 01.png - AI-generated image of ordinary man, likely isn't useful, but I am not sure about policy. Evelino Ucelo (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not specifically against policy, but not terribly useful either. Created Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:AI-generated images by Ziko van Dijk. Omphalographer (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

this is not how to file a deletion request Prototyperspective (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Rotate Orthophotos / Aerial Photographs Facing South?

While trying to georeference a bunch of aerial photographs from Staatsarchiv Sigmaringen Findbuch Wü 160 T 5, I've found that some (but not all) of those photos are facing south (in german: "gesüdet"; example for photo facing south), not north as usual ("genordet"). Aerial images facing south are hard to work with, since nowadays all modern maps (and modern Orthophotos) are facing north. Currently, there's no category for aerial photographs / orthophotos with such a cardinal direction, as it's the case for maps. Is it OK to rotate the images currently facing south by 180° or should they keep their current orientation? What's your opinion? --Fl.schmitt (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fl.schmitt: I think we can rotate this images. There now loss of information after the rotation. Thanks for your work with this orthophotos and for the georeferene. --sk (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

If you wish to make rotations, they should be as derivative images.

Also, the example image is not "facing south"; it is facing straight down. It is (presumably) orientated with south at the top". We would talk about images facing in a compass direction when they are oblique (like, for example File:Raf 58 2445 psfo 0117.png). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably best to make the rotation into a derivative image with an explanatory note about the rotation because if you rotate the image you gave as an example, the numbers at the top of the image will come up upside-down and people might attempt to fix that by rotating the image back. Nakonana (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana and @Pigsonthewing: ok, derivative images are another option. Regarding the numbers on the pics: There are different ways that those numbers were applied - some have the same numbers multiple times, e.g. this pic. So, an explanatory note would be in fact useful - good idea! Fl.schmitt (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Why is overwrite controlled by abusefilter

1. Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/08#c-GPSLeo-20230813073100-Limit_file_overwriting_to_users_with_autopatrol_rights decided to limit overwrite.
2. overwrite is specifically "reupload" a permission set by the software Special:ListGroupRights.

why is it not done by removing "reupload" from autoconfirmed users and adding it to autopatrolled users? RoyZuo (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

This would currently not allow any exceptions without granting user rights, not even for own uploads. GPSLeo (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

this seems solved; if not please remove this template Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

People voices audios

Where can I find all of them? Is there any common category? I've found only Category:Voice project but it contains not only audios. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infovarius (talk • contribs) 12:26, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Infovarius: If your start point the Category:Voice project then you can use the search with this searchtext: deepcategory:"Voice project" filetype:Audio. --sk (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Audio files of human voices if I understood you correctly. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You may also be interested in Com:Voice intro project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

GPS data

If I have an image and want to show where it was taken I can use: {{Location|40.0000|-70.000}}. But what if I want to link an address in a news article, so that it can take me to one of the mapping sites, we link to. Id there a template for that? --RAN (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Closest thing I can think of is {{Inline coordinates}}. - Jmabel ! talk 18:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! That is closest I will get. You can see the experiment here: File:Salters in the 1877 Gouldings New York City Directory.png, an old city directory. --RAN (talk) 19:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

seems to be solved – if not, please remove this template Prototyperspective (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sports statistic question

I am transcribing File:1915 in Sports in The New York Times of New York City, New York on December 12, 1915.jpg but I do not understand a portion of the sport timing. A typical line reads for a timed event: "440-Yard High Hurdles - William Henry Meanix, Boston A. A. Time, 0:52 3-5." What does the "3-5" mean? --RAN (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): My guess would be three fifths of a second, in common typography .6 or 3/5 or ⅗.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! I think you got it. Distances are marked as "¾ inch". The typesetter had type for 1/4, 3/4 and 1/2 for measuring distance. They did not have fifths, and all times were measured down to the fifth of a second. Thanks again. ChatGPT: "Races were recorded in fifths of a second starting around 1862". --RAN (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Change links on main page

on the main page right under the title there're 4 links to Images Videos Sounds 3D Models, which link to the root categories of each of those types.

however, i think the root cats are not very helpful, especially for occasional users of this website who may not understand how to navigate the site, because those pages have long lists of subcats and sometimes files that are waiting to be moved to subcats. they look too technical and dont present some high quality files.

i tried to look around for a random or regularly updated gallery of files, but couldnt seem to find one. so here's an idea. what if a bot regularly (weekly?) generates galleries, and the main page links to those instead? another idea is these links https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=date&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image&assessment=any-assessment https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=video&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=video&assessment=any-assessment , but these search results might be quite static, stale and boring over time.

something like https://www.gettyimages.com/editorial-images https://www.loc.gov/free-to-use/ https://www.flickr.com/explore/ is more interesting for main page visitors. (Commons:Picture of the day and Commons:Media of the day are close but still contain too much text and technical details.)

