Commons:Help desk/Archive/2010/12

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.


picture source

Someone wants to delete a picture I've added (Jan Stig Andersen). Apparently it lacks source-information but I think I've put everything in there and it is all fine and free to use for anyone. I do not want to spend another four days trying to figure out, how this system creeted for engineers and nerds works. Could you please tell me in a language normal people understands how to fix this non-existing problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindbaek (talk • contribs) 18:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Best regards Sindbaek - who is in total despair over trying to do good and contribute, but gets stopped all the time

You probably talk about File:Jan Stig Andersen.jpg. Go to the file and klick on edit. Who is the photographer - this information must go to the field |author= .... Give the image a description (|description= ...) and a date. Then we need to talk about the copyright holder. Are you the photographer or was the intelectual property on the image (not a copy of the photo, but the copyright) transfered to you? The EXIF suggests: No. The image description however says The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it[...] redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. Is this correct? Does the photographer allow this? A copy of a written permission from the photographer allowing this should go to our permission system, see COM:OTRS. The source does not contain any information about free reuse at all. --Martin H. (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Martin It is probably all very clear and easy to you. I on the other hand are still in complete despair just looking at all the <tt><nowiki> and EXIF and COM:OTRS and the rest of the mumbo-jumbo. It is not at all userfriendly to someone without an engeneering degree. Anyway I've spent half an hour trying to do what I think you suggest to me. Now Im down to the copyright think - the photographer is supposed to write a letter? to whom, how and why??? There must be an easy way or else there wouldn't be all these photos on Wiki. I fully understand, if you find me terribly annoying, but I get so frustrated over trying to be a wikipedia contributor. best regards Sindbaek

My intention with 'tt' and 'nowiki' was to make my posting more easy to read, not to confuse you if you read the source code of my writing ;) The author etc. looks ok now. The source does not confirm the copyright information you gave here. Wikimedia Commons is a free content project, files here are free to reuse by anyone, anywhere. The source says just 'copyright', that means: not free to use anywhere by anyone. To confirm that the author allows the free reuse contrary to what is written on the website we require a release. The text template is under Commons:Email templates, its a cloze text. The third sentence can e.g. read I agree to publish that work so that anyone can use it for any purpose, provided that I, T. I., am properly attributed. That modification is necesary because the selected copyright tag is not a license but more an agreement, so the wording of the text template can not fit. The written permission should then go to COM:OTRS, see instructions on that page. An OTRS volunteer will read the email, answer and will fix the file description page. --Martin H. (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
If you find it too hard, then simplify it. We have to have the photographer's permission because copyright law demands we have it. The easiest thing to do is to upload only pictures you took directly from your camera, not taken of other's work; if you do that, you won't have this problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Subcats that are themselves

Hi. I am hopeless on categories so would appreciate guidance. The Category:London Outer Orbital Path listed itself as its own category, so it produced a strange (and I assume unwelcome) effect on the category page where there was a seemingly infinite number of subcats, all just a repeat of the one above. I've removed it, but don't know if I should have replaced it with something else. Please have a quick look, and advise. Thanks! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Was fixed already. The path is a subcategory of Hiking in England now - can of course have more parent categories, e.g. tourism or recreation in the city or county where it located. Just look out for examples in Category:Hiking in England and adopt the best categorization. --Martin H. (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Rotate a Category

I applied Template:Rotate to Category:Horse Trade Theater Group but no picture was rotated. Did I make an error? With only two pictures this particular instance is not very important but other categories have a larger number of pictures uploaded with the wrong side up and I wish to know how to handle them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs)

You'd need to apply it to each image directly.  Docu  at 05:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Is the parenthetical phrase in the Template description mistaken, in saying "This image (or all images in this article or category) needs to be rotated." or have I merely misunderstood it? Jim.henderson (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point, never noticed that. Maybe it's just the "This image will be rotated by 90 degrees clockwise by Rotatebot." part that is mistaken.  Docu  at 11:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

With no more information in the template description or discussion page I am left to speculate. Perhaps the intention was that someone would look periodically into Category:Images requiring rotation, determine what was necessary whether for the listed files, articles or categories, and do it. After the bot was started for the 90 180 and 270 degree cases, nobody looked at this "requiring" category anymore. If this is what happened, then at least the phrase "or all images in this article or category" should be deleted from the template description and the matter mentioned in the discussion page. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are still images that need to bot rotated manually. Personally I tagged a few needing 2° or 3° degrees and they were done quite rapidly (some time ago). There are also some formats the bot doesn't support (e.g. videos).  Docu  at 11:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Then we know that at some time in the past someone was performing fractional rotations upon request by this template. We also know that nobody this week performed a requested category rotation, nor have we any evidence on whether category and article rotations were ever done. My conclusion is what we needn't correct the implication that picture tilting is a working feature, since we don't know whether it is true. However the implication that all the pictures of a category or article will be rotated upon request is evidently mistaken, so I intend to correct it. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to figure out how to remove "This image will be rotated by 90 degrees clockwise by Rotatebot." from Template:Rotate, but wasn't sufficiently motivated to try ..  Docu  at 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know nothing of making templates; it appears to be a branch of computer programing. Anyway this edit made the text in question disappear from the view of an ignorant editor who has no idea how to follow the Fallback template to find the text that needs to be changed.
Further discussion at Template talk:Rotate Jim.henderson (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Upside down image

File:Interior view Pantigo Windmill East Hampton Suffolk County New York.jpg is upside down. It needs rotating by 180° so that it makes sense. Not sure of how else to report this one. Mjroots (talk) 09:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You can apply {{Template:Rotate}} . Jim.henderson (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Editting title of my uploaded images

I uploaded some pictures (own work) in WIKI Commons, but I realize now that I gave them wrong titles, which might cause problems. I tried to edit the title, but this was not possible. I could edit a lot of things but not the title. How could I edit the title?

You need to make a rename request by adding {{rename}} to the file and giving your reason for renaming. An admin will move the file to the new title if they consider that the request is valid. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple photo upload? Not on Wikipedia. Help!

