After discussion in August 2012 , this guideline was proposed and formally adopted as an RFC . As of September 2023, a further discussion concluded that many overwrites did not comply with this guideline, so it was decided that it should be strictly enforced in software by limiting overwrite privileges of images uploaded by other users to those with the autopatrol right. If you want to overwrite files initially uploaded by other users, please request the autopatrol right on COM:Requests for rights . If you are not eligible for this right, you may request an exception for a specific file.

Files used in Wikimedia projects where the use requires the file to remain unchanged ? which means no overwriting at all: not for updates, minor improvements, or error corrections. Comments (including pointing out errors, and pointing to other versions) may freely be made in the Commons file description, but the file itself should not be overwritten. If necessary, upload a new version as a separate file. Such files should be marked with {{Please-do-not-overwrite-permanent-version}} .

Controversial or contested changes . If another editor thinks that the change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change deems it minor), the change can be reverted, and the new image should be uploaded under a new file name. See below .

The original image creator is often the best person to make edits. Since JPG is a lossy format, every edit to a JPG can deteriorate the image slightly; seemingly minor and "beneficial" edits such as changing white balance or adding noise reduction can actually do significant damage. Often the image creator has access to the RAW files from which to make a new version with whatever fix is required. This is always superior to editing the JPG. If it is a photograph, the image creator was there when the picture was taken so will be in a better position to judge whether colours and lighting are correct. Therefore it is strongly recommended that users wishing to make improvements to photographs first contact the creator, whether on Commons or elsewhere.

[OK] Sometimes users uploading new files that have been edited (e.g. a photograph improved for colour, contrast, etc., compared to the raw photo) may wish to provide the original unedited version as well. Uploading these independently would needlessly clutter categories. The solution is to first upload the unedited version, and then shortly afterward to upload the edited version over it, so that the unedited version is available in the file history. The unedited versions are not intended to be used independently, and should not be split out as separate files unless this is needed for a specific known use. Files using this approach should be labelled with {{Unedited version}} .

Note: overwriting unedited versions applies only shortly after upload of the unedited version, and only to the original uploader when uploading an improved version of the same file. In all other cases, the usual criteria about overwriting ( is it minor improvement? , etc.) apply. In addition, the usual rule about resolving disagreements applies: if another user feels it useful to split the file, it should be split.

[OK] Sometimes users may wish to provide an image related to their upload, which might fall outside the project scope as an independent file. Examples include images of labels related to the subject of the main image, or the reverse of a postcard as evidence of copyright status. The solution is to first upload the secondary image, and then shortly afterward to upload the main image over it, so that the secondary image is available in the file history. The secondary images are not intended to be used independently, and should not be split out as separate files unless this is needed for a specific known use. Files using this approach should be labelled with {{Secondary image}} . Note that secondary images are not exempt from the usual requirements of Commons:Licensing .

Note: overwriting secondary images applies only shortly after upload of the secondary image, and only to the original uploader. In all other cases, the usual criteria about overwriting ( is it minor improvement? , etc.) apply. In addition, the usual rule about resolving disagreements applies: if another user feels it useful to split the file, it should be split.

Be cautious about overwriting files with new versions reflecting new information, as in many cases this may not be what reusers want.

[OK] However, files may be identified to reusers as ones where information may be updated ? these files can and should be overwritten to reflect new information as necessary. Identification may be by the filename , file description, categories , or (most clearly) with the {{Current}} template. A file named " File:Germany location map.svg " is expected to indicate the current boundaries, and is expected to be updated if, for example, the boundaries changed or errors were observed. On the other hand a file named " File:Germany, Federal Republic of location map October 1949 - November 1950.svg " is expected to be correct for that period and not reflect current boundaries.

Changes to a file that are likely to be contested should be uploaded to a separate filename. Upload wars (a form of edit war in which contributors repeatedly upload different versions of a file in an effort to have their version be the visible one) are always undesirable. As with other forms of edit warring, users who engage in upload wars may be blocked from editing .

If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it's minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change). This is true even if the change is necessary, in one editor's view, to avoid a copyright infringement: in this case, if agreement cannot be reached through discussion, the old file should be nominated for deletion.

The more known uses of a file there are (through transclusions on Wikimedia projects), the more cautious contributors should be in deciding whether a change qualifies as "minor". Widespread usage of a file makes it more likely that even small changes will be controversial. If in doubt, uploading as a separate file avoids potential surprises for reusers. In some cases, prior discussion with previous uploader(s) or in locations where the file is in use may help decide whether a planned change can be considered "minor".

When images are consistent among each other, individual images should not be changed in a way that makes them inconsistent with the others. (E.g., File:Icosahedron flat.svg should not have been overwritten with a white version, because that broke the consistency of the set .)

[OK] Small changes can be made to all images, as long as they remain consistent. (E.g., it was fine to remove circles around numbers in File:Hawaiian Eruption-numbers.svg , because it was done to all images in the set .)

Minor improvements for textual elements include correcting spelling on a map's labels. By contrast, translating a map's labels from English to German is a major change, and should be uploaded as a separate file.

Whether a crop is "substantial" depends partly on the proportion of the image cropped, and partly on how much the excluded content affects the composition. For an image of a museum object on a grey background, cropping much closer to the object was considered a minor crop:

On the other hand, the photograph below of Martin Scorsese was substantially cropped for a closeup on his face, and the result was put into a separate file; and the photograph below of a mountain was cropped to substantially recompose it:

When cropping a JPEG image, remember to always use lossless cropping .

• Example: This 1899 portrait of a young man with a fish by Wilhelm von Gloeden was uploaded in 2005 but then overwritten in 2010 by a full length un-cropped version . Though the intent was to restore the image to a better quality version, the overwrite proved highly controversial as it changed the context from a modest pose to a nude with potential erotic connotations. In some existing transclusions this change was unwanted and caused controversy. Uploading the higher quality image as a separate file would have avoided this.

• Example: File:Kit body rmcf1213a.png had two upload wars over the content of a Real Madrid kit.

Be sure to attribute the original author appropriately, and to apply a license compatible with the original file. You can use {{Derived from}} and {{Derivative versions}} to link the files. More specific derivative templates are also available, including {{Image extracted}} , {{Retouched picture}} , and {{Attrib}} .

The template {{Information}} has an |other versions parameter which you can use to link between different versions of a file. You can

When you want to provide or use a stable link from the other projects for any image which is anticipated to be repeatedly updated, you have several ways to do it:

Warning: when doing one of these solutions, be sure that users of the filename are clear that the content of the file may change, and try to check uses of the file before updating the redirect or overwriting the file.

• Veja as Perguntas frequentes .
• Se escrever {{helpme}} na sua pagina de usuario , recebera uma visita de um voluntario o mais breve possivel!
• Faca parte do canal de IRC #wikimedia-commons para conversa em tempo real. Novo no IRC ? Clique aqui para se conectar instantaneamente!
• Va para a Linha direta do Commons .