From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Welcome to the Village pump This Wikimedia Commons page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days may be archived. Please note: 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 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? 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 (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: 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. Start a new discussion

Important discussion pages (index)
Commons Help desk Community-wide general discussion Graphics: Graphics discussion Ask for image improvement Categories discussion Copyright questions OTRS noticeboard Contact administrators: Vandalism reports User problems Blocks & protections General (none of the above) CheckUser requests Disputes noticeboard IRC Mailing list

[edit] January 25

[edit] Argh duplicate batch upload

I decided today to upload ~60 images from http://www.birdseyeviews.org just to discover after I finished that someone else got the idea first and they were all duplicates and had to be deleted (with the exception of ~5 or so where my versions were technically superior). I didn't stumble across these until I went to add the images into articles. In retrospect I could've caught this if I'd just looked a little bit harder - e.g. a Google site search for the URL would have turned it up, or if I looked at some of the articles of the cities depicted on En. Server-side dup detection for JPEGs of the same image would be nice, although I realise this is nontrivial. I guess all I'm saying here is we've gotten to the point where you can no longer assume nobody else has done that batch upload you're thinking of, so be careful! Dcoetzee (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rocket000 once requested to simply technically forbid the uploading of duplicates. I can't find the bug at the moment, but I believe that this is long overdue. --The Evil Public Computer (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the bug either. Are you sure it exists? Kaldari (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Always do dupe checking in your batch uploads. Calculate the SHA1 hash of the image you want to upload and ask the api if it already exists. BTW, please update your projects at Commons:Batch uploading. Multichill (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To save others reading this the search: mw:API:Query - Lists#allimages / ai. Paradoctor (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Kaldari (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hash checking is insufficient for a case like this, because different users use different tools to do a Zoomify rip, resulting in visually similar but distinct files. Like I said, dup checking of JPEGs is a nontrivial problem... we'd need new technology like the database algorithms used by Tineye. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think duplicates should be forbidden in all cases. In the past I have uploaded the same range map for more than one species with identical ranges according to the sources I found. But the sources used to construct the range maps were different. Several images ended up being deleted as duplicates and now the data about how the maps were constructed is lost. Mangostar (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Are those pictures really free?

Hi everyone. There's a Flickr user called Shine 2010 - 2010 World Cup good news (apparently linked to shine2010.co.za website) who offers many CC-BY pictures of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. But I am a bit skeptikal since it's written "Photo by 2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa" under each picture and I really doubt the FIFA would authorize such a non-lucrative use of those pictures. What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Unexperienced --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) flickr user. E.g. http://www.flickr.com/photos/shine2010/4294359825/ is credited to FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa (OC), in fact it is simply take from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1162958.html#maradona+i+will+experiment where it is credited to Getty images. First idea: This flickr stream only collection images from the OC with wrong credit to them instead of the original source and without beeing able to license the content themself or getting a licensing from the OC becaue per the terms of Getty etc they have licenses for theire use but they are not able to transfer this license or sublicense the content. --Martin H. (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Shine 2010 tread licensing very "liberally". From 69 images with compatible CC license in the photostream most credited with FIFA, and other part are Adidas balls that can be fount all over the web [1] --Justass (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote them. --Martin H. (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And a note: Im unsure about File:Moses Mabhida Durban Stadium.jpg. But if this is not from somewhere else it wouldnt be possible for another flickr user (who is also not the creator) to upload the same image 2 weeks before. So the doubt applies to all images from shine2010. --Martin H. (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Who in fact is the creator / photographer? -- smial (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I not found out so far, just try to determine if everything from this flickr account is bad or only some parts. --Martin H. (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you inform me if you have the confirmation that it's OK? Thanks. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The stadium photo can also be found here (uploaded two days prior to the earlier Flickr one). And, that is likely not the original source either, but I think the licensing is bogus on it. Now... this "shine 2010" seems to be a world cup news/blog site, and some of the pictures on the Flickr stream do seem to be from people reporting for the site (such as some from this story). I would agree the FIFA ones need the license to come from FIFA itself, and should be deleted otherwise. Definitely a dodgy Flickr user, or at least one who takes images from other sources and does not take care to mark them "all rights reserved", but they may well also post their own original photos too. Tough case for some of them, but a bunch need to go I think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a kind answer today: Most of the images are created by them (80%), some are taken from press material (20%), received from various stakeholders in the 2010 World Cup production with the aim of publication - sources such as http://images.2010oc.com/. On request by another Wikipedia user some images changed to cc-by. --End Message-- I assume: Most of the images means images uploaded before December 6, thats http://www.flickr.com/photos/shine2010/page4/ at the moment, for most of the later images we have evidences that they are from elsewhere. From the cc-by licensed images uploaded before December 5 the Durban aerial remains questionable as it was uploaded by others, without any relation to that site, days or weeks before. Also in answer to Carls comment: the license need to come from the licensor, thats not FIFA as they use the images, judging from the default contract, under a non-exclusive, non-transferable license (often also restricted in purpose of use) from e.g. Getty. --Martin H. (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Some of the images have "Photo by 2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa" which seemed to indicate that FIFA themselves were the authors/copyright owners, which is why I said that. If any are from Getty or other agency, then yes obviously permission must come from them or even maybe the original photographers (not too likely). I still have not been able to find the source for the aerial shot, but it is definitely dubious. Getty has a bunch of aerial shots which look similar but they are from January 2010, and not the same flyover. The 2010oc.com site has some from a still different flyover, where the copyright is explicitly claimed by "2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa". But yes, it sounds like they were careless with the licensing statements for the 20% of images obtained elsewhere (and the aerial view certainly looks to be one of those). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I already checked those aerials on getty carefully, the are all taken later. The aearials at the source [2] I named above are also to recent. --Martin H. (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Next update: The contact says, they updated the licensing according to their rights. I dont think thats entirely correct e.g. for the still questionable durban stadium we already talked about and the Adidas images (this set) which are clearly not theirs but still licensed cc-by. However, I think that this is a good source now starting with their >January 2010 uploads. What will we do with the Durban Stadium image on Commons? --Martin H. (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The only source we have for a free license is clearly not the original source. Without finding the true source I don't think it should be speedied, but it probably should be nominated for deletion. Usually those images aren't available at full resolution with metadata intact, whereas this one is, but that can't be used as an indicator of anything right now since the cc-by source is not the original source, and they are known to have been a little careless with the licenses attached to images they did not take. You could always ask them about that one specifically; maybe they could point us to the actual source. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I get more and more confused... What may we upload then? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Images where it is reasonably certain that the uploading group is the author, and have licensed. If that group is republishing images from elsewhere, as appears to be for that aerial shot, then they do not have the rights to place the license on the file in the first place. But for any image where they *are* the author, which it sounds like is the case for 80% or so of the images in that Flickr account, then any image they place the CC-BY or CC-BY-SA license on is fine to upload. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So those ones, for instance, can't be uploaded on Commons. Am I right? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Right. They have fixed the license on many of them, but not all. Several on that page are marked "Photo by Lefty Shivambu / Gallo Images / 2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee South Africa" but still have the CC-BY license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] People renaming categories of cities in Basque country

Some contributors want to rename some categories which concern cities in the French part of the Basque country. See for instance the discussion 'here about renaming Category:Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port into Category:Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port / Donibane Garazi for Basque is spoken by a part of the city inhabitants. I add a topic on this village pump, since I think there is no reason to treat Basque language differently from any other language. In my opinion, the rules must be the same for all. Allowing this would be like renaming "New Orleans" into "New Orleans / La Nouvelle-Orléans" knowing that some people speak French there... Peter17 (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Category names are generally supposed to be in English, so preferably it would be the same title as the English wikipedia. It would be nice to have better multilingual support for them, but there are large technical hurdles. Remember people have to enter these names as categories when they upload pictures, so the names shouldn't be longer than really necessary. Currently, we just try to make sure that the description area has translations in different languages. *Galleries* don't have to be named in English, but even there redirects are better than dual naming I would think. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose strongly

Category names are generally supposed to be in English, but there is no english for proper noun.

