Commons:Administrators' noticeboard

Shortcut: COM:AN

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

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

^{Translate this page}

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

purge Admin backlog

---

Copyright:

• Copyright violations: ~73
• Unfree Flickr files: ~1
• Recent unfree Flickr images: ~9
• No license since 11 December 2025: ~3
• No permission since 11 December 2025: ~13
• No source since 11 December 2025: ~29
• Media uploaded without a license as of 2025-12: ~339

Other:

• Duplicates: ~197
• Advertisements/spam: ~1
• Personal photos/selfies: ~44
• Other speedy deletions: ~80
• Categories for discussion: 134 months
• Media requiring a split up: ~0
• Requests for unblock: ~6
• Undeletion requests: ~16

Protected edit requests:

• Full protection: ~40
• Interface admin: ~10
• Technical: ~0
• Template protection: ~7
• Protection level: ~0

See also: DR, HMS, …

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES

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

---

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

---

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

Note

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

Mass rename requests with Criterion #4

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

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

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

The particular image I'm referring to is File:Moscow trolleybus 8964 2015-01.jpg, which was previously named File:Пожар в здании ИНИОН РАН (16411137992).jpg ("Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences") like a number of other images of that series in Category:Fire in the Institute of Scientific Information on Social Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences (31 January 2015). Here's the diff of the rename request[1], and here to my objection to the rename[2] (not sure I did the objection correctly), but as one can see the file was renamed anyway. Nakonana (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have particular experience in this matter and expect that is why I was invited to comment. Whilst naming a file for a traffic sign something such as "F11.03" may be accurate within a narrow context, as that is it's designation by its regulating authority (a relevant government), it tells us very little about the file itself for categorization and use purposes. It doesn't tell us what country it is from, not even really what it is (in this case, a traffic sign). Over the years, I have attempted to implement some form of standardised naming format for traffic sign files that include the specific words "road sign" or "traffic sign" and the ISO internationally recognised country code which is language non-specific. I still believe that is best practice. In the case of Iceland, they recently redesigned and designated their traffic signs from top to bottom, so I believe it is best not to rename any more files until taking into consideration the new standard. I also am not 100% pleased with my naming scheme, and having been considering a revision. Anyone interested in discussing that with me is welcome to do so. Fry1989 ^eh? 17:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. That's exactly why I brought this up. I'm just hoping we can figure out a decent process for requesting and doing mass renames, especially with a simple mass renaming tool available. Geoffroi 19:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Ill-informed reverts

Ardfern has been reverting my category moves from hyphens (1-9) to dashes (1–9) under Category:Boeing 757 by line number. I explained the distinction over at User talk:Sinigh the other week, apparently to no avail.

This exact type of edit has been made innumerable times. It's not controversial and should not be reverted.

Sinigh (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Per Commons:Categories#Category names, hyphens are preferred on Commons:

Latin alphabets are used in original form including diacritics and derived letters, non-Latin alphabets are transcribed to the English Latin script. Basic English characters (ISO/IEC 646) are preferred over national variants or extension character sets (for instance, 'straight' apostrophes over 'curly'), where reasonable.

Omphalographer (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The apostrophe example is reasonable, but not comparable. The different types of apostrophes are interchangeable, whereas dashes and hyphens are different characters with different purposes and semantics.

The hyphen-minus of ISO/IEC 646 is a workaround addressing limitations that haven't existed for decades. Wikimedia projects are especially accommodating in this regard.

Sinigh (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Flag of the state of Maine license

So this user named User:Kontributor 2K is listing the flag of the state of Maine file as in the Creative Commons license. The flag is actually in the public domain, and every single US flag is also in the public domain. Shark2272 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The flag is public domain, but if User:Kontributor 2K created the vectorization of the flag, they can claim copyright on the vectorization. (EDIT: it looks like Kontributor 2K is merely keeping the cc license for the vectorization that another user created in place.) Also some municipal and county flags are copyrighted in the US. Abzeronow (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and as previously discussed, if the source of the file is "own work", there is no reason to change the licence, contrary to if the source of the file is an url where the file is PD.

