Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reportswikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergencywikimedia.org.
Vandalism []	User problems []	Blocks and protections []	Other []
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.	Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.	Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.	Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS.
Archives
26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	126, 125, 124, 123, 122, 121, 120, 119, 118, 117, 116, 115, 114, 113, 112, 111, 110, 109, 108, 107, 106, 105, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1	102, 101, 100, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

^{Translate this page}

Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~206
• Unfree Flickr files: ~0
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~2
• No license since 2 December 2025: ~10
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-12: ~379

Other:

• Duplicates: ~189
• Advertisements/spam: ~11
• Personal photos/selfies: ~9
• Other speedy deletions: ~81
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~2
• Undeletion requests: ~9

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~55
• Interface admin: ~10
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

• Commons Help desk
• Village pump (general discussion)
  • Copyright
  • Proposals
  • Technical
• Graphics and photography discussion
  • Photography critiques
  • Image improvement
    • Illustration workshop
    • Map workshop
    • Photography workshop
    • Video and sound workshop
• Categories for discussion
• Undeletion requests
• Deletion requests
• Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard
• Translators' noticeboard
• Work requests for bots

---

• Contact administrators
  • Vandalism
  • User problems (Dispute resolution)
  • Blocks and protections
• Bureaucrats' noticeboard
• CheckUser requests
• Oversight requests

---

• Telegram
• IRC ^webchat
• Commons mailing list (archive)
• Commons' bugs on Phabricator

Note

• Remember to sign and date all comments using four tildes (~~~~), which translates into a signature and a time stamp.
• Notify the user(s) concerned via their user talk page(s). {{subst:Discussion-notice|noticeboard=COM:AN|thread=|reason=}} ~~~~ is available for this.
• Administrators: Please make a note if a report is dealt with, to avoid unnecessary responses by other admins.

BOKOBA veroly

BOKOBA veroly (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions)

Is there anyone who might be willing to take over from me on the interaction with BOKOBA veroly? Preferably this would be someone who has more than my minimal French, and ideally someone from Africa, since he has written, "It is easy for you, from the West, to make decisions about anything that deviates from the ordinary and comes from real Africa." I do not believe I am biased against him as an African, and I believe I would have blocked anyone for this level of copyright violations and failure to engage, but I would like to recuse myself based on the possibility that I was acting with cultural bias. - Jmabel ! talk 17:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you did block this user for 6 months. It seems a bit harsh as a first block, specially because there are useful uploads. But I agree that at least a strong warning is needed. Yann (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Uploads that infringe copyright are generally not useful, but rather very harmful. Stepro (talk) 19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, this comment is not useful. Did you check their uploads? Yann (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think it is.

Of course, I checked his uploads, which is why I posted the matter on the administrators' noticeboard: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 126#User:BOKOBA veroly

And I'm still waiting for his response as to how he was able to take photos in Potsdam, Germany, from Africa: User talk:BOKOBA veroly#File:Présentation en.jpg and File:Excellent.jpg

I actually believe that the sheer number of his uploads deleted due to copyright infringements speaks for itself. Stepro (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand what I wrote. Yes, there are copyright violations, but there are also useful uploads. So we usually do not apply a 6-month block the first time when the user is not a vandalism-only account. Yann (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that we can not trust any own work claims of this user. GPSLeo (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to communicate with them. I'm able to use French (I'm European, not African, though, but that shouldn't matter, I hope). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I would reduce the block to one week. Hopefully that's sufficient to send the message through. Yann (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Yann: then will you take it upon yourself to do something about his continued effort to contact me outside of Commons [1] [2] (the last of which I am about to delete without reading, but this link will let you find out whatever it says)? There have also been emails. In response to one of the latter I told him (in English and French) that the only acceptable place for him to continue this during his block is his user talk page, to which he continues to have access. He ignored that.