This renaming is POV and if it is accepted it will open far more complicate cases (Rennes / Roazhon / Resnn for example) and question wich langages first and so on.

It is far better to wait for title internationalisation. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 10:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose waiting for title internationalisation is good; question: in the meantime, may we make redirects for the inofficial names towards the offical ones? --Havang(nl) (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Agree strongly Some people has decided that "categories of all French cities have only French name". Some might decide that "categories of all Basque cities have only Basque name". Bilingual proposition is more inclusive. Commons still to be defined, it can take two ways: a) Become "UN bis" with vetoing members (in that discussion there is an obvious intention of some to treat Basque language different from French) b) Build something new, supporting diversity and equality. Technique makes it possible as shown here. Use of French forms in English wikipedia is connected with "officiality" and historical prohibitions, that is power; Commons should take it into account to repare this unequality.--Adrar (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

English: As I said, it's totally POV ("repare unequality" is not Commons role). The technical solution are not really reliable now. Moreover, the shorter is the title, the better it is.

Français : Comme je le disais, c'est complètement POV (« réparez les inégalités » n'est pas le rôle de Commons). La solution technique n'est pas vraiment fiable maintenant. De plus, plus court est le titre, mieux c'est.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 16:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Agree strongly. Basque language shouldn't be vetoed in Commons. Those French Basque towns are more commonly known by their Basque names and a high percentage of their inhabitants speak Basque. Commons rules state that category names must be as short as possible, but it doesn't say in which language should be as short as possible.--An13sa (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, An13sa, Basque language is not being vetoed, but is strongly neglected by even the basque people themselves. I am integrating the Basque places in the larger commons and wikipedia communities by making bilingual lists, interwiki's,rassembling images dispersed over different categories and making improvements to the Basque Country category tree. The basque languague, like other languages, becomes highlighted better by those actions than by bilingual category names (which cause people to get lost). See also what has been said about forthcoming internationalisation of file names. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is neither veto against basque, neither french against basque; any argument based on that is invalid. --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The category of all cities should have the English name. For historical reasons, that's most closely connected to the French name, though there are some pronunciation differences, e.g. Paris and Calais.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Historical reasons are historical impositions. Sometimes the proper names of the places are recuperated even if most people in the world still don't know them. Write "Bombay" in commons and you will see. That's la solution technique, everybody finds the place. I'm not exactly an expert in Hindi and many people wouldn't know or remember "Mumbai"; no problèmes techniques, you get there. If some people think that "reparing unequality" is not Commons role (hopefully some French speaking people think so; where has been agreed it is not?), what is SURE is that "maintaining unequalities" is not Commons role. Or is it? Short, long? There's plenty of kilometrical category names in Commons, much more difficult to write so this is not a relevant factor.--Adrar (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Izen ofiziala, Izen commons. --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Havang, you can't switch on continuously between two concepts which can be contradictory of defending French-only forms: a) using supposedly English placenames as a priority and b) officiality, which has to do with power and differences of status. If "official" ruled we wouldn't have Category:Mount Everest, we should have the Chinese and Nepali forms. Tibetan, even though it is the language spoken in both sides, is not "official", it is forbidden. Bu the way, a very unjust situation for this language. Technique works; I even made a mistake before: "Mumbai" is not Hindi, it is Marathi, I correct. Even not knowing the name of the language I arrived to the category very easily.--Adrar (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Agree strongly. In Canada the french language is a very minority language or a little island in the middle of a sea of anglosaxon world (the population of all Canada). But the names of Quebec are in french and Quebec isn´t France, it´s Canada. So...

Erabat ados. Kanadan frantzesa anglosaxoi mundu baten itsaso erdian dagoen uhartetxo edo hizkuntza gutxitua da. Baina Quebeceko izenak frantzesez daude eta Quebec ez da Frantzia, Kanada da. Hortaz...

--Euskalduna 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose Things are what they are. Mumbai is so named because India is an English-speaking nation that so chooses to call the city formerly named Bombay Mumbai. If France chooses to change the names of their cities, then English usage will probably change for the more minor ones. It's not Common's place to get involved in these disputes. Name length and ease of typing is an important factor. Quebec is a French-language place, which is why the names are in French. You'll note that we don't try to impose an French/English policy to keep the Anglophone Quebecers happy; we use the names on the normal maps.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure we can't count on Prosfilaes to improve this world. Haiti? Well, things are what they are etc. You call India (English speaking?) "nation", you call Québec "place" and you mention "France". If France chooses to change the names of their cities it is because it is a STATE but this is a political concept. We talk about languages and contributors who, if technique makes it possible as is the case, are equal. We must remember that wikipedias are not state-minded, there is not a French wikipedia but a French language wikipedia. Again first and second class: so more minor ones can't choose to change the names of their cities? Where is the limit? Where do you start being "major" and not "minor"? That is the dispute. And you can't change the reasons depending on the example: is in commons name length and ease of typing an important factor? In this case you will agree that "Senpere" is much-much more easy to type than "Saint-Pée-sur-Nivelle"--Adrar (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that Commons put up a banner to donate to Haiti, nor did you. India is the world's largest nation with English as an official language, and when they say that Mumbai is the English language name for Bombay, well, it is. Just as important as the official declaration is the facts on the ground; the people who write about about Mumbai in English use Mumbai now, particularly the Indians that are most of the people who actually use the name in English. Quebec (no accent) is the name of that province in English, and Nevsky Prospekt is the name of the street in St. Petersburg in English. I object on principle to Nevsky Prospekt, as -ekt is not found in English and the ending sound [-ekt] is spelled -ect, but that's the name as used in English language sources. The difference between major and minor is purely an observed factual one; if Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port wants to change its official name on maps, it's likely English sources would follow course. To take a real life example, Turin, Italy, is Turin in English, though there is some deviant usage. Of course, Peking becoming Bejing and St. Petersberg becoming Leningrad and back are evidence that even changes to major cities can happen.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quebec is a French and English-language place (the quebecian people is bilingual), like Basque Country is a basque and spanish/french language place (and basque people is bilingual or trilingual). So is very hypocrite to say that Quebec must to has french language names when Quebec is in a english speakers nation: Canada, and to say that Basque Country should not has basque language names because is in a french speakers nation: France. Very, very jabobinism and hypocrite. The "normal" maps of Quebec? What are the "normal" maps of Quebec, the english maps or the french maps? Or the maps of Charles de Gaulle? I know that all Anglophone Quebecers are happy, all the Quebecers are anglophone like the rest of Canadians, but many of them also speak French are not always so happy about the English name of their localities or you want us to believe.--Euskalduna 19:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are wrong : French is the only official language of Quebec (Charter of the French Language). Croquant (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

- <quote:en:Quebec>: Quebec is a province in east-central Canada. It is the only Canadian province with a predominantly French-speaking identity and the only one whose sole official language is French at the provincial level. <end of quote>.--Havang(nl) (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

