Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Village pump in other languages:

Shortcut:
COM:VP

Welcome to the Village Pump

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of the Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived.

Please note:

Copyright policy - If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of the Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
Have you read the FAQ?
Advice - Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (ie. a lawyer).

Start a new discussion

Discussion (index)
Important discussion pages Commons:Help desk (new users, ask here) Community-wide general discussion Graphics discussion Categories discussion Copyright questions Contact administrators: Vandalism reports Get admin help User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard Ask for image improvement IRC mailing list

Discussion (index)

Important discussion pages

Commons:Help desk (new users, ask here)
Community-wide general discussion
Graphics discussion
Categories discussion
Copyright questions
Contact administrators:
Disputes noticeboard
Ask for image improvement

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump
To ask for image improvement, see the Graphic Lab School.

1 February 15
- 1.1 Delete image
2 March 5
- 2.1 Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers
3 April 19
4 May 3
- 4.1 images
- 4.2 DC Comics Image
5 May 4
6 May 5
7 May 6
8 May 7
9 May 8
10 May 9
11 May 10
12 May 11
13 May 12
- 13.1 CC-Zero
14 May 13
15 May 14
16 May 14
17 May 15
18 May 16

[edit] February 15

[edit] Delete image

I am new here and I have a problem. Image: Image:Croatian municipalities in B&H.PNG exist on croatian wikipedia. Can you delete (this is question for administrators) this Image:Croatian municipalities in B&H? Then I will displace Image:Hrvatske općine u BiH.PNG on Wikimedia commons! —the preceding unsigned comment was added by Mostarac (talk • contribs) 20:49, 15. Feb. 2008

[edit] March 5

[edit] Template:GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers

Actual change

GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers

GFDL-user

usernamegoeshere at the English language Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work, has published or hereby publishes it under the following license:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation license, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation license".

usernamegoeshere, the copyright holder of this work, has published or hereby publishes it under the following license:

I suggest we abolish this ({{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}}) template and all the likes of it. Generic Template:GFDL-user can do the exact same thing with one additional parameter ("en"). -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 20:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See [1]. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will preform this operation right away. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 23:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No. This needs discussion first! – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Then raise your objections if you have any. This is a completely noncontroversial issue as it stands. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections because I haven't even looked at this. The point is that you should be discussing this first. Be bold, but not reckless. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is an extremely bad idea. It is necessary we have separate templates to indicate whether there are disclaimers. Superm401 - Talk 18:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? Have you checked the actual change? You do not need to explicitly state the absence of disclaimers. The generic template, {{GFDL-user}}, does just that. We do not need to explicitly state if an image came from "English language Wikipedia". -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 10:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If those few words are the ONLY difference (and they are), it makes no sense to keep the 'english special' version when the general version can do the job just as well. Redundancy, run a bot to replace all usages of the GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers with GFDL-user (keeping the name and adding '|en') and delete the superfluous template. --Guandalug 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is to be a redirect between those two, I believe it should be the other way around. We should keep a tag explicitly saying "no disclaimers" to avoid further confusion on this. I could be supportive of a general {{GFDL-user-no-disclaimers}} tag, which would address this. Superm401 - Talk 23:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All images tagged with {{GFDL}} lack a disclaimer. There is no confusion whatsoever on this. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 11:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I know there's no confusion now. Please read up at w:Wikipedia:GFDL standardization. There was no confusion at en Wikipedia until someone decided to make a well-meaning but incorrect change to a generically named template, {{GFDL}}. Hence, why {{GFDL-user-no-disclaimers}} is a safer permanent name for here. No one is likely to decide {{GFDL-user-no-disclaimers}} is meant to have a disclaimer. However, they might do so with {{GFDL}}. Superm401 - Talk 04:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of images uploaded from English wikipedia with {{GFDL}} and {{GFDL-user}}. This really is a no-issue. All images on English wikipedia tagged with {{GFDL}} are licensed without a disclaimer. Images marked with {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} are with disclaimers. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be {{GFDL-user-fi}} or something (and it looks like it still exists). I hope that that will be deleted as well as {{GFDL-user-en-no-disclaimers}}. All we need is GFDL-user. Samulili 15:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, replace all with {{GFDL-user-w}} which has more parameters. Samulili 15:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

