This page is used for discussions of the operations and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/10.
Please note:
If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
For questions about copyright, technical matters, or help that does not relate to the general Commons community as well as proposals, please see the other discussion boards linked in the blue panel at the top.
SpBotarchives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.
October 14
CentralNotice Banner Request - Wiki Science Competition India 2025
Hello Commons community,
This is to inform you of a CentralNotice banner campaign request for the upcoming Wiki Science Competition 2025 in India (Meta request link). The banner is planned to run for logged-in users from 1 November to 15 December 2025. For readers/anonymous users, it will run for two brief windows: 1–7 November and 9–15 December 2025, as recommended in the CentralNotice guidelines.
We welcome any community questions or comments about the request. The banner and landing page will be available in English, Hindi, and other Indian languages. Please see the Meta request page for all details and translations in progress.
Latest comment: 3 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For the last 18 hours or so, when I get notified about talk page message there's a block of solid colour over the message with an information icons and a "reply…" tag.
I have to click this to see the text. The "i" icon takes me to the image page… which I suppose is a type of information about the icon.
This may, of course, have something to do with my settings. Even so it's a change in behaviour, so we should be able to track down the proximate cause. RichFarmbrough, 14:15 22 October 2025 (GMT).
Typical vandalism. They need to be reverted back to the original version and all other files need to be hidden. The files where the permission is for need to be uploaded under a new name. GPSLeo (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the logs clarify that there were several images that successively used the filename at different times. Each image was deleted and another image was later uploaded, etc. Your undeletion request was likely for the last image only, but that was not specified in the undeletion request and all images were undeleted. The previous images should be deleted again, assuming it's worth the trouble to keep the last one whose scope is dubious. The strangest thing, though, is that the uploader of the last image claims to be ChatGPT and states at the same time that they own a copyright on the image and that the image is in the public domain, and apparently you validated all those statements [1]. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
but that was not specified in the undeletion request -- I didn't see it and didn't know about it, do you agree?
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: deleted files when they were already licensed as they are now. I can suggest that it was some idea about the SCOPE, but the text is about a license. Theoretically it was possible to discuss on the undelete requests page, why they have been deleted like this while they were marked as {{PD-algorithm}}. Based on the written comments, the author indicated that there was no problem with licensing, so I approved it. It's possible to delete cc-by-sa template and left PD-algorithm only (and thank you for pointing that out! Probably one day someone else will work, not only have an access, and I will be even more careful than now). However, the puzzle lies outside the VRT, and as the only active agent in this queue, I'm not always ideal at resolving such issues instead of simple confirming (by the way, on the original page ChatGPT wasn't mentioned, so without VRT it was hard to approve that it is PD-algorithm; again, I am happy to discuss how it can be formatted in this situation). Анастасия Львоваru/en13:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, it's not easy to know the full context of a deleted file. The VRT member cannot view the deleted page and the administrator cannot view the mail. Now that the context is better known, if the image is public domain by its AI nature, it doesn't need a permission. Or, if the image is not PD and the uploader sends a mail, that serves only if there's information to be independently verified that way. The deletion reason being scope, if the uploader wants undeletion, they can request at UDR saying why the image should be in scope. Is it easier for a VRT member or for an undeleting administrator at UDR to evaluate if the contents of the mail has relevance in relation to the deletion issue? It may not be always possible. Each initially has only a part of the information. In this case, the deletion reason of the deletion log was detailed by the deleting administrator on the talk page of the uploader, and the mail might be cautiously assumed to be along the lines of what the uploader wrote on their talk page in reply. Anyway, no harm is done by the temporary undeletion, which allows a more complete view of the context. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am happy that you're agree that there is no harm :) So the fate of the images is another case, but I would like to clarify the steps one more time: if we have a PD image that was created with AI and published somewhere before moving to Commons, how should it work? The first impression will be about the copyright; the first move of a prompt creator will be to go to VRT. A prompt creator in this situation should not say that they is an author, but still can prove that the first publication is controlled by them; and what's happening after that? {{PD-algorithm}} with VRT ticket or I missed something?.. Анастасия Львоваru/en17:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
How could this happen in 2025? Isn't file overwriting restricted to own uploads or experienced users, from around 2 years ago? I hope the restriction was not removed. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the logs clarify that there were several images that successively used the filename at different times. Each image was deleted and another image was later uploaded, etc. Sorry, I hadn't read that: they are not "normal" overwritten files, then. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I find it also strange. Users (especially new ones like the case here) should not be allowed to upload files with identical filenames. I have two explanations:
if the uploaders specifically view the existing file, they can then choose to "upload a new version" which would result in overwritten files as we can see here. But I find that explanation dubious, given how there were five different users involved in the "Freedom "file and four different users for the "Ethics" file.