I would strongly object to him being unblocked without being assigned a mentor, and I would strongly request a mutual no-contact with myself to be a condition of the unblock. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

OK, fine. I will give him these requirements for unblocking. Yann (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I would suggest to change to partial block for uploads until the status of all files clarified. GPSLeo (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

To whom it may concern but who's not able to understand French well: The linked EN-WP messages to @Jmabel are basically only a fact-centric defence (I didn't see things amounting to personal attacks) and explanation on how he (BOKOBA veroly) claimed to have produced (the second one: "Les photos signalées comme potentiellement en infraction sont mes propres créations, réalisées en partie avec mon téléphone personnel."; some apparently have been processed with Leonardo AI) some of the files in jeopardy. Additionally, he indeed asks for a mentoring guidance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I propose extending his ban indefinitely due to his continued lies today about the authorship of the photos he uploaded: User talk:BOKOBA veroly#File:Présentation en.jpg and File:Excellent.jpg

He is lying to us completely brazenly, claiming to have taken the photos himself, even though he was demonstrably 4,700 km away from the scene. In my opinion, shortening the ban would be tantamount to supporting further copyright infringements. His statements in the above-mentioned discussion section also mean that this can no longer be considered a mistake, lack of knowledge, or other perhaps excusable behavior, but only willful and malicious deception. Stepro (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stepro: in that response you linked, BV posted a text with a boilerplate feeling (he posted it 3 times: in your thread, on Joe's EN talk page and below my DR notice at the bottom of the page), without exact correlation to the Wikicon images. He said "Mes images constituent en grande partie mon propre travail, certaines ayant été créées à l’aide de Leonardo AI." which translates to My images [read:uploads] are mostly my own work, some having been created with the assistance of Leonardo AI.". That's not a claim about the authorship of the Wikicon copyvios, only a general statement. With the other messages he posted, I don't think that he has any intent to lie or to deceive, that's more an impression of him being overwhelmed and confused but also willing to learn, if given the chance and assistance. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

images I have taken =!= my own own images (that I have worked on myself, created with AI on my phone, downloaded to my phone). I still don't see a clear statement that he has taken the images, but only worked on them. This still lacks an understanding of what we want on Commons: own works or freely licensed images, and therefore I cannot support unblocking them for file upload. Best, —DerHexer (Talk) 08:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I cannot support unblocking someone who contacted someone after being requested to stop, especially when they aren't indeffed. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:47, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is this that "deviates from the ordinary and comes from real Africa"? Some context? Trade (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Request for review of mass deletion of my user project pages

Hello,

I would kindly like to request a community review of several deletions performed by administrator The Squirrel Conspiracy, who used Nuke to mass-delete multiple pages in my user space under the criterion U3 (Inappropriate use of user pages).

These pages contained documented artistic and long-term photography projects, not drafts, vandalism, spam, nor external promotion. The pages were used to present my works, describe the concepts, show credits, and link to the projects as part of my artistic portfolio.

Examples:

• User:Nikasandler/The World of Hedonia
• User:Nikasandler/My Nonhuman Friends
• User:Nikasandler/Plant and Human Pain
• User:Nikasandler/The Black Sun
• User:Nikasandler/Mycophilia
• User:Nikasandler/A History of Teeth
• User:Nikasandler/The Ancient Depths
• User:Nikasandler/Commission for Issue 3 of Sensored Magazine''

No warning or discussion was provided before the mass deletion.

I kindly request:

1. a review of whether these deletions fall under U3,
2. consideration for restoring the deleted pages,
3. clarification on appropriate use of user space for artistic projects.

Thank you very much for your time and help.

— NikaSandler Nikasandler (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

These were entirely appropriate deletions. Personal artistic projects and portfolios are outside the scope of commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Nikasandler/The World of Hedonia appears to have consisted entirely of a gallery of deleted images and some text about the context in which they were taken. That's pretty obviously out of scope, and does not encourage me to look at all the others. Can you point at any of these that are something more than that? - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

My Nonhuman Friends seems to be a gallery of cat pictures, some should be in scope. AI paleoart was removed with request for deletions, but others were mass-deleted without any discussion? I think some cats could be undeleted if user stops presenting it as portfolio. MSDN.WhiteKnight (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Rename request