{{GFDL-user-w}} can also be abolished. {{{2}}} parameter on it is entirely unnecesary. {{GFDL-user-fi}} and all other flavors of license templates that {{GFDL-user}} covers should also be abolished. {{GFDL-user}} can cover all wikis, even non-wikipedia wikis like wikinews, wikisource, wikibooks, wikiversity, wikiquote, wiktionary. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Before deleting the license, please talk to Magnus or at least set up a redirect so that licenses are not lost when images are moved here via CommonsHelper. 131.7.52.17 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I intend to leave the redirect where it is. -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 19

[edit] Adopt-a-user

Wikipedia has it, why can't Commons? Nothing444 13:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Because we aren't Wikipedia, we're Wikimedia Commons. Monobi (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Still, there are many experienced users here who would be willing to help you if you need it. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we could start it, if people are interested. I am an adopter at English Wikipedia. Superm401 - Talk 00:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Check out Commons:Welcome log if you're itching to adopt! pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election Notice - Please translate

The 2008 Board election committee announces the 2008 election process. Wikimedians will have the opportunity to elect one candidate from the Wikimedia community to serve as a representative on the Board of Trustees. The successful candidate will serve a one-year term, ending in July 2009.

Candidates may nominate themselves for election between May 8 and May 22, and the voting will occur between 1 June and 21 June. For more information on the voting and candidate requirements, see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008>.

The voting system to be used in this election has not yet been confirmed, however voting will be by secret ballot, and confidentiality will be strictly maintained.

Votes will again be cast and counted on a server owned by an independent, neutral third party, Software in the Public Interest (SPI). SPI will hold cryptographic keys and be responsible for tallying the votes and providing final vote counts to the Election Committee. SPI provided excellent help during the 2007 elections.

Further information can be found at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/en>. Questions may be directed to the Election Committee at <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Board_elections/2008/en>. If you are interested in translating official election pages into your own language, please see <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2008/Translation>.

For the election committee,
Philippe Beaudette

[edit] Oxygen icons

Why there aren't any icons from Oxygen project. They are released in GPL I think, so license is not the problem. Also all Oxygen icons are drown in SVG format. --Mihael Simonic 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We have Category:Tango project icons which I believe are part of Oxygen project. If you know of other useful icons please upload them. --Jarekt 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There is huge difference between Tango and Oxygen. Oxygen has nothing to do with Tango. Oxygen is for en:KDE 4, while Tango is only for en:GNOME. You can see some of them here http://websvn.kde.org/tags/KDE/4.0.3/kdebase/runtime/pics/oxygen/scalable/, but note that they are .svgz so you need to open them in inkscape. --Mihael Simonic 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to upload those sooner or later. I just wish they were already .svg. That would make it a little easier. Rocket000 18:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They will no release SVG version. They switch to compressed SVGZ format to save space after installation of KDE... --Mihael Simonic 20:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OpenOffice.org file types?

I am rather confused to notice that, according to Commons:File types, not only OO2 file types (Open Document Format) are still not allowed but even OO1 file types have been removed from the whitelist. Note that ODFs (OO2) are among the most powerful formats, since e.g. spreadsheets allow easy calculation and tabulation of complex formulas that otherwise would require the implementation of text formulas into a self-written program by the reader.

What is the reason for this? What in general is the reason for not allowing all (or at least all free) popular and useful content formats? Please note that the natural way should be so forbid only selected files ("blacklist") rather than first forbidding all and then allowing only a selected "elite" of file types ("whitelist"). Who is responsible for these decisions? What are the criteria? I have never found any public discussion about this (apart from here) nor any transparent decision process or any hint where to look for that.--SiriusB 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

