Commons:Village pump/Archive/2008/06

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


New upload form

The looks of the new enhanced upload form

A while ago, a new Javascript-based upload form was developed. The idea received positive initial feedback, and the new form proposal has been significantly enhanced since then. The form is designed to reduce newbie errors in uploads:

  • It has separate input fields for all fields of an {{information}} template, and it constructs such a template automatically from the inputs.
  • It validates the inputs and refuses to upload if mandatory fields such as the source are not given. It also displays error messages to the user in such cases. Inputs that contain malformed wikitext (such as unclosed templates) are fixed automatically.
  • It has per-language description fields.
  • It has a built-in help system using pop-up help texts.
  • It uses HotCat for category input.
  • It has a preview button, allowing the uploader to preview the image description page as it would look after the upload without actually uploading.
  • It is configurable for logged-in users though their monobook.js (or modern.js)
  • All texts (labels, help texts, buttons, error messages) are fully configurable and translatable on-wiki.
  • It supports a "basic" mode, in which the layout of the form is not changed (i.e., it has only the local file, destination filename, and description fields and the license dropdown, just like the current form), but input is still validated. This is useful for experienced uploaders, or if the uploader already has a {{information}} template he or she just wants to copy-paste.

I have used this new form for some time now, and have not had any problems. The script that does all this is MediaWiki:UploadForm.js. A description is at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation.

I propose that we switch on this new form globally, as the default for all users.

Experienced users who prefer the old form layout can configure the new form appropriately thouth their monobook/modern.js. Commons:Upload would need to be rewritten a little as outlined in the mock-up at User:Lupo/upload. (And similar for the translations, such as Commons:Upload/de.)

You can see the new form in action at these links:

The new form has been fully configured for English and German, including the translation of the error messages and the help texts. For some other languages, there are already partial translations (Czech, Dutch, French, Italian, Spanish: labels and some error messages; Hungarian: labels and help texts; Russian: labels only; Lithuanian and Swedish: some labels only). The new form has a built-in translation system: if a user uses a language for which some texts are not yet translated, the form displays a link with the text "translate" in the user's language next to the English text. That link takes the user to an editable page where he or she can enter the translation in his language. I think it'd be fine to go live with it as-is and rely on the participation of the editors to gradually fill in the missing translations.

Enabling the form globally is simple; it suffices to uncomment one line in our site-wide MediaWiki:Common.js. The new form would be switched on for everybody except Safari 2 users (Safari 2 is an older browser that crashes on this script. I don't know how widely it is still used; it has been superseded by Safari 3, which works fine with this script.)

Pointers to this discussion have been posted at Commons:Forum and Commons:Bistro. Please feel free to post pointers to here at other discussion boards in other languages, and please be tolerant here if someone comments in an other language than English. I'd like to keep the discussion in one place, if possible.

Comments, anyone? Lupo 08:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot: if a user has Javascript switched off, or if the script doesn't work for some strange reason on the user's browser, the user will just see the current, old upload form without any enhancements. Lupo 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Very good work :)
Just in the french version, please replace Origin by Origine--Bapti 08:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
C'est fait. Lupo 08:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
In the French version
in the header: "Author : auteur(s) du fichier." -> "Auteur(s) du fichier." ; "Facultatif : other_versions" -> "Facultatif : autres versions"
in the form: "Informations additionnels" -> "Informations additionnelles" or better (in my opinion) : "Informations supplémentaires" ; put a space character before each colon : "Origine:" -> "Origine :"
Bravo for this work. --CHristoPHE 09:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Header: the header texts are still those from the old form. They will need to be adapted (for instance, some of them still say that the user should copy a {{information}} template into the description field, but that's precisely what should not be done in the new form). See MediaWiki:Uploadtext for the English header and its history for the changes made there so that the header text works with both the new and the old version of the upload form. A description is also available at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Configuring the introductory text.
  • "Informations supplémentaires": done. Space before colon: no, that shouldn't be done, I think. Normal typography has no space before a ":". Est-ce que c'est différent en français? Je ne l'ai jamais remarqué... mais je vois maintenant qu'il y a ce format dans MediaWiki:Sourcefilename/fr...
Lupo 09:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Oui, la typographie française est différente : un espace insécable ( ) devant le ":" (et aussi devant ";" "!" et "?" : w:fr:Ponctuation#Signes de ponctuation occidentaux). --CHristoPHE 10:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, alors je vais changer ça. Lupo 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of changing the prompt date to upload date as date is ambiguous, and a field for a geotag?ClemRutter 10:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, because the "date" field is not meant to be the upload date (except for "own work" uploads). It is meant to be the date of first publication or of the creation of the work. Click on the Help button at that field! :-) For "own work" uploads, see MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Set the date field for "own work" uploads on how to configure the form such that it automatically fills in the current date. For geotagging and other special templates, use the "Additional info" field. Again, click the Help button at that field. Lupo 10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Accepted: And the needed explanation describes the problem. Should the prompt then read Date of publication- but when field Original Source loses focus could a check be made for the text own-work and the page be rewritten with a prompt 'date of upload. I find confusion when trawling cats to geotag images. I am concerned that there is no prompt for a geotag as adding them retrospectively is so onerous. ClemRutter 15:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks great! --my name 11:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The input spill off the right side of the screen when upload forms are viewed with the classic skin.Geni 11:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll check that one later. Lupo 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... not found yet. But that Classic skin is a bit different in terms of CSS... and it loads Common.js before the gadgets! (Monobook loads the gadgets first.) I'll keep looking. Lupo 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Found and fixed. Lupo 16:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but will we still retain the single-box upload form somewhere? If I'm uploading an edited version of an already-uploaded image, it's far easier to just copy/paste the code. And would this be expected to cause any issues with Commonist? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 11:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's the "basic" mode mentioned above. See MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation. Also take a look at my mock-up at User:Lupo/upload: "If you already have a {{information}} template ready..." Lupo 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The bit about Commonist: I took a look at the sources of Commonist, and it appears to me that it should continue to work since it doesn't go through the form at all. It constructs a POST request directly. (Just like the new form does. It just presents a new user interface, but the underlying POST request that actually does the upload is still the same.) So Commonist doesn't depend on the layout of the user interface at all. (Which is, BTW, the right way to do this. If Commonist depended on the user interface, it'd be broken. But it isn't. Looks rather well programmed, actually.) Lupo 20:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome awesome work, Lupo. :) For any users that think they're experienced enough, try adding this to your monobook.js:


It'll give you a really basic upload form. Rocket000 12:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh :-) Once we enable the new upload form, this "experienced" form will use the basic mode of the script, meaning you'll also get the input validation, help buttons, and the preview button. And it won't let you upload if you don't fill out the required fields of the {{information}} template :-)) See here. Lupo 14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW: if someone tries to upload a file over an already existing file, the script at MediaWiki:UploadForm.js will not validate the input, since any input won't end up on the image description page anyway. Lupo 14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks great and I think it is going to help with problem of badly documented images. The only problem I see is the same problem Commonplace and Commonist have of allowing only small subset of PD licenses. What would be a way of uploading a {{PD-ineligible}}, {{PD-Polishsymbol}} or any other country specific license? Right now while using Commonplace I have to upload files under some nonsense license and than change it once it is uploaded. May be we can allow user to type in a license tag if the one he needs is not found in the list. Great job --Jarekt 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't help with Commonist etc. The list of licenses shown in the dropdown is not configured as part of this new uplaod form; it's defined at MediaWiki:Licenses and subpages thereof, e.g. MediaWiki:Licenses/pl. Lupo 15:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can help some with translation to Polish. How would I do it? --Jarekt 14:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I can help with Norwegian translation! Good work Lupo looks pretty nice with the new interface --Kanonkas(talk) 15:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks, good. Let's go ahead and switch it. --Dschwen 15:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently that wasn't clear enough. Ok, here's an easier way: just click this link. It'll take you to an edit screen with preview. In the preview, you'll see all the English texts the new form uses. Enter a subject line (for instance, "Translations for nn (Nynorsk)"), and enter your translations in the edit box. For each translation, also tell which English message this corresponds to. To translate e.g. MediaWiki:UploadFormUploadFileHelp you would enter in the edit box:
Nynorsk translation here
Labels and error messages should be simple one-liners. Help texts may use the full wiki markup. Take a look at the wikitext of the linked English defaults in the preview to get a feeling what can be done.
If you feel sure about this (and you're an admin), you may also place your translations diretcly at the appropriate subpages. The Nynorsk translation of MediaWiki:UploadFormUploadFileHelp would be at MediaWiki:UploadFormUploadFileHelp/nn. Non-admins cannot edit pages in the MediaWiki-namespace, so if you're not an admin, just put your translations in the edit box at this link. I (or some other admin) will move the texts to their proper locations in the next few days.
HTH, Lupo 16:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful work. Would it be better for "Original source" to say "Source", though, as newbies are likely to fill in eg "an old photo" rather than the URL of the site they found it on. --MichaelMaggs 16:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, and if it just says source, they put "Google" or "my computer", or give us the local filename... Lupo 19:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh boy, rant time... ;)

Using "pop up help texts" is a bad idea. Nobody is going to read these. Having the text inline is a much better idea, because this greatly increases the chance it will be read. With that said, there's one thing in the world worse than using pop up help texts, and that is having a little image icon with "?". People don't see these, and don't immediately comprehend what they're for. Indeed, the first time I tried this upload form (and this is not a Commons newbie here!) I saw the icons, disregarded them, and it was only after I read this discussion that I realised clicking them would show a help text.

If you must use pop-up help texts (again, terrible idea) then at least have it activated by a plain-text "what's this" link or something of the kind. Better yet, condense the help texts so that they can be included inline. The way it is done now is absolutely hideous as far as usability goes.

Anyway, things like validating input, and so on, are a very big improvement, though. It should, however, mandate that a default camera filename is not used (and check that the one given is valid; i.e. has a file extension and adds one where necessary). If it doesn't already (I've not tried it) it should force a at least one category to be added, as well. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, why for the love of Jimbo do we have a "+" sign and "Add a description in another language" as a tooltip, rather than the latter as the caption of the button? Why don't we have "Add a category" rather than a "(+)" link? Gahhh.... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And a tick picture that doesn't do anything next to an "OK" button... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 20:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Space is constrained. Programmer's resources are constrained. Inline help texts would make the form way too large (it's already at the limit now). Text links were not done because of space constraints. The "+" button was chosen because a huge wide button with the text "Add a description in another language" just looks ridiculous. If you can come up with a small, concise, meaningful, correct alternative for that button, I'll happily implement it. Yes, the form tries to check for camera-generated file names (as does the server, BTW!). Yes, it also checks for a valid extension. No, it doesn't add one automatically. How should it do this? The form cannot know whether the user wants to upload a jpg, a png, an ogg, or a pdf! No, the form does not force at least one category: firstly, that's HotCat's doing, and secondly, there may already be categories through a {{Creator:}} transclusion (or other transclusions). The "(+)" links in the category input come from HotCat again. Again, space is constrained. Until now, none of the HotCat users has complained about it. Apparently it can't be that bad. And where's that "tick picture that doesn't do anything next to an "OK" button"? I don't see an "OK" button... Ah, got it, it's in the HotCat sub-form. It's an indicator that the category in HotCat's input field does exist. If there's a name of a non-existing category in that input field, the graphic changes into a cross. Could maybe also be done by changing the background color of that input field (green and red, but these colors don't fit the color schemes of monobook, modern, or any other skin). Lupo 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

For the + ("Add a description in another language") you can change in Translate description --Wickey-nl 09:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

None of the HotCat users complained about it. Rephrased, "the kind of person that would use HotCat.js wouldn't see a problem with it". I fully agree. And if we were aiming our upload form at the kind of advanced user that would use HotCat, then this would indeed be a valid response. I thought the point of this whole affair was to make the upload form easy to use, and to make some kind of sense to cut down on the number of unsourced, undescribed, and uncategorised images we have uploaded by new users, and not primarily aimed as the kind of user that would use HotCat.
Think: The fact that you had to tell me what the green check-box means, tells you that there is something very wrong about this. Colouring the background red or green is equally meaningless to a new user and would be an even worse solution. Why not use one of those pop-up boxes you use elsewhere, with a warning that the given category does not exist?
If HotCat can't be fixed on the fly (i.e. by poking around in the DOM for the elements it creates), then you need to use something other than HotCat. As it is, it's entirely unsuited for this purpose.
As for the "space constraints", I entirely disagree. The upload form can be as long as it needs to be. If it means we have a paragraph of text above each field, then we should do just that. If it means we have a button with a really long caption, then so be it.
By the way, none of this is to say that the current upload form is not an improvement over the old one. It is a huge improvement. I support switching it on globally, even in its current state. But there's no reason to stick at "better" instead of doing for "really good". Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think there's an obvious way to force people to add categories. Try this: If none of the fields include a template of any kind, then force them to enter a category. Yes, this is a dodgy solution, but it will catch at least some uncategorised uploads (and I suspect that we can up that to "almost all"; the kind of user that doesn't add categories, is likely to be a new user who does not know how to include a template), and will have no false positives at all. Sounds good? Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
When you are saying that the "experienced" input is also subject ot validation does that mean that unless the information template is used the validation will fail? /Lokal_Profil 22:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmmm? I'm saying that if no template is included in any of the fields, and no categories have been entered with HotCat, then it's a certainty that the image will be uncategorised, and it should refuse to upload for that reason. 22:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collard (talk • contribs)
No, there are exceptions. For instance, an image of a plant species need not have any cat at upload. Instead, it should be placed in a species galllery after the upload, see COM:TOL. -- Slaunger 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Narg, those tree-of-life-huggers and their renegade policy ;-) --Dschwen 22:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
My comment was not refering to categories but to the comment further up "Once we enable the new upload form, this "experienced" form will use the basic mode of the script, meaning you'll also get the input validation, help buttons, and the preview button. And it won't let you upload if you don't fill out the required fields of the {{information}} template". So would the information template then be required for every file? /Lokal_Profil 23:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No. In "basic" mode, where there's only one description field, which is essentially free input, the script only tries to enforce the required info if it can figure out which template is used. If it can't determine whether a source etc. are present, it has to assume that one is there. But if it recognizes an {{information}} template (or {{painting}} or {{flickr}}), then it can parse this and then it will require that e.g. the "source" parameter of the template be filled in. It's a heuristic, with the fall-back behaviour of assuming that everything is fine. The script only refuses to upload if it can be sure that something is wrong. We don't want to incorrectly refuse to upload! Lupo 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
To Lewis criticisms: these are all good points (though I don't know where the "green checkbox" is, and a prompt in HotCat "The category does not exist. Proceed?" would make HotCat very cumbersome to use. :-) But you shouldn't compare this existing proposal with a "paper tiger". The paper tiger always wins against a real tiger. Its only problem is that the paper tiger doesn't exist. You should compare this proposal against the existing upload form. Is the proposal an improvement that we should use? Yes or no? That's all we should find consensus on. Once we've really switched to a form with separate fields and input validation, we can still try to improve the overall ergonomics. If a web designer can come up with a significantly better way to do this that can be implemented with our limited volunteer resources, we can try it out. But devising an even more improved design is not easy, and we won't get there by changing something a little here and there. Lupo 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to illustrate this: lewis asked above why HotCat didn't use a link or a button saying "Add a category" instead of "(+)". Be careful with texts! Texts need to be localizeable... and in French, "Ajouter une catégorie" is even longer! And what about RTL scripts? Should the HotCat links appear then to the left of the categories? If these HotCat links are to be changed, this would need to be well thought through, and probably it would change HotCat quite a bit. I am all for further improving this, but I don't think we should try to do it here and now in an ad-hoc way. Lupo 08:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides, it appears that the introductory texts (which are static!) at the top of the page are not read either. There are some basic explanations there. Lupo 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
That may be bacause on Commons the upload page scrolls down to the input form below the introduction. I have not noticed that on any other wikis, and I don't think it has always been like this here. 08:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted! Indeed, that's an unforseen unwanted interaction between the upload form script and MediaWiki:Edittools.js. Fixed now. The upload page now no longer scrolls down. Thanks for pointing it out! Lupo 12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is very impressive Lupo, I look forward to it being brought in. giggy (:O) 01:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  • better upload form has been needed for a while. This is much cleaner and brighter. Me likes. =] --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for asking this stupid question, but how do I enable it to try it out? I tried following the link above to the English version and although I saw the new upload form for a split second it then reverted to the original one. Do I have to edit monobook.js and exactly what should I put in there? -- Slaunger 05:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    No, you shouldn't have to edit your monobook.js. Try clearing your cache (shift-reload or ctrl-reload, depending on your browser). If it still doesn't work, give me the full details on my talk page, and we'll work it out together. Lupo 07:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That helped. Thanks! -- Slaunger 11:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for all the help with the translations! However, please note that we'll also have to modify the introductory texts (MediaWiki:Uploadtext and its subpages). For any language, there are essentially three introductory texts that need to be made compatible (I'll use French as an example): MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fr, MediaWiki:Uploadtext/frownwork, and possibly MediaWiki:Uploadtext/frfromflickr. I cannot set up all of these such that they make sense for both the current upload form and for the new form because I don't understand all the languages. Please see MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Configuring the introductory text for what would have to be done. (Basically, you need to wrap parts that shall not be displayed on the new form in a <div id="wpUploadFormLongText">, and parts that shall be displayed only on the new form in a <div id="wpUploadFormShortText">.) I have done such modifications at the English versions (MediaWiki:Uploadtext and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork) and also at the German versions (MediaWiki:Uploadtext/de and MediaWiki:Uploadtext/deownwork). You could take these as models for versions in other languages... Any help would be appreciated! Lupo 10:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

English: Original source:
Dansk: Den oprindelige kilde:

English: Author(s):
Dansk: Kunstner(e):

English: Date:
Dansk: Dato:
This Translation is problematically. Dato, is date of the Upload, not of the artwork. Note: 10.11.12 had six senses. 10/11 1912; 11/10 1912; 10/11 1911; 12/10 1911; 12/11 1910; 11/12 1910. ;-)

Oprindelses dato:; Den oprindelige dato:; dato for værket:; Værkets oprindelse dato:; Datering: (DD-MM-ÅÅÅÅ).

I've chosen "dato for værket" (date of the work). I actually like this, it clarifies that we're not interested in the upload date. It's still ambiguous (do we mean creation date or date of first publication?) but I fear we cannot clarify that in the label itself. I'm already happy if we get either. Further explanations are in the help text for that field (which itself depends on the kind of file being uploaded, for recordings, the help text clarifies that one should also give the recording and/or broadcasting date). Corresponding modification also made in the en, de, fr, and es versions. Don't know what it would be in the other languages for which we already have a translation (af, cs, hu, it, nl, no, pl, pt, pt-br, ru, sv). Lupo 14:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

English: Description:
Dansk: Beskrivelse:

English: Other versions:
Dansk: Andre udgaver:

English: Permission:
Dansk: Tilladelse:

English: Additional info:
Dansk: Flere oplysninger:

English: Licens: Click here to get help
Dansk: Retigheder: Klik her for at få hjælp

English: Categories:
Dansk: Kategorier:

haabet 10:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You might want to click here; there's a whole lot more to be translated! ;-) Lupo 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It do not work or I do not understand the principle. I have need of a review of the context and other languages translations. There's a whole lot more to be translated because anybody understand the way of translations. Note: The English word "Cut" has 23 meaning in Danish, as alternative English texts are a great help, by the translations.haabet 14:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Further announcements

Besides the announcements at the French and German "village pumps", I've now also added notices at the Spanish and Portuguese ones, since noone else has done so until now. I hope they understand, I don't write these languages too well...

Since these projects (at least es, don't know about pt) have disabled local uploads, it would be good to have fully translated and configured forms for these languages when we go live with this. Absent any major showstopper, I will enable the new form one week from now on Wednesday, May 28, 2008, between 07:00-08:00 UTC. Lupo 06:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice. I would change Resumen with Descripción in the spanish version. I will try to translate the help to spanish this evening.--Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 10:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Lupo, I'll try to do as much as I can, and engage a couple of pt speakers to help. You did a great work, congratulations! Patrícia msg 20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional messages to translate

To alleviate Lewis' concerns, I have added very brief hints to some fields. These are small texts displayed right underneath the fields (typically one line at most). They are displayed in small text and are intended to make clear what the most important things to add in those fields are. More extended help is then available in the pop-up help.

If you don't see any changes, force a reload (click shift-reload or ctrl-reload, depending on your browser).

Unfortunately, this means that there are a few additional messages that need to be translated. I've already set up hints for English, German, and French, and I've done some of the Spanish ones (please check those). Please translate them in your language, too. For the "additional info" hint, please choose a Google Map location that matches the language. For instance, the French hint for that field uses the Eiffel tower, the German hint the Bernese Oberland (Swiss mountains), and the English hint uses Half Dome. Try to find an uncontroversial location!

Also note that all messages can not only be translated into different languages, but furthermore can be specialized for our special "ownwork", "fromflickr", "fromgov", or "fromwikimedia" forms, though I've done that only for four messages. Please also provide translations for MediaWiki:UploadFormLicenseHelp/fromgov, MediaWiki:UploadFormLicenseHelp/fromflickr, MediaWiki:UploadFormLicenseHelp/ownwork, and MediaWiki:UploadFormPermissionHint/ownwork. (If you're an admin: translations go to /xxfromgov, /xxfromflickr, and /xxownwork, where "xx" is the language code.)

Please also make sure that your MediaWiki:Uploadtext and subpages thereof are configured correctly. Take the English or German versions as an example, and do read MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Configuring the introductory text.

BTW, could someone please do the French help texts and error messages? Lupo 08:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be good if MediaWiki:UploadFormAdditionalInfoHint could be made shorter, currently it spans two lines. Even just changing the example to something shorter would help i.e. something unique enough not to need the disambiguity part of the link name e.g. Eifel tower, Empire state building, Taj Mahal... /Lokal_Profil 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New vs old Upload Form

Lupo, you did a great job for ensuring complete descriptions by newbies, but in case someone wants to upload more than one or two pics, this seems too clumsy to handle. When I upload a couple of pics to same category (and more similar items), I usually edit the Information-box but once, do my first upload, use the browser's "back"-button, edit the description and then upload the next picture, and so on.

Moreover, as I type quite slowly, I often just open one appropriate existing picture, copy the content of the Information-Template, maybe including Categories, paste it into the upload-form, edit and go ahead. I think this would not be possible with the new form, would it? Therefore please keep this chance -- albeit by some pushbutton allowing to switch to the old version, or more simply as a link on the upload-page called "expert upload" or however. I imagine there are more people who do like me.

