Jump to content

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/05

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Other news

Edited by User:Prototyperspective and User:RoyZuo.

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I have deleted the category and removed the files from it. As multiple users have pointed out, blood libel is a highly specific form of antisemitism that was not the subject of those files. Others are welcome to create neutrally-named categories as needed to sort files.

Chenspec, I would recommend you stay away from the subject of the war entirely. Consensus in this discussion is that your editing so far on the subject has not complied with the neutral point of view policy. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently happened to notice the account Chenspec adding the category Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War. Intrigued, I decided to access the category, as I was unfamiliar with the term "blood libel". I ended up learning, through Wikipedia, that it refers to a false antisemitic accusation alleging that Jews use the blood of Christians in religious rituals. Such a notion is, of course, reprehensible.

However, in the category in question, which also includes "Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war", I find only ordinary individuals holding signs with messages such as "Stop killing children" [1], "Stop genocide" [2], "Stop war crimes" [3], and "Stop the slaughter of innocent children, women, elderly men, and babies" [4]. I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals, nor anything that could reasonably be considered antisemitic, except through dishonest fallacies that completely distort the meaning of the term.

Furthermore, the categories Israeli apartheid and South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) are listed as subcategories. I fail to understand how the concept of Israeli apartheid—treated as a matter of fact on Wikipedia—could bear any relation to "blood libel", nor how the South African government's accusation that Israel is committing genocide could be deemed antisemitic or interpreted as an allegation of using the blood of innocent children in macabre rituals.

Thus, I propose that the category be deleted and that the account Chenspec be monitored for possible attempts of POV-pushing. I open this thread here to give the matter greater visibility, as I believe I could simply empty the category myself, but then it would be just as easy for them to revert my edit. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo, JWilz12345, Queen of Hearts, and Ratekreel: Would you like to give your opinion on the matter? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
@A1Cafel and Kingofthedead: As the ones who uploaded the mentioned photos, would you also like to comment?

RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7: I strongly disagree with this categorization and in my opinion (all political biases aside) it's a clear violation of NPOV. The photos have messages like "Stop Israeli War Crimes," "Free Palestine," "Stop Genocide," "Stop Killing Children," etc. all things which reliable sources have documented. The phrasing "Swords of Iron War" too shows clear bias towards the Israeli perspective. Kingofthedead (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7 no comment on this matter, since this is not of my forte/sphere of wiki-interest. My apologies. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 05:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
What you wrote is not accurate - a blood libel is a false anti-Semitic accusation against Jews. The problem with them is that throughout history, blood libels have led to various pogroms, murders, and harassment against Jews. Although the libel about Jews murdering Christian babies and using their blood is a common blood libel, it is not the only one. In fact, this is one example of a particular case that belongs to a broader pattern. In today's context, false accusations of the Jewish state of genocide and apartheid are relevant examples that reflect the same pattern. Chenspec (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
"I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals" - so you are clearly not accustomed or knowledgeable in this issue, since a blood libel is also referred throuout history as any false accusation against Jews including in Russia. W:Blood libel includes also other allegations, such as "versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion" and more. So the narrow verbal interpretation of blood libel only as "Jews use Christians' blood" is mistaken. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Even so, see the comments below, especially the one by Josve05a. By the way, an average of 70 edits per year on Commons and just happened to stumble upon this topic? Curious. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The idea that anyone who has an even slightly critical opinion of the war in Gaza is antisemitic or committing blood libel is laughable at best. If anything, that kind of attitude about the war just increases antisemitism. More to the point, in this case it's just an attempt to use Commons to push a nationalistic political agenda with the category system, which we don't allow for. So the category should be deleted for the Category-related POV-pushing that it clearly is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

