Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/05

Movie player

Please remind me where to find the tool that acts as a steaming-service like interface for the movies we have on Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: https://wikiflix.toolforge.org Belbury (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikiflix: https://wikiflix.toolforge.org/#/

I requested it to be synced with Category:Videos of films by year and since that cat now contains most films in Commons and is largely included (last time I checked at least) in wikiflix, it should also show most films on Commons. An alternative is WikidataGalleries/WikiFlix/Documentary films. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I made {{WikiFlix}} to link to it translations welcome. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:43, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

My image

My image File:DoveKHepburn.jpg of me I uploaded for my own Wikipedia sandbox. I do not give consent for its deletion on Wikimedia Commons as it's my own work. --DoveTheEditor (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoveTheEditor: Hi, and welcome. You want to keep it, then? Your language is confusing. Who snapped the photo? How did you acquire the copyright, since you wrote that it is your own work? You may need to use the Monty Python quote "I'm not dead yet". See also COM:HR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged the enwiki sandbox for speedy deletion there as a blatant hoax. (It claimed, among other things, that she died last year and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.) Omphalographer (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax all around, and a pretty transparent one at that. This may be a reason to block the account. - Jmabel ! talk 17:03, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted all files as abuse of COM:WEBHOST, and sent 2 warnings. Yann (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

It's just making this place toxic. Aren't editors meant to be polite and not arrogant? --DoveTheEditor (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@DoveTheEditor: Please read Commons policies, starting with COM:SCOPE and COM:L, and stop talking nonsense. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Unmerge files / Undo overwrite

Could someone please unmerge the two photos in the history of File:Мост через Элистинку.jpg (translation of file name: "Bridge across the Elistinka [River]")? Not sure why one photo was overwritten with a different one.
The resulting two files can be named File:Мост через Элистинку 2013.jpg (if that's the year in which the original was taken) and File:Мост через Элистинку 2015.jpg. Nakonana (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nakonana: The first thing to do is a revert (done), then downloading the second version and re-uploading with a new file name, using the diff as licensing evidence. As I'm currently using my tablet, I can't do that. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the instructions. I've uploaded the other file under a different name (got the year wrong, it's 2016, not 2015). Nakonana (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please help clean up Category:Art

There are currently 3,416 files on Commons which are categorized generically as "art". This is a lot - particularly given that the Art category is a disambiguation and should be empty!

Please help us make this number smaller by:

• Removing the category from files which already have more appropriate categories.
• Diffusing files to more specific categories, e.g. to categories for the artist, or for the subject matter of the work.
• Nominating files for deletion which are unlikely to be of educational use. There is a lot of personal artwork in this category which can probably be speedily deleted as F10.

Omphalographer (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Google Lens and TinEye does not function anymore

Lately, I have been having trouble with Google Lens and TinEye checking for copyright issues with images. For example, with File:MISS MONDE.jpg "Something went wrong. No image at the URL. Try again with a different URL or image" in Google Lens, and "TinEye could not read that image url. This may be due to an unsupported file format". What could be the cause? I use Firefox 140.10 on Mac. Wouter (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The page you linked isn't an image. If you click on the image itself tin eye copes with it. [1] Secretlondon (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You can also go into Preference > Gadgets, and enable the "Reverse Image Search" tool, which will place automatic search links to common sites in tabs above the image (different skins may have them in other locations). — Huntster (t @ c) 20:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: Are these lookups using only the thumbnail steps listed on https://w.wiki/GHai, as they are now supposed to? See also MediaWiki talk:Gadget-GoogleImagesTineye.js#Reverse Image Search - Google and TinEye failing to retrieve source images from Commons.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Errrr the WMF messed up thumbnail URLs and inadvertently broke our gadget. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: It seems that they settled on only using certain sizes for performance reasons, and our gadget doesn't use any of them. Our gadget needs to be fixed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Our gadget does need to be fixed but sizes are not the problem. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 20:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Surprise. It's working again now. Wouter (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: yes, my edit request that fixes it has been implemented. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Wouter (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have the same problem since several weeks already. --Túrelio (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

@Túrelio: you shouldn't, it was fixed 3 hours before you said that. Did you clear your browser cache? - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 13:15, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Unexpected category related to my own uploads

