Commons:Help desk/Archive/2010/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Removing and Fixing images for Webster County, Nebraska map images

File:Webster County Nebraska Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Campbell Highlighted.svg should be removed since Campbell, Nebraska is actually in Franklin County, Nebraska, and all the Webster County map images, such as the one for Bladen, Nebraska (File:Webster County Nebraska Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Bladen Highlighted.svg) need to be modified so that Campbell is removed. Please fix! DandyDan2007 (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not really understand. Do you want some maps to be modified? Please ask at Commons:Graphic Lab. If a file should be deleted please see at COM:DELETE. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Sub Category under existing one

How do I add a sub category under existing one? Current: people of Japan by city. Add People of Sasebo City, Japan

In this case you can take a look into a similar category, the best example would be Category:People from Yokohama, and transfer the example to your category. You have to change the prefecture and city name of course. --Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

can I upload photos with font in them

Can I upload photos with publicly displayed text in them to the wikimedia commons? In this particular instance I would like to upload a photo of an emergency exit on a public transit system (bus).

If it's just a common and simple message like "emergency exit only" I see no problem. Jonathunder (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

License

I copy-past a request which was I think on the wrong place.

I don't understand the message that I have received about the file I have uploaded. It is about license. It is my own work, according to an academic source. Apparently, the license is wrong. Can you check the problem ? Thanks.--Milkcrawler (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Climates_of_Spain.JPG&oldid=44590161

If the academic source is still copyrighted, then your map is a derivative work, therefore the copyright notice. So you should add which source this is based on exactly. If the source if copyrighted, you may be able to get permission from the authors to create a derivative work. Also take a look at the description page for this map: File:World Koppen Map.png --Morn (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I'd simpy crop the Spain area from the big map and use that instead, as permission appears to have been established for that map. Or you can redraw that part of the map with different colors. Just make sure you reference the big map in the file description. But please upload the file as PNG or SVG (if you create a vector version), not JPG! --Morn (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure to have all understood, but my map is completely my work (it is not a edited version of any copyrighted source), based on a academic source. So, my questions are :
  • is the current file receivable in its own ?
  • if not, what must I do to make it receivable ?

Thanks.--Milkcrawler (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all you must name your "academic source" (full citation), so we can see if it is copyrighted. --Morn (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The source is Köppen climate classification (I had put the link, which comes from a German weather service).

http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif

--Milkcrawler (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the map says it's from a 2006 paper, therefore permission from the authors is needed for your map. So I'd suggest to either get permission from them or to use the File:World Koppen Map.png data instead. --Morn (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok.I will see what to do. The second file is inaccurate according to Köppen criteria (for Central Europe especially). The source is a hydro-geological insitute though. I will see. Thanks.--Milkcrawler (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Did I get this correctly that the map is self-made but using just scientific data on the size and shape of the climate zones (colored areas). This data is probably {{PD-ineligible}} as the creation of the color map probably is. So the overall license just would be {{PD-ineligible}}. Maybe this should be discussed at Commons talk:Licensing. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikimedia is a mess

I'm sorry, but Wikimedia is a mess (as is Wikipedia).

It appears to be collapsing from the weight of too many uncoordinated efforts pulling in every direction.

I've wasted not hours, but day, trying to follow up on various bugs in order to post a simple diagram in an article.

The SVG renderer is bug-riddled, and there appears to be nobody to complain to.

I've gotten messages from "bots" reminding me to categorize images, most of which were alternative attempts to get around the SVG bugs.

Then the bot gave me an email address inviting me to converse with them. Then the thing informed me that the email address was not activated. (Why the invite then? Why the address?)

Then to make matters worse, someone "AnonMoos" came along and touched up one of the SVG image monstrosities (it was actually helpful), so that created yet *another* uncategorized image.

Other users have given me helpful advice to circumvent the SVG bugs, but those suggestions pretty much negate the reasons that Wiki urges us to use SVG. At this point I might as well make a big, fat PNG picture of the damn chart.

There are forum pages that have messages but no apparent way to add a question. Or people direct you to help pages to post a question, then later delete your question as inappropriate for the page they directed you to.

Editing anything on the various Wikis is a computer code nightmare. It appears that every second-rate computer science student manages to get a piece of their pet programming language incorporated in the Wiki infrastructure.

Wiki exposes the casual user to far too much computer code crap. Python scripts? Suggestions to edit XML tags? Asking users to do that is basically an admission that the underlying code itself is a mess. You waste untold hours spread out over millions of contributors, each patching up the same bugs. Fix the stuff!

The year is now 2010, and most this code reminds me of they way people used to hand code HTML web pages...TWENTY YEARS AGO! Sheesh, join the 21st Century! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateOceanside (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not Google. We don't earn Billions of Dollars a year from ads. Still, Wikipedia is one of the most visited website of the entire web. Where's the money for a fulltime staff of developers gonna come from? Donations are not nearly enough for that. --DieBuche (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
@NateOceanside: Why not simply upload your SVG and a high-resolution PNG version of it, preferably exported from Inkscape? Rvsg rendering has gotten much better over the years, but the reason why SVG is preferred is that it allows easier modification and high-quality printouts, not because rsvg is perfect. Rsvg might be replaced by Batik or Inkscape on the Wikimedia servers at some point and hopefully the rendering problems will be mostly solved by that, but until then PNG versions will probably be unavoidable for certain SVGs.
As for categorizing, there are handy tools for that such as HotCat. --Morn (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. You can turn on HotCat under "Gadgets" in your user preferences. --Morn (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation wikis such as the various language Wikipedias, and Wikimedia Commons, are mostly volunteer projects, with surprisingly few paid development staff. For the most part, nothing gets fixed until someone volunteers to fix it. As with any complex system, the underlying MediaWiki software does some things well and other things not so well. Most of the things the software does well are in the realm of text processing and support for text-based collaboration. In contrast, there is almost no native support for image processing, so we have to resort to all sorts of kludges and external tools. This obviously creates difficulty on Commons, which is a media file repository, but with almost no built-in tools to allow true collaborative editing of the large number of media file formats. It doesn't help that SVG is an evolving standard. There are some links under COM:EIC#Inkscape that may help, but you don't have to get far with SVG to run into unexplored territory on Commons. If you can't get Commons to like your SVG files, the fallback position is to upload raster versions such as PNGs. It also helps if you can track down the handful of people, if any, who might understand the particular problems you are running into. There are infinitely many combinations of user ambitions, software tools, and arbitrarily selected paths. Don't be surprised if you happen to be the very first person who is trying some particular thing, in which case it may not work yet. --Teratornis (talk) 06:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading Of Pencil Sketches

