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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

We are making good progress: 16,703 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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

I hope not to many files land in broad unknown categories. There are stil some frustrating files without location: example: File:Italy- handbook for travellers. First Part, Northern Italy and Corsica (1869) (14597135680).jpg. It could be in France (Corsica or Massilia? (in Provence?)).Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Would it be useful to start with the 5,951 images that are currently used in Wikipedia? -- Vysotsky (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Vysotsky: Thanks, this is a very useful link, indeed. It is relatively easy to categorize these files, especially those of people. However, I am also interested in finding high-quality photos that are not being used, because they cannot be found, unless they are better described. NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Completely agree. Even more: categorizing photos not being used might be more important. At the same time, I think it is good to also look at the ones heavily used. Your call has worked fine so far: 34,000 uncategorized images brought back to 19,139 within one month. Thanks. Vysotsky (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is there any idea what the backlog is for the following years of 2011, 2012 etc?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The number of these backlog items is 0 – those are all solved. The number of such files used to be far smaller which is why addressing this at the source is needed. The number of files for 2025 is essentially unmanageable already. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Question: When you clear these backlogs, do you attempt to provide meaningful categorization or do you just stick any old category on it and call it good? For years now, continuing to the present day, I've come across copyvios that have lingered on the site for years. This occurred mainly because the file contained a random, irrelevant category which effectively hid it from anyone knowledgeable about the subject. Oftentimes, they were originally uploaded by bad actors or just plain clueless contributors. Another phenomenon I've observed is with my own uploads where I didn't have time to add categories. The revision history shows an entire series of categorization edits which amount to kicking the can down the road. It's as if to suggest it's my responsibility to come back and properly categorize the files, while it's perfectly okay for them to fuck around incessantly. If you think I'm being unnecessarily mean, go read what COM:CAT says about including the most appropriate category in the tree. I believe that also applies to those editors. Taking an uncategorized file, adding Category:Men or similar, and walking away patting yourself on the back for what a great job you did is utterly ridiculous. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I, for one, would never remove the "uncategorized" template unless I had provided one or more quite relevant categories, and when I'm going through a list like this I often am nominating files for deletion (or speedying them) when I see problems. Hence my remark above about 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 05:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I fully agree that applying non-sense categories such as Category:Men or just their first name does not fulfill the objective of this exercise. I think, we should focus on enabling authors or readers of Wikipedia articles, to find relevant photos more easily. Currently, we are working on the 2020 files. Thus "anyone knowledgeable about the subject" had sufficient time to request the deletion of files. Requesting deletions can also more effectively be done in parallel to categorization. If we do not start from A to Z by alphabet, but if start by categorizing high-quality photos, for instance the uncategorized photos uploaded via Flickr. On some occasions it might be helpful, to add temporary categories such as Category:Unidentified cities or Category:Unidentified automobiles, because these are being looked after by motivated specialists. NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A lesser problem than copyvios are the duplicates wich become visible, when placed next to each other. Sorting the category by date makes them even more visible.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

More Information: Useful tools and some guidelines are currently collated at Commons:WikiProject Minimum One Category. We are looking forward to your contributions to this page. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Also added to this page. For the category here, I think now for the files left there is a large fraction of files for which SDs, DRs, and permission needed tags would be good to add or at least probably would be good to consider using more often. In part for the sake of making it more feasible to complete this, probably the cutoff for quality/usefulness expectations may be good to raise so that eg this file and this fall beneath it (these don't add much but clutter really). Prototyperspective (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

In addition to requesting deletion, it might be useful to split some very populated categories into two parts, by using or setting-up a subcategory such as Category:Cats (low quality) or Category:Sunsets (low quality). NearEMPTiness (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Agree. This info would also be good to add to that page. Also similar ways to separate types of images, e.g. Category:Moon from Earth instead of dumping further low-quality photos where the Moon is somewhere in the image directly into high-level Category:Moon. There's probably more similar ways that would be good for categorizers to be aware of. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There are still approx 13682 uncategorized files, which are used on Wikipedia and related projects, as shown on Glam-Tools. Some of them can be easily categorised by using the lemma of the English Wikipedia. NearEMPTiness (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

(13682 uncategorized files overall of which 4518 are used anywhere in the wikiverse of which 3584 are used in mainspace of any Wikimedia project) Prototyperspective (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't like "low quality" categories. For one thing, we have no systematic way to make such a judgement. For another, it unnecessarily insults users who may not agree with that description of their work. - Jmabel ! talk 00:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

@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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenSpheres (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SevenSpheres (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

When you nominate an image for deletion should you also !vote? Should you add a  Delete as well as nominate, or is that double !voting? I have noticed at some closures that the decision was made by counting the  Delete and the  Keep and the simple majority was enforced. RAN (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think so unless one has converted a speedy deletion request to a regular deletion request because otherwise it's generally implied that one is voting delete (with exceptions where the user makes clear they're unsure whether the deletion rationale applies). I don't think enforcing the simple majority is usually a good way to close controversial DRs without clear consensus but there the nominator is usually (?) counted as 1 person voting for deletion if they didn't clarify that they changed their mind or that they're unsure about whether deletion rationale applies (the latter is most commonly the case for copyright-deletion cases). Prototyperspective (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

The simple majority might be a legit base for decision making if the DR is questioning whether a file is in project scope, but otherwise the decision is usually more a matter of arguments presented. It is uncommon for the nominating party to vote one way or the other except in cases like the ones listed by Prototyperspective. Nakonana (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's generally implied that, if you create a deletion request for a file, it's because you think there's a reason it should be deleted. Re. closure decisions, keep in mind that deletion discussions are not a vote - decisions are made on the balance of arguments, not by counting the keep/delete templates. Omphalographer (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes the nominator reconsiders his nomination, but its not his decision to terminate the nomination. An example of this in Commons:Deletion requests/File:De Haan, Belgium (Unsplash).jpg. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Smiley.toerist, I think you can withdraw if nobody has responded yet. However, closing DRs properly is a bit of a pain to do manually, and the script to do it doesn't load for non-admins. (unless you're a bastard.) - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Richard Arthur Norton, that's generally not required as a "delete" vote is typically implied, but in some cases it's useful to vote. For example, when converting a speedy deletion tag to a DR, one might even wish to vote  Keep.
When I vote on a DR I started I'll usually use {{Vk}} or {{Vd}} in the nomination itself. There is no automagic counter, most admins likely identify vk/vd templates visually. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

(There are counters on e.g. wikicordo, but that's more a tool to find DRs than to decide them) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

what's the current situation with extensions like jpg, jpeg, JPG... all for the same type of files?

one thing i know, is that old uploads like File:Nature.jpg File:Nature.JPG still exist.

1. do the different extensions matter for new uploads?
2. is there a single preferred form? jpg for all jpeg? if there is, is it still possible to create files with names in other forms?
3. if nothing has been done about this problem yet, any progress, timeline or roadmap this will be tackled? phab task?

RoyZuo (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This has recently been discussed here but there wasn't much participation: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2025/10#Equivalent file extensions. So far, there isn't any preferred form per Commons:File types. It's not necessarily a problem or at least you didn't elaborate why it would be. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. Both are allowed and distinct

2. No, although Commons' Move file user script that is enabled for all users has a mapping that DOES prefer one form. It is defined in MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js

3. It seems that not many people have a particular care about this and it doesn't cause too many problems either. Yet changing things is disruptive no matter what and carries risk. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

thx thedj, i also remember the file move gadget.

i think sticking to a single version for a single thing is better as it avoids uncertainty and chaos.

i'll go with jpg for jpegs.

i'll mention this consideration in Commons:File types based on the gadget we already widely use. RoyZuo (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a follow up discussion of the thread 'Unidentified French port in 1948'.

Quote from the discussion: The Commons gets to many new files (a lot of mass uploads) with very limited/missing data. Whatever the community does later to categorize and add the missing data, its to much to keep up. One cannot limit the number of incoming files. The best solution is that the uploaders are encouraged to do the maximum on research so that the files are as complete as posible. It is much more effort to do the work later with people who are not familiar with the subject (and only interested in getting the numbers down / a job)Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Give people a barn star or some other kind of accolade on their talk page if they did a good job. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also Wish457: UI and badges for categorization requests. If you're referring to uploaders, lots of the files are from large numbers of different uploaders each not uploading a very large number. (Moreover, it would make little sense to send sth like that when they properly categorized one or a few files as an exception to most of the other files they uploaded.) Prototyperspective (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

To start the discussion it is best analyse how the problem files backlogs are reduced: (the role of uploaders has been discussed sufficiently in the past threads)

• Deliberate actions such as the thread 'Do you want to help, to categorise 34,000 media needing categories as of 2020, please?' and Would it be useful to start with the 6,991 images that are currently used in Wikipedia? by Vysotsky

• The random organic reduction, wich takes place anyway: When a Commons contributor comes across a problem file during his usual work (for example categorising, sorting categories, adding SD, etc), he/she does the research and the problem file is no more. The frequency of this happening depends on the number of eyes seeing the file. The problem with using 'unknown, undefined' categories is that it puts the problem files under the carpet, not to be seen again except for the workers of deliberate actions. The more categories the files have (not the unknown/undefined) the more visible the files are.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think before further measures, some things should first be done at the source, i.e. where and when users upload files; see Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements#Guidance/facilitation of categorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I strongly recommend hidden maintenance categories, which don't get used nearly enough. Also, unhidden categories like Category:Unidentified locations in New York (state). I also super-strongly recommend that in any area you have some expertise, make a pass through a category like that and see what you can categorize. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I dont see that categorising things as unknown or unidentified is helpful. There are thousands, for example, in Category:Unidentified politicians. Actually almost all of them have names, so they arent unidentified. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

People can browse or filter via unidentified categories and add the fitting categories to them. The case of files with the person name in the title may be a slightly special case as we don't really want categories for all of these.

For other cases like cities we want and have categories and that cat is so that users can add these categories.

It's also for files being included in branches that are subcategorized by some criteria, e.g. branch Category:Videos from NASA by year should contain all NASA videos, not just those where people set that cat at upload or where it got batch-added based on file description later. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

In practice an unidentified category is almost never needed if there a headcategory (with files) and subcategories. Take a tram example: Category:Trams in Bremen. Most incoming files with tram images in Bremen, rapidly gets processed into tram types in Bremen or by line or some special categories. There are enough specialist who regularly check the tram categories. It is nice if the uploader uses the subcategories, but if he does not have the knowledge, other people will do it. What is important is that the files get a least a general tram category. For other subjects this can be more dificult. So what information is really needed to start the categorisation proces? Location, main subject (the reason why the file is in scope) and some date/time (this depends on the context). Sometimes the location is essential for the file to be in scope. A lot of rockfaces, meadows etc look the same and can be taken anywhere.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes old pictures have very limited or no documentation. Who can remenber a family trip from long ago (or the photografer is dead). By old family albums a lot of information not written down, because one assumes everyone knows the story and the people and places involved. When people die the knowledge gets lost. Sometimes one can reconstruct the trip with limited clues known to the uploader (for example an agenda). It certainly helps if some church or other clue is identified. Quite often slides are cronologicaly numbered (and most times dated). So collectively researching a specific file for the uploader can unlock a lot of usefull pictures for the Commons. THe questions should be posted on platforms where a lot of people have local knowledge. For places in France the Commons:Bistro etc. By the way: Solving puzzels and research is a lot more fun and rewarding, than doing necessay chores such as reducing backlogs. We are doing volontary work, so motivation is important.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

By the way: Solving puzzels and research is a lot more fun and rewarding, than doing necessay chores such as reducing backlogs that may be your opinion but you state it as if it applied to everyone. I think solving puzzles about individual files that aren't used and nobody even looks it as not fun and certainly not rewarding. Reducing backlogs is rewarding if you make a dent in stats and help move things toward completion and categorizing lots of files is a lot of fun (I just don't have as much time for it as I'd like to). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Royal Mail are starting to modify some post boxes to take larger packets, as shown in the above image. Do we have a separate category for these? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:26, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Isn't that Category:Post boxes in the United Kingdom by type->Category:Free standing post boxes in the United Kingdom where the file is already in the category (which at a glance seems to contain lots of files of similar postboxes)? Prototyperspective (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