French the "only" official language of Quebec? Yes, and Spanish "only" oficial language of California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida and the fifht street of Bronx. Croissant, You can be very sorry, but the oficial language of Quebec is English, and French has cooficial status (only in Quebec), because the only oficial language of Canada is English and Quebec is in Canada. Maybe, not for Charles de Gaulle... but for the rest of world. The predominant identity if quebec is Canadian (%60), and aproximatily the other identity %40 is Quebecian-Quebecoise (no "French", "French identity" in Quebec? Yes, Charles de Gaulle when he was 50 years ago to say that Quebec "was France". Some people speake english in Ireland, Wales, Scotland... who has "english identitity" in those countries? Some people in Algeria, Tunisia... speake french but don´t have "french identity". You are deliberately mixing to speak french with to have "french identity=to be french". This discussion has shifted here when you were left without support in the place where this discussion has emerged and has already made the rating.--Euskalduna 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A few months ago, some of the Brittany categories had "Bretagne" and some had "Brittany" (not sure about the situation right now)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The parent category is single-named Category:Bretagne. The gallery page is double-named: Bretagne - Breizh. For gallery-pages double names are not a problem, there may be gallery pages in french, in basque, in english as well in double language titles and multi-language content, two being redirects. But even for gallery titles, it is preferable to wait till language internationalisation of titles has been realised. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are no english names for the cities and municipalities of the Northern Basque Country. To write them in french (the only "non-POV position" for some french-speaking people in this conversation) does not follow the rules here in Commons. That's why the better and more inclusive solution is to write them both in french and basque. Basque is one of the oldest languages in Europe, and one of the languages spoken in the Northern Basque Country. I agree with the rule of the "shortest possible title", but not with the "shortest possible french title" suggested by some french-speaking people here.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What rules of Commons?

What you deem to be "the better and more inclusive solution" is certainly the most inclusive short of also including katakana, but I fail to see how it is better. The villages are known by certain names, and it is by these names that people will look for them. It might be in Basque XOR in French, but it will never be in Basque AND in French. Hence, using both names will fail for everybody, and thus constitutes a usability disaster.

The proper way to do is to use a name which results from a complex function of the most commonly used name and the official name. Expliciting this function would probably be a nightmare of trolling, but luckily, we do not have to because the solutions are pre-computed as the names of the corresponding articles on the English Wikipedia. Rama (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

<quote:Commons:Categories>We still lack internationalization for category names, but this issue should be resolved with appropriate changes to the MediaWiki software (see bugzilla:5638). Creating intermingled category structures in different languages would only make things worse.<end of quote>. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What rules of Commons? Commons:Categories#Category_names and Commons:Naming_categories#Language. I see no "french" there.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no basque too.

Stop silly argument and others non-sens (basque is not the oldest langages in Europe and even if it was true, that doesn't change anything). Please wait for internationalisation and help translating, there's a lot of templates that still doesn't exist in basque. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the small difference is that I claim for a both french and basque solution, and you don't. So...

Short summary:

My arguments are POV. Yours are not.

My arguments are silly. Yours are not.

Neither french nor basque are on the rules. So we have to put the titles in french.

We need short titles. Basque titles are as short as french ones, but we have to put them in french.

Internationalisation comes soon. So basques have to wait; not french.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do. In fact, you claim for two langages, I claim for 256 langages.

Your right, I'm POV. But my POV is the usual position on Commons and french is the only official langage in France.

Whatever, no comment.

Put basque if you want but it's lot a work for a little gain.

Idem plus again french is the only official langage in France (I agree with you, it's not a good thing ; but it's not Commons role to do lobbying).

French waits for internationalisation too (for example : New Orleans / La Nouvelle-Orléans, Londres / London, Cologne / Köln, etc.). In fact, all non-english speaker are waiting for.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't put the titles in French. We put the titles in English, as taken from the English Wikipedia. As is relatively normal around the world, for most cities, that matches whatever the official names are, and they seem to be in French.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Vigneron, French isn´t the native language of New Orleans or Quebec, is a one of the spoken languages in New Orleans or Quebec like the Spanish or English for example (like Algerian or Moroccan are a very spoken language in Marseille, Paris, Toulouse or many cities and parts of France), but the French is a language of settlers. The Basque isn´t the native language of Newfowland or Port-aux-Basques, although Basque fishermen since the fifteenth century they called Ternua to Newfowland and the Basque was a spoken language in Newfowland until the eighteenth century (and parts of quebec), it was a language of settlers. I am not defending the French name of New Orleans, the Spanish name of Texas, the Italian name of Little Italy of New York, or the German name of Pennsylvania... Europeans have gone all over the world, imposing our native languages of the country, which is shameful.

We are speaking about the basque name or NATIVE NAME of our country: the Basque Country, the basque name of basque cities and villages. Names used by the fathers of our fathers of our fathers... for thousands and thousands of years... always in the same place, the Basque Country (long before even the creation of the French). Besides that in my opinion is ridiculous to ask the French is official in Quebec or New Orleans, when those who defend from France the oficiality of French far away from France to deny that oficiality to the Basque (in North Basque Country), Breton (in Brittany), Corsican (in Corse), Catalan (in Roselló), Occitan (in Occitania)...

The initial discussion started here, many people gave their vote there and before the discussion moved here by Croaquant (which made changes when the subject was in the discussion, it seems a bad datalle). -- 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, we don't care about the "Basque language" being oppressed or not. We don't care about the basque culture, history and supposed dominance in names of this given area. We don't care about your ideology and POV pushing here. This is an image depositery. Category names are meant to be in one language which is 'english'. English people uses 'Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port' for instance and not the basque counterpart. The same goes for other french cities like 'Rennes', 'Paris' or 'Toulon'. The same goes for 'Panoramics in France' and not 'Panorama en France' for instance... What you ask will not be done. There is nothing to argue. When title internationalization will be ready, title will be able to be into several languages, including basque. Esby (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, we don't care about your non transigent attitude (There is nothing to argue????). We we will continue saying "Lizarra-Garazi agreement", as scottish (which speak in english, I think), even though french and tolerant speakers like you will say "Lizarra-Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port agreement".--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Point taken that you just proven that pro-independence people will use the Basque name. Now that does not mean that english people will use this one. Esby (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Oppose I strongly disagree with the contributors above who wrote "there is no english for proper noun" or "There are no english names for the cities and municipalities of the Northern Basque Country." Obviously there are. These towns and villages are mentioned in books written in English ; though I have not many of them, opening one more or less at random (Through the Spanish Pyrénées - GR 11 : a long distance footpath, by Paul Lucia, Cicerone Guides) I read (p. 62) : The road to the left comes from St-Jean-Pied-de-Port which is certainly a sentence in English referring to the little town in Lower Navarre. Things have been (or should have been) thoroughly thought on relevant discussion pages on the Wikipedias (see for instance a debate now running on :en about the naming of some Basque provinces : [3] or an old debate on :fr to choose French names for southern Basque country towns : [4]). Of course alternative names are used in English, among them Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port/Donibane Garazi or even Donibane Garazi, but are obviously less frequent than Saint-Jean-Pied-de-Port. We should not try to find a solution here, but we should strictly use titles used by :en wikipedia, and discuss these titles on the relevant pages of this wikipedia if we think they are irrelevant. Touriste (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Esby, and who´s care France, "french language" or if you are the Frenchie "tolerant" and "multicultural" "Mesie" Jean-Marie Le Pen himself? Not me, in that we´re seriously agree me... and the englishman who write this article. Euskalduna 22:32, 3 February 2010(UTC)