I recently discovered the lab work done by my relative , she did her ug in biology in , ther r a lot of pencil sketches of invertebrae , the gymnosperms of a lot of plants , brain of a shark , cell structure ,cross section. Im thinking of scanning them & making them avaiable as both a png/jpeg/etc and as an svg using potrace , i made a few test scans & they look promising , most of the pages can be scanned , a few a them hav been punched in the centre but they too can be fixd by manually touching them.So now the important q is will the images be of use .ther r more than 500 sketches in total. Many of these r images that arnt there in thier respective articles in wikipedia , will it be useful if i scan them ?Im attaching an image that i vectorised into svg, these have been done without any optimisation or trying to touch & fix the images much ( using potrace ). Even if these images arnt of much direct use to the wikipedia articles i would still like to put them into commons or any such place on CC . https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1hJO1N6piYFZjBhMWIyYWEtNDY5Ni00MTIxLWIwYmMtYWRkYTQ5OTQ1YmE5&hl=en , a sample without any optimisation, i,ve made much better ones with no speckles.--Jeph paul (talk) 10:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi and welcome to Commons Jeph paul! There are several things to think about:
1: license and permisson: we need permisson of your relative that she releases them under a free license. Best would be if she could send an email (for details see COM:OTRS).
2: usefulness it is probably best to ask at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. One important point to think about is that the drawings are "unsourced" - these are not drawings by an expert nor are they published in a book. They are just undergraduate drawings which may contain factual errors.
3: technical quality: Should probably be scanned in grayscale with a sufficient high resolution (maybe 500 dpi). I am not convinced it is useful to (more or less) automatically convert the files to svg. It would produce much redundant files. But I am not sure about this...
4: how to upload Probably it would be best to use Commons:Commonist instead of uploading each on its own. All should be in a category like Category:Mikes bio drawings You may want to get help by mass uploading experts - if here is no one maybe ask at COM:VP then.
Hope this is a first help. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Point 2 is problematic. The files should be uploaded elsewhere, e.g. on flickr or maybe google docs like the example, I dont know docs.google. There it will be possible to assess them and describe them and later imported to Commons if there is demand. A batch upload of self created drawings will have no broad use. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
1.)lisense , she is totally supportive .
2.)I ve put it @ en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology , even if ther r factual errors , they,ll be pointd out & the problematic ones can be discared or fixed rt ???, wen i enquired i was told that they were refernced from various texts etc.
3.)https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1hJO1N6piYFMzQyNTgzOTItOWZhYy00NTA0LTk4ZjItZDY4MGJmMjUyMjM3&hl=en , is the original scanned image , i thgt since there ws this move to vector images, svg can be rendered at any ressolution i thgt i ,ll try converting them to svg. Normally if sumone wishes to upload a batch of images does he /she put it up sumwher for consensus , i found gdocs convient as Im not on flickr .Btw if @ the end of the day if indeed the images are really useful , how will someone kno its presence & use it (i kno this sounds stupid but, do people search commons for images to put into articles ?)?? cheers --Jeph paul (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
0: Could you please try to write a bit more formal to make your text easier to read for others? ;-)
2. Lets see what the biologists say.
3. Thanks for the original. The svg contains a lot less details and currently you have set the converter to do double lines or something like that. SVGs are superior for drawings - but they have to be created carefully. I do not see much use in this fully automatic conversion.
regarding "how will people find": The drawings will need the correct categories (COM:CAT) of course. Yes, Wikipedians search Commons for images (I would say mostly using the category system). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
0.) Sure I will. :-)
3.)https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B1hJO1N6piYFY2I5YzVlNDYtMjMzNi00ZDdiLTllMjYtMGQyNWQyYmZiZWVk&hl=en , this a set of svg's of the same image give above with much bettr results.--Jeph paul (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
3. maybe a bit - but I stick with my opinion that creating svg without more (human) brain is not useful here. At least if you want to have good scalability manual work is required.
However, let's wait for question 2 first. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Farm Aid 2010

There is at the moment going live-video of Farm Aid on YouTube. Is it legal to upload screenshots of that concert? (Click here to get to the live show.) --Pekpekpek (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as the live video is not published under a free license allowing anyone to reuse it anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial purposes - and regretably the source you mention does not indicate such a license - it is not ok to create screenshots or to upload them here on Commons. See Commons:Licensing and Commons:Screenshots. --Martin H. (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Damn, there was some bands which didn't have picture in Wikipedia articles... well, you can't always win. Thanks for your help. --Pekpekpek (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Search Flickr with {{Flickr free}} for freely licensed photographs of bands. That's one of the subjects for which Flickr often has photos. For example, Randy Rogers Band appears on the Farm Aid lineup page, and has no photo on Wikipedia.
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Randy Rogers Band under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Farm Aid 2010 under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
The first search link actually finds a photo:
which has a license suitable for uploading to Commons. You can get the {{Information}} template to use from {{Flinfo}}:
For more information see the links under COM:EIC#Flickr, and User:Teratornis/Flickr examples. --Teratornis (talk) 06:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What's the license of this picture?

I need to know what the license of the last picture on this website. I know who the author is but I'm not sure what's the license. TheAustinMan (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No free license is mentioned, Commons:Image casebook#Internet images. The only chance will be to ask the copyright owner if they want to publish it under a free license, see Commons:Email templates (or for requesting permission: en:Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission#Generalized_Formal_Letter). --Martin H. (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The subject of the picture looks like Austin Independent School District. Try searching with {{Flickr free}}:
  • Search Flickr for images with the keywords: Austin Independent School District under these licenses: cc-by or cc-by-sa
If you find any photos you like with these or other search keywords, see my reply above for one method to upload them to Commons. --Teratornis (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading a photo that was previously deleted

Hello, Another woman and I have discussed a bunch of photos that we weren't sure of who took which pictures....they were from the 1980's. She has remembered that I took a bunch of pictures and that one of them was this one that I had tried to upload and was deleted.

I am trying to re-upload it with different licenses and such and I can't do it. Help! What can I do? thank you!

(Bluecheerbabe (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Images of minors taken on private property

Folks, need an expert view please. File:Childrenplaying.JPG is an image of minors taken on school property, which presumably is private property. It is unclear in what capacity the photographer was acting when capturing the image (if that's relevant). Is there any policy or legal issue with this? Thanks.-ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people gives the general guidelines. --Teratornis (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a photo of a logo for a campaign that was created by my company. It is on my hard drive. How do i upload it to my page, and how do I find out what the license is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisapbs (talk • contribs)

For uploading, see Commons:Upload.
About the license, ask your company first.  Docu  at 05:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with first photo upload/download...after a full day trying

Having problems uploading my first photo and downloading it into a wiki article I wrote a few months ago. In the article, a text block with caption now appears...but there is no photo. Did I do something wrong?

Also, I mistakenly first uploaded the photo into Wikipedia (before uploading it into Wikimedia). Have now learned Wikipediadownload is only for English speaking Wiki. Can this be deleted?

The photo discussed here is to be placed in one of the first paragraphs of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_alloys_in_aquaculture

Source filename for photo uploaded is: CopperAlloysInAquacultureUR30UnderwaterPuertoMonttChile.jpg.

File description is: "UR30™ brass cage deployed at depth of 14’ for 1 year has no biofouling at a fish farm near Puerto Montt, Chile."

Am frustrated that process has taken most of the day...with no result. Would appreciate any assistance with getting this first photo done, and the upload to Wikipedia removed since it's not necessary. I'll take care of the rest of the pics on existing and future articles.

Many thanks to anyone who can help!!

Enviromet (talk) 19:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You managed to upload File:CopperAlloysInAquacultureUR30UnderwaterPuertoMonttChile.jpg directly to Commons and you transfered File:CopperAlloysInAquacultureUR30NorthAtlantic.jpg from en.wp to Commons with some difficulties apparently. I removed some of the redundant information from the second upload to make it nicer and more simple to understand where it comes from and who created it, a description is missing however and can be added by simply editing the file description page. Everything looks fine now, the inclusion in the Wikipedia article will work with simply adding [[File:CopperAlloysInAquacultureUR30UnderwaterPuertoMonttChile.jpg|thumb|description]] to the article. NOte that the filename must be the exact filename, JPG and jpg is the same file format but one will not work in wiki. --Martin H. (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

how do I contact an author about a picture?

not to complain, but to ask what resources he used to draw such detailed, excellent maps of the Battle of Delville Wood during the Battle of the Somme in 1916.

If the author is a user of one of the Wikimedia projects you can ask on the users talkpage. If you refer to the maps in Category:Battle of Delville Wood, e.g File:Delville Wood Terrein.png you should ask at User:Farawayman at User talk:Farawayman. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


does Commons have something like a FaceBook Catalog

I would like to upload images of a government magazine and keep them organized together in a definite order, since different images contain text on other images.

63.250.237.82 05:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Commons:Galleries ?  Docu  at 05:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How do I catégorie an image after it's already been uploaded?:Help

I am trying to get my photo Playground97 up in place of the photo that's on there now. The bot wrote to me to tell me that it won't go up because of lack of categorizing.

How do I add the category to my photo? I have no idea how! Is that the only reason why my photo won't go up?