I have spent much of this week trying to upload a single photograph, which I have permission to use for Wikipedia. What can I be doing wrong. Here is my description:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Nolan (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

First: A permission "to use for Wikipedia" is not enough. Permission must be given that anyone can reuse the work anywhere, worldwide and in any medium, anytime for any purpose including modifications and commercial reuse.
Second: Why do you try to write your own descriptions if you have problems to do this? Simply use the regular upload forms, Commons:Upload -> It is from somewhere else.
  • Provide source, which is not the harddisc of your computer(!!) but the copyright holder, a publication from that copyright holder or a website or e.g. 'copyright holder xy, submitted by email to me, yz'
  • provide correct date of work please
  • author is correct, description is ok too
  • you made this right with the permission field, copy&paste the OTRS pending thing to the permission field and forward your written permission to COM:OTRS as described inside the OTRS pending thing.
  • Other fields like "other versions" - there are no other versions on Commons - "additional info" are not relevant for a simple upload. If you click on the question marks in the upload form you will see a description what the fields mean.
  • Select license from the drop down or directly copy&paste the copyright tag into the permission field, the copyright holder must give permission to that license.
Thats all. Just use the right upload forms and dont expiriment. --Martin H. (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My question was modified by Wikipedia

I included author and source information in the description I just submitted. Wikipedia indicated that they are missing, thereby giving the false impression that I did not submitt them. No shortage of frustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leslie Nolan (talk • contribs) 2010-12-03T10:38:00 (UTC)

With your question above - I fixed it already - you used a wrong syntax. Templates start with {{ and end with }}, between start and end vertical bars | indicates, that a new parameter of the template is called. The template {{Information}} recognizes the parameters "Description=", "Source=", "Date=", etc. This parameters must be divided with vertical bars, due to some copy&paste you not wrote a vertical bar but its ascii code & #x7C;, so the wiki software did not recognize that a new parameter of the template was called and wrote anything in the first, the description, parameter. --Martin H. (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Renaming pictures

I realized that I uploaded some images with wrong titles. I cannot edit the title. Please rename them for me. ‎

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keesbleijerveld (talk • contribs) 2010-12-03T10:40:52 (UTC)

(added * to have a proper list, fixed first filename and linked files --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC))
✓ Done. Next time, you should use {{rename|new name.jpg|reason for new name}}. Regards mickit 14:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
(EC) Please see COM:RENAME for instructions how to rename.
Before I rename the pictures: Did you photograph them by yourself? Why are they so small? Please upload the big/full version. Or, did you download them from a website? Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

File:JenniferBlake 1.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation

I was just told that my photo jenniferblake 1 was in violation....

since.. Im her mother... I took the picture... I do not understand...

J ykema — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey1960 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The image size (400×533) suggests that this was exactly the same image that anyone can download from fan forums. It was not an original photo but a web thumbnail image. If one knows how many of this wrestling fans just grab images from the internet and make strange photographer claims here on Commons and Wikipedia it was not unreasonable to think the source information (own work) is unreliable. Given that the image was obviously published before I suggest that you send a written release to OTRS to confirm the authorship. See Commons:OTRS for the instructions, there is an text template for email. The selected license is/was Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Please refer to File:JenniferBlake_1.jpg in your correspondence. --Martin H. (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My profile information???

Why is all my stuff i typed about myself gone?? it wasn't bad or anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert2111 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This question is your very first edit here on Wikimedia Commons. You have not written anything here so far. --Martin H. (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you are searching your English Wikipedia user page: en:User:Robert2111. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Replace file/merge pages?

Hi, I realized one of my Creative Commons photos was uploaded using the Flickr bot (, but it has a watermark on it. I would like to replace the photo with a altered image with the watermark removed, but I can't simply replace the file on the original image page (since the bot uploaded it, not me personally). I have updated the linked file on Flickr and I have uploaded a new one here: Is there a way to merge these two pages to have the corrected image? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiLLGT09 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You can overwrite old uploads in a few days, 4 days I think. You can then go to File:Jimmy Wales - thinking.jpg and klick on 'Upload a new version of this file' at the bottom of the page. The best thing would be if you give the full size version without watermark. Cropping the watermark is one sollution, as seen in File:Jimmy Wales-thinking.jpg, but without the watermark the image would be better imo. Whatever you decide: Upload the new version over the old version and mark the upload File:Jimmy Wales-thinking.jpg with {{duplicate|Jimmy Wales - thinking.jpg}} once the overwriting is done. Or, if you prefer your own upload instead of the flickr upload - do it the other way around and add the duplicate tag {{duplicate|Jimmy Wales-thinking.jpg}} to the old flickrbot upload. --Martin H. (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Tillåtelse att i skolarbete publicera bilder

Hej! Kan jag i ett skolarbete för eleverna publicera bilden på riksdagshuset i Berlin: 20071110134423

mvh Birgitta Brink e-mail:

Hej Birgitta,
Ja du kan använda alla bilder som du hittar här på Commons. Det du däremot måste göra är att ange upphovsmannen till bilden i anslutning till bilden och information om vilken licens bilden är släppt under. Jag vet inte vilken bild du vill använda, men om du vill använda exempelvis File:Reichstag building Berlin view from west before sunset.jpg kan du exempelvis skriva följande:
Jürgen Matern, [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (], via Wikimedia Commons.
CC-BY-SA-3.0 är den licens som bilden är släppt under, en svensk sammanfattning finns här.
--Ankara (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
En del av licenserna innehåller specifika krav, så man måste kolla de enskilda licenserna (och eventuella varningar). Många av bilderna har just CC-BY-SA som licens och för den räcker nämnande av upphovsman och licens (såsom Ankara skriver), gärna med länk om mediet tillåter. --LPfi (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Noting copyright problems

Can somebody point me to the correct page for guidelines on flagging copyright problems? I noticed that we've got photos of Marshall Fredericks sculptures with no reference to the issue of the copyright of the artwork (he died in 1998) as distinct from the copyright of the photographer. I assume it's a matter of adding a tag, but I can't figure out where the help pages related to that reside. Dspitzle (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He's an American, and most of his works are in the US, so his date of death is irrelevant. Copyright on statues in the US is complicated, so each of them would have to go through DR, so just use the "Nominate for deletion" item under the Toolbox.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh, I gathered the death + 70 rule applies for public artwork according to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. -- Dspitzle (talk) 01:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't say that anywhere I see. The life+70 rule in the US only applies to works first published after 1978, and even then nothing published between 1978 and 2001 will leave copyright before 2048 due to that rule.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Create an article


I want to create an article about Athena Xenidou, a film director i have many informations (she gave them to me).

how can i proceed?

Click on en:Wikipedia:Your first article. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I work in Communications at the Town of Richmond Hill and am trying to add our new logo to the Richmond Hill page. I don't understand how these licences work. We have the rights to use the logo obviously, but what licence do I need? How do I do this?