So we are back to the 'if I don't agree with you, I am like Hitler'? (Those who don't know Jean Marie Le Pen can look up his Wikipedia entry.) Further insults will lead to your block here. Consider it as first and last warning. Esby (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In the list of official names of Labourd, Soule, Lower Navarre you see names in basque language and in different basque dialects, as well as names in french, bearnais and gascon languages, and those are the choises of the local populations: not wikipedians but the municipality councils vote official names like Ainhoa or Trois-Villes; we respect both the local people's choice and the commons needs by sticking to the official names in its english equivalent, preparing internationalisation (--> the necessarely unique weblink-titles shall in the future show up for readers in languages of their choice). It is wisdom to keep single naming, not changing from the official names and PATIENTLY WAIT FOR INTERNATIONALISATION. --Havang(nl) (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Municipality councils can propose the name change but: a) Higher authorities must agree. b) It is FORBIDDEN to propose a name not in "French form"; if it was possible, plenty of councils would have at least a bilingual name. You can see as an example [5]. This would be respecting local people's choice but what doesn't make this possible is government policies against officiality of languages other than French.--Adrar (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Esby, don´t speak on Hitler and go far away from where you are... because his french allies of the Vichy France or Philippe Pétain didn´t be better. Greetings :D. --Euskalduna 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I do ask all involved in this discussion to totally refrain from any name-calling and ad-hominem comments against other single users or (perceived) groups of users and to return to an unemotional discussion. Civility (as described here) is a standard on Commons as on all Wikimedia projects.
In addition, Commons:Categories for discussion might have been a better place for this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Category:La Rhune

Category:La Rhune is inappropriate titling and a move is necessary. The name should be either Category:Rhune, or Category:Larrun. Before I put a move proposition on the talk page of that category, I want to discuss it here, as a case exemple. In french, La Rhune classifies under R: Rhune and the category should have to be moved to Category:Rhune. But there are no official names for geografical items and if etymologically it is basque Larrun, then it should classify under L: Larrun and the category should have to be moved to Category:Larrun. I know no basque, but there is a spanish mountain Larrunarri, etymologically Larrun-harri, stony Larrun, The first part of Larrun could come from larr, which could possibly mean uncultivated land? All this makes it convincing, Category:La Rhune has to be moved to Category:Larrun. What move must be proposed on the category page? --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

I agree with you. This one is not obvious - both "Rhune" and "Larrun" are found in significant amounts in pages in English. I would be (weakly) in favour of Larrun, since I have a (vague) feeling that the Basque form is gaining ground - the fact that the summit is on the French-Spanish border, while the Spanish name is Larrún, is another weak point in favour of Larrun. Touriste (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that the Spanish name is Larrún; it may be a weak point as argument, for decision-taking it is a strong point in favour of Larrun.--Havang(nl) (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Then... as it is so clear that the french La Rhune comes from the basque Larrun, you propose to put Larrun.

I have to say that it happens the same with most cities of Northern Basque Country:

Arbonne is a french version of the original (and basque) Arbona.

Bassussarry is a french version of the original (and basque) Basusarri.

Ascain is a french version of the original (and basque) Azkaine.

Biriatou is a french version of the original (and basque) Biriatu.

Ciboure is a french version of the original (and basque) Ziburu.

Espelette is a french version of the original (and basque) Ezpeleta.

Guéthary is a french version of the original (and basque) Getaria.

And so on...--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Unai Fdz. de Betoño: You said early in this series of discussions: (quote>I understand many people will look for this city in it's french name: that's why I think the french one can be first. <end of quote>. You making the comparison with official city names, does that mean that you are giving also preference to Rhune? --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would propose Category:La Rhune / Larrun, and make two category hard (or soft) redirects.--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This last proposal is the technical solution possible for plenty of "endonyms" as discussed previously (not "exonyms", people talking about these different cases at the same time) so that (also) original placenames get their place. On the other side, "Larrún" is not the Spanish name, but the form used by Spanish wikipedia which is not the same. The only form (in this case popular in both sides and also official in the southern side, for example government of Navarre) used in Basque and Spanish is "Larrun", obviously a Basque placename.--Adrar (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, choose Rhune or Larrun but not Rhune / Larrun (or not at all La Rhune / Larrun). Rhune / Larrun is not a technical solution, it's a bad tinkering/political solution and it's will do be evil to use/maintain. The real solution is the internationalisation.

The wikipedia article should probably be rename too (like fr:Mont Blanc and not Le Mont Blanc). Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unai, I´m agree with your propose. By the way, mountain´s original name is Larrun (from the contraction of the basque words "Larre Gune" ("Meadows Place"), "Larr+un", "Larre" ("medow") and "gune" ("place"). La Rhune is a deformation of the French language without meaning in that language or in other languages--Euskalduna 20:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed. Paradoctor (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found that not long ago, the ortograph in french was Larhune; equivalent of Larrun. La Rhune and Larrun are both used in english, meaning that english does not give a good criterium. I personally knew Larrun before knowing La Rhune. I am aware that this dilemma eventually will be resolved once internationalisation has been achieved; and that double naming is disturbing for coming internationalisation. But a move is indicated, so, I propose Category:Larrun as being most appropriate in view of the international character of Commons, respecting basque, respecting french (in its older orthograph), respecting spanish, acceptable for english and other languages as well and being most appropriate with respect to pronounciation in al the languages. --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It happens just the same with most of the cities of the Northern Basque Country: their official names are french derivations of the original basque names. I'm happy because you see it so clearly in the case of Larrun; but it's really strange that you don't see it the cases of Arbona, Basusarri, Azkaine, Biriatu, Ziburu, Ezpeleta, Getaria, Larresoro, Mugerre, Zuraide, Urruña... It's not coherent. --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not it's not "just the same". First of all, cities have official names in France, moutains dont. Then, the IGN (who is kind of official) give the name Larrun (along with La Rhune) but not Arbona. Larrun seems official in Spain (this mountain is on the border). Finally, Google results are balanced for 'Larrun/La Rhune', not for 'Arbona/Arbonne' ! The origin is just one factor among others, but not the most important so it's not at all decisive for the choice. When you look to the whole thing, it is coherent.

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 12:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, both basque names and french (for France) or spanish (for Spain) names are encyclopedic lemmae; therefore, the basque names must have their own lemma side-by-to spanish and french names in the wikipedia's. At the basque named-lemma, there may be a texte different from the french-named or spanish-named lemma. Of course, such pairs ( or triples) of lemma's are closely related and sometimes a redirect is sufficient. But in the commons category title, we must respect other rules: a single category, single-named, english being the best preparation to internationalisation. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, origin is not the most important factor: Mundaka can be of Viking origin or Verdun can be of Celtic origin. The important factor is that they have been adopted as endonym respectively by Basque and French (Londres is an exonym both for Basque and French so it should be used just for each language's wikipedia), that is they are the normal placenames of these towns. It would be a miracle that a Google search give more results for a Basque placename but this, obviously, has to be with the size of each language community, as unfortunately some of the reasons to defend French-only forms shown in these talks; it is even a miracle that "Larrun" gets more results than a Frenchified form: just the fact of many Francophones copying it in webs would do the work, but it doesn't mean that it has "lost" the debate about legitimacy. And as you have seen, in Mundaka we see with normality the use of the proper placename and it becomes the "English" (?) form (I mean of course "form used by the English wikipedia") but for example in the case of Ezpeleta, with the same legitimacy as a placename, it doesn't become the "English" form: that is the problem of giving centrality to officiality, a concept I insist, related to power and forbidding the official use of some languages. This is something unfair and avoidable in places like "commons", at least if we don't think we should be like "standard institutions".--Adrar (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Havang, don´t delete my messages on the sly (see this: 10:16, 6 February 2010 Havang(nl) (talk | contribs) (142,893 bytes) (→People renaming categories of cities in Basque country: some cleaning from personal remarks) (undo). It´s my first and last notice to don´t repeat your dirty game, that goes against Wikipedia rules, you aren´t an administrator: next time I will contact administrators to notice your censorship conduct. Just show me and the basque people who person you are. I don´t like the false people. Don´t speak or write me never more. --Euskalduna 14:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an administrator. Your message was insultant and an unnecessary personnal attack (a more rouge admin could have block you for that).

