Commons:Village pump/Archive/2026/03

Are these AI generated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mass rename/edit request

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia linking back to Commons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikidata Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Launches to accompany racing crews

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

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

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

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

"Photographs by" categories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Μιλάς ελληνικά? Do you speak Greek?

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

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

What's the criteria for a new license template?

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

@HurricaneZeta:

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

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

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

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

Why Wikipedia Can't Explain Math

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

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

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

Questionable flags

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

A new Mapillary importer: Curator

Hi!

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

Photo challenge January 2026 results

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

Brutalist architecture: Entries • Votes • Scores

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

Peace: Entries • Votes • Scores

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

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

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

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

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

Flickr upload with Upload Wizard

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

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

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

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

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

2023-01_ai_image_of_man_01.png

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

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

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

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

Rotate Orthophotos / Aerial Photographs Facing South?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is overwrite controlled by abusefilter

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

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

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

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

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

People voices audios

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

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

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

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

GPS data

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

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

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

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

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

Sports statistic question

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

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

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

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

Change links on main page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smooth rocks/Boulders

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

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

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

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

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

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

Power's Scale of Roundness

Cailleux Roundness Index

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

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

JSTOR image

Hi !

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

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

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

Oh, thanks for checking. :(

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2]

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

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

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

Wrong meta data

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adding support to JPEG XL and HEIC files

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

questions about Game & Watch consoles

This image is a Quality image.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so much de minimis as ineligible for copyright.

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

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

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

Photographer logo

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

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

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

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

Commons:Upscaling

I started a draft guideline at Commons:Upscaling that could use input. To be clear this section is not a proposal to make this a guideline but an invitation for users to edit or provide feedback on a page I plan to eventually propose as a guideline. I started to detail procedures for how to describe/tag/categorize upscaled images, but that got me wondering: what are the valid use cases for upscaling on Commons? I'm having trouble thinking of them. In some cases, upscaling is actively harmful. In others, it's a simple task that we should really just leave to our reusers if they want to. The only thing I can think of is if a Wikimedia project wants to upscale an image for use in an article. So maybe INUSE is the only realistic exception? Thoughts? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of edits since posting this message (and thanks, Jmabel for getting the exceptions started). Still hoping for additional comments or edits, even if to say "looks good". Planning to wait about a week and then start the proposal process at VPP. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:14, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Bot request: replace old username in file descriptions

My username was renamed from Christo to Random photos 1989, then I've renamed back to Christo.

Many of my uploaded files still contain the old username in the description (for example in the Author field of the Information template).

Could a bot replace "Random photos 1989" with "Christo" on my files?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Christo&ilshowall=1

Thank you! Christo (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Would probably be good to move to Commons:Bots/Work requests. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Change Commons guidance

Hello. I've told to open a debate in the Village Pump by Jameslwoodward because apparently, Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_T#Taiwan says any photograph after 1951 is subject to the URAA.

This is not true: The Republic of China had its first copyright law in 1928 (Wikisource), with modifications in 1944 (minor change in 1949), 1964 and finally 1985. (I know there are more copyright laws later, but 1928-1985 is the relevant timeline.

As you can check in the wikisource links provided, the copyright lenght did not change between 1928 and 1965 reforms, being the most relevant of all the texts 1944 because it included for the first time movies. This is the articles and terms:

Art. 4 General Works (Individual Author) Life of the author + 30 years (for heirs)

Art. 5 Joint Works (Multiple Authors) Life of all authors + 30 years (after the death of the last surviving author)

Art. 6 Posthumous Works 30 years from the first date of publication

Art. 7 Corporate or Official Works 30 years from the first date of publication

Art. 9 Photographs and Sound Recordings 10 years

Art. 9 Film Works 10 years (must be legally registered)

Art. 10 Translations 20 years (Note: This did not prevent others from translating the same original work)

So, there was a deletion request for some pictures (photographs) made by a folk who lived in the Mainland during ROC times and then fleed to Taiwan, and those pictures were deleted, even if, obviously, somebody linving in the ROC (both Mainland and Taiwan) between 1947 and 1966 was under the current ROC copyright laws (all 1944, 1944 and 1964 recognised 10 years post publication lenghth) and had its copyright expired by the time the 1985 copyright law was implemented, and far before URAA applied in 2002.