No; most of those are not modified in this new fashion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Category:Solar-powered pillar boxes in the United Kingdom? the wub "?!" 11:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, we need to have a frank discussion about mass uploads of propaganda material from terrorist organizations. Several Iranian "news outlets" have opened their licenses to allow more dissemination of disinformation on the Internet. I can give you a couple of examples. For example, w:Tasnim and w:Fars news agency which both officially and unofficially are the propaganda arm of w:IRGC (a widely designated terrorist organization). I find it somewhat funny an organization that has no respect for human lives (or many other things we take for granted) is somehow respecting international licenses and copyright laws but whatever. I don't have a problem is uploading some files from them as it might show examples of propaganda or portraits of the leaders of the Iranian regime that are hard to come by but the current scale of mass uploads doesn't make any sense to me. For example: 50K images from Mehrnews.com, 52K images from farsnews.ir, 9K images from Khameni.ir (the website of the supreme leader of Iran), Mizan, the news agency of the judiciary system (the organization that executes around 1,000 people every year), 63K from Tasnim (literally the propaganda arm of IRGC) and several more cases in Category:Images from websites of Iran. It has many problems: 1- Many of these images/videos are not really educational. 2- The "text" and in many cases, the image itself is pure propaganda (for example: the text of this image is quite a rubbing of salt on the injury when IRGC has killed 30,000 unarmed protesters, shot people in hospital beds, ran them over with fire trucks and here it calls the murdered protesters "rioters and terrorists" 3- It is causing us a lot of reputational damage in Persian media. For example: https://www.neutralpov.com/p/new-video-inside-wikipedias-hosting Can we please stop doing this? Amir (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy ping of @999real who uploaded a lot of images from these places recently. Amir (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

We should host these files as we can not make a decision on the line what kind of propaganda we host and what not. But we need better rules on how these files are described and that original descriptions from the source have to be labeled as such. One example where this is done in a good way are the files with original nazi descriptions in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive. GPSLeo (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Mostly agreed. Maybe we need a template applied to all these files with a warning: Propaganda from the Iranian government (or equivalent). Yann (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree strongly with GPSLeo, and would strongly favor a similar wording to what we use for images in the Bundesarchiv over a blanket accusation of propaganda, which in English is a very loaded word. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe paste part of the "no warranty" clause from the CC licenses into the template? Something like this:

Tasnim makes no guarantee of validity, including factual accuracy, as per the terms of the CC license. You are solemnly responsible for any damages from reusing this file.

HyperAnd [talk] 23:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The issue isn't what an agency of the Iranian government does or does not warrant. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Several United States "news outlets" have opened their licenses...

Several Israeli "news outlets" have opened their licenses...

Several British "news outlets" have opened their licenses...

Several Egyptian "news outlets" have opened their licenses...

Where do we draw the line? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pigsonthewing: our line for accepting files, or our line for putting caveats on the uploaded descriptions for files we accept, and possibly rewording those descriptions? - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Any. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Pigsonthewing: for accepting files, as far as I know Commons' only restriction against a source is if they appear to be a frequent and/or deliberate violator of copyrights, or if they repeatedly fake images. As to what needs a warning notice, I don't think we have any solid agreement. In the case of the Bundesarchiv it was easy, because they already apply this warning to their own materials. If we were to form a firmer policy, I would hope that a lot of this comes down to whether we intend to preserve original captions/titles/descriptions in some form. I think it is important that captions/titles/descriptions that come from third-party sources that may have an ax to grind be identified as such; I'm much less concerned with giving a caveat about th source of an image. - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Further remark: if the source is, itself, notable enough, even its fake images are probably in scope, but need to be identified as such. - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. coincidentally, i just saw an old comment of mine Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/03#c-RZuo-2022-04-01T15:10:00.000Z-Draceane-2022-03-28T14:26:00.000Z.
   we could have a banner that says so and so is government funded.
2. we need a Template:Original description to record the original, word for word, so it is not edited by other users. users can maintain another up-to-date description. (a bit like twitter's context feature: there's the original post and there's other users' elaboration on the original.)
3. commons should be spun off as a standalone site. then it can use software and infrastructure better suited to a media site (like flickr/youtube/gettyimages) or a library/archive catalogue site. trying to manage all the nuanced details of files based on mediawiki wastes so much effort on developing, maintaining and deploying templates and modules just because those essential features are still not built-in with the software.

RoyZuo (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think (1) misses the point a bit. Being funded by a government isn't the issue here, albeit it is correlated with the issue. I'd also disagree with (3). The hard part is deciding what to do not how to do it. In general i agree with GPSLeo. Bawolff (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

1. as others have said, it's difficult to draw the line what is propaganda and what is not. that's a subjective assessment. how the copyright holder is funded is objective. it's the logical solution so other websites, youtube twitter facebook..., have all converged in their solutions to this same problem. if you think there's a better approach, go ahead.

   even files by propaganda organisations could be valuable themselves. random example /w/index.php?title=Category:Photos_from_Mehrnews.com&from=35728 , images of buildings in Category:Qarneh. many photos from them are perfectly fine, even if descriptions might be propaganda.

2. what to do with perfectly ok photos and videos then? unless we ban all these authors, the logical solution is, as i said in #2 above, we supply 2 descriptions to the same file, 1 being the original; and another 1 optional, user or editor/curator generated description, if users think anything should be clarified.
3. now how do we do that? with the inadequate mediawiki software we are dumping all this info in raw text on the file page. we should instead have 2 com:sdc fields for the 2 descriptions with much longer length limit and possibility to display links. without adequate infrastructure, even if we do this using templates, anyone can sneakily edit the original description. of course you can then say we can prevent that using abusefilter and bots etc. but why do we have to do everything cumbersome in the first place? because we are sticking with the inadequate mediawiki. if instead the info is entered into an sdc field, you can easily control who can edit that field just by tweaking the software. with everything dumped together in raw text all such maintenance just becomes such a headache.

   will sdc and other infrastructure much needed for a media site be developed? maybe. at least even basic video upload and conversion still rely on volunteer maintained tools, after all these years and given that WMF has revenue many organisations can only envy.

4. there're a lot of similar propaganda stuff from Category:China News Service. with the inadequate infrastructure i have long given up doing anything about such problematic descriptions even if i see something (because there're users on the other end of the political spectrum that will revert descriptions to their side). i just leave it to the re-users to discern. you can of course say i should report the users to sysops. then that becomes a time sink and endless user disputes, and worst of all, there're more users that support a certain propagandist narrative so drawing myself into those disputes will quite likely end up shooting myself in the foot, with many sysops being careless and abusive. all this applies to any language and any country.

RoyZuo (talk) 13:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think (perhaps reading between the lines) it is not that the files may be biased (lots of files are biased), but that commons might be being used as part of an explicit information warfare strategy, which kind of makes commons complicit in it. There is a difference between collecting propaganda and being a part of the propaganda machine, so to speak. What to do about that, I don't know. I dont think there are good answers, and the best compromise is to contextualize files in the description. I appreciate lots of websites go with gov funded but i really think it misses the mark. That applies equally to say NASA images as it does to images intentionally made to mislead, and its not like being misleading is limited to governments. I agree with people that said that propaganda is often very important from an educational context - i think some of the WW2 propaganda on commons is some of its most interesting content; its a window into a different world. I don't think banning "propaganda" is a viable solution. To your other point - it seems like your main complaint here is people reverting you, not technical limitations. I fail to see how different software would prevent that so long as we continue to allow anyone to edit. Bawolff (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"how different software would prevent that"

with the raw text mediawiki, even if someone has applied a "potentially biased" tag and clarified why, anyone can just delete that afterwards. how are you preventing that? abusefilter? bots? keeping every file i edited on my watchlist and monitor every edit after me?

with better software, the website operator can control who gets to edit the specific data entries and which users might be a bit more trustworthy.

as i said, just like twitter community notes https://help.x.com/en/using-x/community-notes , users will mostly quickly converge on 2 narratives and we can just show both to users and let them decide for themselves. RoyZuo (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think we do sort of do that for license review already, although i do see your point that that might be easier in a non-freetext environment. However, philosophically i would be surprised if commons would go for that, and i maintain that the primary blocker for something like that is social not technical. Bawolff (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Only terrorist organisation wikipedia gave leeway too and allowed all their lies and propaganda to be posted here is IDF, we talked about it over a year back but no one in commons had the balls to blacklist their website which has posted multiple false propaganda news and images about Palestinians and Hamas. The sites you listed have had a free license for ever and has never pushed agenda, looking at your userpage, It seems like its people like you doing that with fake rhetoric, have seen enough of these on social media, do not bring your bullshit to wikimedia as well. I have personally gone through those websites long before the Oct 7th attacks and none of them are propaganda, if anything, its the english wikipedia that has been pushing propaganda for the zionists during the Iranian protests even adding fake AI generated images, some of which i nominated for deletion myself, notice how the article there has minimal pictures of the protests cause non-iranian based people were adding fake images of the protests here claiming to be in Iran and yet wikipedia have not posted a single image from the devastation caused by these so called "peaceful protests"... wikipedia is supposed to be 'neutral' not biased.. if enwiki had balls, they would ban news from zionists owned propaganda trash like the Guardian and CBS who falsified about everything happening in Iran last month..There are already a few users here posting propaganda for the actual terrorists behind the unrest and we are not going to change a template to push more propaganda for the serial genociders who have themselves been claiming in their own Country and social media that they sent Mossad to start the unrest and kill Iranian civilians multiple times.. Stemoc 03:06, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I renamed many files in Category:Iranian media publications related to the 2025–2026 protests. The solution is to fix the propaganda, not ranting here. Yann (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The difference between these cases and other government-funded media is straightforward: the IRGC is officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and several other countries. That is not a personal view or a political opinion. It is a legal and factual designation backed by many reliable sources. Saying "we cannot decide what kind of propaganda we host" ignores that this case is not unclear. There is no doubt about the ownership or control here. These media organizations are directly connected to a designated terrorist organization, and their role in spreading its messaging is widely documented. Treating this as a normal question about state-funded media does not match the facts. This is not about banning material. It is about scale, context, and responsibility. Uploading very large numbers of files from the media arms of a designated terrorist organization without clear and consistent labeling creates real problems. It misleads people who use these files, causes confusion for readers, and damages Wikimedia's reputation, especially among communities that have been directly harmed by that organization. I will not engage with Stemoc, who is indefinitely blocked on enwiki for the same nonsense seen here. false accusations, conspiracy theories, and attacks on other contributors do not help resolve the issue and do not change the facts or policies.   ARASH PT  talk  08:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I should also note that some files from Tasnim and Fars have been modified or altered using AI to show events or details that did not actually exist. These are not minor edits for quality or clarity. The content is changed in a way that serves a propaganda purpose. This is done without any disclosure on the file pages, which directly affects the reliability and appropriate use of this material on Commons. This practice has been documented by reliable sources (one example), and some of the alterations are clearly visible in the files themselves.   ARASH PT  talk  08:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