On the other hand, I think the "Newbie-friendly" form should disallow uploads at all if no license is chosen from the dropdown-menu AND no source is given (maybe, preset "self-made") -- this might reduce a lot of troubles with newbies. I suppose yesterday's upload Image:Karin-schaefer-giacometti-stile-figure.jpg, totally lacking "Template:information", might have been done by the new form -- am I right? WeHaWoe 06:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Please see MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation. Users can configure the form to use the old layout, if they so want (for instance, as you point out, because they typically work by copy-paste). They'll still get input validation.
  • Also see User:Lupo/upload for how I will change Commons:Upload when we go live. There are direct links there to an "experienced" form using the old layout.
  • The back-button technique should work also with the new form. It does for me. In fact, I went to some length to make sure it works. Only Konqueror may not quite get it right, but that's due to a bug in Konqueror, as far as User:Dschwen and I have been able to determine.
  • If no license is given, the new form will disallow uploads. Ditto if no source is given.
  • What makes you think Image:Karin-schaefer-giacometti-stile-figure.jpg was uploaded with the new form? I see no indication of that. Maybe I should make the script add a HTML comment or a hidden category indicating that the upload was done through the script. If only to prove that some botched uploads were not the doing of the script... ;-) Lupo 08:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

hi! the new form is very difficult to deal with. please consider keeping the older form acessible in some place. i can't either to configure it as said above, for i don't understand those languages. tetraktys 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Overwriting a low-res picture

Since yesterday, we have Image:Albert Richter Grabstein.png, a document on a cyclist's gravestone. On same, I did a very low-res version last year which I had uploaded under Image:Albert Richter (1912-1940).png (I'd cropped it from Image:Grabstein_Albert_Richter.jpg, as there wasn't anything else available to wikipedia commons).

Now, none of the pics was photographed by myself, they do have different licences (GFDL vs. double-licence), and the author of the one I had used doesn't answer (User talk:Factumquintus). Would I nevertheless be allowed to overwrite the low-res, which is actually used on enWP and ptWP?. It would be easier to replace the link on the actual Hi-res sample in deWP only, and afterwards delete the "then-duplicate" Image:Albert Richter Grabstein.png (which, BTW, isn't named "ideally"). WeHaWoe 14:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • You seem to forget - besides the licence question - that only a minority in some countries have a high speed account. So, pics with a size of one MB or even more are generally not a good idea. Regards Mutter Erde 17:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • High resolution images are a good idea. Mediawiki resizes them automatically to any needed resolution, so nobody will have to download the large file if they don't want to. Images should always be uploaded at the highest possible resolution. --Stefan Vladuck 17:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to WP and commons' rules and technical facts on display I disagree with "Mutter Erde", of course agree with "S.V.", but this was not the point at all.
The sole question was "may I", or might there arise troubles within WP rules. I do not think it would be a problem to get the uploader of the better pic to "re-design" the licence given yesterday to "only-GFDL" (which, however, imo would not even apply all-too-much: It is a plain reproduction of a twodimensional work (at least, if we omit the unimportant frame), therefore "pretty close" to PD.
I personally think it would be better to have some alternative "slim" version, besides (which should have to be a downscale from the better one, and not a crippled "improvement" of the worse, as mine necessarily was), but I learned that such is generally not at all welcome in Wikipedia. WeHaWoe 20:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could change the license to "only-GFDL" since you can choose either license (or keep it dual-licensed), but that makes slightly more restrictive, which isn't good. The current license as displayed on the page doesn't necessarily apply to old revisions. Except where the changes are trivial, past versions are considered separate works, and thus have separate licenses. But are people aware of this? Not changing the license when uploading over something is agreeing to the same license. You can always (and sometimes must) change the license if the works are more then trivially different. Rocket000 23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
According some file's history, sophisticated German admins[?] would not believe you, rocket ;))). See also talk on this. (The file's owner AND_uploader_to_COM couldn't convince him either. The uploader has meanwhile stopped uplooding to COM, I hear, trying to avoid similar "noise". (The uploader would not even care about a license, I am informed, too.) -- ;) Talk there is in GERMAN, of course. --WeHaWoe 10:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spam Filters

Hi, I just run into trouble saving changes to an image description. The problem was the image sources which happen to be external webpages where given PD image was found. I do not think we should discourage people from providing sources. Is it related to the discussion in the section above? --Jarekt 02:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No it is not. What domain are you trying to link to? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) and were blocked. Remove spaces from WWW, otherwise I can not save. --Jarekt 04:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Pretty certain the deathcamps one is blacklisted at Meta level (likely the other one too). Why do you need the links? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) and deathcamps are both blacklisted globally, and will not be un-listed. However, I can possibly whitelist the specific URLs you require for these images (the image, not the page) if you point me to them. I'd recommend that you get such images from a more reliable source though - I'm sure these sites have taken the photos from elsewhere, it is only a matter of finding it. Herby - views on that? – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes I have no problem with that - it is why we have local whitelists. The url should be specific though so that we do not get links that are not required. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I do not particularly care about those 2 websites. One of them had a better version of an image which we already have on commons which I added, so that is why I was trying to add the website to the list of references. Than I run into my first ever spam filter block. So I tried another website and I got the same result. I assumed it had something to do with the discussion in the section above and some harsher spam filters were implemented. If it is not the case than I would consider the matter closed. --Jarekt 02:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll whitelist the exact URL; please add to the image pages so we have accurate source info. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible breach of privacy

I am not sure what this falls under but this photo Image:Urban Explorer Hobart CA Edit.jpg has a picture of a person in it. The author of the photo has stated that the person in the photo is not him (on en:Talk:Urban exploration). I would like to find out if this would be some kind of breach of privacy or breach of Wikipedia policy. Can the person in the picture take legal action if they do not like there picture made public. I do have the exact same picture without the person in it. Maybe this could be used instead. Adam.J.W.C. 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with policies here (whether Wikipedia's policies permit that or not, I have no idea). We'd need some kind of explicit permission from the subject if it was taken in some kind of private setting, but I don't think anyone could plausibly claim that here. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 06:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
So does that mean I can take pictures of an individual in a public place and then post them on this webiste, even if they object? Adam.J.W.C. 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. --BrokenSphere 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that case is somewhat borderline. The individual though not 100% the center of the image, is well recognizable. On the other hand he was obviously fully aware of being photographed. If, the depicted complains about, it should be deleted, of course. I've tagged the image with the personality rights template. --Túrelio 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • What about self promotion. Although the author denies it it could be a picture of either him or one of his friends. I find it strange that someone would upload a photo like this and then make it main image for an article en:Urban exploration. I do have the same image with the person in the image either completely removed or semi transparent. Adam.J.W.C. 07:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

New maint. templates wanted

Hello, I wonder if somebody could create templates to indicate

--Mattes 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good idea. Images aren't required to have a {{information}} template. There's a lot of custom templates out there that serve the same purpose. And there's a lot of image pages out there that don't have one. Wouldn't it be better just to add the info template instead of tagging it as missing one? Rocket000 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course it would be perfect to set the tl into media right away. But some editors have already other stuff to do and leave that task for later on or for others. --Mattes 19:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rocket: there are other templates to organize information, such as the children of {{Meta information museum}}. I also agree it would be useful to have a category gathering pictures without any information template. Can it be done by a bot? It seems a waste of time for editors to add it by hand. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 20:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Korean Open Access License, Permissive 2.0

I suggest accept Korean Open Access License, Permissive 2.0 (legal code, in Korean). This License is free documentation license. In ko.wikipedia, There are about 95 images based on this license. I'd like to introduce Korean Open Access License. Thank you.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 12:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there an official English translation of the license? Regardless, it must follow Commons:Licensing and it should be fine. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll request for translation to the foundation.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


The Korean Open Access License has many variants, sort of like Creative Commons licences. Only one of them can be used at Wikimedia sites, because of non-commercial restrictions and so on. The most permissive one is the "허용" variant:

Users can do the following with the work (and its copies), for commercial and non-commercial purposes:

  1. Copy, perform (plays), broadcast, transmit, display, distribute it
  2. Use it in edited works and in creating databases
  3. Use it in performances (enactments?), creating audio records and broadcast material
  4. And create derivative works

Users are required to do the following:

  1. Must respect the copyright of the the work, for example by attributing the author
  2. Must display the Korean Open Access License in the work (including derivatives)
  3. Must not put technical restrictions on the copying of the work (including derivatives)
  4. And must release derivative works under the same license as the original work

Korean Open Access license Permissive variant is similar to CC-BY-SA.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Useful buttons mising from standard toolbar

Just noticed recent changes in "Standard" version of the lower toolbar on edit/upload pages. Where is so heavily used "pipe" character? And what about multiplication symbol, upper index 2 and 3 for square and cubic units etc...? --Miaow Miaow 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't notice any major changes -- the default version of the click-to-add section under Commons edit forms has been sparser than the corresponding Wikipedia section (which you may have in mind) for a while... AnonMoos 13:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no mistake, no confusion with some wiki. Commons is what I have on mind. I have still many windows opened for editing or uploading from last hours and days, so I can recognize the difference. There has been a change from about noon UTC today. The toolbar now contains more options but some of them IMHO less useful. The crucial "pipe" character is completely missing. And for me so heavily used "Category" button is now hidden among others in centre of the menu instead of more handy previous position on the left edge. :-( --Miaow Miaow 15:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Special characters and important templates shown in the editing window

I noticed that the supply of characters and templates have been cut off here in Commons to a minimum. I would suggest to redo the change and would like to have more. </nowiki> -->

The English language edition has Insert: – — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your username: ~~~~ (on talk pages) Wiki markup: {{}} {{{}}} | [] [[]] [[Category:]] #REDIRECT [[]]   <s></s> <sup></sup> <sub></sub> <code></code> <blockquote></blockquote> <ref></ref> {{Reflist}} <references/> <includeonly></includeonly> <noinclude></noinclude> {{DEFAULTSORT:}} <nowiki> • (templates) Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶ # ∞ ‘ “ ’ ” «» ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ Characters: Á á Ć ć É é Í í Ĺ ĺ Ń ń Ó ó Ŕ ŕ Ś ś Ú ú Ý ý Ź ź À à È è Ì ì Ò ò Ù ù  â Ĉ ĉ Ê ê Ĝ ĝ Ĥ ĥ Î î Ĵ ĵ Ô ô Ŝ ŝ Û û Ŵ ŵ Ŷ ŷ Ä ä Ë ë Ï ï Ö ö Ü ü Ÿ ÿ ß Ã ã Ẽ ẽ Ĩ ĩ Ñ ñ Õ õ Ũ ũ Ỹ ỹ Ç ç Ģ ģ Ķ ķ Ļ ļ Ņ ņ Ŗ ŗ Ş ş Ţ ţ Đ đ Ů ů Ǎ ǎ Č č Ď ď Ě ě Ǐ ǐ Ľ ľ Ň ň Ǒ ǒ Ř ř Š š Ť ť Ǔ ǔ Ž ž Ā ā Ē ē Ī ī Ō ō Ū ū Ȳ ȳ Ǣ ǣ ǖ ǘ ǚ ǜ Ă ă Ĕ ĕ Ğ ğ Ĭ ĭ Ŏ ŏ Ŭ ŭ Ċ ċ Ė ė Ġ ġ İ ı Ż ż Ą ą Ę ę Į į Ǫ ǫ Ų ų Ḍ ḍ Ḥ ḥ Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ Ṃ ṃ Ṇ ṇ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ Ṣ ṣ Ṭ ṭ Ł ł Ő ő Ű ű Ŀ ŀ Ħ ħ Ð ð Þ þ Œ œ Æ æ Ø ø Å å Ə ə • Greek: Ά ά Έ έ Ή ή Ί ί Ό ό Ύ ύ Ώ ώ Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω • • (polytonic list) Cyrillic: А а Б б В в Г г Ґ ґ Ѓ ѓ Д д Ђ ђ Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і Ї ї Й й Ј ј К к Ќ ќ Л л Љ љ М м Н н Њ њ О о П п Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш Щ щ Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь Э э Ю ю Я я IPA: t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ ɸ ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ʝ ɣ ʁ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ ʙ ʀ ɾ ɽ ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ ɥ ʍ ɧ ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ ɨ ʉ ɯ ɪ ʏ ʊ ɘ ɵ ɤ ə ɚ ɛ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ ʰ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪ • </nowiki>

which is certainly too much for Commons (which is not an ency) but some characters should be provided such as the important × for dimensions. Is there a reason or debate for that change? Thanks and BFN, --Mattes 14:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you notices selector of special characters? --EugeneZelenko 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course i did, :-) but to have to scroll for every insertion of the "pipe" from "Standard" to the "Latin" section seems quite uncomfortable if man uses that symbol almost on every row... It should be included in the "Standard" menu as it used to be until this day. --Miaow Miaow 19:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
De-selector sounds better. It should not replace basics like category insert buttons... but it does. NVO 19:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I readded the × and |. They were removed to avoid overcrowding. Those seemed to be the least used. Dimensions are usually done with 'x' and the pipe character is on your keyboard (at least it's on mine). If you (or anyone) has more suggestions of what you'd like to see in the Standard menu and what should be removed, just let me know. Rocket000 23:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, what are you guys doing adding categories the old fashioned way? :) Rocket000 23:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for readding. Well, regarding the x it is not on my keyboard (hp, bought 2007). Anyway, I'm really having fun to exchange the x with a × in dimensions. As far as I know is that the only 100 % correct way in typography.
I have two more further suggestions: a) plz. redo the centered setting (that really takes space) b) One could think about use some link for further data like at de:Wikipedia (de:Sonderzeichen)? It could lead to meta or some site on Commons. But that would be really luxury and maybe just an idea...
--Mattes 23:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You don't have a lowercase X? Anyway, what do you mean by "centered setting"? Rocket000 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
@Rocket000: sorry, I meant the × not being provided on my keyboard^^. The characters section was set to "centered" below the editng window. It turnes out that way at least under the skin "Classic". --Mattes 09:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no pipe on cs: keyboard, which makes this button very useful for some no-en: users. Thanks a lot for the most recent update, very appreciated... --Miaow Miaow 23:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Anything else you would like? Rocket000 23:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we need to work on shortening the amount of time it take for the buttons to show up. On my computer after I press edit there is a long delay between the time first buttons show up and when the buttons on top of the window and the "selector of special characters" shows up. I do a lot of editing in polish and sometimes I can not get to Polish character set. --Jarekt 02:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I never had a delay before. The buttons just show up. But if I knew of a way to fix this, I would. Rocket000 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Allright, let's first figure out which buttons cause this delay. Can you switch off the top ones in your preferences (go to Special:Preferences, "Editing" tab, deselect "Show edit toolbar (Javascript)") and see if you still have that problem? Lupo 14:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of Commons for promotion/publicity etc

Over the past few months I have noticed a rise in media being uploaded which appears to be related to promotional activity. This has been website banner/logo type images but also images created to sell specific products. These generally get tagged and deleted quite quickly as "out of scope". However the recent undeletion request has brought in another aspect of this. The mail address of the uploader is from a Search Engine Optimisation company. This suggests to me that the images are uploaded not for our benefit but for the uploader's client's benefit.

In practice link placement across wikis is quite well monitored now although there are never enough people to deal with it (hint hint). This may well mean that SEO type people (& any others seeking publicity) may attempt to use Commons to get around this.

I would ask that we keep an eye out for such behaviour and maybe look at the scope of the project more closely. Taken simply - that undeletion request could mean that we welcome photos of all hotels & their rooms, bathrooms, restaurants etc anywhere in the world - porn would look minor by comparison. I would appreciate views on this (& have invited some others with an interest in cross wiki link placement to take a look too). If anyone has any queries Mike & I do have some experience in this field. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this makes me rather uncomfortable. Freely-licensed perhaps, but not within my idea of Commons' scope. I'd love it if we made this explicit in COM:PS. Uploading purely promotional images is akin to adding purely promotional links -- neither of which is acceptable. I hope others agree, and perhaps we can add something to that effect soon. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed many PDF with advertisement text.
However I don't think that it's easy to draw a line between spam and useful picture. Photos of buildings could be useful to GeoCommons applications (think of freely licensed Street View), but from other side real estate agents could upload too much of them. So may be we need to make restriction on description/EXIF like only address + gecoding without references to commercial entities or external links?
EugeneZelenko 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it is hard to draw the line. Not all images uploaded with promotional intent are useless, but usually they are. Commons is a lot less patrolled than other Wikimedia sites our size and when spammers can get away with something it only encourages them. I think we need to take a stronger stance against this behavior. Rocket000 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Just be more liberal when dealing with the images; shoot first, then ask questions. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 08:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As Rocket says this is about "intent" rather than "content". I have no problem with pictures of commercial premises (indeed the Bristol category that was part of this has some great pictures of pubs for example which are also good examples of the architectural history of Bristol).
Commons is not as used to people attempting to exploit it for promotional activity as some wikis so it is more an alert (& to find out if others agree) than anything else. Eugene is right to mention .pdf files too - I have also come across ones that appear to be commercial in intent.
The scope of the project should be as wide as possible but it should not accept media placed here where the intention is promotion in any sense of the word to me. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
KR Designs (talk · contribs) SEO, using the account en:Special:Contributions/KRDesigns account to insert the images. Someone want to bag and tag these?
--Hu12 18:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - Mike seems to have blitz'd them and warned the user. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just forgot to make note here. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

June 1

WTF? Russian name is no descriptive?

I trying to upload image with name Выход_на_Дворцовую_площадь_из_Зимнего_Дворца.jpg (translated to english some like "exit from Wind Winter Palace to Palace Square"). I pretty sure, than this is perfectly descriptive name for image. But this internationless script say me "Please use a more descriptive target file name." It's not annoynig, it's call a hate speech inside me towards people, who think, what just 26 chars can describe world. Currently I disable javascript to wikipedia to be allowed to speak my native language. GIMME BACK MY RUSSIAN! #!George Shuklin 06:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. If I turn off this nice script (by turning off java-script), all other description (except so lovley licence) disapear. So, I stop uploading anything before it fixed. #!George Shuklin 08:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just switch back to the old style upload form, you can do it from you preferences, last page. I think the new upload for is so pedantic, i just can't use it, sorry. --Sailko 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I do so. Some result. Script do not accept russian names. #!George Shuklin 07:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Developer was notified. Please don't use language such as WTF. It definitely will not help to fix problem. --EugeneZelenko 14:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Corrected now. You'll have to shift-reload (Firefox) or ctrl-reload (IE) to get the correction. Lupo 15:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

sisal farming

Hi, What is sisal plant And how it will farming?

June 3

Problematic Flickr claim

We have two images of the recent bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan: Image:Terrorist Attack on Danish Embassy 1.JPG and Image:Terrorist Attack on Danish Embassy 2.JPG. Both images were uploaded by the non-admin, non-Flickr reviewer claiming that the Flickr image was originally under CC-BY-2.0 and has since been changed. The images on Flickr state all rights reserved. This is a new situation for me and my question is if I can speedy these as being so problematic to be useless, or if I need to start an actual deletion discussion. Thanks, BanyanTree 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these should have been speedied; we have no way of knowing whether it ever was validly licensed. Thanks for the heads-up. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 04:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. - BanyanTree 06:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with 2 pictures in the Train timetables category

I have been placing the pictures in the corresponding country subcategory. There a technical problem with viewing the pictures off:

Image:Train schedule of Fukuchiyama Line, Japan, 1950-02-20.png


Image:Train schedule of Sanin Line, Japan, 1949-09-15.png


Smiley.toerist 12:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How to show first all sub-cats of a cat?

Every now and then I stumble over categories that contain many (or sometimes too many) images/media, with the result that the sub-cats of that cat are not all shown on the first page, see for example Category:Stained glass. So, when I want to see if there is a sub-cat whose name starts with a letter of the second half of the alphabet, I have to click on "next 200" (sometimes even once again) and then have to wait until the next 200 or so thumbs are loaded - bad for usability. Is there any "trick" to force such cat-pages first to show all sub-cats and then the images contained in that cat? --Túrelio 09:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See bugzilla:1211 and Commons:Bugs. --EugeneZelenko 14:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It is always nice to see that a problem you stumble over has already a registered number ;-) but no solution though it is known since 2004-12-27 :-( --Túrelio 16:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Most categories with that many images should be structured into smaller subcategories. I've done that with a few categories, and while doing so, I sometimes find it useful to make sure all the subcategories appear on the first page to get an overview of them. This can be done by editing a category sort string beginning with a space to each subcategory.
For example, suppose Category:Subcategory is a subcategory of the very large Category:Parent category. To force Subcategory to appear on the first page of Parent category, edit Category:Subcategory and change [[Category:Parent category]] to [[Category:Parent category| Subcategory]]. Don't forget to change it back when enough images have been moved to subdirectories.
If your browser supports Javascript, you can also go to a parent category of the large directory and click the plus sign next to the name of the large directory. This will show all of its subdirectories. LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's be honest: we want to set up a world category system that has to support millions of images and a growth rate of hundreds of thousands of images per month. On the other hand, there are some (very) old bugs that causes problems when we have more than a few hundred of images and/or subcategories in a category. Something is terribly wrong.
In the mean time, I patched some work around in Category:Stained glass. The wiki could display that index tables automatically when it is getting crowded. --Foroa 22:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
@Foroa, that's a nice work-around.
@All, thanks for your input. Let's hope this bug gets at least upgraded from its current "Severity: minor"[1]. --Túrelio 08:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A word of warning.