Can an admin handle the rename request for File:GsgshsgafaD (1).png? The file is cascade protected. Thanks. Geoffroi 01:31, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Abzeronow (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

User contributions for Lk1155

Moved to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User contributions for Lk1155 Nimbus227 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 04:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Picture of the Day 2025-12-06 description

Current English description for the Picture of the Day 2025-12-06 contains factual mistake. Should be "Glotovo, Vladimir Oblast" instead of "Glotovo, Vologda Oblast". Someone please correct protected Template:Potd/2025-12-06 (en). Nyuhn (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Ymblanter (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Potential possibility of doxxing image

Coud the image File:Bordello 38a.jpg fall under doxxing? Apologies, but I don't have the capacity to email about this and I'm unsure whether this would fall under doxxing or not. The reason why I think it might be is because it appears to be a private home/residence labelled "Well known venue for adult entertainment in the East Midlands" of which the user who uploaded it also appeared to categorise it under "Brothels in the United Kingdom". Obviously, we don't know how true it is and regardless of whether it is or not the resident/residents may not wish for it to be publicly known to be associated with such activities. If other users do think this falls under doxxing it would very much be appreciated if they could report it to reports@wikimedia.org. I would also like to know admins thoughts on whether this would fall under doxxing or not. Helper201 (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I've blocked and deleted. No productive contributions from that user. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I must say calling the file advertisement was an... interesting choice of deletion reason Trade (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure why you didn't just reported it to reports@wikimedia.org to start with Trade (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Main Page

The message on the page says it’s semi-protected, but it’s not anymore. It’s now autopatrol-protected. ~2025-39075-80 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

change "Allen Gilbert Cram" to "Allan Gilbert Cram"

I don't know how to change Allen Gilbert Cram to Allan Gilbert Cram' for commons and data

w:Mildred Cram is his sister

Creator:Allen Gilbert Cram should be Creator:Allan Gilbert Cram

Category:Allen Gilbert Cram should be Category:Allan Gilbert Cram

proof:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AOld_seaport_towns_of_the_South_(IA_oldseaporttownso00cramiala).pdf&page=7

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Allen%20Gilbert%20Cram&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Allan%20Gilbert%20Cram&title=Special%3AMediaSearch&type=image

https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A83057

https://www.loc.gov/item/17028900/

https://archive.org/details/oldseaporttowns00cram

https://books.google.com/books?id=2-ZCAAAAIAAJ

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Cram%2C%20Allan%20Gilbert

Piñanana (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• I'll take this on. - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
• All relevant changes should be complete but @Piñanana: please check. - Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

OathOn and full descriptions in filenames

Can someone take a look at the rename request for File:Pioneer Wharf, Chatham Waterfront.jpg? I hate to turn down uploader requested renames and requests from constructive editors, but this is starting to seem excessive to me. There are many more requests like this from OathOn and likely hundreds more after the current requests. I'm not sure how this should be handled. Thanks. Geoffroi 23:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

That seems excessive. A file name is not intended to be a full description text. It's OK if you use names like that to begin with, but I think not appropriate to ask other people to take on the work of doing a bunch of moves if you don't initially upload under names that you yourself like. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

While I've asked this user to clean up their uploads - including nondescriptive filenames - before I lift their upload restriction, this rename seems unnecessary. It's much more important for them to focus on useless filenames like File:BIMG 2382 - Copy.jpg. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass rename requests with Criterion #4