When would we actually use an OpenOffice file on a Wikimedia project? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 16:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You would have to ask the developer and Meta types for the full official reasons, but I think one part of the reason is that Commons is mainly for files whose data is strongly associated with one specific fixed visual representation. Files whose data could potentially displayed in many different ways, and which lack a default fixed visual representation, could possibly be useful for many purposes, but they might not fall into the scope of Commons... -- AnonMoos 16:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, this is no valid reason to forbid(*) the use, only not to recommend them for mere presentation of content. Second, OpenOffice spreadsheets may be a great enhancement of possibilities to present content because they allow calculations by the user himself. I am using OO mainly for spreadsheet calculations. And other peoble do as well. As an example, see here. There you can download an Excel file for the interactive calculation of nuclear weapons effects. Such things can also been done with OO spreadsheets (and as far as I know you can also use them in most of the recent Excel versions). Many other applications are possible for scientific, technical or whatever purposes. But since the deletion of OO1 file types from the whitelist(*) there ist no interactive file type left. The user can only upload and download passive (=non-interactive) file types the reader can only read (or play, if it's a media file), but not use for own calculations, tabulations etc. Or is there any possibility to upload self-written source code e.g. in C, Java, Fortran or whatever, that can be used for such things? This, of course, would be an even better alternative but, again, no reason to prohibit the upload of OO spreadsheets.

(*) What is the reason to work with a whitelist of a selected "elite" of contents rather than with a blacklist to exclude unfree content or malware? However, if the people responsible for the policies insist in whitelists, a viable way would be to allow at least spreadsheets from OpenOffice, Gnumerics or other free applications as well as C/C++, Fortran, Java etc. codes. There are many Wikipedia articles that come with formulas (e.g. most of the physics-related articles), which could greatly be enhanced if linked to free calculation tools related to the topic. Ok, for many topics there are Weblinks that allow such calculations (e.g. weather-related or so), but most of them are not free-licensed.--SiriusB 08:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people would say that CSV is the most portable spreadsheet format. "Interactive tools" means integrating user-written software as part of the Wikipedia interface, which would open the door to all sorts of issues... AnonMoos 21:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

CSV is far from being comparable to a spreadsheet format since it is a simple text file without any interactive functionality. A CSV file may be used as a condensed table format (and can be used to import data files to OpenOffice.org), but it contains only numbers, no functions.

I'm not sure how to interpret your conclusion about interactivity: Do you see any problem in allowing user-written software in Commons? I wouldn't call this integrating that software into the Wikipedia interface since the underlying Wikimedia software is not being touched by merely offering software the user may run on a local machine. And yes, allowing interactive applications as media files would indeed open the door to a whole world of new possibilities and thus probably be an enormous enhancement! Why beinf afraid of this? In my opionion, any restriction requires a good reason. If there is no such good reason to keep Commons free of interactive content, then any such restriction is unjustified and should be abolished immediately.--SiriusB 18:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template substitution at Commons:Deletion requests

As we all know, DR pages are a pain to load due to size. Recently, there were some that wouldn't render properly because there were too many inclusions. To help reduce server load on these pages (which reduces your load time), I'd like to suggest that folks start subst'ing their !vote icons. There's no need to have those dynamically loaded, and there are probably hundreds on each DR page.

If I'm getting the technical details wrong here, let me know. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Could a bot regularly scan & replace any non-subst'ed vote templates? --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 03:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that now. Any objections? – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont think this will improve your load time because this is server side code. We seem to be well below the limits at Commons:Deletion requests:

NewPP limit report
Preprocessor node count: 7856/1000000
Post-expand include size: 1350241/2048000 bytes
Template argument size: 35234/2048000 bytes
Expensive parser function count: 0/500