I just ran across Category:Uploaded by user Jmabel, which has apparently existed for a decade and of which I was never informed. It contains 653 files, which appear to be some arbitrary subset of my probably 3000 to 6000 Flickr uploads (many of which are my own work first uploaded to Flickr, many of which are from Seattle Municipal Archives Flickr stream, and probably 100-200 of which are from other sources). I never asked for this category, I never was informed of this category, and the only users to edit it appear to be a a bot that has not edited in years, a user who has not edited in years, and a blocked user I have some vague memories of interacting with, but not about this. Can anyone tell me what is going on here and whether this is useful to anyone? (I have some other questions, but they'd depend on the answers to those.) - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, I found discussions related to this in the bot's request page and a Village Pump thread from 2015. Basically, per the closing comment of the Village Pump thread, this user category was created to "delete uploader information from the source field" and the uploader information is "converted to an uploader category". Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the above info solves this. Probably, it would be fine if the user that the user-cat is about empties the cat using cat-a-lot and then has it deleted. If in doubt, one could create a CfD for it. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I see. So someone unilaterally decided that for bot-uploaded files that were uploaded at the request of a particular user, the only connection between that user and the file would be a maintenance category that they didn't name clearly (nothing related to the bot-upload aspect) or explain in a hat-note on the category, nor did they explain this to the users in question, nor get their consent to remove the explicit mentions that were previously there. Brilliant.

I guess I will leave it, or maybe rename it to something that says what it is. Not pleased. - Jmabel ! talk 17:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Featured galleries?

I see that the page Commons:Featured galleries proposed featured galleries nearly 20 years ago. It seems like it just slipped through the cracks and never got made? I for one would love to see this become an actual feature. I have been working on improving a lot of galleries and great galleries are few and far between — I think they ought to be recognised. Plus it would be very helpful to have community consensus on what makes for a top-notch gallery.

I think more focus needs to be placed on galleries, since they are the main namespace, and the most accessible part of Commons for casual users. LetmeEditit (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

@LetmeEditit: you may be a mile ahead of me here, but if you wanted to propose guidelines for featured galleries, you might extrapolate from Commons:Galleries, including from some of the examples there of good galleries. Also, if you think there are better examples, that would be helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll start putting some guidelines together now; when I'm done I'll put them up on Commons talk:Featured galleries. In fact, there's some old discussion on that page that may be useful.

I think the guidelines should be pretty open-ended, considering a lot can be done with galleries, so I think being too rigid would restrict creativity. I think something similar to the featured picture guidelines might be good — some sort of a vote based off personal preferences. Do you have any ideas of your own? LetmeEditit (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I just put together some basic guidelines: see Commons talk:Featured galleries#Guidelines proposal LetmeEditit (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Net sheds

Net sheds at Fishermen's Terminal, Seattle

Category:Net sheds is redirected to Category:Fishing huts, but that seems absurd for something like these industrial-scale net sheds at Fishermen's Terminal on the south side of Salmon Bay in Seattle. I would imagine other major fishing fleets have something similar, though if we have photos of them I have no guess how someone chose to categorize them. - Jmabel ! talk 04:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Introducing WISE: Semantic search for Commons (we’d love your feedback)

Hello everyone,

We would love to get your feedback on a tool we have been working on: https://wise.wmcloud.org/

This is a search tool for images and videos on wikimedia. Currently is searching only on media of the day (approximately 5000 videos). It searches only the visual content of the file (not on metadata, filename, or structured data). It also does face detection and recognition.

Please give it a go. Here's some taste example queries:

• for visual queries (select "Visual" on the dropdown menu next to the search box)
  • "man at a train station"
  • "एक व्यक्ति रेलवे स्टेशन पर" # this is "man at a train station" in Hindi (this tool handles multiple languages, so try on your language)
  • "horse in an airplane" # the first result is correct but it's a ogv file
  • విమానంలో గుర్రం # this is "a horse in aeroplane" in Telugu (again, try it on your own language)
  • man with a flower
  • pirate with a pistol

• for face search (select "Faces" on the dropdown menu next to the search box. Then click on the "Image" green button, and past the URL for an image)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Charlie_Chaplin.jpg (a photo with charlie chaplin face)
  • https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Neil_Armstrong_pose.jpg (a photo with neil armstrong face)

[warning: some videos are ogv videos and your brownser may not play them, so watch them on Commons, i.e., after clicking the search result, scroll down to the media metadata table, and follow the link to commons]

Key features include:

• Semantic search using natural language to find relevant images on Commons from the visual content only (not the structured data or description, only the image itself)
• Face search: upload or paste a face image, and the tool will try to identify and locate that person across images and videos, including timestamps where they appear
• Audio search: search within audio files to find relevant segments
• Multilingual search: supports queries in multiple languages

We are actively improving the tool and would really appreciate any feedback, suggestions, or ideas from the community. Here's some more immediate future plans:

• Search on all wikimedia images (instead of only videos / media of the day)
• Show similar images when uploading an image to suggest filenames, categories, and other relevant metadata

More technical details and a place to share feedback at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wise