(Bluecheerbabe (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)) (Bluecheerbabe (talk))

See COM:FAQ#How do I put a page / image into a category?. I dont know what you mean with 'wont go up', if you have problems with including the image into an Wikipedia page you may read en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial on how to embed images into articles or pages. --Martin H. (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Entries

Hello there,

Is it possible for the author to delete an entry he/she created on Wikimedia Commons? If so, can you describe the process of removing the entry from Commons?

Thank you!

Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinzhjwu (talk • contribs) 2010-09-20T20:34:42 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, do you mean that you want to delete one of your uploaded duplicate images (File:Ulc fire test observation room.JPG, File:Ulc exterior test frame storage.JPG)? Or do you want do delete them both because you haven't taken these photographs by yourself? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
In any case, I tagged File:Ulc exterior test frame storage.JPG with {{duplicate}}. Thus it should get deleted soon.  Docu  at 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Saibo, we would like to delete the entire category:Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada. We have spoken to the author who created this category and have got his consent. But we are not sure what's required to make this happen. Please advise. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinzhjwu (talk • contribs) 2010-09-21T01:50:14 (UTC)

(linked the category in your post) Please see Commons:Categories for discussion. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 12:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Saibo, I explored the link you provided but was not able to find particular instructions on deleting a category. The photos posted under that category are our company premises and we are quite concerned. We, together with the author, are working to take those photos offline but none of us is proficient to do so. Will highly appreciate if you can provide us with clear instructions. Or can you delete this category on our behalf? Thanks.

Deleting a category has nothing to do with the images in that category. They'll probably have to go through a deletion review before they can be deleted, and that should probably be done as a group.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you want to delete all the images in this category? We do not delete so many pictures just because somebody is coming here and advising us to do so. You need to give valid reasons for this (maybe e.g. copyright violation by the uploader). Please do so in a deletion request: instructions are here COM:DELETE. If too complicated just explain here. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 17:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
As the author, I state that I have provided no permission to remove any pictures that I have uploaded. In fact, after I took the photos of this laboratory, during which I was accompanied by one of its engineers who was aware of my camera, I sent them to the nonprofit organisation at issue and requested written permission to upload these pictures to Wikimedia Commons. I received this written permission from the organisation on 21. May 2010 at 09:10 EST. I have kept a copy of the e-mail. On 28. May 2010 20:16 EST, I forwarded this written permission to permissions@wikimedia.org. I have kept a copy of this e-mail as well. Now, months after PD publication, a new user referring to himself in the plural, is seeking the removal of these pictures by stating that I have provided permission to him to do so. I am a longtime Commons user and I know that this is not how Wikimedia Commons works. It is absurd to suggest I would give a new user permission to remove my work. If I wanted this work removed, I would turn to an administrator for advice and I would provide a reasonable rationale for removing the pictures. The pictures basically show the equipment used at a non-profit organisation in Canada to test fire-resistive products to see whether or not those items meet the requirements of the National Building Code of Canada. The equipment is not exactly new either, or even unique. This fact is abundantly self-evident when looking at Commons pictures about iBMB/Technische Universität Braunschweig as well as the Category: National Research Council of Canada. It's the same sort of gear and has been for decades. The laboratory in question has been and continues to be seen by many people, as countless companies go there to get their products certified. Lots of pictures exist of all manner of test assemblies passing tests at the lab and those go into PD literature from many manufacturers in the realm. Here are some PD examples. I have run many projects through the lab as a client and have never been told not to take pictures or to avoid publishing same in my literature. Anyone can look up in published standards such as those issued by ASTM, ULI and ULC, intricate details and drawings of what that equipment is about and how it must be run. In fact, many organisations who engage in such testing, publish pictures of their equipment online on their own websites. Examples: TU Braunschweig, SINTEF. None of those places tell you not to take pictures with the exception of current, proprietary test samples, which are not at issue here. What's here is standardised equipment. With written permission that I have submitted to Commons, I uploaded my pictures of the equipment and the parts of the laboratory that this equipment is located in. I fail to see the rationale for wanting to remove what should actually be regarded as evidence of engineering excellence, due diligence and conformance with building codes in Canada. Sincerely, --Achim Hering (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

→ → Okay - we continue at Category talk:Underwriters' Laboratories of Canada. Please post further comments there. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 11:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

South African government works

I am trying to figure out what the copyright situation is with photographs of South African military cap badges and shoulder flashes. I am guessing that the government would have held the copyright for the badges and flashes, although it is just a guess. Section 21 of the Copyright Act seems to support this. Does this mean that the copyright term for these sort of items runs for 50 years from creation and that until then a photograph will be a derivative work? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have to ask the South African government to clarify the copyright term. Presumably the photographs do not depict the badges and flashes in a de minimis way, for example if you photographed a person who happened to be wearing them on a uniform. COM:CB does not have an entry that clearly covers this case. --Teratornis (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Upload of a new version of a file

Hello. I have uploaded a new version of File:Léon.svg and I have a problem. The image is not displayed correcty, but if you follow the link, you can see the image. It is a simple SVG file. I do not understand where the problem comes from. Thank you for your help. BrightRaven (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you follow the link the svg is rendered directly in your browser. If you are just looking at the File:Léon.svg page it is rendered at the server. Apparently the server has a problem rendering this svg. If you call a specific size e.g 200px you will see why: "Error creating thumbnail: librsvg-ERROR **: _rsvg_acquire_xlink_href_resource called for external resource: " base: (null)"
I resaved your first new version in inkscape using "normal svg"(!). Always save as normal svg (not inkscape optimized svg for uploading here). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your quick help and detailed answer. BrightRaven (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright holder without email

Hi,

Sorry to trouble you but I've failed to find this information for myself.

I'm in the UK. I wish to upload a photo of an Azed Bookplate into Wikimedia and thence into the Azed article in Wikipedia. I have the verbal agreement of the bookplate's copyright holder to do so. He has no email but is willing to sign a piece of paper giving permission. I've got the proper permission form all sorted out for dual GFDL and CC-by-sa-3.0 licenses, attribution etc. Where should it be sent when he has signed it?

Dinoceras (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just scan/photograph the signed permission and send it via email to the address: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org Is it possible for you to scan or make a photo of it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I'll do that. Many thanks. Dinoceras (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploading new version of Saudi flag

Hi. I've been trying to upload a new version of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg, but every time I do, nothing happens. The new image appears in the history, and my edit is shown as uploading the new image then re-uploading the old one! The file's History shows me uploading the file 7 times with no avail. Am I doing something wrong? Why is it reversing my edits on its own? (The correct color is the darker green that's repeated 6 times by me) -- Zyido (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are doing something wrong: you have uploaded it 6 times too much. ;-) Everything is fine - even after the first reupload. It is just your browser's cache showing you the old version! Hit Ctrl+F5 or F5 oder something like that. to see the new version. I asked an admin to delete the redundant ones... Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Missing file on nl.wikipedia.com

Hi

I have a file here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg

and I link it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svitlana_Azarova

like this | Img = Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg‎

and it works, using the "thumbnail"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg/220px-Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg

and I link it here:

http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svitlana_Azarova

like this

| afbeelding = Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg

and it does not work. Its thumbnail gets translated into

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ee/Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg/264px-Svitlana-Azarova-aan-het-ij-2009-d.jpg

which does not exist. (difference is the 264px )

Please assist me fixing this

Thanks

It looks fine to me, now. Today I also had problems with thumbnails. So, it's not up to you. mickiτ 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright has expired?