A false accusation of genocide is not a "slightly critical opinion" Chenspec (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Good thing I didn't say it was. The important thing is that it's still not blood libel or antisemitic. That's even assuming it's not a genocide to begin with but even if it's not, the category is still nationalistic, political POV-pushing regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This shows this topic is to complex to fit into a category system. Therefore we should not try to fit it into the category system. Just delete all categories they label something in a political way unless there is no serious doubt about that label. Describing the topic and the discussions about is the task of Wikipedia not of Categories on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable to me as long as this policy is included in all relevant cases, including the category Israeli apartheid. Chenspec (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't seem fair to me. This topic was opened because you are associating people protesting and a sovereign country accusing another of genocide with blood libel, which according to the Wikipedia page refers to Jews using Christian blood in rituals. There's a false equivalence here, especially since the Israeli apartheid is controversial precisely mostly, if not only because its existence is denied by those who perpetrate it. See the article on the English Wikipedia, which as I mentioned treats it as a fact. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of any political categories myself but at least images like this one show an accusation of Israeli apartheid, which is the point in the category. Whereas, this image is just of someone wearing a shirt with the word "Palestine" on it. A shirt with the name of a geographical location on it obviously isn't antisemitic or blood libel. Unless your going to argue the actual State of Palestine is antisemitic and it's mere existence is slander against Jews. Let alone that someone wearing a shirt in support of it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should rename the category Category:Israeli apartheid to Category:Media related to Israeli apartheid discourse. The Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War should be renamed to Category:References to Blood libel at Israel–Hamas war related protests and all files with no direct reference should be removed from the category. GPSLeo (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I was thinking about something like that, but I'd still argue that someone wearing a Palestine shirt isn't a reference to blood libel or has anything to do with it. If we extend the definition of "blood libel" to any accusation towards Jews or the Jewish state then it's essentially meaningless at that point. Category:Blood libel is pretty clearly about the historical trope of falsely accusing Jews of kidnaping and murdered the children of Christians in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals. That's what the description for the category says, it's what the Wikidata item says, that's the definition of blood libel on Wikipedia and Google search. Blood libel has nothing to do with the state of Isreal either. Know one outside of extreme Jewish or Israeli nationalists would say it's blood libel to simply criticize a Jew or the Jewish state regardless of the accusation being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes there are no photos directly referencing blood libel in that category and only maybe 5-10 with possible indirect reference. GPSLeo (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Adamant1 - The photo you mentioned was not cataloged because of the caption on the shirt but because of the caption on the sign "Stop Genocide" Chenspec (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticism of a state and blood libels. Things that I think go beyond legitimate criticism and fall under the definition of blood libels are false accusations of genocide, war crimes or apartheid. As well as false comparisons to the Nazi regime - which are actually more implicit accusations of genocide. To the best of my memory, all the images that are categorized there are associated with one or more of these options. If there is an image that is not clear why it is there or another type of blood libel that I have not mentioned here - you are welcome to ask and I will be happy to answer.

I also emphasize that blood libels include false accusations only. If the accusation is about an event that occurred in reality - that is a different issue. However, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, so the determination of the very existence of various events, or the way in which they should be interpreted, should come from official and reliable external sources that are relevant to the subject.