Substitution of all those templates seems useless and very anoying (will pop up in watchlists) to me. Multichill 14:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem was due to DRBot not archiving older discussions, so that particular months (namely March) got larger than any month normally would get. I don't think its a problem any longer. --rimshot^talk 14:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this myself, however, I don't think it would've helped that much. My solution (at the time it was at it's peak) was to suggest we stray away from using vote templates on COM:DR and simply start using bold text à la en.wp among others. As long as it's being archived on time, I think we'll stay under the post-expand limit, but the main problem is still the loading time, I don't know what's worst—all the template calls or the fact they all contain images. If we don't want to sacrifice our little vote symbols, maybe we can rethink how we organize the current requests. Maybe transclude less days at once or even have separate pages (e.g. one for copyright-related requests, one for mass deletions, and one for "out of scope" issues and everything else). This separation would also ideal for those looking for certain DRs. Mass deletions usually warrant more attention and affect things on a greater scale so grouping them makes sense. Many template and non-image page nominations go through the process with little or no input due to being lost in a sea of potential copyvios. Not everyone is interested or knowledgeable enough to give their input on the copyright-related requests and don't even bother going through them all to find those few they normally would comment on. We already have COM:CFD for categories; a separate page for galleries, or templates, or something like MfD doesn't really make sense on Commons (yet), but we should split it somehow. Personally, I would like if we could do a page solely for copyright issues and a page for everything else. Any ideas on how we can do this? Or any better ideas? Rocket000 17:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it being an image matters. My understanding is that the post-expand include size for a template (e.g. Template:Support) is just the size of the included wikitext. Thus, the size for {{Support}} ("[[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] '''{{{1|Support}}}'''") would just be 63, which is not really that large. Superm401 - Talk 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean that it affects the post-expand size. That's not really the problem though as long as it gets archived. Its the loading time, which images obviously do affect regardless of being in a template or not. Rocket000 08:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I did some tests. First I transcluded 1MB of {{vd}} templates to User:Rocket000/test1 and then expanded them all on User:Rocket000/test2. The pages without transclusions loading on average roughly 0.3-0.5 sec faster. Sometimes they were the same. Of course, my download speed wasn't constant and I didn't do it enough to make the numbers mean much, but I don't think subst'ing would have helped (except to get us under the arbitrary limit). Rocket000 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking, we could make use of our new magic word {{PAGESIZE}} to regulate the size of the page. If it gets too long, make it call some bot to start archiving early or something like that. Rocket000 10:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, close DRs faster! ;) I don't think changing the way we use the templates will have a significant affect, and we shouldn't remove the images for the multi-lingual issues that EnWP doesn't have. giggy _(:O) 10:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, yes. I have requested that DRBot work more often. Also, we should all please subst the !vote icons - they absolutely do not need to be loaded dynamically - that's unnecssary inclusion. We may also wish to think about having only the past x days (ie fewer than whatever is there now) on Commons:Deletion requests/Current requests. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed COM:RFD a bit, it's now got links to the big discussion pages like on AFD over on the English Wikipedia. If we could, we could sort it out by date too. This'll hopefully fix it, because I think today it finally buckled under the pressure and refused to render it as anything but a link. This, should be the best way to go. ViperSnake151 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

oh wait.......CONSENSUS? In our time of need...you expect us to need consensus? We need to change things...ViperSnake151 21:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

→ Commons talk:Deletion requests#Overhauling RFD Rocket000 00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crazyaboutlost

Hi. I am a pt-wiki user and tried to upload an image to my wiki. When I tried to create an account, I realized someone had already created an account with my user name and had been blocked. I was wondering if is there the possibility to erase that account so I can create it and use it properly? Thanks in advance. Crazyaboutlost

You can request usurpation of that account on COM:CHU -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much.201.14.241.221 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Find dupes

Hi people, i wrote a little tool to find dupes at your local wikipedia. It's located at http://tools.wikimedia.org/~multichill/nowcommons.php . Have fun, Multichill 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Great tool, thanks --Jarekt 15:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And another tool to find images at your wiki which are uploaded more than once, see http://tools.wikimedia.org/~multichill/dupes.php.

To give you an indication about the amount of dupes, at en wikipedia the first tool found 22014 images and the second tool 16217 images. Multichill 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I love it! Is there any way for the tool to not display images that are already tagged with {{NowCommons}}? It would save time as many of the images I looked at from the tool were already tagged. Kelly 17:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I first filtered out these images, but this made the query *very* slow. Maybe i'll add it again as an extra option. Multichill 20:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Will you make them work for more wikipedias (e.g. el.wikipedia)? Geraki ^T_L^G 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Every wikipedia is possible, just tell me how to nominate a picture. How do you nominate a duplicate image at el wikipedia? What's the template name? Multichill 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The template used is {{διπλότυπο}}. Please give me a note when you are ready. Geraki ^T_L^G 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Words In Ancient Greeks

Hi, I would like to ask if anyone knows how to spell Isaac in ancient greeks letters.. Thanks..