I would like to upload this photograph: http://www.laguardiawagnerarchive.lagcc.cuny.edu/steinwaycol/STEINWAY_ARTPHOTO_DETAILS.aspx?FormatType=2&Pg=1&KeyWord=henry&SearchType=1&Year=1850&KeyWordType=0&photoID=1&showtype=1&photoFormat=1. The photograph is from 1850. Therefore, the photograph is from before 1923. I think, that the copyright has expired according to this template: {{PD-US}} See also http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.
Is that correct? --Fanoftheworld (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Short answer: Yes. (Longer answer: Technically US copyright law often refers to date of publication rather than date of creation, and there are other times when date of death of the author are relevant. But a US work more than 150 years old should be out of copyright whatever the details, so I think "PD-US" would be safe and accurate for this.) Infrogmation (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
If the image is surely that old {{PD-old}} is okay, too. We can be sure that the creator died more than 70 years ago. Just document the creation date best possible. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

South African book

I hav'nt got a license for the picture I am uploading. I am sure it is old enough to be seen by everyone. It's taken from a old, 34 year old South African book. Why can't I upload the picutre after I have given all the necessary information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Lecucq (talk • contribs) 14:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The copyright is by far not expired after 34 years, the file is in copyright and not public domain. Files on Commons must be public domain or the copyright owner must grant a free license that allows anyone, worldwide, to reuse the image for any purpose including commercial reuse. --Martin H. (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

سؤال مهم

كيف يمكنني رفع صورة لأضيفها للمقال الذي نشرته لم أستطع إضافة الصورة ويظهر لي كلمة هذا الملف لا يطابق mime — Preceding unsigned comment added by محمد خير الطرشان (talk • contribs)

(google automatic(!) translation of above Arabic to English): “How do I upload a picture to attach it to the article which was published I could not add the image and shows me the word of this file does not match” (added by --Saibo (Δ) 14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC))

Hi محمد خير الطرشان , maybe ar:مساعدة:ملفات is of some help to you? You first need to upload an image and then use the name you have chosen during upload to embed it in the article. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool, apparently you understood how to upload: File:Muhammad_attarshan.JPG. However, did you take the photo? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please Delete my Account

Hello my Account user name is Westonci

I would like my account to be deleted. If not possible please delete all the images in my account.

I can not log into my account because my brother changed the password, and so I cannot log into my account.

If you do not believe me, the IP address from my computer is the same as the Westonci IP address.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.94.143 (talk • contribs) 2010-10-12T00:17:47 (UTC)

Hi User:Westonci, accounts are not possible to delete. However it can be blocked. But we do not trust a random IP to be the account holder. Please ask your brother to give you the password or use the password reset: go to Special:UserLogin put in your user name an click email new password. Use this and change your password immediately.
Why would you like the images to be deleted? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


I want my account to blocked/ and or all my photos to be deleted, i can not change my passord because my brother changed the password as well as the email to the password, and I canot reach him.

My account name is Westonci

In case you dont believe me here are some photos of me in my backyard in my facebook account

http://www.facebook.com/nappyheadedhoe?v=photos#!/album.php?aid=253399&id=507059030


And here are some photos of my backyard under my Westonci account

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Khalil ullah_Yousuf/Backyard

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Westonci/gallery

Also note my name Kh alilullah Yousuf in my facebook account as well as under the Westonci account

http://www.facebook.com/nappyheadedhoe?v=photos#!/nappyheadedhoe

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Khalilu llah_Yousuf/Backyard

Also heres my twitter account that uses both titles Khal ilulla h Yousuf and Westonci

http://twitter.com/#!/Westonci

I want my account blocked or my pictures deleted for security purposes. I just found out that when I type my name into google the fifth links reveals my wiki commons account and can potentially reveal my house to strangers.

http://www.google.ca/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=kh alilullah+yousuf&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=24c64331b3c8b4f5


Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.94.143 (talk • contribs) 2010-10-12T01:11:05 (UTC)

I cannot see anything at facebook → Registration required. However, I do not see any security risk.. let's see what other users say. --Saibo (Δ) 16:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
The user Westonci (talk · contribs) created a gallery page in the user namespace. Without repeating the name again: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=16751679 is the last revision of that page. Creating random pages in usernamespace other then User:Myname/Subpage is not allowed so or so, this stray usersubpage has to be deleted or moved, that will already resolve the whole problem of name connection. @Westonci however: Be more carefull with your data and be more carefull with what information you post where. Posting private data on random wikipages in random wikis cant be a good idea. Also with this posting you share your identity with the world. --Martin H. (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice this yet. Okay - so let us just move this page to the userspace of westonci and leave him a not on his talk page and everything is okay, isn't it? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 18:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Moved it. A link and an "archive" permalink to this postings last revision should did it. --Martin H. (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Check licenses etc.

Will somebody please check, that the following six images are uploaded correct, and that the licenses added are correct?:

Thank you. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File 1, 2, 3: They write: "This photograph may be used for personal research purposes only. It is NOT to be reproduced in any media for publication, sale or public display." But this should not matter legally. Therefore I added the {{PD-art}} info to the images.
@1: "life of the author plus 70 years." (in the license template) is technically wrong - but we can safely assume this with 1850 production date. See my corrections via history diffs.
4, 5, 6: Those are problematic since the given dates are some years too young. Who was the author (artist and engraver or photographer (maybe two persons)) more specifically and when did he die? Must be more than 70 years.
Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
For #5, it's an American work, and as long as it was published before 1923, it's fine. Death date of author only matters for recently published American works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but: was it published? And was it published before 1923? @Fanoftheworld: do you really think "." are needed in your descs? ;-) Those are no sentences so no "." should be needed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(I just added ".", because "." are at the end of the automatically added sentences "See below." --Fanoftheworld (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC))
Not in the German interface: "Siehe unten" ← without ".". Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A scientific article which was published on April 1950

So, I have this article. I have already scanned it from the April 1950 number of Electronic Engineering, which is a British journal. I converted the article into PDF. Because it is such an often cited article, I thought it would be a good idea to upload it to Wikimedia Commons. But is it a good idea? How about coyrights? Which license tag should I use? How big PDF is ok? I have questions, but if you have answers, please type it here and throw me a hint to my talk page. I will appreciate it. Thanks. --Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A British work is copyrighted for 70 years from the death of the author, so this is certainly not out of copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I got it. Thank you very much. --Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I see that the author of the article died on February 6, 1994.[1] So, I will upload the PDF on February 2064. --Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Please wait until January 2065. And keep up-to-date with respect to any changes in copyright laws until then. :-) Lupo 07:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't fix a summary tag

Would somebody put the description in the summary box of File:Setauketpostoffice.jpg for me? Every time I try to put it in myself, it breaks the damn thing up and makes it lool like it has no license and description. ----DanTD (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the summary can currently be found beneath the description. ----DanTD (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done. Lupo 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are poor quality images allowed?

Hi- I'm wondering why this otherwise great site allows so many crappy and totally out of focus images on? Any quality control system there? Makes one wonder if parallel quality issues exist in the texts. John Stephenson

Hi John. Usually a low quality image is better than none, as long as it it within project scope. I'm sure this doesn't reflect on the quality of the text though. ZooFari 04:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It also doesn't matter how many low quality photos of a particular subject exist on Commons, because Commons is only a media repository. Editors on the various language Wikipedias are free to select from the photos to display only some of them in articles. Some photos on Commons are not in use on any Wikimedia Foundation projects; a photo's page should show its usage on the projects. If we have multiple photos of a given subject, of varying quality, sometimes even the low quality photos may provide useful information that is not in the higher quality photos, due to differences in camera angle, time of the photo, etc. I agree with ZooFari that problems with the photos are not related to problems with the article texts, as different people may be responsible for the respective parts of an article. However, that is not to say the texts are free of problems. If you find a problem with an article's text, feel free to fix it if you can, or leave a note on the article's talk page describing the problem and maybe someone else will fix it. --Teratornis (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Farsi pictures

Hello,

Could we transfer these pictures from fa:w to Commons? V85 (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as they have licenses suitable for Commons and are in the project scope. See WP:MITC and Commons:Project scope. Since I cannot read Farsi I cannot be sure, but I see what looks like the Gnu image on the license tag. --Teratornis (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Frankly said, I am not convinced at all that the uploader of these images was the photographer.
  1. I notice that w:fa:File:KAABA 2.jpg was deleted as a copyvio, and w:fa:File:KAABA 1.jpg as "out of scope". (I have no idea whether these deletions were justified, though.)
  2. All these files are very small.
  3. w:fa:File:KAABA 3.jpg is a smaller low-quality version of this image.
  4. w:fa:File:KAABA 4.jpg is a smaller low-quality version of this image.
  5. w:fa:File:KAABA 5.jpg also appears here (as a GIF, and 2px larger than on the wiki, and without the black bar that w:fa:File:KAABA 5.jpg has at the right side).
  6. w:fa:File:KAABA 8.jpg is a smaller and low quality version of this image.
  7. w:fa:File:KAABA 9.jpg apparently came from another website, www.zamazemah.com.
This doesn't look good. I do suspect that these are copyvios. They should probably be deleted at the fa-Wiki. Please don't upload them here. Lupo 07:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
deleted them all on fawiki , they all were copyvios Mardetanha talk 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Agree to that, was also my first impression of that uploads. --Martin H. (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Flickr image

Okay so the image that I want to upload has all rights reserved but I've gained permission from the Flickr uploader. Is it possible to upload it then?