AI-generated or modified images should be deleted, or at the very least tagged as such. Yann (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Given the documented record of manipulated, staged, and AI-altered media published by IRGC-affiliated outlets such as Tasnim and Fars, bulk uploads from these sources (especially those related to protests) are fundamentally problematic. Under Wikimedia Commons policies, the responsibility for accuracy, proper description, and disclosure of alterations lies entirely with the uploader (Commons:Licensing, Commons:PS). Each file must be individually reviewed and described by the uploader, including disclosure of significant editing or AI involvement. Bulk uploads without file by file verification violate this principle and shift an unreasonable burden onto the community. As stated explicitly in the policy, "the burden of proof lies on the uploader". Furthermore, Commons policy requires that files hosted on the platform fall within its "educational" and documentary scope and be presented in a neutral manner (Commons:PS, Commons:NPOV). This requirement is particularly critical for politically sensitive content such as protest imagery, where selective presentation or undisclosed modification can affect how events are understood. For these reasons, bulk uploads from IRGC-affiliated media should not be accepted without strict, individual verification by the uploader. Additionally, previously uploaded files from these sources (particularly those related to protests) should be reviewed for deletion where the uploader has not met the required burden of proof.   ARASH PT  talk  14:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please check these independent reports by IranWire, Iran International,[1], and NPR have documented repeated cases of staged, or AI-assisted images and videos circulated by Iranian state and IRGC-affiliated media.   ARASH PT  talk  14:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also not to mention they violate copyright in many numerous cases too. For example Commons:Deletion requests/Talkhandak Paintings was from one of these sites (I don't remember which one exactly). It makes me uncomfortable not knowing which images are fully theirs and which ones are stolen. Amir (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

and yet the IDF, that have been recorded targetting and murdering children is NOT designated a terrorist organisation?, If the world's biggest terrorist nation deems the army of a country that has not been proven to attack another country a terrorist organisation, then I will refuse to take their word for it, Everytime the White House makes a post, their posts are deemed dangerous as well, should we tag all images posted from the Whitehouse as "Factually inaccurate and Government propaganda" too? cause literally everything Donald Trump posts as the President of the US is always factually wrong and a lie. Unless these countries you mention, i.e the US and the EU countries deems the IDF/IOF a terrorist organisation, any organisation they deem as a terrorist organisation is not a terrorist organisation. Remember one of the EU countries, the UK deemed the Palestine Action Group, a peaceful group standing against the Genocide of the Gazans a terrorist organisation..We don't decide who the terrorist groups are, we decide if the information they provided is credible and thus far, all of those news media organisation have been proven to be credible. Neither you nor Amir live in Iran but both claim to be iranians is hysterical, I don't even live in that hemisphere and even i know whats happening, I have more faith in the Iranians then you two do and I saw all the videos from both sides and i read articles from both sides and and its disgusting the lies that have been promoted by some of these evil people.

Do a bit of historical reading cause the US can designate any country they want to destroy as a terrorist nation and its people such as you that enable them but believing in their lies and propaganda...History truly does repeat itself...and regarding wikipedia, I gave up on that site a long time ago, its been run like some fascist government and trust me, eventually anyone who contributes to enwiki, actually contributed by creating articles gets banned there by people who contribute nothing to the project and only police it...As it stands, the Iranian news sites, even if its government owned has provided us with more images and credible data in the last 19 years i have been on wikimedia than any other news sources in that region under a creative commons licencing , we are not going to disqualify a valid reliable source for wikimedia based on the personal bias of contributors from ANOTHER project.. Stemoc 08:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

that only works if WMF sites openly declare to stand on a certain side (the usa/eu side). otherwise...

1. iran also designated european armies as terrorist organisations...
2. https://www.dw.com/en/us-to-designate-germanys-antifa-ost-a-terrorist-group/a-74737299 usa listed 4 european "antifa" organisations as terrorist... whose side do you stand then? usa side or eu side?

this approach just begs the question. it goes back to requiring WMF or us the user base to decide which ones are propaganda/terrorist/"bad country", which ones are good, and therefore we should only follow the laws of the "good countries". even if you could argue that some cases are clear-cut for the majority (let's say for example North Korea), then what about murky cases like lese majeste laws in thailand/turkey, blasphemy laws...? many countries like to call their critics/opponents terrorists. how sure can you be before there's concrete evidence that someone has done actual physical harm? and even if some members of a party or organisation did commit crimes, does that automatically extend to every single member of that organisation, and even to other people that voice support for those organisations? RoyZuo (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

for example, getty also hosts some photos from tasnim https://www.gettyimages.com/search/2/image?phrase=tasnim%20iran .

in summary, my points are these:

1. i think it's fine to host files from any organisations or individuals. what we need is an time/manpower-effective solution to identify and label them (being potentially propagandist).
2. with current mediawiki infrastructure the "time/manpower-effective solution" is not possible.

RoyZuo (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have multiple times said that the propaganda material per se is not the problem (we could show them as examples of propaganda by Iran). I‌understand we host propaganda material from Nazi Germany, so saying Iran is "too bad to be hosted here" is moot. The problem I‌ have is that most of these materials are not educational and therefore not in SCOPE of Commons. I randomly went through a couple of images in the categories (first or second page only). There is for example this image which sure, you can have a couple of pictures of people participating in pro-Iranian government demos but hundreds of them? Thousands of them? There are many images that provide no educational value and practically they are no different than selfies we get. I‌ can give you many examples. e.g. what value this image is bringing to the movement?, or this image, or this and many many more. You might say: oh then nominate them for deletion then. But how can I‌ possibly check +100,000 images to make sure they are educational or not? Another way I see this as a problem is the "undue weight"‌ to the Iranian narrative. There are many many documented cases of people taking pictures that didn't fit the narrative getting arrested or had forced disappearance (for example, the person who took a picture of w:Mahsa Amini in the hospital). So now you have one side (which is officially designated as terrorist organization by good chunk of the planet) pumping literally hundreds of thousands of images to Commons and the other side that can barely get an image out here or there risking their lives. Regardless of what are commons current policies are, this is harmful to our neutral POV Amir (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

i think the answer is simple: editors/curators, who are dedicated/full-time/paid, are needed for those roles.

commons/wikipedia is not that, and will not become that with their philosophy.

i certainly want to throw out lots of those files. but anyone who can do that is basically given a power over other users, which is incompatible with wikimedia's ideas that every user has equal right to edit and make decisions.

with wikimedia's ideas, it is impossible to curate. coz everything has to go thru a discussion process (deletion request for files), and if there's any debate, it becomes a time sink, and often leads to nowhere or conclusions that leave some users unhappy.

which is why i said, commons should be spun off. then it could become more similar to getty/afp (in terms of journalistic photo stock) and libraries/archives, and have a different user structure whereby some users will have editorial discretion to throw out junk. RoyZuo (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A compromise could be that we delete all of these files that are not used in any projects. If anyone needs any of those to use on articles/wikipedia/other projects, we can simply undelete them (they are not going anywhere :D). That allows me to actually check the remaining images for copyright violation, manipulation, use of AI to distort images and so on. Amir (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with Amir's solution.   ARASH PT  talk  15:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That is not the core problem. The problem is that we would have to maintain a list of bad sources. We would have to discuss every entry on that list. And how to make decisions if there is not consensus? Do we want to vote if Iran, Russia, USA, Israel or Hungary are enough problematic to limit government funded media from them? I do not want to moderate such a discussion and I think no Admin on Commons wants to moderate something like this. GPSLeo (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comparing IRGC-affiliated media to outlets in the United States or Hungary is a false equivalence. The issue here is not nationality or political bias, but documented institutional control by a designated terrorist organization and a repeated record of staged, manipulated, and undisclosed altered media in sensitive political contexts (check my other comments and related sources). That combination does not apply to independent or even state funded media in democratic systems, where legal accountability, editorial separation, and corrective mechanisms exist.   ARASH PT  talk  18:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

And how do you want to define what Trump has to do that we put him on the same list as Iran and Russia? We are a media archive not an editorial group that discusses the democracy status of countries. What is the damage hosting a file manipulated by the Iranian government, as long as we say the source is the Iranian government? Everyone knows that such a file is not trustworthy. We do not need to protect someone from being manipulated. GPSLeo (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@GPSLeo One rather easy approach to tackle this is similar to the perennial sources in enwiki. In enwiki, if there are many documented cases of falsehoods by a source then it's considered unreliable and using it in articles is not allowed (and there are degrees of that). There are many documented cases of image manipulation or using AI‌ maliciously on images published by RT‌ and Tasnim and co (as Arash named a couple). As such IMHO, it shouldn't be allowed except if the image is really useful and we are sure it's not manipulated maliciously or violating copyright. Amir (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 

 

Horrible idea. If you need the photo of the Belgian football team, how would you find it if it was deleted? Or you want to use another photo from the same set? Alas, you deleted everything that wasn't in use. Write a new article about someone notable, search for a picture.. Too bad, you won't find it. But you can request undeletion, all you have to do is overcome your lack of awareness the media exists at all. What I'm saying is: don't use a sledgehammer when you need a scalpel. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Amir is not suggesting deleting files that are in use. The proposal only concerns unused files. We are not talking about a normal media set, but over 200,000 files from terrorist IRGC-affiliated outlets, many of which are duplicated, edited, AI-assisted, fake, or unreliable (documented in many sources. check my other comments). Temporarily deleting unused files (from these sources), with easy undeletion if needed, is a practical way to enable proper review without spreading problematic content. remember that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader". As I mentioned before bulk uploads without file by file verification from these terrorist-related propaganda sources violate our principle and shift an unreasonable burden onto the community.   ARASH PT  talk  18:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"A compromise could be that we delete all of these files that are not used in any projects."—Interesting use of "compromise". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

here is for example this image which sure, you can have a couple of pictures of people participating in pro-Iranian government demos but hundreds of them? Thing is we have hundreds of images of Nazi propaganda, and we have hundreds or thousands of images of Nazis killing Jewish people. And yes we have hardly any images of people protecting or saving Jewish people in WW2. Which means our image collection about the Holocaust is clearly skewed towards the Nazis. And yet we're not doing anything to balance that out in any way by deleting images of pro-Nazi demonstrations, or Nazi propaganda, or Nazis killing Jews. All those images are in Commons scope even if most of them are not used in any project article. The fact that they are propaganda images and that they are numerous does not necessarily make them out of scope. Even their inaccuracy is probably not enough reason to delete them: Nazi propaganda wasn't accurate either. And most of the Nazi images we have don't have any disclaimer that informs the viewer about said inaccuracies either. Nakonana (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ladsgroup, déjà vu. Was that a coincidence? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 17:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is causing us a lot of reputational damage in Persian media. For example: https://www.neutralpov.com/p/new-video-inside-wikipedias-hosting
As this is clearly top quality investigative journalism with a message that needs to be taken seriously, we should watch the other videos from this guy.
I suggest we start with Is Wikipedia Now Just a Propaganda Tool for Soros and the Left Wing? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The WMF will probably eventually need to respond since this deceptively named-channel and site NPOV is clearly part of a coordinated effort to damage the reputation of English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. It does raise questions though if we should start restricting Voice of America uploads or IDF uploads if there is also consensus to restrict uploads of Iranian state-funded organizations since we shouldn't cherry-pick what is defined as propaganda. Abzeronow (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

exactly what i was thinking, we can't target one and ignore the other, I feel like 90% of images added from IDF sources also should be deleted for being Israeli propaganda as we know they lied about a lot of things since then but we haven't done that, so why one standard for Israel and another for Iran, we are suppose to be neutral, what gets added to Wikimedia should follow the licencing requirement of the project and what gets used on individual wikis is totally the choice of the contributors of those wikis, not us... Stemoc 05:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The other videos are also interesting.

• (1.9K views) Inside the Wikipedia War on Andy Ngo features w:Andy Ngo, a regular guest on Fox News.
• (137 views) Can Wikipedia Be Reformed?|Larry Sanger actually features w:Larry Sanger.
• (176 views) How Wikipedia Censored COVID Lab Leak Debate|Matt Ridley features w:Matt Ridley. It doesn't seem to mention me, but as the closer of this huge RfC they are probably mad at me.