I stumbled already several times on malfunctions of the category displays, but it is not always easy to test and show the malfunction as it happens with larger categories and it is very time consuming to test. A rather simple/compact example is Category:Commons photographers. In that category, I never managed to display the third and fourth subcategory. Moreover, once you come to the end of the level 2, when you hot next 200 (that many times you want), it stays on the current list. The only workaround I found so far is patching in the address bar the from=2 to from=3 or patch the right subcat in the address bar. So don't be surprised that people cannot find some stuff. --Foroa 17:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

What's also strange in that cat, is that the user names are listed randomly but not alphabetically. --Túrelio 15:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Late to the "party" but I've just come across some overloaded parent categories. Many thanks to Foroa for the work round. Should this be written up somewhere that stays around longer than the VP? It is a great area for people to help out on Commons. Thanks for the tips - cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as this bug is unsolved since 2004, it would be nice to have this discussion or at least the work-arounds saved somewhere, where others can find them easily. By the way, I've asked at Bugzilla for a severity step-up of this bug. --Túrelio 08:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
@Túrelio, maybe by introducing other bug reports about the sort errors and the paging error in Category:Commons photographers, we get a "new" problem with better priority (and a serious test case). After four years, we should maybe try other ways. --Foroa 09:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the strange sorting of Commons photographers is fixed now. The problem was that all users were sorted as either "1", "2", or "3". /Ö 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Unfortunately, this don't takes the bug of the cat display away. --Foroa 06:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As you see that 30 to 50 % of the questions on the pump are recurring, there is some room for improvement what documentation is concerned. Those problems should be solved (and indexes autogenerated) one day. Maybe there should be some corner related to bug fixes, suggestions and other practical matters.
Note that index tables with lower case characters make no sense as all Wiki items start with uppercase. {{ImageTOC}} allows to jump in the image index (attention, internally, images are sorted according to their image namespace prefix, piped arguments without prefix). The index {{CatAZ}} allows to jump in the subcategories.
<div style="float:right; border: 1px solid #808080; padding: 5px;"> <center>'''All subcategories'''</center> <categorytree depth=0>Main cat to be shown</categorytree> </div> generates a java-enabled menu. --Foroa 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way of putting that java-menu into a template? Tried around with it but it doesn't seem to aprove of {{PAGENAME}}. /Lokal_Profil 10:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Categorytree. /Ö 22:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice, learnt a new magic word =) /Lokal_Profil 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) In some categories there is no way to know at all that there are subcategories. See

If I hadn't added the category tree myself one would have no idea that there were subcategories. So it is not just a problem of seeing only some of the subcategories, and having an inkling that one has to look elsewhere for the rest. Is this problem also noted in the bug reports? --Timeshifter 17:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


I created pages for all of the red links linking to meta whenever appropriate. We may want to create local pages for these... -- Cat ちぃ? 09:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Users needs to be written for example. -- Cat ちぃ? 09:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is still red links on that special page. It might be good if an administrator changed the links so that they link directly to the correct page. that can be changed in MediaWiki messages. For example MediaWiki:Grouppage-developer can be "Meta:System administrators" and MediaWiki:Grouppage-import "Meta:Help:Import". /Ö 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

20 MB upload limit is too low

I think the 20 MB upload limit is too low for video. YouTube has a 1024 MB limit. has files that are multiple gigabyte. There are a number of public domain television episodes and movies that could be added to the Commons if the limited was upped. I think this limit is reducing the quality and quantity of content that can be put on the Commons. --Mattwj2002 21:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, but why does the link saying YouTube link to bsrboy 00:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Just so you know, everybody thinks the 20MB limit is too low, but there are technical reasons for it. This was discussed a while back on commons-l and/or wikitech-l, though I think nothing ever came of that discussion. We don't need a poll on this, we need the tech improved. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And money to improve tech too... --EugeneZelenko 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree and need to improve Javascript media player.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Voting on technical limitations is futile ;) You can vote what you want but the tech team has the final say. However, according to Brion VIBBER, our CTO: When disk space is expanded... machines are on their way... :) -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I just wanted to add another reason this should be done. There are many djvu files on and other sources that are over 20 MB. This books are very important to the Wikisource proof reading project. --Mattwj2002 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Suggestion: go make a fuss at bug 12595. Vote for it and leave comments. Maybe a developer will at least leave a message. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Disagree in the sense that we do not have the hardware for regular flow of larger files. Youtube is backed by Google, we are not. Otherwise the limit is arbitrary and can be adjusted with ease. It used to be 5MB not too long ago. I would Symbol keep vote.svg Agree that we need a way to override the limit. For example admins or perhaps only bureaucrats may be given an upload size limit exception. Seeking a person with direct server access is a pain for the person that is being seeked and for the person seeking. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree This limit is also problematic for DJVU files for Wikisource. Yann 14:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree There are a lot of very interesting books that we can't create on because of their size. --Zephyrus 14:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It should 3-4 MB, at the most. Rocket000 14:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain. If your suggestion was followed I'd be unable to upload most of my images. And we might as well abolish videos completely. I'm confused, this seems a little 1990ies to me. --Dschwen 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • lol I was kidding. Of course everyone wants a higher limit, we don't need a poll on it. Rocket000 23:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Our server space issue won't be impacted much by a few larger files. But it would be if we open the limit generally, presumably. Perhaps a compromise for now would be one limit that is imposed on all files uploaded, and another, higher, limit that is (admin?) granted to certain files on a file by file basis, as an exception, and with provisions for review. (uploaders abusing this by requesting too many exceptions would be subject to the normal checks and balances of the community) That way the special case files don't require developer access. As hardware becomes available, the limits themselves can be adjusted, but this suggestion allows for more than a yes/no... ++Lar: t/c 16:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Wasn't the limit raised to 20 MB only earlier this year? It was probably seen as long overdue, but I find it interesting that there are already issues with it. However that's probably to be expected as things continue to scale higher and higher in terms of quality and size. I personally don't have an issue with it yet, as my uploads are not that large...yet. BrokenSphere 17:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Agree on a per file-type base. We can hardly say that we are a media server if we cannot integrate DJVU and movies. This however has to be decided by management (resources) and administrators as this might add significant additional review overhead and time (a video can contain images of three towns with 5 animals, four paintings and seven sculptures). I think that for such complex items, the review and catalog procedure needs to be adapted and executed upfront before leaving the files floating allover the commons. --Foroa 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2

video with an ".ogv" extension?

Since Wikimedia Commons only accepts videos in OGG format, I used ffmpeg2theora to convert one of my videos (which was in MPG format) to OGG. However, ffmpeg2theora gave me a file with an ".ogv" extension instead. Am I supposed to manually change the file extension?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 03:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

.OGV is the new standard for ogg video, so as to be not confused with .OGG audio. Anyways, there is a bug already in to get .ogv's allow for uploaded. Until then just renamed the .OGV to .OGG and upload - it will work just fine. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Ixfd64 03:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. Good luck. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We should rename existing .ogg files with video to .ogv. That is once we are able to rename files of course. -- Cat ちぃ? 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Agree Someone could write a simple bot to find the Video .ogg files and rename them. Then it would be a matter of making sure people from then on uploaded them as .ogv --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Euro NCAP crash tests

A user in the spanish language Cafe has a doubt about the images from Euro NCAP. The web doesn'tt say a word about their copyright status, but the guidelines imply they can be used freely in any "marketing material, advertisements, articles and information material made available in print (magazines, newspapers), on the internet, via television or radio, press releases and any other consumer-directed marketing communication". Later, the only condition they impose is that the logo must placed near the images.


  • The logo is copyrighted and cant be modified in any way.
  • There is nothing about the possibility of other uses.

It is possible to upload images from that site?--Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

At there is a rather dubious image as public domain. -+-+Fernando Estel ☆ · 星 commons es 22:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
In fact, that guy is me. Well, I was translating an article from en.wikipedia and saw an image from EuroNCAP, which I'd really wish to include in the es.wikipedia. The problem is the fair use, not allowed at the Spanish wiki. --Schumi4ever 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Without an explicit release by an Euro NCAP representative, these images are not free. Their guidelines talk only about the logo and the visual identity, not about image copyrights. Lupo 14:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
So, that means we can't use those pics. But if I send an e-mail asking them if we can... what can I do? --Schumi4ever 14:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a comment only & should be taken as such. There is an awful lot of linkage to the site as shown here. I trust this is not another way to "promote" the site. As to your query - take a look at OTRS info which we would need for valid licensing. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

June 4

Strange picture

Image:02082235b(227 x 247).jpg Look at the difference between the left and rigth side off the head. Different waterlevels????

Smiley.toerist 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it is safe to say that someone did some photoshopping here. Very odd if you ask me.--ShakataGaNai Talk 18:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice find. I've been keeping a collection of all the weird/WTF images I find on Commons. It may make an interesting gallery someday. Rocket000 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've tagged it with {{doubt}} as there seems to be no better fitting template for such cases. --Túrelio 20:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
But what if it was uploaded to illustrate photo manipulation? Rocket000 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree, but currently it is used only in articles about the depicted person, Jan Malm, on :en and :sv. --Túrelio 20:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Commons"?

Is it "Wikimedia Commons" or "The Wikimedia Commons"? Is it "Commons" or "The Commons"? Powers 20:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Or WikiCommons? :) I would say "Commons" is the most common. Rocket000 20:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
In the announcements for the launch of the Valued images project we used the more formal "Wikimedia Commons". --Túrelio 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Wikimedia Commons" is proper, as for short, most of us just say "Commons". In fact I don't think I've ever heard of anyone say "The", unless they are refering to it as "The Wikimedia Commons Project". --ShakataGaNai Talk 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Adding the article seemed to be more common until recently; even the Main Page used it until today. Powers 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
On enWiki, I frequently refer to it as "The Commons". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons; Commons for short. For me, anyway. giggy (:O) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I say "the Wikimedia Commons" or just "the Commons". —Remember the dot (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Since Spanish is my mother tongue, I usually add the article to the name, therefore, I say "the Commons". In Spanish, I also say "la Wikipedia" (the Wikipedia). --Boricuæddie 22:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just call it Commons (sometimes without the capital letter as well). I suppose you can call it whatever you think it best :) Majorly talk 22:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

June 5


Is there a problem with this template or is it just me? I tried to use it but it's shown opened by default on the page where I use it. Isn't it possible to hide it by default? Had I forgotten to read/do something? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is hidden by default. At least it is on the template page itself. And on pages like Image:George Washington dollar.jpg. Rocket000 03:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you're talking about. I'll look into it. I made the last changes so I probably screwed up something. Rocket000 03:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Rocket000 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you've done but thanks! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

June 6

New suggestion on Meta

I have suggested a solution to the problem with the Assessments template on Commons. Please tell your opinion, and/or suggest other solutions, or ways to improve this one. diego_pmc 07:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Uniform User Interface

Because so many similar questions are popping up all the time, would it be not useful to have on all the cat, gallery, ... screens the same uniform interfaces. These interfaces should not only contain the actual edit, talk, history... tabs but above all Delete and Move. Hitting the not supported tabs should then invoke a screen explaining why it does not work and the workarounds. That would as well eliminate that silly Deletion Nomination submenu on the left of the gallery display menu. --Foroa 13:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Camera templates

Lewis Collard! and I have been talking about the idea of creating camera templates that would categorize pictures automatically in the photographs by camera categories. A bit like what Collard has done in one of his sub-page. What do you think of that idea? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. There are already a lot of templates on picture description pages (information template, license, geocoding, personal credits template, personality rights warning, etc.). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The above, as I see it, is not much of an argument. If there is going to be such a template, I like the way {{location}} does things, which is to make it look very similar to the standard information template, so it doesn't look too much like random bloat.... Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 08:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
None of the templates I quoted can be referred to as random bloat. I reiterate: what's the use of knowing this picture was taken with a Rolleiflex or a disposable camera? I'm not implying there is none. I just don't see it right now. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to the appearance of many templates, which do look like random bloat, and clutter up the image description pages. If it doesn't clutter things up, then I don't see the harm in categorising them this way. See my comment about Flickr below; sometimes people are interested in this sort of information, and it does no harm to cater to such people (full disclosure: I'm one of them). Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm worried about the general readability of our description pages. I know photography magazines usually mention camera body, lens, speed, aperture, type of film, film speed, even chemicals used for processing. Those are technical informations. Perhaps we could find a way to distinguish them from information about the subject of the picture? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well the templates don't have to be huge. It can be a very discreet tool. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I was talking about categories actually. A single image can be legitimately sorted into a dozen of categories. If we have "technical" categories as well, it becomes quite messy. I don't know how these issues are dealt with on Flickr & co. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 12:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a technical information that might be useful. But if you consider it useless I suppose you think the categories (which have been created a long time ago) are useless too. If you don't, why would you think the template would be useless then? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see the purpose of the categories either. I realize I may seem aggressive; this is not my intent. I'm just puzzled. I suppose some users find this information useful, otherwise they wouldn't have created the categories. I know the mention of the detector is useful in astrophotography (for instance, the Nikon internal firmware of several dSLRs applies some kind of median filter, so the faintest stars just disappear). I suppose the categories could help users to evaluate the quality of a camera, but as the image processing is usually not mentioned by the uploader, I'm not sure this is actually useful. I would welcome more input about this issue. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The information which camera was used for an image is usually in the meta data on the description page. Also, as most new images are taken by digital cameras, the resulting cats will become so huge that they can't be handled and are practically useless. (The current software even has problems to correctly display cats with >200 media.) Luckily, the currently existing photographs by camera categories aren't know and used much, otherwise we had probably >10,000 images in each. So, this template and the related cats might only be useful for images made with very special and rarely used cameras. --Túrelio 10:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, this was sort of the whole point of the affair. First, that this information is usually in the meta data on the description page, that's true, for digital cameras. And yes, most new images are taken by digital cameras; there are still people who (either through preference or for reasons of economy) shoot on film, and there's still a near-infinite number of photos out there which predate digital cameras (which is why I find that "very special and rarely used cameras" comment mildly entertaining; nearly two centuries of photographers would beg to differ that photos from film cameras are so rare). The only metadata you'll extract from such an image is what scanner was being used, which isn't particularly useful.
You may be right that categories could get huge (not such special and rarely used cameras, eh? :)). But this is a limitation with the software as it stands; if the chances are good that some day MediaWiki (or whatever fork we're using down the line, wink) handles large categories more gracefully, then it's still worth doing. I don't think that sort of semantic data is useless at all; who are we to argue with Flickr? ;) Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I will second Jastrow in being astonished with no intention of being aggressive. If the metadata are missing, why not simply add them with the appropriate tools? Someone who is reflecting on inserting technical information about a photograph can probably use such tools, and metadata is the proper way to store such information. Rama 17:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, the bug I'm refering to, is known since 2004[2], but has not been solved until May 2008. But even if this technical problem might someday be solved, I still can't see any purpuse in such a cat with 10,000 images made with camera xyz. That does of course not apply to a simple line of information about the camera used on the description page of the individual image. --Túrelio 12:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I observe that it is already hard enough to get a decent description and one single correct categorie uploaded with the image. Personally, I am against every user complication, especially if that type of information can be easily compiled by off-line tools. As a general reflex, I think that commons should think more on off-line tools to make the life of the image producer more productive. To me, there are many cats which I don't care for because they are so hugue that they will become useless, such as birth data, camera model, people of the world, ... Most of those cats are (or will become) completely redundant as they belong most of the time to the category or to the client encyclopedia's. --Foroa 11:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I can happily say that I am against every user complication as well, which is why we will not require such templates to be used. What would be nice is if we had some useful global templates for those who do want to "complicate" things. My thinking is that this will be primarily useful for film cameras, which is why that kind of information is not that type of information [that] can be easily compiled by off-line tools. Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 11:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I was a bit overreacting to the ever growing requirements on image providers and using tools that show bugs dating from four years back or like the toolserver, fail very often.
It is true, sometimes I wished that I could search for a picture taken with a Noctilux lens, with a double lens Rolleiflex, with a Mamya press camera, on the good old Ectachrome or Tri-x films. Maybe that a more universal approach is to think how to "fabricate" a pseudo Exif meta-data that can then be postprocessed as the other exif files. This would be equally useful for images that are post-processed by tools that destroy the exif information. --Foroa 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
And maybe, while on that, trying to avoid that there is an exif field for the date of the picture and another such field in the description template. Anyone with some data-entry experience will tell you that such a double data-entry suystem is asking for troubles. --Foroa 12:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. That let's-fake-the-Exif idea is a really, really good one. In fact, that would be extremely trivial for a bot to do. This is an awesome idea that deserves some thought... 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I like Lewis Collard! idea of a simple, optional template similar to {{location}} template. But it seems like we already have {{Photo Information}} template that does it, see for example image Image:Lake mapourika NZ.jpeg. The only change I would do to this template is to make all fields, except camera model optional. --Jarekt 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks plain and comes without this useless cat business. --Túrelio 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Most people don't care what camera was used. The current template looks like an advert. The people that do care have categories and metadata. I suggest going with something nice and small like these. Rocket000 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Such templates would be quite discreet. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
@Rocket, with looks like an advert you surele didn't mean the one Jarekt mentioned as this just looks like any regular info template. --Túrelio 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant Lewis Collard's. Rocket000 23:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally it would be nice to have an optional entry "Camera model" in the current Information template for the image description page. --Túrelio 10:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

About an image deletion request

Could somebody who is more knowledgeable about copyright especially crown copyright take a look at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler portrait HU 5234.jpg and also Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Hitler portrait MH 4919.jpg. As we can't work out whether it is free or not. I believe it is but we cannot be completely sure. G-Man 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Those don't look like UK photos, but then again the UK was friendly with Germany until 1939, it's quite possible the photos pre-dated this time. -Nard 12:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Martines, pilotari

Hi, one of the most reputed Valencian pilota players, Martines, has sent me a pic to illustrate his article. The picture (obviously) was not taken by himself, but by a professional photographer who was hired by Martines' club to take some pics during the first match played at the courtfield named after Martines' name.

My question is: Would that pic acceptable to Wikimedia? Martines donates it freely. He is not the author but he has the property, since they hired the professional photographer. If so, which license should be applied? Thx in advance, --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 06:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the club would own the license, since the photograph was taken under contract with them. (Of course, the contract could have stated any number of things, including that the photographer retained the rights.) If Martines owns the club, then it's okay; otherwise you need permission from the club. (In either case we can assume the club owns the image if they say they do.) As for a license, that's not up to us or to you; the owner of the photograph must release it under specific terms. See Commons:Licensing for what terms we require. Powers 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Copied from my talk page:
Yes, so I think. If the club hired a professional photographer to take pics of them playing, then those pics are property of the club, not the photographer, who keeps being the author.
Regarding the license, Martines gives the pic freely, as I said. I explained him the terms about derivative works, possible future commercial uses, and so on. And he agreed. The problem is that I can't find a proper license for this case.
The closest I've found is PD-Author, but this is not true since Martines is not the author. Or GFDL-self, since the owner of the pic gives it freely.
The problem remains in which is the proper license, as you see. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 19:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that we can't just "pick one". We don't have a proper license for "The copyright holder said it was okay" because that's not good enough for our purposes. We will also need verification from the copyright holder that the media has indeed been so licensed; this can be done via the OTRS system. Powers 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of de minimis policy

A discussion of what we allow and disallow under the de minimis principle would be useful, if only to assist in closing difficult wide-ranging deletion requests like this. I have written a new page called Commons:De minimis and would appreciate comments on the talk page. Once Commons has agreed some principles, it will then be possible to go on and discuss how those might apply to the particular problem of screenshots. --MichaelMaggs 15:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to put such policy in writing. --Jarekt 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a great idea. Kudos, Michael. Kelly 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work & considering the legality perfectly readable, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

June 7

New "right" required - IPblock exempt

I'm starting this to seek community approval for the developers to "switch on" an extra right for us to use.

A number of you will be aware that we have had ongoing vandal attacks over long periods where the vandal has switched IPs each time making CU less effective. I am not, & probably never will be, a fan of range blocks however they have proved effective in dealing with people such as the "Shankbone stalker" & the like. The problem with such blocks is that they may affect innocent users.

Currently we have a wiki wide vandal in the form of Grawp. After exchanges on the CU list a number of wikis have placed range blocks to deal with this persistent vandal (I have done so on Meta for example). However in checking over the past few days because of information on the CU list, I found we have quite innocent users on the ranges concerned. Thanks to the CU list I was pointed to a "right" I was not really aware of which is implemented on en wp - IP block exemption.

It seems perfectly reasonable to me to "exempt" valid users from being accidentally blocked by any IP blocks that are placed. I would see this as "If you have a problem ask & we will look into it. If you are a valid user you will be exempted" and I can't see it as controversial or needing massive "paperwork". I see on en wp that admins have the right automatically - that is not something I think is that relevant in our case so I'm not suggesting it (now would I be against it if others felt it important).

If there is no obvious problem to others I'd like to see this switch on very soon. I have no problem with admins being able to give IP exemption though I guess such issues will usuably be tackled by the project CUs in the case of range blocking. Personally I find the en wp page fairly comprehensive & would see little need to change much of it for here on Commons so maybe we can steal it & make any minor amendments that are necessary. It would be good to get some feedback with any "support" or "oppose" as soon as we can - there are a couple of range blocks that could do with placing to protect Commons & there are innocent users that need this exemption. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support this. We would need to come to consensus on who can grant the right (all admins? only CUs?), whether public notice of granting would be needed, and who would be eligible (adopt the en:wp guidelines?) but yes. ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe people could apply to become trusted users and be granted the right on a talk page somewhere? Then the record of who got it would be public record for all to see. -Nard 12:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    There will be a list like w:Special:ListUsers/ipblock-exempt. I agree this is something Commons would find useful. My feeling is that the situations where the right is needed involves CUs already. As such, allowing CUs to access Special:Userrights for that right seems appropriate. I haven't put any thought into how it should be handled (enwiki method seems not ideal, I think) so I'd be interested to hear thoughts on that. But yes, we should start moving in that direction soon. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Herrenhausen Kupferstich.jpg

Could a German speaker fix the information template on this image and maybe include an English translation? Much obliged :) -Nard 12:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it, but does anyone know the template for a German copyright which has expired & is now in the public domain? --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 13:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Ta....But I still can't tell when the image is from :P -Nard 12:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Partly a copyvio?