I've just declined a mass rename request for Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland. This would've renamed all but 2 of the files in the category (which I've renamed to match the other 28 files). Filemoving criterion #4 (harmonizing) is being used to rename entire categories like this with no discussion or consensus. I declined several hundred rename requests for election maps a few weeks ago, but I see these arbitrary mass requests pretty often. It seems like abuse of criterion #4 without consensus or discussion. Geoffroi 21:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel: who weighed in on the election map mass rename requests mentioned above. Geoffroi 21:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Harmonizing a file's name in one category might disharmonize its file name in another category (or it might break the file naming scheme of the uploader). I'm thinking of a case of a photo series on a fire (in Moscow, iirc) and the files in the category were all named something along the lines of "Fire at Y on xx.xx.xxxx ([photo number of the series])". One of the photos from the fire prominently depicted a trolley bus, and as a result someone requested a rename to harmonize the file name with other files in a trolley bus category. The rename was made. So, now there's a file named" trolley bus xx" in a category of files that are all named "Fire at Y on xx.xx.xxxx ([photo number of the series])", and the rename also created a gap in the photo numbers of the series. Nakonana (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The particular image I'm referring to is File:Moscow trolleybus 8964 2015-01.jpg, which was previously named File:Пожар в здании ИНИОН РАН (16411137992).jpg ("Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences") like a number of other images of that series in Category:Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences (31 January 2015). Here's the diff of the rename request[3], and here to my objection to the rename[4] (not sure I did the objection correctly), but as one can see the file was renamed anyway. Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The policy page, for reference: COM:RENAME. I took Criterion #4 to mean files that are part of an image set, possibly being created or maintained by the same person, not all files within a category. If people are tagging entire categories with this then that certainly counts as abuse. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like the file names in Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland (things like F11.51.svg) either have a meaning that is not explained anywhere on the respective file pages (some official naming scheme in Iceland?) or are meaningless. If the former, then they should be left alone. If the latter, then these are good candidates for renaming under Commons:File renaming criterion 2. Gigillo83 uploaded many (all?) of these, is still at least semi-active, and might shed some light on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The file names correspond to the official sign numbers contained in the Icelandic Regulation on traffic signs and their use. I had requested the renames, although possibly erroneously under criterion 4 instead of 2 (if there was a possibility to choose both, I would have done), and, as I've been informed, probably not in the right way. The rename would have clarified that these diagrams refer specifically to the ones laid out in this regulation. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 22:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Criterion #2 is for fixing errors. The numbers are correct for the Iceland roadsigns. What error would you be fixing? A problem you might create is noted above by Nakonana. Any thoughts or concerns on breaking other uploader's sets? Geoffroi 22:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Criterion 2 doesn't say anything about errors, it says correcting a meaningless or ambiguous file name. "F11.51" does not mean anything on its own. "Iceland road sign F11.51", however, tells you it is an Icelandic road sign that can be identified by the official sign number "F11.51".

I don't understand the "uploader sets" argument in this specific case. Gigillo has uploaded diagrams of several countries' signs over the years, none have ever originally been given a consistent file name, across the naming for these countries' signs, at the time of uploading. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 22:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

It's an official referenced number, which isn't meaningless or ambiguous. Are you going to change all the rest of the roadsign images that only use the official number? Let's not resurrect The Roadsign Guy please. Geoffroi 23:01, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I appreciate my actions, which are well-intentioned, being compared to those of a long-time vandal of both Wikipedia and Commons. For the record, I don't intend on going on a mass rename spree, but rather I will continue to request file renames any time I should believe necessary. Should these be challenged, such as in this very case, I'm willing to have a discussion about it, and won't object if a decision is made that I disagree with.

Regarding the sign names, I would think that the having the number isn't exactly a sufficient description (criterion 2), nor makes it easily findable, and is an oddity considering that every other category for this country does not do this (criterion 4). But seemingly this is just my opinion and does not appear to be Commons policy. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 23:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have a good idea, why not do it with all roadsign files? Why are Iceland's roadsigns special? The Jermboy27 reference was toward people targeting lesser known/unattended categories to impose control on them. Geoffroi 23:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

 Comment If the numbers in the filenames are official sign numbers contained in the Icelandic Regulation on traffic signs and their use, that should certainly be mentioned within the wikitext of the file, probably in the description.

 Neutral on adding a prefix that would make these file names clearer. Certainly would have been a better choice in the first place, not strongly supported by our renaming criteria. - Jmabel ! talk 23:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

My main concern is a possible domino effect. If these mass renames are repeatedly requested and done, we'll probably end up doing thousands of renames in the end along with some disagreements. Better to have consensus beforehand than problems after. Also, if other users upload new roadsign files to a category with a set name scheme, will someone come within a short time and request a rename? I'm wary of imposing a strict naming scheme without any consensus that such a restriction is needed or wanted. As regards the numbers, all BSicon sets have an information template for each category. A simple template explaining that the numbers are official government designations might be a better idea than mass renames. Geoffroi 23:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope it is just a "reference" and not something you are seriously thinking I am trying to do.

