Recently, voting was enabled in the Community Wishlist. It's the successor to the prior Wishlist Surveys and unlike these runs indefinitely. It's a place for the global Wikimedia community/ies to submit feature proposals, ideas for innovations, and requests to get important bugs fixed.

There are many Commons-related wishes in the Wishlist so I'd like to call on you all to browse the wishes, read the ones you find interesting and vote on the ones you find important. Better to not postpone it. Here's some I'd like to highlight after having read all of the 410+ wishes:

• Show categories on mobile – categories on files are very useful but if you use a smartphone to access Commons like around half of users, you can't see them
• Open the Wikimedia Commons file page directly – when opening an image on Wikipedia, it doesn't open a Commons page (the file page) but shows a intermediary Wikipedia page that does not have the categories; this means we get far fewer visits and far fewer people learn about Commons
• A proper audio player – e.g. up-to-date audio versions of Wikipedia articles can be provided now for many articles and could probably double Wikipedia reads but only with a modern player & well-visible audio
• Do something about Google & DuckDuckGo search not indexing media files and categories on Commons – after some work on this videos on Commons are showing in Google's Videos tab but there's more

.

• Add machine translated category titles on WMC – titles are short and by translating them people searching the Web in their own language can also find the Commons cats
• Add a date range filter to Special:MediaSearch
• Suggest media set in Wikidata items for their Wikipedia articles – if you find good media on Commons, just add it once to the WD item and it can trickle down into the Wikipedias
• Video & audio chapters (jump to timestamp)
• When searching Commons, if there is a category with same or very similar title, show a hint/link
• In Commons category deepcategory view mode (wall of images), allow easily filtering offtopic subcats – basically what is needed for a wall-of-images view for categories including subcategory contents
• A way to see why a file is somewhere underneath a specific category (tool to show cat-path)
• Support full colour 3D models on Wikimedia projects – currently it's only STL files without textures
• When searching Commons, under "Categories and Pages" show the category for the search term – basically search results are bad if you look for category/ies, not galleries
• …

•  
  How the audio player could look (bottom panel) after clicking play (desktop)
•  
  audio player for a Spoken Wikipedia audio via audio-chapters (mobile)
•  
  Video on Commons now showing in Google (success)
•  
  Opening an image on Wikipedia in a new tab or with this button does not show the Commons page

If you have questions about any wishes there, ask on the wish talk pages or check if things have already been clarified there. Currently, software development by the WMF is rather low but maybe that changes in the future so voting can still have an impact. You could also name some wishes you find important but weren't mentioned here.

There also is a tag for wishes called 'Multimedia and Commons' by which you can filter the table. Alternatively, you could enable this script and use the category page. However, note that some wishes relevant to Commons don't have the tag because they relate to basically all projects.

The wishlist is based on a new MediaWiki extension. In this Wishlist, there are 'focus areas' which used to be the only things you could vote on until recently. You could additionally vote on these, especially the focus area most related to Commons:

• Focus area 8: Media formats, editing, and display

Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think people underestimate how many of these are political wishes not technical ones. Sometimes I feel like people feel they are powerless due to lack of technical know how, but so many of these are stuck on either getting everyone to agree or hammering out ambigious details, which is something anyone can in theory do. e.g. Show category on mobile - would take 10 seconds to change, the real issue is the mobile team came to the unfathomable conclusion that it would be a bad thing. Open image pages on commons. Also pretty easy, i think that one is stuck on most people not caring one way or another, of course the real question is how does this play with media viewer. Machine translation of titles sounds pretty spicy (My personal view is that this is the wrong solution to a real problem). Anyways, 90% of the battle is figuring out what you want and convincing everyone else to agree. Bawolff (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

how many of these are political wishes not technical ones. I don't know if you're referring to the wishes in this Wishlist in general or the wishes I linked or a mix – if the second, wishes that aren't about technical changes but about policy-changes get archived there. Some haven't yet been archived but I think by now all of these have comments on the talk page basically asking for it to be archived. It's relatively few that haven't yet been archived. political wishes not technical ones when you say that, you claim they're only "political" – but they rather have political/policy/group-decision-making aspects. Often, these aspects are already elaborated in the wish or on its talk page. If not, I suggest you add the info there. Ultimately, wishes are about getting certain things done / problems solved. If there's also political things that need addressing or be done, then wish creators and supporters are certainly interested in discussing these there and getting them done as well.