I wonder if the licence of that picture is correct. The picture itself may be OK but what about the British Library logo? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The logo is just a watermark that can (and should) be removed. The question is how best to remove this kind of watermark: should the image be cropped (loosing part of the image), the watermark cloned out, or covered with a black square? Is there a guideline on what to do? --Inkwina (talk contribs) 11:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You could replace it with the corresponding part from the smaller version. The result would be a bit blurry, obviously, but that's as close as we can come to really removing the watermark, I think. --rimshottalk 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I just did a quick and dirty removal using Photoshop's clone stamp tool. It can certainly be done better, so feel free to improve my version. --Kjetil_r 13:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's very good! Congratulations. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Could some folks with expertise offer opinions on most of the images in this category? It seems problematic since most, if not all, of the photos have copyright statuses that deal only with the photo, not with the artwork. Has the issue of murals or artwork by anonymous or pseudonymous artists been raised here before? This came up with me at en Wikipedia when I tagged en:Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG as needing a fair-use rationale, and someone pointed out the articles en:Northern Irish murals and en:Banksy. How should we be treating these? Kelly 21:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Commons:Image casebook#Murals? Lupo 21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Ugh. Do we need a mass deletion request? Kelly 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In the U.S. for example, anonymous works seem to be copyrighted for 120 years fixed, so that's not much help. Superm401 - Talk 22:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Some are Graffiti (see Commons:Image casebook#Graffiti), which are OK. Others are in countries where there may be no copyright protection. There's no need for a mass deletion request, but some do need to be reviewed individually. --MichaelMaggs 07:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
There is quite some overlap with Category:Wall paintings by country. Both cats need a clear definition and probably some sort of merge and clean up. --Foroa 10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the rationale for illegally including graffiti ("However, because of the illegality, it is unlikely that the artist would want, or indeed arguably be able, to enforce the copyright.") extremely dubious. Since when has Commons infringed copyright just because we thought we could get away with it? Superm401 - Talk 02:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the rationale should be based less on whether the artist would want to sue and more on whether he/she legally can. I have tightened the wording to read: "As artistic works, copyright in graffiti will theoretically belong to the original artist. However, it is unlikely that the artist would be able to enforce the copyright since that would require a court to uphold the validity of an illegal act as the basis for damages or other relief against a third party.". --MichaelMaggs 06:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is necessary to change policy here, not just the rationale for the policy. An act of illegal graffiti still results in a valid copyright, and I don't agree that a court wouldn't enforce copyright for it. Superm401 - Talk 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

CM prefix

I've proposed a CM prefix be automatically expanded in URLs to Commons, as WP is expanded to Wikipedia. Thus, for instance, CM:Copyright tags would go to Commons:Copyright tags. Unfortunately, C and CM are currently unavailable for this purpose. Superm401 - Talk 02:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be "Com". Mainly thats because that is how everything else is (Ex: COM:BS & COM:DR). To be honest though, I don't think having an auto prefix is really that needed. If I am typing out "Deletion Requests" saving the 4 characters in "commons" isn't a big deal. I'd rather we just create the shortcuts we need. --ShakataGaNai Talk 05:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"COM" was previously rejected because of the hypothetical possibility of there being a Comanche-language Wikipedia in future... AnonMoos 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of that. But wouldn't it make more sense for the language to get a proper 2 letter code like CM? So that way it fits with almost every other language? --ShakataGaNai Talk 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "two letter codes" (i.e. ISO639-1) are only able to accomodate a theoretical maximum of 676 languages (in practice, even less), while there are thousands of languages spoken in the world today. Furthermore, there is a policy that "New ISO 639-1 codes are not added if an ISO 639-2 code exists" for a language. AnonMoos 03:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree the prefix is not vital, but it's trivial to implement (barring the Comanche issue and conflicts with C), so why not? Superm401 - Talk 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been thinking about what we should do. We should start moving away from COM: now before it becomes a real issue. I never thought about CM. I was thinking either C (which may cause problems because it's a single letter?) or WC, as in Wikimedia Commons. Either way, we need to change our shortcut habits soon. Rocket000 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

C is apparently deemed unacceptable because of a few articles at en wiki. I think it's best if we use CM. WC is also an option, but none of the other prefixes have a W for Wikimedia. Superm401 - Talk 23:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone know what MediaWiki:Goodies and it's subpages are for? I think it used to be a side bar section like "toolbox" and is no longer needed. Right? Rocket000 15:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a suspicion it could be used for another skin (ie not Monobook). pfctdayelise (说什么?) 14:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with letters

Hi, I am new here and recently I started working with Inkscape. I just translated map Treaty of Verdun into this version (I already requested deletion, but this will probably take some time, so it will be still there). The MediaWiki seems to have problems with properly creating letters with czech diacritic symbols (acute accent ´ or caron ˇ) - the letters are suddenly in different size and position. However, if you just look in the image itself after clicking on it(without viewing the page with information about it), the wrong symbols are suddenly in correct size and position. I just want to know if is it a fault in my internet browser (I've got latest version of Mozilla Firefox) or if is it problem of MediaWiki. Could you tell me if there is any simple way how to avoid these errors? --Mozzan 15:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're having text rendering problems on SVGs (wrong font, missing letters, black boxes, blank), the solution 99% of the time is to convert text to paths - best to upload both the original and the text-to-path version so people can use the original as a basis for modifications. —Random832 18:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Which is to say that Mediawiki's SVG renderer still has incomplete support for the font portions of the SVG standard. Dragons flight 18:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource Scans

Wikisource has to decide if it wants single pages on Commons, see --Historiograf 23:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

June 9

Zhang Heng image

Over at Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Zhang Heng.jpg, someone has tagged this image for deletion, and I have given my rebuttal as to why it is ridiculous to assume this image needs to be deleted. Can an administrator please tend to this? I am putting up Zhang Heng for FA status over at Wikipedia, and because of this problem, the article now lacks a lead image.--PericlesofAthens 17:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Updating upload links for languages other than English


I am setting User:MediaWiki Update Bot running overnight. It creates pages like MediaWiki:Search/LCownwork with {{MediaWiki:Search/LC}}, so that when a user with the setting LC uses the LCownwork form, they get the expected language in the navigation links and tab names, etc (and not the English fallback default).

It's done ca,de,lt,bn,pt,pl,es. It will also do the rest of the codes linked in template:lang-Upload, barring any problems.

Something weird does seem to be happening with MediaWiki:Sourcefilename and MediaWiki:Destfilename. Please let me know if you spot any other problems. thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope your bot only goes through the standard messages to do this, not through the new messages for the new upload form. If it added such transclusions for all the new messages, it would in the best case just unnecessarily increase the size of the HTML served for the upload page, and in the worst case it might break something. If the bot overwrites existing texts at /LCownwork pages for the new form, it will break things. Lupo 15:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You can see the messages it changes here. I added today Sourcefilename (which seemed to cause some problems, so I removed it again), Destfilename, Upload-maxfilesize and Upload-permitted. So don't worry, shouldn't affect the new forms. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Advertisement: Commons:Geocoding/Panorama

I hope to find some people which can geocoding panorama images for this new project. A script takes then the informations about the positions of POIs (point of interests) from Wikipedia and shows them on Commons panorama images. Perhaps it's also a motivation to create some new panoramic-image for Commons. --Kolossos 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great tool. I looked at some images that use it here and panorama-overlay in some of them looks great (see Image:Skyline-New-York-City.jpg), other still have some problems (Image:Dresden-Neustadt-pano1.jpg), but I love this new capability. Now we just need some tools for general image labeling. --Jarekt 12:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms of South Korea

Original coat of arms is this. commons' images are so different from original one. but that is copyrighted by Korean Government. What should we do?--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Article 7 of the South Korean copyright law says "Constitution, Acts, treaties, orders, municipal ordinances and municipal rules;" and this emblem was adopted by national law. While that drawing might not be public domain, if we can find the law itself, then we could recreate the image and make that public domain. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is a government drawing of the symbol. Recreate that and your good to go. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
My graphic ability is poor. Can you help recreating?--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 14:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Going to take me a while. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 18:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Broken link = "can't check" PD status

Is a file having been moved or deleted from the original website a valid reason to delete an image with no deletion request discussion? —Random832 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're talking about Image:5.56mm-military-rounds.jpg, I guess? The image was tagged {{no source since}} on May 30, 2008 and deleted today. The uplaoder had been notified about the problem: User talk:Diagraph01#Image Tagging Image:5.56mm-military-rounds.jpg. So, on procedural grounds, everything was fine. Indeed the source location is no longer available. But the archived version indicates that that this image was Fig 2-42 from that U.S. Army publication. Lupo 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about it as a general practice. How is "source location no longer available" even a valid reason to call it "no source"? What was he supposed to do, change the link to some site that was not his source for the image? —Random832 17:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If a source URL is present, a quick check at the Internet Archive should be made. Lupo 09:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons data base size? Dumps?

If one was to download all the media on Commons, what would be the uncompressed size? Also, is such a dump available? --Emesee 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it would be several TB, but it is not available. I await corrections... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately no dump is available. With big money you can get a live stream from the foundation like SPIEGEL-Wissen. But I think the images should be also available for normal people, perhaps by usage of BitTorrent, perhaps in a reduced resolution or for the beginning only QI and Featured pictures for screen savers, etc.. For the moment you can use wget and a little script for downloading some images. --Kolossos 08:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"perhaps by usage of BitTorrent"? I don't really see how bittorrent would help here as you would need seeds that host the entire db dump... I am also not convinced that bittorrent would help to not stress the actual networks by not saturating them... I mean, bittorrent is somehow chaotic and tends to monopolize the bandwidth for itself... Anyway, how many people are wanting to get terra bytes of data and to share it over a torrent? Esby 08:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
First the image-datas are not in the database they are many single files. The reasons to make a download from Commons possible are more principle reasons than practical possiblity of usage. The wikipedia is free and you can download it, for Commons it should be the same. Perhaps also a yearly dump would ok. --Kolossos 06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

June 10

June 11

Wikimedia Commons for Fun & Profit

Hi all,

I am giving a talk with this title, at Wikimania. (It will mostly be fun, not profit. :)) If you can think of some cool/interesting/noteworthy Commonsy things that have happened over the past year or so, and you want to make sure I mention them, please let me know! Write at User:Pfctdayelise/Fun and profit or email me or the good old talk page.

I used to follow everything really closely but this year I haven't been able to. So, I want to make sure I don't miss anything worth mentioning. I believe they call it crowdsourcing ;)

It doesn't have to be just positive promotional type stuff either. Incidents or recurring problems which we have trouble resolving, bad community trends, etc, should also be talked about. Also, what do you think the major challenges Commons will face in the near future, will be?

thanks, pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Autopatrolled" rights discussion

Can I point anyone who is interested in the subject here to air their views (it's explained there). Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

June 12


I've just discover the upload form of Special:Upload has changed its format. The new format, however, I have to fill out boxes one by one, it is not convenient for me to upload numerous images. Where can I use the old, simple & pretty upload form? Thanks advance. Baycrest(Talk) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the help text in the upper right corner of Special:Upload? Especially the last bullet might interest you. Lupo 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't figure out the bullet you mentioned, could you link it here? For clarification purpose, the disappeared upload form is something like this image Image:MediaWiki-Upload-form.png. Baycrest(Talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
You can choose to use the old-style form in Preferences > Gadgets, tick the “Use the old-style upload form layout” box in the “Improved navigation” section. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 18:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't aware the option could be found at Gadgets. Baycrest(Talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

June 8

Language template needed

I'm not very template-smart - could someone make a language template for Tagalog similar to {{en}}? I'm not sure how to handle it because the language code for Tagalog is "tl", and "{{tl}}" is already in use. Kelly 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Created {{tagalog}} for now. /Lokal_Profil 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a known issue and few years ago {{tgl}} template was created for this purpose. --Jarekt 16:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Changed the above to a redirect. /Lokal_Profil 17:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
May be will be good idea to unite {{tl}} and {{tlp}} and rename them to {{t}}? --EugeneZelenko 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
And what about existing uses of {{tl}}? Lupo 09:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To use it as template for Tagalog language. --EugeneZelenko 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I meant we'd also need a way to replace all the current uses of {{tl}} that are not intended to be language-template uses. Otherwise, this {{tl}} will suddenly show up as "Tagalog: tl"... Lupo 16:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Could be done by bots, but it would be a pretty big operation. Also, it would probably be a pretty big change to get used to for everyone who is used to the template here and on English Wikipedia. LX (talk, contribs) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is a good idea to change {{tl}} simply because of how used to it people are. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to upload a file !

Hi everybody !

sorry but I was unable to load an image en:Image:Lorica_range.PNG from the english wikipedia although I use this tool... How can I do ? is there somewhere an automated procedure because I'de like to upload a lot of images from en:wikipedia ?... Poleta33 08:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tip: Make sure that this box is checked.
Directly upload file (using commons user name 'File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske)')
Do edit your uploads to correct the categories- some of the suggested ones are 'wacky'.ClemRutter 08:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The tool works fine for me, but recent (very needed) user verification scheme made it harder to set up. Why is it that the Bot is the new uploder instead the user who uses it or (preferably) the original uploader. Another thing that I find particularly frustrating is that many images that need sources based on the license type have "transfered from Wikipedia" listed as a source, and they point to no longer existing file. --Jarekt 12:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want the information done properly then use commonshelper to get teh "file history" section but fill in the rest of the information by hand. The reason the bot is the uploader is because the bott acount is used for the upload rather then your account. /Lokal_Profil 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That is exactly how I use it. I use Push for Commons to pick images with non-problematic licenses and sources, current version of commonshelper (not the one used by Push for Commons) to do the transfer and than I retype most of the fields in information template. It is rather convoluted. --Jarekt 01:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thanks everybody... I did not understand that I should record the file locally before uploading... works fine now ! Poleta33 10:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Uğurcuk (talk · contribs)

Can somebody who knows Turkish please tell Uğurcuk (talk · contribs) that here on Commons we do not start pages that should be in the Commons namespace with "Wp/itr/". Check out this user's contributions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 02:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw your post on COM:AN, I'm dealing with the pages he's left behind - but I don't speak Turkish. --ShakataGaNai Talk 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Non-empty category redirects

1,377 category redirects contain files. And that's not counting Hash mark redirected categories (yet). Rocket000 03:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time when adding/changing categories, like many other folks, I only check if the link is not red. A redirect hides the fact that a category is not valid. So for me, redirects have more drawbacks than advantages. A solution would be to show redirects in a flashy colour. --Foroa 06:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. Yet, as someone previously pointed out, there is the issue of interwiki links: a user coming from a Commonscat link you should not end up with a 404 error. It appears that there is no way, as of now, to have a "category checkusage" which would allow us to delete obsolete categories. Is it possible for a bot to clean Category:Non-empty category redirects? It's a mighty task to do it by hand. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If we had a tool that could calculate what percentage of the commons images and category trees are not accessible because of those redirects (redirects work from bottom to top, search is mostly top to bottom), the attitude towards this problem could change dramatically.
Personally, I am against commonscat links too. Categories are an internal commons organisation that should be not linked to from the outside world. External references should only go to articles/galleries. These galleries could buffer all the items in any wanted language and redirect to the right gallery or category. That way, any category can be renamed, reorganised, deepened without causing invalid external links. --Foroa 12:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I hate category redirects. They don't really make sense. They may aid in navigation, but they work against the whole point of categories. If there was a way to prevent people from putting anything in them, then it could work. Changing the color of the link would only solve part of the problem. When I use HotCat.js, I don't get to see any link before saving. I don't think we should be too concerned about external/interwiki links. They got to make a system that works with ours (it would be impossible the other way since we are one and they are many). It's not our fault if they can't use the right link. We're multilingual and they can't expect us to create a link for every language plus any likely variants in each of those languages. The solution is going to be technical, but in the mean time, can we please get a bot on this? Rocket000 13:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree about your position on redirects. Navigation is most of the time top-down, so redirects serve no purpose then.
Commons is a server and I think that we have to keep a server reflex. What I am trying to say is that categories are internal commons business and the external entry points are through galleries/articles: we get the necessary degree of freedom while being a reliable/trustable server. If those galleries as entry gates are to exist in more than one language is not our problem: the iw robots would be perfectly capable of arranging that.
I am pretty much sure that for the wiki SW, it would be a piece of cake to replace redirected links by the real links when creating/updating a cat, image our article. All those tables exist in its working memory. (On some wiki's, as demonstrated here, the article redirected pages are clearly different). --Foroa 14:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Category redirects would be good if there were some bot dealing automatically with them. It's possible, isn't it? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 16:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am entirely for {{commonscat}}. Category pages maintain themselves. Gallery pages are rarely updated once they are created. (Yes, I know some are maintained, but it's certainly not the majority.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Galleries require active maintenance. Can't a bot move anything on a {{categoryredirect}} page to its redirection destination? Actually, I thought there was a bot that already did this... --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles require active maintenance too. Galleries are the way we present the info, so of course they are going to take work. There was a bot that did this but he's retired it seems. Rocket000 21:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I personnally hate galleries and I almost never use them. Categories are the easiest way. Galleries should be limited to "big subjects" for which we can present a selection of the best pictures, but such a gallery will be categorize in the equivalent category. At least that's what I do and that's what I think is the most logical and practical. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think there will always be the odd case where a category redirect will be needed, but for the rest the redirect should be temporary, but long, to give people using the category from other sites time to fix their links. If links are not fixed within a certain time, then probably there is not much interest in maintenance anyway.
Rocket000: In any case wouldn't it be a good idea to try and bring that bot out of retirement? do you have any pointer to where it lived/where it is buried?
Twowings: well {{commonscat}} typically point to "big subjects"; anyway, I think our galleries are still not up to scratch to get rid of {{commonscat}} at this point, but a gradual move in that direction is the way to go --Inkwina (talk contribs) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. Give them time to update links. I'll look into the bot situation (or write something for my own). Rocket000 (talk) 10:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


This image is considered an attack image and will probably be requested to be deleted. I can't see the attack here and if you see it, please let me know. It is supposed to be used as a murder threat. I wonder, how can you kill with a carpet cleaner? Spraying with acid and sucking up the remains? Oh, some people are paranoid. Hope you didn't fall of your chair of laughter. --Bongoman 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please explain? Who is calling it an attack image, and in what context? Almost any image can probably be misused if placed in an inappropriate context, but if there is an inherent problem with this image, it is not obvious to me. -- Infrogmation 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The administration on sv:Wikipideia, at least those who belong to the far left. It was used in a short but well written article about carpet cleaners. The article was deleted as attack on user. Restored by another admin as it should and deleted again. --Bongoman 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
wat Lewis Collard! (hai thar, wut u doin) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that Commons is not sv.wp. If someone nom's the image for deletion they'll get smaked with a WikiTrout and we'll call it a day. --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep, DaTrout® is a powerful tool. We'll se what the tilted ship produces next few days. --Bongoman 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The article was vandalised from an open proxy to include a different image intended as a threat against sv:User:Karpeth. Untainted revisions have been restored and neither image is at risk of deletion, as they are both fine in their respective context. Those who speak Swedish may wish to see the discussion at sv:Diskussion:Mattvätt. LX (talk, contribs) 20:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
User sv:Användare:Vints still sees this image as attack image! Maybe he is threatened by the poor quality or the funky color of the machine? I may also say that LX is one of the more balanced admins. --Bongoman (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How to get my name spelled right by default during upload

During upload of images there is a field that is filled in automatically as [[User:Wouterhagens|Wouterhagens]]. Manually I change it each time in [[User:Wouterhagens|Wouter Hagens]]. How can I change the default presentation?
It will be a very simple thing to solve, but I could not find it in "my preferences", where I expected it.Wouter (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See here: MediaWiki:UploadForm.js/Documentation#Set the author field for "own_work" uploads. Lupo (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. As this is new for me I want to be sure that what I am going to do is correct. On the page User:Wouterhagens/monobook.js (which is empty) I make the line
var UploadForm_ownwork_author = "\[\[User:" + wgUserName + "|Wouter Hagens\]\]"; save it, empty the cache of my browser and then it is ready for use. Is that OK? Wouter (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Note that IE sometimes has problems clearing its cache; you may need to Crtl-reload twice. In Firefox, a single shift-reload works well. Lupo 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

An image apparently without past

When collecting entries for Głubczyce category I just just came acroos Image:Kosciol w Glubczycach.JPG which (at least to me) appears as having lost its history. The photo displays correctly, but there is "create" instead of expected "edit"&"history" link above it and after clicking on uploader's "contributions" only empty list appears while at least this one entry should be shown there. Observed in Opera, then tried also in IE, also with the "purge" function, still with the same result: An existent image seems to have lost its background info. Can anybody else observe the same thing or is it just some bug on my side? --Miaow Miaow (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That is weird... there's more (like Image:Clepsydra alarm drum img 1602.jpg and Image:Santa Maria Cascina Pi.JPG) Rocket000 (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That means there is really something wrong inside Commons. In both cases you mentioned there is no entry for these images shown in uploader's contributions (although there are entries for their other images which implies that Image:Kosciol w Glubczycach.JPG was the only contribution of its uploader) The Image:Clepsydra alarm drum img 1602.jpg has some history of deletions and restorations [3], but in case of remaining two images even Special:Log gives no info. Still a mystery... --Miaow Miaow (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For the native speakers

What would be the correct or best form for a cat name?

  • Choirs in (country)
  • Choirs of (country)
  • Choirs from (country)

In Category:Choirs by country we have all three. --Túrelio (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I hate this one :) I keep coming across such things too in the area I'm working in.
For me "Choirs from" is fine (after all they may well travel to other countries). "Choirs in" is ok. Personally I'm not a fan of "Anything of" and not "Choirs of" however "of" is commonly used in many of the country level cats. (so that was helpful wasn't it :)) --Herby talk thyme 10:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Choirs in" doesn't work too well if they go on International tours, etc. I think "Choirs from" is best (though "Choirs of" works too in that regard, though like Herby I don't really like the sound of it personally). giggy (:O) 10:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Choirs from". Just like "Musicians from". Rocket000 (talk) 10:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It really would be great if we could get some agreement/consistency on this (mind you - there is then an awful lot of work to do!) --Herby talk thyme 10:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the comments and to the one who renamed the "deviant" cats ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


Hi what should I do in this case : Category:Litoria lesueuri... the article Litoria lesueuri contains pictures that are not categorized in Category:Litoria lesueuri and others that are categorized.... I'm a bit lost... what are the recommendations ? Poleta33 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend taggong all pictures of Litoria lesueuri with Category:Litoria lesueuri and keep the best ones in the article Litoria lesueuri. So if there are pictures in the article Litoria lesueuri which are not in the category than I would add them. --Jarekt (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this right?

The following images were tagged for deletion mostly by Siebrand, though they carry a proper license tag which is {{PD-Egypt}} allowing all photos taken 25 years ago, that is prior to 1987 to be in the Public Domain in Egypt.
The warning tag is demanding permission of using these images! Doesn’t this contradict with the License already provided?
The Images are:

  1. Image:1919 revolution.jpg
  2. Image:1919revolution.jpg
  3. Image:AbbasII.jpg
  4. Image:Abdelhalim.jpg
  5. Image:Abdessalam el Nabulsi.jpg*
  6. Image:AbounaAbdelMessih.jpg
  7. Image:Adel Imam.jpg*
  8. Image:Ahmed Zaki.jpg*
  9. Image:AhmedHasanin pasha.jpg
  10. Image:Al Azhar, Egypt.jpg
  11. Image:AnbaAbraam.jpg
  12. Image:GamalNasser.gif
  13. Image:Gamal Abdel Nasser pic.jpg

*These were uploaded by me.
Many thanks. --Nasib Bitar (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at a few of them (time is short), but they seem to be lacking source information. It is necessary to add the source of an image so that the license the uploader gives can be verified. This non-related example is in the public domain, because it has been created more than fifty years ago. Just saying that isn't enough, however, I had to mention where I got the image from, so that others can verify the information. Image:AhmedHasanin pasha.jpg, for instance, seems to be a scan from a newspaper or book. In this case it should be mentioned which book or newspaper it was scanned from (if a newspaper, which edition). The date says 1920: is that the date of the publication, or did the publication give that date as the creation date? How did the uploader know it's from 1920? In other words, you have to prove that the license you gave is valid. Hope I'm being clear enough. Anrie (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The license clearly says Please provide where the image was first published and who created it, and that was part that was missing. --Jarekt (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have only added here, the photos I have uploaded, may you kindly give me further advice?
  1. Image:Abdessalam el Nabulsi.jpg*
  2. Image:Adel Imam.jpg*
  3. Image:Ahmed Zaki.jpg*

I much appreciate your help and advice.--Nasib Bitar (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have to show some verifiable evidence (like book reference) that your photographs were published more than 25 years ago and are "not artistic in nature", that author died fifty years ago or that it is an official government document. Otherwise those photographs fall into very broad class of "I know it is PD but I can not prove it" images, which are not allowed on commons. --Jarekt (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new user group

I've been meaning to make this proposal for awhile. I think we should expand the meaning behind "trusted user". We have many trusted and competent users that aren't admins. We have three123 different rights requests pages. There's been talk to allow non-admins extra rights like Rollback and NewPagePatrolling. There's some discussion about having trusted users' edits marked as "autopatrolled"... Ultimately, what I'm proposing is a new user rights group called "trusted user" (or "trusted" or something else?). All admins are "trusted" by default and the current processes would not be affected, e.g. someone can be approved to review Flickr uploads (renamed to "Flickr reviewer") but not have the full "trusted" status.