According to this page, Ισαάκ. --rimshot^talk 17:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Another handy trick is to find it on the English wikipedia and then look at the interwiki links along the left side for the language you want -- in this case "el" is Greek. Indeed, it looks like Ισαάκ is correct. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact ancient greeks did not use lower case letters, so in ancient greek it would be ΙΣΑΑΚ. Geraki ^T_L^G 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amin help needed

Hi. For pragmatic reasons (I'd explain more if needed), I uploaded a new image (that one) over a derivative work in order to keep the same picture title. But an admin now has to delete the previous picture (which is still here). Thanks in advance. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Done'– Mike.lifeguard' | ^@en.wb 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's still there! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, its not! Delete your browser cache, and it will disappear. --Kjetil_r 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK sorry. I never know how to delete my browser cache, I should save it in a memo on my profile. How do we do it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Note: After saving, you have to bypass your browser's cache to see the changes. Mozilla/Safari/Konqueror/Firefox: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl-Shift-R), IE: press Ctrl-F5, Opera: press F5." – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mozambique copyright law about stamps?

Would anyone know if copyright would apply to a cancelled stamp from Mozambique? I'm not sure of the date of the stamp. It's currently in the Esperanto Wikipedia at eo:Dosiero:Narina.jpg, and I'm wondering if it's public domain or not. Thanks... -- Yekrats 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 3

[edit] images

Please delete the orphan images i have uploaded.--Dimorsitanos 15:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DC Comics Image

Image:OFF123.jpg is copyright of DC Comics..Why has it the "Attribution" license? --87.0.125.182 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems, because the copyright holder allowed use under the condition of proper attribution. --Túrelio 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 4

[edit] Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License

Where can images with such license be used? From what I've read, I wouldn't be allowed to upload it to Commons, but could it be uploaded to Wikipedia itself? FunkMonk 02:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- It would have to be under their fair use rules. Kelly 03:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Darn. Why isn't there a specific tag for that license? FunkMonk 22:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rules about language for image description?

Is there any rule on Commons whether the description of an image should be at least also in english? I'm asking because the description for Image:Reinhard Tristan Eugen Heydrich.jpg is exclusively in Japanese signs and language (I assume). So, only a few people can check what is written there and whether the claims are true (probably not in that case). The uploader did the same in other images he uploaded. --Túrelio 12:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's any strict English-language requirement, but it certainly would have been nice if the uploader of this image had supplemented the Katakana with the Latin alphabet in the case of names which were originally written in the Latin alphabet anyway...

Was Heydrich ever in Japan, or was the photo taken taken in Germany by a German photographer, and then published in Japan? AnonMoos 13:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Heydrich was probably never in Japan and the photo was with high probability taken in Germany by a German photographer. As there is also no creation date give, let's assume 1938. To be free or PD, the photographer must have died on the spot (1938 +70 = 2008), actually not very probable. --Túrelio 19:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course there's no such rule demanding English descriptions. That would be ridiculous. If you don't understand Japanese, ask a Japanese-speaking user: Category:User ja. --::Slomox:: >< 10:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

However, the image is not of a Japanese subject matter, and in all probability the original photograph was not taken in Japan, factors which tend to raise questions about whether the claimed tagging is appropriate. In such a situation, it would have been advisable to retain source information in the original source language (German), which would have avoided confusion and uncertainty.. AnonMoos 13:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Slomox, why would it be ridiculous to require image descriptions to be at least also in english? (I'm a German speaker, by the way.) English is the lingua franca of today and we ask to have cat-names on Commons in english. If a user first has to find a translator for an image description exclusively in a rarely used language, that is clearly a minus score for usability of our images. --Túrelio 14:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rarely used like Japanese? Well, the requirement to have English descriptions would exclude more than five billion users from uploading images to Commons. That should be reason enough, shouldn't it? English is the lingua franca, but that is no status. Lingua franca means language which puts the least communication barriers in a specific context. Requiring English is not lingua franca, its defining an official language.