Gopavasanth (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

@Gopavasanth: aren't there privacy issues around doing a face search? I would think that if applied to (for example) crowd photos at political demonstrations, the results could be pretty terrifying. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 Agree with Jmabel --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Face search without identifying person, there is person in photo, there are some persons in photo, there is lot of persons in the photo or generic there is males/females/childrens/adults/eldery people in the photo could be more useful and most likely more robust than trying to identify a specific person. --Zache (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 to Jmabel. I would strongly oppose any tool that integrated facial recognition into search capacity. 19h00s (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if you are concerned about political repression, the police almost certainly have much better tools then this running on publicly available images on the internet. Bawolff (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

We can not prevent this and anyone should be aware of this when publishing photos. But we should not host such a tool, that also clearly would violate EU regulation, on the Wikimedia infrastructure. GPSLeo (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

This is cool and all, but I'm not sure its very useful unless it covers all the images (or at least a much larger subset). At the same time, it seems unclear there is a path forward to actually doing that. Bawolff (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Great initiative and a very compelling use of embeddings. I was wondering if you've got any ideas as to how to benchmark the retrieval quality when the corpus grows? Awinkler3 (talk) 07:57, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

It's exciting to see projects that make it easier to discover the great contents from Wikimedia projects.

I wanted to introduce a recent initiative that may be relevant for projects like Wise that are based on Wikimedia content. The Wikimedia Attribution Framework has recently been launched, and we are looking for early adopters to learn from their experience.

The Wikimedia Attribution Framework sets guidelines on how to provide sustainable attribution when reusing Wikimedia content. It is in an early beta stage, and we want to learn from those trying to apply the guidelines provided. We'll be adding more details to the project page, but feel free to share any thoughts on the talk page.

I hope this could be a useful resource to make the Wise project even better.

Thanks! --Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:34, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Note also that the Attribution API is also available to facilitate the application of the guidelines provided in the Attribution Framework. For the case of WISE, it can be particularly useful to show license info for images.

--Pginer-WMF (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for developing this! I wonder if categories set on items could be used as clues as to the content of the files to improve performance and also whether this tool could be used to basically suggest categories that are missing (eg major content of video but no related set cat found). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Issues with FileImporter

See mw:Help talk:Extension:FileImporter#Failure to automatically add on local image page for the information and context. Regards, JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 09:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thank you for the alert. Use on enwiki should be {{Now Commons}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Images and categorization

Should images in Category:San Polo (Venice) need more precise categorization (I can do this) or is enough current categorization? --Green Wave (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

See the subcategories of that category. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

If you know of more precise categories for the images (and considering the available subcategories, this is quite likely), please do. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest to check out other comparable communes (like Rome or Milan?) and copy elements of the category structures there, to reach the level of precision you intend.

Some words of caution: Categories are intended to group similar things together, but in doing so, they may create uninteded divisions in other aspects. This file could be placed in a category for the specific church, but would then also need to be put into "Sculptures in San Polo" (or "...in Venice") and maybe "San Polo in the 2020s". If you create new and super-specialized categories, or chose names that deviate from regular category names, you should be able to explain your ideas in a debate. --Enyavar (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

New footage from Cleopatra (1917 film)

A couple years ago someone discovered 40 seconds of film from the famous lost 1917 film, Cleopatra, starring Theda Bara. This film is sometimes cited as the most expensive lost film of all time. Surprisingly, no one has uploaded this clip to Commons. The new footage can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwPZuyF2Th0. However, someone will need to remove the new audio track and the introduction. Unfortunately, the uploader decided to put a watermark on the footage, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that. It doesn't affect its public domain status regardless. Nosferattus (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Template:Incorrect Exif date

1. 1. Template:Incorrect Exif date was created as redirect to Template:Invalid Exif date by User:ŠJů, but User:Sarang made it a template. it's now a bit different https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=Template%3AInvalid+Exif+date&page2=Template%3AIncorrect+Exif+date . no idea why Sarang did that.
   2. i think the difference can be summarised as Template:Incorrect Exif date introduced parameter 1, but there are only 7 usage of it using any parameter https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3AIncorrect_Exif_date+insource%3A%2Ff+date%5Cs*%5C%7C%2F . i also dont understand the meanings of the introduced parameters.
   3. therefore, can it be redirected again?
2. i have some photos that have the correct date but wrong time. technically the current phrasing of Template:Invalid Exif date "Date and/or time...are incorrect" is not applicable to my files. is there another template for right date wrong time? or should this template be modified?
3. also i think there can be better documentation of best practice when exif contains errors. how do we correct the errors, identify them and label them as such? i found this template in a complicated way: typing template:exif in search bar -> Template:According to Exif data -> Category:Time, date and calendar templates, scroll down until i see -> Template:Invalid Exif date.