The following are some rights a trusted user may have. Just listing our options, not necessarily suggesting all of them.

  • Rollback [rollback]
  • New page patrol [patrol]
  • All edits by them are "Autopatrolled" [autopatrol]
  • Move pages with their subpages [move-subpages]
  • Upload a file from a URL address [upload_by_url]
  • Override the title blacklist [tboverride]
  • View the unwatched pages list [unwatchedpages]
  • Lock and unlock the database [siteadmin] - j/k


These could be "auto-approved" (like admins) or "speedy approved" when they request a specific right. This would give rights to only those who need them.

  • Flickr reviewer
  • No upload limit or same as admin's for User:Flickr upload bot
  • Approve media renames (MediaMoveBot)
  • AutoWikiBrowser enabled
  • Approved for other/future upload tools and future license review processes (discussion first, of course)

The approval process

I wouldn't want it to be as bureaucratic as RfAs, but I also wouldn't want it left up to admins to promote anyone they want without community input (like how en.wp handles the rollback rights). I think a process like the current trusted user (aka Flickr reviewer) requests system would work well (given a bit more attention, it would get the necessary input). Same goes for removing the rights.

Well, there's my idea. What do you think? Rocket000 (talk) 06:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


  • I made a comments section for you. Otherwise I think that is a good idea. Why not consolidate all of the misc "trusted" roles into one. We'll have to make them a userbox of course. --ShakataGaNai Talk 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Rollback" is not really necessary on Commons. There is less vandalism than on many wikis & quite a few admins. Equally there are plenty of tools that can do the job. Further it could be used in an inappropriate way.
  • "Patroller" I've been in favour of for months but few listened :) I now see "Autopatrolled" as a great way to save admin time on users who create quite a few good pages fairly often.
  • "tboverride" I would see as admin only at best - why would we need it?
  • "unwatchedpages" I see no point in granting to a larger group.
For "Patroller" & "Autopatrolled" I think admins should be able to grant & revoke rights without fuss (indeed I had planned to put in a bug fix in the next day or so) --Herby talk thyme 07:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Too many rights/permissions. I think it would be better to just create a new user group. Like I said, I was just listing some options. I don't think all of those should be included (like rollback). Rocket000 (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I like Rollback (on EnWP) and see no harm in brining it here. If someone abuses we take it off them, rollback their edits, and don't give it back (for a while at least). Other than that I agree with Herby. giggy (:O) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • But why keep all these rights separate? We already have too much bureaucracy with all these various requests pages. A trusted user is a trusted user so why make them request each right separately? Imagine if we made admins do that. Rocket000 (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • A "trusted" usergroup would be groovy if we could get one. What do you propose we put in it? I'm thinking autopatrolled/patroller, rollbacker, ipblockexempt (Herby?)... giggy (:O) 10:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • No particular issue but block exempt info will almost only arise from CU derived info (& likely to need CU checking before granting maybe). We felt it would be good to have some other folk as backup just in case, hence the request is for project 'crats & CUs to have teh rights --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure yet, but I listed some stuff up above. :) Rocket000 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Reflecting for a while. I don't think I am in favour of a "trusted group" on its own. Quite a few of the people I would like to make "Autopatrolled" would never think of looking for additional rights, may well never read community pages etc. However their page creation work is fine. Equally there may be people whose only interest would be one of the rights & so granting a set of rights my be unnecessary/confusing etc etc --Herby talk thyme 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I have to agreed with Herby on the note about Rollback, but I see no issue about it not beeing granted to a trusted user (I want to see some vandal reverting before granting such tool) Sure, why not have autopatrolled/patrol as a new user right, it would have helped me a lot when I was a non-admin. Still I am for a page for requesting these extra tools, the requirements however should not be as hard as a RfA. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, the original motivation for suggesting a new user group was all the various permissions and I wanted a way to combine them since a trusted user would (should) be trusted with any of them. The technical rights (patrol, rollback) came later. But maybe it would be better to keep them separate. At least for the "Autopatrolled" group (since it doesn't really affect the user anyway—it's not a tool). I agree the separate request pages should be kept, but "trusted users" can get speedy approved (for whatever they are requesting). The autopatrol wouldn't have a request page, of course. It would simply be up to admins. Rocket000 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←Yeah, just saying that because you're a flickr reviewer doesn't mean you know how, or when to use the tool but what I do belive you mean in this case is, because they are trusted they will instead ask if they're unsure when to use a tool like rollback. --Kanonkas(talk) 16:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Exactly. It's like the fact that once you become an admin you are automatically a Flickr reviewer, however, you may not know anything about that, yet you are trusted not to screw things up or do things simply because your allowed to. Rocket000 (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think It needs in Wikipedia rather than Commons.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


What exactly is the purpose of Template:PD-magic? Yes I can see that it's intended to be humorous but I'm not sure humorous license templates are very usefull for the downstream user. Especially since all it takes to break this template is to write {{PD-magic|anything but Self or Old}} to have an image which truly is PD by magic. /Lokal_Profil 12:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be used as the license in several images (like Image:Nathu La-Nehru Visit.JPG). I agree it is a bad idea. --Jarekt (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
It's just a little humor amongst all this serious licensing stuff. But I think it should only be used for PD-self if at all. Rocket000 (talk) 22:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments at this talk page would be welcome. User insists on retaining a patently false disclaimer which, whatever its intention, has resulted in misunderstanding and collateral damage. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever -- Two things that I know are very true are: 1) Template:Pd-textlogo is peculiarly and especially liable to continual misuse without constant vigilance; and 2) In U.S. law, font character shapes are uncopyrightable insofar as they are viewed as being functional or utilitarian (i.e. used for their textual value, instead of being used purely as non-textual decorative or symbolic shapes). If you have quibbles over the wording of the particular strong warning which I inserted at the top of Template_talk:PD-textlogo, then it would greatly facilitate matters if you would play a constructive role in proposing new wording for the strong warning which is highly necessary for that page -- instead of playing a purely destructive role in simply deleting the necessary warning, without bothering to offer any suggestions for its improvement... AnonMoos (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
AnonMoos, please keep discussion on the template's talk page. giggy (:O) 03:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Whatever, dude -- I replied at an appropriate length in each place where User:Elcobbola chose to leave comments. It would be nice if you would refrain from misassigning responsibility in this matter. AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
AnonMoos, the comment here was only meant to alert a broader audience to the issue and enlist other opinions. Indeed, the comment explicitly asks for comments at the talk page. Let's drop it here and keep discussion in the proper venue. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming policies

Is there a naming policy, such as that category pages should be in plural while gallery pages in singular? (I have looked at Commons:Policy and Guideline, but to no avail.) If not, is there some implied agreement of what the most common practice is? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is at least Commons practice to name categories in plural (except cats for singular entities, such as for example Category:Red dot design museum) and in english. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. What about gallery pages? Are they mostly in singular? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Categories = plural & English (or Latin)
  • Galleries = singular & local/most relevant language
Rocket000 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Description not visible

See here: Image:Bamjánské údolí (verze 2684437).ogg. There is a description in en and cs in the sourse code, but not visible than. Whats wrong?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's the equal signs within the language templates. The simplest solution would be to simply put it outside both {{en}} and {{cs}}. Alternately, you can use [{{fullurle:cs:Bamjánské údolí|oldid=2684437}} 2684437], which will work inside the language templates. Rocket000 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice. Now with fullurl it works, evne there is "fullurle". Thanks.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

June 14

Can I claim copyright?

I made a simple design for the cover art of the first demo Man by my fictional rock group The Elephant. I used this public domain image that I found on Commons and made it into this [4]. I'm wondering if I can claim copyright to my work or will it also be in public domain? Clausule (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well. I think it's copyright violation.--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
...I fail to see how Kwj's view would be true. However, if you want to gain a copyright, you need to add something significant to the image. I'd suggest the easiest way is to make an artistic logo for the group and/or track name. Of course, trademarks may assist you, as would simply not telling people the image was out of copyright. It would be courteous to link to commons, but is not, legally, required, as the image is PD. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I understand that more additions by me, would make it easier to claim copyright. But wouldn't the blue rectangle be sufficient? Clausule (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
(@Clausule) IMO (I'm not a lawyer) you did not add but ineligible detail to the original photograph, therefore you would very probably be inefficient when claiming any copyright on your text and/or frame &/or cropping of that pic (therefore, agree with A. Cuerden). BTW: WHAT more additions would you plan to add to be able to usurpate copyright on a pic which you never seriously edited???
@kwj2772: A PD can hardly ever be copy-violated, ??? [tell me if I'm wrong]; there might however be a violation of the original's author's "moral rights", I've learned. --WeHaWoe (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in fact I'm not planning to claim copyright to my 'design'. In fact I was wondering if I could upload this cover art to Commons [5] [6] (based on this PD-image), which I believe is PD-ineligible. However, rather than just ask THAT, I wanted to make my own (comparible) work, and ask it from another point of view. I wonder what the border is. This one is deleted; this one is kept, as well as this one. I don't know how the community thinks about edits to PD-images. I guess (without accusing) that some people take possible copyright claims by their designers more serious than my 'claim'. To take that aspect away, I created my own image. Of course, it's much too early to draw conclusions, but I guess I can upload Mr. Big's cover art and use the license PD-ineligible. Clausule (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


I noticed that Template:GFDL-GMT contained the dreaded "Subject to disclaimers" line for about six months of its life, before being removed in this edit. What is the best way to handle this? Should a with-disclaimers fork of this template be made for the images that used this template during that timespan? RockMFR (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving images - why is it so hard?

A couple of questions about moving files: 1) Why can't we move files as well as pages (I can't see any technical reason, so it must be based on negative effects of moving them, no?)

2) Even if we can't move files, why can't we at least duplicate the content of an existing file rather than uploading it afresh?

The example that has brought me here is Plate V from The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, which I have basically completed the uploading aspect of. For some reason I uploaded Plate V under the name of Plate IV. I would like to be able to rename/move it. However, if this isn't possible, surely I should be able to at least duplicate it, and then upload the real Plate IV over the redundant image of Plate V. I don't have the edited version of Plate V to upload anymore, so I'll have to download the 11.7 MB image from here, wasting my and Commons' bandwidth and time. I'll also have to copy and paste the description etc as well. Actually, even the smaller images have stalled for me when trying to download the full versions, so I'll probably have to recreate Plate V from the original scans (which I luckily still have on a memory stick). Surely there is something better than this! Richard001 05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1) I think there a good chance that file moves will be enabled on Commons. Image moves are possible in the software (bugzilla:709), but it is still being tested and turned off by default.
2) You can almost duplicate an existing file by using image redirects. The image and image description will be on the existing page, but it will be possible to use the file by linking to the redirected name. So it will not help with really bad names or when a file need to be overwritten with another, but for only small errors it can be used at least temporary until real image moves are enabled. /Ö 09:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi "Ö", is THAT documented (NO: WHERE, please)? -- WeHaWoe 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a fairly new feature of the software (month old??). So it is likely not very well documented yet. TheDJ 12:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Is that feature already available to everyone or just to an "elaborate audience" ;) -- if not, please drop a link (in case, a non-progammer could unterstand it ;)) --WeHaWoe 10:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget that commons is a server with hundreds, if not thousands of client projects. A client would not stay client for very long if the image names changed all the time and all his references become invalid. Don't forget that commons does not have a reliable means for detecting who is using the images. --Foroa 11:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's exactly because I' m very much aware of this that I'd like to look up what the above quoted function or tool does/intends to do. I do not support at all the idea to make moving images easier for anyone -- this would imo end up in a mess, and for sure create otherwise avoidable "noise" on servers. --WeHaWoe 05:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we should not move images too much. But having the function in the software is an improvement compared to the current bot or manual image moves, for many reasons:
  • The move function will automatically create redirects, so links will continue to work. This currently not done and links are broken when the file at the old name is deleted.
  • Files will not have to be reuploaded. Currently files have to be reuploaded so that there is one copy of the file stored in the "current file database table" on the servers, and another copy in the "deleted file database table". (The developers say that we should not worry about disk space, but it seems unnecessary to store the same file twice.)
  • File histories will be moved so that the old file version are still available. Currently, at least if the move is done by a bot, the copied file history is only a text table with uploader name, upload time, and upload comment. But the old versions are only available to admins at the old file name.
  • Page histories will be moved so that old image page version can be seen via the history tab. Currently the bot copies a table with edit time, edit comment, and editing user to the new image talk page. Old page versions are only available to admins at the old file name.
It also good to not make file moves difficult in cases when they are really needed. To reduce unneeded moves it is better to restrict the function to adminst, thatn to make the process complicated. /Ö 09:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
After all, I consider an image name mainly as some sort of key. A more elegant solution would be to have attached to each image a description field that inherits by default the file name. That description field could then be edited by the users at will and be the primarily (English ?) display name (the displays in the thumbnails tend to be a mess with most images anyway). That description field could be "keyed" in the database to have additional list/access facilities. Double description fields would allow for general English names and native language names. The description field should be used as primary sort keys, which would avoid some of the mess in the category displays caused by the mix of piped and non-piped category arguments.
If a real move function would exist, it should forbid or correct double redirects as those don't work and require quite some maintenance efforts. --Foroa 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
@Foroa: In case you could do such moves, I could offer two jobs ;)) -- Badnamed Image:Will McBride 1974.jpg should read Image:Will McBride 1975.jpg, and Image:H.C._Artmann_1970ies_a.jpg should become Image:H.C._Artmann_19741121c.jpg (both somewhat badnamed by my fault, but I noticed too late). Could you do such? TX. WeHaWoe 10:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The only image moves that are currently possible is "reupload, delete, and redirect". The software support for "real" image moves is still not activated on any Wikimedia project. Not even on test.wikipedia, so it is still very experimental. Let's hope that the implemention of bugzilla:709#c69 has no serious problems so that it can be activated here soon. /Ö 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
TX everybody, --WeHaWoe (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Images in user galleries

In the gallery of a user's uploaded image, why does an image disappear from it when another user uploads a new version of the image on top of it? I think it's kind of annoying, as it would be easier to still have the image in the gallery if you want to keep track of it. Can't this be changed? FunkMonk 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another user is not supposed to upload a new version on top of existing images, unless it is an improved version of the same image. If someone did, than you can revert the changes yourself or ask someone here or at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard to revert it for you. Can you tell us which image you are talking about? --Jarekt 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, even if the image is an improvement, it would be nice to still have the image in the user gallery. A good example could be, and this is what made me notice it, if I upload an image from Flickr which might not have the largest size available the Flickr review bot will verify that the image is on Flickr, and then it will upload the largest version of the image available on Flickr on top of the old one. That's an improvement of course, but when it happens, the image disappears from my gallery of uploaded images. Why is that?
Here's an example, this image disappeared from my gallery when the Flickr bot uploaded a larger version: [7] FunkMonk 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are right. The image Image:Chasmosaurus Belli.jpg does not seem to showup in your Gallery [8]. I do not understand it. It might be a bug. --Jarekt 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It has happened to all the images I uploaded form Flickr where the bot updated the image, more than ten images. Is it not supposed to happen? FunkMonk 18:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Logic: one filename - one file, and it belongs to most recent uploader's gallery (older files are gone from public access). It is still listed in original uploader's contribution list. Consider the case when the original uploader replaces own photographs with new versions - how can a gallery handle different images with the same file name? NVO 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the old image should stay in the gallery, but that the new image it has been replaced with should. If I upload an image, and someone else uploads a new version on top of it with changed contrasts or similar, this new version should then be shown instead, not just disappear. Or well, that's what I think. FunkMonk 20:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree. It should stay in the original uploader's gallery. For example, I reverted vandal uploads a few times and now those images I had nothing to do with are in my gallery. OTOH, what if the image is completely different? You may not want to even be associated with that. Rocket000 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, when you upload a new version of a file another person uploaded, it'll say that it is an update in your gallery, which would kind of signal that it could be an update of another person's image... And the image upload history would show that too. As for other persons uploading images that are very different from the ones I uploaded, well, if it isn't an improvement, it should be reverted, of course... FunkMonk 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Anything going to be done about it? FunkMonk 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Probably not. But of course you can make your own category for all your uploads. Rocket000 (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeh. What I've done until now is just uploading the same files again, like here, if you look at the file history: [9] FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No category required

Sometimes there is no need and it is even sometimes very undesirable to put photos in a category when they are already in a gallery. This holds in particular for photos of plants where no further subdivision is possible. To avoid that the bot of BotMultichill continues to add the message This media file is uncategorized, I created Category:No_category_required. As long as the bot continues to work, this category can be used.Wouter (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because pictures are in a gallery does not mean they should not be put in a category as well. In my experience page galleries are usually outdated and often includes a number of deleted images (resulting in lots of grey squares). I almost never uses page galleries anymore, relying completely on categories instead. Just because certain plants can't be subdivided furter, doesn't mean they can't be categorised. Anrie (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to say I agree completely with Anrie. Galleries frequently become outdated - categories may need changing/refining but they are vital to help people find things here --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all images should be categorized. Being a gallery is irrelevant. Rocket000 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, galleries are important to show photos but the best way to find them is using the categories. Like the others, I think every file in Commons should be categorized.
I recently made a complete review of Special:UncategorizedImages. That's a first step in categorizing pictures but there's still a lot of work to do. --Pymouss Tchatcher - 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Does Special:UncategorizedImages exclude categories such as License categories etc? Otherwise it's not of much use. Back to the ain question I'm a believer in all images being categorised. I know that some groups prefer galleries (specifically the Tree of Life project) but I was under the impression that a categorisation policy exsisted even within that project. /Lokal_Profil 12:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouterhagens has a valid point for plants and other living organisms, see the guidelines in COM:TOL. Here the rule is that there is no category corresponding to a species, instead there is a gallery page per species, which link to the genus category. So, if these guidelines are obeyed there is no issue with outdated galleries as there is no equivalent category to a species. there are good reasons for having it this way. With the numerous rearrangements of taxonomic tree these years due to gene technology it is much much easier to just rename a gallery and let it associate with a new genus category (if, e.g., the genus for a species has changed). If the species images were categorized to a species category you would have to change all categories in all image pages. This can be done if you have the right tools and knowledge, but this is not something the average maintenance user does. So, species images without cats makes perfact sense. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that although there weren't species categories every image within the species category was still categoriesed higher up in the category tree. /Lokal_Profil 12:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought. However, I prefer galleries to be at the genus level or higher. It really helps to identify species when there are examples of each. I don't mind categories with only a couple images, but galleries suck when there's only a couple images to add. Rocket000 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue really should be resolved once and for all. It's a dispute that has gone on far too long on commons. --Gmaxwell (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but agreeing on what that policy would be is the hard part. This is why I started Commons:Galleries. Feedback/improvements/discussion needed. Rocket000 (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I nominated the category for deletion. Multichill (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing the main thing to agree on is that we need to agree on something because the current situation isn't good. There is never going to be a solution which everyone is happy with so we'll have to find something which leaves everyone grumpy but happy that the editwaring will stop. /Lokal_Profil 23:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright question on Self-made SVGs

I hope this isn't a frivilous question, but I've read all of the FAQs, guidelines and policies I can get my hands on and I'm still at a loss. I apologise that this is long, but I would like to be clear and thorough.

This started with a Featured Picture Candidate. I worked on the image extensively and when I went to upload with DerivativeFX (a great tool) I got the following message: "This file is missing source information. Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Unless the source is given, the file will be deleted." [my emphasis]. The source given was "Self-made". This information is not presented on the description page, only by DerivativeFX. Other files affected by this include:

I have a few questions:

  1. When are these images going to be deleted? Presumably a contingency plan is required to deal with the loss of all of this high quality material.
  2. Why is this information not readily available to editors before they waste their time generating derivatives that then live under the same Sword of Damocles?
  3. When is a Self-made vector diagram allowed to be declared as such and therefore not subject to this treatment?