I suspect instead that this pattern was created by deletion and subsequent recreation: If an admin chooses to move or delete a file because of its generic name and non-educational content ("Freedom.png" !), the file gets hidden from view by all other users. Since the file doesn't exist afterwards, another user can upload a file with the exact same name. The edit summaries of the overwrites "User created page with UploadWizard" indicate that to me. Does upload of a new file restore an old deleted file as visible content again, like the case here?
If the second explanation is true, this seems like a critical bug in MediaWiki (any user can undelete any deleted file only by knowing its name!!!). It's incredible that it hasn't been detected and fixed long time ago. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
When an administrator undeletes a page or file, by default they will undelete all revisions of that item, potentially including ones which were deleted long before the most recent recreation. Changing this to recognize older "layers" of deletions and only reversing the most recent deletion might be a worthwhile enhancement request. Omphalographer (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This makes sense: it seemed too strange than any user uploading a file with the same name as a deleted file, would undelete that file, and such serious bug being undetected (probably) for years.
The matter here is that the admin who undeletes the file should look at the previous version, and undelete only the versions that are related to the last one (but it's possible that some of the previous revisions are of interest, and should also be undeleted).
In any case, for those 2 files, I wonder why they were undeleted by an admin, to be later overwritten by other user in 2025, when, since 2023, file overwriting is restricted to experienced users (and the user who overwrote one of the files had only around 100 edits). This makes me doubt if they were actually undeleted by an admin, or if the serious bug that Envayar and me suspected does really exist. If such a bug does exist, I think it should be reported in Phabricator as soon as possible (I don't have a Phabricator account). MGeog2022 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
These files should never have been undeleted; a valid license - OTRS or not - doesn't negate them being out of scope. As for the previous images, as MGeog2022 pointed out above, they were previous uploads that were subsequently deleted. I've re-deleted them. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I’m writing on behalf of the Lingua Libre community — a Wikimedia-affiliated project led by Wikimedians and supported by chapters such as Wikimedia France and the Wikimedia Foundation (see meta:Lingua Libre/Supports).
Over the past years, Lingua Libre has contributed significantly to Commons:
We have uploaded around 1.4 million audio recordings, mainly used across Wiktionaries, Wikipedias, Wikidata and Wikidata Lexemes.
For the past 8 years, we have documented our work and maintained our infrastructure on our own wiki (https://lingualibre.org/wiki/).
However, as with many open source and Wikimedia-related initiatives, our volunteer and technical resources are limited. Maintaining a stand alone MediaWiki installation and its servers have been difficult and resources-eating. Resources we would prefer to direct toward events, trainings and contributions.
To ensure long-term sustainability and better integration with Wikimedia projects, we would like to remigrate our project documentation and resources to Commons and close down our stand alone wiki.
This migration would include about 100 documentation and project pages and about 1,000 resource pages.
I have prepared a hosting space at Commons:Lingua Libre for this purpose and plan to carefully use Special:Import to bring over the relevant wikipages.
Since these wikipages are rarely edited I usually handle their maintenance myself, so hosting them on Commons would not add any significant maintenance work on Commons users. Lingua Libre wikimedians just move back here and continue to maintain those pages.
Before proceeding, we've been asked to confirm explicit support from Commons community. So we would like to ask:
👉 Is the Commons community comfortable with hosting the Lingua Libre project pages under Commons:Lingua Libre ?
While we are ourselves wikimedians, Commons users, and sometimes administrators, I would like to ensure this move is ok with the community. Your feedback and guidance would be very welcome.