If you are concerned about usability, okay, then ask a Japanese for translation and add the English or German or Nahuatl or Miao or Ainu description. --::Slomox:: >< 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Handbuch der Systematischen Botanik (1924)

Hi. Can someone tell me if it is OK to upload these images?:

http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/wettstein/botanik/index.html

In the footnote I think it says that the license is GFDL (don't know german). Should'nt the license be PD-old ? Thanks. Lijealso 12:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I speak German and I find that footer somewhat confusing. It says:

Dieses Buch ist Teil von www.biolib.de der virtuellen biologischen Bibliothek. © Kurt Stueber, 2007. Dieses Buch ist geschützt durch die GNU Free Document License. Diese Lizenz erlaubt private und kommerzielle Verwendungen unter den Bedingungen der GNU Free Dokument License. Bei Verwendung von Teilen/Abbildungen bitten wir um die Quellenangabe: www.BioLib.de

Which translated to English is:

This book is a part of www.biolib.de, a virtual biological library. © Kurt Stueber, 2007. This book is protected through the GNU Free Document License. This license allows private and commercial use under the rules stated in the GNU Free Dokument License. When you use parts/images we ask that you state the source: www.BioLib.de

However, that seems to be a site wide footer. So I looked around and found that they have scanned hundreds of books and published them on that site. The specific book you linked to can't really be under the GFDL since the book is much older than the GFDL, unless of course the author or his children or similar have released it under the GFDL now. But of course, the book is from 1924 so it might be public domain. According to that site German copyright law says that books become public domain 70 years after the author have died. I don't know if that is correct and the site anyway doesn't tell when/if that author died. But it is likely the author of that book is this Richard Wettstein, and if that article is correct then he died in 1931. And then that book probably is public domain.

Anyway, you should perhaps email the person in charge of that site and ask? www.biolib.de has pages in English too, and this specific subpage has the contact address.

--Davidgothberg 18:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I just found that biolib.de is listed in this page: Commons:Public domain and free image resources. I think I will contact them by email. Lijealso 08:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The illustrations in this book (all three editions) were done by Adolf Kasper (probably this one: 1863 - 1935) from sketches by Wettstein (see the forewords at [2]). A first edition of the book appeared in 1901, a second edition in 1911. Images from these editions are {{PD-Old-70}} (for Germany, Austria, and all other 70-years-p.m.a. countries) and {{PD-1923}} (for the U.S.). Images that originally appeared for the first time in the third edition are {{PD-old}} for Germany, Austria, and all other 70-years-p.m.a. countries, but are not PD in the U.S. because they were copyrighted in Austria (and in Germany) on January 1, 1996. In the U.S., images that for the first time appeared in the 1924 edition are copyrighted until the end of 2019. So, how do we find out which of the images already were in the 1911 or even in the 1901 edition? Lupo 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional username

User:Ch-info.ch seems to be here to make good image contributions, but his username promotes his website. Do we have an actual policy that forbids this, as on en:wp? Sandstein 20:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really. Sometimes I'll block new accounts with website names, but as long as the user's making welcomed contribs and the name's not causing a problem, I don't it's much of issue. Rocket000 12:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Rocket - it is the work of the account rather than the name that matters - however quite often the ones named after websites do have self promotion in mind. In this instance he is giving freely licensed content so that is good (I hope) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License in Portuguese

Could someone who knows Spanish check this[3] image and see if the source really states the image is released under that license? FunkMonk 22:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not spanish but portuguese. The copyright note on the source page (© FAPERJ – Todas as matérias poderão ser reproduzidas desde que citada a fonte.) sounds good, but the question remains whether "you can reproduce it" really means a free license. --Túrelio 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's not good enough. It just asks for a source to be given, and authorizes reproduction. There is no mention that the images can be used for any purpose, including commercial and production of derivative works. That is simply a "press" license, and does not comply with Commons licensing policy. Patrícia ^msg 16:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Darn, well, I just uploaded a couple of images form that site too, might want to delete them too if this one is. FunkMonk 21:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public Domain or not?