Havang has the right (and maybe the duty ?) to remove this. Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have the right (and duty?) to say that Le Pen, Petain and Vichy´s France are french like Esby... or you like Esby´s has the right to call us "pro-independentits" for to defend our language. Never a historical reality is an... you say "insult"??? Your only duty is to be an impartial administrator, I see you have much to learn. If Havang (or you) delete again my messages without some cause: Next time I will contact administrators to notice your impartial conduct and to stop being in your place of administrator. Do you understand me?. --Euskalduna 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do ask all involved in this discussion to totally refrain from any name-calling and ad-hominem comments against other single users or (perceived) groups of users and to return to an unemotional discussion. Civility (as described here) is a standard on Commons as on all Wikimedia projects.
In addition, Commons:Categories for discussion might have been a better place for this thread. --Túrelio (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with Túrelio. I only wanted to add that it's very ugly to delete messages, even if you're administrator. And now? Do we move the discussion to Commons:Categories for discussion? Do all french involved in this discussion keep saying that Espelette is an english toponym? --Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It´s Ok, Turelio. As I have written you in private: now the problem is finished. Greetings.--Euskalduna 0:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate Túrelio's intervention. We were playing a match in which some are players and referees at the same time. In the name of civility (I totally support it) some other messages should have been removed: we don't care about the "Basque language" being oppressed or not. We don't care about the basque culture, history and supposed dominance in names (Esby), Stop silly and nonsense arguments (Vigneron). But how will "administrators" remove their own messages? So I ask these administrators to go away from this talk where they are very implicated in; this kind of referees will never see "Thierry Henry's hands". I want also to remember two facts in these series of talks: first, an anomymous contributor started a talk here in French (not English) and at the very first time he/she ideologised the debate. This is not acceptable but nobody said anything about it. Second, "M. Croquant" made a unilateral change in the middle of a discussion in "Anglet / Angelu" and nobody showed him any "card". So, in the name of a neutral discussion I ask:

• Non neutral administrators to move off. There are more administrators in "Commons" to do a respectful task.
• It is unacceptable to hear that use of French(-only) is "neutral" and proposal of using (also) Basque is "ideological". Languages are neutral and equal instruments of communication.
• Let's go on discussing with qualified reasons and not with "reasons" based in quantity: "majors" vs. "minors" etc.--Adrar (talk) 8:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Languages are neutral and equal instruments of communication". This is your (respectable) opinion, I have another. Personal attacks toward contributors are rightly forbidden, not expression of social opinions as support for discussions. If somebody thinks that using Basque names is ideological, he can feel free to say so, this is not contrary to any policy of Commons talk pages (as long as these pages are not brought to a chit-chat state and stay relevant to help take a decision). Please admit contradiction as long as it is not rude towards you personally. People who think that "reasons" based in quantity are relevant should not be ashamed to express their opinion. Touriste (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

First you must choose: you can defend that proposing to use (also) "Ezpeleta" is ideological; therefore you are obliged, I'm sorry, to defend that using only (and imposing using only) "Espelette" is ideological. Or either you can defend that using all placenames is overall not ideological. But you can't defend that using "Espelette" only is neutral and using also "Ezpeleta" is ideological. Second, it is not only question of caring just about personal attacks; I think that something like "We don't care about the French culture and history" is not an acceptable message (well, it might be "acceptable" depending on the context, a personal one...but not in places like "Commons" based in "good faith" and "unemotional discussion"). Collective attacks can be serious, can't be? Third, OK some "quantity" arguments can be part of the discussion but many not, everything can't be taken to vote. If you say Seine crosses Paris I can start a talk saying: This is your (respectable) opinion; no, it is not only your respectable opinion, Seine crosses Paris as languages are neutral instruments of communication, it is not only my (respectable) opinion. So I maintain all I said on the previous message.--Adrar (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK I don't reply about Espelette or Ezpeleta since my answer was not intended to reopen the debate, but simply to make a remark concerning freedom of expression on Talk pages. I keep looking at these pages, and may give my opinion again if I deem it necessary, which is not the case presently. Touriste (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not the French-language names; it's the names in use in English sources. And that happens to be the same as the French names, because not only are those the official names, French is known by vastly more English speakers than Basque speakers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I come back to my original question about Category:La Rhune: What move must be proposed on the category page? Please, some admin make the move proposal. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do we need an admin to suggest the move? There is a talk page. There is also Commons:Categories for discussion if needed. Technically if the article 'La' should not be part of the category name, then it should be fixed. The rest of the debate, if there is any to be, should not be done here. Esby (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] How to extract image with metadata from pdf

How does one extract an image from a pdf and still have that image retain its original metadata(if it had any)? I'd like to be able to upload as original an image as possible.Smallman12q (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Download the "xpdf" package, which includes the "pdfimages" command-line utility program. The version I have works great for embedded JPEG's, not sure about other formats. AnonMoos (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I got it to work...but it doesn't seem to give the original metadata...am I doing something wrong? Or is it not possible to get the original metadata (such as date created/modified) from an image in a pdf?Smallman12q (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It can only extract what is included in the PDF. If you mean EXIF data within the JPEG stream, then I'm not certain whether that's compatible with JPEGs embedded within a PDF. External metadata (such as the file creation date recorded by the filesystem) will definitely be lost. The great advantage of "pdfimages" is that it gets the embedded JPEG image data losslessly (so without generation loss). AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have Adobe Acrobat Professional you can also go to Advanced > Document Processing > Export All Images... in the menubar. I have no idea if this preserves metadata (I imagine metadata would be striped from images during the PDF optimatization process when it is saved), but it is also lossless, like pdfimages. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats the methode (Adobe professional 7.0) I used for Category:Ioannis Kupezky, incomparabilis artificis, Imagines et picturae... and others, its great because you have all images numbered after the extraction and you can simply handle them with batch renaming and go for upload. The images not contain any metadata. --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ye I've done that with acrobat pro...but it doesn't preserve the metadata. Do images in pdfs have metadata/exif data such as creation date? Or is that exif/metadata stripped when an image is added to a pdf?Smallman12q (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Can a bot generate a list of images which are in some categories but not others?

I would like to clean up Category:Maps by century shown, Category:Maps showing history by region and Category:Maps showing history by language. One of the main problems, however, is that many maps are simply not listed in their structure. Checking them all one by one is time consuming; but I think a bot could easily list all images in the Category:Maps that are not in any of the above three categories and it subcategories. Would anybody know which bot could do that? I am familiar with User:Mathbot on en wiki, which could generate a list of pages that where in a given category but not listed on a given page. If we don't have a bot for this task, I'd assume it would be easy to design it based on Mathbot existing functionality. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not completely what you are asking, but part of the clean up is possible by starting at Category:media needing category review and make a categoryintersect catscan with one of the categories you want to clean up; best is to do it in parts: see f.i. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&basecat=Media_needing_category_review_with_4_suggested_categories&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=Maps&tagdeep=4&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=nl

or a smaller list : http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&basecat=Media_needing_category_review_with_4_suggested_categories&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=Maps+by+century+shown&tagdeep=4&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=nl Yet another one, etc.: http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&basecat=Media_needing_category_review_with_5_suggested_categories&basedeep=3&mode=cs&tagcat=Maps&tagdeep=4&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=nl--Havang(nl) (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at those soon. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The U.S. National Archives joins the Commons!