@Yug: Hi, It looks OK on principle. Could you please give an example of the documentation and project pages, and of the resource pages you would like to move to Commons? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please note the site is currently under regular AI queries overload and therefore out of reach. This causes bugs in the app. It's also why we need to migrate. Yug(talk)10:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I see. Indeed the pages at Lingua Libre take a long time to load. This is an additional good reason to move them here. So Support. Yann (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support considering that all of the files are already on Commons and are [at least in general] in scope, I don't see any problem with bringing over the documentation. Heck, I'm not sure why the documentation and the files themselves were split to begin with. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support Yes, that seems like a good idea. Just note that once the pages are hosted on Commons, all content will be subject to Commons policies (including copyright), and the Lingua Libre team won’t have any special editorial control beyond normal community processes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it s quite ok, most of us are more Wikimedians & Commons users than Lingua libre editors anyway. And our community rules and COC are WM compliant already. We wont have administrators anymore, but such need was light. Also, thank for your support. Yug(talk)10:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Decision: I would close the vote as approved with clear consensus. You can request the right and perform the import. I keep this discussion open for potential questions during the import. GPSLeo (talk) 08:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago4 comments2 people in discussion
We teamed-up in January 2025 to categorise 50,500 files, and now we got stuck at the letter "E" and 12,000 media needing categories as of 2019. The work is getting increasingly difficult, because the low hanging fruit have been harvested, i.e. for instance files that are used in the article about the person shown in the photo. Are you experienced in categorisation? If so, you can help by eiter starting at the letter "E" (most difficult option), or by entering a useful keyword, or at any letter of your choice. Please leave a comment on Category talk:All media needing categories as of 2019, if you reach a round or funny number, or if you have a good idea, how to simplify the task. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
if you have a good idea, how to simplify the task I think it would greatly speed it up and make sure more images get more fitting categories instead of often just one or a few categories if there were category suggestions. These suggestions could be created via mainly machine vision and the user would then quickly go through many files and accept or decline suggested categories per file. This could be more difficult for subject-categories. Another way to make it possible to go through them more quickly would be to bundle them, e.g. by who uploaded the images and date uploaded as often people upload series of images about the same subject. Lastly, users could be facilitated and aided more to categorize their images themselves right after uploading. If it's unclear what an image shows, the uploader could be pinged and asked. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
These are good points, indeed: Even during manual categorisation, it makes sense to search for easy to categorize files first, e.g. screenshots, diagrams, charts, sunsets, beaches, landscapes and seascapes. This task has already been completed for the 2019 files, so that I assume that we just need more volunteers for manually categorizing the remainng files. To make it more effective, I recommend that you do not start in alphabetical order, but by choosing a letter of your choice. NearEMPTiness (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Another idea would be to guide users more and facilitate categories being added. For example by showing a prompt with some info on how to think of relevant categories (like 'Think about what type of image it is – e.g. a photo, diagram, video or chart – and which language it is in') if no categories were added and the user tries to upload in the Upload Wizard. I have some doubts whether so many files were uploaded by users; maybe bots and scripts contributed more than users of the UploadWizard. I think they already import the flick tags into the file description. If you have a specific set of search terms you check first, maybe it would be good to write them down somewhere (maybe a new help page) along with the target cats (like 'beach' and Category:Unidentified beaches). Also a note that if you categorize files with text, please also set the language, such as with English-language charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I need help with increasing a figure size
Latest comment: 5 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion
Wouldn't it be better to create the table with wiki syntax / markup? Because the same width as the text above and below it will actually be variety of widths, depending on a person's screen size. For example, I'm editing on mobile most of the time, so the width of the text is quite narrow for me, while, if you're using a computer, the text for you will obviously be quite wide. There's no "one" width of the text, and therefore it's not clear which width your table is supposed to be. If you use wiki tables, then the size will automatically adjust to the user's screen size. Nakonana (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, understand that, but I'm suggesting to recreate the table in Wiki Markup, because it has to be readable on all types of screens, and no matter which width you choose for the png, there will always be dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of screens where the png-table will not have the same width as the text. More so, the ping-table might be very unreadable on certain screen sizes. Nakonana (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I tried to make an actual wiki-table. Unfortunately Wikipedia still does not allow importing csv, xls or tab-delimited files. I do not have time or will to learn all the intricacies of w:en:Help:Table . I can provide the original xls file, and would be wiki-grateful, if you can make a wiki-table out of it (if you have done this before, it should not take you a long time). ApoieRacional (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your suggestion. I agree, that this method is good for a small table, like mine. And I will wait till WikiMedia makes it possible to import table as xls or csv. ApoieRacional (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
CfD discussion conducted/closed correctly and inconsistent outcomes?