And now it seems I need the whole Commons guidance for Taiwan (and probably China as a whole) to be changed: so it be.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

ping to ppl in the original discussion: @Lee Shiau-Shiuan: , @Taiwania Justo: , @Tvpuppy: and @Infrogmation: TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Just to clarify, by using for example Art. 7 and 30 years: does your statement mean that ROC government works up to 1954 would be considered public domain because they fell out of copyright before the laws changed in 1985? Or would that deadline rather be 1971, because the URAA date is 2002? Or does this work differently? Best, --Enyavar (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is:

If a work was PD by July 10, 1985 (when the Taiwanese Copyright law changes), then it's PD. Answering your question (what was PD by July 10, 1985?):

Works by people dead by 1954 (+30 years: 1st January 1985)

Corporate works made in 1954 or before (+30 years: 1st January 1985)

Photos and videos made in 1974 or before (+10 years: 1st January 1985)

Translations made in 1964 or before (+20 years: 1st January 1985, very rare to have in Commons)

Then, 1985 changed again to

General Works Life of the author + 50 years

Cinematic (and Photo) Works 30 years from completion

And 1992 changed Cinematic (and Photo) Works to 50 years after public release; remaining the General Works unchanged.

This means anything in PD according to 1985-1992 law by 2002 was already PD in Taiwan because of 1928-1966 laws (and anything made in the Mainland under ROC rule was also PD by then). For Commons effects, anything falling in PD because of 1985 or 1992 (or 2002) law is not eligible because URAA, until 2047, when post-1996 fall into PD (The movement should ignore URAA in order to improve out projects, but it's a different debate).

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

 Comment, regarding the DR you linked, it was not correct to say "some pictures (photographs) made by a folk who lived in the Mainland during ROC times and then fleed to Taiwan". Per my comment in the DR, the photographs depict that person, so clearly the person did not "make" the photos. It is unknown who has taken the photographs, so we can only assume for the photographs taken in mainland China, the works of the unknown author are subjected to PRC laws, while for the photographs taken in Taiwan, the works of the unknown author are subjected to ROC laws. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a topic for The Undeletion requewst itself, and I can't see the pics (Where were those made?), but if the man moved to Taiwan in 1949 (mny guess: post-1949 are pics of Taiwan), then the whole rationale works.

And still: PRC had no copyright law at all, PRC did not have a Constitution (so, abolish all of the ROC laws) until 1954, and works made by people without PRC passport at the time (two pics, if made in the Mainland) fall into the copyright laws of the country who gives citizenship to the photographer, not the laws of the place where the pics are made. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

When a new law extends the length of the copyright term, there are two possibilities:

1. The new term applies only to works that were under copyright on the effective date of the change, or
2. The new term applies to all works, including those whose copyrights under the old law had expired.

The second is less common, but the combination of the dates in the existing guidance looks like that might be the case in Taiwan. I don't read the language and I'd rather not trust Google translation with something as subtle as this, so I think we need a Chinese reader to look at that issue. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe there is no combination in the existing guide, someone did 2002-50 = 1952, and followed up with the 2002 (1992) laws regardles of previous possible considerations.

About the possibilities you name, it's the first option, according to article 50 of the 1990 text, which I'll quote in Chinese (you can Google translate to get an idea while waiting for a subtile native translation which I can't provide because I'm not a native speaker).

第五十條之一

　　著作已完成註冊於中華民國七十四年七月十日本法修正施行前，其著作權期間仍在存續中者，依本法所定期間計算其著作權期間。
　　完成於中華民國七十四年七月十日本法修正施行前未經註冊取得著作權之著作，其發行未滿二十年者，於中華民國七十四年七月十日本法修正施行後適用本法之規定。但侵害行為之賠償及處罰，須該行為發生於本法修正施行後，始適用本法。
　　中華民國七十四年七月十日本法修正增訂之著作，依中華民國七十四年七月十日本法修正所定期間，其著作權仍在存續中者，適用本法規定。但侵害行為之賠償及處罰，須該行為發生於本法增訂該著作後，始適用本法。

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm also not a lawyer, so below is just what I understood by reading the law:

• I think the explanation can be found in the article 106-1 of 1998 law (for English translation, see "article106bis" in page 57 of this PDF, the PDF was for later versions of the law, but article 106 is the same).
• From reading Article 106-1, I think it meant that for works completed before the WTO date (1 Jan 2002), if those works haven't obtain copyright under the previous versions of the law, and are still under the copyright terms of the current version of the law (e.g. death+50 years), the current law shall apply to those works (there are some exceptions for foreign works, but that's not the subject of discussion).
• Article 117 also states Article 106-1 shall take effect on the WTO date (1 Jan 2002)
• To me, this meant that most works created before 2002 shall be subjected to the current copyright terms, hence works that are not PD in 2002 will subject to URAA protection (with exceptions for some unpublished works, registered works and foreign works)