Regarding changing the names of the categories to some wording that would clarify that this is a discussion around a specific issue and not a determination of the nature of the case itself, I am also okay with it as long as it is applied to all relevant categories equally. Chenspec (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Commons is not a place for advancing political narratives (neither implicitly nor explicitly) through categorization. Per my reading of Commons:Categories, categories should reflect verifiable facts (my emphasis, not a direct quote), not interpretations or arguments. Terms like blood libel are deeply historically loaded and, per both w:Blood libel and d:Q498273, refer specifically to false allegations that Jews murder non-Jews (typically Christians) to use their blood in religious rituals. This is not a flexible metaphor; it's a precise concept. Broadening it to mean “any false accusation against a Jewish person or Israel” dilutes its meaning and injects WP:POV into Commons, which violates both COM:NPOV and COM:SCOPE. None of the images currently in Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War include references to blood rituals, nor do they invoke Jewish identity in any direct way. Most of them are images of protests making general political or humanitarian statements like “Stop genocide.” That may be seen as unfair, hyperbolic, or offensive by some, but it is not blood libel. To include such media in this category is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a clear case of POV-pushing. Commons categories are not the place for editors to make judgment calls on which political claims are true or false. That belongs to reliable sources and (where needed) Wikipedia articles that can weigh them with context and citations, not to Commons file categories. I therefore support deletion of these kind of categories in their current form, as it violates policy on neutrality and factual categorization. If there's a valid need to track visual documentation of such accusations (e.g., actual protest signs referring to blood libel tropes), a much narrower and carefully scoped category may be considered, but that is not what this is. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest to just create categories like "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing war crimes", "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing genocide" or "Protest posters comparing Israel government with national socialism". Then the category makes a simple and verifiable statement what is visible. The photos can also be categorized in Categories like "Protests in support of Palestine" or "Protests in support of Hamas". But trying to guess the cultural background of a protest poster is nothing that should be done in Commons categories. GPSLeo (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I also support deletion per Josve05a and others above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm also in favor of deleting the category and moving its contents to Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine.
As much as I'm in favor of letting the conversation run its course before action is taken, I removed the "Blood Libel" categories from Category:Israeli apartheid and Category:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). I've also removed the category Category:Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war from Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine, all of which were put there by Chenspec. Pro-Palestine protests are not inherently anti-semitic. Any images found to be anti-semitic in nature can be moved to the appropriate subcategories. This is a wholly inappropriate use of the category system. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
There has been an obvious hijacking of the category system to defend a specific POV, which is totally out of Commons scope. I second all others that defended deleting that category. The categories suggested @GPSLeo would allow people to find that specific content without falling into terms loaded with POV. Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Fully agreed that this is not "Blood libel" (medieval/modern accusations against Jews kidnapping and murdering children for secret rituals). The Gaza genocide is committed by the government of Israel, not "shadowy Jews" and not even by the general populace in Israel. It's also committed in the open, not in secret; and people aren't killed for dark rituals either. Just because 19th/20th-century antisemitic sentiment was entirely unfounded and racist, does that dark past not delegimitate todays Anti-War protests. (This would be different with stereotyped antisemitic posters.) Regarding this category,  Delete. (Edit: Someone in the discussion above also mentioned Category:Israeli apartheid. That is a long-standing BDS idea and seems POV too.) --Enyavar (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Support deletion. This exploits and dilutes the term "blood libel" to the point of making it meaningless. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I also support deletion. Blood libel has a specific meaning and this is not within the meaning of that. Abzeronow (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
I am thinking that the category is important, as mentioned above, a blood libel is a false anti-Semitic accusation against Jews, as it stated at the photos.Ovedc (talk) 05:29, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
As numerous other users have stated above, this is incorrect (or at least confusingly stated). "Blood libel" is a specific type of antisemitic accusation. It is not a blanket term for all forms of antisemitism, or for any negative statement about Israel. Omphalographer (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arrival 1946 in Israël picture

I have a picture of a bus arriving at jewish settlement, with on the backside the text:

Arrivé d'immigrants en Israël, le 19 mai 1946. It is likely to be zionist propaganda (very enthousiastic welcome)

There is the copyrigth notice of Tallandier. I havent been able tp find anything on this Tallandier. I dont know when the phofografer may have died.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hm. Are you sure that Tallandier is the photographer? This might be the French publishing company fr:Éditions Tallandier (est. 1901). If they own that picture, you'll have to wait just a few short years: it will already become public domain in 2042. --Enyavar (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Its fr:Éditions Tallandier. There is no mention of a photografer, only the copyrigth letter C and the name Tallandier. This is pre-Israël Palestine, so I suppose its a British license, or is the nationality of the organisation/photografer more important? In the EU, it is PD 70 years after publication for pseudo-anonymous photographs such as postcards, without a photografer or writer attribution. See newspaper articles without a writer attribution. The original Tallendier family members no longer had a role in the publishing house after 1933, so a Tallendier photographer can be excluded, certainly in a turbulent Palestine far from French soil. So this is work bough by the publishing house. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

It is this picture is also on the Delcampe (postcard website): arrivee-d-immigrants-en-israel-le-19-mai-1946.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

May 02

Old Commons:Media by time?

