Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

I encountered what is very likely an objectionable illustration of what is likely intended to be a creature below age of consent on the encyclopedia. I reverted the edit and don't know what else I should do.

EDIT: Seeing that I have no replies, let me clarify: Furry Child Porn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phlogiston Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaaaand why would we need a new policy with regards to this? It's very easy to argue that posting explicit cub artwork is de facto disruptive without needing a specific policy for it. (In fact I'd argue that, given it is illegal in some jurisdictions, there's literally no reason for us to use any sort of cub images.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 21:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Talk:Virgin Killer is still making people upset, so maybe we should consider a sort of blur filter + click-to-view-this-disturbing-and-maybe-illegal-somewhere-lead-image? Like how people post nsfw stuff on Discord? 3df (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Template:Hidden begin, which can be configured to float and have something like "Sensitive image" as the title (see example).
Such initiatives would require massive amounts of volunteer effort and time, though, because finding all such images and tagging them is nowhere near a trivial task, and I don't think it would be a productive use of either of these. ~2026-17718-24 (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The images are already on an actively maintained list at WP:BIL. 3df (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support removing content - Wikipedia is not censored and all, but we can't just use it as an excuse to post disgusting content on an encyclopedia, especially when it lacks educational justification.

Just like what Jeske said, certain countries have made laws that designate such content as illegal and I don't think that we should risk getting banned in these countries just because we want to die on a hill that'll tank our reputation.

Overall: I think that you are very justified to revert these edits and I'm willing to back you if possible

GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the content in question was removed and the edits where it was added revision-deleted. Hence my comment about not needing a new policy above. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 03:48, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So it was indeed removed? Thanks for telling me on that one GuesanLoyalist (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions were undeleted, @Jéské Couriano. Relevant discussion is at Talk:Yiff#Hidden page revisions. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Topicstarter is talking about Clop (erotic fan art), if anyone is wondering. Looking at the picture - no, I don't think the character depicted is underage. sapphaline (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree that Commons' policy on CSAM doesn't seem to cover cub porn, especially when the character isn't really anthropomorphic. sapphaline (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there some whole saga about this with Wales where him deleting some lolicon image on commons set off some whole controversy? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose updating Wikipedia's copyright classification for works by governmental entities in the State of Tennessee. These works should be considered to be in the public domain, mirroring Wikipedia's classification for works of governmental entities in the State of California.

Pieces of media created by California governmental entities are marked as being in the public domain and accompanied by the following notice in the "Licensing" section:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the State of California that was in any way "involved in the governmental process" and "prepared, owned, used or retained by any state or local agency" or officer. That work is available pursuant to court interpretation of the Sunshine Amendment of the Constitution of California, and/or the California Public Records Act (CPRA), which contained no relevant provision(s) for copyright.

It is not copyrighted because (lacking an exception in statute like those for works of the Department of Toxic Substances Control or works of certain colleges established by statute) "unrestricted disclosure is required".

See County of Santa Clara v. CFAC. In brief, the "CPRA contains no provisions either for copyrighting [this work] or for conditioning its release on an end user or licensing agreement by the requester. The record thus must be disclosed as provided in the CPRA, without any such conditions or limitations." Subject to general disclaimers.

PD Public domain false false

As the notice states, Wikipedia's designation of works by California governmental entities as being in the public domain stems from the California Courts of Appeal's decision in County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition.

In contrast, pieces of media created by Tennessee governmental entities are either not included due to copyright concerns (such as the lack of official government portraits for Tennessee state elected officials), or included under fair use and accompanied by a notice like the following in the "Licensing" section:

This logo is an official seal of a governmental entity or one of its government agencies, and may be subject to copyright, trademark, and/or other restrictions on its reproduction, especially in commercial contexts. The copyright is likely held by the government or agency in question. It is believed that the use of images of seals

• to illustrate the government or agency in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

qualifies as fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

Use of this seal here does not imply endorsement by Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, nor does it imply endorsement of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation by the organization. See Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Logos for more information.
Fair use //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)