RoyZuo (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Redirect {{Incorrect Exif date}} per above, functionally I don't see any substantial difference between the 2 templates. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

 Comment why does Template:Invalid Exif date say "There are two possible ways to use this template" and then list only one? - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see in the documentation, the supposedly second way has been struck and commented out. The text of the second way states, "Give the time difference of Exif as a parameter. The template displays the corrected date (localized by {{ISOdate}}) and renders the words "according to Exif metadata (corrected)" in the language specified in the user's preferences. (not available yet)".

As this method is "not available yet", actually only one method is possible, so I have edited the documentation to remove the confusing text. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

1. that offers a clue. Sarang might have planned to introduce the "time difference" parameter.

   i think, calculating the difference and then letting the template add that to exif time, is not a practical solution to correct the error.

2. i'm gonna change the wording to "Date, time, or both...are incorrect" so the template also works for right date wrong time.

RoyZuo (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Family tree date

Why does the tree at Category:Carl Suno Henrik Engström show "Category" in front of the name? --RAN (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) if you mean "Sune Engström", I added name at the corresponding Wikidata:Q131620023 page. Now the tree doesn't show "Category:" in front of the name. Deltaspace42 (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks! Weird thing to happen. --RAN (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Farm Security Administration images?

I want to use https://www.loc.gov/item/2017752286/ and https://www.loc.gov/item/2017719180/ in en:Big Duck. Both images are part of the LOC Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and-White Negatives collection which as far as I can tell means they are Public Domain. What's the right license tags to use?

PS: uploaded here and here RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov-FSA}}. You can also add {{LOC-image}} for the |source= field. ~TheImaCow (talk) 16:30, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@RoySmith, you may find this tool of mine helpful in filling out file descriptions. JayCubby (talk) 19:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Request from a Russian

Moved from Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin

Требую по-русски объяснить, по какой причине были удалены сделанные мною фотографии объектов и архивных документов. Я, Максим Догадин, русский, гражданин России, нахожусь на территории России и общаюсь на русском языке. Maximdogadin (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Там разные причины удаления от разных файлов, главные состоят в том, что есть сомнения, что Вы являетесь правообладателем на те фотографии, которые загружали, а некоторые файлы нам просто не подходят. Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I demand an explanation in Russian as to why the photographs of objects and archival documents that I took were deleted. I, Maksim Dogadin, am Russian, a citizen of Russia, I am on the territory of Russia and communicate in Russian.

translator: Bing - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is about Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Maximdogadin and I am unable to comply. - Alexis Jazz ^{ping plz} 00:54, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, various files were deleted for various reasons. It would be good if a Russian-speaker would take this on, but it's probably not going to be one single answer. - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@1234qwer1234qwer4, Ahonc, Андрей Романенко, Butko, EugeneZelenko, George Chernilevsky, Kaganer, Well-Informed Optimist, and Ymblanter: can someone help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Maximdogadin: Там было 6 номинаций, о какой конкретно вы справшиваете? Там разные причины, нужно смотреть конкретные фото.--Anatolii 🇺🇦 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• Как я вижу, всё что угодно было загружено как собственные работы, тогда как в действительности это по большей части файлы, взятые откуда=то из Интернета. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
• Здравствуйте. Под собственной работой сюда можно грузить только то что сами сфотографировали. Чтобы не было сомнений в вашем авторстве, загрузите фото в оригинальном размере и с метаданными. Но файл может быть производной работой от другого произведения, например памятник, мурал или документ. Тогда нужно изучить правила COM:DW и COM:FOP. Даже если файл находится в общественном достоянии, нельзя писать "собственная работа" как вы сделали тут, пусть даже вы сканировали сами. По возможности, автора нужно указать. Дату сканирования нужно заменить на дату создания работы, как например, здесь. Чужие работы допускается грузить только если есть явное согласие автора на одну из разрешенных лицензий. Юрий Д.К. 11:05, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion requests and reasonable expectations from nominator

Looking at the recent courtesy DRs i noticed that in almost every case the nominator insists that us hosting the photo is violating their legal rights and privacy yet they never seem to provide any reasoning for that accusation or even what caused them to make the accusation at all.

I know we are just deleting them out of courtesy but i still feel like we should expect something more substantial than "This photo is illegal because i say so!" reasoning that seems to plague these kind of DRs

Where do we draw the line when it comes to expectations from the nominator? Is there just simply not one? Trade (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Probably en:General Data Protection Regulation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I know "GDPR" have gotten it's share of criticism but the whole "no one is allowed to show me face on the internet" doesn't seem entirely accurate to the actual legislation Trade (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's hard to directly "draw a line" there or make any strict rules about it; it always depends case-by-case. I personally think that we can be quite lenient towards granting such requests, especially if the images in question are unused and/or low quality and/or easily replaceable .
A common misconception in "Keep" arguments in such discussions seems to be "we won't delete it, because CC licences are non-revocable"; while that is true, it dosen't mean we can't delete the image - deleting the image won't affect it's licence, we're simply no longer distributing it under the licence. Other people can still continue using the image under the terms of that licence, even if it's no longer hosted here. ~TheImaCow (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