Hello, should be Commons:Media by time updated to year 2025? I don't know how to do that at first glance :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

May 11

Category:2 men with other organisms; 1 boy with 4 women; 5 women with other people; etc

Please see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/10/Category:2 men with other organisms regarding such categories.
Prototyperspective (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Prototyperspective: There are a lot of these categories. Check out Category:Adult humans in groups of 5 -> Category:Adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 people -> Category:Clothed adult humans in 5 clothed people -> Category:Clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed people -> Category:2 clothed men in 5 clothed adult humans -> Category:2 clothed men with 3 clothed women. Notice that none of them actually have any files except for the last one. Nosferattus (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
These are absurd. What next, "2 cats and a toaster"? - Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Guess what, they have potential for expansion. Why should I take anything I read on this page seriously when in previous discussions, I read complaints about cats which are underpopulated and have little or no chance of expansion, all the while they continue to proliferate on the site and there's no evidence of the regulars here doing anything about it? I certainly don't have time to hang around here and constantly comment simply for the sake of commenting. It might help to look up "paper tiger". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 18:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
no evidence of the regulars here doing anything about it? Not sure what you mean. a) This seems not relevant to the categories this particular thread is about and b) There's at least two ways people do things about underpopulated categories: there's many people categorizing files when they find them into such and there is Commons:Categorization requests where people can list such underpopulated cat if adding the note "This category is missing many files" (see examples) is not enough.
Guess what, they have potential for expansion The possibility of getting files added doesn't mean a category is useful / good to have. We also don't have Category:English-language PDF files containing the word example for example. (However, I don't really fully understand your comment.) Prototyperspective (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
One of the things that sucks about the category system is that it's impossible to keep people from creating categories and there's a lot of bureaucratic hurdles in the way of dealing with ones that end up being an issue. Some can create thousands of clearly problematic categories in a matter of minutes but then it takes months of back and forth in a CfD for them to be deleted. It's not a great system by any means. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
Some can create thousands of clearly problematic categories in a matter of minutes I haven't seen any such cases. but then it takes months of back and forth in a CfD for them to be deleted if it's actually problematic it usually just takes a small number such as 1 user to support deletion and if there are no objections it will simply be deleted without much of back and forth. Relative to the total number of categories there is quite little bureaucratic cost for deletion. One way to get rid of lots of misleading and/or useless categories would be deleting all categories that have stayed empty for months and aren't maintenance categories but that didn't gain traction and other than that I haven't seen many cases of problematic categories and it doesn't seem to be a problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
I haven't seen any such cases. I was being slightly hyperbolic but it's certainly a lot easier and quicker to create categories a lot of the time then it is to get rid of them.
It doesn't seem to be a problem. It really depends on the situation and who created the category. It's usually not a problem to delete a single category that was created by someone who isn't a contributor anymore. That's not what this discussion is about though. It certainly takes a lot more time and effort to clean up category systems like this one then it does to create them. Anything beyond a couple of a categories that were created by a dead account is going to take some time, effort, and jumping through multiple bureaucratic hoops to deal with. Even then people just recreate previously deleted categories. Then it turns into edit wars, ignored talk page messages, baseless ANU complaints about harassment or some nonsense Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
It is definitely my experience that the "splitters" have a great advantage over the "lumpers". Anyone can unilaterally create an overly narrow or utterly useless category in seconds, and populate it with Cat-a-Lot or similar tools in minutes; undoing that normally takes (1) noticing it, (2) writing up a CfD, (3) building up something of a consensus, and (4) even if that consensus is relatively easily built, doing at least as much work after that as it took to create and populate the category in the first place. Plus, in many cases, splitters have the advantage of always having on their side the argument, "you are removing information from the category portion" which unless the category is a strict intersection of preexisting categories will always be at least technically true, even if the category is (as I remarked above) "2 cats and a toaster" or "Angele Merkel on Tuesdays in the 1990s". - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
We do seem to have these sort of discussions quite often. Maybe it's time that we create a policy against useless over-specific categories. The only problem is how to define such a policy. How do we prohibit "2 cats and a toaster" in a way that everyone can agree on? Nosferattus (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
If I had my way the standard would be not having intersectional categories for more then two subjects. Otherwise it obtuse pretty quickly after that. So "2 cats and a toaster" would be out. As would all of these categories. I doubt there's any chance of something like that being approved though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any way to get away from this being a judgement call every time. It's just frustrating when some long-term users don't seem to be able to gauge consensus over time and/or willing to conform to it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
E.g. Category:Red fire hydrants in New Hampshire, presumably a perfectly good category, intersects an object type, a color, and a geographic location. - Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
On the other hand, I've had to reluctantly accept the consensus in favor of Category:Female bass guitarists, which I find a pointless intersection: what does a female bass guitarist do any differently from a male bass guitarist? I get breaking the U.S. down to its states, breaking something down 50 ways can make for more tractable categories in many areas, but breaking it in two seems useless to me. And what about a non-binary bass guitarist? But clearly I am in the minority with this view. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I'd probably axe most of the gender based categories myself since it's not like we know how people identify in a good percentage of cases anyway. I much rather the categories not exist to begin with then having instances of people being misgendered. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That cat is partly to include the files/categories in the Category:Female musicians branch. I think the cat is reasonable, maybe useful for some but not very useful. I think the problem rather is that due to COM:OVERCAT it can result in people moving files into by gender subcategories which are then missing at the top level and aren't categorized into far more useful categories such as about the setting or the instrument. Another example is Category:People exercising and its subcategories (esp. this) where people partly categorized by gender and age where it would be far more useful and reasonable to categorize by exercise / type of exercise. Secondly, improved ways to see files across many subcategories are also needed due to how subcategorization works. For example to see a well-sorted scrollable filterable wall of images of any kind of fire hydrants regardless of color and location.
Both of that I think means not the categorization itself is the problem that needs and can be well addressed, but such/potential issues relating to subcategorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Maybe a solution would be to make it so gender based categories can only be added to ones specifically for the people. Instead of there being a situation were images just get dumped in "by gender" categories and not put in better ones like it happens now. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There is an unfortunately common tendency among some editors to split up large categories using criteria which often feel arbitrary, and which act as a barrier to more effective subcategorization - e.g. gender or nationality for categories of people, "by year" categories for photos of locations, etc. Which isn't to say that these properties should never be used for subcategories, but rather that they should be a last resort. Omphalographer (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Category:Listed medical buildings in France