Category_talk:Videos#c-Gloweave-20221027093200-Adult_videos prompted this thought. RoyZuo (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

 Oppose your proposed links aren't better and secondly these links can be added to those linked category pages. There's some useful links on these pages already. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel like Commons:Featured pictures is the most similar to the links to other sites you were mentioning. Bawolff (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I had a go with making my own version of that type of page - Commons:Explore. The galleries are random, and should change once an hour (or whenever someone does ?action=purge) Bawolff (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Interesting and I'd suggest to links from that page to the category pages but I wonder why one would want to browse through a totally random good-quality images – I think just a small fraction of visitors is sometimes interested in that.

Things that could be better include having such autogenerated galleries linked well-visibly at the top of categories (maybe even partly embedded via a new panel where one can click [see more] to go to the full gallery page) and/or having images for all the subcategories in the gallery where one can then browse to the subcategory by clicking on the file's description/link.

That's basically what the gadget Help:FastCCI is about which dynamically loads featured pictures, quality images, etc for whatever category one is in. However, most visitors probably have not noticed the button and never used it; and the bigger problem is that like 90% of the time it doesn't work because the tool is down and still nobody has fixed whatever is causing it to go down at the time (see its talk page). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think many people coming from the main page might be interested in looking at a random selection of reasonable quality files. I don't think people go to the main page if they are looking for something specific. Although perhaps such people would be better served by Commons:Featured Pictures.

The probable reason nobody has fixed fastCCI is a mix between nobody caring and nobody having access. One of the problems with toolforge tools is access is usually restricted to the author. That said, as cool as fastcci is, i don't think its suitable for people wanting to browse. Bawolff (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say most are looking for sth specific; I meant that most people aren't very interested in a totally random set of good-quality images from about every imaginable topic (albeit with strong bias for photos and nearly no statistics, videos, or diagrams) but instead are interested in more narrow sets of files. In my case that would be photos relating to say current events and science as well as up-to-date statistics of all kinds (again, not included in these featured pictures).

There is a new comment at Help talk:FastCCI#Down. again. relevant to this.

i don't think its suitable for people wanting to browse. I'd be interested in why you think that is – in specific because then maybe another tool / variant of it could be developed or FastCCI be improved accordingly. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Why does this user think people all think the way they think and not in other ways?

"I didn't say most are looking for sth specific... most people... are interested in more narrow sets of files." Not specific but more narrow. What's all this exceedingly long rambling about? RoyZuo (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I was describing what I meant to say/said in my prior comment. I could have written 'Why does Bawolff think people all think the way they think and not in other ways?' but I prefer more constructive less offensive and more friendly language. Thanks Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think some people just want to look at pretty pictures. Some people are also going to want different things too. I think we already do a reasonably good job with narrow areas but not a great job for people who just want to be surprised with a broad selection of reasonable quality photos. Bawolff (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

And that's why I recommend adding that link to the category page. We should not assume all or the vast majority of users want to look at sets of pretty photos about random topics. They can open the link from there. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

So this user assumes "the vast majority of users want to look at" "the category page", and they want to "open the link from there"? RoyZuo (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

No, I'm not "assuming" anything; I was having a constructive discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Your codes are super. The pages generated are perfect. RoyZuo (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Smooth rocks/Boulders

Besides the artic fox, the boulders are very interesting. I dont know what processes shapes these rocks. Is there any category for this? 'Round boulders' dont seem to accuratly describes these rocks. Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Commons:Expert identification or categorization requests may be a or could become a better place to ask questions about categories for individual images (what the fitting category would be and if it exists).

I asked an LLM attaching the image and it returned The round boulders or rocks you're referring to are commonly known as ball boulders or spherical boulders. In geology, these are often referred to as concretions. They typically form through the process of sedimentation and mineral precipitation, resulting in rounded shapes over time.[…]. but I could not find a category named with either of these two terms so maybe it doesn't exist yet. I then searched for spherical boulders beach to find a similar image to check its categories and it found the one on the right with Category:Moeraki Boulders set but that cat has no broader cat about this in specific set. One could also create e.g. Category:Spherical rocks on beaches. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

https://www.instagram.com/p/DNf8wyyuLUY/ this may answer your question. RoyZuo (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@RoyZuo: Given that, how about Category:Smooth stones or Category:Smooth rocks?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I asked chatgpt whether stones are categorised by curvature. Here're 2 measures I found:

Power's Scale of Roundness

Cailleux Roundness Index

see https://www.field-studies-council.org/resources/14-16-geography/coasts/fieldwork/ https://geographyfieldwork.com/CailleuxRoundnessIndex.html

I dont think commons can follow these systems and subdivide Category:Boulders, so your photo should just go under Category:Boulders in Iceland. RoyZuo (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

JSTOR image

Hi !

I just uploaded an PD image of Tristan Tzara from JSTOR but I only have access to the thumbnail cause I'm not in the USA. Can someone access it from Wikipedia Library (login to Wikipedia Library before clicking the link or use your own access) and download a better version please ?