Fbookaddict (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The easiest solution is for the Flickr uploader to change the image permission on Flickr to a license compatible with Commons such as {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Then you can use our tools to assist with uploading it; see links under COM:EIC#Flickr. If the Flickr uploader will not do that, you have to use the more laborious method of COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that if the Flickr uploader "gives permission" to upload the image to Commons, he or she is releasing it under a free license, and then the "all rights reserved" notice on Flickr loses meaning. So he or she might as well change the license on Flickr. The Flickr uploader cannot grant permission to upload an image only to Commons, since Commons only accepts freely licensed or public domain material which anyone else is then free to reuse. --Teratornis (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

licencing

I'm trying to add the good licencing for and photo that I want to add. This photo is my own and the painting that is show on it is my propriety too , wich one should I choose to be ok ?????????

thank's you really much

by the way I usually speak french , so the licencing name in french should help me :)

larry001

For a photo you make of a painting it is required to know who the painter was and if the painting is public domain, 70 years following the painters dead for example. See Commons:Image_casebook#Art (copies of). For your own work, the reproduction of the 2D artwork, you can select any license tag you want. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

License

I have read the rules of Wikicommons, and apparently, there is no problem with the license of my map (own work based on academical studies, not real "derivative work" - see "colors" -). Is it possible to suppress the mention about the license ? Thanks.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Climates_of_Spain.JPG

--Milkcrawler (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The {{no license}} tag can be removed with adding a license. All files on Commons must be published by the copyright holder, you, under a free license, that works with a copyright tag. You have to add a copyright tag to the page and replace the no license tag with that copyright tag.
Additionally, as a courtesy and a question of accuracy, you may name your academic sources in the file description or the source description, what ever you think is appropriate. If you work is based on another work (derivative) mention it in the source=... field, if your work is based on facts from academic sources mention them in the description= field. --Martin H. (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
P.s.: please describe the collors in the file description. At the moment it is not clear what exactly is shown in the map. --Martin H. (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Milkcrawler, I still don't understand what makes you think an academic work isn't copyrighted. There is absolutely nothing on COM:DW to suggest that. --Morn (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think he's saying that an academic work isn't copyrighted; instead that this isn't a simple copy of a map, but based on academic studies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is a self-made map based on academic studies (Köppen climates). I have delete the message about the license in the main page. But I don't know how to put the right license. Can you prevent from the deletion of the contribution ? Thanks.

PS : i have not yet put the legend (if the work disappears, it is not useful for me to do it now). --Milkcrawler (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: He has redrawn this map: http://www.city-data.com/forum/attachments/weather/56180d1263187925-ultimate-climate-poll-koppen-climate-classification-kottek_et_al_2006.gif It's misleading to say "based on facts from academic sources", because he hasn't plotted (Public Domain) data, but simply traced a map which was apparently published in a scientific journal in 2006. So his map looks like a derivative work of a copyrighted map to me. --Morn (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not copyrighted map, it is a self-made one ! It is enough now! If you delete it, you can delete a lot of ones in the wiki. My question was : what is the procedure to correct this message which has not to figure here ? What are you searching ? In fact, my mistake was to ask you anything. Next time, I will upload without asking you anything.--Milkcrawler (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Browser color settings

Hope that author and licence of this screenshot are correct: File:Same JPG showing different colors (Commons and GIMP).png Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply cropped it - I guessed you just wanted to show the different pictures.
I thought your problem is due to the image is using color profiles and your firefox does not support them - but this is not the case. Do you have some filters activated in GIMP? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The linked version looks equally in my Firefox 3.6.10 and GIMP 2.6.2. --Saibo (Δ) 21:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I had filters activated, but I clicked on "Filters: Back to standard", and the problem stays the same. I didn't even know, there is such a thing like filters ... what a mess. I copied your comment on the description page. Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant the filters in menu "view" ("Ansicht" in German version). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the "color management" ("Farbverwaltung") filter was activated, but it doesn't change anything. The problem is more general as I see:

Same JPG in different colors (Flickr, Commons, GIMP, Gwenview)

The same JPG is shown in the cold way on homepages, and in the warm way by programs on my computer.
Don't know what to say... Lipedia (talk) 02:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have activated the color management in GIMP, too - that's okay. Just for testing: go to about:config in firefox, type gfx.color in the quick filter bar and change gfx.color_management.mode to 0. Maybe you need to restart firefox afterwards to apply changes. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked.

Same colors on Commons and GIMP

I've changed the gfx.color_management.mode from 2 (standard) to 0 (user defined). Can one say, that what I see in GIMP and now in Firefox is the image as it really is? It's a bit strange, that Firefox has a standard value, changing the colors arbitrarily. Do you know, if other browsers do a similiar stupid thing to the images? Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 12:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deactivated color mngt, too in Firefox. But I did it already a year ago. I think there was a bug in Firefox. But apparently there still is something not correct. Maybe it is a bug in GIMP? Maybe you haven't chosen the correct color mngt profile for you display? I do not know the solution. Maybe you can reach more people if you ask this (summarized a bit of course) on COM:VP. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

confusion with GNU General Public License and printed documents

To Whom it May Concern, I have found an image that is available in wikicommon via a GNU General Public License which is useful in my thesis. This image is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Compass_Card.png. I have read through the GNU General Public Licnse terms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentation_License and am confused with distribution of the image and the document in which the image is used. I have modified the compass rose in order to illustrate my point better. The thesis itself will be published by my graduate school, but no copyrights are granted to authors of Master's theses. I do not believe that the grad school I attend publishes theses online, althought the thesis would be available through inter-library loan and possibly via the online dissertation and thesis database called ProQuest. What exactly is required of me in such a case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friesweg (talk • contribs) 2010-10-12T07:01:13 (UTC)

If you do not understand your responsibilities under the GNU GPL--and I must confess that I don't find the GNU GPL to be particularly clear in this situation--the best thing to do would be to ask the author what they expect of you. Copyright law grants you copyright of anything you author until you sign it away in writing. It may be more accurate to say that your graduate school demands copyright, which may be a concern if you do not have the copyright over all the works in the thesis to give them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah. I went to the file, and realized that you misstated the license. There are major differences between the GNU General Public License and the GNU Free Documentation License, and it is important to keep them separate. In any case, I suspect one big issue is the requirements your graduate school has for externally copyrighted inclusions in your thesis.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not ask your graduate school whether they would accept your use of GFDL- or CC-licensed works? -- Denelson83 (talk) 02:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Need Vegas photos

I'm new to this forum and am in need of free use / public domain Las Vegas, NV photos. I need direction and input on how and where to access the right and legal info here. Thanks..