true

However, like California, media from Tennessee governmental entities should be designated as being in the public domain due to the Tennessee Court of Appeals' 2023 decision in Public.Resource.Org v. Matthew Bender (available here: [1]). Citing the US Supreme Court in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., the Tennessee Court of Appeals held that works authored by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties" are legally "ineligible for copyright protection." Therefore, all materials produced by Tennessee governmental entities are inherently in the public domain. Just as Wikipedia points to County of Santa Clara to consider works by California governmental entities as being in the public domain, Wikipedia should, under the court's ruling in Matthew Bender, likewise consider works by Tennessee governmental entities as being in the public domain, and a bot should be used to update the copyright classification of the applicable media on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time! ToxicOJ (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this needs to be run by the WMF's lawyers. 331dot (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I mean it sounds correct, but I'm neither American nor a lawyer. This doesn't seem like something we should be changing based off an editor consensus of it seeming correct. It's best to have someone with expertise look at it. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 21:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is really more of an issue for Commons, but I don't think that decision says what you think it does: unless I'm missing something, the court is just holding that the Tennessee Code Annotated is uncopyrightable under federal law (see government edicts doctrine/Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.), not that Tennessee disclaims its interest in works that are copyrightable under federal law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re absolutely correct that the Tennessee Code Annotated was the sole work at issue in the case. However, the reason this decision makes all other works created by Tennessee governmental entities public domain is the underlying reasoning behind the decision. The court held that the TCA was ineligible for copyright because it was created by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties" and is therefore legally "ineligible for copyright protection." This ruling inherently means that all works created by an arm of the state in the course of its official duties are in the public domain. This is just like the California case, where the only work at issue was a GIS map. The court’s underlying reasoning was that, because that single map was created by a California governmental entity, it is in the public domain. This ruling inherently meant that other similarly situated California works are in the public domain as well. This reasoning was sufficient for Wikipedia to classify all other similarly situated California works as public domain. The same should be true in the wake of the Tennessee case. ToxicOJ (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer and neither are you, but this decision explicitly relies on the government edicts doctrine to find that the Tennessee body of law is uncopyrightable, annotations or no, and cites the Supreme Court case about Georgia's similarly-annotated laws. The California case doesn't - the map data isn't covered by the doctrine or the Supreme Court case, and it was decided on state law and the state's constitution. —Cryptic 07:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Tennessee and California courts rely on different authority to reach their conclusions. However, their conclusions are substantively the same. The fundamental takeaway in both cases is that the California and Tennessee governments cannot claim a copyright in their work. In Tennessee, it's because the works are ineligible for copyright under Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., and in California, it's because California state law provides no authority to claim copyright in the works; the end result is exactly the same. Each court just uses a different road to reach the same destination. Further, Tennessee specifically addresses your argument that this only applies to Tennessee's body of law. The court refutes this point by stating that it determines copyright eligibility based on "a straightforward rule based on the identity of the author" (i.e. Tennessee governmental entities), and that this standard "applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law." ToxicOJ (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're just quoting the U.S. Supreme Court's description of the government edicts doctrine. Nothing in the opinion indicates that it applies outside that context. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am quoting the Supreme Court because the Tennessee Court of Appeals directly quotes Georgia as their main justification in Matthew Bender, and the Tennessee court adopts the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning as its own. This is shown in their statement following their direct quote of Georgia, in which the Tennessee court plainly states that "The U.S. Supreme Court in Georgia was sweeping in its analysis of the government edicts doctrine. That analysis yields the same result in the appeal at bar." ToxicOJ (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the Tennessee court is just applying U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the government-edicts doctrine. Clearly that doctrine doesn't apply to seals and portraits and the like. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the court is applying the government edicts doctrine. However, the court makes clear that Tennessee's standard for what is considered a government edict for purposes of copyright ineligibility under the government edicts doctrine is determined by authorship alone. As I quoted above, the court stated that Tennessee employs "a straightforward rule based on the identity of the author." Therefore, if a work is created by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties," Tennessee considers that work to fall under the government edicts doctrine and be legally "ineligible for copyright protection." While the title "government edicts doctrine" may appear to limit itself to laws only, the court explicitly rejected this limitation by stating that this standard "applies regardless of whether a given material carries the force of law." In fact, the court conspicuously places no limitations on what types of government-created material can meet this authorship standard. This means that seals and portraits and the like, as long as they satisfy the court's "straightforward rule" of authorship, Tennessee therefore considers it ineligible for copyright. ToxicOJ (talk) 19:45, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right. Just wondering, are you by any chance a member of the American Bar Association? ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 20:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a law student, and I have an American Bar Association student membership, but I’m assuming that you’re mainly looking for whether if I’m a bar-licensed attorney, which I’m not. I agree with your earlier comment that it would be best to have an attorney from Wikipedia give their input. If you know how to get in touch with them or how to fold them into this discussion, I would absolutely welcome that. At the end of the day, Wikipedia editors make copyright determinations for tons of media all of the time. Just as previous editors ultimately decided to classify California government works as public domain because of changes to the law, I'm simply advocating for my view that a similar change for Tennessee works would likewise better align with recent changes in the law and improve Wikipedia. My view may totally be in the minority, and that's ok! After my research on the topic, I just figured that it at least was worthy of discussion. ToxicOJ (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you being a student member does make me take you more seriously. I mean as far as I could tell you could just as well just be some guy going entirely off vibes, and I wasn't expecting anything else so I'm pleasantly surprised that you actually have some clue what you're talking about. I still think we should get further input but I'm certainly not dismissing your opinion here. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 21:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a line at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading (though I am not a lawyer), ToxicOJ is right. This is more a discussion for commons and we should probably run it through a few people before going forward with a commons tag or anything. Maybe we can consult the WMF copyright people? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who the WMF copyright people are? I definitely agree that they should be consulted, I'm just not sure how to get in touch with them. ToxicOJ (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WMF Legal generally declines such questions. Sometimes they'll ask a student intern to do some research, and very rarely they'll hire an outside firm for us, but there are legal ethics problems with corporate lawyers representing anyone except the corporation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, it seems to confirm that it’s the prerogative of editors to make these types of changes (like we saw when editors changed the copyright status for California works and we continue to see with the numerous other copyright-related decisions editors make daily). I think we should move forward with discussing the editors enacting my proposed change for Tennessee works. ToxicOJ (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to why so many people think we need to consult legal about this. Making borderline and edge-case determinations of public domain is like, Commons's whole thing. We've been doing this for decades. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with you. I explored the idea of potentially consulting legal since a few people brought it up, but considering WhatamIdoing’s point that legal doesn’t get involved in these discussions, I think we’re on solid footing to move forward. ToxicOJ (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact that WMF Legal does not give legal advice to Wikipedia editors tells us absolutely nothing about whether we're on solid footing here.