Category:Monuments historiques in France (hospitals) should be renamed in Category:Listed medical buildings in France

What do you think ?

Category:Listed buildings in France should be created Io Herodotus (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment why "Listed buildings" rather than Monuments historiques? Are there no other designations of listed buildings anywhere in France, so that the terms are equivalent? - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
There are other designations, for example Commons has Category:Monuments à l’inventaire, which are monuments of the Inventaire général du patrimoine culturel and are not labeled and protected as Monuments historiques of Category:Monuments historiques in France. Monument historique is a particular legal status and a label. See also on en.wikipedia en:Monument historique and en:Category:Monuments historiques of France. On Commons, both subcategories are grouped in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in France. There are also other labels, such as fr:Catégorie:Édifice labellisé « Patrimoine du XXe siècle » or en:Category:Maisons des Illustres. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Then "listed" can't be used in this context as a synonym for Monument historique. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment The proposal is an approximate translation of the label, does not correspond to any international use of the terms, nor to criteria for moving the category. "Monument historique" is the official designation and the most common used expression and the same used on enwiki. So the renaming suggestion is against the Commons policy:

Category names should generally be in English [...], however, there are exceptions such as:

  • some proper names
    [...]
  • names for which the non-English name is most commonly used in the English language (or there is no evidence of usage of an English-language version)
(from Commons:Categories#Category_names)
--Una tantum (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
While it may be tempting to translate this term to improve clarity and ensure content consistency, the suggested equivalent clearly falls short, as it refers to a concept that is legally defined. If an English translation is truly necessary, a more accurate option might be "Buildings legally designated as historical monuments". For the sake of consistency, the article's title "Monument historique" on English Wikipedia, should also be reconsidered. — Baidax 💬 09:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
I would guess that to the average American, monument historique is actually clearer than "listed building", a British term not widely used in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk

Hierarchies of categories

Could someone help me with my confusion about how a hierarchy of categories should be created? I have read a number of articles on the subject but can't work out the final step(s).

Today I created a Commons category, "South Australian Railways wooden end-loading passenger car".

A hierarchy could be:

1: South Australian Railways
2: South Australian Railways passenger cars
3: South Australian Railways wooden end-loading passenger car.

I'm finding it difficult to know whether, or where, to add the categories above "South Australian Railways wooden end-loading passenger car".

My ignorance is evident in another new category, Category:South Australian Railways Brill railcar. Clearly I have the two levels of "South Australian Railways Brill railcar" wrong. I'd appreciate advice on that too.