Hagfan

You can find lots of pictures in this category and its subcategories. mickiτ 10:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The legal information is written on the file page, e.g. File:Boardwalk-Casino.jpg is licensed under GNU Free Documentation License and/or Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and/or Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic. All licenses have requirements: all three licenses require attribution, the third license ask to provide a link to the URI if possible, the second license requires to add such a link and to republish the work under a similar attribution share-alike license, the first license requires a version history and a full text copy of the GFDL attached to the publication of reuse. This all is also written in Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia. --Martin H. (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Of course, public domain pictures haven't similar requirements: In most cases, anyone can use them in any way and for any purpose. But attribution to the author or source of the picture is still recommended. Also, some restrictions may apply in some countries. Martin gave you the link, so you can read more about this. mickiτ 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Really bad file name

I uploaded File:759426 10a0cb98.jpg. I thought I had entered a user friendly file name but it seems I didn't. It needs to be move to something like "Interior of Beer Stone Quarry.jpg." Thanks.  –droll [chat] 23:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC) PS. Its not from Flickr and I don't think I used the Flickr wizard?  –droll [chat] 23:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Renamed it to File:Beer Stone Quarry - geograph.org.uk - 759426.jpg and fixed the description according to all the other examples in Category:Images from the Geograph British Isles project. If you want to rename something you must use {{rename}} or request to become a filemover. See Commons:File renaming. --Martin H. (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.  –droll [chat]

Deletion of image

The image File:Egmont Studentergaard.jpg is uploaded by me. I would like to get the image deleted. How can I do this? --Fanoftheworld (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've started a deletion request at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Egmont Studentergaard.jpg. I suspect unless you give a good reason, it's not going to get deleted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

If you do not provide suitable license and source information

Hi, I am trying to download a photo. Same as I have done on two previos occasions. It is my own photo of my computer. However I keep getting this flag which I don't understand.

""If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding.""

Piopiotahi (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Piopiotahi, welcome to Commons! This message means that you did not select a license and/or provided source (from where do you have the picture) information.
Is your problem about File:Jackson Bay IMG.jpg? Was the image photographed by you or did you just scan it?
Just answer right below me. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 02:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Photo With Permission From Owner

I'm wondering how to upload and post a photo that I have permission from the owner to use. It is a photo on her website for which she has ownership, and she gave me written permission via an email to use the photo (the subject in the photo is a personal friend).

What licensing do I select for this in the drop down menu? Is there any other information I need to upload and use this file? What is the procedure?

Thanks!

The permission must not include only reuse by you but reuse by anyone. The copyright holder must agree that anyone can reuse the image anywhere on the world, anytime, for any purpose under the terms of a free license. See Commons:Licensing. To verify this permission you should forward it to COM:OTRS. There also is an email template to make sure that all required information is included in the permission. --Martin H. (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

written work format?

Which format do you require for written work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arielmoonchild33 (talk • contribs)

Wikimedia Commons hosts only media files such as photographs, scanned images, diagrams, animations, audio (e.g. music, spoken dialogue) and video clips, along with any associated metadata. Explanatory and other text is permitted on the file page only to the extent to which it advances Commons' aims and is not excluded educational content. Advertising/promotional material does not advance Commons' aims. mickiτ 14:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Commons has other kinds of pages that include written text, generally relating to the function of Commons itself:
What kind of written work do you have in mind? The Wikimedia Foundation has another project wiki called Wikisource which is for written works. Also see Wikibooks and Wikiversity. --Teratornis (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

How to add file

Hi, how do you add this File image: aguascalientes Flag 1 to Flags Of Aguascalientes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.52.120 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A search finds that we have these files:
and this category:
but no corresponding gallery page:
Thus you seem to be asking how to add a file to a category. You can do that by adding the wikitext:
[[Category:Flags of Aguascalientes]]
to the bottom of the file page. See Commons:Categories and Help:Category. --Teratornis (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

collapsible div

collapsible div don't seem to work anymore ,see my talk page for example.I tried purging and clearing the browser cache. Did someone change the global css?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I think i tracked the issue to this change http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=prev&oldid=44878284 can someone help me make collapsible div work again?--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
simply use
{{hidden|1=Archive 2010||headerstyle=background-color:#FFF5EE;border:1px solid #800000;padding: 0px 0px 0px 4px; font-size: 100%; text-align:left;margin:0px;color:#330000;}}

And close the main textbody with {{hidden|end}}

--DieBuche (talk) 10:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Da Die Buche deutsch schreibt: Ich habe dasselbe Problem hier und bin leider nicht so bewandert in HTML und mit Makros, resp. deren richtiger Parameter-Anpassung. Könntest du mir bitte den ersten Ein-/Ausklappbereich als Beispiel anpassen? Danke. -- Хрюша ?? 08:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unexpected response: HTTP/1.0 502 Bad Gateway

Hello, I can't upload any file to commons for several days. If I try to upload via Commonist then I get the error: Unexpected response: HTTP/1.0 502 Bad Gateway. If I upload a file manually, then I get this error. How I could fix this problem? —Dnikitin (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot of a freely downloadable game

Hello,

I want to upload a screenshot of a freely available computer game. It can be downloaded from here. The site does not mention any copyrights held by any party in this game. So what licence should I choose when uploading an ingame screenshot of this game? May I release it into public domain? I hope someone knows what to do. T Yamaguchi (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the source forge project page http://sourceforge.net/projects/hexahop/ it is licensed under GNU General Public License (GPL) {{GPL}}.Here is the copyright extracted from the source code
/*
    Copyright (C) 2005-2007 Tom Beaumont

    This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
    (at your option) any later version.

    This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.

    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
    Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
*/

--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I will release the screenshot under GPL v2. This should be appropriate. Thank you. T Yamaguchi (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Royalty free?

There is a photo on this page that says it is royalty free. Does that mean it can be used here?

I am also going to email them to see if it can be used on Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply being royalty free is not free enough for our purposes. Nor is specific permission to be used on Wikipedia. Media hosted here must be completely free of all copyright restrictions (with the minor exceptions of attribution requirements and/or share-alike requirements). Powers (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
a royalty is a sum of money you pay to the author of the image every time you use it, a Royalty free means that YOU make a agreement with the author to pay just once and use it as many times a you want(the agreement allows) this only effects you and for all intents and purposes the image is still under a non-free license, non-free images are not allowed on commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean even if they allow it as fair use, it still can not be uploaded? I also said that they could upload it. — This policy is so very confusing. Metallurgist (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Its relatively simple. To upload something here the copyright must be expired or the copyright holder must give written permission that anyone can reuse the work anywhere, anytime for any purpose including commercial purposes. Thats all.
Royality free does not fit the requirement that anyone can reuse it, see IngerAlHaosuluis explanation. Fair use does not fit the requirement that commercial reuse is allowed, fair use is limited to educational purposes and thats not free. See Commons:Licensing, read about free content and maybe see the first steps. --Martin H. (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah now I got it thanks.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Barricade by Claude Manet

May I download the picture The Barricade by Claude Manet from the article on Manet in Wikipedia and reuse it free of any charge in my forthcoming biography of Fanny Parnell, who lived in Paris during the 1870 period? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrea mctigue (talk • contribs) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It would help with a question like this if you would link the specific image, or at least indicate which Wikipedia. (I'll guess English Wikipedia, and that you meant to write "Édouard Manet" and that you mean this image.) You also don't mention in what country you intend to publish, and I'm not a lawyer, but in every likely country I can think of Manet's works should now be in the public domain, so the answer is almost certainly "yes". - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel, I was also iritated by Manet/Monet or Edouard/Claude mixup and what image was ment. As Jmabel said, the painting is in the public domain world wide, the painter died >70 years ago. The photographic reproduction of the painting may enjoy copyright protection depending on various circumstances e.g. the legislation in the country where you want to publish it or the legislation of Hungary as the photo was apparently copied from an Hungarian museum publication. Here on Wikipedia we assume that reporduction photography is not protected in the U.S. and thats the country of importance for Wikipedia. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag. If you want to publish it outside Wikipedia you have some more legal aspects to take into consideration, see Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs. --Martin H. (talk) 16:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo question

I have a photo of the Curtiss America H1 airplane under construction. It is clearly the America, with handwritten across the top "America - 1914" which is consistent with the history of this airplane. The author is unknown, the photo is an original, in a private collection. Is this acceptable to upload? If so, under what licensing? 184.8.179.33 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The tricky thing is that it presumably was never published. If it had been published before 1923, it would certainly by public domain. I'm not sure, and this might better be asked at Commons talk:Licensing. - Jmabel ! talk 04:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

copy right issue.

hi. i have developed a wiki page named "ganeswarpur". its the name of my village. so i thought that will be good to create a page of my village. i didn't have any photo graphs. so i searched the net for the photo graphs. suddenly i found one of my neighbor created a website named "ganeswarpur.com" . i downloaded some photographs of my village like temple picture, school picture. i uploaded that to my wiki page. As i am also the inhabitants of this village so i have rights to share these on net. but wiki removed those pictures saying copyrighted material. so what will i do? i know the owner personally. so how can i get the copyright. plz enlighten me.