I think you need to decide whether logo copyright is important to you. I.e., if you do not claim copyright, you can upload to Commons and use the license PD-Textlogo. If on the other hand you have are more restrictive idea about copyright, it would be better to upload to the English WP directly and use Non-free logo as a license. (There's some sample Wiki markup for both cases at w:User:Morn/Wikiblocks.) Generally, simple logos that are basically text-only will go to Commons, while more intricate graphical ones are hosted at WP directly. --Morn (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
The choise between {{PD-Textlogo}} on Commons or Fair use on English Wikipedia is not about whether logo copyright is important. If the design is simple enough you can upload it here, where it can be used on all wikipedias. If not you have the choise about fair use on the wikipedias that allow non-free content (as that in English) or to convince the copyright holder (the Town of Richmond Hill?) to release it under a free license, such as CC-BY-SA.
If released under a free license, the logo can be uploaded here and used on all wikipedias. We need permission, either as a link to a webbpage, where the licence is mentioned, or by e-mail to the OTRS system.
--LPfi (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but they may not be willing to release it as Public Domain, even if the design is simple. For inclusion in a WP article that's not necessary, and if he says he has the rights to use the logo, that doesn't imply he has the authority to release it as PD. Also, Canadian copyright law might have a different threshold of originality. --Morn (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's the website; I assume the logo in question is the one in the top-left corner. Looks like PD-textlogo to me. Powers (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
They may not be willing, but if it is simple enough it is PD. They have no copyright in it, as copyright law does not cover such simple designs. So uploading to enwiki just means somebody has to tag it PD and reupload it here. (trademark law etcetera do apply, of course) --LPfi (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
When someone is willing to release a work under a free license we should always ask them to do so, regardless of whether it appears to be necessary or not, because that's a good way of avoiding any future dispute over the copyright status of the image. I recommend to the uploader, if they are indeed the copyright holder of the license, to consider submitting a release under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver or the Creative Commons Attribution License through OTRS. Dcoetzee (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


Dear Commons contributors, I noticed today that three separate files are photos of the same work, one of them of lower quality. Is there a template suggesting that they could be merged in a single entry of for tagging them as alternatives (for the two high-resolution ones)? The files are:

Thanks for your help. Bokken (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is the "Other versions" parameter to the information template (this seems to be fixed already). The lower quality image can be tagged with {{Superseded|betterfile.jpg}}. --LPfi (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I have used the template and linked to the other versions. I have also edited the categories in order to have the same set on all three paintings (when relevant). Please check I made no mistake. Bokken (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Uploading an edited version of an image currently on Commons

I'd like to upload an edited (read: slightly less revealing) version of the file File:Sharka Blue.jpg. I don't know what I have to do to appease the copyright gods though. Could someone let me in on that? Dismas (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

On the upload page, there is an option "a derivative work of a file from Commons". --  Docu  at 21:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


In this photo from Flickr, which is released as creative commons, the user photographed the ball from the 1966 FIFA World Cup Final. Behind it there is a picture of England players from this match. Can I use this photo for articles about the players? YHYH11 (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Articles in one of the Wikipedias? That would depend on the individual wiki's fair use policy, and you'd have to ask there. Articles in some place entirely outside of Wikimedia Foundation sites? Probably (and depending on what country you are in): although I'm not a lawyer, at least under U.S. law the fair use case should be pretty clear. But in either case, I don't think the picture would be appropriate on Commons: certainly Ben Sutherland did not take the photo behind the ball, so this is derivative work, and unless you had OTRS from the copyright holder of that image we couldn't host it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think he's asking about the derivative work aspect of the photo. I predict the entire photo could be deleted here, let alone a crop of just the photo within the photo. Wknight94 talk 16:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
So, do you mean I can't use it for the players articles in Wikipedia? YHYH11 (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes. The flickr user made a photo of a photo. Thats a derivative work, the flickr users photographic work is freely licensed but large parts of his photographic work are derivative of someone else work and that parts are not free of third party copyrights. So the photo can not be used here. --Martin H. (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Flickr upload

Trying to upload this photo from flickr, for use on the W:Dutch angle article. I checked the copyright and it's cc-by-sa . I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, but none of the Flickr upload gadgets worked. note: this is my first commons upload Ocaasi (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If you start out from "someone else's work from Flickr" on the upload page, you could try the first of the "alternate methods". The file as such is uploadable. --  Docu  at 11:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

New broken file

This file File:Northern Pacific Railway steam engine 2196 at Auburn, n.d..jpg is missing the image. Can somebody fix it? ----DanTD (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I added {{speedy|no file}} to mark it for deletion. --  Docu  at 10:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping you could get the image to show up. ----DanTD (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE - Looks like I was able to do it myself. Is there any wy we can find more files with no images and fill them in? ----DanTD (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Not sure maybe there is a list of these somewhere. You could also search for files and upload those. --  Docu  at 13:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

using wikimedia commons upload wizard


I've just started with the uploading of my images and have tried to use the upload wizard found on:

So far I have uploaded two images:

Using the wizard I entered "Anas rhynchotis" in the category box, but for some reason the images are not there. My questions are:

  • 1) Will they get there automatically?
  • 2) Is it a question of time till someone puts them there?
  • 3) Is there a problem with the wizard?
  • 4) Have I done something wrong?

Thanks in advance for your advice,

Ken Billington

Normally, categories get added when you select them and should be there when the upload is complete, but the incomplete html syntax for your notice might have disabled that. The upload wizard does have some problems. -- --  Docu  at 14:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Photo description does not match file name is described as "British dead after the battle at Spion Kop. 24th Jan. 1900". Nationality of casualties needs to be resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 2010-12-12T03:34:44 (UTC)

What is the problem? Do you think the nationality is wrong? Maybe some expert did recognize the uniform? If you are disputing the nationality leave a message on the images talk page and maybe make a note in the description that the talk page should be read regarding the nationality dispute. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
File names are not always very descriptive, as they have to be short (and sometimes generated without much thought). In this case the name might be short for "Casualties in the Boer war 1900", implying nothing about the nationality of those depicted. --LPfi (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

uploading a trademarked, registered logo for my organization


I need to know the proper steps to take to upload a logo on behalf of my organization, Joie de Vivre Hospitality. We own the logo and it is trademarked and registered.