But surely we should be allowed to expect a reason at all, no? And what if the claims made by the nominator doesn't stand up to scrutiny? Like the constant insistence that they never gave any permission for us to use their photo when they are the author and we can clearly see that they did indeed uploaded the photo under a free license Trade (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

So which expectations would you be willing to agree on? Trade (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Examples please. Privacy boundaries within public places or events, like a parade or carnival, might be within a grey area. George Ho (talk) 02:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: Going through my contributions for the past year:

• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gio Porta.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a selfie for privacy and as uploader and as oos in Italian. Italy presumed to be country of complaint. I !voted to delete. Ongoing.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Johannes Pinna trägt Gummihandschuhe, schutzkittel, Haube und mundschutz draußen.jpg, a TA asked for removal of a photo for privacy reason in German. Germany or Austria presumed to be country of complaint. The uploader had been blocked for reasons including not respecting privacy rights. I !voted to delete. Deleted by DerHexer.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Image of yuvadeepthi Smym Mammood.png, the uploader requested deletion for privacy as a part of being renamed away from a spammy username per enwiki. I fixed the subpage after an errant tag, but I didn't !vote before Herbythyme deleted. Malaysia presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lisa Ullyna Tarigan dan Antoni Albalat di Jakarta.jpg, a TA claiming to be a notable poet's ex-wife asked for deletion of a two-shot including her and the poet for privacy reasons. We have a crop of just the poet, which relies on the two-shot for provenance. I asked about keeping that crop. Indonesia or Catalonia (Spain) presumed to be country of complaint. Ongoing.
• In User talk:Boyprostido, the user never managed to create the subpage, despite tagging their user talk page in an L2 header citing "Personal information, incorrect identity, and privacy concerns". See my discussions with that user on that page, where they basically admitted to sockpuppetry over an extended period of time, revealing usernames that had promoted their music and music empire while explaining their motives. Nigeria presumed to be country of complaint. See en:special:diff/1315969765 for background.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:三上功太.jpg, the pictured uploader requested deletion for personal privacy reasons. I !voted weak delete. The Squirrel Conspiracy deleted for F10, despite half a dozen live edits in mainspace on jawiki. Japan presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg, the uploader subject did not "want it to be publicly visible anymore". I interpreted that to be for privacy and !voted to delete. Deleted by ChemSim. Lesotho presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:YQgNKUvs.jpg, the "model changed her mind", presumably for her privacy. I !voted to delete and IronGargoyle deleted. Nearly a year later, the uploader was indeffed as a VOA. No country presumed to be country of complaint.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Каганець (сувенір з Ізраїлю).jpg, the uploader cited only "Автор бажає" (The author wishes) as a reason in Special:Diff/1175675319, got blocked, and got lambasted in User talk:Петро Родим'юк#Your account has been blocked for a litany of offences, including trying to withdraw their irrevocable license. I did not !vote. Yann kept and blocked. Ukraine presumed to be country of complaint, although the object was found in Israel.
• In Commons talk:Abuse filter/Archive 2025/10#Report by Morvran teardrop, the user wished "to remove all information relating to it from Wikipedia for copyright reasons and to allow my projects to evolve" per Google Translate. I explained that they had irrevocably licensed (among other things) and they did not respond. France presumed to be country of complaint.
• I have noted in the past that CC licenses are irrevocable.
• In Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sheldon Country Park Map.png, I wrote that "the release was irrevocable", but didn't consider permission from the mapmaker. Infrogmation deleted. UK presumed to be country of complaint.
• See also Category:Privacy-related deletion requests and children and note that none of the subpages specified above were in any of those categories.

  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:26, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I dunno which ones were taken at a public setting. Nonetheless, re- reading the OP, this is about self-portraits, right? George Ho (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we do and we should always delete selfies on request. But of course the request needs to come from the uploader. All other requests need to go through a VRT process, as we can not check the identity of the nominator. GPSLeo (talk) 06:41, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This is meant to be about courtesy nominations in general and what is and isn't acceptable behavior from the nominator Trade (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese. Subjects nominating photos of themselves for deletion are more often than not unaware of Commons policies and relevant laws. What matters more is that the subject does not want the photo up, and we should balance that request against the needs and scope of our projects. Was the subject aware they're being photographed? Is the photo bad or the subject being portrayed in an embarrassing situation (e.g. mid-yawn)? Is the subject notable on Wikipedia or Wikidata? Do we already have other images that can serve the same purpose? Does the photographer/uploader agree with the removal? Could broader consequences come from keeping the photo up (e.g. the photographer getting in trouble with a venue or event)? Those are the kinds of questions I think we should be thinking about with these requests, regardless of the exact justification a nominator gives. ~Kevin Payravi (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But should they even be required to give any justification in the first place? It's hard for me to take a stance on courtesy DRs when we are essentially barely given any context or anything to work withTrade (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: It is very helpful if they mention something about privacy at the outset, rather than starting with empty "reason=" or "reason=reason". I patrol incomplete deletion requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:51, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