Thanks for your time. Dhatfield (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which file you have a problem with but none of the images you mention seem to have any license problems. Also since they all seem to be "self-made" I am not sure why do you need to use DerivativeFX. Are you sure it is not just some bug in DerivativeFX?--Jarekt (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm checking with Luxo if this is a bug. Dhatfield (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about getting uptight - a lesson learned. It was a bug and is now fixed. Thanks to Jarekt and Luxo. Dhatfield (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

June 15

Gallica scans: copyright issues

Can someone please give me some link to previous talks about the problem of copyright issues inherent to Gallica scans upload here? I found another similar, excellent source of ancient books scans: Bibliothèque de l'Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire de Lyon, where many Italian and French horsemanship books can be found, and I uploaded a couple of them: Image:De Saunier.djvu‎ and Image:Fiaschi.djvu, but I'd like to be absolutely sure about copyright issues, before going into a very hard work of use of them into it.wikisource and fr.wikisource. Thank you!--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 08:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Try searching in the Commons: and Commons talk: namespaces for "Gallica scans". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Multilingual templates

I want to propose a way for making messages in popular templates to be shown in any language. There is a temporary version of {{Information}} template with multilingual messages: {{Information/Temp}}. This template uses {{int:}} and MediaWiki: messages. If you look at it with English in preferences, it looks like this. If you choose Russian, messages will be in Russian. If the messages are not translated into some languages (e. g. German), user will see English messages. I think it makes Commons a real multilingual project. Your suggestions are welcome. ~ putnik 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I proposed this here but so far there seems to be little interest. Rocket000 (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, let's make sure we're using the same MediaWiki page names. Things like "author" and "license" will come in handy in other templates, so names like "TemplateInformation-author" may be misleading. Things like MediaWiki:Author-label, MediaWiki:Date-label, MediaWiki:Description-label, etc. were created a while ago (but only have one translation so far). Rocket000 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had known about that when creating the new upload form! We now have also MediaWiki:UploadFormAuthorLabel, MediaWiki:UploadFormDateLabel, MediaWiki:UploadFormDescLabel, and so on. These do have translations at /LC subpages. Lupo 06:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow! I wasn't aware you did this for the upload form! Obviously, let's go with those (given all the translations). Maybe we can drop the "UploadForm" part? Rocket000 (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm, not really, as that would entail changes in the upload script and in a number of associated messages, for instance in MediaWiki:UploadFormLabelTexts, which collects them all. It's doable, of course, but I'd prefer not to have to do this. Lupo 08:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Redirects. Rocket000 (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
For all /LC pages, too... ugh. Lupo 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, we can move all subpages at once, so it wouldn't be too much work (better than going the other way and creating each redirect by hand), but I guess it's not that big of a deal. Rocket000 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And here's the new fully translated {{Information}} template: Template:Information (Internationalised) (didn't want to make changes to the real template yet since it's very heavily used). Rocket000 (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is great. Can we also use internationalized versions of {{Author missing}} and {{Description missing}}? and may be create {{Source missing}} template to use in {{Information}}? Does anybody know what is the purpose of {{Information/he}}, {{Information/pl}} and other international versions here. I suspect they are a abandoned and could be retired / deleted --Jarekt (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly. I'm wondering what the best way to do this would be. Moving all the translations to the MediaWiki namespace would work but we don't want that (only admins could then edit them plus it wasn't really made for that purpose). Putnik has done this in his example with MediaWiki:TemplateInformation-nosource and MediaWiki:TemplateInformation-seebelow. Anyone have any ideas to make it work? Rocket000 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have bad idea. We may create messages MediaWiki:Language for all languages and use Template:TemplateName/{{int:language}}. And we may ask developers to add {{LANGUAGE}} variable. I think it will be best. ~ putnik 23:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if we had a magic word like {{LANGUAGE}}, that would open up so many possibilities. Not just for templates but the whole site! But if we can't get that, the Template:TemplateName/{{int:language}} idea would work. Rocket000 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

See bugzilla:2085(WONTFIX) and bugzilla:14404 (REOPENED, fixed but broke something). Rocket000 (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


What do I do if I find 2 images wich are not real duplicates, but almost equal anyway? I have seen 2 photos of a same statue, taken from the same angle, by uploaded by different users and taken at differents hours of the day. Do I mark one as duplicate or do we keep both ones? Thialfi (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

We keep both, unless one of them is not worth keeping (f.e. because it is 100x100 pixels and the other one is from the same angle and 4 megapixel). In those cases, you can make a deletion request. You can use other_version in {{information}} to link the files to each other. Cheers! Siebrand 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Improving on existing images

Looking back over the images I have contributed in the past, there are one or two that I'm not entirely happy with where I now have better alternatives. This one, for example, in which the plaque is partially obscured and I have since retaken the photo from a similar angle. I'm a little unsure about how to proceed. Should I either

  1. Upload the new image on top of the old one, or
  2. Upload the new image as a seperate file?

If the latter, would it be possible to have the original deleted, or does policy dictate that we keep both even though one is effectively redundant? Thanks in advance for any guidance! Small-town hero (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload separately; both are kept. Lupo 07:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Small-town hero (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

June 16

Re-organisation of Uncategorised category

It's probably a bit too late now to mention it, but in my opinion the re-organisation of the images of the uncategorised mages by date has gone a bit too far. If there was a discussion to do this I missed it, but to re-organise the images by date is un-helpful for the way I categorise and I guess a good many other users categorise images. Personally I scan through the images until I come across images I recognise or interest me enough to spend some time to research. In addition the way the category worked the way before, the images would sort themselves out by name, which would create clusters of related images, for example a couple of days ago I found a cluster of A-6 Intruder pictures which were quickly added to the correct categories, I don't know if they were related by the date they were uncategorised or by uploader, but they were related by name. It may be satisfying to have a bot sort out the images by date, the impression is that they have at least been placed in one category, but having a hundred odd sub categories of uncategorised images just hides the problem and in my case at least slows down the categorising of those images. There that feels better for getting things off my chest. KTo288 (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Serbian copyright law

Sorry for the trouble, but could someone with expertise or experience in Serbian copyright law offer an opinion regarding Serbian government images on the English Wikipedia? The thread can be found here. Thanks in advance! Kelly 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Future Perfect. In other countries, "official materials" does not cover images on websites and such. However, there is the possibility (though I consider it highly improbable) that in Serbia, things are different. We would need someone who speaks Serbian, has access to law commentaries and court decisions, and is interested to investigate the matter to be 100% sure. We have the same problem here at the Commons. I've been asked about it before (regarding {{PD-SRBGov}}). Personally, I don't think such images are free, but since I can't read Serbian and don't have access to Serbian legal resources, I cannot dig deeper. Lupo 16:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I can try to explain it to you. State body or a body performing public functions and these are Government, President, Municipalities, Army etc. Material they produce can be document, photograph, chart, report, text, law, decree etc. Anything they make is in PD unless stated otherwise. What are the exemptions? It's the third party work. Website design for an example (if the design was done by IT team of some ministry you will notice that there is no copyright notice but if the design agency was hired for the job then there is a copyright notice and a link for the agency) or agency photos (which then have a watermark saying AFP or whoever made it so it's clear). For an example all ex Yugoslavia state laws are somewhat similar, there are no great differences and Croatian govt website has a clear note where it says all the material is in PD (their law requires attribution though). Serbian govt website wasn't that clear but I explained it to you - anything produced by the govt except the reproduction of the third party work is PD.--Avala 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
It could as well be the so called "legal hole" where the law is not clear enough and should be changed (and the Copyright Agency of Serbia has indeed called for changing of this law but in their proposal this article would remain unchanged) but in continental law that Serbia is using if the law doesn't make exemptions (f.e. all official material except photography) then it means all official material. If we would start exempting something it would mean that we are expanding the law, for which we have no authority. Keep in mind that this law hasn't been tested in court regarding the Article 6. Obviously no one felt an urge to ask for the Supreme Court opinion and the Government never objected the usage of it's material under Article 6 (which brings us to conclusion that the Government shares the opinion of Wikipedia that such material is in PD). --Avala 21:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced at all. Serbian government websites such as this one carry copyright notices (Copyright © 2007. General Secretariat of the President of the Republic). Not any material produced by a governmental body is "official material". Besides, the Croatian websites such as this one do not say their material was PD. They say "Copyright © 2007 Government of the Republic of Croatia. All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without a prior consent by the author under the condition that the source of information is quoted." which is the typical highly ambiguous press license kind of statement that we usually do not accept here. Lupo 09:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, take a look here: photos come from the archive of the Press Service of the President of the Republic, from the archive of the FoNet news agency, or from the archive of the Tanjug news agency. Lupo 09:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Avala, to put it this way, if the material is under the public domain licensing, then why is every single government website I visit have a copyright claim or they state that they reserve all rights to their materials? If the information is public domain, have the Serbian Government email Wikipedia to that effect. I could ask the Serb Embassy in my country (USA) to see if they are willing to release material to us. Plus, we have other resources to get public domain photographs of Serb leaders. The only thing that are good under this license is the drawings of national symbols (local ones, I am going to have to check). Shoot, even the recording of the Serb anthem will have to go away, due to copyright issues. Pretty much, I want the freezing of new images that are going to use this license. No more uploads using this license until we figure out what is going on. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 10:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh my. Have you read what I wrote? About the third party work which includes website and agency photos?! And how about freezing the mass removal as well? You did it on your own, without any discussion, consensus, anything. I am shocked with this unilateral action of yours. I didn't expect that from an experienced user. Did you know that webmaster generically puts into the website is not above the law? Have you read the law? I am very very upset that you didn't read what I wrote, that you didn't read the law, that you didn't participate in a discussion.--Avala 10:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the law saved onto my computer, so I was using it when deleting the images. As I told you, you need to email the concerned government agencies and have them clarify the statements on their websites, or the images will keep on being removed. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you were misusing not using it. I explained what are the copyright tags about but you don't even care to read. Just press the erase button. It's easier than giving this a thorough and hard thought after all.--Avala (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


See Eugene's idea at the mailing list (from the thread that starts here). I'm not sure this is a good idea. Panoramio images can be displayed on Google Maps by selecting the "Photo" option under the "More" button: see e.g. here. But we have our own overlay for our Commons images, see here. If we want to promote the Commons, we should not upload our geotagged images to Panoramio but rather work with Google to get our image overlay integrated into Google Maps, like the (English) Wikipedia articles were: see here. (Blog entry about that.) Thoughts, anyone? Lupo 06:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think biggest problem with inclusion GeoCommons into Google - to reach right person in Google. Even Wikipedia layer have own problem - Google displays only English one on localized servers (,, etc), but how to tell this to Google?
I think GeoCommons will have more chances if GeoCommons and Wikipedia layers will be combined (mainly because GeoCommons is small and potentially direct competitor to Panoramio).
My point in participation in Panoramio content was to promote free content and Commons within Panoramio users. However I don't think how good Panoramio as community in comparing with Flickr. As far as I remember Bryan uploaded some of the pictures of ther year to Flickr.
I also tried to convince KDE Marble developers (during KDE 4 Release Event and in e-mail follow-ups) to include GeoCommons to Marble, but looks like without success. Marble have Google SoC project to include Wikipedia and Panoramio layers but not GeoCommons...
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Note, someone at Google knows something about our geotagged images. See this wikitech-l thread "Google Earth and 'coord' template" started on 2007-06-05. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Images of sick children

Recently, two images (Image:Kabuki syndrome.jpg, Image:KabukiSyndrome2.jpg) of children with en:Kabuki syndrome (disease) have been uploaded to Commons. Source is an 2008 original publication[10] by Genetics researchers from Spain in an open access journal licensed by CC-BY 2.0. So, there is no problem in regard to copyright. Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with these images on Commons as in both cases the depicted children are shown full-face. We don't know when these images were taken, i.e. if the children are still alive or are already matured and may see her/his image published to a general audience. We also don’t know whether the image-taking doctor eventually promised to take it for a medical audience only (and simply forgot this as he published it in an open access journal) or didn’t ask for permission at all. As the eyes may be part of the disease characteristics, a black bar would probably heavily diminish the educational value of the images. So, deletion might be the only solution. --Túrelio (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't deletion diminish the educational value of the images even further? I don't quite see why we should start deleting images based on pure speculation that they might violate personality rights, about which we don't care in any case, as that's the bussiness of the end-user of the images. So this would be a double keep. The children are not depicted in a demeaning way here, so there is no reason to delete. --Dschwen (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Dschwen, just think for a moment one of the two children would be yours.--Túrelio (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Turelio, then the parents shouldn't have agreed to allow the pictures to be published in the journal. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Tag with personality rights and speedy keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I, too, was concerned when I saw these photos. This particular study was partially funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health so would have been subject to the scrutiny of an ethics review panel. I think it's pretty safe to say that these particualr images are okay to keep and not be concerned about infringing on a persons privacy, although, I think every upload that is similar to these, in that they assert that the subject has a medical condition should be brought forth for the community to review. Thanks for doing so Turelio! Brynn(talk) 21:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Brynn. The fact that these images are from a reputable medical publication is enough for me. I'm fairly certain that the doctors requested patient (on this case Parental) permission before publishing images in any journal - That is par for the course. Additionally @ Turelio - If these were my kids - I'd be happy to see their pictures illustrating this Disease. Why? Because it is new and relatively unknown - and maybe my child's picture helps another family figure out what is wrong with their kid and get proper medical treatment. --ShakataGaNai Talk 22:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

June 17

Question concerning "media needing categories"

Q1: I recently looked at the images uploaded by an user on commons. I tagged some of his images with the -uncat- tag. What about images uploaded a year ago? should we use the old -uncat- category, the new category with the date of the original upload date or the new category with todays date on it?. Q2: I often see images with only one category, which does not (in my opinion) categorize sufficiently. For example an older drawing with only the -pd-old- tag. I used the -uncat- tag on some of those. What should I do in this case? In some cases the images have a good decription, so categorizing shouldn't be a problem. (I remember a drawing of a man, who's name was give but still the picture only had the -pd-old- tag.) 07:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tick species

Which species?

As an info-nl OTRS volunteer, I received an e-mail about Image:Tick 2 (aka).jpg. Could someone which knowledge about ticks help out on Image talk:Tick 2 (aka).jpg. If you know a wikimedian who is a tick expert, could you ask him/her to take a look? Thanks! .Koen (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Public-domain pictures of SW US flowers

Are people aware of the photos of flowers of Bandelier National Monument at ? Not very high-resolution (and I'm hoping to get better pictures of some myself), but they say "NPS PHOTO", so they should be in the public domain. JerryFriedman (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Upload patrol flagging

I've noticed that commons makes really good use of the Special:Newpages patrolling (Special:Log/patrol) for the gallery namespace. It would not take me much effort to extent that same kind of "once per object" patrolling to uploads (i.e. Special:NewImages). Would anyone here be opposed to me making that change in mediawiki and turning it on for commons? --Gmaxwell (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is already like that. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not: Whats listed there are page creations, not uploads. If you create the page by uploading alone, nothing gets entered, or did you think that all images uploaded in the past few days were from flickr? (I should know: I added newpage patrol flagging to MediaWiki. :)) There is also no ability to filter new images based on patrolling. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Then by all means! – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good! Maybe it can be worked into Special:NewImages somehow? This reminds me... is there an easy way to find image pages without media? Rocket000 (talk) 04:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The way I find them is via here & hide "logged-in users". That catches most that I've found. It is a worth while area to work (new page patrol) - it gives you a chance to interact with the "confused" early on & deal with those more troubled quite quickly - I've been doing it for sometime, good that others are taking an interest :) --Herby talk thyme 06:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That would not only be without opposition; that would be brilliant. Much-needed. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

June 13

Commons is virtually duplicates free

Just a little note to let you know that Wikimedia Commons is virtually duplicates free. In the past 6 (?) months, a group of users, OsamaK, Rlevse, Common Good, Svens Welt, and others have tracked down, checked, tagged, orphanded, and deleted or redirected 17.000-18.000 duplicates. At this moment in time, only about 150 duplicate pairs remain. Some 125 are book scan uploads that need expert checking (please help if you are the expert), the others are duplicates of "maintenance images", like 1x1 pixel images, "scan missing", and "please choose another name". I salute you all and challenge you to think of a next monster maintenance project! Siebrand 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, before I forget: Please use this tool by Multichill to track down current dupes. Siebrand 10:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
That is a very worthy task, much appreciated. --Jarekt (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
A huge thank you to everyone that has worked on this! I always got bored deleting duplicates so I personally really appreciate it. :) Rocket000 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think these deletions may have been done a bit to fast. If duplicates really has to be deleted it is the responsibility of the deleting administrator to make sure that all relevant information is at the description page for the kept version before deleting, and that redirects are made after deleting so that links to image pages are not broken. This has not always been done. /Ö 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now if we could only clear the backlog of wiki vs. Commons duplicates for various wikipedias (easy to wind with this tool) ;). --Jarekt (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Being worked on... :) Siebrand 06:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a little annoying that Image:Flag of Iraq 2008.svg was deleted, which was supposed to be a persistent link to the current version of the Iraqi flag (which will supposedly be changed after one year, according to a law passed by the Iraqi parliament), while Image:Flag of Iraq.svg itself will be altered to reflect all future changes to the Iraqi flag... AnonMoos (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal categorys

Are personal categorys allowed? like (Category:Pictures uploaded by Konstantin). If everybody started doing this, it would be a mess. And the content is dubious. Look at (Image:Boat in Puerto Banus 2005 2.jpg). No mention off this man name, portret permission, or relevance for Wiki. There are enough other motorboat pictures.

Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here. Possible to do & keep Commons quite organised :) --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Alot of Commoners have personal categories, myself included. As for this users perticular Category, I added the necessary {{user category}}. Now it is hidden and in the correct location. As for his work - didn't look. --ShakataGaNai Talk 10:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Checkimage bot

When images uploaded with CommonsHelper by File Upload Bot, Checkimage bot send a message to File Upload Bot(Not CommonsHelper User). Is it wrong?--Kwj2772 Disc. kowiki. 13:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

USSR stamps

For the Soviet stamps (1922-1991), are the rules for Russian Federation stamps valid? Caiaffa (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to {{PD-RU-exempt}}, they should be. --rimshottalk 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

June 19

Got source?

I wrote a new tool. This one is for finding sources. Sometimes pictures get transfered from a wikipedia to here, but not all information is copied. This tool will look for you and see if it can find the source of an image. It will look at the 20 biggest wikipedia's for images still there and deleted images. The tool uses the sha1 hash of an image to find the othere images. Examples:

It's still a first version so comments are welcome. Multichill (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work. I tried using it with Image:Karl-renner-denkmal.jpg, Image:Anton von werner selbstbildnis 1885.jpg, and Image:Marston Moor JBarker.jpg, but nothing happens when i press “find the source.” --Kjetil_r 15:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Please dont include image:. Multichill (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
After image is moved to Commons it is usually deleted from local Wiki, does your tool look through hash numbers of deleted images, or just the ones that are still there? --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I just tested it (see here) it seems you get some info from Wikis that hosted the image in the past, like uploder and deletion reason but no old descriptions licenses or authors. Can those be added? --Jarekt (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
See my remark in my first post It will look at the 20 biggest wikipedia's for images still there and deleted images, so yes, it will find deleted images. When you click the timestamp you'll see the log of an image. As to more info. I dont think i have access to deleted revisions at the toolserver. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, did not see your remark. I would like to thank you for another great tool. I am a frequent user of the other two. --Jarekt (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use importScript( 'User:TheDJ/gotsource.js' ); in your monobook.js to add this tool to your toolbox on image pages. TheDJ (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 18

Category:Support demostrations

The name must be changed to Support demonstrations. However I question if the category is usefull. A demonstration is by definition for or against something. There are several "demonstration" category's where the material can be placed.


Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixing typo categories is a cinch & someone has already addressed it. Basically, just create the correct category and tag the incorrect one for speedy deletion. As for support demonstrations: all demonstrations are inherently against something and supporting something, but usually signs & chants will explicitly pick one or the other. Generally protests are against things, but there can be supportive demonstrations. Let's say there is a proposal to raise fuel taxes -- truckers may come out in protest; but slow-growth and rail advocates may come out in support of the proposal. Or during an election campaign: a candidate's visit may draw both protests (usually outside) and supporters (usually inside... but sometimes outside to counter the protesters). Or I'm also reminded of a Simpson's episode which had pickets in front of the White House with signs along the lines of "Everything is A-OK" --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 00:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Requests (generally, on special occasion)

Is it meanwhile to be considered as "state of the art" within COM to close del.REQ. on the opinion of 2 (two) people some 7 (seven) hours after they first were requested? I do talk about Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sabine Gruber Wien2008.jpg --WeHaWoe (talk) 12:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think in this case it was the right thing to do to help out contributor who got himself into unconfortable situation. --Jarekt (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that I disagree. From what I read, it seems that the subject of the picture was not happy about her picture being here. That being said, the picture did not cross any personality or private rights. Also, the image was freely licensed. So, basically, the author went back on the license: he did not want it to be distributed - something which he isn't allowed to do. Anrie (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. The depicted person, de:Sabine Gruber, is a writer living in Austria. As to my knowledge, Austria has the same strong personality rights laws as Germany. That means, any person who is not famous by herself or by her office (Person der Zeitgeschichte) is the only one to decide whether an image of her is published or not. Though Sabine Gruber has an article on :de, I doubt that she is famous in the meaning of the law, at least I had never heard of her before ;-) --Túrelio (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't the specifics of this law then be posted at Commons:Licensing#Austria? Anrie (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
@Anrie, this has little to with licensing (and nothing with copyright). Personality rights are totally independant of that. That is actually the (main) reason we tag images of identifiable persons with {{Personality rights}}. You may find the specifics of personality rights in Template:Personality rights/de (in German). --Túrelio (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That's pretty close the point. I personally do not care about that lady's possibly personal 'point of vanity', but about the principle of handling such on COM:..., which seems to be infringed. --WeHaWoe (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
In my view uploader asked for a favor from Commons community, and if we do not want to antagonize valued contributors, we should grant them such favors, if they are reasonable. That way, they will continue contributing in the future, and everybody is better off. The question if the law requires us to do so, is only relevant if request was unreasonable and we do not want to grant it. --Jarekt (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you in this special case, but wanted to have discussed such on a broader place. I also think that Túrelio might be right -- but this would finally be a question to lawyers. --WeHaWoe (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Page on non-copyright related restrictions

I placed a proposed page on commons at Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions which discusses the implications of non-copyright related restrictions. I propose it be used as a reference for the existing licensing pages (and on templates like {{trademark}}. Please comment on the talk page at Commons talk:Non-copyright_restrictions. I raised this on Commons talk:Licensing yesterday and so far no objections so I thought I'd bring it to a larger audience. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It would generally be illegal to use any Commons illustration to commit murder - how do you murder someone with a picture? Show someone with a weak heart goatse? -mattbuck (Talk) 15:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Sure.. ;) Print it out and beat someone with it, find a weapon diagram build it and use it, use a chemical formula to synthesize a poison, place an illustration over a deep hole in the ground, mislabel particular images with someones address so that a military force bombs it from above.  :) The example is intended to be silly, but the underlying point is that there are ways which you can reuse works from commons which break the law, but they aren't relevant to what we do here.  :) --Gmaxwell (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. This is useful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request unresolved

The image Image:Camiseta Alianza.JPG had a deletion request in march, wich is not closed yet. I would like to request some administrator to check it and close it, either deleting or keeping as seems fit.

I know this s not the place for deletion request, but this is not that, it's more like a reminder. The image is being used in an article nominated as good article, and it can't be approved while having images whose copyright status is still unclear. It should be either deleted and removed, or kept without ongoing discussions. Thialfi (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Settled. Please note that there are more unsettled DRs at the moment, way back to January. --O (висчвын) 19:41, 19 June 2008 (GMT)

Ferrari vs. Toyota

how can you tell if a car is an original ferrari or a toyota with a full bodykit?