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

"著作完成於世界貿易組織協定在中華民國管轄區域內生效日之前，未依歷次本法規定取得著作權而依本法所定著作財產權期間計算仍在存續中者，除本章另有規定外，適用本法。"

Article 106 has two clauses on it (quoting the English version you linked):

"this Act shall apply to works that were completed prior to the date on which the World Trade Organization Agreement took effect in the territory under the jurisdiction of the Republic of China":

where such works did not enjoy copyright under the provisions of the respective versions of this Act (condition 1, the works had copyright and expired under previous versions of the act)

but

where the term of protection for economic rights has not expired in accordance with this Act; (condition 2)

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm using now AI to help me navigate this but:

• Intellectual Property Office (智慧財產局), Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan (ROC) 智著字第09300006140號:

二、按著作權法（下稱本法）於民國十七年制定迄今，歷經多次修正，對完成於中華民國八十一年六月十日本法修正施行前之著作，是否適用九十二年七月九日新修正之著作權法規定而受保護，應視其是否合於新修正著作權法第一百零六條第一項之規定，即「著作完成於中華民國八十一年六月十日本法修正施行前，且合於中華民國八十七年一月二十一日修正施行前本法第一百零六條至第一百零九條規定之一者，除本章另有規定外，適用本法。」三、依前揭規定，民國七十四年七月十一日以前完成註冊之著作，其著作保護期間若跨過七十四年七月十一日及八十一年六月十一日，且合於中華民國八十七年一月二十一日修正施行前本法第一百零六條至第一百零九條規定之一者，則受新修正著作權法保護；反之，於八十一年六月十一日以前屆滿者，則因著作財產權保護期間已過而成為公共財產，任何人自得自由利用。

Once again, not a lawyer, but it seems like the works those whose copyright protection period expired before June 11, 1992, shall become public property because the copyright economic rights protection period has expired, and anyone may freely use them. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, 智著字第0920008530-0號:

三、又所詢依據內政部公版電影發行日已超過五十年者，是否仍可繼續生產銷售一節，按著作如已屬公共所有，則不因此重新受著作權法保護，即無前述著作權法第一百零六條之二回溯保護之適用，申言之，並無前述說明€j之銷售時間限制。四、又視聽著作是否為公共所有，應視下列情形分別認定之：〈一〉該視聽著作公開發表或完成至今已逾五十年，為公共所有。〈二〉該視聽著作公開發表或完成至今未逾五十年，則應視該著作已否辦理著作權註冊，分別認定，如已辦理著作權註冊，且註冊後依當時之著作權法規定，其著作權保護期間，如已屆滿者，則為公共所有。如未辦理著作權註冊者，則可回溯受著作權法保護。五、以上說明，請參考著作權法第三十四條、第一百零六條之一、第一百零六條之二之規定。

This introduces a new nuance: 1944 ROC law (and following ups) did include a provision (apparently, only for films) in which in order to be protected they needed to be registered (simillar to US law). Apparently, the law is retroactive for those films failing to fulfill legal register. But only for those (because the need to register in order to have copyright was only for films under the 1944 version, not in the original 1928 law) and not retroactive for works already in PD according to the then valid law.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, this second TIPO documents seems to confirm what the "such works did not enjoy copyright under the provisions of the respective versions of this Act " in article 106 did mean: The law is retroactive but only for works not covered by the older versions of the copyright law (Movies not registered according to article 10 in 1944 law (　電影片得由著作人享有著作權十年。但以依法令准演者為限). Indeed it's not exactly a US-like copyright registry, it seems every film was protected... unless they were censored films. For works which are not movies, the law was fully authomatic, so it will change nothing on the restoration proposal of deleted photos.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• The first statement by TIPO is referring to registered works. Please note that prior to 1985, all works are required to be registered in order to have copyright protection, so not just for films.
• You can see this in Article 1 of any versions prior to 1985, which states "works that are registered according to this law shall have copyright". This register system was abolished with the 1985 law, and it was changed to the current system of "automatic copyright upon creation".
• The 1990 text clarified (in Article 50-1, as you quoted above) that the 1985 law will restore copyright for unregistered works published after 10 July 1965. These works subsequently have their copyright terms extended under Article 106 of the 1992 law.
• To me, the 1990 text also meant that unregistered works published before 1965, still have not "enjoyed copyright" under any versions of the law, until the Article 106-1 came in effect in 2002, and restore copyright to them.
• The fact the register system exist before 1985 is exactly the reason why I specified there are exceptions to registered works. It has a slightly different calculation for their copyright terms, hence it is more complicated (similar to the registered works in the U.S.)
• However, to my understanding, currently there isn't a digital system to check for past registration records in Taiwan (unlike the U.S. Copyright Public Records System), so not sure how people here in Commons can check if a particular work was registered or not.