I can respect that certain categorisation of files might have their own naming conventions - in the case of road signs, for example, you have the UK's using "traffic sign" instead of "road sign", Germany's using German-language names, and Italy's using a mixture of English and Italian names, even within the same file name. However, these have (largely) been applied to all categories ("Diagrams of x road signs of [country]") that make up the whole ("Diagrams of road signs of [country]"). The two categories of Iceland's, Category:Diagrams of direction road signs of Iceland and Category:Diagrams of lane movement road signs of Iceland, are the exception to said whole for Iceland, so I was simply trying to rectify this. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 23:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Going to tag @Fry1989 into the conversation, although not so active these days he has been dealing with road signs for far longer than I have, including renaming files (including those uploaded by Gigillo, including the Icelandic ones). EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 00:04, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I certainly hope it is just a "reference" and not something you are seriously thinking I am trying to do. I of course cannot speak for Geoffroi but I think it's rather safe to say that they are not assuming bad faith on your end because if they did then this noticeboard report would have been introduced as a problem of user conduct, and the report would have mentioned you by name. But instead the report is a question for clarification regarding the renaming guidelines, and it clearly says that there were multiple similar instances (not necessarily by the same editors). So I don't think that you need to worry here. Nakonana (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of the election map rename requests, which totaled 500+ within half an hour. It made rename requests from other users harder to get to. Perhaps we should have some kind of policy and infrastructure for mass renames, rather than flooding the rename request category and getting different results from different filemovers? There aren't many filemovers here that will even do (or have time to do) a mass rename. Geoffroi 00:49, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the mass rename follows a pattern (as it certainly ought to!) it can be pretty quickly done with User:Legoktm/massrename. So, yes, there ought to be a better way to ask of this than tagging each file. And I agree with Geoffroi that a template explaining these official Icelandic sign numbers is in order. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Going to disagree with your last point - although I agree that these files need a better description in the summary, which would eliminate the need for a template. Furthermore, would this template be applied uniquely to these 2 categories of Icelandic signs, or all? Will it later be applied to all countries', even where the description, or file name, already makes it clear? EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 08:20, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to summarise my thoughts here: I'm sure Geoffroi has legitimate concern regarding the abuse of the rename function. I can see how mass renaming of tens or hundreds of individual files could cause problems and disagreements further down the line, so therefore a discussion should be held and consensus reached before the renaming is carried out. My argument is not so much on this, but rather regarding the renaming of the Icelandic signs which led to the discussion in the first place.* I believed that the renames would not be controversial so therefore not worthy of discussion. Why should they be, when all other categories of Icelandic signs already follow this naming convention, as do road signs for several other countries? To be frank, the idea of creating a template rather than simply renaming the files in this case to me seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. I still fail to see how criterion 4, particularly the last line of its additional note, and criterion 2 to some degree, do not apply here - I still fail to see how these two specific categories of Icelandic road signs would need to have different naming than the others.

* Perhaps this specific discussion should have been held elsewhere, as it is not overly relevant to the issue raised by Geoffroi. EthanL13^{[please ping me]} 12:37, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The absence of any process for mass renames was the main problem I had with your rename requests. If you were able to request a mass rename of these files, you could explain how many files were involved and perhaps how many might follow if other roadsign categories needed similar changes. My issue yesterday was that I didn't want to see another 500+ file mass rename job blocking other users who only need a few renames done. Having a set process where mass renames could be requested and then the mass rename tool could be used appropriately by an experienced filemover would be a much better way of handling mass renames for both filemovers and users requesting mass renames. I just want Commons to have a process for mass renames that avoids disagreements, misunderstandings, and confusion as much as possible. Geoffroi 20:12, 10 December 2025 (UTC)