Any help would be enormously appreciated. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬  at 09:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Start from the top - with Category:South Australian Railways and work down! Rathfelder (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: It's the process of doing that, not the concept, that I don't understand. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
If you put [[Category:South Australian Railways Brill railcar]] on the page [[:Category:South Australian Railways Brill railcar]], then you are saying it is its own parent. (I've fixed that.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Rathfelder: Thank you! Now I get that bit! :-) Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@SCHolar44: Is Category:South Australian Railways Brill railcar about one particular railcar or a type of railcar? - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It is a type of railcar. SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 00:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
@SCHolar44: then the category name should be plural, I'll fix it. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Bahnhof Bergen auf Rügen?

I am not certain this is Bahnhof Bergen auf Rügen. I was taken on route from the File:Rasender Roland 2003 4.jpg to Rostock. I dont know on wich routes the Connex trains ran.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

If it is take at a station where the Rasender Roland stops it could only be Category:Bahnhof Putbus but I think tracks and roof do not match. It could be Bergen if there was once a longer roof at the platform that is now removed. GPSLeo (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
Back when I was a student at the University of Rostock, there was an InterConnex train line from Rostock-Warnemünde to Leipzig (see InterConnex). After Rostock, it IIRC followed more or less the tracks of the RE5 (Schwaan, Güstrow, Neustrelitz, Waren, Berlin); not getting near Rügen (at least, not with this rolling stock). Your image may have been shot in Rostock Hbf. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article says there was a line to Binz from 2002 to 2006 so the 2003 photo would fall into that time de:InterConnex. GPSLeo (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but the Connex to Binz was not serviced with a Bombardier TRAXX (DB BR146) nor with classical coaches, as seen in the picture. Instead, the line used Diesel multiple units from Siemens (Siemens Desiro); that's why I wrote "not getting near Rügen (at least, not with this rolling stock)". Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
The roof matchtes the one in Rostock. It was late evening (long days june), so it could be a return to Rostock Connex train.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Flag of the Council of Europe

As far as I know, the Council of Europe use the normal flag of Europe as its official flag. These flags

  • Logo of the Council of Europe (green, no lettering).png
    Logo of the Council of Europe (green, no lettering).png
  • Flag of the Council of Europe.svg
    Flag of the Council of Europe.svg

are not a rendition of a real flag but a version of the official logo without lettering:

and thus their names should be changed. Besides, the one with the green letter has a dubious license. -- Carnby (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would support it but I don't think we should allow for "variations" of flags to begin with. Since with how it currently is there's just to much room for people to upload made up flags that purely exist to spread nationalist propaganda. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I think really existing "variations" of flags are OK. For example: Category:Heart-flags of Eurovision. Nakonana (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't have problem with those kinds of flags per se, which is why I put "variations" in quotes. It's mainly the ones that are clearly created by the uploader or come from other websites that don't have any standards. If I were to guess there's probably an extremely small amount of flags on here that are legitimate, official variations. Most of them are fake. It's not like we couldn't clearly seperate the two and make an exception for legitimate variations of flags if there was ever a policy about it though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
I would rename them "logo flag" or "logo of the Council of Europe (no lettering)" since they're not actual flags of the Council of Europe.-- Carnby (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
"Logo of the Council of Europe (no lettering)" is perfect. It's not used by the Council as a flag - just as part of their logo - so we shouldn't call it a flag. Omphalographer (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
✓ Done-- Carnby (talk) 11:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

We will be enabling the new Charts extension on your wiki soon!

(Apologies for posting in English)

Hi all! We have good news to share regarding the ongoing problem with graphs and charts affecting all wikis that use them.

As you probably know, the old Graph extension was disabled in 2023 due to security reasons. We’ve worked in these two years to find a solution that could replace the old extension, and provide a safer and better solution to users who wanted to showcase graphs and charts in their articles. We therefore developed the Charts extension, which will be replacing the old Graph extension and potentially also the EasyTimeline extension.

After successfully deploying the extension on Italian, Swedish, and Hebrew Wikipedia, as well as on MediaWiki.org, as part of a pilot phase, we are now happy to announce that we are moving forward with the next phase of deployment, which will also include your wiki.

The deployment will happen in batches, and will start from May 6. Please, consult our page on MediaWiki.org to discover when the new Charts extension will be deployed on your wiki. You can also consult the documentation about the extension on MediaWiki.org.