Just to let everybody know. See: Flickr.--JotaCartas (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What I'm wondering is, is this new material that hasn't been made available online before, or is it all already available from the National Archives website? 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Much of the material was already available it seems, as we already have many of these images on Commons. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 3

[edit] WikiExpedition 2010

Hi. In this year, because of Wikimania in Gdańsk, we would like to organize expedition around voivodeship pomorskie and invite wikimedians from Commons :)) 1st - 7th July - just before Wikimania 2010 conference. More about this event: pl:chapter:Wikiekspedycja 2010/en. See also Taking a WikiExpedition on the blog of pfctdayelise. Przykuta (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Great idea.

I will begin by translating this page in french ;) Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 15:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] picture quality after uploading

Hi. I've just uploaded this picture File:Diabetic nephropathy.jpg and it looks like it has been damaged after uploading. Can you help me? Thanks, --Doc.mari (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please try uploading again over the old image via the Upload a new version of this file link --Justass (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It works! Thank you --Doc.mari (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Image requests

So, I'm really into flags, and I've uploaded quite a few myself. However, I dont have the skills for SVG. Is there a place on here where I can make formal requests for png/gif flags to be redone in SVG? I think it's the Illustration workshop in the Graphics Lab School, but I'm just double-checking. Also, can I make requests there for flags from other sites(such as FOTW) I'd like to see uploaded to the Commons in SVG? Fry1989 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Post your requests at Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop. As for the flags currently not present in Commons make sure those symbols are covered by local country exemptions from copyrights or in the public domain due to age. More information about specific country exemptions can be found Commons:Copyright tags --Justass (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! As for the ones I'd like to see uploaded, after I've checked that out, do I make the requests for them in the same place? Fry1989 (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 4

[edit] Can anyone see why Flickr2Commons won't take this one?

Resolved

[6]. I want to upload it to File:Seattle - Third Avenue between Pine and Union, 1911.gif. Flickr2Commons says

Unsuitable license : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?> <rsp stat="fail"> <err code="1" msg="Photo "?addedcomment=1" not found (invalid ID)" /> </rsp>

Doesn't make sense to me. It is under CC Attribution 2.0 Generic, which as far as I know should be fine. Am I missing something? I've uploaded a lot of other files from this same source (Seattle Municipal Archives on Flickr). - Jmabel ! talk 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the URL you give is not "clean" : trim the ?addedcomment=1#comment72157623346397648 and keep only http://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/4304953210/ : Ta-Da!

Alternatively, the Flickr Web Tools have no problems with finding their way with URLs. You may want to try those. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! No good deed goes unpunished. I was adding comments there. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And now Toolserver.org is crapping out entirely. But I assume that is temporary. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] w:Wikipedia:Management of Commons content

This is why people don't like enwiki. :-/ Anyways, I'm just posting this here in case anyone was interested. I'm not sure that many people will agree with it, but there's some discussion on the talk page. I think that the author(s) may not understand some aspects of Commons very well. Killiondude (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't April 1 two months away? -- User:Docu at 08:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, that proposal is not going anywhere. Paradoctor (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It didn't go anywhere. The proposal has just been rejected Belgrano (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Re this previous version

From a Commons' perspective, we should probably like it. This might leave a lot of endless "blocking content" debates over there, at enwiki ;) -- User:Docu at 13:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it would free time we can use for categorization debates. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Creator namespace in search

Currently default search results don't include creator namespace (namespace number 100). As creator templates can include alternate names, I think it should be activated for all users. -- User:Docu at 09:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would second that. --Jarekt (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made a request at bugzilla:22404. -- User:Docu at 10:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur cinema

Hi everyone. Shouldn't we create a Category:Amateur cinema for pictures like this one? What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could be. Is it even within scope? - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it could be for 2 reasons: 1) it may simply illustrate amateur cinema! 2) soimetimes Wikimedia users upload that kind of pictures to illustrate their profiles (I know at least one case). --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reuse without attribution

As this discussion mentions someone on Italian e-bay is selling free Hugin software and using images from commons for advertising. So far there are no problems here however they do it without of proper attribution required by licenses. The images in question are :

• File:Hellbrunn_banqueting_hall_ceiling_fisheye_projection.jpg by User:MatthiasKabel
• File:Hellbrunn_banqueting_hall_360_panoramic_view.jpg by User:MatthiasKabel
• File:Tower_of_Babel_ArchesNP_UT_USA.jpg uploaded by me
• File:Londonpanorama.jpg by user:Thomas Wesenberg

I think we could use help from italian (I think) speaker to inform e-bay Power Seller cashgangnet about evil of his/her ways. --Jarekt (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

cashgangnet claims to be in UK and speak English and German on his info page, I don't believe he's italian. -- IANEZZ  (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 5

[edit] Let's do better

Sadly not all users have good experiences with Commons. They therefore contribute less or not at all and in worst case they go to a Wiki somewhere and tell others how bad Commons is. Obvious that is not something we wish for.

We can all help by talking nice to contributors/users and offer our help. But with all those edits made on Commons and in different languages it is impossible to avoid that some get a bad experience.

Perhaps we could look at the templates we use and make them easier to understand or just more friendly. I noticed that {{Image source}} did not start with "Thank you...". It is not a big thing but to some it may make a difference.

I’m sure it has been tried before to make Commons more friendly but can we please try again? I hope that you will help by

1. acting if you notice a template that could be improved
2. telling other users if they do something that is good (everyone likes to be appreciated)
3. but also telling other users what/how they could do things better
4. thinking twice if a notice via template is the best or if a "manual" notice is better
5. whatever you have of good ideas

I know I could do better. There is pleanty of space on my talk page for ideas but before you yell at me please tell two other users what a good work they have done. --MGA73 (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Today in images

I have restarted an old conversation at Talk:Main Page#Today in images redux about a templated daily showcase, with User:BanyanTree/Tii Main page mockup being the top of my sandbox chain. Comments are welcome. Fixes from code wizards who understand the markup I copy-pasted, badly, are also appreciated. ;) Thanks, BanyanTree 11:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Gefüllte Magnetwand.jpg

Isn't that a case of duplicate? Or is there an exception I am not aware of? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a derivative work? Well it is, but perhaps the individual images are so small as to be de minimis. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant. Sorry for this vocabulary problem ;-) --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Commons helper

I can't imagene any think more unuseful that this tool. Only sometimes is operative, and by TUSC I never can. Then it's need to load a local copy for load images in Commons. For this, commons helper is not need. Better supress it, I have the sensation to be deceived.

I believe that this happen because the english wikipedia want to have the exclusive use of the images and don't want share them with others projects (near one milion images, 90% in public domain, are in englis wikipedia and not availables for the others projects) and is boytcotting the easy move of images. --jolle (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've used CommonsHelper in the past and it has worked fine. However, I have also encountered problems with it. I think this is just a transient server problem, and has nothing to do with English Wikipedia wanting exclusive use of its images. (What purpose would that serve?) If CommonsHelper doesn't work, try CommonsHelper2. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I assure you that the English Wikipedia is not nearly well enough organized to engage in a conspiracy. - Jmabel ! talk 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I use Commonshelper, with TUSC, regularly off both WP and WS without any issue. Further than that there is specific efforts from enWP to get the articles moved to Commons. So there is no conspiracy, it may just be a setup issue at your end. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC) + followup ...