[Tha]t is helpful but should providing a reason be a requirement? [A]nd the ones that simply consist of "Remove or "I don't want this here anymore"? Trade (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: reason is required by {{Delete}}. If there is no valid reason, I look for a reason to delete anyway; that's how I find some copyvios (and tag them accordingly). With no imputable reason, I revert as incomplete. I warn as and when necessary.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So you are telling me if the person who wants the file deleted haven't provided any reason we should add the DR to Category:Incomplete deletion requests? Trade (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: If they don't provide a reason parameter (or provide an empty one) in the delete tag, the tagged page will be automatically categorized there; the subpage will not.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

"In cases where someone claims their legal or privacy rights are being violated when they technically are not, I don't think we should get too hung up on the legalese" There is a very high chance that these claims ends up running afoul of COM:NLT though Trade (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade: Legal threats usually include some kind of justification, or indicate what law is being allegedly broken.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

This one occurred at a somewhat restrictive public place, right?: File:Gosimang Mogopodi at Qibing Public Library - Apr 2025.jpg. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I also have another example, Commons:Deletion requests/File:50caliberFA.jpg - not a selfie. As far as I can determine from all our rules, we should keep this one despite the uploader's threat of now legally re-claiming the copyright they waived 19 years ago. --Enyavar (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Enyavar: I !voted to keep that one. COM:NLT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:09, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are we assuming that TAs are who they say they are, apparently without further checks? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Checkusers are not allowed to check for us. Krd seems not to want VRT agents checking for us.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:03, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That's what VRT so for. I don't know why one person's view is a blockage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:06, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Purview creep, as VRT is supposed to be about media licenses.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's not what either COM:VRT or meta:VRTS say. Both have words to the affect: "[VRT] handle queries, complaints, and comments from the public by email".

The meta page discusses licensing, then continues, "There are many other queues in use within our VRTS implementation. They range in purpose but share one core purpose: to assist in facilitating communication amongst Wikimedia users, readers, customers and anybody else who has something to say!" with the Commons page saying "The main use of VRTS in relation to Commons is to verify and archive licensing permissions.". "Main use" clearly signifies "not the only use". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember that some (self-claimed) owners of houses demanded deletion of pictures of their buildings in Germany. The images showed cultural heritage monuments and were mostly (probably even all) taken from public ground, without revealing sensitive information like names. They were kept usually, as the "Recht am Bild der eigenen Sache" does not exist in Germany. Many people with no are almost no legal background expect that they can decide who is allowed to take pictures of their property, but this is not true in that absolute case --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember a case where a person from a political discussion panel requested a deletion. This was valid in my mind, as the focus was on this person, and politics can be controversal. In Germany may other legal elements apply than in the US --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

So let's consider this one I closed a few hours ago. I might even have supported a polite request for a courtesy deletion (not a very good photo, but in use, we'd have needed to find a substitute), but the user was making legal threats. As I said in my closing remarks, "[I] certainly see no reason to grant a courtesy deletion in the face of what looks to me like a poorly grounded legal threat." (That was probably the least polite thing I said in a paragraph of closing remarks.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:30, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As for Commons:Courtesy deletions i am not really a huge fan of "Please give more detail than "I don't want this here anymore"." It makes it sound like something optional rather than a requirement users are being expected to follow--Trade (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Arbitrary sorting with numbers for categories

RFC here -> Commons_talk:Categories#Sorting_by_arbitrary_number. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: That's not an RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: why not? I was requesting for comments :-\ --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:30, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: It didn't request comments, or any input. It didn't call itself an RFC. Meta has a place and process for RFCs at m:RFC; ours is at COM:RFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: well, I thought it was obvious that I am asking people what they think, if they agree with what I am saying or not :-) maybe it does not necessarily need to be in COM:RFC, otherwise the talk pages may lose part of their usefulness. It was a matter of categories, so I discussed in the talk of the pages about categories. But I see what you say, in the future I will double check where to start a discussion, thanks. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 19:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Superchilum: Thanks.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Move userpage

I would like to have my userpage deleted so that my MetaWiki page shows up in all the projects. At the same time, I would be happy if it could be kept (with all the history) as a subpage (like User:Oudeís/Archive). Unlike Wikipedia, Commons does not allow me to move the page with Special:MovePage. Is there anything I can do about it? Are subpages allowed at Commons in the first place? Oudeís·talk 18:45, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: Hi, and welcome. I moved it for you, as allowed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's great, thank you for the speedy help! Oudeís·talk 19:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Oudeís: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Property owners' privacy matters

Context: Commons:Deletion requests/Brazilian church interior and privacy request (formerly as a subheading under Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Other speedy deletions).