The propaganda video Ladsgroup brought up has 204 views. Two things strike me as odd. First, the interview with Ngo has 1.9K views while the others have a fraction of that. That's a rather large discrepancy. Second, why are Ngo, Ridley, and Sanger talking to someone whose videos barely outperform those of a pet bunny? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

we both know whats happening here, first they come for the news media and then social media, then sites like ours, Wikipedia actually is a great threat to terrorists cause the first search for anything is always wikipedia and the AI bots "they" are training sources majority of its information from Wikipedia first and they do not like it when it reveals their intentions and lies.. If we bow down to the pressure of these state terrorists flaunting their money and buying off people to make them propaganda videos, then we are no better than them..i'm very active on Reddit as it has already begun there so yeah wikipedia is very likely their next destination to force us to comply with their propaganda....I remember when Elon Musk tried to buy wikipedia for a billion dollars, imagine if that came to fruition.. Stemoc 06:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

As a Jew (and not, for the record, at all a supporter of the current government of Israel), I find the semi-hidden link to en:Hasbara in the above rather offensive. - Jmabel ! talk 20:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

My cents:

1) According to our 2030 Startegy, our objective is to become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge

That means if something is free, we should have it in our servers.

2) Wikimedia Commons scope: [a repository] that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all

So, if something is free [and has a credible educational use], we should have it in our servers.

I believe Wikimedia rules are better done that we believe: We host free media in Commons, and we use it on the projects. And I'll be sincere: if Wikimedia communities cannot curate the content to give context to the reader about the procedence and bias of multimedia files, then we should close all projects. It's a joke: I believe Wikimedia communities have been great at providing context to people, and content from weird sources has properly been contextualized when needed.

And yes, propaganda can be used in a serious encyclopedia. And no, those who worry on explaining and showing the horrible things humans have created are not helping horrible people to promote their ideas, it's indeed the opposite if they're doing weel their job (and I believe Wikimedia projects do well their job). TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Maybe I could try identifying the problems and make a summary, since I think many users actually agree with each other for many things.

Problems:

1. There are disproportionately a lot more files from Iranian propaganda agencies than other freely-licensed media.
2. This problem is not unique to Iran. There are also other state funded organisations that have freely licensed their files such that there are a lot of them than from other organisations or individuals in those countries. They may or may not be biased, or harbour a hidden agenda. Some users have strong opinions about some of them. Examples: all the US federal government agencies Category:PD US Government, in particular Category:PD VOA is a news agency; Russia Category:Media from the Russian Ministry of Defence; Israel Category:Photographs provided by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit; China Category:Videos from China News Service...

Causes:

1. When some organisations license their files freely while most do not, of course Commons is gonna end up with disproportionate over-representation of them.
2. Some of these countries or topics are restricted so there is just no free press or wikimedia users who could rival these well funded organisations. Examples: Iran, China... You can go to jail if you take photos without permission in such places, whereas the government mouthpiece workers have the freedom and keep pumping out thousands of pictures.

   (Which is why some of those linked articles above complain about lack of non-government photos of the Iranian protests. Duh? Dont they know there is internet blackout so no one could upload? Not to mention the risks of getting shot in the streets trying to cover those events, prison and execution afterwards, etc.)

3. Some users massively upload files from those propaganda agencies. So massive that those users are not selective enough or at all.

Solutions:

1. There is only one way to counter the imbalance, that is, more people (on the other side of the politics) need to freely license their works.

   I have had an idea of a news/photo agency that works like Reuters/AFP/Getty/VOA/BBC but is crowd funded like WMF.

2. Or, we wait until copyright expires. You can imagine there will be a perfect balance 100 years from now, when all the stuff we cant upload now become free. But this is pointless for the current point of time we live in.
3. Users should be more selective when they do massive uploads. Consequences if they do not do so.
4. Maybe some users can be given higher editorial discretion to quickly deal with (by "delete"?) the massive uploads.
5. Better still, maybe instead of "upload first delete later", we should only upload if necessary.
6. Suppress the ranking of files from propaganda sources so they appear lower in search results.

It takes seconds or minutes to upload batches of hundreds of images, but it takes hours to months to categorise them or debate in deletion requests. "upload first delete later" cannot effectively manage this.

But, S4 and S5 are, I believe, unfeasible with our current "consensus building" processes. S3 doesnt solve the real problem. Past experiences show that users often dont agree on how selective is adequate. To reach a conclusion fast in those assessments, we will end up with S4 and S5, that some users need to have discretion to decide how selective. S6 only works if we have non-propaganda files.

As I am writing this, I realise, probably no solution can solve these problems. Imagine if we decide to ban all files from an organisation. Then after that, their employees set up personal wikimedia accounts and upload the files here first, then those websites claim that they are re-using those files from wikimedia. We have no way to prove whether those wikimedia accounts are employed by them. We would still end up with this imbalance of material. Therefore, the only meaningful controls are editors rejecting files before they become public on Commons, and funding non-propaganda media to rival them.--RoyZuo (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for S4 and S5. Amir (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

My main concern here is the legal exposure. Even though the Berman Amendment allows for exchanging "informational materials," there is a massive difference between simply hosting content and providing infrastructure services. By hosting over 200,000 high quality files, we are essentially acting as a free CDN for the media wing of a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Major platforms like Google and Meta nuked these accounts specifically to avoid the "service provision" risk under precedents like Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. It makes no sense for Wikimedia Commons to shoulder legal and reputational risks that even big tech avoids.

There is also a serious issue with the chain of title. We can't blindly trust CC licenses from sources with a known history of scraping photos from citizens, slapping a watermark on them, and claiming ownership. Since we can't manually audit thousands of images, the burden of proof has to be on the uploader and they haven't met it. We are almost certainly hosting mass copyright violations disguised as free content.

Beyond that, these uploads are flagrant violations of our naming and neutrality policies. We're seeing file descriptions that reframe state rallies as "People's Protests" or label victims of violence as "terrorists." This isn't accidental bias; it's disinformation uploaded to game the system and mislead a global audience.

Finally, Commons isn't an unlimited cloud backup for a news agency's raw output. Uploading dozens of nearly identical shots from a single ceremony is just a data dump, not educational content. It creates "Authorship Dominance," where a state actor with unlimited resources drowns out other narratives especially when the other side can't upload safely. This isn't about politics; it's about stopping Commons from being exploited as a tool for information warfare. I support deleting the unused files and restricting these mass uploads.آه (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The problem is still how we define the restricted sources. Do we say we do not host content published by countries they block our project for their citizens? Then what do we do when this changes? GPSLeo (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is a straw man argument. I never suggested restricting sources based on whether a country blocks Wikipedia. That would indeed be political retaliation, which I oppose.

We don't need to invent a new global policy today to deal with a specific, massive violation happening right now. We can address this specific case based on its own overwhelming evidence of abuse. Waiting for a perfect, universal rule before stopping an active fire is bureaucratic paralysis. Let's deal with these specific compromised sources now; we can discuss broader policy implications in a dedicated RFC later. آه (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This was a question what your suggestion of a policy is. You suggest that we discuss every case here on the Village pump without any guidelines if someone complains about some source? Keeping original file names and not labeling original descriptions as such can already be against the existing guidelines. Please report such cases on the admin board. GPSLeo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reporting 200,000 individual files to the admin's noticeboard is not a viable solution. Asking volunteers to manually patrol and report thousands of files that are being uploaded via automated tools is an asymmetry that favors the abuser.

I am not asking to rewrite global policy right this second. I am supporting the proposal already made by Ladsgroup above: Delete unused files from these specific compromised sources and restrict further mass uploads.

This is a standard remediation for mass copyright/scope violations. When a source is proven to be systematically unreliable (broken chain of title, mass propaganda, fake descriptions), we don't fix it file by file. we safeguard the project by removing the mass uploaded content that isn't actively being used. This cleans up the bulk of the violation immediately while preserving files that might have encyclopedic use. آه (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The only instances I've witnessed of such mass deletion were ones of mass copyright violations and uploads by LTA (note: the latter was/is being challenged). The given case is neither of those. I have not seen any (mass) deletions for propaganda. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@آه could you please link to examples of "sources with a known history of scraping photos from citizens, slapping a watermark on them, and claiming ownership"?

if there are plenty of such examples, we can already ban these sources, like how we deal with com:flickrwashing. RoyZuo (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the terrorism stuff, I would agree that anything that legally jeopardizes Commons should be removed. However, whether hosting otherwise innocuous photos produced by something like Tasnim constitutes "material support" is questionable. We may host their images, but, as far as I know, they do not delete the photos on their servers and start using us as their host to save money. I do not believe hosting a photo of a soccer team by Tasnim seriously advances the political agenda of the Iranian government.

Everything else, though, I think is ultimately misfocused. Images by license laundering terrorist organizations should be dealt with through our policies on dealing with license laundering in general. Users repeatedly using policy-violating names for images produced by terrorist organizations should be dealt with through our policies on dealing with bad users in general. Mass deletion may be permissible. However, overly focusing on the terrorist aspect leads us down a garden path that ends in "oh god is everyone evil?" which is not a question we should answer on a media archive. Based5290 (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

If an account has been known to upload thousands of images that are known propaganda from terrorists, specially from Tasnim news which is a known IRGC propaganda toll, then mass deletion of uploads and restriction on that user should be justified. We are not talking about a few pictures here, user 999real has uploaded almost 1.5m images in span of 2 years, most being propaganda with a clear agenda. We should not allow this to take place as then wikipedia will become a tool to spread misinformation and propaganda for such Regimes. DrtheHistorian (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

DrtheHistorian, most being propaganda with a clear agenda.
Did you even look? What does it matter if something is propaganda if it's in scope? Sporting events, snowfall, Gaza and EV taxis - what's the problem here? Even files that are more propagandistic in nature like military equipment/exercise are very much in scope. Shocker: Wikipedia has articles for military equipment! If anything needs to be done at all, bring a scalpel. Not sledgehammer. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 19:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Key word "most". Thats a very nice cheery picking from the vast majority of posts that are a clear propaganda for the Regime.

This 500 alone shown is just pure propaganda images. Even the most recent photos uploaded are images of the Regime.

Images named "همبستگی ملی" which literally translates into "National solidarity" showing Pro-Regime supporters after the same Regime massacred more than 30,000 people, that is literally mocking the protestors. You do need a sledgehammer for such mass amount of uploads, as it is extremely time consuming to remove one by one. User has shown they are a propaganda tool, that should not be tolerated on WP. DrtheHistorian (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have not uploaded anywhere near 1.5 million images and I uploaded all those files with their original description because they show the claims that was made and tactics used by the government during these times for archival and historical purposes especially because of the possibility of further internet censorship in Iran and I never claimed these images or descriptions are correct or tried to insert them in Wikipedia articles

I created this template {{Original description disclaimer}} which I will put on all files I uploaded from Iranian sources will someone please translate it in Farsi ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 20:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@DrtheHistorian: You need to cut back on the WP:ASPERSIONS (if calling a user a propaganda tool doesn't already cross the line of being a personal attack...). Nakonana (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 

 

 

DrtheHistorian, This 500 alone shown is just pure propaganda images.
Now who's cherry-picking? And you're not even right, see thumbnails. From your link. If you actually go over 999real's contributions, you'll find loads of images of sporting events. Whether a majority of images is propaganda depends on your definition of propaganda.
User has shown they are a propaganda tool, that should not be tolerated on WP.
We're not on Wikipedia, and you just violated Commons:No personal attacks. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 22:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

How can the state media images being uploaded in mass showing "solidarity" towards the regime specially after the atrocities they committed be ignored?

Showing bunch of other types of images would not change the fact that many of state propaganda images have been uploaded. The Regime media clearly has an agenda and is using those images to rub salt on the protestors wounds.

• Thank you, @Nakonana for informing me on my wrong doing, that was inappropriate, my apologies. I have crossed that out.