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nuance. All works had to be registered
• Same
• Unregistered works [only those] had its copyright extended, as clarified in 智著字第09300006140號 and 智著字第0920008530-0號. Registered works with their original copyright term expired are considered PD.
• Your statement explicitally contradicts 智著字第09300006140號:

三、依前揭規定，民國七十四年七月十一日以前完成註冊之著作，其著作保護期間若跨過七十四年七月十一日及八十一年六月十一日，且合於中華民國八十七年一月二十一日修正施行前本法第一百零六條至第一百零九條規定之一者，則受新修正著作權法保護；反之，於八十一年'十一日以前屆滿者，則因著作財產權保護期間已過而成為公共財產，任何人自得自由利用。

• Yes, the system is complicated, but the current guidance and explanation is wrong. Works properly registered under 1928-1965 copyright law whose term expired before 1992 (indeed, before 1954/64/74) are PD. This should be explained, and those files should be in Commons.
• IDK if there is a registry, but we can assume, at least, for movies, that any film not censored by the government was indeed registered (same for magazines; otherwise, they would not be able to publish it in a military dictatorship with censorship such as Taiwan). For photographs, especially non-professional ones, it can be tricky.

TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Also, I found 智著字第89007299號:

按著作權法(以下稱本法)於民國十七年制定後，迄八十七年一月二十一日止歷經多次修正，對完成於中華民國八十一年六月十日本法修正施行前之著作，是否適用八十七年一月二十一日新修正著作權法而受保護，應視其是否合於新修正本法第一百零六條第一項之規定，即「著作完成於中華民國八十一年六月十日本法修正施行前，且合於修正施行前本法第一百零六條至第一百零九條規定之一者，除本章另有規定外，適用本法。」，是以民國七十四年七月十一日以前完成之著作，有下列任一種情形，且未依民國七十四年七月十日修正施行前著作權法辦理註冊者，即為公共所有之著作，不再享有著作權，合先敘明：（一）民國五十四年七月十一日以前發行之著作，迄民國七十四年七月十一日發行已滿二十年。（二）「北美事務協調委員會與美國在台協會著作權保護協定」第十六條第二項所定之西元一九六五年之前（即民國五十三年十二月三十一日以前）完成之著作。

This simplifies the text of the future Guidance text: unregistered works from before 1965 are also PD.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Curent status of works

Registered works by people dead by July 11, 1955 (+30 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered corporate works made in July 11, 1955 or before (+30 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered photos and videos made in July 11, 1975 or before (+10 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered translations made in July 11, 1965 or before (+20 years: 11th July 1985, very rare to have in Commons)

Any unregistered work made before July 11, 1965--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

In terms of your undeletion request, you can see the different copyright terms for old photographs in Taiwan at {{PD-ROC-oldphoto}}, or you can see a more detail explanation (in Chinese) in this page. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The undeletion request is the undeletion request, we can talk about it in the specific pages. We have undeletion petition for works made in Taiwan, in the Mainland, for pictures, films and paitings. Each has a different case. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @TaronjaSatsuma, thanks for your reply