Other relevant resources

Commons:Non-copyright restrictions#"House rules"

Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Museum and interior photography

Possibly, Commons:Paying public domain (especially if the landmarks are cultural heritage works whose architects or sculptors have died many many years ago)

Should Wikimedia Commons have a separate page discussing privacy rules and/or "house rules" of property owners, especially those related to indoors of establishments that are already in the public domain? Or should someone expand the relevant section at "COM:Non-copyright restrictions" instead?

Note that I started the discussion here, as it is not about prohibitions imposed by painters, sculptors, architects, or the copyright laws. It is about restrictions imposed by property owners or property managers of various places or establishments, many of which that are in the public domain because their designers have died for more than 50/70/100 years.

Pinging all participants of the Brazilian church deletion request: @GPSLeo, Sturm, Albertoleoncio, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Sintegrity, Ikan Kekek, and Mdaniels5757: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Do note that COM:CRSM might no longer be true. COM:CRSM claims Wikimedia Commons has no obligation to honor privacy rules: "Photographs taken by yourself in a museum or the interior of a building/monument are deemed acceptable here, provided they do not show copyrighted works. If the museum's house rules forbid photography, a breach of that rule is an issue between the photographer and the museum, but does not affect the copyright status of an image. If the museum's house rules were a valid contract, it would bind only the parties of the contract: the photographer and the museum. Wikimedia Commons and all other third parties are not subject to such a contract." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 13:04, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not mix house rules and or breaking of some kind of (informal) NDA with privacy problems. They often overlap but are something totally different. This example is not about personal information of a real person. We can discuss, when we should delete files based on house rules or non disclosure agreements, but we should not discuss this under the label "privacy". GPSLeo (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, I looked at the Brazilian church deletion request thread, and what I would say in regard to it is: If you are given a tour of a building under the condition that you won't post photos online and agree to that condition, don't post photos online. Had they been COM:INUSE, the issue would have been more complicated, but since they were not, it was easy to treat the deletion request as a courtesy to the church. I doubt that we should create a broader policy than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this particular case was precisely a privacy issue, even if the privacy was that of an institution (the church) rather than an individual. This is very different than (for example) a museum that wishes to prevent photographs of its non-copyrighted artworks so that it can better exploit them economically. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

This is information that they want to be treated confidentially for religious or security reasons. For me the term privacy only applies to information about identifiable individuals, but never institutions. GPSLeo (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Wait until $cientology makes such a request.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Here, I would apply the notion of privacy even though this does not involve a natural person. The purpose of privacy protections is often connected to security: publishing certain information can make someone more vulnerable to malicious actors. Highly visible people that already live with limited privacy usually also have the resources and infrastructure needed to manage those risks.

Thinking from this perspective, a world-famous church such as Notre-Dame has extensive visibility and security infrastructure to match. On the other hand, a historically valuable church located in a remote area and with limited resources may become significantly more vulnerable if sensitive interior details are widely shared online. In that sense, even if "privacy" is traditionally associated with individuals, I think it is reasonable to recognize that certain institutions may also have legitimate concerns that Commons should take into consideration. ━ Albertoleoncio Who, me? 11:44, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons content descriptor is now a thing!

Now we just need a way to implent it @Bawolff: --Trade (talk) 01:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Soon users will now be able to blurry things they dont wanna see when using Commons in public @Some1, GPSLeo, Pi.1415926535, Omphalographer, Jeff G., Abzeronow, Prototyperspective, JudeHalley, Snævar, Jmabel, Bawolff, Cyberwolf, ReneeWrites, Modern primat, Ladsgroup, and RoyZuo: --Trade (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• For unregistered users, it might be wise to implement this by default for Special:MediaSearch. JayCubby (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  Could you take that to Commons:Village pump/Proposals please (once Bawolff is done with adapting user:Putnik's existing gadget)? Default implementation of blurring was at no part of the property proposal discussion and i dont wish to give the appearance that Commons have already agreed to it Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

  @JayCubby: --Trade (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

wikidata:Q138829106 is already completely clogged with false positives (maps about anti-homosexuality laws). I also started a thread on Wikidats about the fundamentally flawed nature of Wikidata:Q138829111 Dronebogus (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Secretlondon is right. The use of the property is not Wikidata's issue to deal with Trade (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trade You added the same value for real photos of people and for illustrations. If both of these files are marked in the same way, we can not filter as we wanted to. GPSLeo (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I never said anything about the items being limited to photos or illustrations during the property proposal? Not sure where you got that from Trade (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The idea of this tool was to allow people to filter specific content. If two content types with different filter demands have the same tag, we can not separate these two types anymore. GPSLeo (talk) 06:00, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I suggest the rule that if an image has it classification changed 3 times in a year it foreever loses the ability to have a classification attached to it ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

can you please put here the discussion about this? so, people will see how we talked about this. modern_primat ^{ඞඞඞ ----TALK} 22:44, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@TheDJ: that rule would absolutely welcome being gamed by bad actors. - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Placeholder Images