If you have questions, need clarifications, or just want to express your opinion about it, please refer to the project’s talk page on Mediawiki.org, or ping me directly under this thread. If you encounter issues using Charts once it gets enabled on your wiki, please report it on the talk page or at Phabricator.

Thank you in advance! -- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF) I think this message was mistakenly added here as Charts are already enabled on Commons since they could not work anywhere without Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Argh, I overlooked the presence of Commons in the list. Apologies for that! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have used AI to create an image of the character Jirel of Joiry, and would like to upload it here. However, I'm not sure how Commons treats the interaction of the copyright laws of Canada (where I live) and the USA (where Commons' servers are located).

The description that I intend to use is:

AI-generated fan art of the character Jirel of Joiry as she appeared at the beginning of the story "The Black God's Kiss" by C. L. Moore.

"The Black God's Kiss" was published in the October 1934 issue of Weird Tales, which is stated by the Internet Archive to be in the Public Domain. This, there is no copyright issue with making a derivative work based on a story published in that magazine issue.

The image was created by User:Robkelk using Google's ImageFX tool, with the seed 999660 and the description "A realistic image of a tall woman in her mid-30s, with an athletic build and a face that is more handsome than beautiful with an expression of barely-contained anger. She has short red hair and hazel eyes. She wears a sleeveless chain-link tunic over a long-sleeved doeskin leather shirt, doeskin leather leggings with Roman-style greaves, and leather boots. Her belt has a sheathed dagger, and she carries an old but sharp shortsword. She stands in front of a simple wooden throne that is sized for her to use." That prompt is the sixth iteration of the prompt used to create earlier versions of the image, so the creator assumes that this counts as human-guided creation rather than sole AI creation.

Canadian law is silent on the copyright status of human-guided AI-generated images. Assuming that the AI tool is just that – a tool – Rob Kelk claims copyright of this image and licences it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.

I would tag the upload with the template "Fan art" and the categories "AI-generated fan art" and "Jirel of Joiry".

Is it permitted to upload the image here? If "yes", is there anything else that I need to add to the description and licence texts?

--Robkelk (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robkelk: The character itself would be in the public domain, so any copyright of fanart would transfer over to the creator of the image without it being shared by other copyright holders. Whether Canadian law says this author is you, or considers it to have no author due to the image being AI-generated, Commons should be able to host the image either way. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Don't be surprised if it gets nominated for deletion. Uploading AI generated fan art of something that's already PD is super pointless and goes against the guideline that Commons isn't a personal file host. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
Given that, I think that perhaps I should wait until there's a decision as to the status of AI works under Canadian copyright law. (If somebody's going to think this is using Commons as a personal file host instead of being me sharing a work, that would be two possible strikes against Commons keeping the file.) Thanks for the help anyway. --Robkelk (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
There is no "decision" to be made. If it's not covered already then it's not protected by copyright Trade (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
That is not how the copyright law works in Canada. --Robkelk (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
There's no evidence of any court ruling that AI pictures are inherently copyrighted by someone other than the prompter. I wouldn't let Canadian legalities stop you from uploading it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I live in Canada. I must take into account Canadian legalities, just as you appear (from the content of your User page) to need to take into account legalities of the USA. --Robkelk (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Making a picture of a PD character that we have no visual representation of is useful in many contexts; it is certainly not super pointless. I'd certainly use it over the cover of the magazine that does not depict her on w:Jirel of Joiry.--Prosfilaes (talk)
The question is if there's a cover of the magazine that depicts her. If so, then its pointless to upload a generated image of her to Commons. I don't see why there wouldn't be a normal one but the burden should be on whomever wants to upload an AI generated version of an exiting character to at least look first and upload a non-AI generated verison instead if one exists. Otherwise there's no point in doing this. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Or, you know, we can be less stressed about it and not demand one true solution. If someone wants to upload a picture of a PD character with limited available art, we could let them and not slap them down or demand they do in depth searching first. Build up instead of tear down.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
I think there's two solutions there 1. Look for an image 2. Upload an AI generated one if that's all there is. I'm just saying people shouldn't skip the first step because its easier to push the "AI go burr" button then it is to look through search results. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
There is a cover image that has fallen into the Public Domain in the USA (File:Weird Tales October 1934.jpg), but it's what I would call a "cheesecake" image of the character that does not match the character's personality as described in the story itself. --Robkelk (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Mouth and gums of a lead-mill worker Wellcome L0062322.jpg