Thanks in advance, Wyslijp16 (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

“Your institution does not have access to this image on JSTOR.” --Geohakkeri (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for checking. :(

Maybe someone have another access ? Wyslijp16 (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Got it. Currently here [1]. Based5290 (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks to Based5290 the larger image can now be uploaded as a new revision of File:Tristan_Tzara_Photo_of_Artist_in_Zurich.jpg Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. I uploaded the new version. – Howardcorn33 (💬) 01:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Based5290 @Prototyperspective@Howardcorn33 Wyslijp16 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Based5290, do you have a better image for File:Dada Dinner (Diner Dada).jpg please ? Wyslijp16 (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Same for : File:Dada "alliance".jpg Wyslijp16 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

[2]

[3] Based5290 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The 2 requests are solved now. For further JSTOR requests or things like it, please post / reply at Commons:File requests. Maybe this page could be made more visible or get a new subpage for requests relating to access or Wikipedia Library. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Wrong meta data

"File:Electricity pylons in Eritrea" is from Mozambique, not from Eritrea. At the Mapillary link there are more pictures from the same location. On one car there is written „Moçambique elevaçao“. Probably it is Nampula due to the mistake of latitude north vs south.--Grullab (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:Electricity pylons in Eritrea.png. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grullab: I'm not going to go looking around another site to see if I can find what you found, but nothing is stopping you from using {{Fact disputed}} and/or proposing a file move. I suggest that in doing so you provide the URLs for the content that led you to the conclusion. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Best regards. -- Grullab (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Grullab I was able to identify the broader area. Per this, there is a board shown that points towards Murrupula, which is in Mozambique. I moved the file --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding support to JPEG XL and HEIC files

Hi there everyone, I would like to know if there are plans by Wikimedia and Wikimedia Commons to add support to the new JPEG XL and HEIC type of files. Been experimenting with them in the last days and they seem really great, allowing to shrink the file size by very much. ----LucaLindholm (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

For JXL, see phab:T270855. The task is flagged as “stalled”. --Geohakkeri (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Geohakkeri Thanks, just saw it and people suggest to start discussion just here in the Village Pump on Commons to begin exploring whatever or not there is consensus on these new files. :D -- LucaLindholm (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

If the reason for its stalled status is lack of consensus to support these filetypes on Commons, I'd suggest making a thread proposing this at Commons:Village pump/Proposals where the benefits of adopting these filetypes and their characteristics are sufficiently explained. I did not read the full issue but it seems like there also are some technical challenges. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

JPEG2000 at least has some patent-related issues for some compressions, afaik. I don't know if JPEG XL has it, but I would approve the inclusion of modern filetypes, as long as they are free (thinking about OpenEXR, LAZ and glTF) :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I would definitely support JPEG XL, as it's far superior to JPEG and manages to avoid most of the problems that doomed other JPEG replacements. Nosferattus (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

"If the reason for its stalled status is lack of consensus" no it is not. However consensus is definitely a requirement if you ever want Wikimedia to even consider doing something about it. Without that, you are at the mercy of chance or of external developers (as you might notice, I recently spent some time investigating both HEIC and JpegXL support). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

questions about Game & Watch consoles

This image is a Quality image.

This image shows all of the lit LCD panels, which occurs when the batteries are reinserted.

I'm a bit confused about uploading images of Game & Watch consoles to Commons.

Would the screens on the consoles count as a derivative work? In the United States, most photographs of game consoles (like the Nintendo DS) have utilitarian aspects, as stated in this section of the guideline. However, it states later in the guideline that anything on a utilitarian object may be subject to copyright.

I have several questions regarding this. Do the permanently colored backgrounds of the screens on Game & Watch consoles, such as those listed in Category:Game & Watch and its subcategories, count as utilitarian? When all of the LCD panels on the console are lit, would it not count as utilitarian?

In a similar manner to the derivative works questions, would some of the displays (either turned on or shut off) on the console be below the threshold of originality (for example, those in Category:Ball Game & Watch)? JudeHalley (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The graphics displayed by a video game are fundamentally not utilitarian in nature, regardless of whether they're being displayed in the course of normal gameplay. Omphalographer (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would assume it would not count as de minimis, either, given the examples in that guideline.

Would this mean that most of the images that depict Game & Watch games need to be edited to conceal their graphics? (The reason I say most is that this would probably exclude ones like Ball with its screen off, which may be under the TOO.) JudeHalley (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Would this topic not fit better under COM:VPC? PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably; I may start a new discussion there. JudeHalley (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Could some (if not, all) graphics fall under de minimis? JudeHalley (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Not so much de minimis as ineligible for copyright.

Also: if there is an imae of a console we want to use, and the content on the screen is not relevant, it is easy enough to blur or otherwise cover anything that is not relevant to the purpose of the photo and would constitute a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

discussion continues at Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Video game_consoles - utilitarian function?. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:41, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Photographer logo

Can anyone work out this photographers mark? File:KELLIE_EVERTS_1978.jpg RAN (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) Photographer is James J. Kriegsmann. Found a higher quality photo with that watermark here PascalHD (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Amazing research skills! --RAN (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2026 (UTC)