Latest comment: 3 days ago21 comments3 people in discussion
As someone not overly experienced in CfD discussions, I'd appreciate some feedback from more experienced users as to whether this particular CfD discussion has been conducted and closed in the manner we'd expect, and what happens if- as appears to be the case here- the outcome appears to be inconsistent with a previous discussion and test case regarding the same group of categories?
(My comment listing the issues in detail- but which I don't want to post here as it reflects my personal point-of-view- is here).
To be honest, I have no experience with CFDs too. The discussion mentioned is years old. I simply evaluated the votes and set a final deadline. It had to be at least 14 days. That's what happened. However, I can't edit the many categories. And if I may say so, I found the discussion and the many categories rather confusing and not suitable for concrete discussion. What is the best way to close these discussions, which have long been forgotten? I often find discussions that have been unfinished for years. --XRay💬14:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the number of categories nominated was huge and unwieldy, and I didn't like having to do it that way. But the only alternative was to arbitrarily split it into numerous separate discussions for the same issue (i.e. excessively intersectional categories, all created by the same user).
That's why I discussed it beforehand and started a test case/discussion- because I wanted to make sure of what I was doing before going ahead and nominating *all* such categories. The consensus then seemed to be in favour of deletion, suggesting that the same would apply to all other such categories.
As I said, in hindsight I shouldn't have included the non-intersectional "exposure time" categories- which weren't covered by the previous discussions and should have been nominated separately- but virtually everything else was an "intersection" category, which was.
The instructions you linked for me to follow stated that "Typically, only users experienced in category discussions should close a discussion. However, if the discussion has led to a very clear consensus, other users should feel free to do so." There doesn't seem to have been a consensus here, however. Ubcule (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Well, I don't have any experience with this. I also don't like the long-running discussions. I'm also reluctant to submit deletion requests because I can't assess whether categories might be needed somewhere, for example when applying a filter. Something like this is just irritating. However, I had the impression that no one was interested in the discussion anymore. I have no idea how the discussion and the comprehensive list of categories can be dealt with. In any case, I am grateful for any way to end the discussion and finally remove the discussion templates. Some procedures at Commons are simply unwieldy or even cumbersome. --XRay💬16:55, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
If I may add one more thing: the discussion is very vague, and I found it difficult to summarize. Smaller, clearly structured lists would have been ideal. --XRay💬16:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
It would have been more prudent to ask an admin to close the discussion in this case. Besides the reasons you mentioned, it's generally not recommended to close a discussion yourself if you're one of the participants, unless there is a clear consensus. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
In the discussion itself, there were two votes for deletion and one neutral vote from someone who also argued they should be deleted, and their contents upmerged. That makes three votes for deletion versus one or zero votes for keep (because nobody argued specifically that these categories should be kept). ReneeWrites (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ReneeWrites: Inedeed- the "excessively specific" intersectional categories *were* the main motivation for this nomination in the first place, and make up the vast majority of nominated categories (other than the "exposure time" ones which I've already conceded should have been discussed separately).
I've no problem with ("taken with") general filter categories. I've no problem with lens categories. I've no problem with camera categories.
It's the excessive and unproductive creation of arbitrary *intersections* of those categories that were the problem- as others have noted, searching on multiple categories (and improving the search tools in that direction if necessary) is how this should be dealt with.
We can't possibly cover all combinations; any attempt to do so (like this one) will be arbitrary, incomplete and hence pointless.