 

 

DrtheHistorian (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

DrtheHistorian, I am not ignoring propaganda, nor do I claim propaganda images don't exist. So adding a thumbnail with a "not propaganda?" caption isn't refuting any argument I made. You claimed the list of 500 files you linked was "just pure propaganda images", I added some thumbnails to dispute the purity of that list.
I agree with Yann at User talk:999real (Diff ~1159540735) but any form of blanket deletion is a non-starter for me. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 02:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I apologize for uploading files with bad file names I did upload many in a hurry bcause for example from when the internet censorship in Iran started I was not able to access Mehr website till 29 January and I thought it might go down again anytime

I now submitted many renaming requests for these files ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 04:04, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@999real thank you for the uploads and renaming requests. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 Comment I informed 999real, which nobody formally did until now. I think that individual deletion requests with a rationale of propaganda, as some people did, are useless and disrupting. A global solution should be found. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did when I‌ created this thread. Special:GoToComment/c-Ladsgroup-20260202150600-Ladsgroup-20260202150500 Amir (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Ladsgroup: Ping is not sufficient in this case. I sent a detailed message on 999real's talk page. Yann (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I did not see this large discussion. I have done his renaming requests, I hope this is good. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Several examples of photo manipulation reported by the most prominent fact-checking organization in Persian:

• https://factnameh.com/fa/fact-checks/2025-06-30-iran-yazd-governor-tasnim-radiofarda
• https://factnameh.com/fa/fact-checks/2022-10-19-iran-protests-evin-prison-riot-number-killed-people-iraninternational-footer
• Cases of publishing other people's images without permission leading to people accidentally uploading them here (and subsequently getting deleted):
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amin Asadi at Tasnim News Agency.jpg
  • Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mojtaba Zarei Tasnim News Agency.jpg
  • A couple more linked in User talk:Juror134

And I‌ just checked for Tasnim only and I‌ spent at most ten minutes. I can bring a lot more if people really want it. Amir (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Quick search on plagiarism by Fars (another "news agency of IRGC") brought these two: https://english.alarabiya.net/media/2013/09/14/Iran-s-Fars-News-Agency-turns-Foreign-Policy-article-into-propaganda-piece and https://en.ammonnews.net/article/18014 (tbf, ‌I don't know how reliable ammon news is). Or "leaking" a fake voice message by Netanyahu: https://factnameh.com/fa/fact-checks/2024-10-08-netanyahu-eavesdropping-iran-missile-attack Completely unrelated but still funny, they claim moon landing was fake to advance US‌ interests: https://factnameh.com/fa/fact-checks/2023-04-06-fake-moon-landing-kubrick-hoax Amir (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

One should probably note that most examples provided above are from 2012–2014, while the main aim in this discussion is to have recent files from 2025–2026 deleted, as far as I understood. Nakonana (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

As you demonstrated, when images are manipulated it is something notable, so it should be documented as long as there is no copyright issues.

Tasnim usually indicates when they created an image and uploading ones without indication is user error more info User:HeminKurdistan/Tasnim ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 22:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here is the crux of the problem for me: When they are known many many times to violate copyright and manipulate images (and caught red handed). How can we trust "any" of their images? Imagine a very plausible scenario: They upload a manipulated misleading image on their website, people start mass-uploading them on commons. Someone who is not aware uses them in articles misleading many many people. I want to check which ones are problematic and which one aren't but again. Checking 200,000 images for a human is not possible. IMHO, we should treat them the same way enwiki treats daily mail as a source. At small doses it's fine since we can verify authenticity and copyright of the images but no mass-upload anymore. Amir (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Such logic could be applied to any mass import performed by bots: Flickr, Geograph Britain and Ireland, any government sources, etc. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

None are at the scale of Tasnim and Fars. Note that a blanket mass upload from Flickr is also not done. I‌ haven't seen that and people shouldn't do it either. Also please provide sources on cases let's say, the German government manipulated an image and published that. This is very common in RT and other sources but most other countries have basic professionalism not to forge images to push their narrative. It's simply short-sighted even if they have an agenda to push. Amir (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ladsgroup, How can we trust "any" of their images? Are there any known cases of manipulated images of sporting events? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

So no one is gonna point put that the propaganda accusation is credited to a MAGA propaganda blog https://m.youtube.com/@NPOVmedia/videos whose main video content is conservative pundits complaining about being silenced by the woke Wikipedia? I'm sorry but I just can't for the life of me take this kind of manufactured outrage seriously coming from a propaganda website. What's next, are we gonna change our copyright policy due to complaints from Breitbart?--Trade (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is classic form of ad hominem. Are these people downright terrible? Yes. Are these people get a lot of stuff wrong about how we operate? Yes. Do they have a point on some aspects and can we do better in this area? Also yes. The thing about broken clock and so on. Amir (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Considering that you didn't feel the need to disclose any of this in your post then yes it is very much relevant to bring attention is

If you start a thread and the premise for the thread turns out to be false you cannot reasonable expect people to simply ignore because you don't think it's important or relevant Trade (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What premise are you alleging is incorrect? It seems like your objection is simply that a different group you don't like said the same thing (aka the genetic fallacy). I don't think it should matter at all if a disreputable person happens to agree. The arguments should be evaluated on their merits. Bawolff (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Just to respond to you: I didn't disclose because I was not aware. The link is being circulated in Persian media and I‌ opened the link and read the article and while I‌ rolled my eyes sometimes, as I said, they have a point in some cases. I'm not the kind of person who would go read all of the website's articles and watch their videos before judging what they say since as pointed out many times, the point is what they say and not who say it Amir (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is a little bit ironic that this anti-propaganda thread was inspired by a video from a propaganda website. Nakonana (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

But, but.. I did! 😭 - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 18:52, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nothing was inspired by a channel that has 180 subscribers. This also has nothing to do with "conservatives" or "woke" or "MAGA". This is all about a Regime that is spreading propaganda after massacring its people by using the states News, and those same images are being uploaded in mass in here. The images can be used towards spreading wrong information and promote states propaganda in wp. We are not talking about a few images, it is a vast amount. There needs to be a way we can address this. DrtheHistorian (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Let's move this discussion away from ad hominem arguments and focus strictly on what Commons policies and guidelines actually say and how to apply them to find a workable solution. The discussion already includes many documented examples of manipulated, AI-altered, and staged media originating from terrorist IRGC-affiliated outlets, supported by independent sources. ignoring that record does not help resolve the problem. Commons policy is clear that every file "must be realistically useful for an educational purpose" and that "Anything uploaded here which falls outside this scope will be deleted as OOS (Out Of Scope)." If Tasnim/Fars mass uploads are largely unused, repetitive, and not realistically useful educationally, deleting them as OOS is exactly what the scope policy provides for. Also, Commons says it is "not your personal free web host" and "not a place to advertise," and that "content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted." On top of that, "neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" so captions like "terrorists/rioters" for victims are not acceptable as file-page text. Please remember that Commons policy explicitly states that "the burden of proof lies on the uploader." We should not shift an unreasonable burden onto the community by expecting volunteers to verify tens of thousands of files from these problematic sources one by one. Like Amir, I agree with the compromise of adopting solutions 4 and 5 as they are, though I'm open to hearing a genuinely better practical alternative.   ARASH PT  talk  23:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Arash.pt, "content which constitutes advertising or self-promotion may be deleted." This is warping the truth. This policy is for users who try to advertise themselves or something they sell. And even then we don't always delete, when a notable person uploads a PR portrait of themselves (with appropriate permission) to be used on their article on Wikipedia, that could be seen as "content which constitutes self-promotion". Obviously we don't delete that.
Like Amir, I agree with the compromise of adopting solutions 4 and 5
That's not a compromise. And when that's the starting point of a negotiation and you already consider that a "compromise", the gap between opinions can't be bridged. Yann has asked 999real to better curate their uploads from now on. So that's something.
Perhaps we start by collecting more information. There's no question much of this media is biased, but bias is normal. COM:NPOV literally states: Examples of subject matter disputes that are not appropriate here include: [...] Photographs: "This is propaganda"
You say those outlets distributed manipulated media and some prima facie evidence was provided to back this claim up. Okay, next question: did such manipulated (not merely biased) images ever make their way to Commons? If the problem is as bad as it is portrayed to be, finding dozens of examples should be easy, no? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 01:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

When there are many documented cases of malicious manipulation and fabrication, the source becomes unreliable in general.Both Tasnim and Fars hhave been considered unreliable in both Persian and English Wikipedia. They are not allowed to be the source of text on wikis, why are allowing them to be the source of images on wikis? That being said, a middle ground could be to delete all unused AND political images by them so pictures of soccer matches and nature and so on can stay for now. Political images have a high tendency to be manipulated. Amir (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ladsgroup, When there are many documented cases of malicious manipulation and fabrication, the source becomes unreliable in general.
A considerable number of images carries bias, but we don't care about bias. I suspect well under 1% of images uploaded here has been manipulated or fabricated. (and probably <0.1%)
Both Tasnim and Fars hhave been considered unreliable in both Persian and English Wikipedia.
We are not on Wikipedia.
They are not allowed to be the source of text on wikis, why are allowing them to be the source of images on wikis?
Commons does not police other wikis. A photo of a tank can illustrate said tank. Even if that photo was taken to promote the military. And even if the caption says "our tank is 100x better than stupid imperialist american tank" which no Wikipedia should repeat.
That being said, a middle ground could be to delete all unused AND political images by them so pictures of soccer matches and nature and so on can stay for now. Political images have a high tendency to be manipulated.
Leaving non-political images alone is a good step. But it's concerning that you were unable to provide even a single example of a manipulated image that made its way to Commons. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be misunderstanding some points about Commons scope.

• largely unused — you can cross that out from your reasons for deletion. Most files on Commons are unused but none of them will be deleted based on this reason.
• realistically useful educationally — that is likely true for most state propaganda. Examples of state propaganda are often used in history books, in academic analysis, artistic discussions of tools used, etc. This is in project scope.
• personal free web host — that refers to photos of your family members on vacation. It does not refer to state media.
• advertising or self-promotion — that refers to product advertisement and promotion of your garage band. It does not refer to state media.

Not scope related points:

• "neither filenames nor text may be phrased in such a way as to constitute vandalism, attack or deliberate provocation" — where is this quoted from? If a file description is problematic, edit it (and/or have it oversighted). If a file name is problematic, request a {{Rename}}. Problematic / Erroneous file names and description are not a valid reason for deletion.
• "the burden of proof lies on the uploader." — that is correct, but what exactly is it that you are asking the uploader to prove? Usually this phrase refers to copyright: it is the uploader's task to make sure that the uploaded media is compatible with Commons licensing policies. And this is so far the only reason that has been presented that poses a clear and valid reason for deletion for some of the files. However, we've only a few valid reasons for speedy deletion, and anything that does not fall into one of the speedy deletion rationales will need to go through a regular deletion request.
• We should not shift an unreasonable burden onto the community by expecting volunteers to verify tens of thousands of files — that's actually something that is often done on here. See Category:License review needed for example.

Nakonana (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the summary of the discussion. By now this thread is so long and sprawling that I don't know if anyone will see it, but just adding my two cents.

First, there is a focus here on Tasnim and Fars (and to some extent Mizan), but this is a bigger problem. Mehr, SNN, Moj, Nasim, and Khamenei.ir all publish their images under Creative Commons licenses, and there may be more I'm not aware of. Most if not all are state-affiliated, but their mixed nature becomes problematic because a mass deletion of all media taken from them (or even all unused media) would also delete thousands of non-political images of landscapes, sports and more. Further complicating the matter is the scarcity of non-state free media covering protests (see this, where a Fars photo of 2019 protests is still widely in use; there are others too).

As S1 suggests, the most immediate solution is to balance it by asking other sources to release their contents under acceptable Creative Commons licenses. CC-0 or CC-BY licenses would best because CC-BY-SA risks limiting their usage outside Commons due to ShareAlike obligations. We first need alternative sources for media that can be used across Wikimedia projects and beyond. I read efforts are ongoing to get permission for this. I've also seen Vahid Online has issued written permission on his X account, but that is not enough for hosting on Commons as hosting conditions are more strict here. Will he (and others) agree to a compatible CC license or less preferably a VRTS ticket?