So are you saying that you'd be willing to grant free license for its use? Because, as a rule, that would go oddly with your intent in having trademarked and registered it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. For Commons it is enough that the logo is freely licensed (in the terms of copyright). Having them freely licensed does not mean they can be used in conflict with trademark law.
If you want to upload the logo you have to mail the OTRS system (preferable) from an official account of the organization, telling that you indeed want to license it under a free licence, which you have to choose and mention explicitly. CC-BY-SA-3.0, the licence used for the text on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, is a common choise. When you upload the image you put the {{otrs pending}} template in the permission field in the image description.
--LPfi (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

geotagging images

I am attempting to geotag local images using google maps. One change was successful. one partially so,

The image indicates an error which I cannot identify. The location is good but perhaps I inserted the location data in the wrong part of the information field. Comments are welcome.

Jeff Thomas

  • Fixed. Take a look at your first diff. You have accidentally erased the closing brackets of {{Information}}, so there's three templates, three sets of opening brackets but only two sets of closing brackets. The software digested {{coord}} and {{location}}, but could not find closing bracket for {{Information}} and so it was not processed at all. NVO (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah, see what the red error message was for - missing E for East. NVO (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you

Categories for a stadium (Qwest Field)

I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how to do the categories correctly. Specifically, I wanted to organize Category:Qwest Field with subcategories for the two sports that are played there, and then maybe even further down for the two pro teams. Wasn't sure if that would be appropriate. Any pointers? Even just pointing me towards any sports venue categories that are better than others would be appreciated. Cptnono (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you make two categories:
Category:Soccer at Qwest Field and Category:American football at Qwest Field, filling both with this code):
[[Category:Qwest Field]]
? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Cool. As long as it makes sense to others I will do it. Just wanted to make sure.Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you want to create additional categories for interior and exterior views of the structure. To see how the structure looks like, it doesn't matter that much what game is played there. --  Docu  at 21:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a few additional subcategories:
Enjoy. --  Docu  at 04:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


Can I upload a picture of a rare ball (100 made) if it was made by cadbury. It does have the cadbury logo on, and the spots v stripes logo on. Thanks, Thomas888b (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't visualize what you are describing. Can you point to a picture elsewhere on line? -- Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
try this Thomas888b (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
See COM:CB#Toys and COM:CB#Utility objects. I'm not sure whether the ball counts as a toy or a utility object. There are two separate issues to consider:
  • Who owns the copyright to the photo you want to upload.
  • Who owns the copyright to any copyrightable content within the photo, which is not allowable under COM:DM.
--Teratornis (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

GeoCommons duplicate image problem

I know this problem does not concern Commons itself, but an user tool on the Toolserver. But since the problem has irked me (and my OCD) for about three months now I thought I'd try my luck here. I've asked the question already on the tool's creator's talk page, but the question has remained unanswered. It was also archived unresolved in Geocoding talk. Therefore I thought that maybe a larger audience could find a solution.

So, the question remains: This GeoCommons location on GoogleMaps shows two images, when there is in reality only one. File:Kurki lammenrahkalla.jpg was renamed to File:Kurki Lakjärvenrahkalla.jpg in early September and the rd was removed a few days after that, but still the missing image is listed. Is the old invalid image name going to stay in the database and in GoogleMaps forever? Is there any way of getting rid of the broken link?

A minor annoyance, but an annoyance still. Any help would be appreciated, thanks --Albval (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not restricted to google maps: external links survive a deletion; we cannot remove the external link; in such cases a commons redirect makes the external link to show still the image externally. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
With remowing the external link do you mean that the broken link from the GeoCommons database cannot be removed? Anyway, after you returned the redirect, GeoCommons now shows three commons logos and images at the same location (but only after cliking the broken link). Also, when clicked, the broken links still don't show the image. Nice try, though. --Albval (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
That third commons logo was there before i made the redirect... I don't know what happened on geomaps. Other sites with external links to wikiimages show after redirect the image correctly. --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


I want to know if this file can be upload in wiki commons under a free license, because this is a sample logo and there aren't a original work. Thankful. Vitor Mazuco Msg 18:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's simple text, so {{PD-textlogo}} applies.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Vitor Mazuco Msg 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

File needs moving

Hi. I just uploaded File:Lunar libration with phase .ogv but screwed up as may be obvious: there's a random space at the end of the file name. I can't seem to find a way to move files. Can it be done? GDallimore (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, new file is here: File:Lunar libration with phase.ogv. ZooFari 03:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. How did you do it, or do you need special privileges? GDallimore (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Only admins (and non-admins with the filemover permission) can rename files. The {{rename}} template calls our attention to an image that needs remaining and is better than posting here. Please see Commons:File renaming for more information. Powers (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A screenshot was requested for the DiRT 3 Article. The official logo would be a nice image. What would be the copyright license for the free image from the internet (Google Images)???--Usyflad10 (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing "free" as in "free of cost" with "free" as in "free of copyright restrictions". Images that you find on the Internet are usually not free of copyright, which is what we require. Please read Commons:Licensing for more information. Powers (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Go otr 5k.jpg

The source of this image is given as Imageshack, and has been uploaded as CC-BY-SA 3.0. Are images on this site licensed in this way? January (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No they are not so I have deleted that image and the rest by the same user. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Wknight94 talk 16:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Unable to download Commons image for editing

In the past, I have downloaded, edited, and uploaded images from Commons. I don't remember how I did it, but it wasn't difficult.

Today I have tried to download the image at without success. I did this by clicking the "Edit this file using an external application" link: is that right?

If I am using Firefox, it opens dozens of new tabs, constantly, at a rate of several a second until I close the browser. If I am using Internet Explorer, it downloads a file which is only 1K in size, and obviously does not contain the image. Am I doing something wrong, or is that particular link broken? Maproom (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing the file with an external application requires that the browser and the application are set up correctly. You do not need to do it that way. Right click on the image or image link and chose "download", "save" or something like that. Then you can open the local copy with the image manipulation program. --LPfi (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! That's much easier, and it works. (Isn't what I am now doing, "editing the file with an external application"? It sure feels like it. Never mind, I am happy to have a method that works.) Maproom (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are editing the file with an external application. What the system says it will do in a prompt, and what it actually does when you select that option, might be two different things. It's like the campaign promise of a politician - maybe the politician delivers after being elected, or maybe not. Ideally the system should not display the option to edit this file using an external application unless you really have set everything up to allow that to work from the browser. But unfortunately a browser is a thin client and may not be able to check whether it can honestly display that message. --Teratornis (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The browser should be able to see whether an application has registered itself as being able to edit images using the system's calling conventions. Mostly that would mean the browser should be able to call the application, and only if the image is strange in some way (very big, using esoteric options) this would fail. But browsers, image editors and installation programs are buggy, and calling an image editor is not among the top priorities for browser developers. Sometimes e.g. having a space in the file name makes the application not find the temporary file to edit. (And yes, you are using an external application also now, but the browser isn't calling it.) --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of Images from Google Sky