There are plenty of categories with cameras, filters, and lenses. I had already voted neutrally in the discussion here. Too many for my taste. Even I find it difficult to see the point in them. However, I find the point of the filter + camera categories even less clear. I had advocated for keeping the others. --XRay💬19:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ubcule: Perhaps a suggestion: We close the discussion and group the similar categories. Then we open a new discussion for each group that we would actually like to delete. We let that run for four weeks and see if we can reach a consensus. My guess is that we will be able to quickly delete the categories “Filter + something” in particular. --XRay💬10:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps one more addition: the new discussion should include a specific proposal as to what should replace the categories to be deleted. That would make it easier. --XRay💬17:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@XRay: - That depends what you mean by "similar", though. Personally, I would consider *all* the intersectional categories listed to be "similar" in that they were nominated for the same reason, i.e. excessive and contrived intersectionalism. (The only ones I'd group and discuss completely separately would be those for exposure times.)
And I don't want to have to repeat this whole process again; it was a lot of work to nominate them all in the first place, and we had two discussions before I went ahead and did that.
Also, there's no need for *anything* to replace the deleted intersection categories; the images can- and should- simply be moved up the hierarchy to the nearest remaining parent categories.
They will likely end up in multiple categories; that's fine, an image belonging to multiple distinct and complementary categories is perfectly reasonable if they make sense.
I analyzed the categories and found 794 categories that need to be edited. However, some of them have not yet been included in the discussion. I would be interested to hear what @ComputerHotline: , the creator of most of the categories, has to say about this. --XRay💬09:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This assumes that one even wants to keep (e.g.) Category:Taken with Nikon D7100 and Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM C, which it itself an intersection category I'd be inclined to move into its parents. But this is more a question of where we draw the line. We seem to be in agreement that most of the more egregriously excessive intersection categories need removed regardless.
You mentioned a script, but I've no idea whether admins (who seem to be the ones who normally close CfDs) already have the tools necessary to do this without too much effort on their part, in which case it might be reinventing the wheel?
I would use the script to map the (simple) categories. This would probably be too complex for a tool. In any case, we would be a significant step further. And I had added the creator of most of the categories, as new categories with filters (approx. 20 in number) had been created in the meantime that were not covered by the CfD. To keep it as simple as possible, I can also attach the mapping suggestion to the existing CfD. I just don't want to create around 800 discussion pages that refer to the CfD. Should I formulate the proposal with a voting deadline until the end of November? --XRay💬13:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@XRay: - I'm starting to lose track of what we're discussing here and what's being proposed. Feel free to add any new categories or those I missed if they belong in the existing discussion. Regardless, should we be voting on the categories separately or in groups?
@Ubcule: I wouldn't mind creating a new CfD or reopening the old one with a more narrow scope. One for all intersecting categories that filter by more than two different things, and a separate one for the filter + camera categories. I think the camera + lens categories could be its own discussion as well, as also in previous discussions there were people who voiced reluctance to have those deleted. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@ReneeWrites: - Thank you for your input! Please feel free to narrow the nomination to "intersecting categories that filter by more than two different things" that we're all likely to agree warrant being deleted, and the other stuff can be dealt with separately later on if at all. Thanks, Ubcule (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Ubcule and ReneeWrites: I am revising the existing CfD and hope that I can incorporate all the ideas we discussed and that I understood. When it's done, I'll send a ping. I won't respond any further here, because I'm gradually losing track of the discussion. In my opinion, we can close this discussion here. --XRay💬09:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 hours ago3 comments2 people in discussion
These are mostly categorised by templates, and the results do not fit into our category structure. Could someone please sort out the templates? Rathfelder (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
this photographer has many very impressive videos and photos of tropical cyclones. would be great if s/he can be convinced to publish some freely so that they can be hosted on commons.