Look at the price tag ;)--rimshottalk 20:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice :D--Trixt (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Look under the hood. Price tags can be hacked.... -- carol (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

June 20

Help on "design" of file names

Sic. Whom to ask, or where to look up? TX, --WeHaWoe (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Descriptive" is the word they use for what they would like. That link is supposed to be to the meaning of that word at wiktionary, heh. Websters 1913 defines it: "Tending to describe; having the quality of representing; containing description; as, a descriptive figure; a descriptive phrase; a descriptive narration; a story descriptive of the age." which is a lot of using the root word to define with so, Websters 1913 defines "describe" with: "To represent by words written or spoken; to give an account of; to make known to others by words or signs; as, the geographer describes countries and cities."
That might have been enough to enrage me if I were frustrated by the time I read it and needing actual examples. Category: Media requiring renaming should be filled with examples of media files with not great names and the suggestion of names showing in the template. Looking through those might help, maybe the files there have not good renaming suggestions as well.
What would help you to understand the image if you were to download it and return to it later and ask "what is this image of?"
I don't know if this answers your question. -- carol (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, no, it doesn't. I look for the "most perfect" How-To to design a COM file name. I found, some time ago, a how-to for desirable nameing of pics showing architecture, but unfortunately forgot what+where this was, and do not find it again. Besides, in this (my) actual case, it is about paintings.
I hoped there would be some "general rules" to do such which might be looked-up. When I find actually [mis-]named pics, I often do feel in the mood to just turn away and wheep. Webster's 1913 definitions do, unfortunately, not meet WP's to-day's practical needs [imo]. ;) --WeHaWoe (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
For architecture there is some guidelines at Commons:CommonsProject Architecture#Naming of Files. I think that proposed naming standard can make image names unnecessarily long (all information should be on the description page, so everything does not have to be in the file name). Other projects may have recommendations for other types of images. There are some general tips at Commons:Language policy#Name of files. /Ö 13:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that helps. --WeHaWoe (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


At the moment, I and some other are trying to work out to get Valve to release their images under a free license. This is a huge case, which will take time and therefore needs someone who is experienced with talking with companies about such kind of cases. When we're going to contact them, It'll be through phone, or in real talks about the issue. Any suggestion about the case? --Kanonkas(talk) 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Try and get hold of Avatar - he did great work in getting us permission from Ubisoft (see User:Avatar/Ubisoft). I think it'd be best if at least one of the people you're working with have OTRS access. giggy (:O) 11:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
We've already discussed the issue together before I posted this here on Village pump. --Kanonkas(talk) 11:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I know Wladi001 tried awhile ago (see talk). Rocket000 (talk) 12:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning deleted image on Wikipedia was moved here

The NASA image Image:Yarlang tsango river tibet.jpg was deleted from Wikipedia and from the article it was in because it was moved here to Wiki Commons. However, I cannot find the image here so I can put it back into the article There is no image by that name here. How can I get the image back into the article? It was a great NASA satellite view of the river. Should I try to find it again under NASA down load it to Wikipedia again under a different name? It is the only option I can think of. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not this one, is it? /Lokal_Profil 13:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
We have a winner. The deleting admin missed a point of the checklist. Multichill (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:GulfofMexico3D.png - is it PD

This image, Image:GulfofMexico3D.png appears to be from this web site. [11] The title of the graphic on the web site is "Depth gradient throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Image modified from ESRI Data & Maps (2000)". Is this from the U.S. government and therefore PD? Mattisse (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's modified, it's safe to assume the modifier has copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Copy right tag on picture and cc-by-sa

Hope this is the right place to ask for.

  • Given an image published under cc-by-sa, example.
  • On the image there is a copy right hint.
  • According to cc-by-sa it is allowed to process the image, like cropping, resizing or repainting.
  • Is it allowed to remove the copy right tag?

Berklas 06:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before here. I don't know off hand exactly where. The license for your example says, "You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work". Thus, while it is frowned upon to upload images to Commons with such watermarks (we prefer to credit everyone in the description page), it is also recommended not to remove them. Superm401 - Talk 12:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Berklas 13:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to disagree.
Derivated work being allowed, anyone could edit the file in a way that those "watermarkes" disappear (spotting, cropping). cc-by-sa claims only that you...
(a) have to quote the original's author (and, in case he/she requests a special text, in this very exact way), and
(b) habe to publish it under same license,
which means, if for example using some cc-by-sa pic for "kind-of-collage," nobody would be allowed to publish "his own work" (the collage), but usíng yours (any photograph...), under just "All copyright reserved", but it would have to be published under same cc-by-sa.
-- I' not a lawyer, but that's what I recently learned (during last 2 weeks period, app.). Tell me if I'm wrong. The people from cc BTW share my opinion, as far as I understand with my less-than-perfect English, and when reading their German texts.
I'd like to put an additional question: -- WeHaWoe 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Added sub-heading --WeHaWoe 07:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted, the two requirements you listed are not the only ones. There is another:
"You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work"
that is applicable here. Superm401 - Talk 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Overwriting a watermarked original with a version where the watermark was spotted?

How about overwriting the original upload with the spotted one? I'm not aware on this, on which probably is some WP (or COM) policy: on the one hand, the derivated work would be better to be used in any wiki projects -- on the other, it (for standard and sub-standard users) hides the original (it does never erase anything, the original still being available from the file upload history, but only relatively few users would be aware of that.) So, my question is: is there a link to such talk available? -- WeHaWoe 09:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
@Superm401: I still disagree -- The copyright notice is not necessarily the part of the pic which I'd be (imo) allowed to edit by spoting, thereby eliminating some text/"watermark", but rather the file description. Am I wrong on this again? --WeHaWoe 09:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How about {{Watermark}} -- do I misunderstand here something again? --WeHaWoe (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


I photographed some dresses made by italian fashion designer Valentino at an exhibition in Rome last year. Is there an applicable license that I could use to upload those photos on Common? Loquax (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The licence of the photographs themselves is whatever you choose to make it. Under U.S. copyright law, clothing is considered to have a primarily "utilitarian" function, so that there's no real copyright protection for clothing styles as such. Not sure if Italian copyright law is any different... AnonMoos (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cropping captions from historic images

I have been working through Category:Photochrom pictures from the Library of Congress, removing the white borders and the German captions. Matthead has raised the issue (specifically for Image:Schneekoppe_Krummhuebel_1900.jpg) that the caption is part of the original content of the 108 year old postcard, not a digitally added copyright watermark. What should happen to these captions?

Category:Images_with_watermarks encourages the removal of watermarks where this can be done without seriously damaging the image. From my reading of {{watermark}}, {{remove caption}} and Commons:Manipulating_meta_data#Purpose_for_using_EXIF_at_Commons, I understand that the captions should be removed, with the information added to the description. Captions should be added, in the appropriate langauage, when an image is used on a wiki. I have not found policy specifically for historic images.

Wikimedia Commons seeks to make images available for use in all Wikimedia projects (see COM:PS). The LOC remains the main archive of these historic images. I think the fundamental question is, should Commons duplicate this historic archive? Similar issues arise with Category:Historic American Buildings Survey, and many of Category:Public domain books. I think modified images that are more useful should be the norm (and use the main name). Earlier versions are still available from the Commons File history. For a wiki article about a collection, it would be appropriate to retain an example of the original images (as eg Image:name_original.jpg or Image:name_uncropped.jpg), but not the whole collection. Finavon (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Facepalm (yellow).svg Oh my. Maybe there's a case for removing these sorts of captions, but I really, really wanted to make sausages from you both for citing our policy on watermarks. This is senseless obedience to rules made in a completely different context for completely different reasons. It's meant to prevent things such as this, not to remove captions from old postcards (inb4 "why doesn't it say so then?"; it doesn't and shouldn't need to).
    With that said, whether you should crop the postcard is up to you. If you think it's more useful without the caption, then remove it. If you think it's useful to have both around, upload them both and let the rest be an editorial decision for local wikis. Really, use your judgment; you were given that big pile of neurons between your ears for a reason. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 11:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I hold my hands up, since I was the one who cited {{watermark}}. I understand that both "watermarks" (text overlying the image) and "captions" (text lying outside the main image) should be avoided on Commons images. Text is inevitably language-specific - even place names, whereas the description page can have translations.
I have been doing what Lewis Collard suggests and cropping captions and borders from a varienty of images to make them more useful on wiki projects. I will continue to use my judgment. I sense that some editors feel historic images should be archived on Commons, without alteration, even though they are taken from a reliable archive (LOC in this case). Finavon (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not clear that there's consensus for removing captions. Do whatever you think is best. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If you're not sure, upload the unedited version first then overwrite it (although a LOC link should work fine). As a general rule, anything that PD-old should probably retain it's watermarks (unless they were added later). That's IMO, of course. Use your own judgment. Whatever fits the purpose. Rocket000 (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If the images are being used to show "Hey here's a postcard that someone made of this place", then keep the captions as-is. If the images are being used to show "Hey here's a nice picture of this place", then remove the captions. If you don't know, then upload both versions. Powers (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

View deleted images for commons admins

There is currently a poll on meta which will grant Commons admins the ability to view deleted image and image_talk pages on all Wikimedia projects. No other rights would be granted by this proposal. This is important because many images on commons were copied from other projects and are then deleted on those projects. When a commons administrator is investigating the history of an image (for copyright or other purposes) the admin is currently unable to investigate the image's deleted history on other projects. This can result in inappropriate deletions and wasted time all around. Please take the time to review the proposal and leave your thoughts. Thanks. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

June 23

Generic review tag

Does a generic version of {{Flickrreview}} exist? I reviewed the license for Image:Castlelake_1.jpg, and it seems to me that it would be useful to record that information. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uploading now a headache

Someone has grossly altered the entry window for Uploading one's own files [12]. I add mostly audio files, and add them in batches. It used to be that there was a single window into which I could add a copied template with all the licensing information and categories from a files I kept on my computer. Now, there are a dozen tiny little windows that all have to be edited separately, which will slow down any attempt to add files enormously. Yes, there is an "English" window, where presumably more information could be added all at once, but it is only 2 lines high, making it impossible for anyone to see what they're actually adding. Would whoever made this change to the upload window please undo this change? --EncycloPetey 01:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do a copy–paste of template:information, you can use the basic upload form. You can also go to Special:Preferences and choose Gadgets -> “Use the old-style upload form layout” --Kjetil_r 01:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just found that discussion further up the page. Why isn't this noted anywhere on the new form? Most users will not know which policy page to look at, much less be able to find the relevant info on that page. I only happened across it because I know the change to the edit page had happened within the last three days (since I last uploaded), and so had a small window of time to search through. The new form makes batch loading impossible for those of us on the Wiktionary projects, and who add numerous audio files. A clear indication that the old form is avaialble along with some simple instructions should be prominently displayed. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is noted. However, it could be more prominent. I'm not sure which system message is the relevant one though... – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If it's noted, I couldn't find it. Neither could the fresh pair of eyes I recruited from the Wiktionary IRC. Both of us are experienced MediaWiki users. If neither one of us could find the information, then it's well-hidden. --EncycloPetey 02:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The basic form is linked from Commons:Upload, not the actual form.
There is also uselang=experienced which is even briefer. You can use a bit of JavaScript to actually replace the 'Upload file' link your sidebar, taking you directly to the 'experienced' form so you never even go through Commons:Upload. pfctdayelise (说什么?) 04:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The basic form is also linked in the help text in the upper right corner of Special:Upload, so it is right there on the upload form itself. Experienced users have developed a bad habit of ignoring these texts, and keep ignoring them even when they suddenly are presented a new form. Lupo 06:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It could be much clearer. It is a bad habit to be condescending, and to ignore feedback. I greatly appreciate those of you working on the more technical side, but sometimes you are so deeply involved that much seems obvious to you. Uploading is a total nightmare for many newbies and experienced users alike. Anything we can do to make it easier should be done. Wikipedia has opened up the editing of most of the transcluded introductory documentation to the many upload pages. Full protection has been lowered to semi-protection. More clarity has been introduced into these texts due to this, and much faster too. See the table at the top of w:Wikipedia talk:Upload.
Concerning Special:Upload; I need a link to the transcluded introductory text for it. So more of us can suggest some improvements in its wording. Please see the table at the top of Commons talk:Upload. I need to put the link there. And the introductory text for Special:Upload is not the same as that for the my own work upload form. That is what this discussion was started about. So if someone has bookmarked the "my own work" upload form, and then sees the new version, then they may have no idea where to go to find the Basic upload form, or that it even exists. --Timeshifter 10:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. Added the link to the "ownwork" forms, too. Lupo 07:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Lupo, you are saying The basic form is also linked in the help text in the upper right corner of Special:Upload.
This is only true, if you use English (or maybe some other languages with changed help text) interface. It is not present in most other localisations. --::Slomox:: >< 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
We're working on it. We currently have these translations of that help text. Some of these translations were done before we added the link to the English version. Nevertheless, the text is present in the Bulgarian, Catalan, German, Spanish, French, Italian, Lithuanian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, and Ukrainian texts. The others (Czech, Dutch, and Vietnamese) are still missing. Where there is no translation, the text obviously cannot be added. Wherever a translation existed in the Quick help, I have also added the notice to the "ownwork" upload text for that language. Lupo (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
How about adding the en+fr+ru text as a default? Not being perfectly sure about Vietnam, but almost any Czech or Dutch contributor would be likely to speak one of those languages. --WeHaWoe (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

June 12

I want my account deleted.

How do I delete my account? --

Not possible to do, sorry. --Kanonkas(talk) 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you don't even have an account. ViperSnake151 (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 14

Peter Klashorst photos

Several Peter Klashorst photos have been individually nominated for deletion lately for exactly the same reason, that is his models may be underage and no legal proof of model release is available online (which I think is ridiculous, how many pornographers put their model contracts online?). I'm wondering it the nominations shouldn't be consolidated? -Nard 19:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I could swear we just had this very deletion discussion only a couple weeks ago. I forget what its outcome is, but I suspect it'll make for a handy precedent. --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 20:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
There are only a few. It's easy to vote in them all. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
As a note, it's not a vote. It's a search for consensus, taking into account overriding considerations. ++Lar: t/c 19:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
What's a good alternate verb for "voting"? Rocket000 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On commons? "Discussion". --Gmaxwell (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant like for "It's easy to <verb> in them all". Rocket000 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
doh. "Discuss", "Comment", "write". --11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons doesn't need proof of model release. Just tag em with personality rights and they're perfectly within scope - work of a famous artist. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It certainly does if the model is identifiable and the photograph was taken in a private place: COM:PEOPLE. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It is ridiculous. There's no reason to believe they're underage. If those images are deleted for those reason, there would be no reason not to delete most of the nude we have. Because "looking over age" is not a proof either so we would also need proof for women who might be underage even if they don't look like it! There are many 16yo girls who look like they're 20yo for instance... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 15:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is irrelevant anyway, COM:PEOPLE talks about people in private places whatever their age. Lycaon (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
May be for our policies age is irrelevant. In regard to US laws against child p*rnography age is relevant. --Túrelio (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This is all well and good but COM:PEOPLE has another problem. It's definition of "private place" is too vague. A commercial image studio is not a private place with an expectation of privacy. People getting photographed in a studio EXPECT the stuff to be published. -Nard 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It fascinates me how much expertise now comes to the surface. You are an "expert" on what is a professional studio, other are "experts" on how old people are by merely looking at them (while at the same time saying that 16 year olds can look like 20 year olds). I regret your certainty (& that of others) merely makes me wonder more - if we had certainty in teh shape of real release & licensing we could at least then discuss what is & what is not, pornography --Herby talk thyme 18:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty cut and dried, really. It behooves Commons to make sure that any image which is of a person who is potentially underage, or any image that is of a person in a private place, or any image that is of a person revealing parts of themselves that are not normally revealed... any image, regardless of artistic merit, regardless of whether it is erotic, prurient, or whatever... any image that falls into one of those categories, is properly licensed, and that proof of consent, proof of age is supplied. Positive proof is required. Mere assertion that "anyone can tell" will not cut it. If the photographer cannot supply proof, or chooses not to (as is their right) then the material needs to be deleted until and unless such proof is supplied. No aspersion should be intended toward the originator, as they are under no obligation to provide satisfactory proof, but we are also under no obligation to host material that is rights violating, or potentially rights violating. Peter Klashorst is not being singled out, it just so happens to be where this effort happens to have gotten surfaced.

That previous discussions didn't come out to the correct outcome is interesting but not relevant, as consensus can change. And these matters need to be revisited, and in due time, will be. I think you will find that this is not really a debatable matter. This is not censorship, it is common sense, and it is for the protection of this valuable resource, as well as for the protection of the people depicted, who may not have consented to their images being published this way. I would further suggest a great deal of caution on the part of any closing admin... any admin who closes one of these debates without very carefully taking the above into account, and acting appropriately, may find themselves put up for having their bit removed. ++Lar: t/c 19:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean? ... any admin who closes one of these debates without very carefully taking the above into account, and acting appropriately, may find themselves put up for having their bit removed.
I can't find the sense on google or in my dictionary: Mutter Erde (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
That comment disturbed me quite a bit, it does sound like a threat to me. But as I'm not an admin I did not feel the need to reply at the time. Maybe it was meant as a joke, but in that case it seems to have been bad taste.--Caranorn (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Another joke by Lar [13] :-). Btw: The Germans are making good efforts in getting rid of their problematic admins from the old days. The admins, which have no problems to get revoted, have started with voluntary requests for adminship. On the long run, the problematic ones will not stand the heat and will request "voluntary" their revoting too. Mutter Erde (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
"The bit" refers to the conceptual toggle switch (1=on; 0=off) that grants admin rights to a particular account. Is that what you meant you couldn't find in your dictionary? Powers (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't understand this neither. I would like it more simple: Was this a threat by Lar or not - or, according to Caranorn - a bad joke ? Mutter Erde (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It was neither a threat nor a bad joke. It was simply a statement that great care in this area is required. Those saying that "we can't be sure that consent WASN'T given" are arguing fallaciously. Any admin that gives any weight at all to those arguments when closing really ought not to do that... because as Mutter Erde points out, that's being a "problematic" admin. Admins need to err on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am sufficiently tired of having 16 different arguements/DR's about nearly the exact same thing. Then VP posts like this. Let's figure it out in one place... Once and for all: Mass DR --ShakataGaNai Talk 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That seemed like a good idea at the time but it is clear we need to consider each one more closely and can't make blanket generalizations. Where we are getting duplicative arguments is in the area of asserting the principles. Once people internalize that if there is no permission given for an image taken in a private place, it's more or less an automatic delete, we can deal with the nuances of whether permission was or wasn't given, instead of insisting blindly that the image has to stay. Once people internalize that Commons is an image repository of useful images, and that some of the images are out of scope, we can deal with whether a particular image is in or out of scope, instead of insisting blindly that the image has to stay. That will make these debates smoother. ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 16


Now I have your attention I think we should get some serious discussion going on what we actually mean by this word that gets bandied about so much. Let me start by stressing I have no wish to see Commons censored. However there does seem a view that if media are correctly licensed (and some people really should take a look at what correctly means) we should host it regardless. As such this is as much about scope as porn.

I think that porn (like beauty & art) is in the eye of the beholder. However that cannot be enough for here so I feel we must try & work towards something more concrete. It is not as though there is a shortage of media available on the internet if people want porn. We need some better clarity for those who work here & our uploaders.

That well known on line encyclopaedia defines porn as ... is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole intention of sexually exciting and entertaining the viewer. (Porn). I would say that this image is quite definitely porn (though not frankly that "exciting") & I fail to see why we even debate hosting it. I spent a while browsing relevant categories & found some issues that may serve as examples. This image like the one above is plain simple porn and again not that good, no encyclopaedic value atc etc. Looking at some Klasthorst images I would suggest that this & this are probably intended to arouse (the later is not even a particularly good image) before we get into whether the model is of age & has approved of the release of the image (& as I see it we are legally responsible to establish this to the best of our ability - the fact that it is elsewhere on the internet does not prove that).

I then strayed into Category:Female masturbation. I have no problem with the fact that we should have some media available in this category however, how full does the category need to get? For example Masturbating Amy is poor quality, an apparently private picture and probably intentionally pornographic to my mind.

I am not after censoring Commons - I am after some rather more reasoned discussion than "Commons is not censored so it should stay". Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you'll probably find that many images will disappear as soon as we start taking policy on identifiable people seriously (cf. the Klashorst photos). Once you get rid of the copyvios, you'll probably make it even smaller. Once we've done that, we'll see if there is still a problem with having too much pr0n. Lewis Collard! (lol, internet) 13:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, we also have historical porn pictures (such as this one on a Greek vase) and legitimate sexually explicit content. Do we have some system to prevent unwanted exposure to this kind of content? Jastrow (Λέγετε) 14:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to be blunt here. To me, porn is what one looks for when they look for porn. It's what you get off on. It's what you see you turn on the Playboy channel or open a Penthouse. You know it when you see it. Putting it into words is a lot harder. I believe most would agree on the definition of porn if we can speak in images. No one would consider Image:Erotic scenes Louvre G13 n1.jpg "porn" (yes, by written definition, it could be considered pornographic, but not in the common sense of the word). Would you ever see images similar to that on some adult pay site? That image also doesn't have any identifiable human subjects in it. Speaking of which, luckily we don't have to deal with much hentai/lolicon crap due it most of it being "fair use" or fan/user art. Rocket000 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
@Jastrow: No, we don't have any system for preventing unwanted exposure, nor should we. We are not censored and we do not intend to prevent access to material that is freely contributed, freely licensed and within scope, whether someone finds it offensive, prurient, etc, or not. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Er, Rocket, I don't understand your answer. I'm not asking this picture to be deleted as "out of scope". As I took it myself, that would be somewhat schizophrenic. I chose this example precisely because there's no copyright problem or personality rights issue. It's also historically valuable, so it's got every right to be on Commons.
Still, it is sexually explicit content (and even a bit hardcore, the woman is a senior and the bearded guy is threatening/beating her with a sandal). If I had young children, I wouldn't them to come upon it by while doing a school research. My question is, would it be conceivable to have some kind of parental control filter, allowing people to voluntarily restrict access to some parts of our content? IMO this is different from censorship.
(Just for the fun, this vase is a recent exhibition in the Louvre. I asked a custodian if it caused some trouble, such as people complaining or making cat calls. Amazingly enough, she didn't know about the vase and went rather red in the face when she saw it. She told me she had never noticed anything unusual in front of that glass case. So that just goes to say that nobody really looks at ancient vases). Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
That's better done on the parents' side. Might as well protect them from other sites as well. There's lots of software options for these folks. Rocket000 (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought some active steps were needed to allow such software to process our content correctly. It that's not the case, all is fine by me. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 15:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this this post raises two very important issues, about which there needs to be discussion leading to policy.
1. Should there be Metadata attached to images; which metadata would help parents filter content for their children? I think most of us agree that commons should not be censored, but we do not all agree no what kind of machine readable metadata ought to be attached to images.
2. Should images of low quality be deleted? While the answer seems to be Yes for objective measures of quality (e.g. resolution) there does not seem to be agreement on images of subjectively low quality (e.g. contrast too low to make out figure). The point of removing these images is not a question of space or resources, but because I think such images are in fact noise, disturbing the quality of commons.
I also think that Improving the clarity of the scope of this project is not defined clearly enough. A better notion of scope than "useful to other wikipedia projects" would make such issues easier to deal with. --Inkwina (talk contribs) 12:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue is really one not of scope, but of volume. Clinical, straightforward images may be appropriate for articles on sexual topics, but many of our articles are actually about pornography, and it makes sense to illustrate them with pornography. That said, people have a strange habit of uploading an endless stream of photos of their own genitals, and there's no way we could make practical use of that many of them. As long as we focus on eliminating redundant images, copyright violations, and privacy violations, I believe the remainder will be at least potentially useful. Dcoetzee (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To deal effectively with this issue now and for the future there is a real need to improve the clarity and limits of the scope of this project. The current scope page is a mixture of background information, recommendations and vague statements of principle, with some major omissions. I have made a start on a complete re-draft, and propose sometime in the next couple of weeks to invite views. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. I look forward to reading your draft when the time comes. ++Lar: t/c 23:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 20

A proposed icon for the public domain


i recently made an icon/symbol for public domain content
want to post it to numerous sources of public domain material, including wikimedia commons
the current icon is good of course, my icon just wanted to express more the freedom of exchange and the legal equality of creator and user --martis. sofias. (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I prefer the icon we already use, thanks. The one we have uses a commonsense symbology anyone can understand right off the bat, a trademark symbol with a line through it. Yours is jarring and grating. -Nard 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean copyright symbol, not trademark. ;) --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure this icon would have any meaning for someone whom "PD" means nothing. At least the © is universally recognized by the law and widely recognized by the public, so the PD-icon.svg symbol tends to be at least vaguely understood. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I couldn't tell the new icon contains the letters "pd" until i read the topic title. Sorry, but I like the old icon more. It's easier to understand. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • seems like you would not change to my icon very soon. lets talk again when my icon has became more popular than the ©-symbol ;) --martis. sofias. (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry I couldn't see it had written "PD" I believe the other "PD" picture looks better and more understandable. --Kanonkas(talk) 07:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
And when you know that "PD" is commonly used in French to mean "gay", the meaning of this icon can be really misunderstood... Pertu-beuh.png Pymouss Tchatcher - 19:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a very nifty piece of artwork. However I don't think it conveys meaning instantly the way that (c) with a line through it does. ++Lar: t/c 23:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

June 22

For english nativespeakers

Bauwagen or what?