Is it safe to assume that any images from Google Sky or the Google Maps version of Google Sky may not be uploaded here? I've done some research, but all I've found out so far has to do with satellite data of the Earth, so I'm still not quite sure. FlamingCobra (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I found no terms of use or copyright notice for google sky that allows free reuse. So not free and not compatible with the projects. --Martin H. (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
There are other free software alternatives like Celestia, KStars, PP3. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
See Category:Celestia, Category:KStars, and Category:Celestial maps. There is no Category:PP3 yet, but it looks like someone could create that category as we have some images for it e.g. File:Pp3 pl scorpius.jpg. Other Google products are not freely licensed (such as Google Earth) so it would be surprising if Google Sky had free licensing. However, the Wikipedia article says Google Sky contains images from the Hubble Space Telescope which would seem to make them publications of NASA. If you can find the images you want on a NASA Web site, then you can probably upload them with {{PD-USGov-NASA}}. --Teratornis (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
That is, you should upload only the NASA originals. The Google Sky versions might be copyrighted derivative works, if Google changed them in any appreciable way. --Teratornis (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

General questions about licensing

Over the past two years, I have managed to get quite a few people to release images for use on Wiki. Normally, my routine explanation of copyleft licenses is sufficient for my contributors. However, I am currently working with two individuals who have concerns and need some questions answered. Although I feel that I could answer them, I feel it would be better to get the best possible explanation from people who are more knowledgeable than I so that I do not unintentionally misinform them. In some cases, I know the answer, but would like suggestions on how best to word the them. Their questions are:

  • How does wiki keep people from not giving credit if they don't allow watermarking?
  • Can you remove images from Wiki if you change your mind?
  • To quote one potential contributor: "I do have concerns about contributing any of my better photos... I noticed that there is no acknowledgment of the photographer in the current picture and and that it is not protected from being easily lifted and copied." (I realize that this is essentially the same as the first question.)

Also, I didn't see anything mentioned about it on page discussing watermarks, but what is the stance concerning invisible digital watermarks?

Your advice, suggestions, and answers would be greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. We don't exactly "keep people from not giving credit". Watermarking won't really do that either, unless you are willing to follow up with a lawsuit. It's true that watermarking would be one piece of evidence in such a suit.
  2. No, in general you can't remove images from WMF projects if you "change your mind". And once you've granted a free license, the cat is really out of the bag: the image, if it is of any broad interest, is unlikely to remain only on WMF projects.
  3. Sounds like he doesn't want to release what he considers one of his better pictures. If he's a professional photographer, frankly, that makes sense. Indeed, if you are a professional, it may make plenty of sense to post to the Internet only when you are paid. I've had plenty of images ripped off. Fortunately for me, this is not how I mostly make my living.
  4. As for invisible digital watermarks, they're fine, but they will only really defend against a pixel-identical use of the image, in which case it is trivial even without such a watermark to show that it is the same image. As far as I know, no invisible digital watermark will survive (for example) a typical 50% size reduction of the image in question.
- Jmabel ! talk 07:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Jmabel. Invisible watermarks are fine. Keep in mind that people will usually steal your photos without attribution if you ever publish them online (at least, if they're any good) - Commons does not encourage this illegal behaviour, and cannot prevent it. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


I have located a shot of a minor TV personality (who previously had their image deleted for copyvio) on somebody else's copyvio youtube. I have done a screen capture of it. I personally directed this TV show over 20 years ago, specifically I directed this segment. Its my work in the studio where I worked. At the time I was working for the producer of the show, who was cropped out of that same shot. That individual is now deceased. It WAS work for hire back then, but I assume I'm as close to the original source as could be located. Certainly as an experienced wikipedian, I know how touchy these matters are. Under said honest circumstances, am I going to set off alarms and controversy by releasing rights to and posting this image? Trackinfo (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't sound like you have a clean claim to the copyright. Assuming that it is en-wiki that mainly concerns you, I'd think it was simpler to upload there with a non-free use justification than to place the image on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 07:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User Antonpaar

This unregistered user uploaded what apppear to be images taken from Anton Paar commercial websites, claiming them to be own work and released to the public domain. It may be the company itself releasing such images (which we might welcome) though there is no evidence of this, and it is unusual to allow your products to be used for any purpose.Chemical Engineer (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Antonpaar is a registered user who has not created a user page. Only registered users can upload files to Commons. See Special:Contributions/Antonpaar. The file File:Digital Density Meter.jpg has what looks to be a valid OTRS notice. See COM:OTRS. That would constitute "evidence of this" for that image. Do you have a question about a particular image? --Teratornis (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I checked the OTRS ticket # 2007092110003848 for File:Digital Density Meter.jpg and it is valid for this image. But it is only valid for that single image and not for the other Anton Paar images uploaded by Antonpaar. I could not locate any other OTRS tickets for the other Anton Paar images so I am going to mark them as missing permission and attempt to contact Antonpaar to provide valid permission to COM:OTRS --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright status

Is there a Commons counterpart of WP:PUF? How do I request an investigation of the copyright status of File:Eab article 11July1936.JPG?--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If a Commons counterpart to WP:PUF exists, ideally we should list it under COM:EIC#Copyright. Some related pages:
--Teratornis (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Generally speaking if you're uncertain about copyright status for an image, just do a deletion request. It's a good forum to request additional feedback. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"Internal error": unable to upload svg

I'm having problems uploading svgs. A couple days ago everything was OK, and I had no probs. See I uploaded this File:Ó Cadhla - Gaelic type.svg on the 15th. But now I’m getting an error. These svgs are really simple, just text turned into svg format. I've re-done the one I've tried to upload, in-case it was malformed in some way, but I still get an error when I try and upload. That was a couple days ago. I just tried again a couple minutes ago and have the same problem. Here's the error code that just came up (I'll copy/paste it and put it in red text), the heading is "Internal error".