Do you have a reliable source, preferably not the court ruling itself, that contains words very similar to "The copyright rules for Tennessee state employees are the same as the copyright rules for US federal employees"? Because "Hey, this one thing with a historically special legal situation has ____ copyright status" tells us nothing at all about whether the same is true for anything else. Additionally, it'd be convenient to know whether the state rules apply to non-state agencies (e.g., mug shots taken by the city police). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been clearer in my phrasing. I meant the fact that WMF Legal doesn't give legal advice to editors means that the editors can feel solid in making a decision one way or the other on this matter on their own as they've done in the past, not that it necessarily proves the merits of my argument.

As for your point about sources, we have never waited for any kind of legal treatise to repeat a court's holding; we have always treated the judicial ruling itself as the authoritative source and we apply the court's clear reasoning. When editors updated the copyright status for California works following the Santa Clara decision (here is the discussion for reference), these were the only two sources other than the case itself cited in the discussion, and they were both just surface-level coverage reporting that the party seeking the GIS maps prevailed, not that the case applied beyond those GIS maps. The editors instead relied exclusively on the authoritative text of the ruling itself and the reasoning therein and recognized that the court's reasoning extended to all media from the California government, not just GIS maps. I am taking the exact same approach here with the Matthew Bender ruling. Just to cover the same bases, here's a similar overview article about Matthew Bender from Wolters Kluwer, which recognizes Tennessee's adoption of the federal standard for state government copyright from Georgia, as well as emphasizing the "sweeping scope" of Georgia. Even the Wolters Kluwer article aside, the Tennessee Court of Appeals explicitly adopted the federal standard from Georgia that all works authored by an arm of the state "in the course of its official duties" are legally "ineligible for copyright protection." Just as the California court's ruling clearly and inherently extended beyond just GIS maps, the Tennessee court's ruling clearly and inherently extends beyond just the TCA. Further, Tennessee's ruling on the TCA is a no more special or unique situation than California's ruling on GIS maps. If anything, GIS maps are even more niche and specialized. Nevertheless, editors rightfully recognized that the reasoning in Santa Clara extended to much more than just GIS maps and changed the copyright classification for all California government works as a result. We should do the same here in light of Matthew Bender.

Regarding your question about local agencies, the court's authorship standard applies to any arm of the state acting in the course of its official duties. The Tennessee Court of Appeals stated in 421 Corp. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County that local governments "lack inherent power" and "their power derives from the State through specific delegation by the General Assembly." In other words, municipalities and local agencies derive their operational and legal authority directly from the State of Tennessee. Therefore, they fall under this same framework. ToxicOJ (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to rewrite a series of articles about each decade from the 1600s-1800s (e.g 1620s) in the near future; however, the current layouts of photomontages are inconsistent (some are labelled clockwise, some left-right), inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia (I know most montages for geographical locations or historical events like just have text under images with the multiple image or photomontage template), confusing (clicking onto an image doesn't enlarge the image but links you to an article), and in all honesty, quite ugly. Should I overhaul them? Cheers, Enoryt nwased lamaj (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Enoryt nwased lamaj, I love that you're working on these articles. It would be great (e.g., for students and authors of historical fiction) to get some good information.