Hi, This looked to have been fixed but there is still the same issue on some images. See here for archived discussion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2026/03#Placeholder_images

Original issue: On some image pages this placeholder image : https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/resources/assets/file-type-icons/fileicon-ogg.png is being incorrectly inserted into the html under the "use this file" link. example here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ravenscar_-_geograph.org.uk_-_401270.jpg Ndurgom (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bawolff @Krinkle Ndurgom (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Won't do much good to do "@" without links. Pinging @Bawolff, Krinkle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Better detecting bots and replacing our CAPTCHA

Hello from the Product Safety and Integrity team! After a successful trial of hCaptcha for bot detection on English, French, Japanese, and four other Wikipedias, we will be rolling out hCaptcha to all projects over the course of the next few weeks.

Specifically, this will include using hCaptcha for account creation, and for edits by newer users. This replaces the use of the traditional "type in the word" CAPTCHA that is currently required of many users for these flows. hCaptcha is set up to only challenge likely-suspicious activity, so very few humans will be interrupted at all. In our trial, we estimate that only about ~2% of human users were actually challenged.

For background - as part of our focus on securing the wikis and detecting bad-faith activity, we are building stronger protections against bots carrying out activities that are generally intended for humans, such as creating accounts and editing. As the web has evolved and computers have gotten smarter, our old CAPTCHA has become both challenging for humans and easy for computers.

We recognized this and began with a trial of hCaptcha, third-party bot detection service, to replace our old CAPTCHA. Since then, eight Wikipedias, including English, French, and Japanese, have been using hCaptcha to protect account creation and certain kinds of edits. hCaptcha is a company that specializes in bot detection, with experience protecting very large online websites while prioritizing user privacy in its design. We have implemented technical safeguards to reduce the sensitivity of the information we send to hCaptcha.

It also gives us "likely bot" signals for account creation and covered edits, regardless of whether the session was challenged. Those signals inform what we show CheckUsers and stewards, who use them to find and remove bad-faith activity that was likely done by bots and which may not have been found any other way.

You can read more about this project at our recently updated project page. We welcome comments here or at that project's talk page. Subscribe to the Wikimedia Foundation Bulletin to follow the most important news from the Foundation. Thanks! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF) We have one filter that uses a captcha to limit spam that was typically done manually in the web browser. I would assume that in such cases the new captcha does not work anymore to limit this type of spam. GPSLeo (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@GPSLeo The AbuseFilter showcaptcha consequence will continue to function as intended, with an "always challenge" mode being used when it is triggered. KHarlan (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Location around Copenhagen 2003

• 
• 

These station must be in Kopenhagen or close by.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist It appears to be Category:Ørestad Station. The building in the first photo matches with the building here: File:Ørestad station.jpg. Also, the footbridge in the background of the second image matches with the footbridge in the background of this image: File:Freight train at Ørestad Station.jpg.

• 
• 

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. With hindsight it was logical that when I took pictures of metroline 1 (File:Kopenhagen metro 2003 3.jpg), I ended up at the train station of Ørestad. I am stil hesitating between Litra ET and Littera X31 multiple units.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Ladies lounges

Ladies' lounge of the Liberty Theatre, Seattle, circa 1914

Do we have a category somewhere for the sort of room I would call a "ladies' lounge"? I can't find anything obvious under Category:Rooms by function. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you checked Category:Parlors? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Certainly similar, but distinct. These have largely fallen into abeyance, although some still exist, mainly in older buildings (mainly theaters, sometimes hotels or ballrooms). Women-only spaces, usually doubling as a passage from the public circulating space to the women's rest room in the sense now used. These were still pretty common in New York City when I was a child (1950s, early 1960s). There was rarely any equivalent for men, and if there was it was on a much smaller scale. I would think it deserves a category. - Jmabel ! talk 19:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Bot request

All the images in Category:Watercolor paintings in the Yale Center for British Art were uploaded a few years ago, with fairly low resolutions. It appears that Yale have now added much higher resolution versions, which could be added here. I've done 7 (see my 14 May uploads), but there's another 3,390 to check whether there's new large versions available. Can a bot be set to update them all? - MPF (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPF: You would have better luck asking at Commons:Bots/Work requests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:50, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@MPF: You're welcome, and good luck!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)