key 'jsbhaarumu3dn9b9trls4ekedqp8ke9.' is not in a proper format


  1. 0 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/upload/UploadBase.php(557): UploadStash->stashFile('/tmp/phpgXMJaV', Array, NULL)
  2. 1 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/upload/UploadBase.php(569): UploadBase->stashSessionFile(NULL)
  3. 2 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(322): UploadBase->stashSession()
  4. 3 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(413): SpecialUpload->showUploadWarning(Array)
  5. 4 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/specials/SpecialUpload.php(167): SpecialUpload->processUpload()
  6. 5 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/SpecialPage.php(561): SpecialUpload->execute(NULL)
  7. 6 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/Wiki.php(254): SpecialPage::executePath(Object(Title))
  8. 7 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/includes/Wiki.php(64): MediaWiki->handleSpecialCases(Object(Title), Object(OutputPage), Object(WebRequest))
  9. 8 /usr/local/apache/common-local/wmf-deployment/index.php(117): MediaWiki->performRequestForTitle(Object(Title), NULL, Object(OutputPage), Object(User), Object(WebRequest))
  10. 9 /usr/local/apache/common-local/live-1.5/index.php(3): require('/usr/local/apac...')
  11. 10 {main}

Is it a svg problem? A Commons problem? A browser problem on my end? Anyone know?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I switched browser to Chromium and it'd worked File:Mac Amhalghaidh - Gaelic type.svg. I'm mystified.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oneida Baptist Sign

I recently uploaded the sign that goes with the article regarding Oneida Baptist Institue. I would like for the sign to appear with the article. Can you please help me edit the Oneida Baptist Institute page to include the uploaded Oneida Baptist Institute sign. We would like for it to appear as the profile picture for the article.

Thank you, Dan Stockton Administrator of Oneida Baptist Institute Clay County Kentucky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Principal01 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I added it here Oneida Baptist Institute. Thanks for uploading your picture. Don't be afraid to make edits!--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE THE PICTURES THEY BELONG TO ME, I OWN THE PICS BUT DO NOT KNOW HOW TO ADD LEON YOUNGBLOOD'S WIFE TO THE ARTICLE THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewigfall (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe see the en:Wikipedia:Picture tutorial on how to include images in Wikipedia articles. --Martin H. (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


Would anyone care to comment on the legal ability to upload images from this gallery? My understanding is that images published before 1923 are in the public domain (which applies to at least this picture and this picture since they were published as "postcards"), but this has me questioning legality. --Another Believer (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

If in doubt, you could ask them for permission, as their copyright page says to do. See COM:EIC#Permreq and COM:OTRS. --Teratornis (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
At best that would be a waste of time in clear cases. The libraries' claim of copyright is most likely invalid and they may not actually know that. "Another Believer", I can't give you legal advice, but in your shoes I would feel confident in uploading images from 1916, and have done so in the past. J.smith (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You say "they were published as postcards" - before 1923 I assume - so, if you have one of those postcards, you can scan it and upload it with whatever copyright restrictions you chose. But if you are using a scan made after 1923, whoever made the scan is likely to retain rights to it. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
No; the US courts have clearly ruled that a simple scan doesn't give you any rights, and Commons policy is that we ignore any claim of rights to a simple copy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I think thats what Maproom meant. If its <1923 and it was published in the U.S. then its free. Copying it with a scanner or similar gives no extra rights User:Victuallers

Thank you for the feedback. --Another Believer (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

How i help to you

Hai i am a gis analyst in Orissa (India). i have agis software. and i want to help you. just tell me briefly how i can help you.

in terms of GIS Maps creations — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Read Commons:First steps for general information about uploading images to Wikimedia Commons. Read the links under COM:EIC#Map and WP:EIW#Map for information specific to maps on Commons and the English Wikipedia. --Teratornis (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion requets

On the one hand,the request for file deletion is easier at Commons that at en.WP. According to the instructions, all you have to do is click on ""Nominate for deletion" While it doesn't say you have to do anything else, I accept that I do have to enter a reason. However, when I do so, the resulting page says I did it wrong. See [1] It isn't clear what should have been done. I suggest that either the software be changed so that you can enter a reason and it finishes the process completely, or edit the instructions to correctly tell you what to do. (Or someone can point out that I can't read instructions if I did something wrong.)--Sphilbrick (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The nomination is completed, it is/was a server cache problem. I en:Wikipedia:Purged it. If the template still says that the deletion nomination is incomplete please en:Wikipedia:Bypass your cache (e.g. go to the file description and press Ctrl+F5). --Martin H. (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Good, thanks. The best of all possible worlds - I didn't blunder, and the instructions are fine. What a good day.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Low priority request

I'm requesting input on an F8 deletion from en.Wiki. Wanting to help out with a backlog at Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons, I hit a snag on my first attempt. I satisfied myself that all the conditions for sourcing/copyright had been met and began replacing image use with the Commons file. The second use was on the local uploader's user page. Not being fond of messing around with another editor's page without good reason, I checked the user talk of the Commons uploader. I found several warnings there for copyright problems and several deleted image messages. If a knowledgable editor could double check File:GrangeLasky-DeMille1913.jpg and confirm my assessment of its suitability I would appreciate it. Apologies for bringing such a mundane request here but I'm a n00b on Commons and don't know anyone here to ask. Thanks Tide rolls (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that following a request at en-wikipedia to look at deleting some of the backlog of duplicated files that have been moved to commons. Nearly all but one of the first five I have checked were copyright violations which has led me to one en-wiki uploader despite a history of copyright violations and iffy uploads some of them have been moved to commons. Really need to review image moves before they are done as all we are is duplicating work deleting these copyrighted images. Should this be raised somewhere on commons? MilborneOne (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

U.S.S. Namakagon

I have a great 8 x 10 photo of the U.S.S. Namakagon AOG-53 I notice your coverage of Namakagon (which I served on 1951-55 is not of quality.) How can I get the photo to you. Please ans me by or 858-344-9050

As far as I can tell, I own the photo... took it in June or July, 1954 at Bikini Atoll Atom bomb tests

R.P. (Vince) Huntington see me today at — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

When you say you "have" the photo: are you the photographer? Because, if not, someone else presumably owns the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I done this right?