We have a few images of what is called de:Bauwagen in german-speaking countries. Many dictionaries tell me that Bauwagen translates to “Contractor's shed”, though shed should be something fixed on the ground as opposed to a Bauwagen that has wheels and can be moved. However, this term is non-existant on :en and as well on Commons (The few occurences of that term were simply translated from Bauwagen by de-users). My question, does this type of shed or trailer exist at all in english-speaking countries and what is the common name for it? --Túrelio (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd tend to call it a en:portakabin although that's a trademark for a brand of portable cabin. Alternatively, as a type of trailer it might be a site office trailer, construction trailer etc.[14], [15], [16], [17] Man vyi (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Being Dutch I suppose I'm not really qualified to answer this question, but "site office trailer" seems OK to me.;) MartinD (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Similar converted shipping containers are called "portable cabins", en:Image:Aa_Portable_cabins_ashley.jpg. This is consistent with en:portable building (Redirected from Portakabin, see above). Construction office or trailer is used by construction contractors in the US. Temporary office, temporary classroom, and modular office or classroom are used depending on their application. en:modular building exists but is proposed to be merged. en:Modular classrooms exists. en:Portable building seems best to me because it is descriptive and doesn't specify its purpose. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, they're not converted containers. They're not "portable cabins" either, which seem to be such converted containers and which don't seem to have wheels. Bauwagen always have wheels, and are almost exclusively used on construction sites. They're too small to be used as temporary classrooms. They're not exclusively office spaces either, but often also used as a place where the construction workers can spend their pauses, drink a coffee, or store their bad weather outfit or their tools. I would go with construction site trailer, which is the term used both by toy manufacturers (e.g., [18], [19]), rental enterprises (e.g. [20]), the police ([21]), and administrations (e.g. [22]). Lupo 14:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
For some people, other names might help: "roulotte de chantier", "abris de chantier", "werfwagens (be)" and "mobiele bouwketen (nl)" as in roulottes de chantier. --Foroa (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd call it simply "a portable" but "site office trailer" or similar would certainly be understood. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

We're getting off-topic in a lovely way... In the Netherlands, it's called a "keetwagen", and a "keet" can either be a "directiekeet" (the office of the construction site foreman, where he keeps his blueprints and so on) or a "schaftkeet" (where the workers eat their meals and can take shelter during bad weather). They're certainly not converted shipping containers, and neithet are they "Portakabins". Having wheels is essential to them: they can be towed, though not at speeds of more than some 30 km/h. MartinD (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
On :nl there is actually a stub nl:Bouwkeet. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for all your input. To keep it simple, I would like to name the corresponding category "Category:Construction trailers" as this has a good balance between being too specific and too generic, and there is an article with that term on :en en:Construction trailer. But I will include most of the other proposed names in the description in order to ease to finding that cat. --Túrelio (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

I'm just pointing this out here since I wasn't aware that it even existed until today. The English Wikipedia has a feature sound project. I know there's been some talk about starting a sound/multimedia assessment system here on Commons. While I'm not sure there would be enough interest or resources to warrant Commons' own project, some may wish to participate on en:wp's. Rocket000 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories by dates and countries

What had happened to Category:1754 births etc.? Take a look at Category:Francesco Camporesi - a benign list of four categories somehow expands into nine displayed, one of them (Category:Architecture of Italy) completely incorrect (the person is from Italy but worked abroad). And, by the way, while there is Category:1754 births - in plain text - Camporesi is not categorized there. Rather, he's stuck in Category:1754. What's next? - NVO (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You know you're transcluding categories? Use [[ ]] instead of {{ }}. Rocket000 (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
You're right! I looked straight at them and didn't realize they were wrong brackets. Tunnel vision. NVO (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

June 24


Please review Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2008Apr#Usurp_or_not_usurp_accounts_with_useful_contributions... unless I am much mistaken, that got archived without a resolution. I think the process Patricia outlined there (towards the bottom) is a very good one. I think we do need a resolution of this, sooner or later. What do others think? ++Lar: t/c 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have (once or twice) done what Patricia suggested there, so yeah, I support that process. giggy (:O) 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I support what Patricia with users renamed to "username at commons" (and perhaps blacklisting names of this form so the only way you get such an account is by being renamed. Under no condition should a user with contribs be renamed to something which doesn't at least contain their original username. --Gmaxwell (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

June 25

Accounts in local projects which were just created to create havoc

Hi, on May 27+28, someone (very probably same user) created accounts in several WP projects, with my nick, just to be banned: he replaced (in the few ones I checked) by one single edit the main image by "shavedvulva.jpg". Several of those edits were not reverted yet, in ALL other cases he was banned. See

What, please, ist the best way to deal with such? A German sysop whom I trust informed me that at this given time I just could apply to each-and-every project to PLEASE delete that account, which seems hardly manageable with reasonable effort (as I do not speak most of those languages).

That THE disturbing account was not created from my usual ip, might be checked from the logfiles.

TX for expected help. --WeHaWoe (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-project vandalism like this is not really a Commons matter, but more a matter for Meta. Strictly speaking, the German administrator is probably right, but I understand your concerns and the difficulties you face, and it seems like a pretty clear-cut case, so perhaps you could get one of the stewards to step in. They're busy people, so remember to make the situation clear and provide links to the accounts in question on all affected projects as well as diffs.
If you are an admin on any Wikimedia project, I'd advise you to activate SUL immediately to prevent further impersonation. LX (talk, contribs) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I'm no admin, nor do I thik I'll ever want to be one. I however notice some bot working just now to repair (on fiWP). Actually I might like to change my nick BEFORE activating SUL, but I'll have to think about that...; TX., --WeHaWoe (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought SUL is open to all users now (not just admins)? Anrie (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. SUL is open to everyone now. Multichill (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Im aware; above quoted shit happened one of the very first days SUL was open to anyone; I was informed, but told by third party it might be some bug... and I still am not sure whether I'd rather prefer to rename the few accounts I really created before activating SUL. --WeHaWoe (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone know if it would be possible to get PicLens (specifically the Firefox add-on) to work on Commons. It supports most of the other big image repositories but Commons is sadly missing. /Lokal_Profil 13:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't test it out because it appears to be propritary software for Windows / Mac only, but have you checked it against things like the POTD RSS feed? It seems it only needs an RSS feed with some particular media tags. Are you aware of any other software which uses RSS in that format? --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Tried it against the POTD RSS feeds and it didn't work. Not aware of any other programs which work in a similar fashion. /Lokal_Profil 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

June 21

PD Soviet images

The {{PD-Russia}} tag was deprecated earlier this year and replaced by {{PD-Russia-2008}}, which reflects the stricter requirements on the new law. However, it seems that many of the old PD-Russia images could simply be retagged with {{PD-Soviet-revised}}. Is this tag still valid under the new Russian law? If so, why is not listed on COM:CT, and why are so few images tagged with it? Thanks, Papa November (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that license has now been obsoleted by the new Russian copyright law, which was retroactive and re-copyrighted some works that had previously gone into the public domain. A more expert opinion than mine is probably needed, though. Kelly (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This tag is obsolete. It's a leftover from our developing {{PD-Russia}} and should have been redirected to that long ago. Which I'll do right now. Lupo 12:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

June 26

Flickr Commons

I just got the news that the Smithsonian is now releasing images to the Flickr Commons, along with other organizations. However, while Flickr Upload Bot does well with user-licensed Flickr photos, we don't have a good bot for tackling uploads from the Flickr Commons. Does anyone have a good idea on how to proceed? Kelly (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice to copy these images directly from Smithsonian to commons. Multichill (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Think the porblem is that we sometimes require more then the vague "No known copyright restrictions" which is the license for images on Flickr Commons. As an example the Library of Congress tag {{PD-LOC}} is deprecated for the simple reason that the PD status has to be determined on a case to case basis.
For the Smithsonian photographs a lot will be PD-old but some like this will need another motivation for being PD, one which I couldn't find on the original Smithsonian image page, the smithsonian copyright page mumbles about images may be protected by copyright and Commercial use is restricted. I'd say that the best thing is to create a template similar to {{LOC-image}} which says that the image comes from the Smithsonian but still decide on the license status on a case by case basis. just as for LoC images. /Lokal_Profil 12:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Then on the other hand I see that {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} so I fail to se how depricating PD-LOC had any effect. /Lokal_Profil 12:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI: see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Flickr-no known copyright restrictions‎ --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial use of images

Hi, I'm trying to ascertain which images can be used for commercial use. Which tags am I looking for, and where is the appropriate documentation on the legal/copyright status of such images? For reference, the images would be used in a print encyclopaedia. Thanks in advance. Seegoon (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

RTFM. To put it more politely: everything you might need to know is linked within the license templates (at the bottom of, or below, image description). --WeHaWoe (talk) 11:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but there's a pretty wide range of licenses. I was just trying to find out which ones were appropriate from someone who knew. Seegoon (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
All images with a truthful and appropriate public domain tag or licensing tag compliant with Commons:Licensing may, as far as copyright is concerned, be used commercially. LX (talk, contribs) 11:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
In case you want to use images of identifiable people, especially living ones, you also have to check whether the personality rights of the depicted might be violated, of course depending on what type of commercial use you are planning; especially critical is product-advertising or use in a controversial context. This is totally independant of copyright and differs slightly from country to country. In doubt you should ask the photographer (or the depicted person) for a so-called model release. --Túrelio (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If the images come from here, all images should be permitted for commercial use (with the exception of trademarked logos and such of the Wikimedia Foundation itself). --Bossi (talkgallerycontrib) 03:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, you still should do your homework and make sure the license given is actually true. User:Zscout370 (Return fire) 07:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with the new upload file system?

I've uploaded Image:Statue of Sengjia Dashi, Song Dynasty.JPG five times now, and there is some persistent glitch which blocks the page from displaying the author, source, and date, and keeps placing the tag within the "description" box, where it obviously does not belong. Does anyone know why the new uploading format (which I've noticed has changed recently) is not allowing the display of these most basic features and not putting the license tag in the right place? (i.e. Outside of and below "{{Information|Description|Source|Date, etc.}}") Thanks.--PericlesofAthens (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you just forget to close the {{en}} template? This seems to have corrected it. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 04:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing that. However, it wasn't closed to begin with, not even with the first upload; the uploading system itself should have had it correct from the start. Why didn't they have the template enclosed to begin with?--PericlesofAthens (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong. The very first revision of that image page looks all right and has all tags properly closed. The license is put after the summary box by the server only if you select the license from the dropdown menu. You chose to include the license tag directly in your description instead. If you do this, it'll end up in the description. No surprise there. You might consider putting the license tag into the "Permission" field instead.
Note that when you overwrite an existing file, the information you enter in the form will not end up on the image page. That's again the server's doing, but the form should tell you so in this case. Lupo 07:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to say that the information will only be seen as a comment in the file history section, and that the comment should briefly describe what changes has been made to the image? /Ö 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
When one chooses a destination filename that would overwrite an existing file, the upload form displays a message "You will upload over an already existing file. The information you enter in this form will not appear on the description page. Maybe you should choose a different destination filename?" (see above). That message can be changed, of course. It's at MediaWiki:UploadFormPreviewOverwriteError. We could add text as you suggest there. Just place it on that page's talk page. Lupo 22:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Creating a new category

My question has two parts:

A. I don't know how to create a new category. I think one should be created for a predecessor of the United States Category:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and that would be:
B. I want a better idea of the ways I might have gone about answering my own question. How could I have figured this out without having to ask for help?

Perhaps this particular function is handled by administrators; and there was no way for me to have resolved this issue any differently than I have done? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  • As you can see by clicking on the link, there are already media in the category. To turn it from a red link into a blue link you need only create the page as you would any other Wiki page. Category pages should include information on what the category is, and they should themselves be categorized properly. If you need help deciding how to categorize this new category, look at the NOAA cat for ideas. Powers (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Licenses more restricting now?

Hi, it has been a lot of days since I uploaded some files to Commons, and I think that now the licenses available are more restricting, so I don't know which use for the files I'm gonna upload. The files are from the Dakar Rally organization ( ), and are free of rights for its use, including commercial use. I think the license that fits better is "I found the image on Google or a random site", but this license gives a copyright warning. What license should I use? Thanks in advance. Gothmog (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that unrestricted creation of derivative works is authorized. I think will be goo idea to ask them to license these images under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA to avoid any misunderstandings. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
They say "free from rights photos", which is a bit of an incorrect statement, because a copyright claim is still being made. They probably meant to say "free of restrictions". Anyways, from what I read on the webpage, I would assume that derivates are allowed (they even suggest use in advertisements etc). We have no exact license for this, but either a dedicated license-tag {{Daker-2006}}, and preferably an OTRS ticket from the Armaury Sport Organization of course, should be just fine. TheDJ (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And no, we have not become more strict regarding our licences, however we have become more strict about policing them :D TheDJ (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

James Anthony Froude image

I believe that this image, purported to that of James Anthony Froude, is actually one of William Ewart Gladstone. Cf. this photograph from the National Portrait Gallery in London, with the caption: "William Ewart Gladstone by Elliott & Fry, albumen cabinet card, 31 March 1879, 5 7/8 in. x 4 in. (148 mm x 103 mm) image size. Given by Arthur Myers Smith, 1926-10" This engraving of Gladstone would appear to be based on the photograph.

I notice that the alleged picture of Froude is described as being "From The Project Gutenberg EBook of Prose Masterpieces from Modern Essayists, by James Anthony Froude, Edward A. Freeman, William Ewart Gladstone, John Henry Newman and Leslie Stephen."

If there is an error in ascribing the picture to Froude, it appears to be fairly widespread. The image even appears on the cover of a book about Froude. I'd be interested to know your conclusion. - InvisibleSun (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio or not

Hello, I'm a bit disappointed with this Image:ESPN wordmark.svg. I understood that for american law, a typeface couldn't be registered (like said here). But this file is a scalable version of the typeface not a "rasterized"... this particular typeface is also registered... as a trademark... How could this be possible ? Why this file is still on Commons... I think that this file's conservation on Commons is almost just outside the borderline of what we could accept. The loneliness of american law acceptation could not be a good reason to consider a file in the public domain... specifically when most of others countries doesn't do the same. What are your point of view ? --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some divergent answers given on IRC channel... so I open a RfD --GdGourou - °o° - Talk to me 00:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Link to the RfD is here. rootology (T) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

June 28

lots of free images

hi all! i am now offering my personal collection of photos for free. you will find them at my page there are thousands of images. for english projects i guess that only european pictures would be of value, but maybe others would as well. i have many from Rome, Siena, Assisi, Venice and Paris, on architecture, cityscapes, landscapes and museums. some brazilian cities are much favoured as well: Porto Alegre, Caxias do Sul, Torres, Olinda and Recife.


  • any photo uploaded here must be licensed with CC-BY-3.0
  • do not use those albumses tagged with my family or people or fun
  • pics by other people can't be used as well, but these, just few collections, have their source declared.


  • be careful when posting them here, for i have already uploaded many ones, frequently with different names!
  • my page is blog-type and there is not order or very detailed identification, i suggest you to search through tags, but i can help whenever needed.

even with these problems or limitations a patient searcher wlll find interesting images. there are many kinds of pics, most of them are documental, so they can be useful, others are artistic, and their use is obviously more limited here, anyway i hope that some ones could be used. if you have any doubt about authorship or identification leave a message here User:Tetraktys or send me an email

in special cases i can provide larger versions, but the size i use to post is good enough for internet purposes.

my regards! tetraktys (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware of limitation of freedom of panorama in Italy. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, but this is not a concern for me and it's the Commons uploader who must be careful. i just offer my images when they could be useful. obviously i am not compelling nobody to break laws. besides, the pics are mostly about old art and architecture. regards! tetraktys (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

if anyone upload pics from there use the template "Tetraktys": here. tetraktys (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why can't I upload new version of file?

I'm just trying to make a small change in one line of SVG code in file Image:Hemline_(skirt_height)_overview_chart 1805-2005.svg, and I'm using the URL (the simplest version of the upload form I can find), and it won't let me upload unless I fill in redundant information which is not needed (and also would not be added to the image description page even if I did fill it in). This is complete nonsense. Churchh (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which error message did you get? Did you put any text at all in the "Summary" field? /Lokal_Profil 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I tried again just now, and it worked this time, but previously I entered text briefly describing the changes to the SVG in the "Summary" field, and got back an angry red box telling me that I needed to enter source and author information (though I didn't). Churchh (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Do a forced reload of the upload script: go to the uplaod form (as linked above) and then shift-reload (on Firefox) or ctrl-reload (on IE). That should cure the problem. Early versions of the upload script had an error in overwrite detection for filenames containing parentheses, but that has been fixed a while ago. Your browser probably still has an old version of the script in its cache. Lupo 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Image:Arienh4.ogg

The audio file is in the category:unknown subject so I sent a message to the uploader who answered, that he doesn't remember anything about the file [23], what to do now ? Ask for deletion or wait? Traumrune (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Try asking an Dutch admin to view the deleted page on nl: ;-). It was uploaded by nl:gebruiker:Arienh4, en:User:Arienh4 on 30 jan 2006 17:33. It's a (very poor and outdated) spoken article for nl:Wikipedia:Wikiproject/Gesproken Wikipedia on the nl:Haarlemmermeer, so belongs in spoken Wikipedia. Now you change the name, 'cause that's the part I don't know! :-D Ciell (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Category provinces and plants and second opinion needed.

There is a Canadian provincial category named Category:Saskatchewan which contains the sub category Category:Nature of Saskatchewan which contains the sub category Category:Flora of Saskatchewan.

There is a plant with a category named Category:Heliopsis helianthoides in the provincial category. I moved this plant category into Category:Flora of Saskatchewan, and received a message that it belongs in the provincial category, Category:Saskatchewan and not to move it to the Category:Flora of Saskatchewan category.

All the other categories which Category:Heliopsis helianthoides states at the bottom of its page are flora of someplace and Saskatchewan is the only one which doesn't belong there, but Flora of Saskatchewan would to me make more sense, but I won't revert now, but ask for another person's humble opinion on this matter.

SriMesh | talk 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a bunch of Flora of categories. I almost had every second level political division covered and I was starting on the third level. The Flora of categories all lead to Category:Ecozones which doesn't need Category:Sunsets of and similar categories that find their way into the Nature of categories which also occur at almost every second level political division and soon most 3rd level divisions as well. Flora of categories include Plants of categories and Trees of categories and Forests of categories.
Putting a subcategory into a Plants of category is an unwelcome event by some. There is not very much communication about it, mostly the destruction of whatever subcategory dared to find its way into there. So the Flora of categories were made first to leave the Plants of categories alone -- with their owners, I would have to say. As I started to populate them, the Trees of categories and Forests of categories found their way into them as well, which started to make it nice for a tree that branches to Category:Ecozones. The Flora of categories also went up into larger subdivisions that were assigned by a Plant research group. So there was a Flora of Middle Europe category, for instance. If you look at what is left of Category:Ecozones, it was starting to look kind of nice with image maps that lead to the biocountry (the word used for the larger areas). Category:Afrotropic was in somewhat good shape -- lately my categories are missing so I personally am afraid to look.
The first time that I heard that there was a special tree of life group here was in an odd place to learn about such a group -- link to the diff. I kind of like the way the Ecozone tree was growing and the users here and at other wiki who helped it. Also, I don't mind galleries -- I always include them when I am making a category of the same name. Inclusive is good -- exclusive is something I have never considered for a public wiki. -- carol (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No thumbnail at upload error

What is the problem with this image that it cannot create a thumbnail during upload? I cannot tell where 12.5 million pixels is. Please fix or tell me how. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

As a deliberate matter of Wikimedia policy, PNG and GIF images with dimensions greater than about 12.5 megapixels are not resized. That image is 3,414 x 5,295 pixels, which is 18,077,130 pixels (more than twelve and a half million). AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
✓ Done Ok figured it out. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

June 29

Lengthy essay in description

What are we supposed to do when we run across a lengthy essay like the one currently on Image:Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (442805746).jpg? This picture of a statue has what amounts to a lengthy essay on Longfellow. Commentary like this might be useful if it were a statue of an obscure figure whose history might otherwise be very obscure, but seems to me pretty useless on someone who has a well-developed Wikipedia article. If this had been my upload, I would have (at most) linked to the en-wiki article. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere here somewhen that dbking tends to paste the wikipedia article in the descripton at the gallery on flickr and I have found this to be the truth. When I find these, I try to strip the information down to what is useful to know what the image is of and to find more information with if necessary. -- carol (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, so all that text was just picked up from Flickr? Sorry, I just ran across this because I was looking for images of the small town of Dupont, Washington and saw this image which related to Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. - 23:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What's more, without giving attribution, the text is a copyvio of Wikipedia. The first half is copied from, which makes it a possible copyvio too. --rimshottalk 05:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Edit down to an appropriate description of the subject of the mage (the statue). If the text is worth keeping, consider pasting it to the discussion page, so that someone can move to a wiki. Finavon (talk) 07:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio text ( and moved the text to the talk page (with attribution). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Crystal Clear" Tree

Hi- I was just wondering if anyone could create a "crystal clear" tree icon for me. Or, if there is one on here already, could someone post a link? Thanks! 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you already look here? --rimshottalk 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I already looked at the icons there, but I can't seem to find a tree.

July 1