Yesterday's example File:Francis Turner Palgrave.jpg

The bot at work

[edit] Proposal: Approaching FireShot about an upload functionality to Commons

I have been using FireShot firefox plugin to take screenshots of public domain works to upload to Commons (most of these are derivative works of large .djvu works already loaded here). It is very convenient, and has an upload feature, just not to Commons. I was thinking of approaching the developer to see if he was interested in having his software have the ability to upload to Commons using the upload API (obviously the user will have to provide their credentials to Commons).

Before I do that, I was seeking the communities POV/opinion for this move. billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 6

[edit] Problems when uploading djvu

Hi! When i try to upload this file: http://www.archive.org/details/tolkovyslovarzhi04dalvuoft (dejavu version 69MB), it's start uploading without errors, upload for a few minuts and in the end it's stops with a white page (with this in address: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&action=submit), and the file it's not uploaded. I do something wrong? I use Firefox 3.6 and i try to do this with standard upload form (web interface). --Grenadine (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With PDF it's works: File:Dal slovar 1912 4.pdf. May be this dejavu file was corrupted? But i tried two different dejavu files and it's not uploaded, may be it's just problem with dejavu format in wiki engine? --Grenadine (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

UPD: I've tried to reupload one by one the 4 volums of a Dal dictionary in DJVU, but it's still not work. Can i see the "raw" log of uploads somewhere? With client and servers sides response? Or can i contact someone who has this log? --Grenadine (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is a known bug: bugzilla:20811. Lupo 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you for this information! And for now the solution it's to divide the DJVU files? Or to convert those files in PDF? Or prefer the PDF to DJVU? And how soon it's gonna be fixed? Where may i read the latest release notes and tenchinal news about wiki engine? Thanks! --Grenadine (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tab skipping edit summary field for logged in users

When I'm logged in and edit a page and then hit tab repeatedly to move the cursor to the edit summary box, it visits the links in the "By submitting an edit..." message (which it should not do) and skips the edit summary edit box and does not stop in it. This is a serious accessibility problem for people who are unable to use mice. It reproduces in Firefox 3.5.7 and IE 8. I mention it here because it does not reproduce on En wiki. Any idea what's going on? Could this be an issue with my monobook.js? Dcoetzee (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Maybe a corrupted cache? You could try to purge and reload. Paradoctor (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's likely a result of the recent Babaco interface "enhancements". See en:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit box & monospace style changes. Until the Usability group fixes it, go to Special:Preferences -> Editing tab -> Experimental section at the bottom and make sure the three experimental features are turned off. - BanyanTree 04:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me in FF 3.5.7 — billinghurst sDrewth 05:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Both the edit textfield and the summary field have a "tabindex=1". I think this has been fixed in trunk: r62022. It is not yet fixed in the version that we are running. Incidentally, the problem appears to manifest itself only with the experimental usability stuff turned on. I don't have it turned on, and I don't have this problem. Lupo 12:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ah thank you all, I'd forgotten turning that stuff on. :-) Dcoetzee (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:USS Washington BB-56.jpg

Is this image displaying wrong for anyone else? —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Paradoctor (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, same here now. Thanks anyway. :) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Commons consensus

Would you review and tell me what you think of the conclusion to make from the discussion at Categories for discussion/Some of categories "by alphabet"?

The discussion was about a proposal by ŠJů to rename a series of categories from "[..] by alphabet" to "[..] by name" (many are already named "[..] by name". This was supported by 6 users. 4 users supported standardization in either way without a preference for one solution. 1 user suggested to delete it. 1 user suggested to use "[..] names" instead (a proposal that didn't find any supporting votes).

I closed the debate with the conclusion to rename the categories and renamed some of them already. Is there sufficient consensus for such a conclusion? Should it be taken in account that one user "vehemently opposes" or vetoes the change? -- User:Docu at 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a consensus, I think, and I vote for "by name" too if that helps. Otherwise it should be "by alphabets" since we use multiple alphabets here and mix them together. Rocket000 (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that decision too, even if I didn't participate to the discussion. Docu, I suppose you have "asked" a bot to move the articles from Category:People by alphabet to Category:People by name and that's why you made this edit, right? Do you plan to move the content of the cat page too or someone lese has to do it? — Xavier, 01:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not yet. The problem with that category is that it's fairly large and probably includes a few template categories like the one you mention. These all need to be identified. Sometimes these take an eternity to update. Even if we finally agree that it should be moved it will take some time. -- User:Docu at 11:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I will restore the corresponding update to Commons:Categories. -- User:Docu at 11:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] File:Zardari.gif

Is this encylopedic? If so why the dog? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 16:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a mild form of vandalism. The Zardari photo would be encyclopedic of course, but making it an animated gif with the separate image of the dog in there... seems a bit silly. We already have that crop of the Zardari photo in better quality at File:Asif Ali Zardari.jpg, so there is no need for this one at all. I think it should just be deleted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This image is trash and not ok. The original version File:Bush and Zardari 2008-9-23.jpg comes with many extracted versions, so no need for this childish animated gif. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please some one fix that image above. The image you click on goes to another image not the one shown on this page. --JustinFrancis (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thats what the whole posting was about. --Martin H. (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 7

[edit] 3-view drawings

I am unclear as to the copyright status of line drawings of 3-D objects like cars, aircraft, tanks, etc. These are often presented with 3 views from different angles. Don't they belong to whoever drew them? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, drawings are always copyrighted (both 2-D and 3-D) unless they are trivial works (e.g. a couple of straight lines or basic shapes). Rocket000 (talk) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Russian stamps

We have hundreds or thousands of Russian/Soviet stamps tagged with {{PD-RU-exempt}}. (One example: File:USSR stamp 989 Pe-8.jpg.) This seems extremely dubious to me, since the government works discussed in PD-RU-exempt have little to do with stamps ("state symbols and signs" and "official documents", the latter having to do with access to laws and the workings of government). Has the copyright status of these stamps ever been discussed at length? Mangostar (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A stamp seems pretty clearly equivalent to a banknote which is specifically listed as a symbol of the state. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, here's a translation of the russian stamp copyright page. Evidently something in the law about postage stamps uses the term "public sign", the same term used in the copyright act? Not knowing Russian, I can't really assess what they're saying. Mangostar (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Russian word meaning "sign" used is the one that can translate as "sign, symbol, token", and in the law on postage stamps is used inter alia in the context of "tokens of payment" in the same sense as used of banknotes. It's not the word used for signboards or inscriptions. For a Russian speaker, banknotes and stamps are both, on the face of it, "state tokens" or "state signs" depending how you translate the word into English; but for a Russian lawyer, there might conceivably be some difference of interpretation, I suppose. Man vyi (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Something strange

Does anyone else have a problem with File:Great Moravia not cropped, eng labels.svg, I can't see the map but do see the warning "This file may contain malicious code, by executing it your system may be compromised." can this be true or even possible, or is it just a hoax? Can someone with experience with svg files have a look at it, thanks.KTo288 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the map either. But the file looks like regular SVG and is totally harmless as it is plain text. — Xavier, 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's actually the standard message that the Wikimedia software delivers when a file is understood to be XML of some kind, but is not understood to be SVG. I doubt that any specific test for malicious code ever occurred... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, and know now not to panic when I come across such a message again.KTo288 (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Tool to download content of category

I think will be good to have tool to download full resolution content of category/gallery in one click. It there is tool exist already, will be good idea to add link into category/gallery toolbox. Especially useful for books scanned by pages. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, though in a lot of cases, this tool also needs to be able to give people the neecessary licensing information, like licensing, attribution or credit lines. Otherwise, the downloaders aren't able to properly reuse the files. This might be done by creating a separate text document which contains necessary licensing infos. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the format, it could just append licensing, categories, attribution, etc. to the file's exif. -- User:Docu at 23:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Change picture name

Could someone change File:Laura ingalls wilder.jpg to File:Laura Ingalls Wilder.jpg (and possibly an even more definitive name if available), please? --85.23.70.102 19:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. --The Evil IP address (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? -- User:Docu at 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Watermarks in images from The Bugwood Network at the University of Georgia

Hi!