I have uploaded the following map File:Solihull 2008 election map.png from the Local Elections Archive Project and wanted to make sure I had done everything correctly to do with the license and description etc. I contacted the owner of the website and he has generously agreed to license the contents of the website under the license suggested at en:Donating copyrighted materials. He added the permission text suggested on that page to each page on his website and this map is the first one I have uploaded. I plan to upload more of these maps to be used on the relevant English wikipedia pages and wanted to check I had done this first one correctly before doing anymore, and so I can just use the same format each time I upload one. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Should be okay. I modified the description a bit - hope you like it. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Relacement image

Hi, I would like to update the file, but I can't do that, because I'm a new user. So I uploaded - can you please substitute the old file with the new one? And by the way - how long is this limit going to hold? :-) Thanks! --Shape Prior (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

See Commons:Autoconfirmed users. --Teratornis (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Replacing Caffeine 3D model

I would like to replace the current 3D model of caffeine with a model I created because it is more similar to the majority of organic 3D molecules I have come across on wikipedia. I'm new to this, and have a few questions:

1. What is the protocol surrounding replacing images that are so prominent on the article?

2. How can I gain permission and subsequently replace the image (if it would be appropriate)?

Thanks for your help. Bunbunrun (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the formatting in your question so your links will work the way you probably intended. Please read w:Help:Link and w:Help:Interwiki linking. The Caffeine article is a featured article which means other users are likely to be watching the article. Before changing it, you should propose and discuss your changes on w:Talk:Caffeine. See w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry which should have style guidelines for chemistry articles. You might contact the creators of the image you want to replace and the images whose style you followed, to see if all of them can agree on a single style for all such images. --Teratornis (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

upload of a pdf file always aborts with "Fehler: Verbindung unterbrochen"

The first attempt to upload the file "Christliches Kunstblatt für Kirche, Schule und Haus, Register, 1858-1919.pdf" aborted without any message.

Since every attempt to upload the file aborts with the error "Fehler: Verbindung unterbrochen".

Can someone help me? Thanks. -- Gerd Leibrock (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wie groß ist die PDF-Datei? Der Upload ist auf 100MB limitiert. Es kann aber auch sein, dass du eine zu geringe Bandbreite hast um eine kleinere Datei innerhalb des Zeitfensters das der Server dir gibt hochzuladen, ab 20MB kann es da bei der ein oder anderen Internetverbindung zu Problemen kommen. --Martin H. (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Danke für die Antwort. Die Datei ist tatsächlich über 100 MB groß. Sollte ich nicht in diesem Fall eine qualifizierte Fehlermeldung erhalten? -- Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Wenn es wirklich and der 100-MB-Grenze lag, dann schon. Aber hier ist vieles, vieles verbessserungswürdig, da ist das das kleinste Problem. Dürfte wohl den wenigsten Benutzern passieren, dass sie eine Datei über 100 MB hochladen. Viele Grüße --Saibo (Δ) 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


I need help in here. What shall I do for licensing ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 08:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this license correct ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 09:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I cannot read Hebrew at all. The photographer of this image needs to release this image for every use (incl. commercial). This is not included in your translation. And it even does not apply explicitly to the photo. Maybe only text is meant. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! The language is Persian. the website I took the photo from is the news and events of the University of Tehran. At the end of the news, it says that "using this piece of news is permitted provided that the source is mentioned". By the way, in the photo itself there is an address of that website (NEWS.UT.AC.IR). Any ideas now ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 14:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
infact, our help resources (people) are sparse - so you need to wait a bit until you get answer. If you do cross-posts it is an unnecessary waste of resources. As you see on this page there are other people who are also waiting to get help.
Sorry for confusing the languages - my fault.
For me the permission the website gives you is not clear enough. It is not clear that they also include the photo in this permission and it is also not clear that they allow any use and give away all their rights except attribution. Maybe other users here will have a different opinion. Just wait a day or two.
However you made a good start with giving the correct source at the picture and asking how to do it right. :-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do you think I should ask it here just to make myself 100% sure about it ? *** in FACT *** (contact) 14:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes Commons talk:Licensing would be a better place if here noone is sure that it is okay. Just wait here for answers (I would prefer this). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I have posted a deletion request after having asked another user in commons chat. The permission is not enough. Discussion here if needed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:16-4-1389 IMAGE634140975038932500.jpg. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to delete image

Hi, I uploaded an image ( yesterday, but thought I could tweak it a bit and could overwrite the image anytime. I found out that the histroy is saved, and I need to upload at least one other image to correct an wrong earth angle. Is it best to create a new one and put this one up for deletion, or do I just leave a track of my mistakes on Wikimedia... ;-)

And one other question, how large can I make my gif file without causing trouble for people loading the pages?? Joost 99(talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You can overwrite an image (new file version) but your "errors" will stay visible (seems you found the correct link to upload a new version already). As it is the case with all your edits in our wikis.
gif is generally a bad format. Try to use ogg video instead. One annoying thing is: you cannot stop the animation so you are always distracted from reading the text.
Regarding the size: I do not know and have found no size restriction now. 800x800 or so should be no problem. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Ah, hadn't thought of the anoying aspect yet. I will switch to the OGG format. I'll put this one up for deletion as soon as I have a new good format and version. Thanks. Joost 99 (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SVG upload error "This file did not pass file verification"

I've just spent half an hour trying to upload an SVG. The derivative works wizard just failed silently (it tells me my file will be uploaded but doesn't upload it). I have never been able to get the new upload wizard to work; it seems that it is not yet ready for beta use. When I tried using the basic upload form it told me "This file did not pass file verification".

It's only through me finally wondering if the SVG was actually valid that I found that that was the problem (through Fixing the validity allowed me to upload it.

It seems like we could do with some rather more helpful error messaging. — OwenBlacker | Discussion 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

New for me that svgs are checked for validity on upload. DerivativeFX will probably not in the next future be fixed with a better error output (programmers needed).
You can check your svgs here: It will show you how they will look like on Commons and gives you an option for some(?) error checking.
You can copy the source code derivativeFX created before you clicked on the upload button there to paste it in the basic upload form and upload then if something fails again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

KRON TV "Weathergirl" 1970

I noticed my name mentioned as the weathergirl but no one knew what happened to me. I am an author of FLorida pioneer "cow hunters" books which are true stories of the cultural heritage and birth of the cattle industry dating back to Ponce de Leon leaving Andalusian cattle to roam free that were interbred 200 years ago with ranchers settling in Florida after the Third Seminiole Indian War.

I would like to add this info to the KRON piece on Wik. but don't know how to do that and submit a picture.

Nancy Dale email:

Hello Nany, please read Commons:Welcome for image uploading and en:WP:Welcome for article editing in Wikipedia. Upload only self photographed photos or photos with photographers who are more than 70 years dead. Any questions: ask here again. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Please see Commons:Licensing for which images you can upload and which not. --Saibo (Δ) 03:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
70 years dead only applies to European authors. The rule of thumb for US photos is that the photo had to be published before 1923 or more than 95 years ago.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you can upload a photograph taken by someone else, as long as you go through the process explained at COM:OTRS to clarify that they are, indeed, releasing it under an appropriate license. - Jmabel ! talk 01:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
okay, okay, I tried to make it easy. --Saibo (Δ) 03:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Suitable Image ?