Thanks & Regards


pullak mohapatra

The copyright holder is the photographer, you have no rights to share the images anywhere. To include something on Wikimedia projects you need the copyright holders written permission. The permission must not allow only you to upload the images only in Wikipedia, the permission must allow anyone, worldwide, to reuse the image anywhere, anytime for any purpose including modifications and commercial reuse under the terms of a free license. Something about free licenses, free content, about our licensing requirements Commons:Licensing would be good to read first. Then you should ask the copyright holder to agree to a free license, see Commons:OTRS. --Martin H. (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with cite and citation templates in image description.

I uploaded File:Newberry-Yellowstone tracks.png, then tried to cite my sources with {{citation}}. Ooops! Big mess, template seems very confused. {{cite journal}} had problems, too. Anyone have any ideas what the problem is? - J. Johnson (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a work around. But there does seem to be some serious problems with cite/citation; I'll see about notifying the s/w folks. - J. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It could work with [2] as well. Docu  at 03:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Different license agreement

Hi, one of my images here on Commons was found by a producer of a TV-show who wants to include it in the TV-show's graphics. The producer asks me if we can arrange some other licence agreement for this particular image, since they are not able to give individual contributors any credits. I am willing to do that, but will this conflict in any way with the agreement I have made with Wikimedia Commons? //Knuckles (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that a copyright owner may enlarge the licence extend of its image independend of the licencing published on the website, but not reduce it. The website (commons) can not enlarge the licence without the permission of the copyright-owner. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. Since I indeed am the copyright owner, I could give such permission, correct? Please explain "reduce" and "enlarge" licences. //Knuckles (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Par exemple enlarging from Attribution Share Alike to Public Domain No Attribution Needed type licence is possible; but reducing the licence from Public Domain No Attribution Needed to Attribution Share Alike is not possible. And yes, you can give such permission. --Havang(nl) (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, it's still your image. You still retain the copyright over it, and you can agree to relicense it however you like. The only thing you can't do is revoke the existing license. CC licenses are not revocable. But since the producer doesn't want to use the CC license, you're free to offer any other licensing terms to which you both can agree, and you need never mention them here if you don't want to (since the non-revocable CC license will remain in effect, and that's all we need). Powers (talk) 15:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Got it, thanks a lot! //Knuckles (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
This is much focused on non-exclusive licenses like Creative Commons. You can however also assign an exclusive license to your work and a licensor. The non-exclusive license says that anyone can reuse the work under certain conditions like attribution and share alike, the exclusive license with the tv station can e.g. say that no attribution is required but that you receive a compensation fee. Thats all no problem. The only restriction for your license agreements is that unlikely someone will accept a license agreement that is more strict then the non-exclusive licensing on Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I've heard, places like Project Gutenberg get a lot of requests for written authorization for a publisher to use an image from PG's books. I guess some authors and publishers will pay for someone to swear, affirm and aver that they own the copyright and are willing to let the publishers use the image in their work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On a side note: the photograph in question depicts a piece of graffiti on a wall. What about the graffiti artist’s (who is unknown to me) permission? Is that also needed, or does it fall under some "free street thingy"? //Knuckles (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That depends greatly on the jurisdiction. Commons:Freedom of panorama may be helpful in determining whether the artist retains a copyright on the graffito. In addition to the information on that page, some jurisdictions may prohibit an illegally created work from being copyrighted (or, if not that, then they may prohibit enforcement of copyright restrictions on illegal works). It is a bit of a gray area. It might help if you linked the image for us. Powers (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's Image:Tag in Malmö.jpg, taken in Sweden. //Knuckles (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Assuming it's an outdoor wall, you're in the clear, then. Sweden allows photos of works of art that are permanently located outdoors in public places to be taken and freed from the original artist's copyright. I would suggest adding {{FOP}} to the file description page for clarity. Powers (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

File:HF-purple-with-chair.jpg

I found this file on the English wikipedia and the creator says anyone can use it, as long as it's proper attributed. So I uploaded it here, but now the original file at the English wikipedia has been replaced by this one and I don't know what to write for the source. Please help?--183.179.200.191 07:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To make it easier to sort this out, I temporarily restored en:File:HF-purple-with-chair.jpg and copied the upload log from there to the file description page.
Personally, I'd add, e.g.
{{own}} by [[:en:User:HFprofemail|HFprofemail]]. First uploaded to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HF-purple-with-chair.jpg en.wikipedia]
as source. BTW, the image at en:File:HF-purple-with-chair.jpg uses {{pd-self}}. This should usually render as {{pd-user|HFprofemail|en}} here, not {{attribution}}.
Given the type of image, some might request a confirmation by OTRS (Commons:Permission#Where_OTRS_confirmation_is_necessary).  Docu  at 03:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

MenuetOS

I wish to upload a screen shot of the free software MenuetOS from the official website MenuetOS.net but is not sure what license to use for the image. Please help. --Sreejith K (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You can make a screenshot of Menuet32 and place it under {{Free Screenshot|{{GPL}}}} as Menuet32 was published under GPL. You can not upload screnshots of Menuet64 here as it is not free software and any screenshot will be unfree. See http://www.menuetos.net/index.htm. --Martin H. (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User pages

How do I make my user page look good. Mine doesn't look great right now.Thomas888b (talk)

Some ideas:
  • Find someone else's user page that you like, and study their wikitext to see what they did.
  • Visit the Wikipedia:User page design center.
  • Tell us what you want your user page to look like, in some detail.
--Teratornis (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Add {{User:Docu/clock}} ? ;)  Docu  at 03:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Help

I need someone's help. I want to add a flickr image, but I want to edit it so only one of the people are in the image. Then I want to upload it. Can someone do this for me, then mentor me so I can do it in the future. I'm brand new...Raintheone (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, sure. I'll do it. Amada44  talk to me 13:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording in emails to release photos for uploading

I want to email the son of a deceased artist with a newly created Wikipedia article whether he has any photographs of his father/ and or his work that might be used to illustrate it.

Is it possible for him to send me an attachments and then for me to upload the work if he provides a suitably worded email that can be cut and pasted on the upload page. If so what should he write, if he is agreeable, to release the photos for Wikimedia commons. --LittleHow (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I now have found the page with the relevant information I need.--LittleHow (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

gescanntes Material / scanned material

Darf ein Extrakt von online verfügbarem gescanntem Material in Commons hochgeladen werden? Es handelt sich in diesem Fall um Scans der Dänischen Königlichen Bibliothek , das Original ist aus dem Jahr 1851: http://www2.kb.dk/elib/noder/rischel/RiBS0790.pdf . 84.141.151.16 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, language was maybe a bit exotic. Here the same request in English: Is it allowed to upload an extract from material scanned by third parties? I am specifically talking about scans from the Royal Danish Library, the original dates from the year 1851: http://www2.kb.dk/elib/noder/rischel/RiBS0790.pdf 84.141.154.22 11:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Faithful scanning of public domain materials shouldn't create any new rights. See {{PD-scan}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

please delete these file

[3]

[4]. --Analitic114 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC) and all my edits these files. --Analitic114 (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at COM:DR, and be sure to explain why you want the files deleted. Powers (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Have I corrected license language OK?