It should also be noted that the files have been patrolled.--Kontributor 2K (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

NO Shark2272 (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

You may not like the explanation, but we can keep the cc license and explain under permission that the flag itself is public domain, that the CC license for the vectorization. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

We’ll just note that in the talk page Shark2272 (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

@Shark2272: File and DR subpage talk pages don't get enough attention for that, unless you link to them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:00, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The us government owns the rights and confirms it is under the public domain Shark2272 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Wrong, Maine's flag is public domain due to age. States can hold copyrights independent of the US government. Abzeronow (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

FishBase

There is something wrong with FishBase templates. It probably has to do with a change in capitalization. - Brya (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Brya, I create an edit request at Template talk:FishBase species#Edit request as the template is protected and only template editors and admins can edit it. Feel free to comment there about the changes requested. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be more than one FishBase template involved, but I did not check how many exactly. - Brya (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I didn't realise there's more FishBase templates, but it seems those aren't protected, so I will be able to edit them. I will go through them and try to update the links. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Possible Slowking4 sock

User:Boatswake might be another Slowking4 sock. Any action necessary? --Rosenzweig τ 19:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: You may also add atop Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Slowking4 in future.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:14, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I mass deleted all uploads as copyvios. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Videotron Centre 6.jpg

Can an administrator please check the history of this file. The rename request has been declined by 3 filemovers including myself. I've explained my reason for declining on the requester's talk. I don't want this to become a long edit war via filemover shopping. Thanks. Geoffroi 23:02, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I requested the renaming of the arena's two file names, File:Videotron Centre 6.jpg to File:Centre Vidéotron 6.jpg as well as File:Videotron Centre 2019.jpg to File:Centre Vidéotron 2019.jpg, to its official name in French "Centre Vidéotron", because that is its actual original name and the French name is clearly labelled on the building (which is the case for virtually every non-governmental organisation and every governmental institution in officially and solely francophone Quebec). Why this insistence on anglicising every Quebec institutions' actual official French names? Kurcke (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Because we only override the uploader's choice in accord with Commons:File renaming, none of whose criteria apply here.

Feel more than free when you are uploading your files to use French titles whether they depict a French-speaking region or not. This is the same basis on which we have files with names like File:1992-12 Londen - Wilma Lippens bij Cyrano op West End.jpg or File:קו הרקיע של סיאטל.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Wilfredor as uploader and original namer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. There’s a lot of political drama here (in Quebec) that turns the defense of French in Quebec into a wedge issue, and it ends up dividing people. When I upload images to Commons, I usually use English because it’s the most widely used language here. That said, it was never my intention to disrespect anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings by using the wrong name. Wilfredor (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You didn't use the wrong name. I've linked the English version of their site on these files where the centre reverses the word order themselves. Geoffroi 18:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Pro wrestling photos, Zeke Dane

Hi, I uploaded a couple of photos of pro wrestlers from Flickr which were posted as Public Domain by the account Zeke Dane. But reviewer @Leoboudv noted that the images metadata states "COPYRIGHT 2000&2001 FRED BRIGGS,ALL RIGHTS RESERVED." On their talk page I and Leoboudv discussed the situation. Personally I have a hard time believing that Dane would steal and take credit for images that he has not taken as he is a professional photographer of pro wrestling and has been for many years, it would be very odd for him to do that when he clearly takes photos of shows all the time himself (his photos have been used by several well known publications, including ESPN). I wonder if this is the result of borrowing (or buying) someone elses camera. Another possibility is that "Zeke Dane" is a pseudonym and the camera metadata is under his real name (or vise versa?), which in that case raises questions on if the Flickr posts have been marked "Public Domain" on accident by him (and in that case should we contact him to let him know?) StarTrekker (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@StarTrekker We couldn't guess what ZekeDane's intentions are, and it was him who published these photos with this metadata. Currently, these should be presumed to be copyrighted to "Fred Briggs" until further notice. As you have mentioned, I think the best way forward is to just contact him to clarify about this situation. His contact information can be found on his website here. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 13:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I have sent him an email now. Hopefully he responds.StarTrekker (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It's the same camera on the Flickr account and on his website, at least. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That is interesting. Thank you for that information.StarTrekker (talk) 18:12, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Master (BDSM)