I was wondering if it the watermarks of these images should be removed? I am unsure if it makes sense and if it is wanted. If yes, I would be looking for some volunteer helpers if no, could someone remove the watermark tags? Thanxs! --Amada44 (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The UGA**** number is mentioned in file name and in description (a link to source), so IMO, it is ok and would be appreciated if someone remove all watermarks, but please request it at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes they should - we never accept watermarks in images (nor do we accept any image under a license that would prevent us from removing them). I've tried my best to get non-watermarked images directly from the source, but haven't heard back from them. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

okay, I just wasn't sure because the watermarks look so "official" . Then I have an other question related to that. I have removed watermarks of about 100 pics. (Lots of them are on the first page of Images_with_watermarks - the b/w goolge scans) Is there a way of uploading/replacing them automatically? To make it even more complicated: Some of the originals were jpegs, some png. I have saved them all as png (because they are b/w pics of text -google scans). So basically one would need to check if the original is a png, if yes, replace it, if no, upload the png and delete the jpeg??? Thanxs for the help! --Amada44 (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no easy way that I know to do reupload of large number of files overrighting existing files. You should be use Commonist or some other upload tool and in the past I was able to use commonist to reupload images over existing ones but lately it was not working for me (see User:Jarekt/gallery#Sat_Feb_06_18:10:18_EST_2010). Even when it worked the commonist was asking with each image if I am sure I want to overwrite existing file, since the program did not have "Yes to all" option. Your case might be easier upload PNG and add {{Superseded}} to the old jpeg files. --Jarekt (talk)

[edit] February 8

[edit] "Free catalog"?

Do you think this picture is really free? And what about this one? What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

These are both copyright violations and need to be deleted. The first one had a tag regarding its status which was removed by the uploader, who clearly has no idea what "public domain" means. Dcoetzee (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added speedy deletion templates. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Are they majorettes?

On File:Mardi Gras parade 2008.jpg, is it majorettes? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this question? Are you deciding what category to add the image to? I think it may depend on where the photograph was taken. Majorette seems like a term largely used in the US. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes this was for better categorizing. It was taken during a parade in New Orleans. But the girls don't have any stick so I was wondering if they were really majorettes... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hard to say. They could just be a drill team, but the outfits are more like traditional majorette outfits than traditional drill team outfits. - Jmabel ! talk 05:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Again something contradictory on Flickr

What can we do with pictures like this one? The Flickr user, named "World Economic Forum", uploaded it with a Commons licence but the text says "Copyright World Economic Forum (www.weforum.org)/Photo by Nader Daoud". What are we supposed to understand? I still have no understanding about what to do with the FIFA World Cup affair (see above) so what about this one? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ask them directly: http://www.weforum.org/en/contact/index.htm. --Túrelio (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just sent an e-mail to one of the contact they mention on the website. I hope I'll receive an answer... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no contradiction whatsoever. They have the copyright, and are licensing it on Creative Commons terms. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Um... using a creative commons license does not mean the copyright is gone. There is nothing incorrect or incompatible about still using a copyright statement in conjunction with a CC license; in that situation only *some* rights are being given up. A copyright statement is incongruous with a public domain license or statement, but otherwise they are fine. The FIFA thing is someone uploading both their own and others' images to Flickr; they can license their own but not the others, so the CC license is not valid. If we think the "World Economic Forum" has the rights to place the license on the file, then everything seems fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Template:WEF, they contract or employ the photographers and have full rights to release the resulting works under Creative Commons licenses. See also en:User:World Economic Forum. Absolutely NO reason for doubt anything here. --Martin H. (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] February 9

[edit] Two bugs

1. Few month ago, I corrected translation of this map (Медитеранско море (Mediterranean see)) -> Средоземно море), but article Italy still shows version as of 6 March 2008
2. Picture File:Cubura.jpg here is shown correctly (after a bot rotated it), but on Serbian Wikipedia is (erroneously) rotated. -- Bojan  Talk  04:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Try purging your browser's cache. It work for me on the first one, but not the second. They both look right now. Rocket000 (talk) 05:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The problems were persistent during last few months, even when I was logged in on different computers. -- Bojan  Talk  06:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the out-dated cache wasn't on your end. All it took was someone to ask the servers to rebuild the image page (attaching ?action=purge to the url). Rocket000 (talk) 06:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Picasa review is here

I've created a project page Commons:Picasa Web Albums files, which details:

• How to properly go about uploading media from Picasa (trickier than you think!)
• How to set up a Picasa account for best compatibility with Commons.
• How to review Picasa images.

I've also created a {{picasareview}} template and corresponding set of categories analogous to {{flickrreview}}. At present this is all manual and no bots are yet operational.

After doing this I have a new appreciation for how much Picasa Web Albums sucks for us:

• Picasa is configured by default to upload all images at 1600 × 1200 and reduced JPEG quality.
• Picasa provides no way to privately contact users, as far as I can see.
• Picasa's search does not permit you to filter images to the licenses we accept (you can search for images that are not ND, or not NC, but not both at once).
• Picasa forces users to use a single license for all their images.
• If you click on an image in your search results and copy the URL, the resulting link will be ephemeral (not a permalink).
• All edits applied in the Picasa software are lossy.

You get the point - it's really frustrating. In any case, any feedback on the new process appreciated! Dcoetzee (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a separate list of "trusted users" to review these files, separate from the Flickrreviewers? Maybe we can just merge them. I should hope that somebody who knows how to check a license on Flickr would know how to find that same info on Picasa. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me - I just forked it naively. Really the list of trusted users needs to be generalised somehow, moved to a page with a more generic name that is not a subpage of Commons:Flickr files. Dcoetzee (talk) 07:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the search: I dont know how it works technically, but the fist tool already includes Picasa. Also Picasa=Google, so it is fully indexed in google advanced image search allowing to search by copyright status. The license selection tool on Picasa is better than flickr, in your picasa account settings the license selection is very clear: 1) allow reuse 2) optional choice of cc modules (allow for commercial reuse, allow for modification, requires ShareAlike). Regretably many people still ignore this, Picasa is a mess of copyvios especially searching for singers, actors, e.g. For the notorius copyright-sceptics, like me, its Time to create COM:QPI similar to COM:QFI. --Martin H. (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice the warning on the fist page ("Searches for "Commercial use allowed" CC images on Picasa Web Albums CAUTION: Might contain non-remix ones!"). It's possible to filter these out but you'd have to build another front end on top of Picasa's search. I think Picasa has an okay license selector, but it's buried and they don't explain (or link to explanation of) what these terms mean, so people can make an informed decision. I agree re the copyvio mess, which is part of why we need a review process, but I'm not going to create QPI until we have enough bad eggs to make an unwieldly list on Commons talk:Picasa Web Albums files. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I've now converted over about 330 570 images already reviewed under the old {{LicenseReview}} system. Dcoetzee (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for images under the account "Sotti". He has hundreds of images in his account that he is releasing under CC-by-sa, but almost none of them are his. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's already the first entry for Martin's COM:QPI page ;-). --Túrelio (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Template De minimis ?

Hi everyone. Shouldn't we create a template {{De minimis}} which we could add to pictures that are concerned by the de minimis rule? A bit like what we have for FOP templates. What do you think? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)