This really is a permission request case so please create it (or multiple if you know of further such accounts and prefer filing separate requests for each) there. I'll check back after a while and file the request if you forgot to do it or anything. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Third time: could you please move it to the page dedicated to permission requests where this request belongs? Or are you asking whether it's public domain as the media were created by a US government employee? If so, this is not in your post or comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 hours ago8 comments4 people in discussion
When I changed the name of the image it did not substitute at Q16029247, was I supposed to leave a redirect behind? RAN (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
(That's d:Special:Diff/2423530085) RAN, did you use the "Move & Replace" button under Tools to rename the file and if so did you check "Try to replace usage immediately using your user account"? Because if so it seems like a bug in the file replace function that should be reported for the Move & Replace tool. FHTS, the prior image link is a redirect; I think a bot does replace redirect file titles with the new file titles on Wikidata after a short while. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for explaining. If this is accurate here is some info from your WD talk page if anybody here would like to request an unblock which if true seems adequate: A third party may relay such a request, but only if that request is civil and clearly in understanding of why their conduct wasn't acceptable.Prototyperspective (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 22 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm honestly not sure what to do with this. The original image was uploaded, followed by a rather questionable crop over the original, and none of the uploads at all resemble the others. I've gone with:
As long as they are all linked to one another as "other versions" and any copyrighted work (probably none here) is correctly licensed, we should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk02:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I tried to make it be as sensible of a solution to the file history problem as possible, but I don't think there was an obvious correct solution. Basically, I'm reporting what I did and why for transparency, because I don't believe in hiding things. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
The other files are already linked in the other version so people can choose which version they prefer. You could add this info to the relevant talk page regarding A. As Jmabel said, it should be fine. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.
Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cstwikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
Latest comment: 1 day ago5 comments3 people in discussion
I've created a template that's placed in my files by default. It links to my discussion page. Currently, the technical solution is to embed my discussion page in the source code. However, if someone else uses the template, they end up on my discussion page.
I don't think you actually want that. If another user cropped an image you uploaded, you wouldn't want the template to start linking to that user's discussion page. Omphalographer (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's the intention. I almost exclusively upload chemical structure diagrams; these are in the public domain and can be modified without citing the original file. The template only provides a general reference (see File:Hydroxylaminhydrochlorid.svg), but this isn't just meant to work for me. Zyirkon (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Zyirkon: One possible solution is {{{1|}}}, which is a placeholder people can fill in any value they want.
I made an adjusted copy of your template here and added the template to File:Hydroxylaminhydrochlorid.svg (with your username added as the template's first value, so it won't link to my own talk page) to demonstrate how it works. People would still have to add their own username as the template's value, this isn't done automatically, but other than that this template should be usable by everyone.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Temporary accounts rollout
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our proposal in a nutshell: Temporary accounts offer improved privacy for users editing without an account and improved ways to communicate with them. They have been successfully rolled out on almost all wikis. We plan to launch temporary accounts on November 12th. If you know of any tools, bots, gadgets, etc. using data about IP addresses or being available for logged-out users, please help test that they work as expected and/or help update these.
Hello, from the Product Safety and Integrity team! We would like to talk about launching temporary accounts. They are relevant to logged-out editors, whom this feature is designed to protect, but they are also very relevant to the community. Anyone who reverts edits, blocks users, or otherwise interacts with logged-out editors as part of keeping the wikis safe and accurate will feel the impact of this change.
Temporary accounts have been successfully deployed on almost all wikis now. In collaboration with stewards and other users with extended rights, we have been able to address a lot of use cases to make sure that community members experience minimal disruption to their workflows. Now we think everything is in good shape for deploying temporary accounts to Commons in about two weeks, November 12th.
Project background
This part is mostly about temp accounts themselves
The wikis should be safe to edit for all editors irrespective of whether they are logged in or not. Temporary accounts allow people to continue editing the wikis without creating an account, while avoiding publicly tying their edits to their IP address. We believe this is in the best interest of logged-out editors, who make valuable contributions to the wikis and who may later create accounts and grow the community of editors, admins, and other roles. Even though the wikis do warn logged-out editors that their IP address will be associated with their edit, many people may not understand what an IP address is, or that it could be used to connect them to other information about them in ways they might not expect.
Additionally, our moderation software and tools rely too heavily on network origin (IP addresses) to identify users and patterns of activity, especially as IP addresses themselves are becoming less stable as identifiers. Temporary accounts allow for more precise interactions with logged-out editors, including more precise blocks, and can help limit how often we unintentionally end up blocking good-faith users who use the same IP addresses as bad-faith users. Another benefit of temporary accounts is the ability to talk to these logged out editors even if their IP address changes. They will be able to receive notifications such as mentions.
How do temporary accounts work?