Hi, I want to add an image of a film director named David Yates to Wikimedia Commons for it to be used on his Wikipedia article. However, I am not sure if this image is suitable as it is a screenshot from a special sneak peek contained on a DVD released by Warner Bros Pictures. If you need to know, I am the one who took the screenshot. Here is the image:

If it is suitable, then what license tag should I use when uploading? Please help. Thanks. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand you, this is not suitable for Commons. It is derivative from a copyrighted work to which you don't have the rights. It might be OK on en-wiki on a "fair use" basis. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Hallows Horcruxes (talk) 08:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

pages of an uploaded pdf file are displayed distorted

Example 1: when I display the file "Christliches Kunstblatt für Kirche, Schule und Haus, Inhaltsverzeichnis, 1858-1919.pdf", page 3 is displayed laterally compressed (look here)

Example 2: when I display the file "Christliches Kunstblatt für Kirche, Schule und Haus, Illustrationsverzeichnis, 1858-1919.pdf", page 1 is displayed squeezed from top to bottom (look here) -- Gerd Leibrock (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Betrifft für mich jeweils alle Seiten des PDFs. Beispiel 1 ist halbiert, vielleicht durch einen Seitentrennmodus beim Scannen? Beispiel 2 ist völlig verzerrt, ich lade da gerade eine bearbeitete Version drüber um zu schauen ob es besser ist. --Martin H. (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Nein, hilft nicht wirklich, hab mit PDFs aber auch nicht viel Erfahrung. --Martin H. (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Danke, Martin. Wenn man die pdf-Dateien runterlädt, ist das Problem jedenfalls nicht vorhanden.
Gerade sehe ich aber, dass sich die Ansicht wesentlich verbessert hat, zumindest immer lesbar ist, wenn auch noch immer nicht normal.
Wie hast Du die Seitengröße normiert?
Trotz allem, ich muss einen Revert machen, weil durch die Konvertierung die Lesezeichen und die Jahreszahlen in der rechten oberen Ecke verschwinden.-- Gerd Leibrock (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try filing a report in Bugzilla:. --  Docu  at 07:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

help in categorizing pictures (knives, fish)

I would really like to categorize the images that were uploaded onto my page (David Darom), I can connect them to quite a few categories - but do not understand here and how to go about doing this.

I uploaded some good quality samples of many years of professional photography to allow sharing them.

Can I please get some practical guidance on how to do this? THANKS!

Daviddarom (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello David, thanks for offering this really needed work! Please read Commons:Categories and then come back to here if you still have any questions. In short: you need to edit the image's page and insert something like this: [[Category:Green houses]] Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a category Category:David Darom to begin with. Commons:Categories#Quick_guide on page suggested by Saibo could get you started. --  Docu  at 04:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Higher resolution here

Can someone explain to me why the File:Bms.gif has {{PD-Ineligible}} copyright, despite it being the copyrighted logo of a private firm? Please note that my DR on this image was declined. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's deemed ineligible for copyright, it can't be a "copyrighted logo". You might confuse copyright and trademarks. --  Docu  at 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Its my ignorance, but I don't know why it was deemed ineligible for copyright. The trademark law states for the usage of a trademark logo in commons, it should be too simple to acquire copyright protection, or should be old enough that copyright protection has expired. I am not sure whether these two applies here. --Sreejith K (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If the image uses {{PD-Ineligible}} that means the first should apply. --  Docu  at 11:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I personally question this classification. The non-text portion of the logo is composed of simple geometric shapes, but arranged in a rather intricate fashion. I would have voted for deletion. Dcoetzee (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
It's not that intricate. It is an equilateral triangle with lines drawn from its vertices to the center, rotated 60 degrees five times to form a hexagon. Alternately, it is a regular hexagon, with lines from the vertices to the center, and each of those triangles have lines drawn from their vertices to their center.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Additionally BMS states that the prototype was designed in 1905. --  Docu  at 04:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let us remove all doubt and label it {{PD-1923}} then. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Can I transfer this file from to Commons? Thank you-- 19:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No - in fact, I'm nominating it for deletion on En as a derivative work, along with all other images of the Heisman Trophy. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
+many google hits for this image are maybe false positives (reuses of the en.wp image since it was uploaded 11/2007), but possibly it is not even a self-created photograph. --Martin H. (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sticky images.

Uploaded new version of s:Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 07.djvu earlier and am still getting images from previous version. I am here to request that the server be purged based upon archived discussions. Thanks....JamAKiska (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

See COM:FAQ#PURGE. --  Docu  at 04:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Australian football club logos and jumpers/guernseys

I'm finding it hard to understand with Australian rules football logos and logos on jumpers, how wikipedia allows some yet doesn't allow others despite the copyright allow/disallow criteria appearing identical between the images. There appears to be a inconsistent policy. For instance the St George jumper image has their logo on the front and is allowed on wikipedia yet the logo by itself was not and was deleted (without any explanation I might add). Another example is the jumper for another club which has a goanna on the front and was deleted despite the image being my own replica creation of it. Then there's the example of the Western Suburb Magpies jumper whose WS logo is allowed by wikipedia on the jumper yet a small icon I created with the same WS logo was deleted.

It seems the only explanation I can gather is certain images are allowed on wikipedia if you say "The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image" and "The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing insert football club's name, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey" and "Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary." However as with the St George and Western Suburbs jumpers above this disclaimer was not included and there's no proof the uploader is the copyright holder as he/she has uploaded a whole set of different club jumpers

May I have some clarification please on the first paragraph plus how do you upload images and include the above copyright disclaimers? The images of logos and jumpers that have been deleted would make each club's wikipedia page complete and are of public interest as some clubs have the same colours so just stating colours doesn't distinguish between all clubs.

Yours Sincerely,

User:Mtiges Mtiges (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The images you link seem to be on English language Wikipedia, not on Commons. You might be better off asking your question there. --  Docu  at 11:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The logos are probably used under en:fair use. In most jurisdictions you are allowed to use a logo in an article about the owner, regardless of licensing, but uploading the image just in case somebody might need it is not allowed. Uploading to Commons for fair use is not allowed, partly as a matter of policy, partly because we do the latter. --LPfi (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)