• As I stated before, the paragraph in 智著字第09300006140號 (the first TIPO statement you quoted) are specifically referring to registered works, so it doesn't contradicts with my statement about unregistered works. The paragraph is simply stating for registered works that entered PD before the 1992 law, they would remain in PD even if the 1992 law extended the copyrighted terms.
• Please note that 智著字第89007299號 (the second TIPO statement you quoted) was made in 29 August 2000. The statement did use the term "Article 106-1", but the text TIPO quote is definitely Article 106, not Article 106-1. So, the statement was probably referring to Article 106 only.
• This means when that statement was made in 2000, it was definitely true that unregistered works published before 1965 was still in PD, since they do not meet the requirements of Article 106, which previously came in effect in 1998.
• Article 106-1 (the important part) only came in effect in 2 years later in 2002, as dictated by Article 117 which states Article 106-1 to 106-3 shall come in effect on the WTO date. Only then in 2002, unregistered works published before 1965 have their copyright restored retroactively.
• Please see this TIPO statement from 17 September 2003, which states, "又我國自九十一年一月一日加入WTO後，之前未曾依我國歷次修正施行之著作權法受保護之電影著作，將依著作權法第一百零六條之一回溯保護著作公開發表後五十年，亦即原先在我國未曾受著作權法保護之本國及外國人著作，將因適用回溯保護之規定而受保護（即四十一年一月一日至七十四年七月十一日間發行而未註冊之影片將因本條文規定仍受著作權法保護）".
• Note that they specifically used the term "回溯保護", which means "retroactive protection".
• The sentence in bold roughly translates to "unregistered films released between 1 January 1952 and 11 July 1985 will still be protected by copyright law under the provisions of this article". The sentence is referring to films because TIPO was answering a question about films, but I think it would apply to any unregistered works from 1952 to 1985.

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

1) Ok, I understand now. Obviously, we should focus on analizing both the registered and unregistered works

7) Ok, good find. I must admit I'm starting to get lost on details, but I get the 2002 law did override some of the conclusions I had arrive.

Focusing on what we can agree (changing the wording in PD-Taiwan, even creating a new template if necessary):

What is PD in Taiwan (and compatible with URAA)?

Registered works by people dead by July 11, 1955 (+30 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered corporate works made in July 11, 1955 or before (+30 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered photos, sound works and audiovisual works made in July 11, 1975 or before (+10 years: 11th July 1985)

Registered translations made in July 11, 1965 or before (+20 years: 11th July 1985, very rare to have in Commons)

Any unregistered work made before July 11, 1965 Any unregistered work made before 1st January 1952 (+50 years after creation in the time URAA was effective)

Taking into consideration the current discovering only affect works registered, perhaps instead of changing the existing templates should we create a PD-ROC-Registered template? I believe using ROC as name is better because it covers both Mainland and Taiwan period, but it could be named PD-Taiwan-Registered too.

Also, I'm unsure if the right date should be July 11 or January 1 (although I believe de facto will always be January 1 because works fall into PD at the begining of the year). @Tvpuppy: What do you think about this? TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the copyright terms calculation for registered works is more complicated, so I cannot be sure if your calculation are accurate. However, I have some comments:

• Registered works that entered PD before 11 June 1992 is in PD on the URAA date. This is because Article 106 of the 1992 law states the 1992 law only applies to registered works that are still in their copyright terms. This means the copyright terms of registered works whose copyright has expired in 1992 were not extended under the 1992 law, hence remained in the PD ever since.
• For some registered works, there is a distinction between the creation date and publish date. This is because between 1985 and 1992, the copyright terms are calculated from the creation date. However, prior to 1985 and starting from 1992, copyright terms are calculated from the publish date. It is possible for works to be created and registered before 1985, but wasn't published until before 2002. This means the calculation might be different for those works.
• For unregistered works, the current tables in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan should be the most accurate, so you may want to refer to those.
• I agree "PD-ROC-Registered" is more suitable than "PD-Taiwan-Registered", as some works might be registered to the ROC government when ROC still governed mainland China before 1949.
• The concept of "works fall into PD at the beginning of the year" was only first introduced in Article 35 of the 1992 law. Prior to 11 June 1992, works fall into PD on the date it was created/published.

Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll do my best to make a proposal for Proposal for PD-ROC-Registered template, adapting the tables in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Taiwan to help people to identify. Probably, it will take me some days to prepare it. TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal created. Feel free to modify it. I'm unsure if copyright runs after the public release or after the registration, but I did my best to create a first draft. Feel free to improve it.--TaronjaSatsuma (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Ancillary buildings for locks

We have Category:Lock keepers houses, but we don't seem to have any particular categories for other buildings or structures associated with locks. I'm thinking of things like the ones seen in File:Chittenden Locks - attendants relaxing.jpg and File:Chittenden Locks central control tower.jpg. Anyone got a name better than "Ancillary buildings for locks" or "Buildings associated with locks" (the latter of which, if used, would certainly belong as a parent category to Category:Lock keepers houses as well)? Maybe "Lock control buildings"? I'm not sure. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Jmabel: How about Category:Water transport buildings and structures?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:23, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. For now I'll use that; if someone wants to subcat at some point, I have no problem with that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

seems solved; subcat creation could be requested at (places like) Commons:Categorization requests Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)