When a logged-out user completes an edit or a logged action for the first time, a cookie will be set in this user's browser and a temporary account tied with this cookie will be automatically created for them. This account's name will follow the pattern: ~2025-12345-67 (a tilde, year of creation, a number split into units of 5). All subsequent actions by the temporary account user will be attributed to this username. The cookie will expire 90 days after its creation. As long as it exists, all edits made from this device will be attributed to this temporary account. It will be the same account even if the IP address changes, unless the user clears their cookies or uses a different device or web browser. A record of the IP address used at the time of each edit will be stored for 90 days after the edit. Users with Temporary Accounts IP viewer right (TAIV) will be able to see the underlying IP addresses.
Impact for different editors
For logged-out editors
This increases privacy: currently, if you do not use a registered account to edit, then everybody can see the IP address for the edits you made, even after 90 days. That will no longer be possible on this wiki.
If you use a temporary account to edit from different locations in the last 90 days (for example at home and at a coffee shop), the edit history and the IP addresses for all those locations will now be recorded together, for the same temporary account. Users who meet the relevant requirements will be able to view this data. If this creates any personal security concerns for you, please contact talktohumanrightswikimedia.org for advice.
For community members interacting with logged-out editors
A temporary account is uniquely linked to a device. In comparison, an IP address can be shared with different devices and people (for example, different people at school or at work might have the same IP address).
Compared to the current situation, it will be safer to assume that a temporary user's talk page belongs to only one person, and messages left there will be read by them. As you can see in the screenshot, temporary account users will receive notifications. It will also be possible to thank them for their edits, ping them in discussions, and invite them to get more involved in the community.
User Info cardWe have recently released the User Info card feature on all wikis. It displays data related to a user account when you tap or click on the "user avatar" icon button next to a username. We want it to help community members get information about other users. The feature also works with temporary accounts. It's possible to enable it in Global Preferences. Look for the heading "Advanced options".
Impact for users who use IP address data to moderate and maintain the wiki
For patrollers who track persistent abusers, investigate violations of policies, etc.:
Users who meet the requirements will be able to reveal temporary users' IP addresses and all contributions made by temporary accounts from a specific IP address or range (Special:IPContributions; bear in mind that a temporary account may be using multiple IPs though). Special:GlobalContributions supports the same search as IPContributions but globally.
Users meeting the requirements will also have access to useful information about the IP addresses thanks to the IP Info feature. In addition, the User Info card makes it possible for them to see the bucketed count of temporary accounts active on the same IP address range.
We wanted to reduce abusers' ability to change accounts too frequently. We added a 10-minute limit to temporary account creations on top of the existing rate limits of 6 accounts per IP per day. We are also applying IPv6-based rate limits to an entire /64, rather than a single unique IPv6 address.
We updated AbuseFilter to support matching against the IP address of a temporary account.
We expect that IP reputation AbuseFilter filters will be useful in mitigating abuse from logged-out editors, without needing to target a specific IP address.
It will be possible to block many abusers by just blocking their temporary accounts. A blocked person won't be able to create new temporary accounts quickly if the admin selects the autoblock option.
It will still be possible to block an IP address or IP range.
Temporary accounts will not be retroactively applied to contributions made before the deployment. On Special:Contributions, you will be able to see existing IP user contributions, but not new contributions made by temporary accounts on that IP address. Instead, you should use Special:IPContributions for this.
Our ask of you, and next steps
If you know of any tools, bots, gadgets etc. using data about IP addresses or being available for logged-out users, you may want to test if they work on testwiki or test2wiki. If you are a volunteer developer, read the documentation for developers, and in particular, the section on how your code might need to be updated. If you know of tools, bots or gadgets that have not yet been updated and you don’t know of anyone who can update these, please reach out to us.
Tell us if you know of any difficulties that need to be addressed. We will try to help, and if we are not able, we will consider the available options.
To learn more about the project, check out our FAQ. See our page Access to IP for more information about the related policies, features, and recommended practices. The local page is Commons:TAIV. You may also look at the updates and subscribe to our new newsletter. If you'd like to talk to us off-wiki, you will find me on Discord and Telegram.
As far as I'm aware, image thumbnails will always display the first page of a PDF or DjVu. I'm not aware of any way to override that. (And it's a pity - there's a ton of scanned books where it'd be nice if we could point the thumbnail to a title page.) Omphalographer (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Freedom.png&diff=prev&oldid=1104238953){kind=link}
Support. Yann (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC) 
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