Is the file I've saved OK now? It is a graphic I created called Conflict Resolution in Human Evolution.

After I posted it, I had received a message saying that the licensing had not been completed properly.

I've made the change that I think was needed, but would like some reassurance or instruction if there is anything further I must do.

Thanks,

-- Andy Sachs (asachs@igc.org)

Please link to the file you are asking about. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

use of non-wiki code for templates

Probably a naive question: {{technique}} could be made more flexible and much easier to use if we could simply write 'oil and gold on wood' and let the template spot the 'and's and 'on's and split the string accordingly. I think it is simple to do with some programming languages but it seems it can't be done in wikicode. Is this something that could be done using MediaWiki or any other mean ?--Zolo (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry MW doesn't support anything like that yet--DieBuche (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Note that this is ambiguous; do you mean (oil and gold) on wood, or oil and (gold on wood). Raw language is almost always ambiguous, which makes it host for inevitable problems.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant (oil and gold) on wood. I can't think of any example where it would be oil and (gold on wood). Beside, the current {{technique}} does not make any difference between the two either and I think the translation would be the same for most languages anyway. So it may not matter that much.--Zolo (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I can think of cases where it would be plaster and (gold on wood). What about oil on canvas and gold on wood? To give "and" higher priority than "on" means that this is oil on (canvas and gold) on wood. Having humans translate the whole thing means the implications of the words can come into play. I'm sure there are some non-IE languages where this comes into play.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
We can probably find cases where it would not work. Obviously it would be hard to make it work for "two sheets of vertically joined blue-gray laid paper". But I think it would work at least as well as the current template and we cannot translate all files manually in tens of languages.--Zolo (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of digitally-scanned CD jacket cover (covered under GNU?)

Greetings, I'm unsure how to license two images I'd like to submit for use in Wikipedia. They are scanned pictures of two compact disc jackets, which I purchased on Amazon.co.jp.

Would these pictures/scanned images be acceptable for use under the GNU Free Documentation License, since they are essentially photographs (digitally-scanned images)?

These are the images I scanned:

(Hyperlinks deleted by User:OmoOmoOmo)

Then, I need to figure out how to upload them...hopefully I can figure that out on my own (I'm a first-time user). Thank you!

OmoOmoOmo (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not ok. Commons:Image casebook#Album covers. The cover is protected by copyright, owning a copy of the CD does not give you any right to redistribute it with e.g. uploading them here nor does it allow you to license both works (your scanning and the cover) under GFDL. --Martin H. (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Martin H., thank you very much for your response. Your answer was very clear and the link very helpful. I also deleted the links to the pictures (due to an issue someone was having with Firefox vs. the Fileden website). Thank you again!99.17.46.76 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to replace my photo.

Hi, my name is Keith Ferguson, and I wanted help changing the photo in my wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Keith_Ferguson.jpg. I wanted to replace the current one on wikipedia with my new personal headshot and wanted to know the best way to do so as well as which type of permissions I should use to tag it with. I own the rights to my headshot, but I also have the photographer's info to list with it. Thanks so much for your help with this.

Prsnlzd (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Keith Ferguson www.whoiskeithferguson.com

The file is hosted on commons at File:Keith Ferguson.jpg. Go there, ckick on the line upload a new version of this file and follow the instructions of the upload form. There is an adviced licence line as well. Good luck. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Overloading over a file is only appropriate in the case of a similar, improved version, not a completely new image. His headshot should go to a new file.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A living person has personality rights, I think he may exchange its portrait. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I really appreciate your suggestions- I clicked your posted link which took me to my photo, alas, there didn't seem to be any selection for upload a new version of the this file --so, instead, i tried to just upload file with my headshot using the same file name as the currently posted pic to replace it. I got a message saying You can't upload a new version because your account is too new. Please go back and upload the file under a new name. Once you've done that, you can ask someone at the Help desk to move your file to the name you want. So, once I do upload my image, would this be the forum where I would make that request, and will that successfully replace the current pic with my official headshot? thanks again for your help.Prsnlzd (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Personality rights do not extend to demanding that an encyclopedia use a particular picture of a person.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Prsnlzd, the advice Havang(nl) gave you is contrary to our usual practice. Please upload your file under a different filename, then update your Wikipedia article to use the new filename. Powers (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

And wikipedia is not a photaoalbum. I think, he may overwrite his own portrait. It may be not common(s) practice, it is not defended forbidden and respect for the person is a good thing. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think he shouldn't be surprised to find the image reverted if he does. Commons is not here to force Wikipedia to use a particular image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that should not only be very impolite, but also a bad policy. This is a encyclopedy, the actual picture is a bad one, just chosen by a stranger who seemed to have no better picture available, and there is good reason to supersede and delete it. --Havang(nl) (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia. This is Commons, a collection of free media files. We should provide an alternative to Wikipedia, and if they want to supersede it, that's their choice. At which point Wikipedia has chosen not to use it, then we can delete. It's not our job to make the choice for Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Besides which, File:Keith Ferguson.jpg is being used only on a page that shows in context of the Annie Awards, where this picture was taken. File:Annie Awards Keith Ferguson.jpg is being used for a portrait on the Spanish and French Wikipedia, but also on a Wikinews page talking about the 34th Annie Awards. Uploading over either of them would have broken existing articles on Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
An image is not a template, rather a file. If somebody prefers a different image, then upload a different image. What is good and bad is not Commons' choise to make. Especially since those terms are relative to where its' used. For example a Wikibook manual may show a comparision between a bad version and a good version. Also often on discussion page and project pages there are comparision made between an old logo and a new logo. Not to mention external usage via InstantCommons. Don't overwrite unless it's a derived version of the current version that is uploaded by yourself. If somebody else uploaded it, unless it's a uncontroversial change, it should always be under a different filename. –Krinkletalk 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Templating weirdness

Does anyone have any idea where the "Template:If:Template:If:" near the bottom of the page File:The suspension bridge connecting New York and Brooklyn, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg is coming from? Presumably a problem in some template it uses. - Jmabel ! talk 05:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see this text - maybe it is fixed in some included template now. Monobook, Firefox, German interface. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Was due to an incorrect use of {{#if. Fixed here--DieBuche (talk) 15:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Broken SVG image

I just uploaded an svg image, image:wimmera.svg, which looks fine in my svg editor and when I directly view it in my webbrowser (WebKit-based Epiphany). But when viewed as a PNG on the wiki, a lot of the text is borked.

The image was converted using Inkscape from a PDF created by a combination of various software mostly GMT (generic map tools) and LaTeX.

Does anyone know why/what I can do? Thanks.

Cassowary (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See the thread that I have posted there. I had a similar problem in the past. Citypeek (talk) 05:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Flickr permission?

hi, I watched the table of Flickr permissions but this combination is not described:
for example, this following image is uploadable? thanks..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxzix74/3785616662/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cestofilo (talk • contribs) 00:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi El cestofilo,
The linked image is not compatible with Commons because it does not allow commercial use. As it says on Commons:Flickr files "...and NC (CC-NC) are not allowed on Commons (also not in combination with SA..." –Krinkletalk 11:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A good alternative is to put a link in the wikipedia article to the flick image. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That's usually frowned upon unless the image is particularly important in some way. Powers (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Why? It seems to me that is more correct to link than to copy, even if there is a licence to copy. I frown upon all those uploads from flickr to commons. --Havang(nl) (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't object to the link where we can't upload it, but Commons is a permanent categorized archive that's usable in articles, where as Flikr is an unsorted collection of stuff that can't be directly used in articles. If it's a good picture, we should definitely upload it here if the license permits.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Name change (File:Pl K 13)

Need to change the name of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pl_K_13.png to "Book Nicaraguan Antiquities scan page 85 K Pl 13.png" Help please.--Gumr51 (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ✓ Done. --J.smith (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Please see COM:RENAME for the next time you have a file to be renamed. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 23:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much.--Raul Gutierrez (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Rd232 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)