That creates two legal complexities. One is the legality of hosting files from these agencies given their affiliation with the IRGC. Can we get an opinion from WMF Legal on that?

The other is licensing complexities for S1. Virtually all sources that publish protest media from Iran receive their contents from Iranians and are therefore not copyright holders, so the risk of deletion is high without making proper licensing arrangements. One of the following two solutions comes to my mind:

1. Upon receiving media, sources should ask the sender if they have recorded it and whether they agree to transferring the copyright to the source. I suspect almost everyone will agree. The source could then release all their media under a compatible license such as CC-BY 4.0. This has the advantage of attributing the source and not the actual person who shared the file, who would likely wish to remain anonymous.
2. Upon receiving media, sources should ask the sender if they have recorded it and whether they agree to release it under CC-0. CC-0 does not require attribution, so a copyright transfer will not be necessary.

Can they do it? Ahmad^talk 10:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

"media taken from them (or even all unused media) would" Then what about deleting all unused political images? We can find them through categories easily. Amir (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

unused is not a valid reason for deletion on Commons. Nakonana (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

These files can be very valuable for researchers and journalists investigating on how these manipulations and how the communication by the government work. These files should of course not be used on Wikipedia without giving context on the source. We have many files on Commons they should not be used or are even forbidden to be used in many democratic countries without proper context. GPSLeo (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think that would still be problematic for a number of reasons. One is the definition of political. Another is that Commons, by nature, is much more inclusionist than Wikipedia. The main policy on this is COM:PS's educational purpose, which is historically interpreted broadly. As GPSLeo also said, Commons even hosts media that is forbidden in many countries (see Template:Nazi symbol for example). So I don't think mass deletion is a realistic solution because even propaganda material could be used to illustrate how state propaganda operates.

But I think there is something to be done. COM:NPOV#Text recommends not using provocative file names and descriptions, and in many cases with Tasnim and the rest, the problem lies with the name or description; see this for example, where the photo is, beyond the dubious licensing that does not refer to the photographer by name, completely neutral, but the name and description represent the state narrative. Dealing with these is the most straightforward as rename requests and description edits fix the NPOV problem. 999real's edit at Special:Diff/1159776145/1159838207 is a good model. Finding these is also easier because state media has a few distinctive keywords that virtually no other source uses, like "اغتشاش" ("riot").

That aside, I agree that mass uploading everything from these sources could include images that are in my opinion outside the project scope. Some clear recent examples are 1 and 2. As with all other media, I think users should first do a quick review to make sure all uploads fall within the project scope and refrain from uploading those that don't.

General arguments aside, because NPOV in titles and descriptions here is a significant problem, for a start I think the names and descriptions of all media from these sources uploaded since 28 December 2025 (the first day of Iranian protests) should be reviewed. 999real, Yann, and Immanuelle have helped with this, though many cases still remain with their original descriptions and titles (example). Category:Iranian media publications related to the 2025–2026 protests does not include all cases, but reviewing and fixing problematic cases should not be too difficult due to the balk format in which these are published.

To conclude, how about reviewing recent cases first, then considering how similar issues can be mitigated and prevented in the future? Also, I still believe getting more sources to issue free and compatible licenses is the most important solution. Ahmad^talk 21:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure NPOV descriptions is an improvement to files but is the absence of NPOV descriptions and titles really worth losing thousands of useful files that would have been hard to Commons to otherwise get access to? Trade (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: I'm not suggesting the mass deletion of them all. As a first step I'm suggesting only renaming NPOV-violating files and moving or removing their NPOV-violating descriptions to neutral ones. Deletion discussions can follow once more information about the scale of out of scope media is available. Ahmad^talk 08:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ahmad252, I've also seen Vahid Online has issued written permission on his X account, but that is not enough for hosting on Commons as hosting conditions are more strict here. Will he (and others) agree to a compatible CC license or less preferably a VRTS ticket?
Category:Photos from Vahid Online
Only potential problem I see (but opinions may differ) is that "As the copyright holder, I grant permission for the content I shared to be used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International () license." specifies Wikipedia/Wikimedia. See also Commons talk:License review#Photos from Mamlekate. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 23:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: Thanks for the link. I had only seen a different post from Vahid Online where he had not specified a CC license and wasn't aware of this. I don't think the Wikipedia/Wikimedia specification is an issue though. To me the release under is the important part, and "to be used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects" doesn't necessarily indicate restrictive intent either (it's not "to be only used on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects"). As for the Mamlekate license discussion, I will respond there to have it all in one place. Ahmad^talk 06:34, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

•  Comment I did not read all the long text of this discussion, two things from my point of view: 1/ Propaganda has an undeniable historical interest which makes it meet the educational value criteria and is therefore in scope. 2/ If a warning message is affixed to a file suspected of being propaganda therefore, this message should remain neutral as much as possible. Indeed in case where several parties are involved (several countries in war, or a government and its opponents, ect...), if you add a warning saying "this is propaganda", this lacks neutrality. A neutral warning should be something like "this media was created by one of the parties to a recent or ongoing conflict therefore it may or it may or may not be biased". Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 12:39, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

  The used warning currently states: This text comes from the original image source and was kept for documentary purposes. The original description might be false, misleading or offensive. Nakonana (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

  For the sake of accuracy: That template got created after this thread's discussions (Template:Original description disclaimer) it was not like it has been like this when I brought this up and obviously, it hasn't been added to 200,000 images that got mass uploaded and many of the original file names are still there. Amir (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

  You are quite right on your assessment but the discussion need to move on four pillars: 1- Many of uploaded files have problematic name and/or description and it's hard to fix this due to the sheer volume of uploads 2- A lot of these images clearly are not in the COM:SCOPE. Even some already have been exampled here: File:"Tehran's calm despite calls for chaos" Tasnim 08.jpg (and the title is quite something, after when there were so many people killed that they had to use fire trucks to wash off blood the streets (search for "erase all traces."). There are many more examples. 3- Sure, we need pictures of people holding picture of Khameni and smiling like a propaganda poster, but thousands of such pictures? I'm sorry for making this comparison: This is quite like COM:NOPENIS to me. Out of 200,000 images a lot of them don't provide any new educational value. How many pictures of propaganda do we really need? Imagine if we had someone uploading 200,000 pictures of human genitalia here. Maybe I'm missing something obvious here. This is my weakest argument 3- These sources have a long and documented history of copyright violation, manipulation and downright fabrication so I‌ consider them radioactive for this reason too. See above for examples. Amir (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

  A lot of discussion here is going on the straw-man of "Amir wants to ban upload from Fars/Tasnim and co". I want us to slow down on mass upload so we can check for issues, copyright, fabrication, naming, educational value and so on. Amir (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have VFC loaded with Special:Search/incategory:"License review needed" intitle:cropped hastemplate:"Extracted from" and the following replacements:

/\n{{(license[ ]?review|youtube[ ]?review|lr)}}\n/gi (replace with one newline)

/{{(license[ ]?review|youtube[ ]?review|lr)}}/gi

/\n\n\n/g (replace with two newlines)

/ \n/g (replace with one newline)

With edit summary like "removing LR template, just review the uncropped image".

Expect edits like File:TheBurntChip in 2023 (cropped).jpg (Diff ~1158821347). Any concerns before I push the button? Should I mark the edits as minor? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 16:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think you would do better to replace this with a template or note saying to verify the license against the file from which it has been cropped, then a human editor can do that once they have actually checked. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel, we don't have such a template. License review is for files from external sources. We don't do license reviews for crops of files that originate here, why would we change that for imported files? Should crops also be vetted by VRT if the original has a VRT ticket attached? What about crops of files from Flickr that were reviewed by a bot?
License review has 82K backlogged files. At the current rate, copyright may well expire before the license gets reviewed. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Alexis Jazz: why would we change that for imported files? I guess it's a matter of what we consider to be the purpose the license review tag. If we view it entirely in terms of managing our own processes then, no, it does not need to be carried in any way into the derivative work. If we view it as a caution to possible reusers of the file then, yes, it does. - Jmabel ! talk 06:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel, to the best of my knowledge it's part anti-linkrot (can't verify the license if the source vanishes), part anti-license-laundering, part verifying if the license at the source is valid (sometimes there's a license but it only applies to text, or they forgot the CC version number, etc) and part derivative work detection (e.g. freely licensed video with protected music that may require muting). This is all to ensure files comply with COM:L. If it was about protection of re-users we'd look the other way when there's no CC version number or even if the license is non-commercial, and we'd start requiring (something akin to) license reviews for cross-wiki uploads. Which would almost be a good idea if it didn't require a paid workforce of at least a dozen people to deal with the volume. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging some active license reviewers: Pinging @Leoboudv, Robertsky, Rockfang, Stemoc, Vysotsky- Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 14:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

We finally have results of November photo challenge:

Congratulations user:Lusi Lindwurm, user:Van de Schaufel, user:Albarubescens, user:Roy Egloff, user:Karel Stipek Austria and user:Daragon Photos. Jarekt (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello Village pump,

The world’s traditions are disappearing faster than we can document them, but you can help change that.

On behalf of the Wiki Loves Folklore International Team, we are reaching out to invite you to contribute to the 2026 edition of our global campaign.

Share Your Cultural Heritage with the World

Wiki Loves Folklore is an international media contest dedicated to documenting the "intangible" beauty of our cultures. Whether it’s the vibrant colours of a folk festival, the rhythm of a traditional dance, the secrets of a family recipe, or the legends of your hometown, your media helps preserve these legacies for generations to come.

How You Can Contribute Participating is simple, and every upload contributes to the world's largest free knowledge repository:

• Capture: Take photos, record videos, or capture audio of folk activities, music, mythology, or traditional wear.
• Upload: Share your files on Wikimedia Commons between 1 February 2026 and 31 March 2026.
• Win: Beyond the satisfaction of preservation, there are international prizes for the most impactful contributions.

Ready to get started? Click here to upload your media now or visit the Main Project Page for full rules and category details.

Your perspective is a vital piece of the global cultural puzzle. We can't wait to see the folklore you bring to life.

Warm regards,

#WeTogether

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone, Lingua Libre is a WMF/WMFR tool to record the diversity of human languages, regional and personal variations. Records of words or expressions are mostly used within Wiktionaries, Wikipedias, and Wikidata. Our contributors provided 1.5 millions files to Wikimedia Commons, or about 1% of its total.

• « ঘরে বাইরে », Bengali.
• « Smogot », Minangkabau.
• « allillanchu kachkan? », Quechua.
• « Adishatz », Occitan.

May I ask for your help to expand languages support on Lingua Libre next release ? We currently have full support for ~12 major languages, but we would like to serve smaller languages and cultures as well. Most wanted are:

• Portuguese
• Italian
• Ukrainian
• Hindi
• Urdu
• Tamil
• Marathi
• Persian
• Vietnamese
• Thai
• Japanese
• Malay
• Kurdish
• German
• Polish
• Tagalog (Filipino)
• Telugu
• Hausa
• Any other language is also welcome.

These translations will allow those communities and their own minorities, from all regions of the world, to use Lingua Libre (en) in a language close to them. They then have one more tool at their disposal to document their languages, regional and personal variations on Wikimedia & wiktionaries. Even translating just 10 items in your language is a positive help adding onto the previous translations. Yug (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I see that after much discussion, Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/10/Category:White Americans went stale in 2019 and has had no further significant discussion. I think it deserves to be either revived or resolved. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be better to have a broader discussion on stale CfDs and one could ask about many of them in bundled form.

There's lots of open ones in Commons:Categories for discussion/2016. Please help resolve them (@everyone interested) Prototyperspective (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I created the new category Category:Videos of butterflies and accidentally added two videos of the butterfly swimming style (File:Butterfly stroke from underwater.webm) since it was displayed in the deepcategory view of Category:Butterflies.