Does anyone have any idea what do we do when a copyrighted work of art appears in a film trailer that is in the public domain? Specifically, the problem is this Image:Mutiny bounty 2.jpg - it shows artwork on the cover of a book that was published in 1934 which I presume is still under copyright? Gustav VH 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I presume this would only apply in similar cases where the artwork constituted most of the frame i.e. if a painting, photo, book cover appears in the background of a scene, this wouldn't affect the public domain status? Gustav VH 10:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. How far in the background and how small it would have to be is not an easy question to answer, though. --rimshot^talk 17:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 5

[edit] I clearly disagree with that DR closing

The fact that the uploader himself asked for its deletion is not a valid reason of deletion. It's like someone who would want to cancel a "PD" licence in a "CC-BY-SA" licence. It's not acceptable. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 05:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree too, but you know where to take this. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 12:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done > Undeletion request. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Library and Archives Canada

For those who don't follow the mailing list, there is currently a discussion about the copyright status of the thousands of images that have been imported from LAC (see Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada). There are two issues: one is that there are currently many non-PD images from LAC which have been erroneously tagged as copyrighted free use, and the other is that LAC is claiming copyright over the PD photos it has scanned and posted on its website. --Padraic 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that Library and Archives Canada can request their {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} images to be removed from commons, but they have no say over images which are in PD. It sounds like discussion about Darwin Online images. --Jarekt 01:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I suggest we start working on a list of post-1949 images for a purge. --Padraic 13:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images. I may not have time to mass-tag all these images with the deletion notice, so any help would be appreciated. --Padraic 14:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robot suggestion

For give me if this has already been proposed, but, how about a robot which puts in the back links from commons to Wikipedia based upon the {{commonscat}} templates. If this is to dangerous how about one which finds a link from commons to a Wikipedia, then checks that Wikipedia page for other language versions, visits them to add commons links and then add the back link from commons to all the relevant Wikipedia languages. I've done this by hand on a few pages but it's a real chore. Railwayfan2005 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to try Commons:Bots/Requests. Cheers! --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 01:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 6

[edit] Template talk:Featured picture mul#Delisted on Commons

Heads up! -- Cat ^ちぃ？ 08:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war and admin protection on museum dispute

In at least two places User:Gryffindor has put warnings that images taken at a private location, without consent, will be deleted. He did this at Category:Galleria degli Uffizi [4] and Category:Villa la Petraia [5]. At Category:Galleria degli Uffizi, he reverted attempts to remove the warning, and instiuted full protection. Also, note, there's a related discussion at Commons talk:Licensing#sustainable photography. It's been my understanding that we can use such photos, particular when the subject of hte photos, are works of art, in the public domain. --Rob 14:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of, I discussed the issue on the IRC. The admin Guillom unprotected the page. If their is anything like this again, then please post it. Thank you. --Kanonkas_(talk) 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The help page makes clear the Commons long-standing policy on this. I doubt there would be much support to change that, as it has been the subject of extensive discussions in the past. --MichaelMaggs 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like just one individual's idea with no support whatsoever. He protected the page (originally with cascading on) like there was some kind of community disagree when so far he's the only one who thinks this is an issue. I find Gryffindor's actions here to be completely inappropriate and an abuse of the tools. Rocket000 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh he made a mistake. It happens.Geni 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling for resignation or anything. :) I don't think was a mistake, though. Rocket000 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switching over to *box here.

I've been loving the new Ambox and Imbox templates that the people down at en.wikipedia are using/implementing now. I think maybe we should migrate the Commons over to them. We'd need to implement the Ambox CSS classes here first though.... ViperSnake151 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide links to some examples? Ambox and Imbox sound like prescription drugs to me ;-). Cheers, NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 20:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ambox; Template:Imbox. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 20:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazy me thanks you, Bossi. ViperSnake151: do these templates have any advantages in uses over currently used templates on Commons, or do you just prefer them "'cause they're prettier"? More specific: is there any visual / layout problem at the moment with currently used templates? Just asking because it sounds like a major change. NielsF ^{? (en, nl, fr, it)} 20:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, please don't fix what isn't broken. :/ I really don't see the point of implementing this. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

"Ambox and Imbox sound like prescription drugs to me" haha they kinda do. Yeah, I don't think ambox suits Commons very well. For one thing, we don't have articles (ambox = article message box). I think it's ok for Wikipedia, but I always thought it clashed with Wikimedia's/MediaWiki's general style (e.g. the front page and system messages). I can see some standardizing and adapting image page templates, though. Ideally, these should mix well with all other project's template styles since the show up there. We can't be en.wp-centric here but they do usually set the standards. I don't think we should mess with the license tags and {{information}}-like templates. These are already standardized and work well (although I don't know why they're not CSS).