Is it fine the artwork is cropped? --Quick1984 (talk) 06:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

@Quick1984: Yes, CC BY 4.0 allows that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
I think the question was about commons guidelines and there the overwrite was definitely not okay. I reverted it to the original version. GPSLeo (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. Thank you. Quick1984 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Fuzhou Metro logos

Some people claim that the proposed ones do not meet the requirements of "TOO China", but why are there no problems with other ones such as: File:Guangzhou Metro logo.svg, File:Guangzhou Metro icon.svg, and File:Amoy Metro logo.svg? However, the person who proposed the deletion could not produce any evidence at all（Image Links:File:Fuzhou Metro logo.svg, File:Fuzhou Metro icon.svg）. --御坂雪奈 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@People who have participated in similar discussions:@User:TimWu007 @User:Ankry @User:Liuxinyu970226 @User:Sam_Sailor --御坂雪奈 (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
@御坂雪奈 You might have more success in asking in COM:VPC. Greetings :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
thank you!But the discussion has already begun. If you are able, could you please make an evaluation and judgment there?[5] and [6].thank you very much! 御坂雪奈 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion of merge (Potd)

Hello, because of the Picture of the day of today, I was searching for the wikidata item of the Ormož Basins nature reserve, Slovenia (Ormož basins nature reserve (Q108138093)), and its commons category, but we have both Category:Naravni rezervat Ormoške lagune and Category:Ormož Basins. It seems the same subject, am I right? In your opinion can we merge categories? I notify also the creators of categories @Sporti and @Yerpo. Una tantum (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this, please start a category discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Prototyperspective: I am writing here because of the high visibility of POTD, to make the discussion faster than if I posted on the category discussion page. But yes, I will add the discussion in the talks of categories too.--Una tantum (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
@Una tantum: for now, you can add {{See also cat}} to both. - Jmabel ! talk 23:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Óscar E. Duplán Maldonado (1890-1942) in 1915.jpg

Can someone add his image to his Wikidata entry RAN (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): ✓ Done, see d:special:diff/2347472489.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

YouTubeReviewBot

why was this bot banned, again?--Trade (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth/YouTubeReviewBot Log/block Special:Diff/575750163 User%3AYouTubeReviewBot This was 4 years ago. Taylor 49 (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
LicenseReviewerBot, the bot that replaced YouTubeReviewBot have been dead for 3 years. Something must have happened--Trade (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
 Comment well ...
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Taylor 49 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion

This arose at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gatley-WikiBio-P.pdf. We have speedy-deletion criterion Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#GA2 if someone basically writes an article and puts it in gallery space. Is there any reason we don't have a comparable speedy-deletion criterion if they do the same and upload it as a PDF? Deletion in such a case is pretty much certain, as far as I can tell. Why should we have to leave discussion open for a week (or at least until COM:SNOW)? - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

No objection from my side to introduce such a criterion. In fact, I looked into COM:CSD at first and was mildly surprised to see that there was no fitting rationale, making me settle for this standard DR. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, a CSD criterion for that would be helpful. It shouldn't be specific to PDF, though; I've occasionally seen people write encyclopedia articles and upload them as images.
It'd also be nice if this could encompass web browser "print to PDF"s of wiki pages. I don't know why people upload these, but they do sometimes, and they're never useful. (Wikibooks shouldn't be affected; I believe they use LaTeX to render their PDF books.) Omphalographer (talk) 17:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
So does this need to go to Commons:Village pump/Proposals? We're talking about changing a policy page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Can you figure out the word?

File:Complimentary Banquet in The Brooklyn Union of Brooklyn, New York on January 13, 1883.jpg Yard Honoring a Good Citizen and Selfless? Mechanic. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like "skillful" to me, with the final "l" floating up a bit (much like the "f" did a few lines below). Omphalographer (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
I think threads here could not get much more trivial. The text currently says "Selfless" but that word shouldn't be there since it seems fairly clearly not the one in the image. Agree that it seems to be skillful but and l seems to be missing (skilful). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 03:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2025/05&oldid=1032128014"