The videos were in its branch via Butterflies → Category:Things named after butterflies → Category:Butterfly (swimming style).

Such categories often add lots (sometimes many thousands) of offtopic files to category branches.

• This can hamper categorization as in this case
• It doesn't really relate to the subject of the parent category
• It's not really helpful or useful to the person browsing the parent category which is about an entirely different subject
• It puts files into wrong categories – in this case a video of a person swimming is underneath the Category:Orders of insects → Category:Lepidoptera category (falsehood) but shown is not an insect but a human
• it can also make the deepcategory-based wall-of-images view useless (unless this wish is implemented and there's no indications it will be and even then it's still a problem)

This is why I'm proposing that these categories are removed from these categories and instead can be linked to via {{Cat see also}}. Do you agree? Prototyperspective (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

In this particular case {{Cat see also}} (or {{Distinguish}}) might be better because the connection is so tangential, but I wouldn't want to stop having categories for things named after a particular saint, head of state, geographic place, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 05:55, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The distinguish template is better for similarly-named subjects that might be confused for one another, I think the "Cat see also" template is more appropriate here. That being said, I don't see anyone arguing that we shouldn't have these categories at all, this is more about their placement in the category tree. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's also worth noting that "named after" relationships can be language-specific. For example, the tool which we call a "monkey wrench" in English is called a "llave Ford" ("Ford wrench" - after the automobile manufacturer) in Spanish, or an "Engländer" in German. "Named after" isn't a hierarchical relationship, and shouldn't be represented in the category system. Omphalographer (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's true, but I suspect the majority of these named-after cats are things like streets, buildings, ship, etc where the name origin is not language-dependent. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Commons category system is not a strict ontology (Wikidata is) so the fact that categories about butterflies contain people is not wrong as such, even if it may result in odd results when searching down the category tree. MKFI (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't affect the validity of the 5 points except for weakening #4.
Regarding that, I'd say that it's currently not a correct ontology doesn't mean it can't move toward it and/or that some cases/branches can be made more ontologically correct; there is no imperative for things to be categorized also in ways that are ontologically incorrect, it's just not a priority or required.
By the way, Wikidata in practice is often less precise or ontologically correct than Commons & Wikipedia categories and, more importantly, often no subclass and/or instance of is set there or some key ones are missing which isn't the case for categories.

You make a good point and this needs to be considered but again, it doesn't really affect the main reasoning in this case. It's just not useful but problematic in various ways. Linking to it can still be done – if the links there are considered useful – via templates, such as via the cat see also template. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations to Donvikro, Mensch01, Lusi Lindwurm, Ger Hagens, Pierre André Leclercq and Gannu03 Jarekt (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Jarekt Thank you for the encouraging scores. Sincerely Pierre André ^(talk) 16:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Congrats! I like these results. (I just wished there would have been more photos of modern active industrial factories in the Factor interiors challenge.)

Could a template with a category or just a category be added to the Photo challenge winner photos? I think the info that the file won (place 1-3 at least) a photo challenge would be interesting to the visitor on the file information page. Additionally, I'd like to add it to Category:Community-based media evaluation and the top x files could maybe at some point be upranked somewhat in search results are to being more likely relevant and of good quality. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is already {{Photo challenge winner}} and Category:Photo challenge winners. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. This hasn't been added to the winning pictures here and neither to those of the prior challenge posted about further up this page. Is it just missing for these or was it not added for files of earlier challenges too? I check some files of the latest challenges in the archives and the template was not set on this, this and this. Maybe there is a way to query for all PC-winner files without the template somehow. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It seems like it would need a way to see files used on Commons on pages like "Commons:Photo challenge/[some changing text here]/Winners" or "Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/Archives/year". Other than that, there doesn't seem to be anything consistent for these files and I couldn't find a way to query for pages linking to even just a particular Commons page under File usage on Commons. Is there a way to do this with petscan? I tried entering "Commons_talk:Photo_challenge/Archives/2025" into Templates&links linked from (linked to also didn't work). Prototyperspective (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Prototyperspective, I agree, we should be adding winning images to Category:Photo challenge winners. I will work on it and see if we can do that automatically in the future. Thanks for suggestion. --Jarekt (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The description at the top of Category:Photo challenge pictures and several of its subcategories note that these categories are no longer being used, though I can't find a discussion where this was decided. I think it would be a good idea to "un-retire" these categories. I quite like the way content is categorized under Category:Photo challenge/2014 and I think we could apply this structure to the other years as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The discussion was made here: Commons talk:Photo challenge/Archives/2014#Proposal re challenge categories. It appears until August 2014, users are require to add their images to both the challenge page and category. Back then, there was a problem where users only added them to one location, so in the discussion they decided to stop using the categories.

So, I don't think there are any problems with these categories themselves, hence I agree it is a good idea to reuse these categories again. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Some time ago, an image I uploaded depicting a cemetery sculpture was flagged for deletion, because of alleged violation of the FOP rules in the country where the photograph was taken. (Actually, the reasoning presented was that the FOP rules in the sculptor's country - France - were being violated, even though the sculpture was [is] standing in a cemetery in Chile.) The image in question is File:Santiago cementerio justiniano mausoleo DSC 3287.jpg. Since the 70-year date from the sculptors death was so close, I decided to ignore the deletion. Recently, I noticed that the file was automagically restored in 2026 from its earlier deletion, presumably because the 70-year limit (explained here) had been reached. I also noticed that the recently undeleted image was an exact duplicate (except for the file name) of another file I had recently uploaded. I nominated it for speedydelete because it duplicated another image on the same cemetery's page. Now I get a notice that the more recent deletion for duplication was reverted, apparently by a Bot (SchlurcherBot), leaving both versions of the image active. This is most frustrating, especially since I am the uploader of both images just trying to make Wikimedia Commons a little more efficient. Unfortunately, I don't know how to address this directly with SchlurcherBot, or the Wikipedia User who operates the Bot. I would appreciate any help. Seauton (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Schlurcher as bot operator.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Convenience links: File:Santiago cementerio justiniano mausoleo DSC 3287.jpg, File:Santiago cementerio justiniano 14 DSC 3287.jpg - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Seauton: you didn't use the right tag. Use {{Duplicate}} on the one you want deleted, and provide the name of the duplicated file as indicated in the template documentation

Also: while, duplicates should, indeed, be deleted, it doesn't save any storage space: once it's uploaded under two different names, both copies will remain, stored separately. - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday, I had the unpleasant experience of having a look to a file uploaded by me, to see its description had been vandalized months ago by an unregistered user. I wonder what % of edits to File namespace by unregistered users are constructive, and if there is any study about it.

I think Commons is totally different from Wikipedia in this. Based on my own experience (perhaps other people's experiences are different), unregistered edits are very important to Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, I started doing small edits for several years without feeling the need to create an account. But the first time I felt the need to edit Commons was to upload files, so I needed an account. That was the moment I created my Wikimedia account, using it both for Wikipedia and Commons, from then on (another reason to create an account would be to create new articles in English Wikipedia).

I think it's good that other namespaces (for example, galleries) can be edited by unregistered users: they are more Wikipedia-like. They are expected to be edited in the same way as Wikipedia articles are. But there are more than 134 million files in Commons, now. By comparison, there are only about 7 million articles in English Wikipedia, and it has a far bigger number of people looking for vandalism.

In addition, there are plans for images in Wikipedia to link directly to Commons in the near future (now, a page very similar to the Commons one, but under a wikipedia.org domain, is shown; this page is not directly editable). I fear this will make the problem even worse, something like the early days of Wikipedia when you easily found vandalism in many random articles.

It's impossible to succesfully patrol 134 million pages. Again, based in my own experience (that may differ from the experience of other people), I never felt the need to edit the file page of a file uploaded by other user, until I had some experience in Commons. If the uploader of the file didn't add a good description or categories, it's highly unlikely that the solution will come from a user without previous experience in uploading files to Commons. If that's the case, there could be a page for proposed changes by unregistered users, so registered ones can later apply them. But I think direct edits by unregistered users are far more likely to cause harm than good.

What do you think? Should edits to File namespace be restricted to registered users? MGeog2022 (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

There could also be better systems to flag potential problematic edits. It's best to check your watchlist from time to time to spot problematic edits to pages you watch as most pages aren't watched by many. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That's just the problem. I'm not thinking about my uploads only. It's also about uploads by users that are no longer here, or about uploads by occasional users who uploaded only one or a few files long time ago. The system should be robust and reliable, just like Wikipedia is now. Vandalism can create a bad image for Commons or even for the user who uploaded the file whose description was vandalized.

There could also be better systems to flag potential problematic edits: I agree with this, it could be an alternative if it works well. MGeog2022 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I wasn't implying that. And I agree that what you said is a problem. I sometimes find files and category pages that have been left vandalized for years (eg often meaningless captions).

However, that also happens for some important well-watched English Wikipedia articles visited by hundreds daily for quite a few days and what you described is a bigger problem on Wikidata where there's millions of even after creation unwatched items where it doesn't make much sense to enable even unregistered people to edit for example authors of scholarly papers when the authors have been imported by some bot where I'd suggest some sort of locking that only allows edits via scripts at least for some of the properties (main subject could be excluded) or at least for new & unregistered users. Locking file pages on the other hand doesn't seem as needed and one could use the metadata on account creation and whether it's an IP editor for some page that lists these. Whether what you propose is the optimal solution considering net use and benefits of allowing unregistered users to edit files, the possibility that what was once done by unregistered users would just be done by registered new users, and the potential downsides probably requires some investigation like e.g. how many edits of that type are there. If there's very many, a page listing these for checking or similar may not be feasible but at the same time many of these are probably constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. Yes, the Wikidata case seems even worse, and I also think it should be improved.

In English or Spanish Wikipedia, now, it's very rare to see a vandalism when you visit a page (in Spanish Wikipedia it's quite easy to find articles of questionable quality, but not true vandalism). It was very different during Wikipedia's first decade, and it continues to happen, for example, in Simple English Wikipedia.

I hope that the same level of vandalism prevention that English Wikipedia now has, is possible some day in all WMF projects, some way or another. MGeog2022 (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

not sure if anyone has beat me to it. i made User:RoyZuo/AutoExpandTOC.js that 1 click expands or collapses all sections. RoyZuo (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

As with User:RoyZuo/SearchFreeMedia.js I'd suggest creating a documentation page – regardless of how short – to enable other users to find the script which seems like it may be useful for some. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/01/Category:Indo-European gods

anyone with knowledge of culture, history or anthropology? please take a look and see if the claim is valid. RoyZuo (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I only know Indo-European in the context of linguistics, but looking at Indo-European (disambiguation) there appear to be articles on a "hypothetical" Indo-European religion and society. Nakonana (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Every so often I search in vain for a category "rough sea(s)" and find only "sea storms". To me, a "sea storm" is a storm at sea (well Duh). I wouldn't call some big waves hitting rocks or rolling into beaches and coastlines under blue or fair-weather skies "sea storms", yet that category contains quite a few examples of such. Do we need a separate category for "rough seas"? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

A storm at sea can still be at the coast or not? At least rough seas imo is not any more fitting for sth happening at the coastline vs far into the open water. But a new broader cat may be good because there also is Category:Splashing water waves that looks like a subcategory of it or it could go into a cat with the photos in Category:Sea storms. Also quite a few files in sea storms seem miscategorized there especially per its Wikidata infobox definition "sustained winds between 50 and 87 km/h". Prototyperspective (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

 

A storm at sea can hit the coast, yes, but I think of that as implying big clouds and probably lashing rain too. While all waves at sea are of course primarily caused by winds, and strong winds are a feature of storms, yet I do not think of something like this at right as a "sea storm". Do others? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What about a category "rough or stormy seas"? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The titular question is only half in joke. When I'm using our search function for the combination of "<country> maps logos", the first entry is File:Burger King Princess Street Kingston.jpg (image of a BK restaurant in Canada), followed by dozens of other files showing BK products, BK logos, BK restaurants and BK merchandise. This works only for some selected countries, the ones I have noticed so far are: Albania, Bahrain, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Luxembourg, Maldives, Malta, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, Venezuela. So far, I have only seen this with nation-countries, not with regions or continents like "Extremadura", "Wales" or "Asia"
When trying to reproduce this bug for as many countries as possible, I found out that "Argentina maps logos" does not result in Burger King spam. But "Argentina maps Lanka" (a mistake) yields the spam again. I stumbled over this because the bug appears less reliable when searching for two-word country names: "maps Sri Lanka logos" has the offending image as the 10th and not the 1st result. "logos maps Lanka" (but also "logos maps Sri") fixes the issue and the Canadian restaurant is number one again. *squint* *headscratch* Anyway, the following images are generally in the same order, regardless of the country, sometimes interrupted by a singular more relevant result: #2: restaurant in Wisconsin, #3: Crown stack, #4: restaurant in Belgium, #5: restaurant in Puerto Rico, #6: products in Guangdong, #7: restaurant in Russia... and so on.