I do not know if user WikiGrower1 simply expressed themselves poorly in this context; I certainly hope so. Nevertheless, I would like to ask an administrator to remove the sentence 'I can clearly see dolls and this is a good example how dolls can be used for play when young.' and to delete it from the edit history. I consider this sentence, in relation to this image, to be a clear violation of boundaries. Thank you. Lukas Beck (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. As this is quite a long text and the quoted sentence is only little part of it, let it be. I'm quite sure, this is only very unfortunate mistake. All the files in the DR (well, with 1 exception) are deleted anyway. Taivo (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:ID-PIB

• This is regarding Template:ID-PIB. All the template parameters {{ID-PIB|idv1=|idv2=|cnr=|dept=|url=}} are working fine except |idv2=. It was ok till a few days ago. I tried fixing it, please see Template:ID-PIB/doc. It looks like PIB has made some changes to the website on their end. For ex- File using |idv1= parameter as source works fine but file using |idv2= parameter as source doesn't. This issue has made reviewing process very long for images after 2017 (i.e. under idv2).
• The other related thing, every file that uses this template goes into Category:Files published by Press Information Bureau or one of its subcat based on |dept= mentioned, like Category:Files from Prime Minister's Office published by Press Information Bureau. It would be great if we can add a new |date= parameter. That would further disperse the files. For example the above mentioned PMO-PIB category has more than 28000 files. We already have its subcats (till 2022) made as can be seen. This would make new uploads go directly in year based subcats. As for the files already uploaded, maybe some bot or a script can do it? The dates are already mentioned in the description box.

I am sure that something can be done about the first issue, but if the second issue can also be dealt with, it would be great. If I need to explain something more, plz let me know. I am watching this. Pinging some admins/template editors I've interacted in the past or whose work great I've seen. @Abzeronow, @Aafi, @Yann, @Krd, @GPSLeo, @Jmabel, @CptViraj, @Kadı, @The Squirrel Conspiracy, @Bedivere, @Pi.1415926535, @Jeff G.. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Mass pings for issues where the people you're pinging haven't previously been involved are generally frowned upon. I am also not the right person to ask for anything remotely complex regarding templates. Every template I've created has been through copying code from other templates and a lot of brute force trial and error testing. Can't help you. Sorry. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I know mass ping is not the correct way and I am genuinely very sorry for this. But I'm afraid I have little to do. This is way out of my league. The user who created this, is no longer active. This template is in use in so many files that makes it necessary to protect anyhow. I am once again very sorry for the pings. To everyone pinged who is not able to help, plz ignore for once and forgive me. If this wasn't important I would have never done it. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 08:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@@Shaan Sengupta: I don't think we can do much here. The problem is that the way idv2 is structured in the template doesn't follow how the file page urls are constructed on PIB, the link it generates is somewhat like: https://www.pib.gov.in/ShowAlbum.aspx?albumid=211648&reg=3&lang=1; which includes an album ID, and the images in the album offered like a slideshow, unlike how idv-1 (archive) still opens individual file pages such as this, which follows the template structure. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 09:55, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi just like the idv1 is opening, the same way idv2 used to open. But the link is now broken (hardly 10-15 days). Either PIB has made some changes on their end or they have taken down that part of the website. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is it possible to get an exception to the URL filter?

It's preventing me from listing the correct source of a screenshot Trade (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: Yes, at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. If you can't type it here feel free to email me or find me on the Discord. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:17, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Replied to your email —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

@Trade: One can use <nowiki>URL</nowiki> as workaround (not clickable). --Achim55 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That won't work for this case. Trade wanted to add {{iwd|Q63206994}}, but that had a 4chan link which wouldn't work. The problem is if you want to whitelist a link, you have to whitelist it for all pages. I don't think it's a good idea to whitelist 4channel.org, for obvious reasons. Besides, the author of this link is technically still 4chan.org, not the board itself. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

File was File:B random board 4chan.png —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 22:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Well I can archive it in https://megalodon.jp and copy the short link that did not get blocked by the filter  $999$REAL 💬 ⬆   23:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Trouble reverting a batch edit

I am attempting to revert this batch, per the comments here. However, the revert function of EditGroups appears to be broken, something that I find extremely concerning given how much we rely on the ability to revert easily to maintain a balanced BRD process.

Would an admin who possesses mass rollback be able to assist me with completing the revert on my behalf? And are there any actions as a project that we ought to take given the ways this vital-but-broken functionality makes us vulnerable to abuse or just to deleterious edits? Sdkb ^talk 00:07, 19 December 2025 (UTC)