• so many of these are stuck on either getting everyone to agree or source? I think they're stuck because there's very little software development and apparently relatively little interest to do any of the many things that could be done to increase it. Only some are stuck on these as well but obviously things like that don't get solved by themselves but need the political aspects to be clarified and then addressed. If 30% of wishes were implemented, one finds another 40% to be infeasible or quite unimportant, then it would be much easier and flow naturally to narrow in on the remaining 30% to find which of these are stuck on political issues and then work on addressing these. This is how I'd imagine the impact of more software development: as WMF would solve more critical bugs, boring but important issues, and more issues in general, people get freed up to and can dive more into suggested innovations and extend Wikimedia. The first step is more development.
• …or hammering out ambigious details That's why I always tried to include potential solution(s) in the wishes and add ideas on how to solve it to the talk pages of wishes that don't have such technical info despite that the wishlist is/was intended to be problem-focused. More details can be hashed out on the talk pages in regards to how things could be done in practice. I also had one user mail me, saying they're developing a script that aims to solve one of the wishes. Details don't get hammered out by themselves, it needs people to think about them and discuss them – this is what the wishes and their talk pages are for too.
• would take 10 seconds to change, the real issue is the mobile team came to the unfathomable conclusion that it would be a bad thing Exactly! So they should do it. It has been asked for many times, the community certainly wants it – it has been the top #1 wish of the Commons Technical survey, is a heavily-followed code issue, and was the top #3 supported wish in the 2023 global Wikimedia Community Wishlist survey. The WMF just ignores it and doesn't even feel the need to give any explanation why they are doing so (they didn't even say that they concluded this). Afaik, they only said Unfortunately, our key partner, the Web team, will not tackle this wish now. The importance of categories to readers must be researched further to prioritize this wish instead of other pending wishes. I strongly disagree with that. Moreover, if they want to do further research before implementing this, then do it.
• Also pretty easy, All the better. So it should rank high on feasibility and ease of implementing. on most people not caring one way or another Hence the wish and the ability to support it. Wikimedia community often shoots itself in the foot. Here we're keeping Commons down for no reason. If you like Commons to be better known and used more + wikilink in file descriptions to not be redlinks + categories to show on file pages at least when on desktop, then I strongly suggest users support this wish. However, most users aren't much aware of this and haven't thought about it. I don't know why you say this as if it was a caveat or downside of the wish: that it may be easy to implement is an advantage and that people in your mind don't care about it, is basically the point of the wish. the real question is how does this play with media viewer No, that's not the real question. Why would it? If you think things like that, I always suggest you (also) raise it on the wish talk page where it potential issues can be addressed. The MediaViewer actually does link to the Commons file page directly – it works how it should. One clicks the "More details" button and it takes you to the Commons file page. It's just that the other file links haven't been adjusted.
• Anyways, 90% of the battle is figuring out what you want and convincing everyone else to agree If this hypothesis was true, then nearly all top 15 wishes of the past years' wishlists would have been implemented. It's far from that. Either way, the wishes – including the voting and the talk page discussions – are one part of that.

Thanks for your feedback; basically maybe the political aspects are underestimated (which imo would suggest that the impact of votes & discussions are also underestimated). Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'm just sad how it feels like things have devolved to the community begging WMF for tidbits. I guess that is the natural consequence of more and more development happening by WMF instead of being more community oriented. I do think (with the exception of the mobile category one) that the higher you get on the wishlist the more technical and less political things become, because to make it to the top of the vote list, you need more universal agreement to get everyone to vote for it. Bawolff (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

If objections are a concern, there could be surveys where people are asked about a batch of issues/wishes selected to get some development effort allocated. However, the talk pages of the wishes are already a place from that and by looking at the concerns people described there and the replies to these, developers and organizers could see what issues the community does or may have (and one could also just ask about selected wishes where there are challenges like this). I don't think objections are an issue with the vast majority of wishes – it's more that people just wouldn't prioritize this or that but wouldn't mind or not much if they get implemented. Lastly, it doesn't feel like the WMF ever did much development relative to how much one may think could be done with the resources they have – so imo in a way it's probably always been like now (or at least the last decade), just that now more people notice most of the issues and wishes they're interested in are staying open for years or a decade…and so with not much options what people could do about it. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Prototyperspective I do think you underestimate some of the social bits of this. There is not simple 'just doing it'. Just doing things affects hundreds of other people. "if this hypothesis was true, then nearly all top 15 wishes of the past years' wishlists", those people represent just a fragment of the userbase and generally none of the other stakeholders affected by the change. Please vote, please show your interest, all of that is sorely needed, and it DOES influence things. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Maybe but many or most of these are welcome by users with no significant objections to having the proposed functionality added. The high number of wishes clearly indicate that users would like to have what's proposed. I've voted on a lot of wishes already. Voting doesn't seem to have much impact so far though as again just a fraction of the highest-voted wishes and a very small fraction of overall wishes got implemented so far. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, I was thinking of mailing the new WMF CEO, Bernadette Meehan, to highlight and support calls for more technical development and maybe briefly explain the need for such after I found this page linked from the latest Signpost with Share your views […] Directly by email at […]. I don't know whether this is something that has any chance of having an impact. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've certainly worked on things in the past where nobody objected and everyone wanted it, until it was actually finished then everyone seemed to suddenly have an opinion. Of course users aren't the only stakeholders here. The wishlist seems to be aimed around getting support, but doesn't exactly encourage dissenting views. Sometimes wishes/features involve extra (often hidden) work for other people even after its "done". Sometimes the reason things don't get done is they create unacknowledged work for other people, who tend not to like that if they aren't on board. Bawolff (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

As we know, a lot of his stuff has been dropped since February by the DOJ and the House Oversight Committee but we have only catalogued like 5% of it at the very best and the likely chance of a lot more dropping within the next few weeks, is it possible to have a bot download it all and catalogue it, "Epstein Library" might be the first place to start as a lot of files have dropped under "DOJ Disclosures" in PDF Format, can't trust the current US government, they might delete it all one day and we might become the only resource for it..we have bots that upload US Government stuff from flickr, NASA and DHS, maybe they can do it for DOJ too...--Stemoc 03:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Most of these files are not free as they are from third parties. GPSLeo (talk) 06:22, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ugh, a lot of unfree files are already in Category:Epstein Files, and no doubt more will be placed there by well-intentioned people who don't know better. That category needs cleanup and watching. Is there a boilerplate notice we can place on the top of the category that says "Federal agents touching a document created by someone else does not magically turn it free" (but in a nice and friendly way)? --Animalparty (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

technically, they are free as they belong to a dead sex offender who has no rights to them anymore and thus falls under the jurisdiction of the DOJ who can choose to release them and they have...sure some images may not be free and can be removed but any involving Epstein not taken by a professional photographer which belongs to him or has been taken by the DOJ/FBI are free and can be released, its a matter for us to figure out which are which, and categorise them accordingly and i know its tricky, but its better than the alternative which is to nominate every image added from the released documents for deletion which will set a bad precedent, thus why its better if we do it ourselves, via a bot or something then weed out those not free cause the amount of images that might get released will be harder to control if everybody decides to upload them here themselves..Food for Thought... Stemoc 08:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

These are evidences from court cases. Such content is always still in the copyright of the original copyright holder. I do not think the witnesses made copyright transfer contracts with the government agencies. GPSLeo (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm with GPSLeo here. Assuming the "dead sex offender" in question is Epstein, he was never stripped of copyright ownerships, and those would be inherited by his estate; I don't know the terms of settlement of that estate, but I assume it is currently wrapped up in a lot of lawsuits. When the DOJ seizes a copy of a photo, or seizes a document, that has no effect on copyright.

Further, the copyright of ever piece of non-trivial incoming correspondence in that file would belong to the person who wrote it, not to Epstein. - Jmabel ! talk 20:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Being dead has never been a criterion for automatic loss of copyright; indeed in much of the world copyright extends for several decades beyond the author's death. Nor does being arrested or having property confiscated by law enforcement or federal employees waive copyrights (and for that matter nor does content merely being hosted or posted in a federal institution or government website). It's pretty clear that File:E HOUSE OVERSIGHT 065659 Clean - Copy.jpg for instance was not taken by Epstein and near certain to not have been created by a federal employee during their official duties (seizing, categorizing and posting a photo is not creation). --Animalparty (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• They have been "made public" (copyright term begins, or published), but being made public is not the same as "public domain" (copyright term ended). In the past the US government has seized copyrights and patents during wartimes, but not in this case. --RAN (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2025 (UTC)Reply
• We should really have a large, conspicuous warning template similar to {{NoUploads}} to place at the top of every Epstein category that clearly explains why a snapshot found in Epstein's drawers or phone is not a US government work, to help stem the flow of new uploads after every new batch of releases. There are now at least two batch deletion discussions (Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Epstein Files and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jeffrey Epstein, and recent uploads (like this one) that are not currently nominated but should be. --Animalparty (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I added a warning to the category. GPSLeo (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Ultimately unless files in the category actually starts getting deleted the warning is largely toothless Trade (talk) 22:10, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Closed the December 20th DR. Abzeronow (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been going through the requests for people to become license reviewers and noticed how extremely stringent people are about ensuring that a person understands every nuance of copyright law before they can be a license reviewer. Sometimes presenting massive lists for prospective reviewers to go through and show they understand copyright violations, and then still failing them anyway when they get them all right because people are skeptical that they "really" get copyright law.

The point of being a license reviewer is not supposed to be that you certify that an item is 100% free of copyright violations. It is supposed to be that you have confirmed it was uploaded under another license elsewhere, as a record to prove that it was available in case the item is later deleted or the license is changed.

For more evidenced rationale, consider that we created the FlickrReviewerBot to do this with Flickr uploads. Basically create an instant record of proof in case the item is later modified or deleted. It has no ability to evaluate if the upload is a copyright violation. Similarly, we don't require every upload to be reviewed. Someone could just as easily upload the same copyright violation here under a creative commons license, and it would never need a license review at all.

I think we should really reconsider what we expect of license reviewers. Considering we have such a massive backlog of items needing a review, our current system clearly isn't working. This isn't saying we allow copyright violations, others can still nominate an item for deletion (including the license reviewer themself), but rather that we should expect a license reviewer to do what their name says: just review that it was uploaded under the correct license, not catch every copyvio. Aplucas0703 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

As one of the people who is engaged in inventing test questions for prospective license reviewers: You, Aplucas0703 rightly noticed a huge lack of manpower. But I steadfastly think that moving on to reduce the expectations about LR work is a wrong move, simply shifting the issues downstream.

We must be lucky in that a small amount of files get a human review at all, so, when a reviewer actually touches a file, nobody can think that that file will get looked at again after them. So, this unique check has to be thorough, encompassing observances of COM:FOP, COM:TOO, legitimate derivatives, AI slop and Commons' scope. Especially the first 2 points, being copyright-related, entail the need for sufficiently deep knowledge about the subjects.

Making human reviewers do the same thing as the Flickr review bot, mechanically confirming licenses and disregarding other circumstances, is factually advocating for deliberately neglecting copyvios. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I partly agree that this somewhat advocates for neglecting copyvios, but only in the if we were already reviewing all of the files needing a license review. The fact that they aren't being reviewed right now essentially means that we've decided to both neglect copyvios and neglect license reviews. I think this argument is fine in an ideal situation where the license reviews have a very small backlog and are easily maintained by current reviewers.

If these license reviews are so incredibly valuable for checking for copyvios, then we should deactivate the Flickr reviewer bot by the same logic.

Your argument really only works if we're maintaining our current backlog, which we aren't. We're neglecting copyvios either way, it's just that now we've decided to also neglect license reviewing. I tagged an image I uploaded for a license review almost 2 years ago. No review yet. Aplucas0703 (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There was an incomplete template in File:Kalen Allen in 2017.png, it somehow lacked the video ID. I fixed that while making the review, Special:Diff/1129644856/1135218179; but such incomplete review templates may deter some reviewers.

We're IMO not neglecting copyvios by letting a backlog grow, as the marking of an outstanding review signalises that a check is assumed necessary but not done yet. So, any copyvio hidden in that backlog is not neglected, but simply unknown (that is an important caveat, as any hosting provider privilege or DMCA-style laws usually requires previous knowledge of violations to make someone liable for them). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

No wonder that the backlogs grew... I just spend nearly half an hour while reviewing only 3 files from assumed problematic queues (tasks and reasons in parentheses):

• File:1969 - làng tị nạn người Thượng (9680602234).jpg (translating the file name, thinking, wording a DR)
• File:17th Field Ambulance with horse drawn ambulances World War I (48114647937).jpg (trying to identify the unit with Google, thinking about the case, deciding that it's likely a British unit based upon my googling, researching the correct Crown Copyright tag)
• File:(V-2) rocket engines in an assembly workshop at the Mittelwerke underground secret factory in a mountain range near Nordhause 1944. (48479649481).jpg (looking up potentially relevant tags, in that case, the {{PD-US-alien property}} of which I knew the existence but not the exact spelling. In fact, Google was faster than going through the tag categories by myself... Still, sent it to DR for quality assurance)

Then, there's a huge backlog of audio and video files that you just can't review everywhere, as you need to actually hear the audio. And it's time consuming too, you can't make a sound check (pun not intended...) without going to several positions in the multimedia file (to catch possibly protected background or stage decorations or protected audio not perceptible at the file's beginning).

These examples may serve why license reviewers must have a good understanding of these reviewing tasks and copyrights. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:02, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think these are perhaps good reasons to rethink it. The fact that we basically expect license reviewers to sit down and listen to hour long audio clips before doing what they're actually supposed to -- check that it was uploaded under the correct license -- is contributing to this insane backlog that is inhibiting the purpose of license reviews: to verify that it was uploaded under that license as a record for if the file is later deleted or changed at the external site.

So far, there has been nothing to address the main concern, which is that we are neglecting the core purpose of license reviews by creating such an intense process. Aplucas0703 (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, what is constituting a correct license to you, Aplucas0703? In my opinion, that is one where the licensor did not ignore foreign copyrights, as otherwise, that license would be null and void for (parts of) the uploaded media. And with that, we're back to the expectation of listening to longer audio excerpts while doing reviews... And yes, bots like the one for Flickr or iNaturalist don't do that (and that's both not good and unavoidable), but it's absolutely no reason to make humans, who HAVE the technical ability to do deeper checks, behave like bots. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a reason to allow humans to act more like these bots. From my comment you replied to: So far, there has been nothing to address the main concern, which is that we are neglecting the core purpose of license reviews by creating such an intense process. Aplucas0703 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It would really help if the YouTubereview bot were to be fixed--Trade (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The license review is most often the single moment when a file gets actually seen by a human. It's a totally bad idea to remove mostly every chance at copyvio checks for the sake of reducing backlogs, as the "core purpose" of reviewing licenses is to guarantee valid licensing terms. Reducing backlogs may rather be undertaken by reducing the amount of uploads in need of license reviews, that could be done e.g. by throttling the uploads, either by a fixed amount per day (the site unlocks X token at 00:00 UTC, whenever that amount of token is used up on a first come, first served principle, no new uploads to be reviewed will be possible until next midnight) or by a relationship to the actual backlog (similar to what some torrent sites do with a need of having a positive upload ratio to continue downloading) and/or by restricting the use of automated tools and imports. Don't tackle the symptoms (backlogs) by introducing measures designed to reduce the work quality, tackle the causes (lack of manpower, too large amounts of uploads for the available crew). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, I agree with Aplucas0703. A more in-depth review is always welcome and often necessary, but the license review process should be straightforward and not require more than checking whether a work is actually licensed under the given license at the source. Whether the licensor has actually licensed the work correctly; whether they had the right to do so etc. - that can be a complex question, but shouldn't be part of the basic license review. The license review is a first step, an important step. But if it were meant to encompass a full review of the copyright situation of any given file, we certainly wouldn't have the manpower to prevent an ever-growing backlog. Gestumblindi (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The license reviewed template also doesn't say anything other than "X has checked that file was available at source website under the stated license". Nakonana (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

And I think that's really the crux of the issue too! It just seems like we're expecting way too much. I did the math on this, given the large size of our backlog, it would take a collective 43 working years to review all files, if each license review took just 3 minutes. We're making this worse by restricting the license reviewer right and by making the job of current license reviewers more intense. I think maybe we should codify in policy for the user right that it is NOT a "copyright reviewer" and should only be expected to review the actual license, given the following:

• User still shows a basic understanding of copyright law by not showing unreformed uploading of copyright violations (early mistakes considered but not disqualifying if reformed).
• User understands the process of searching for license and that they should ensure the listed license is the exact license which it is available under.
• User understands the deletion process and how to nominate for deletion a file they believe failed a license review.
• User shows trustworthiness and general experience. Aplucas0703 (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nakonana: But if any license was fraudulently applied at any source, then a file affixed with such a license was never rightfully available with that license. So checking the availability means always a copyright check. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Of course, but the community can always check that by nominating for deletion. Many licenses are fraudulently applied on Wikimedia Commons all the time, but we have editors patrol random and new files for that purpose. Aplucas0703 (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Might there be a "happy spot" somewhere between? Nakonana and Aplucas0703 certainly have a point, but I'd still like to see human reviewers be people we would trust to do better than a bot here. I would hope they would at least be capable over time of spotting "bad" sources we should not trust and help build up a blacklist of these. (Also: license reviewers have all the rights of patrollers, so unless we are going to change that, they need to be at least qualified as patrollers.) - Jmabel ! talk 02:28, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think this is pretty balanced. Maybe just that we don't expect literal perfection in copyright knowledge (like someone being expected to know every Freedom of Panorama law), and ideally knowing also how to spot very obvious copyright violations and add them to the list (like understanding that a random upload of a clip from CNN is not eligible, but not expecting them to know that light shows of the Eiffel Tower filmed at night aren't eligible).

Or maybe we should restrict the rights of license reviewers to be more tailored to this task. Is there a technical reason they need the rights of patrollers rather than just assigning the patroller right individually? In that case we could enroll all current license reviewers in with the patroller right and then restrict the actual license review rights for new requesters. Just some ideas because I'm not the most aware person of how all these things work. Aplucas0703 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The other issue is that by the time a license reviewer finally gets to a file that needs license review the source link may be dead without an archive link being available. In such a case we are forced to delete a file just because the potentially valid license has not been reviewed in time. Nakonana (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I also agree with Aplucas0703. We have a huge backlog of files needing license review. We should grant this privilege to anyone with half a brain, and kick the harder cases downstream if necessary. Nosferattus (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:1896 Olympic opening ceremony.jpg uploaded to Commons in 2005 has almost the exact same image composition as File:Aspiotis Olympics 1906 Royal Address.jpg which was uploaded to Commons in 2023. Title and description of the first image claims to be from the 1896 Olympics, but the second image is a postcard claiming to be from the 1906 Olympic / Intercalated games. I attempted to research this image but found additional claims of disputed dates on this YouTube video's title and description. I believe this should be investigated further by someone more involved on Commons than myself. Cards84664 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I agree they are the same moment in time. The 1906 explanation is better. The people behind the speaker match the 1906 committee members. Also prince Andrew was only 4 years old in 1896 so I would say this is 1906. I will have a look at what needs to be done. All the best, Taketa (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

PS: I found this Youtube video of the 1906 opening [1]. Imho the people standing in line can be found in the video. The people in line all the way on the left, front row with the white clothes a threecolor ribbon and black pants are the same as the video at 4:21. The people in white on the left second line with white hats I believe to be women and they are in the video at 4:04 (note women did not participate in 1896). The man in line first row 5th from the right with the white pants, stick and hat seems to match the man at 3:28. All the best, Taketa (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Taketa: Two more that might possibly be wrong: File:Le stade olympique en 1896.jpg and File:Le stade panathénaïque en 1896.jpg. Note the Propylaea is present in the first two images, compared to these two: File:Le stade panathénaique d'Athènes en 1896.jpg and File:Games of the I Olympiad, Panathenaic Stadium, Athens, Greece - DPLA - 8c8f5be2734a5c18237a4c2b9a730e69.jpg. I've seen claims that the Propylaea wasn't built until 1906. Cards84664 (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

When correcting titles and descriptions, please correct the structured data as well. Nosferattus (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Today, it is very difficult to use the MediaWiki API. Error messages like this one appear very often:

3: internal_api_error_DBConnectionError: [3f07a4f7-86eb-4f28-b2d1-62d52c3fe10c] Caught exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBConnectionError at ...

Are the problems known? XRay 💬 10:56, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@XRay There's an ongoing technical incident. See https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ It seems to mostly affect Commons and Wikidata. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. I had already guessed as much, but didn't know where to look. -- XRay 💬 11:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Reminder about Commons:Village pump/Technical) Prototyperspective (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lately, I've been having a lot of problems with Google Lens and TinEye. I use them to check for potential copyright issues. An example is the image File:Gambar2-Panda.png. It then gives me a message like, "Oops, something didn't work! TinEye could not read that image URL." It also happens with JPG images, which I know haven't caused any problems in the past. Any idea what the cause might be? Wouter (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Wouterhagens Are you using the Reverse Image Search gadget, or are you manually inserting the link into TinEye/Google? Tvpuppy (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I use the Image search gadget. Wouter (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I checked and the gadget is not working for me too, it seems the thumbnail URL generated by the gadget doesn't work anymore. For example, for the image you linked above, the gadget generates this URL: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Gambar2-Panda.png/300px-Gambar2-Panda.png. The image thumbnail is visible for this URL, but this URL doesn't work even when I manually insert it into TinEye/Google. So, the code for generating the URL probably needs to be updated. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

For TinEye I found a workaround. When the page of TinEye comes with the “Oops”message replace the link after "https://tineye.com/search?url=" with the url of the fullsize of the image. For example https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/2019-09-20_aardbeien.jpg. This results in https://tineye.com/search?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/2019-09-20_aardbeien.jpg and TinEye makes it into https://tineye.com/search/3e596fd0049887ea46404c6df8dd2c0fa4b94817?tags=&sort=size&order=desc&page=1. Wouter (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been having the same issue now for several days in a row from the Reverse Image Search gadget. Looks like it needs a fix. Aplucas0703 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The image server no longer generates arbitrary widths of images like before. It only supports: 20, 40, 60, 120, 250, 330, 500, 960. So an interfaceadmin can probably replace the value of 300px with 330px and that should make the gadget work again. Technically it should use the api to generate the url, but, this will do for now. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm having the same problem right now with Google Lens and Tineye. How do I patrol for copyright violations? Geoffroi 20:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should still work with copy-paste into Google Lens. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tried it. It didn't work. Geoffroi 22:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

A DR I started 9 days ago has gotten no attention, and I think it involves an important decision about category naming. I would ask if some more people can weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/2025/12/Category:Photographs of male screenwriters. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I often see updates to structured data, but I am confused by what it actually is and how to see it. How do I see it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:27, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Immanuelle: Right below the image itself there are two tabs: "File information" which contains the caption, summary, license etc. and "Structured data" where metadata (usually but not always tied to Wikidata) is added to the image. This is a bit of an oversimplification, but the "File information" tab is designed to be readable for humans while "Structured data" is designed to be machine-readable. --ReneeWrites (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, if you have JavaScript disabled, structured data will show up at the very bottom of the page instead. HyperAnd [talk] 08:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You might or might now know but news shows that it's possible to remove the redactions used in many of the documents that have been released as part of the Epstein files

Question is, are we allowed to host these "unredacted" files on Commons or does that run afoul of Commons:PIP Trade (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/23/epstein-unredacted-files-social-media Trade (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

If they are entirely authored by U.S. government employees in their professional capacity, then they are free of copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 00:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

As Jmabel says, if said files was created by an U.S. employee in the course of their duties, we can host it redacted or unredacted. But most of the Epstein files are not created by a government employee so for copyright reasons, we cannot host them on Commons. Abzeronow (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

What exactly does the Guardian article have to do with the photographs in the Epstein files? Trade (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Either {{PD-US-GovEdict}} or {{PD-USGov}} will work. Images that will be out of copyright from the Epstein files will be extremely rare, redacted or unredacted. (Also, images are more likely to properly redacted than Word files, and I think the FBI redactions, unlike that of the Virgin Islands court, are more likely not easily removed.) In any case, first do no harm. If the redaction was protecting a victim, then it's not ethical to remove it and post it here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• File:Image 12-26-25 at 8.45 PM.png
• File:Image 12-26-25 at 8.26 PM.png
• File:Image 12-26-25 at 8.10 PM.png

Erik Baas (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Done User warned, all files deleted. Yann (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's more:

• File:Image 12-26-25 at 7.33 PM.png
• File:Image 12-26-25 at 7.28 PM.png

• See also Special:ListFiles/KidKatKap !! - Erik Baas (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello everyone,

The page Commons:Lingua_Libre/Exclusion_list:Pol has a category Category:Lingua Libre exclusion lists at its bottom, inserted via {{Exclusion list header}}, but the pagename `Commons:Lingua_Libre/Exclusion_list:Pol` does NOT appear in that category's listing. Why ? Is that normal ? A bug ? Note: I'm fairly experienced, not a new user, and cannot see where it fails. Yug (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see the page Commons:Lingua Libre/Exclusion list:Pol in the Category:Lingua Libre exclusion lists? GPSLeo (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks GPSLeo, it appeared indeed while no edit were made since Dec. 2th. Exploring other pages and Commons:Lingua_Libre/Exclusion_list:Fra is in the same situation and not yet showing in the cagtegory's page. I believe this category should contain about a dozen pages. It must be some cache and purge action I guess, but i didn't expected it to wait this long before updating. Interesting. Yug (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks like linking a page from this board fixes it for this page. Likely because the page links table in the database is updated through the new link here. GPSLeo (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, must be it. Those pages were all initially created by bot (Olafbot) and API call, so I suspect it doesn't properly purge/update their presences in the containing category. Fun fact : there are now 86 pages in that category which got its update 26 days (!) after these pages were created. Yug (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm a little surprised to see that we rarely seem to have Category:Group portraits, Category:Group photographs, and Category:Group portrait photographs (and other analogous group portrait categories by medium) broken down into categories by the nature of the group (which would be orthogonal to most existing subcategories). The following is how I'd want to organize it (incorporating some existing categories). For simplicity's sake, I'm just expressing this in terms of subcats of Category:Group portraits; the others would be analogous (with Category:Group portrait photographs inheriting from both Category:Group portraits and Category:Group photographs). I'm posting here in case anyone either would want to help or sees something wrong with this scheme. The following is intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive:

Category:Group portraits

Category:Group portraits by nature of group

Category:Class portraits

Category:Group portraits of clubs

Category:Group portraits of co-workers

We currently have Category:Group portraits of forestry workers in Europe, which appears to be implicitly group portrait photographs, and should be renamed accordingly.

Category:Family portraits (currently directly under Category:Group portrait photographs)

Category:Group portraits of royal families (currently directly under Category:Group portrait photographs)

Category:Group portraits of military units

Category:Portraits of musical groups (currently have Category:Portrait photographs of musical groups, but lack this level)

Category:Group portraits of politicians (currently have Category:Group portrait photographs of politicians but lack this level)

Category:Group portraits of governing bodies

Category:Regents group portraits (currently directly under Category:Group portrait photographs)

(somewhere under the photo side of this should be Category:Photos of the entire Seattle City Council currently not under Category:Group portraits at all)

Category:Group portraits of sports teams

Category:Wedding party formal portraits (currently directly under Category:Group portrait photographs)

For what it's worth, what started me thinking of this was not finding anything like Category:Group portraits of co-workers. We have a lot of group portrait photos that would belong under that. - Jmabel ! talk 02:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think Category:Group portraits by type is more in line with how we name categories (and sounds better), other than that I think this is a good idea. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@ReneeWrites: maybe "…by type of group"? Because just "Group portraits by type" sounds like it might mean paintings vs. photographs, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point, "by type of group" works too! ReneeWrites (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

How would Category:Class portraits be different from Category:Group portraits of students and/or Category:Class photographs? Nakonana (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nakonana: It would be a subcategory of Category:Class photographs (thanks for finding that), excluding things like File:Milady in Brown 1909 (1909) (14758164426).jpg which are not group portraits. Category:Class photographs is currenty a subcat of Category:Group portraits of students; that is a bit of a mess because (as in the example I just gave) not everything in the former is a group portrait. So probably Category:Class photographs should be moved up the hierarchy, and Category:Class portraits should be the intersection of the two. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Visiting /w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Rock-shaped_like_Taiwan_02.jpg&wpForReUpload=1 the user is distracted into pushing the Upload Wizard button and doesn't realize the form they are trying to fill out is just below. Jidanni (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

That button actually goes away once the page fully loads. - Jmabel ! talk 07:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

What, actually, is the point of {{Location estimated}}? It sounds like it should be some sort of warning, but I would guess that locations estimated by an at all experienced Commons contributor using a map would be, on average, more accurate than the locations that we pull in from third-party sources or even the ones from most cell phone GPSs. And why don't we just handle this through a "source:" value in {{Location}} and its sibling templates? - Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

The |prec= parameter of {{Location}} would probably be more useful and give better information (although I must admit that having a default value of 300mm feels a bit optimistic!). That a location may "be somewhat imprecise" (as {{Location estimated}} puts it) is not very informative. But perhaps it's good to have more of a call-out of the fact that someone's guessed at a location? Sam Wilson 07:51, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Not having GPS in my camera, any of these that I do for my own photos are estimates, and while 300mm is a little ambitious, plenty of them are certain within 1.5m, and almost all within 10m unless it is something like going down a river in a boat. Whereas I've seen things supposedly done with GPS that were off by 100m or more, especially outside of cities, but even within (for example) Downtown Seattle: 100+ images all geotagged to the the same hotel: maybe where the person was when they uploaded? Who knows. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Jmabel: Do you have perhaps 2 or 3 examples of such images tagged "to the same hotel"? Chances are that the photographer used a device that had its last GPS fix on that hotel; maybe there's a hint in the EXIF how the coordinates were calculated. Some geotaggers that can work with cameras may have a low processing power and no en:A-GPS, so that they take quite the time to produce a solid and accurate fix, getting confused by multiple signal reflections between buildings, for example. This is not so much an issue with smartphones due to their much higher powered CPU and their ability to also use WLAN and other positional references; in build-up areas, a precision in the order of magnitude of 10m is attainable, as those phones can often cope with GPS signal distortions. The thing with GPS being "off by 100m or more" most likely dates back to the time when the Pentagon deliberately downgraded the signal quality. It was either Clinton or Bush junior who made the decision to provide unaltered signals to the broader public. Scrambling the signal again would cause losses in the billions for logisticians and farmers among others, as they rely on differential GPS being precise down to 1,5cm (to guide combine harvesters and other heavy machinery on field tracks for instance), airlines and shipping companies would also suffer damages due to higher fuel costs if GPS would get downgraded. So, if a GPS-based position is off by more than 100m, then the device providing the location was either of computational low-power, lost the signal and reverted to a guestimation or the data was corrupted. Otherwise, you'd be better by a magnitude of 10 at least. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's still pretty common for geotags from modern devices to be 100m or more off, especially around hills or buildings. I suspect it occurs when the picture is taken quickly, before the device gets an accurate fix. For example, File:Air Line State Park Trail 12, Lebanon CT.jpg was taken with a late-model smartphone, yet had coords more than 1 km away from the actual location. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Grand-Duc: usually when I notice them, I do my best to fix them, so no handy examples. I see this mostly in photos batch-imported from other sites. I'm not sure why you need examples: if you are doubting this happens, I will do the work to find some; if you are just curious to see examples, that's pretty tangential to the issue I was raising here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I asked for examples to have material to make a conjecture :

1. If coordinates are off and the camera does not have a GPS built in, it's worth checking the EXIF for an entry in a fitting field (software, makernotes or the like).
2. I imagine that some geotaggers write themselves somewhere into the non-standardised EXIF, beside providing coordinates.
3. If the camera does have an in-built GPS, then it's likely that the locating component was too slow in getting a fix.
4. If that is not given, but there's an actual batch from the same author with the same error ("street photography tagged to a hotel"), then it could maybe be possible to ask the author to fix them by himself.

-> So, yes, curiosity, but with some background thoughts. And I forgot that it's possible to switch off the background location tracking in any phone OS, so that modern phones too will have a delay in getting a good fix... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

As to the original question about the goal of the template: I think it has its best application in cases related to Grand-Duc's point #4, but more specifically where a batch is uploaded from a third-party source who does not have the experience of a Commons user. Like Flickr photographers geotagging all their vacation photos manually to the middle of their holiday destination, which then get imported like that. In such a case, the template can function as a maintenance warning that someone should double-check the coordinates. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my 01:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC) remark, I mostly see this in batch uploads (usually from Flickr), so we can't routinely ask the author. I've occasionally contacted someone on Flickr about a particular, confusing photo; about half the time they help out. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to add Content Credentials to one of my images, but they are seemingly stripped from the file during the upload process. Is this by design, by omission, or am I doing something wrong?

For reference, Content Credentials are part of the Content Authenticity Initiative, a coalition of ~5,000 organisations aimed at curbing disinformation. There's an inspect tool which lists all the edits made to the image, including the use of AI. It works on original file, but not on the file uploaded to Commons. --Julesvernex2 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Julesvernex2: This is likely a caching issue, as the content credentials (when I use the inspect tool on the version you uploaded to Commons) show the same information as the file linked in the Google Drive. If I download the previous version of the image (before you added CC), it doesn't show anything. The content credentials don't show up on Commons itself, but uploading it to Commons didn't strip them away, they're still part of the file. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ah, should have thought of that, thank you ReneeWrites! As a next step, it would indeed be cool to have the credentials showing up on Commons directly, I see that Ckoerner has created a Phabricator task for that. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Content credentials should not be stripped however they will only be in the original file, not any thumbnails. Bawolff (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I uploaded a pdf File:Lettre posthume de Bernard à Estelle.pdf. The content is PD-old-100-expired and PD-US-unpublished, but using OCR (of the typed out version of my father) and carefully editing the results, looks to me as own work. This is much more than a scan and a lot of work. Do I just use an own work license? Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• You can use Template:Licensed-PD or similar to mark your license on your rework. This typographical right has varying protections in different countries, but in France where you are is a full PMA+70, requiring a separate license. You may want to consider the license {{PD-heirs}} for the main work, to avoid any need to put a US tag on it. Is the unedited original also uploaded? -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 15:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• • Yes, everything is in Category:Lettre posthume de Bernard à Estelle. I used {{PD-heirs}} for the typed out version my father did. The content is PD in the US, also under unpublished license. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

• • {{Licensed-PD |1=PD-old-100-expired |2=cc-by-sa-4.0}}. I tried this template, but it mentions photograph instead of something more specific and accurate. A PDF is more than a picture, it has digitalized content. In most cases the problem is avoided when the text is digitalized in French Wikisource. However an entry in Wikisource is out of scope. The 'literature' has not only to be PD, but also published by an independent publisher. Just any old PD text is not sufficient. Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

    Go look now, you'll find the licensing is all there now. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 22:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

a new year is coming. can users please go through all Category:Commons protected edit requests for interface administrators once? thanks. RoyZuo (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in knowing how many files I have uploaded to commons. How would I find this out? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

You could go to /w/index.php?title=Special:Log&excludetempacct=1&page=&tagfilter=&type=upload&user=Chris.sherlock2&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist&wpdate=&wpfilters%5B0%5D=newusers&offset=&limit=500 and see how many times you can press next 500. Bawolff (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found it... https://ptools.toolforge.org/uploadsum.php?user=Chris.sherlock2

41320! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Chris.sherlock2: Another place to get the count is XTools, which says 41,387 — I guess the difference is that some have been deleted? Sam Wilson 08:13, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, that would track. Thanks! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Another method: https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=Chris.sherlock2. Nakonana (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

We are currently categorizing all media needing categories as of 2020. Progress is good so far, as shown on Category talk:All media needing categories as of 2020, but the task is getting increasingly more difficult, because the 'low hanging fruit' have been harvested by now. Do you want to help us? If so, please leave a comment about your approach or your achievement either here or on the discussion page.--NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

One way is to categorize the trees in the pictures. Example File:954I8789 نمایی از زن و مرد گردشگر در درکه - تهران.jpg and File:954I8790 زن و مرد گردشگر در درکه - تهران.jpg. However I cannot read Arabic, so I dare not place it in a country category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

But, please, if all you can do with an image that is clearly supposed to depict a place is to categorize a tree, don't remove it from Category:All media needing categories as of 2020! - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

A few months ago I went there, categorized a few images (spent quite some time geolocating them), provided some ideas at the talk page which were fully, totally ignored by that community as if I do not exist. Not going to do it again. Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that you should feel ignored, keeping in mind that "no criticism is praise enough." Implementing procedures to fight the backlog will take some time. It's a task for unsung heroes, who are sufficiently self-motivated to categorise files or to motivate uploaders to to it themselves. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do we have any categories for compagny establishments? In this case a limited compagny with 3 associates.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

see also File:Factuur B Vankersschaver 1904.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is a problem in structured data to connecting with d:Q137599156. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some suggestions:

• Category:Documents of Belgium (and there's also Category:Documents by year and Category:Documents by type)
• Category:Documents related to economy
• Category:Corporate law
• Category:Private limited company
• Category:Privately held companies
• and maybe some subcategory of Category:Certificates

Nakonana (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

And

• Category:Registration
• Category:Business documents
• Category:Business ownership
• Category:Business administration
• Category:Bureaucracy

Nakonana (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why upload only one page? You attribute authorship to a notary. Isn't the name in the document? -- Asclepias (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)Reply