Someone else did some really good work on some of the more recent years or decades a few years ago. It mainly involved adding paragraphs of general explanation, because while it's good to list individual items, it's also good to share general themes like "Early Baroque music by Franck was popular during this decade" or "There were several years with hard winters or crop failures, causing food insecurity and riots across Europe" than to list incidents individually. If you could find them/their work, that might be a good model. @Thebiguglyalien, was that you? Or do you remember what I'm talking about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think of a Category:Year of birth not applicable, to be created as a hidden category to prevent maintenance issues? Obviously this could apply to a vast array of articles (List of natural phenomena wouldn't have a year of birth, for a random example), but I'm thinking of it particularly in terms of reports like Wikipedia:Database reports/Living people on EN wiki who are dead on other wikis. This report has numerous articles like Forty Martyrs of Sebaste, who were a group of Christians all killed together; the article's in Category:320 deaths because they died in AD 320, and not in a birth category because (1) presumably they weren't all born in the same year, and more importantly, (2) we know nothing definite about when they were born.

We have numerous reports like the one I cited, and I suspect that individuals often run their own database reports that rely on born-in-year and died-in-year categories to distinguish biographical and non-biographical articles. I can see this category being useful as an indication of "hey, this is a group of people; don't treat it as an individual"; reports could be instructed to ignore these reports or to treat them differently. In this example, the database could be configured to skip mentioning the Forty Martyrs, since it's not a problem that it lacks a born category.

Of course I know about WP:BOLD, but I figured I'd come here because I don't too often work on this side of the project, and perhaps I'm overlooking something significant. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It says that vectorization of non-free logos there is not allowed. What I would propose is that vectorizations of non-free logos would be done, but only posted on this site if the copyright holder approves the result. You would vectorize it normally, but only publish the result on Wikipedia if the copyright holder doesn't veto the vectorization's result. If they veto it, the raster remains. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This requirement comes from the WP:Non-free content criteria which requires images to be low-resolution, as a way to enforce the WMF's statement which says that the use of non-free content needs to be minimal. Allowing non-free content that depends on a company's permission instead of fair use would cause headaches for WMF Legal (e.g. a company could revoke their permission at any time) and contradict Wikipedia's mission as a free-content encyclopedia. I doubt that the WMF would allow this even if other editors agreed to it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we haven't had a big Village Pump argument in a while over "SVGs have infinite resolution so they can never be low resolution" versus "Resolution is irrelevant to SVGs, the proper measure is level of detail". Is it really time for one? Personally I'd rather support the Graphics Lab policy on the basis of "scarce volunteer time is better spent on creating free images" rather than arguing over whether SVG as a technology can or can't meet the NFCC. Anomie⚔ 13:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't realize that non-free SVG images are already allowed on Wikipedia. Striking out my ill-informed response. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that vectorizations of rasters do not generate a new copyright. The vector and the raster would share the same trademark and copyright (if applicable). Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose asking the copyright holder for approval? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We would only be asking for approval of vectorizations of non-free logos made here (if we can't find a vector version which is not autotraced), to ensure it is the branding intended by the organization. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't answered the question I asked. How are you going to ask for approval? Who will you be attempting to communicate with, and why do you expect them to respond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing is uploaded until it's approved, where is it stored pending approval? ~2026-19696-67 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed deprecating pronunciation respelling. Check it out. Not sure if this should go here or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Un assiolo (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: It's April Fools' Day. Not a good day to be grumpy. FYI, I don't troll. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be grumpy whenever I like, thanks. And see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools'#Require all jokes other than the main page to be tagged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be grumpy whenever I like, thanks. No doubt. If you want to start pointing to RfCs, PAGs, and such, I could point to a few that say you shouldn't be grumpy whenever you like. Quoting the consensus you cited: "especially so if there is any likelihood that the joke could be perceived as anything but a blatant joke." ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 03:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to these supposed Wikipedia policies on forbidden mental states. I'm certainly not aware of any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not mental state. A problem arises when one inflicts their mental state on the editing environment. I believe it's generally frowned upon for one to accuse a 12-year editor-in-good-standing of trolling, particularly while misusing the word. Bringing a rare moment of humorous relief on April Fools', consistent with a long-standing site tradition, I caused a minor distraction from the work at hand. It was properly closed to limit the distraction, which is not a statement that it shouldn't have been done in the first place. You brought hostility, ruining the mood for everyone. Which is worse? The last word is yours if you want it. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 16:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]