Paradoxically, when searching for "Canada maps logos" (but also France and India), the first three search results are for Starbucks instead of Burger King. For other countries again (Australia, Austria, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, Portugal, Switzerland, Romania, ...) the first results are indeed what I would expect: logos or maps of the respective country. But even so, at some point after the 25th or 53rd search result and then downwards, images of MacDonalds restaurants, merchandise and chickenwings are suddenly supremely dominant again. And finally, there are those countries for which the search tapers off into satellite images of the requested region - which I can accept as tolerable results.

I understand this might be partially because "logo" is part of my search term, and global brands like BK, McD and Starbucks obviously have logos. The "maps" part of my search term might lead to misleading results because there is a camera location indicated in the restaurant images? (If that causes it, it needs to be fixed, because camera locations are not maps). Notably the country names like "Pakistan" or "Guatemala" are not even occuring in the false search results! So how does this keep happening, and most importantly, why do these images always appear in this order in search results for something completely different?

This is not a new bug, I stumbled across this weird circumstance before; at least six months ago if not much earlier. --Enyavar (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Enyavar: This may be partially because "B" comes before 92.3% of the letters in the Latin character set, plus all of the letters of the other character sets, and we don't have enough competing "A" logos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You don't say which search you were using; I use Special:Search I get nothing of the sort for United States maps logos, though what I get is equally irrelevant (File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg). I think this is all mostly because the combination of "maps" and "logos" in wikitext/SDC for any given file is an unlikely one. - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Re Jeff G.: What are "A" logos vs. "B" logos and why would they boost MacDonalds products? Among the first 200 search result images (for my search of "Austria maps logo") were 119 MacDonalds images.

I did another test, without logos this time: The same experiment with just "Austria food" yielded results of probably 60-80% Austrian cuisine images, just as I would expect, Not a single fast food image in sight, and even a single map. Yes, that search worked brilliant. Next I tried "Austria food maps". Wow. As far as I counted my search results, this one yielded a ratio of 206 MD-images vs 32 non-MD-images (and notably not a single map). I know that MacDonalds is pervasive, but that is a bit over the top.

Re Jmabel: The search I am using is Special:Search on what I believe is the default setting. Please tell me where I can access different search functions in Commons. I would give them a try. Also, are you telling me that when you searched for these specifically stated 34 country names (that for given reasons did not include the US/UK), in combination with the words "logo maps", you are getting Martian Dust Devil Trails as the first image hit, but no fast food chains? That now makes me believe that Commons is employing user-adaptive search patterns, similar to Google. If that is so, I would like to ask how I can reset my individual search adaptation. --Enyavar (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Enyavar: I just tried the U.S. first because that is where I live. But if I try "Austria maps logos" the first three things I get are File:Austria_satellite-map.jpg, File:Austria satellite unannotated.jpg, and File:Logo MAP Jet.jpg, all very reasonable. None of the next few I get are way off, either.

If you want to switch between the two searches, look near the top of the search page for "Switch to MediaSearch" or (if you are in MediaSearch) "Switch to Special:Search". - Jmabel ! talk 02:09, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I got the aforementioned Burger King images for searching Kazakhstan maps logos. I simply entered the three words in the search bar at the top of the page. I know that Commons search algorithm isn't the best one (I usually just search by category), but those Burger King search results are really strange. They are neither located in Kazakhstan, nor are they maps or logos. It's as if the search algorithm is just returning images, except that they are apparently not random at all because I get the exact same images as Enyavar mentioned, and in the exact same order, too. Jeff G.'s suggestion about it having to do with alphabetical order makes sense at first, but on second thought numbers usually come before letters, and we have plenty of categories which start with the number 1, and we also have a lot of categories starting with the letter A, so why would the search results start with the letter B? And not even "B1" or "Ba" but instead with "Bu"? Nakonana (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What a strange bug. Trying similar search terms, I can also get the same results by replacing maps logo with just the word burger: eg. a search for "Luxembourg burger" returns the same range of Burger King photos from around the world that Enyavar reports above. Other country names (eg. "England burger") correctly return only burger images related to that country.

There are about 59,000 images returned by all of these searches, the same number that you get (in what looks like largely the same order) if you just search for "burger king". I have no idea how MediaWiki's search works, but could it be some cached lookup index (maybe where some supercategory like Category:Burger King was briefly and erroneously added to a lot of country categories in the past, and reverted, but not before the search functionality had indexed it) that we'd be able to purge? Belbury (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hey all. I just uploaded this image of Nikolay Zhukovsky and his children, which was taken in Geneva, approximately in the late 1870s or early 1880s (judging by the childrens' age). The photograph is certainly in the public domain, but I wanted to see if anyone could help identify the photographer based on the signature and the address in the image. Unfortunately, damage to the photograph makes the address hard to make out and I'm terrible at reading cursive signatures. If anyone could help with this, I'd really appreciate it. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kinda looks like Jean Lacroix IMO... Stemoc 14:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

That looks to be correct, thanks for the help! --Grnrchst (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I think WMF projects should turn down all frivolous requests for courtesy deletion.

I noticed something alarming just now. There is a discussion at as to whether to delete a headshot of Randy Lennox. That image was kept in October 2025. During that discussion I counted 17 images of Mr Lennox in his category. I think I checked, in the last week or so, and we still had 17 images. But now? There are only 12. What happened to the other five images?

CJMiller71, the person who initiated the first discussion over the first image, re-initiated a second discussion, where they said, "We have emailed permissions-commons and several other addresses. Are those five missing images gone because CJMiller71 wrote to several othre addresses, and reached someone who quietly deleted those images, out of process? Geo Swan (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Geo Swan, I haven't seen them. I checked the category page on archive.org and found a copy from January 2025. There was nothing in the category in January that's not there now. So those five images would have to have been uploaded and/or categorized between January and October.
Do you remember anything, anything at all about any of the images that were in there? Partial filename, where they were taken, rough date, what he was wearing, anything? Could they have been re-categorized or deleted as copyvio? Could you have made a mistake? All I found was odd stuff:

• Randy Lennox (Diff ~1327227745) "He has appointed senior VP/GM in 1993 amid company growth". Amid company growth? That doesn't sound like wikivoice
• w:en:User talk:74.12.179.86 ( Randy Lennox (Diff ~1186138900) )
• w:en:User talk:64.229.18.146 ( Randy Lennox (Diff ~1189223532) )
• w:en:User talk:209.226.237.163#Randy Lennox ( Randy Lennox (Diff ~1161711012) )

But nothing on Commons. You could technically find out by downloading 90GB of file page text from https://dumps.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/20251001/ (be quick, it'll expire soon!) which will unpack to, dunno, a terabyte maybe, and $ cat FILENAME | grep -E 'ategory:Randy[_ ]Lennox'. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 04:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I searched the page titles from 1 October 2025:
$ cat commonswiki-20251001-all-titles | grep -E 'andy_[Ll]ennox'
4 Deletion_requests/File:Randy_Lennox_and_the_Launch.jpg
6 Randy_Lennox_2020.jpg
6 Randy_Lennox_at_the_2017_CFC_Annual_Gala_&_Auction_(32687750515).jpg
6 Randy_Lennox_at_the_2018_CFC_Annual_Gala_&_Auction_(25432943657).jpg
14 Randy_Lennox
If there were five more images, they were either added to the category between 1 and 16 October, or they didn't have "Randy Lennox" in their filenames, or you made a mistake. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This might be one of those paid editing bullshit where people think they own the wikipedia page of theirs, don't know how many cases like this i fought, some even on enwiki back then. Its a shame the Canadian Film Centre people stop posting their images on Flickr after Flickr became greedy and enforced image limits for non-paying users, i was the one who got them to change their licence so we could use it on wikipedia 12 years back. If you say there was 17 images then someone could use the excuse that some of those images because the flickr pages no longer exists are copyright infringements, then admins might delete them by mistake if its tagged as speedy..also trying to force an image on enwiki where they tagged the year as 2020, but date on form says 2019 and exif says 2018 just reeks of Bad intentions.. Stemoc 05:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Geo Swan, also, could we somehow nudge vanity deletion requests towards noindex requests? Often what they really care about is Google. This probably only works for unused images though. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 07:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See also: Commons_talk:Bots#Existing_bot_for_automatically_creating_categories
Does anybody know if there is a bot that can handle the task for creating categories for daily images (eg. Photographs taken on 2026-02-11). This would also apply to the various categories for images taken in a location (country/state/city; LOCATION photographs taken on YYYY-MM-DD).
Right now this task seems to be done by users. Is there a bot that can handle this task as well? --D-Kuru (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

On the talk page of Category:Greater Morocco, a user doubts the accuracy of the map. However, they seem to have been inactive since December 2024. Is it possible for someone to verify the accuracy of the map (I put two references for the map) so the tag can be removed? Thanks in advance (I only just realised I initially put this in VillagePump Copyright. My bad!) Mayouhm (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just checking whether these two images fall foul of freedom of panorama rules-- would they be classified as two dimensional posters? The photograph displayed is ostensibly under copyright. Thanks.

• File:Madonna (53264439366).jpg (United Kingdom)
• File:West Hollywood Pride 2019-26 (48048103968).jpg (United States)

Joko2468 (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'd classify both as using a 2D graphical work. Both could be edited to have the copyrighted material removed (bottom one would definitely still be useful without the photograph). Abzeronow (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witold Trąmpczyński.jpg and a total of about 25 others. Part of the argument is that "© 2015 Ex Libris" at the archive website restarts the copyright clock from 2015. RAN (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I don't see any mention of "© 2015 Ex Libris" in that DR by anyone but you. Where is the claim about that restarting the clock?

It is possible to combine existing DRs, but once they have some comments, unless those comments are verbatim identical, it is a pain in the butt. Also, when combining, it is important that the facts of the cases (not just the deletion rationale) be very clearly parallel. - Jmabel ! talk 00:53, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

• They wrote: "Photos from the Sejm archives are still protected by copyright." which I assume comes from "© 2015 Ex Libris" at the Sejm archive website. {{PD-Poland}} states that "all photographs by Polish photographers (or published for the first time in Poland or simultaneously in Poland and abroad) published without a clear copyright notice before the law was changed on May 23, 1994 [are in the public domain]. --RAN (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • If 2015 is the first known publication, that's where the copyright clock starts. The burden is on you to prove that it was A.) published before 1994 (really March 1989) AND B.) without a copyright notice. We should not assume that these were published without a copyright notice. Abzeronow (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

video2commons isn't working for me sadly, can someone help me get this on commons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfftsDy9nIc Victorgrigas (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Victorgrigas: I had it pending, for upload as File:India's Economic Blueprint - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2025.webm, then I got "An exception occurred: PermissionError: [Errno 13] Permission denied"; I will retry.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply